DUST Search - [Feedback] The problem with defend orders

KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote:

Defend orders on other players is just an easy way to get free extra WP, and you don't actually have to defend the player; in practice I've never seen anyone defending the player who has the defend order on them. If the ability to place defend orders on players was removed, then people will actually place orders on things like objectives and CRUs, and actually defend things. The dominant strategy is always to set the defend order on a squadmate, because it generates free WP, which then makes getting precision strikes easier.

The more favorable alternative is to make defend orders not give extra points to the player, but instead give bonus WP for actions to squadmates near the defend target; would incentivize the squad to actually defend the defend target, instead of getting free WP from the target's actions. This should not only apply to players as defend targets, but also for objectives and installations.

Maybe we could even see someone using a capture or attack order for once.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 6806	Posted - 2013.10.30 07:12:00 - [1] - Quote Defend orders on other players is just an easy way to get free extra WP, and you don't actually have to defend the player; in practice I've never seen anyone defending the player who has the defend order on them. If the ability to place defend orders on players was removed, then people will actually place orders on things like objectives and CRUs, and actually defend things. The dominant strategy is always to set the defend order on a squadmate, because it generates free WP, which then makes getting precision strikes easier. The more favorable alternative is to make defend orders not give extra points to the player, but instead give bonus WP for actions to squadmates near the defend target; would incentivize the squad to actually defend the defend target, instead of getting free WP from the target's actions. This should not only apply to players as defend targets, but also for objectives and installations. Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of the threads Gû¦Gû+
Cosgar ParagonX 6830	Posted - 2013.10.30 07:46:00 - [2] - Quote I'm +1ing this so hard right now. I tried to put a level into Amarr Commando once, but got a server notification saying "Why?"
DeathwindRising Rogue Spades EoN. 113	Posted - 2013.10.30 08:21:00 - [3] - Quote agree 100%
Keri Starlight Psygod9 D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 1622	Posted - 2013.10.30 08:23:00 - [4] - Quote This man speaks the truth! -Caldari Achura - One with the Universe -Tac AR Specialist "I load my gun with love instead of bullets"
Blake Kingston Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 138	Posted - 2013.10.30 09:15:00 - [5] - Quote That's probably a better way around for it.
Repe Susi Rautaleijona Top Men. 733	Posted - 2013.10.30 09:20:00 - [6] - Quote Agreed. This would also help with the squad cohesion.
Levithunder Butt Hurt Try Hards 121	Posted - 2013.10.30 09:22:00 - [7] - Quote Cosgar wrote: I'm +1ing this so hard right now. Agree (-í° -£-û -í°) Nerf Me If You Dare.
CLONE117 Planetary Response Organization Test Friends Please Ignore 438	Posted - 2013.10.30 15:13:00 - [8] - Quote good suggestion. it means that the squad leader wouldnt have to put up with all the nagging for squad orders on their squad members.
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 26	Posted - 2013.10.30 15:30:00 - [9] - Quote Very good suggestion. You have my +1. GûÆGûêGûæGûæGûÆGûê GûÆGûêGûÇGûÇGûÇ GûÆGûêGûäGûæGûÆGûê GûÆGûêGûÆGûêGûÆGûê GûÆGûêGûÇGûÇGûÇ GûÆGûêGûÆGûêGûÆGûê GûÆGûêGûäGûÇGûäGûê GûÆGûêGûäGûäGûä GûÆGûêGûæGûæGûÇGûê ? SoonGäó
Olomo Daygon ZionTCD Public Disorder. 6	Posted - 2013.10.30 15:57:00 - [10] - Quote How could you make the "Defend" order more effective? -Placing a virtual ring around the defend target. this ring would increase the WP of team mates within the circle. ??

ALPHA DECRIPTER Dragon-Empire 600	Posted - 2013.10.30 16:19:00 - [11] - Quote Replacing free points with tactics? Me likes Choose Your Difficulty [Driver] - [Assault] - [Logistics] - [Tanker] - [Pilot] - [Heavy] >[Scout]<
Django Quik Dust2Dust. 1681	Posted - 2013.10.30 17:58:00 - [12] - Quote Yeah, I made a similar thread a while back but my fix was to stop squad orders being placed on people. I like your solution better. Dust2Dust - Funeral arrangements for all of New Eden. Join our public channel D2D. to chat and squad with us.
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 6871	Posted - 2013.11.02 04:18:00 - [13] - Quote Still sucks Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of the threads Gû¦Gû+
gbrngfol The12DragonsClan 2	Posted - 2013.11.02 04:43:00 - [14] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Maybe we could even see someone using a capture or attack order for once. Wait, so I'm the only one who prefers using these over defense orders? I feel weird now.
low genius The Sound Of Freedom Renegade Alliance 811	Posted - 2013.11.02 07:16:00 - [15] - Quote rally. if there's no reward for a command it needs to be considered incomplete in concept.
Vyzion Eyri The Southern Legion The Umbra Combine 1716	Posted - 2013.11.02 07:29:00 - [16] - Quote Only if they make it more intuitive to select targets for orders in-game. It's not just that defend orders give the most WP, it's that selecting targets on the fly, half way across the map, or setting accurate rally points, is nigh on impossible. > "I will show you fear in a handful of dust." T.S. Eliot, The Wasteland
shady merc RisingSuns Public Disorder. 23	Posted - 2013.11.03 18:26:00 - [17] - Quote Currently for a squad with mic these orders are nothing more then free points. I say let's stop the the ability to target players and display these orders to the entire team. Example lets say there are 3 squads on the one team. If I am looking at the map I would see my squads defend order in blue on obj A . Squad 2 has a yellow attack order on obj B squad 3 has a green rally point setup for flanking the cru near obj B. I think this would give usefulness to the squad orders as well as bring more team play into the match
Yagihige Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 393	Posted - 2013.11.03 18:51:00 - [18] - Quote I agree with the solution, it would only make sense because it would finally make the order be about defending the player, which doesn't happen at all in the current state. Btw, i would add that the orders placed on installations/objectives should be made more permanent so it would promote squad leaders to use those. As it stands, when you place a capture order or a defend order on an objective it just disappears after you do it and that doesn't promote people to place those orders. I would suggest that orders placed on objectives could automatically change from capture to defend and viceversa. em ta kool t'nod
Aeon Amadi A.N.O.N.Y.M.O.U.S. 3599	Posted - 2013.11.03 19:08:00 - [19] - Quote Agree. I'd much prefer Squad Leads get commission from doing stuff near their own defend order than arbitrarily setting it to a tank and generating massive amounts of WP from killing installations with two gunners. Really silly, imo ANON Diplomat // 3rd Place Winner of the Eight Thousand Suns Fiction Contest
SickJ sephiroth clones D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 113	Posted - 2013.11.03 19:22:00 - [20] - Quote I try to use the defend order as shorthand for 'this guy has an expensive suit/vehicle, don't let him get killed', but more often I just put it on a random squadmate.

