| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
calisk galern
BurgezzE.T.F
General Tso's Alliance
2358
   |
Posted - 2014.04.17 14:56:00 -
[1] - Quote
first off I want to state that if I've posted it here before, it was so long ago i've forgotten.
Opening Statement- The current pub matches are bad, their is no purpose behind them, new players are thrown in with old players, nobody chooses what they want to do they just get thrown into the matches. This breaks immersion, it feels like a grind, and is horribly repetitive, and rarely results in good matches for either side.
My goal with this suggestion is to address all of the previously mentioned issues, it will remove some of them while reducing others.
Summary - A contract mode would entail removing the current pub system in all of it's forms, and replacing it with a system where the users see open games/contracts a choose to deploy their squads to them, weighing the risk versus rewards of those matches.
here is an example of what would be generated with a contract.
valstiar 4 | 0.1 SR | Skirmish| 350k isk | 1 thale | 3m 22s | Ishukone attacking Raiders | 6 of 32 | Impact Ridge
valstiar 4 | 0.1 SR | Skirmish | 350k isk | 2 Raider Caldari Assault suits| 3m 22s | Raiders defending Ishukone | 2 of 32 | Impact Ridge | Friendly fire off
valstiar 4 | 1.0 SR | Ambush| 80k isk | none | 3m 22s | Caldari attacking Gallente | 6 of 8 | Line Harvest | Friendly fire on
valstiar 4 | 1.0 SR | Ambush| 80k isk | none | 3m 22s | Gallente defending Caldari | 2 of 8 | Line harvest | friendly fire on
here is the break down of my example
district name | security rating | game mode | isk payout bonus for winning | Item rewards for top players | time remaining before game starts | Corporations | player count | map | friendly fire
Specifics
Security Rating : security rating controls the payouts and bonuses the players will receive, which means lower security rating battles will have better rewards, if you want to turn a profit you would do better in low sec battles, you could also use higher tiered gear and still turn a profit in these battles.
1.0 security rating will have minimal rewards, practically nothing just enough to pay for early skill books and militia gear, this is intended for players to get a start, the player count of these battles should be kept between 4 and 8 and usually ambushes.
0.9-0.4 - this would be about what we do now in standard pub matches, with the occasional rare items thrown in as rewards.
0.3-0.1 high rewards for winning these matches and better payouts for winning you should expect to earn 500-750k off of winning these matches, but expect to lose alot of isk in the gear you spent if you lose.
0.0 - really high payouts with rare gear on the line frequently for the top scorers, these battles should be as bloody as any pc battle ideally
Timer - this will show how long before the matches starts and how long it's been since it started. if you join a match that has already started and you join the losing side, their would be a bonus involved for you if you win, an extra 50% on the prize pool perhaps. this is to encourage players to join games that are in progress even if it is for the losing side.
player count - as it is currently their is no variation on the players in a game, so we approach every game the same way, that said many players would probably enjoy some variation in this area, especially those just starting out in the game wanting to get some practice. also some maps favor high player counts while some could do well with lower player counts.
Item Rewards basically these items would be given to the top players of the winning team, these players likely burnt isk to get to that spot, and achieved a top spot on their team, especially in low sec battles, may as well reward them for it, these are rewards from the company for a great victory achieved in their favor.
bonus isk rewards - the players on the winning team would get this reward, the rewards is only give to those that meet the following criteria, they must have gained either 600 WP, or 4+ kills. this is an anti afk tool mostly.
passive isk rewards this is a hidden value that would operate alot like our current system, but with a modifier that results in more isk while in low sec and less in high sec battles.
friendly fire - This will not exist in high sec or low sec unless you allow player to deploy as a team in low security battles. with that said if team deploys are an option for low security battles then low sec battles will have friendly fire set to on.
if you choose to participate in these battles as a lone wolf with friendly fire on then you are taking your chances like in FW of today.
There is no point to having this here if we can't deploy as teams as it will just result in the trolling we see in FW now.
Contract Count - at any given time their might be 8-10 contracts up, as these contracts fill up and expire new contracts will be generated, these contracts could be of any game mode and any map, their might be 20-30 games in progress as well. this way no matter how many players we have or how many game modes their will always be the perfect number of contracts up for everyone.
