|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
Covert Intervention
1698
   |
Posted - 2013.09.17 01:28:00 -
[1] - Quote
Skihids wrote:Mobile and objective spawning fundamentally alters game play for the worse by eliminating strategic play.
The current hue and cry over the number of uplinks on the field means people recognize this issue. What many fail to realize is that the number is immaterial. Even one mobile spawn point completely disrupts the game. CCP has also recognized the game breaking nature of objective spawning in its removal from Domination mode.
That's a pretty thin assertion, would could just as legitimately say "CCP has also recognized the game breaking nature of installations by removing them from standard Ambush matches", or ""CCP has also recognized the game breaking nature of close quarters engagements by including large map spaces in their new maps".
Quote:Teleportation creates an unbreakable supply line to an objective which requires overwhelming force to dislodge. Or a flux nade and a bit of common sense 
Quote:Normal attrition isn't effective as troops are constantly replaced. This in turn cheapens the value of a clone. The average player will be more reckless and opt to bleed out sooner because they can easily and quickly get back in the fight.
1. Clones have an actual ISK market value, that value is not altered by method of deployment.
2. If you're talking about balance based of pub matches you're doing it wrong, I'll list if need be.
3. If we're going to remove things based on what the average player will do in this context we should start with KDR, again I'll happily elaborate on why.
4. As a Logi since closed beta I can say with confidence that people bleed out over their KDR more than "to get back in the fight", if not they wouldn't rage about having the chance to save ISK by being revived in a hot zone even if it cost them a couple more meaningless "death" stats.... even if that weren't true the current insta-bleed mechanics are so broad that revival is rarely possible, even leaving the painfully long animation sequence aside.
Quote:It replaces the vehicle transport function. There is no incentive to drive or fly when you can teleport. Once the initial deployment is made vehicular transport is superfluous. Adding a pilot incentive won't help without giving passengers a reason to ride.
Dropships get spawns on them as well, WP pending. HAVs aren't primary transports, nor are LLAVs and basic LAVs are absolutely still used for transport, not as much sure but the players who specialize in LAVs are using the LLAVs anyway so there's no role loss.
Quote:
It turns the CRU into a second rate spawn point that is frequently left in enemy hands in order to camp for easy kills. A CRU should be a critical asset, not a camping destination.
When they're not destroyed at the start of the match... unless you mean pubs
continued in post 2 |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
Covert Intervention
1698
|
Posted - 2013.09.17 01:32:00 -
[2] - Quote
Quote:Drop Uplinks and objective spawning should be removed and CRUs should actually be loaded with a specific number of clones. The current CRU is just another rendering of the drop uplink. Despite the name it doesn't contain any clones, it simply acts as a spawn beacon just like the DU. This makes the ticket nature of clone count obvious which breaks immersion and compromises strategy.
How and how? Give specific details, simply making the statement "X does Y" doesn't make it accurate or persuasive.
Quote:Teams should covet spare clones and fight over CRUs just as hard as over objectives. In the future commanders should consider just where to place them on the battlefield.
My squads certainly do know the value of CRUs, they're not treated as dismissible or throw away in any sense.
They are tactical assets on the field which are either to be controlled or destroyed just like all other assets on the field, depot, cannon, vehicle, or Merc.
It sounds like you are trying to force blueberries to play the way you'd prefer to play, in essence to alter the game to constrain player action to match your sense of proper behavior. That's not the way a sandbox works, it doesn't improve the game and it's not really a way to enhance fun. If you don't like players not using tactics then run with your Corp/Alliance, if you're doing that and they don't understand tactics then either teach them or find a new place to be.
TL;DR - Heavy handed mechanical changes and constrains are poison in a sandbox.
0.02 ISK
Cross |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
Covert Intervention
1733
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 16:37:00 -
[3] - Quote
I keep hearing the assertion that removing spawn points and spawn point types, be they Uplinks, Objectives, or CRUs (depending on thread) would make the game "more tactical". What I have not been hearing in any of these several threads is a detailed description of how.
Perhaps I am missing something, perhaps my years away from FPS playing RTS, TTS, MMOs, and RPGs have distorted my perspective on this issue but I am honestly not seeing how this makes the game on balance more tactical.
Could those individuals supporting this stance please take the time to post up a detailed explanation regarding exactly how this would result in a net increase of tactical game play?
I'm not one of those guys who is unwilling to change my stance based on new information, but I currently see no compelling information supporting your stance, can you provide me with new data/perspective to persuade me otherwise? I am absolutely open to listing.
Cheers,
Cross |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
Covert Intervention
1738
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 19:56:00 -
[4] - Quote
Bendtner92, Skihids, thank you both for the thoughtful and thought provoking replies. I will be chewing over what you've presented and responding wtih some ideas, I'd like to get input on these concepts once I've fleshed them out enough to post.
Cheers, and +1 to you both,
Cross |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
Covert Intervention
1739
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 20:46:00 -
[5] - Quote
Here is the promised follow up.
Objectives - Within the context of the new maps, and provided the changes to CRUs are also adopted I can see the value to removing direct objective spawning. Bendtner92 points out how this could spread the firefight out over more of the map as opposed to 'pooling' it primarily in predetermined locations and I have to agree that would be a benefit to play.
CRUs - Adding a specific finite clone bonus to each CRU would be a great step. I had not encountered this idea before but the implications of it provide a lot of traction for the value of CRUs, giving increased cause to fight for, hold, or destroy these assets.
I'd lean towards also making CRUs more durable as part of this process but, again using the research lab sockets/maps as a template, if the number were increased sufficiently that might also do the trick. The idea solution is likely a balance between increased durability and increased numbers. CRUs shouldn't be prohibitively tough to take out for a HAV, nor should they be so common that their onboard clone totals have to be scaled at too low a number.
mCRUs - Assuming the upcoming addition of WP for spawns from these I'd leave mCRUs as is. They may need further polish as the other changes settle in but I would hold off on making those changes until actual field data shows that to be needed.
Uplinks - I'm still firmly of the view that Uplinks should neither be removed from the game, nor their deployment further capped or limited. However, Skihids makes some salient points regarding how the new Dom mode functions compared to the old Dom mode. The solution in my view is to give Uplinks the "nanohive treatment" and scale back their spawn time reductions. The could also undergo a bit of "tiericide" and have their attributes refocused such that number of spawns on the link, and spawn time reduction are in a relationship closer to zero sum.
I would hesitate to make substantive changes to uplinks until after patch 1.5 however as the new WP rewards for destruction of deployed equipment combined with the new WP from use of active scanners will have an impact on what/how much change is called for and it is, in my view, preferable to observe those implications first hand rather than base changes on conjecture.
Additional thoughts - There are some under used tools already in place which should also be employed. While I have witnessed the 'zerg push' described by the prior posters and do acknowledge that sometimes the current mechanics give incentive to blob warfare, it is in my experience not a black and white situation. Fits run with optimizations for speed, stealth, and hacking can quite effectively steal and objective out from under grouped defenders and allow small fire teams to cut them down and hold the point/location in question without the need for zerging. This practice isn't terribly common, and as per my above I can see how some changes are called for even in light of these alternate options, but the presence of alternatives is real even in the current game state, and in point of fact I have done what I am describing as recently as this week in Skirm, Dom, FW and PC game modes.
Cheers,
Cross |
|
|
| |
|