I-Shayz-I I-----I 1222	Posted - 2013.11.03 19:27:00 - [21] - Quote I agree, but I feel that most people don't realize how effective the defend order is. See, as long as you are x meters away from the defend order, you will get bonus wp. If your whole squad is nearby, everyone is getting that defend order bonus, not just the guy with the order. The other thing that sucks is that the other orders don't give you the area of effect bonus that defend orders do. Attack orders only give you bonus if you kill that enemy, or hack that object. Even then, the bonus is still the same, so attack orders take more time and effort for the same thing that you can do more easily with defend orders. Instead, orders should be able to work like rally points where you can put them anywhere and not have to have a lock on someone or something. However, these areas of effect won't give you as many points as when you put them on specific things that relate to both defending and attacking. Finally, we need to differentiate between defending and attacking. An attack order should give you more points for destructions, hacking etc. A defend order should give more points for support actions. Both orders would give points for killing things within an area though, but not as much as the other two. -For instance, a revive gives you 60 points, a revive with a defend order nearby gives you 78 points (30% bonus). A kill with a defend order nearby gives you 55 points (10% bonus), a kill nearby an objective/installation with a defend order ON IT gives you 60 points (20% bonus) -A tank destruction gives you 150 points, blowing it up with an attack order ON IT gives you 195 points (30% bonus) Destroying that same tank with the attack order nearby only gives 180 points (20% bonus). A kill with an attack order nearby gives you 60 points (20% bonus). Hacking an objective with the attack order ON IT gives 130 points (30% bonus), hacking with the attack order nearby gives 110 points (10% bonus). List of Most Important Threads I make logistics videos! (Insert future link here)
Skihids Bullet Cluster Legacy Rising 2386	Posted - 2013.11.03 19:27:00 - [22] - Quote Defend orders generate more bonus points. I put a capture order on the point in domination and received 20 points. If it was a defend order and there was a battle I probably would have doubled that easily.
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 6937	Posted - 2013.11.07 04:01:00 - [23] - Quote Still sucks Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of the threads Gû¦Gû+
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 6979	Posted - 2013.11.09 05:10:00 - [24] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Still sucks What he said Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of the threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
Thurak1 Psygod9 D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 370	Posted - 2013.11.09 05:32:00 - [25] - Quote I gotta admit the OP is correct. When i am lead i generally stick the defend order on a tank to try soaking up as many wp's as i can.
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 6986	Posted - 2013.11.10 00:01:00 - [26] - Quote Do it Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of the threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
Verek Locusti Closed For Business For All Mankind 10	Posted - 2013.11.10 00:21:00 - [27] - Quote +1
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 801	Posted - 2013.11.10 05:27:00 - [28] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Defend orders on other players is just an easy way to get free extra WP, and you don't actually have to defend the player; in practice I've never seen anyone defending the player who has the defend order on them. If the ability to place defend orders on players was removed, then people will actually place orders on things like objectives and CRUs, and actually defend things. The dominant strategy is always to set the defend order on a squadmate, because it generates free WP, which then makes getting precision strikes easier. The more favorable alternative is to make defend orders not give extra points to the player, but instead give bonus WP for actions to squadmates near the defend target; would incentivize the squad to actually defend the defend target, instead of getting free WP from the target's actions. This should not only apply to players as defend targets, but also for objectives and installations. Maybe we could even see someone using a capture or attack order for once. Hmm. There's no reason to get blinded by just the term 'defend'. I see the current defend order on player just the same as a 'Follow' order. Introducing a new type of follow order to dust would be plain stupid. In fact, CCP should get rid of unnecessary ones. For example, leader deems objective Alpha worthwile. He sets attack order on it. The team does it's job, and after long fight A is captured. Suddenly, the order and the value of Null cannon Alpha disappears: the attack order vanishes and is NOT replaced by a defend order. It is, honestly, stupid to have the functionality to mark the object of interest as an order target, but to force the leader to pre-choose the type of order to set: In order set order on blue object, you have to select Defend, all others fail. In order to capture a red objective, you have to select Capture, all others fail. In order to flag a red target, you have to select Destroy, all others fail. So that's why it is stupid as all of them have the same functionality, just choose a entity and order should be there. Now someone might say that there are different order types in order to set the right order on right target in case there are many in close proximity. That argument is invalid, because: trying to set an invalid target the game lets you but informs you about it and actually does nothing - but also resetting your order setting process!!! Sorry CCP but that is bad design.
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 7050	Posted - 2013.11.14 01:40:00 - [29] - Quote Do it Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of the threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
Draco Cerberus Hell's Gate Inc 497	Posted - 2013.11.14 01:58:00 - [30] - Quote I suggest that we add additional functionality to the current system. When a general in an army gives orders he will normally give several. I see the ability to assign multiple orders, up to 3, as something that should be added. If we assign a target to attack and a merc to defend (the person hacking) and an incoming enemy tank/LAV to destroy why should one order replace the other? They shouldn't IMO, and could be stacked, one per type on one target for each type. *One Universe...with friendly fire and Open World Game Play for all!*



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Choose Your Difficulty