| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Alena Ventrallis
PAND3M0N1UM
Top Men.
1161
   |
Posted - 2014.04.10 09:46:00 -
[1] - Quote
Currently, warbarges are given based on WP earned. This system means that the winning team, clearly not in need of an orbital, gets this valuable asset far more than the losing team, whose orbital could help turn the tide of battle. So here is what I propose.
Make warbarge strikes on a timer, just like in FW. Let's make it 3 minutes, just like FW. Now, when that timer runs out, a warbarge strike is awarded to the squad with the highest WP at the time. As the MCC takes damage, the orbital timer gets faster, so the losing team can call in more strikes than the winning team. The timer wouldn't be much shorter, perhaps every 2 minutes when the shield goes down. Whatever the exact number, the concept remains the same. OBs are awarded to whatever squad has the highest WP.
Now, to ensure a single squad does not get to call in all the strikes, we can have an algorithm that monitors who got what strike, and then gives it to the next squad in line. For instance, Squads A, B and C are playing together. When the timer runs out, the game checks to see who has the most warpoints, in this example, A does. So A is awarded a strike.
So A has been awarded a strike. Now the timer restarts. Once it expires a second time, the game again checks for who has earned the most WP since the first strike, while excluding A from the count since they were already awarded a strike. Now C is awarded a strike and the timer again restarts. Now the timer expires, and C still hasn't used his strike. Since he didn't use it, he loses this asset. This ensures people don't horde warbarges for the very end.
Now the game checks who has earned the most WP since the second strike was awarded. C is excluded from this, since they were awarded the previous strike. In this case, it was A again, so they have another strike to use.
All in all, this will ensure that both sides get to utilize the strikes, and mean a losing team can turn the tide as opposed to a winning team using strikes to stomp a team even harder.
In summation:
1. put warbarge strikes on a timer that gets shorter as the MCC takes damage.
2. award warbarges based on who made the most WP since the last strike was awarded, while excluding the squad awarded the previous strike.
3. strikes are lost if not used before the timer expires, to prevent hoarding them.
That's what you get!! - DA Rick
|
Jadek Menaheim
Villore Sec Ops
Gallente Federation
2681
|
Posted - 2014.04.10 10:25:00 -
[2] - Quote
Very interesting idea. Have you also considered changing the normal warbarge strike ammo type to an EMP variant. The strike doesn't guarantee a kill but will dislodge entrenched forces if used properly.
https://twitter.com/JadeKMenaheim/status/452845903385079808
Video: I don't always fight dropships, but when I do...
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
League of Infamy
1101
|
Posted - 2014.04.10 10:50:00 -
[3] - Quote
One argument I would have for this would be a reduction in the slippery slope that DUST currently has in it's gameplay.
Slippery Slope means that the more you lose, the harder it is to gain back ground. Skirmish is the pinnacle of this, and at one point, even becomes impossible to achieve a victory due to the slippery slope. Slippery Slopes cause teams to quit, give up, and simply stop playing.
Your idea, at least the portion that reduces the timer based on MCC damage does help alleviate this, as well as almost guaranteeing an Orbital a piece. Giving some measure of equality will also help in this situation. With a little fleshing out, this could be a solid idea to help prevent one sided battles being the 'norm' and allowing teams to get used to each other, and possibly claw back some of their losses to win. Upsets like that, or at least the ability to do such an action, makes the game much more interesting for both sides.
+ 1 from me to addressing the slippery slopes of current game mechanics.
Once you go Black, you just never go back!
|
Alena Ventrallis
The Neutral Zone
Psychotic Alliance
1408
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 18:46:00 -
[4] - Quote
Bump.
Calmanndo user with nova knives: Because someone has to do it.
|
KEROSIINI-TERO
The Rainbow Effect
1092
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 22:58:00 -
[5] - Quote
the best OB reimagining so far.
A Definate +1.
:-S
|
Stefan Stahl
Seituoda Taskforce Command
639
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 09:42:00 -
[6] - Quote
A absolutely agree on fixing the slippery slope that OBs currently present. Here is a spin on the concept I posted earlier that features a fixed number of orbitals per match.
How many orbitals per team do you consider optimal for a full duration match? (Both MCCs down to almost zero health. About 20-25 minutes, I think.) |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |