|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Himiko Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution
General Tso's Alliance
4598
   |
Posted - 2014.08.01 10:30:00 -
[1] - Quote
How you feel about making matches end faster when one team is holding all the points?
Fixes redline drama, fixes bad players doing stupid things because there is no sense of motivation, kills a lot of the frustration of being in a losing fight forever...
Is this the kinda thing you can even do in a hotfix? |
Himiko Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution
General Tso's Alliance
4601
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 13:27:00 -
[2] - Quote
Regis Blackbird wrote:While I agree with the OP that one sided matches that continues forever is boring for both sides, wouldn't it be better to introduce mechanics that help a "under-dog team" to pull themselfs back up? Most outcomes can be determined within the first 5 minutes, and shortening the remaining time might reduce boredom for the winning team, it will make it even harder for the "loosers" to come back in the game (which will reduce their entertainment even further). I fear this will increase red-line sniping and the other tactics rather than reducing it. - What if OBs became cheaper for the loosing team? - What if dropped installations automatically belongs to the loosing team rather than being neutral? There are probably plenty of other things we can do to keep the matches interesting for the full 15 minutes rather than "shorting" them... 
Rewarding failure is a terrible gaming trend and it is has left a VERY negative impact on fighting games. I don't see it doing well for FPS games either. It would just drag the game out even longer and promote dumb activities like "seven snipers on a tower" and suchfourth.
Anyhow I'm glad to see Rattati agrees with me on this one. I don't have a solution for Domination exactly, although I imagine there could possibly be a rate of fire bonus if the single terminal is held for longer than 5 minutes without a hack attempt or something along those lines. |
Himiko Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution
General Tso's Alliance
4601
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 13:42:00 -
[3] - Quote
If you guys think that this is a slippery slope you need to play Classic Battlefield. If all points are captured the team loses all of their tickets within about 30 seconds and the game ends. THAT was a slippery slope and nobody complained about it.
This is not a hardcore slippery slope, punishing the noobie type change. It would offer them mercy of death. Any team that gets fully capped is probably going to lose the game anyway. I really believe it needs to happen, and the successful team shouldn't be punished by some comeback system that required no effort to take advantage of. What kind of message is that sending to the less skilled, lazy players anyway? That it's OK to lose objectives?
There needs to be a point where defeat simply happens, and the torture stops. And there HAS to be some sense of urgency to rip bad players away from their team-screwing habits. |
Himiko Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution
General Tso's Alliance
4630
|
Posted - 2014.08.02 08:57:00 -
[4] - Quote
OP FOTM wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:It's already on our list, my simple idea was a synergy bonus to the Null-Cannons, If all are held, there is a 50% rate of fire bonus, or something along those lines. It also encourages a team to reach for all three instead of holding on a 2-1 lead in a 3 point Skirmish.
I'm starting to dislike most of what you say and do lately. This would turn a lot of close matches into losses. ESPECIALLY IN PLANETARY CONQUEST.
If you get fully capped it was probably not a close match.
This change forces some players into a more defensive mindset so that never happens. The matches that are close will stay close. |
Himiko Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution
General Tso's Alliance
4630
|
Posted - 2014.08.02 14:45:00 -
[5] - Quote
I think this thread is a good example of how even if you do the right thing, people will always react negatively due to inexperience and fear.
Well whatever. At least Rattati knows whats up. |
Himiko Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution
General Tso's Alliance
4631
|
Posted - 2014.08.02 20:29:00 -
[6] - Quote
Demandred Moores wrote:I've got 35m sp and constant 3 or 5-1 kd weekly I play in pc almost daily I'm far from inexperienced and would probably dominate with this Iimplemented. All I'm saying is that this is in no way friendly to those with less experience and sp. It caters only to strong corps with active numbers.
Don't be such a bleeding heart. Mercy of death is important.
Patrick57 wrote:The only problem I could see this becoming is an issue with not being able to come back from a redline. Especially in PC.
Yesterday we played a match where we were five capped because we got into the match late. But we managed to turn the whole game around and five cap them, and win. How would there be any epic comebacks like this if the matches end quicker? ;_;
Get into the match on time? Comn, let's look at this objectively. A gameplay mechanic's status should not be dependent upon one team which cannot be bothered or organized enough to get into the match when they had a full 24 hours to prepare. |
Himiko Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution
General Tso's Alliance
4634
|
Posted - 2014.08.03 11:43:00 -
[7] - Quote
Regis Blackbird wrote:Himiko Kuronaga wrote:I think this thread is a good example of how even if you do the right thing, people will always react negatively due to inexperience and fear.
Well whatever. At least Rattati knows whats up. I think it's more a case of being cautious of an idea which looks good on paper, but will probably backfire quite badly if implemented solo (without any further mechanics to encourage people to get into the fight). It will rather give a reason to give up even earlier. 
Battlefield has been out for a decade. Pretty sure it hasn't backfired yet.
Again, the people asking for this to not happen aren't being cautious, they are straight-up suggesting it shouldn't happen and their only reason is inexperience with which game design elements work and don't work.
People who don't know what the hell they are talking about really shouldn't offer an opinion, alas.... |
Himiko Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution
General Tso's Alliance
4634
|
Posted - 2014.08.03 13:38:00 -
[8] - Quote
Regis Blackbird wrote:Himiko Kuronaga wrote:Regis Blackbird wrote:Himiko Kuronaga wrote:I think this thread is a good example of how even if you do the right thing, people will always react negatively due to inexperience and fear.
Well whatever. At least Rattati knows whats up. I think it's more a case of being cautious of an idea which looks good on paper, but will probably backfire quite badly if implemented solo (without any further mechanics to encourage people to get into the fight). It will rather give a reason to give up even earlier. Battlefield has been out for a decade. Pretty sure it hasn't backfired yet. Again, the people asking for this to not happen aren't being cautious, they are straight-up suggesting it shouldn't happen and their only reason is inexperience with which game design elements work and don't work. People who don't know what the hell they are talking about really shouldn't offer an opinion, alas.... Sorry, but Battlefield and Dust 514 are not the same game... quite far from it. Just because it works fine in one game does not automatically mean it works perfectly in all other FPS. And everybody have a right to their opinion... I respect yours even if I don't agree with you. It's just the tone of superiority in your posts which I find offensive.
Battlefield and Skirmish are almost exactly the same game. Skirmish 2.0 was modeled after Battlefield with MCC HP replacing the ticket system and clones staying independent instead of sharing the same HP pool. This change was put into place because someone at CCP began to worry their game was too different than what was already proven to be successful on the market. This is the direct consequence of a game being developed from a business standpoint first and actual game second.
The only other difference is that there is a point that has to be hacked, instead of having someone simply stand in an area and have the place turn over automatically.
Finally, no. You are not entitled to your opinion. Not publicly. That's some elementary school crap they told you when you were a kid so you would feel warm and fuzzy inside.
What you are entitled to is an EDUCATED opinion. If your opinion is not educated than it is irrelevant and no one wants to hear it. You keep that ignorant nonsense to yourself because it pollutes any intelligent discussion actually going on. As you don't even understand the major similarities between Battlefield and Skirmish your opinion is clearly not educated and I would ask you stop talking. |
Himiko Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution
General Tso's Alliance
4635
|
Posted - 2014.08.04 13:14:00 -
[9] - Quote
Regis Blackbird wrote:Himiko Kuronaga wrote:
Battlefield and Skirmish are almost exactly the same game. Skirmish 2.0 was modeled after Battlefield with MCC HP replacing the ticket system and clones staying independent instead of sharing the same HP pool. This change was put into place because someone at CCP began to worry their game was too different than what was already proven to be successful on the market. This is the direct consequence of a game being developed from a business standpoint first and actual game second.
The only other difference is that there is a point that has to be hacked, instead of having someone simply stand in an area and have the place turn over automatically.
Finally, no. You are not entitled to your opinion. Not publicly. That's some elementary school crap they told you when you were a kid so you would feel warm and fuzzy inside.
What you are entitled to is an EDUCATED opinion. If your opinion is not educated than it is irrelevant and no one wants to hear it. You keep that ignorant nonsense to yourself because it pollutes any intelligent discussion actually going on. As you don't even understand the major similarities between Battlefield and Skirmish your opinion is clearly not educated and I would ask you stop talking.
Lol I never said anything about Skirmish. You are obviously the one mixing up Games with Game Modes... In Battlefield: - Can you outfit your avatar to the same complexity as in Dust? - Does it cost any form of in-game currency doing so? - Does said gear come in different tiers, with more powerful tiers costing exponentially more? - Will you loose said gear if you are killed? These (among other) are the factors that set Dust 514 apart from other FPS including Battlefield, even if (and I agree) it's game modes are similar. These are also the reasons players start to play very defensively (I.e giving up) in case they don't see any possible way to win. With your (and Rattati's) proposal I fear that players will give up sooner rather than later, which is why I don't think it is a good idea (on its own). Combined with other game mechanics which encourage teams to make a comeback, perhaps... Anyway, I have said my peace on the topic and won't bother replying any further. Feel free to continue your intelligent discussion 
Skirmish is Dust.
Everything else is a broken game mode derived from bits and pieces of skirmish in an attempt to please sub-audiences.
Your argument (whatever it is) is invalid.
|
|
|
| |
|