|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Baal Roo
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
2423
   |
Posted - 2013.08.30 23:18:00 -
[1] - Quote
Michael Arck wrote:So I'm playing Skirmish and Domination. I'm running solo as usual. Someone sends me an invite to their squad. Out of nowhere I feel my fingers type on the keyboard.
"Why squad up? Skrim and Dom is nothing more than ambush with objectives."
At first I thought I was just being a little too cruel but then I realized that was my epiphany about those two game modes. I have played in Skirm and Dom with corp members and random folks. It's still the same. Blueberries don't attack the objectives. Folks just sit behind cover, never pushing forward or flanking. You got 5 people trying to hack an objective but no one is watching their six (Just why in the hell you need more than one person hacking is beyond me). Everyone wants to be a sniper only killing 2 folks per match (I'm sorry but some of you snipers **** me off. If we are losing, get out your hiding spot and help out!!)
Is this just me? I get so pissed that I leave and go play ambush. I can count on my hand how many times I had a good battle in Skirm and Dom. And no, I didn't win them all either. It was just an overall good game.
Share your thoughts
It's not "just you," but you're clearly part of the problem.
Why are you playing skirmish or dom without a squad on mics in the first place? YOU are one of these people that are causing these matches to be clusterf***s.
Either:
A. get into squads and play the game as the squad based shooter it's meant to be
or
B. stop complaining about no one being in squads or working together
I mean, can you even be any more hypocritical. ffs |
Baal Roo
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
2423
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 23:23:00 -
[2] - Quote
Master Jaraiya wrote:I can tell you how to solve this.
Add 2 more player slots in a match making it 18 vs 18 (3 squads of 6)
1. Let Corps deploy Full teams, and match one full Corp against another.
2. If Corps are not able to deploy a full team, then team their 6 man squad with 2 other 6 man squads. Match them against another similar team or a full Corp team.
3. If you are not in a 6 man squad you get teamed with other incomplete squads/solo players. You're opponent will also be other incomplete squads/solo players
I like 1 & 2, but I think 3 is silly.
If you aren't in a proper squad, then you should get teamed up with all the other stragglers. There isn't, however, any good reason to get matched up against another team of stragglers.
The incentive should be for players to put in the teeny tiny modicum of effort required to get into a squad. If you don't, it's your own fault. Losing because you can't be bothered to try seems reasonable to me. If you want to do better, get in a squad and actually play the game. |
Baal Roo
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
2423
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 23:27:00 -
[3] - Quote
Michael Arck wrote:
You didn't read my post. You only responded to a trigger.
If you read my post, you would see that I say that I play with my corpmates and I've played with complete strangers.
No I read it
YOUR POST wrote:
So I'm playing Skirmish and Domination. I'm running solo as usual.
|
Baal Roo
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
2423
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 23:41:00 -
[4] - Quote
Michael Arck wrote:Baal Roo wrote:Master Jaraiya wrote:I can tell you how to solve this.
Add 2 more player slots in a match making it 18 vs 18 (3 squads of 6)
1. Let Corps deploy Full teams, and match one full Corp against another.
2. If Corps are not able to deploy a full team, then team their 6 man squad with 2 other 6 man squads. Match them against another similar team or a full Corp team.
3. If you are not in a 6 man squad you get teamed with other incomplete squads/solo players. You're opponent will also be other incomplete squads/solo players I like 1 & 2, but I think 3 is silly. If you aren't in a proper squad, then you should get teamed up with all the other stragglers. There isn't, however, any good reason to get matched up against another team of stragglers. The incentive should be for players to put in the teeny tiny modicum of effort required to get into a squad. If you don't, it's your own fault. Losing because you can't be bothered to try seems reasonable to me. If you want to do better, get in a squad and actually play the game. Actually it's a good idea. If we are so serious about squads, then why is three silly?
The problem I see is that your solution would lead to players being penalized for playing in squads by having a harder time finding matches, and only playing against the hardest opponents. If you wanted easier matches and to play more often, you would simply queue in solo. With the insane SP grindfest of Dust 514 and the huge numbers of min/maxxers in the community, this means most people would just queue solo. Ultimately, it would actually discourage squad play even more.
If being lazy and not squading up (in a squad based shooter) leaves you on a team with all of the other lazy players who don't really want to play, I would hope it would incentivize people to spend the extra couple of minutes getting organized before hand.
Of course, something like this would really require that CCP add some sort of new player experience (tutorial) that explains to people the basics of the gameplay, so they actually understand they're supposed to be in squads. So, probably won't ever happen, since (as far as I can tell) no one at CCP understands the game well enough to create a tutorial in the first place. |
Baal Roo
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
2423
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 23:45:00 -
[5] - Quote
Master Jaraiya wrote:Baal Roo wrote:Master Jaraiya wrote:I can tell you how to solve this.
Add 2 more player slots in a match making it 18 vs 18 (3 squads of 6)
1. Let Corps deploy Full teams, and match one full Corp against another.
2. If Corps are not able to deploy a full team, then team their 6 man squad with 2 other 6 man squads. Match them against another similar team or a full Corp team.
3. If you are not in a 6 man squad you get teamed with other incomplete squads/solo players. You're opponent will also be other incomplete squads/solo players I like 1 & 2, but I think 3 is silly. If you aren't in a proper squad, then you should get teamed up with all the other stragglers. There isn't, however, any good reason to get matched up against another team of stragglers. The incentive should be for players to put in the teeny tiny modicum of effort required to get into a squad. If you don't, it's your own fault. Losing because you can't be bothered to try seems reasonable to me. If you want to do better, get in a squad and actually play the game. The problem is, if they pitted the randoms against full squads, then to be "fair" they would also be teamed with full squads. I'm currently sick and tired of being in matches that are 6 (my squad) vs 16 (the other team) because at the beginning of the match over half my team sprints to a point they can view nearly the entire battleground, takes a knee and snipes or calls in an LAV and drives around in it the entire duration of the match. (Recently had a murder taxi push me off of an enemy CRU 1 tick from having it hacked. A Proto heavy then spawned in behind me!) My squad and I should not be punished for deploying in proper squads by being teamed up with incohesive random smurfs who fail to contribute anything to winning the battle.
I think you're confused. If they implemented 1 & 2 then if you're in a squad of 6, you wouldn't be placed on a team of random players. This incentivizes taking the time to get into a squad before getting into the match... which would, in turn, lead to more actual squad play (in a squad based shooter, this seems to me like a good thing).
Squads should be placed into matches with other squads on their team, people who queue randomly by themselves with no interest in playing with others should be thrown onto teams with other people who don't want to play the game as it were designed. I just don't see any reason why the lazy lone wolfers should get a pass on playing good opponents. |
Baal Roo
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
2424
|
Posted - 2013.08.31 00:30:00 -
[6] - Quote
Master Jaraiya wrote:Baal Roo wrote:Master Jaraiya wrote:Baal Roo wrote:Master Jaraiya wrote:I can tell you how to solve this.
Add 2 more player slots in a match making it 18 vs 18 (3 squads of 6)
1. Let Corps deploy Full teams, and match one full Corp against another.
2. If Corps are not able to deploy a full team, then team their 6 man squad with 2 other 6 man squads. Match them against another similar team or a full Corp team.
3. If you are not in a 6 man squad you get teamed with other incomplete squads/solo players. You're opponent will also be other incomplete squads/solo players I like 1 & 2, but I think 3 is silly. If you aren't in a proper squad, then you should get teamed up with all the other stragglers. There isn't, however, any good reason to get matched up against another team of stragglers. The incentive should be for players to put in the teeny tiny modicum of effort required to get into a squad. If you don't, it's your own fault. Losing because you can't be bothered to try seems reasonable to me. If you want to do better, get in a squad and actually play the game. The problem is, if they pitted the randoms against full squads, then to be "fair" they would also be teamed with full squads. I'm currently sick and tired of being in matches that are 6 (my squad) vs 16 (the other team) because at the beginning of the match over half my team sprints to a point they can view nearly the entire battleground, takes a knee and snipes or calls in an LAV and drives around in it the entire duration of the match. (Recently had a murder taxi push me off of an enemy CRU 1 tick from having it hacked. A Proto heavy then spawned in behind me!) My squad and I should not be punished for deploying in proper squads by being teamed up with incohesive random smurfs who fail to contribute anything to winning the battle. I think you're confused. If they implemented 1 & 2 then if you're in a squad of 6, you wouldn't be placed on a team of random players. This incentivizes taking the time to get into a squad before getting into the match... which would, in turn, lead to more actual squad play (in a squad based shooter, this seems to me like a good thing). Squads should be placed into matches with other squads on their team, people who queue randomly by themselves with no interest in playing with others should be thrown onto teams with other people who don't want to play the game as it were designed. I just don't see any reason why the lazy lone wolfers should get a pass on playing good opponents. I think you are confused because you said exactly what I said, only in a different way. Also if you are in an incomplete squad, then being put into the matches with randoms will more clearly allow those randoms to see the benefits of squading up, without muddying the water with a good protostomping - which simply makes random players not consider the reason they lost. It would also give recruiters a nice venue to to play and screen potential future Corp members.
Then I don't understand what you're saying, because you're clearly contradicting yourself.
Your first post says that squads should be teamed up with other squads. Is that not your basic premise?
|
|
|
| |
|