Closing statement- This feature would allow the developers to create as many game modes as they want without worrying about the player base, it addresses NPE, and helps put choice back into this sandbox.
it's not perfect and I don't think it should stop here, but I do believe this is the direction our pubs should go in.
|
Hansei Kaizen
The Jackson Five
144
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 17:39:00 -
[2] - Quote
Had a similar idea posted here somwhere. Self determined "matchmaking" via Sec Status / ISK / reward variety. Still think its a great idea that solves many problems very elegantly (in addition to PvE). That someone with experience reinforces that by reinventing it reinsures me about it. And I like your unique fresh take on it. Especially your thought about the timer and player count are interesting.
If your interested in my old stuff / looking for inspiration or additional ideas to implement:
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2018884#post2018884
Wonder why nobody seems to care about such a thing. But +1 for you anyway, Sir!
The answer to your complaint is PvE. Always.
NPE status: (Gò»°Gûí°n+ëGò»n+¦ Gö+GöüGö+
Casual solo
|
Draco Cerberus
BurgezzE.T.F
General Tso's Alliance
864
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 19:59:00 -
[3] - Quote
Well thought out calisk, I wouldn't mind this replacing the current system if Open World is declared impossible by CCP.
A Brave New Eden
Forge a new destiny
|
Finn Colman
Immortal Guides
3
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 20:37:00 -
[4] - Quote
Sorry, I'm afraid I'm having trouble with the risk/reward balance in the Low-Sec matches (the risk part mainly). Could you please clarify to me.
I always have trouble with understanding most ideas here, and it's completely on my end (most people seem to understand the things I don't). If you can help me out with understanding this it would be appreciated. I like the general idea. |
Awry Barux
Ametat Security
Amarr Empire
1958
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 20:44:00 -
[5] - Quote
I really like everything about it, except the officer weapon rewards. I, and I would imagine many other people, would simply sit spamming the refresh button until those came up. The sheer competition to hit "join" before anyone else would be fierce.
Nerdier than thou
|
Odigos Ellinas
Mannar Focused Warfare
Gallente Federation
84
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 01:18:00 -
[6] - Quote
0.0 space is owned by player corporations no pub contracts there. |
calisk galern
BurgezzE.T.F
General Tso's Alliance
2363
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 13:37:00 -
[7] - Quote
Awry Barux wrote:I really like everything about it, except the officer weapon rewards. I, and I would imagine many other people, would simply sit spamming the refresh button until those came up. The sheer competition to hit "join" before anyone else would be fierce.
true and that would make for the toughest battles, truly worthy of 0.0 space.
|
calisk galern
BurgezzE.T.F
General Tso's Alliance
2363
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 13:38:00 -
[8] - Quote
Odigos Ellinas wrote:0.0 space is owned by player corporations no pub contracts there.
well the system could cap at at 0.1 and effectively be the same, if it fits better into eve fluff then it 0.1 should functionally operate as 0.0 in my examples above. |
calisk galern
BurgezzE.T.F
General Tso's Alliance
2363
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 13:53:00 -
[9] - Quote
Finn Colman wrote:Sorry, I'm afraid I'm having trouble with the risk/reward balance in the Low-Sec matches (the risk part mainly). Could you please clarify to me.
I always have trouble with understanding most ideas here, and it's completely on my end (most people seem to understand the things I don't). If you can help me out with understanding this it would be appreciated. I like the general idea.
well when you enter into a low security battle, the rewards will be higher.
Example 1 1.0 space
80k base reward ( this gets modified by your wp's in a match so can fluxuate greatly).
80k reward for winning.
no items paid out to the top winners
this means if you win the match you could expect to earn somewhere between 120k-190k, but only 40k-90k if you lose.
Example 2 0.1 space
250k base reward
400k reward for winning
1 piece of Officer grade gear for the top players
this means you can expect to earn 550-750k isk from winning this match, and if you do very well you would earn a piece of officer gear as well, if you lose you could expect to earn about around 200k-300k.
so that explains the reward part, now the risk part comes in the logic that the good players would go for the big rewards, big rewards means you will have more leeway to use bigger more expensive gear but you will lose it a lot faster as well since everyone will be thinking the same way, this would result in a more suitable place for proto players to use their proto gear, resulting in pc grade conflicts.
so if the best players are in low sec fighting over officer gear and tons of isk, that would leave the smaller battles open for players that want smaller scaled battles, these would be more suitable for newer players, newer players don't need as much isk for their gear either so they can make due in these battles till their gradual sp gain moves them into lower security battles.
as I said you need to be able to get kills or suitable amount of war points to earn in the rewards of any battle, so if a player joined a low sec battle trying to leech off the rewards, they would likely get proto stomped out and not meet the requirements to earn the rewards. |
Talos Alomar
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
2176
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 14:37:00 -
[10] - Quote
Seems like a good way to separate the vets looking for good fights and the newbies who just want to get their head wrapped around the mechanics.
Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion;
|
|
|
Hansei Kaizen
The Jackson Five
152
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 15:22:00 -
[11] - Quote
Draco Cerberus wrote:Well thought out calisk, I wouldn't mind this replacing the current system if Open World is declared impossible by CCP.
I fear it is. Dust doesnt seem to have open world at its core. The possibility of choosing from more different contracts is, I think, as close as we ever gonna get to open world. Would be awesome if I get proven wrong though.
The answer to your complaint is PvE. Always.
NPE status: (Gò»°Gûí°n+ëGò»n+¦ Gö+GöüGö+
Casual solo
|
neolutumus
The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar
DARKSTAR ARMY
39
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 15:31:00 -
[12] - Quote
Great idea. Been tossing this idea around for a bit now, just didn't get it on here yet. This would go great with the idea linked in my signature.
Give DUST514 some direction.
|
Finn Colman
Immortal Guides
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 18:24:00 -
[13] - Quote
Okay, yeah, now it makes sense to me. I like it, seems like it would do what it's intended to, and it would reduce the grinding for some of the better players as well. Having a general idea of your payout before you deploy would be nice as well. Also I think some of the good Assault DS pilots, would appreciate a higher paying mode to support their use of these expensive vehicles in the Low-Sec matches, it wouldn't be nearly as hard for a pilot to turn a profit in those battles. |
KILLER EI ITE16
Inner.Hell
13
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 18:46:00 -
[14] - Quote
+1 Great idea, also been wanting the corp battles from chromosomes to be implemented back into the game.
Still see some ~~~~~ just going into the 1.0 games for easy wins and protostomping(Since that's the only way they go positive since they suck going against people with the same gear as them). |
calisk galern
BurgezzE.T.F
General Tso's Alliance
2367
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 18:53:00 -
[15] - Quote
KILLER EI ITE16 wrote:+1 Great idea, also been wanting the corp battles from chromosomes to be implemented back into the game.
Still see some ~~~~~ just going into the 1.0 games for easy wins and protostomping(Since that's the only way they go positive since they suck going against people with the same gear as them).
yep, unfortunately theirs no way to really keep them out, if you put an sp cap or a gear restriction they will create alts or pub stomp in lower tiered gear, at the very least we can make it less profitable for them to do so, and although this game is well known for it's proto stomps, I know most players do it simply because they have no where else to use their gear.
this method would move the players looking for a fight, and those looking to earn rewards into matches that suit what they are looking for and away from the NPE, that's at least a step in the right direction. |
calisk galern
BurgezzE.T.F
General Tso's Alliance
2372
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 13:50:00 -
[16] - Quote
figured i'd bump this since it died during easter |
Dunce Masterson
Savage Bullet
87
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 15:02:00 -
[17] - Quote
your system is flawed and incomplete has the top players are determined by war points alone giving the logistics the best chances of getting all the officer weapons why should they get all the good HMG's AR's side arms and sniper rifles when that's not how they get all those war points?
If I'm in said game mode and a Gastuns heavy machine gun is waiting for me if I am one of the top players but 3 logistics get 2,000 more war points then me but I have the highest amount of kills on both teams but I don't get any thing I wouldn't participate at all.
I don't even know why I bother.
|
calisk galern
BurgezzE.T.F
General Tso's Alliance
2372
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 15:10:00 -
[18] - Quote
Dunce Masterson wrote:your system is flawed and incomplete has the top players are determined by war points alone giving the logistics the best chances of getting all the officer weapons why should they get all the good HMG's AR's side arms and sniper rifles when that's not how they get all those war points?
If I'm in said game mode and a Gastuns heavy machine gun is waiting for me if I am one of the top players but 3 logistics get 2,000 more war points then me but I have the highest amount of kills on both teams but I don't get any thing I wouldn't participate at all.
well first I will say that the systems mentioned above are all suggestions for how it should work, I'm not saying they are perfect and I don't have any means to test them so I wouldn't expect the finished product to be exactly as I mentioned above, especially after getting to take it for a test run, even I would likely make some adjustments to it.
for example the officer weapon pay out could be a combination for the top kills and the top war points, or some combination or equation that values bleed outs and WP equally.
finally logis do very well in pub matches with new players that die frequently and use their uplinks, in pc's where everyone and their dog are dropping uplinks, and everyone is quite experienced it tends to be anyone's game, I wouldn't guarantee the victory to anyone even tanks which I consider to be the highest WP earners atm. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |