DUST Search - Thread under Construction (Second attempt)

Imp Smash wrote:

Breakin Stuff wrote:

Fox Gaden wrote:

Looks like we are on the same page Kain.

If the attackers No-Show, the Defenders will blow up their MCC (twice if they no-showed in Phase 3) until they are pushed back to the beachhead. Then the defenders hack the attackerGÇÖs CRU, denying them access to the district, and successfully defend the District.

Part of me wonders if there could be a way for the Defenders to actually capture the AttackerGÇÖs MCC if they No-Show, but I have not thought up a mechanic for how that would work. I have also not considered weather it could be exploited somehow. So just an idle thought at this point.

From the start I have been operating from the assumption that the District activity would be locked from the moment it was attacked to the moment it is successfully defended. I should probably go back and state that explicitly somewhere in my proposal. It would be that much more incentive to have people try to mount a defense in Phase 1, so they don't lose 24 hours of production.

If the battle begins and no enemy shows up one minute after the hack points are controlled the enemy MCC is captured intact and claimed.

If neither shows up CONCORD destroys both MCCs and ejects both corps from the district.

That's really good though. It's a double whammy so the cost will exceed the economic gain by the districts being locked when totaled.

And I agree with you about GM intervention. If it happens it happens and we all cross that bridge when we come too it.

Do any of you know about the ability to move a redline in match? It could open up the potential for reverse 'Tug of War' game modes which could be used for MCC assault and whatnot.

Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Imp Smash Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 515	Posted - 2015.01.15 07:39:00 - [91] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: stuff, stuff, and more stuff I like it man. It would do wonders for the longevity of the game, the fun factor at end level, and even includes an option for an average merc to jump in and help in an emergency. Very cool. You outdid yourself this time. Edit: How is this NOT stickied?
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6438	Posted - 2015.01.15 10:44:00 - [92] - Quote Overall Fox well done. I like this better than my old proposal by far. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 5846	Posted - 2015.01.15 13:20:00 - [93] - Quote Imp Smash wrote: Edit: How is this NOT stickied? Rattati likes to let stuff bob around. If the community likes it, it stays near the top without glue. He did Blue Tag it though. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Imp Smash Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 517	Posted - 2015.01.16 01:25:00 - [94] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Imp Smash wrote: Edit: How is this NOT stickied? Rattati likes to let stuff bob around. If the community likes it, it stays near the top without glue. He did Blue Tag it though. Evidence suggest otherwise. <.< Regardless, this is really quite excellent. Really though, coding and manpower required, it may not be feasible sadly.
Kain Spero Internal Error. 4230	Posted - 2015.01.16 07:33:00 - [95] - Quote I really think that Phase 2 and Phase 3 should be able to happen on the same day, or there needs to be a mechanic where if X defenders don't show up for a Phase 2 Attack the defenders auto loose and the Warbarge timer starts up again for a Phase 3 match. One complaint about PC has been a lot of setup for just one match. I think letting Phase 2 and Phase 3 play out on the same attack would lessen this feeling. Also, I think doing a tug-of-war style gameplay until one side runs out of MCC could be interesting. If the attacking barge still has MCC and the defender wins a Phase 2 or 3 you could let the Defender counter attack the Warbarge using the district maps which would start Phase 2 in the case of a defender win in Phase 3 or a Phase 3 match in the case of a Phase 2 victory for the defender. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 5874	Posted - 2015.01.16 12:00:00 - [96] - Quote Well Kain, it would make sense that if the attackerGÇÖs MCC does not get into Armor before the Attackers take out the District Defense Network, then there would be no need for the Attackers to pull back to switch out or repair their MCC. So, if the District is not defended in Phase 2, it could spawn Phase 3 without the timer. Would that work for you? That would encourage the defenders to mount some sort of defense, even if it is just enough to slow the attackerGÇÖs advance long enough to start the timer. One of the reasons I put another timer before phase 3, is because if the teams are evenly matched and you put both phases together you could end up fighting for a long time. Even with this system the fight on the third day could go a long time if the Defenders win Phase 3 and push the attackers back. Example, Closely matched teams: Day 1: Attackers win Phase 1. (Timer starts) Day 2: Defenders win Phase 2, Attackers win Phase 1, Attackers win Phase 2. (Timer starts) Day 3: Defenders win Phase 3, Defenders win Phase 2, Attackers win Phase 1, Attackers win Phase 2, Defenders win Phase 3GÇª Attacker has run out of Warbarges (Defenders Win) I also wanted to give some wiggle room incase a Corp has several districts being attacked at the same time. They could just have their C or D Team try to delay the Attackers enough in Phase 2 to start the timer, while they drive the attackers out of another district, and then mount the real defense in Phase 3. It adds some tactical depth. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4236	Posted - 2015.01.16 13:22:00 - [97] - Quote I'd say that longer battles aren't outright a bad thing as long as things don't get too crazy. The example you've laid out sounds pretty good. I like the idea that you have somewhat of an escalation in potential match length as you get closer to the district being taken over. I like the armor idea for initiating Phase 3 on the same day, but I think no shows might need to be more harshly punished (if you haven't figured out I hate no shows ). If X% of the team on either side doesn't show up you forfeit the match, loose an MCC, and move onto the next phase in either direction. In your phase plan if the defenders push back the attack do they get a rest period like the current mechanics? Something to consider. Any resource production should be stopped until an attack is resolved so that we don't end up with friendly attacks again that result in economic benefit. This would also be a reason for a defender to want to press a counter attack and eliminate the warbarge's entire stock of MCC. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 5874	Posted - 2015.01.16 13:37:00 - [98] - Quote Looks like we are on the same page Kain. If the attackers No-Show, the Defenders will blow up their MCC (twice if they no-showed in Phase 3) until they are pushed back to the beachhead. Then the defenders hack the attackerGÇÖs CRU, denying them access to the district, and successfully defend the District. Part of me wonders if there could be a way for the Defenders to actually capture the AttackerGÇÖs MCC if they No-Show, but I have not thought up a mechanic for how that would work. I have also not considered weather it could be exploited somehow. So just an idle thought at this point. From the start I have been operating from the assumption that the District activity would be locked from the moment it was attacked to the moment it is successfully defended. I should probably go back and state that explicitly somewhere in my proposal. It would be that much more incentive to have people try to mount a defense in Phase 1, so they don't lose 24 hours of production. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6476	Posted - 2015.01.16 14:16:00 - [99] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Looks like we are on the same page Kain. If the attackers No-Show, the Defenders will blow up their MCC (twice if they no-showed in Phase 3) until they are pushed back to the beachhead. Then the defenders hack the attackerGÇÖs CRU, denying them access to the district, and successfully defend the District. Part of me wonders if there could be a way for the Defenders to actually capture the AttackerGÇÖs MCC if they No-Show, but I have not thought up a mechanic for how that would work. I have also not considered weather it could be exploited somehow. So just an idle thought at this point. From the start I have been operating from the assumption that the District activity would be locked from the moment it was attacked to the moment it is successfully defended. I should probably go back and state that explicitly somewhere in my proposal. It would be that much more incentive to have people try to mount a defense in Phase 1, so they don't lose 24 hours of production. If the battle begins and no enemy shows up one minute after the hack points are controlled the enemy MCC is captured intact and claimed. If neither shows up CONCORD destroys both MCCs and ejects both corps from the district. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4239	Posted - 2015.01.16 14:27:00 - [100] - Quote ^^ Seems like we've found someone that hates no shows worse than me. X) Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news

Dust User KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 1468	Posted - 2015.01.16 15:56:00 - [101] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: ^^ Seems like we've found someone that hates no shows worse than me. X) Interesting, I remember a time when you no showed many battles.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 5876	Posted - 2015.01.16 16:20:00 - [102] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: Looks like we are on the same page Kain. If the attackers No-Show, the Defenders will blow up their MCC (twice if they no-showed in Phase 3) until they are pushed back to the beachhead. Then the defenders hack the attackerGÇÖs CRU, denying them access to the district, and successfully defend the District. Part of me wonders if there could be a way for the Defenders to actually capture the AttackerGÇÖs MCC if they No-Show, but I have not thought up a mechanic for how that would work. I have also not considered weather it could be exploited somehow. So just an idle thought at this point. From the start I have been operating from the assumption that the District activity would be locked from the moment it was attacked to the moment it is successfully defended. I should probably go back and state that explicitly somewhere in my proposal. It would be that much more incentive to have people try to mount a defense in Phase 1, so they don't lose 24 hours of production. If the battle begins and no enemy shows up one minute after the hack points are controlled the enemy MCC is captured intact and claimed. If neither shows up CONCORD destroys both MCCs and ejects both corps from the district. I like it, but for that last part we might want to consider what happens if Lizard Squad takes down the PSN again, or Tranquility gets hit with a DDOS attack, or the Battle-servers go down and no one can queue up. In Phase 1 and 2 the Defenders would win if no one showed up on either side. Phase 3 is a standard Skirmish match like current PC, so how does that play out now? Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6483	Posted - 2015.01.16 16:23:00 - [103] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: I like it, but for that last part we might want to consider what happens if Lizard Squad takes down the PSN again, or Tranquility gets hit with a DDOS attack, or the Battle-servers go down and no one can queue up. I think the GMs are aftually fairly competent and can reset sov manually fairly fast if they have to. It'd be tedious as sh*t but unless Rattati says "No dude, we need to do something else" I think we can trust archduke there. And I have nothing but contempt for people who try to district lock Kain. Buncha sissies using no-shows to exploit the sov system. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Imp Smash Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 522	Posted - 2015.01.17 00:15:00 - [104] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: Looks like we are on the same page Kain. If the attackers No-Show, the Defenders will blow up their MCC (twice if they no-showed in Phase 3) until they are pushed back to the beachhead. Then the defenders hack the attackerGÇÖs CRU, denying them access to the district, and successfully defend the District. Part of me wonders if there could be a way for the Defenders to actually capture the AttackerGÇÖs MCC if they No-Show, but I have not thought up a mechanic for how that would work. I have also not considered weather it could be exploited somehow. So just an idle thought at this point. From the start I have been operating from the assumption that the District activity would be locked from the moment it was attacked to the moment it is successfully defended. I should probably go back and state that explicitly somewhere in my proposal. It would be that much more incentive to have people try to mount a defense in Phase 1, so they don't lose 24 hours of production. If the battle begins and no enemy shows up one minute after the hack points are controlled the enemy MCC is captured intact and claimed. If neither shows up CONCORD destroys both MCCs and ejects both corps from the district. That's really good though. It's a double whammy so the cost will exceed the economic gain by the districts being locked when totaled. And I agree with you about GM intervention. If it happens it happens and we all cross that bridge when we come too it.
RkHalo Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 0	Posted - 2015.01.17 05:25:00 - [105] - Quote I really like the layout of the three stage district flip, if I may input some balances on it that differ. For the first stage, the modified bush, the attacker should have a small clone advantage having the fight be 100 clones to the attacker and 80 to the defence. This initial attack can be setup similar to an OMS, simulating a scout party fighting. The timer for setting the FCC might have to be adjusted but I am in favor of this mechanic for winning the fight. Stage two should occur on the same map as the ambush, with the attacker and defender having equal forces (150?), occurring a day later on the same timer to represent the defenders attacking the beachhead and victor here would nullify the ground troops entirely, destroying the MCC (not the warbarge) forcing another stage one from scratch. Stage three is a skirm with similar mechanics using the clones left on district versus the remaining attacking force (depending on performance of previous fights, warbarge, etc.) occuring one day after the stage two fights simulating the time it takes to find the stronghold on the district and mobilize to it. Reups should work in the same way as they currently do in this stage until a flip or repel. To make this fair to both the large corps and small corps, raids would be 50 clone ambushs that have increased payouts and drain resources off the district but not clones (minus the losses during the fight) possibly during that vulnerability period, but it has a limit to the percent it damages, with a 50% success rate profiting both sides (obviously only just so making it competitive). These vulnerability times would give better resources if it is removed away from the timer of the district by X hours possibly in a gradient with increase in raiding success payouts as well so that corps off timers can chance these times and have a harder time without the support on their primetime. Using district attack at stage 1 as 100% of daily resources generated, raids should pay 110-150%, stage 2 should payout at 130% and stage 3 should have a 200% payout. This would encourage district flipping through war, while not discounting small corps from fighting. I like the warbarge idea, being fit to change its functionality, and MCCs fit to either raid or attack directly. I don't know how I feel about timer changes yet, haven't thought about how to change it, so I'll leave that alone.
Syeven Reed T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K 1178	Posted - 2015.01.17 08:44:00 - [106] - Quote Avallo Kantor wrote: As to the raiding, I had some ideas on how they would unfold myself. -Districts that are open to raiding receive some sort of bonus. Fluff-wise it's the district diverting power from the normal defenses that make it invulnerable to super-charge production. During this 1 hour period, the district produces something useful. -After the first successful raid on a district, it "locks" for the rest of that 1-hr vulnerable period. If the District Owners enter another vulnerable period (of their choosing) then this unlocks the district for further raiding. -The outcome of a raid isn't a binary "all or nothing" outcome, with the potential for the attacker to gain some to all of the potential pool of supply / biomass that is at stake. (50 - 110% of the boosted output) Note all of these outcomes count as a "successful" raid. -Since the District Owners -CHOSE- to unlock the district during this time, battles start 10-15 min after the Attackers declare their attack. This is a very good addition to Foxs' idea. One thing, if I may pick a little. What is to stop a friendly alliance from attacking in this 1 hour window (effectively locking it from hostiles) and not killing any clones? I'd suggest that the very lucrative important resource that districts produce (moon goo) is none tradable and that weather or not the raiders want it, they will plunder it. But thinking about it, this still doesn't stop the problem. Because either way if you're going to lose this resource, it still benefits to have the district locked by friendlies. SCAN ATTEMPT PREVENTED EvE - 21 Day Trial
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6540	Posted - 2015.01.17 12:48:00 - [107] - Quote Imp Smash wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: Looks like we are on the same page Kain. If the attackers No-Show, the Defenders will blow up their MCC (twice if they no-showed in Phase 3) until they are pushed back to the beachhead. Then the defenders hack the attackerGÇÖs CRU, denying them access to the district, and successfully defend the District. Part of me wonders if there could be a way for the Defenders to actually capture the AttackerGÇÖs MCC if they No-Show, but I have not thought up a mechanic for how that would work. I have also not considered weather it could be exploited somehow. So just an idle thought at this point. From the start I have been operating from the assumption that the District activity would be locked from the moment it was attacked to the moment it is successfully defended. I should probably go back and state that explicitly somewhere in my proposal. It would be that much more incentive to have people try to mount a defense in Phase 1, so they don't lose 24 hours of production. If the battle begins and no enemy shows up one minute after the hack points are controlled the enemy MCC is captured intact and claimed. If neither shows up CONCORD destroys both MCCs and ejects both corps from the district. That's really good though. It's a double whammy so the cost will exceed the economic gain by the districts being locked when totaled. And I agree with you about GM intervention. If it happens it happens and we all cross that bridge when we come too it. Do any of you know about the ability to move a redline in match? It could open up the potential for reverse 'Tug of War' game modes which could be used for MCC assault and whatnot. No redlines in PC. Redlines are there to protect pubscrubs from getting pushed back and farmed Redlines in hardmode game modes like FW and PC should not have redline protection Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Terry Webber Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 555	Posted - 2015.01.18 06:37:00 - [108] - Quote But Breaking Stuff, there is still a possibility that one side would lose a battle if they can't leave their spawning area. So instead of having the redline as a barrier, CCP can just make it a boundary colored yellow instead of red for the battle and have the game notify the player that they're leaving the battlefield. It won't kill them if they stay in the redline too long.To protect a side's spawn area under the MCC, the MCC's guns and the turrets on the ground can shoot any enemy that breaches the perimeter.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6572	Posted - 2015.01.18 15:14:00 - [109] - Quote Terry Webber wrote: But Breaking Stuff, there is still a possibility that one side would lose a battle if they can't leave their spawning area. So instead of having the redline as a barrier, CCP can just make it a boundary colored yellow instead of red for the battle and have the game notify the player that they're leaving the battlefield. It won't kill them if they stay in the redline too long.To protect a side's spawn area under the MCC, the MCC's guns and the turrets on the ground can shoot any enemy that breaches the perimeter. Dynamic. Spawn. Points. having two, and ONLY two that are right under each other was dumb. if you have two or better yet, the whole side of the battlefield where you enter is littered with spawns, you can't get pushed into one area and farmed. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Terry Webber Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 556	Posted - 2015.01.18 21:30:00 - [110] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Terry Webber wrote: But Breaking Stuff, there is still a possibility that one side would lose a battle if they can't leave their spawning area. So instead of having the redline as a barrier, CCP can just make it a boundary colored yellow instead of red for the battle and have the game notify the player that they're leaving the battlefield. It won't kill them if they stay in the redline too long.To protect a side's spawn area under the MCC, the MCC's guns and the turrets on the ground can shoot any enemy that breaches the perimeter. Dynamic. Spawn. Points. having two, and ONLY two that are right under each other was dumb. if you have two or better yet, the whole side of the battlefield where you enter is littered with spawns, you can't get pushed into one area and farmed. That could work but one side can still just block the other if they can predict where their opponents will spawn next and get there fast enough. Having weapons that monitor the redline can help discourage this practice.

Imp Smash Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 530	Posted - 2015.01.19 00:04:00 - [111] - Quote The reason I ask about redlines is because the whole proposal here creates a 'land acquisition' scenario. But Fox was asking about raiding MCCs. So I was thinking, scrolling maps. Using the redline to indicate movement and territory gained/lost when assaulting a ship. Meh, don't worry about it. Just a passing thought.
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 10789	Posted - 2015.01.19 00:13:00 - [112] - Quote Terry Webber wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Terry Webber wrote: But Breaking Stuff, there is still a possibility that one side would lose a battle if they can't leave their spawning area. So instead of having the redline as a barrier, CCP can just make it a boundary colored yellow instead of red for the battle and have the game notify the player that they're leaving the battlefield. It won't kill them if they stay in the redline too long.To protect a side's spawn area under the MCC, the MCC's guns and the turrets on the ground can shoot any enemy that breaches the perimeter. Dynamic. Spawn. Points. having two, and ONLY two that are right under each other was dumb. if you have two or better yet, the whole side of the battlefield where you enter is littered with spawns, you can't get pushed into one area and farmed. That could work but one side can still just block the other if they can predict where their opponents will spawn next and get there fast enough. Having weapons that monitor the redline can help discourage this practice. Dynamic Spawns seem to imply randomness in this case. But we all know that there is no such thing random in the universe. Even if you built the code to try to be random, the code will inadvertently create a pattern over time. Anyone who is smart enough to catch this pattern, will be able to exploit it. On Twitter: @HilmarVeigar #greenlightlegion #dust514 players are waiting.
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4267	Posted - 2015.01.19 00:30:00 - [113] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: Terry Webber wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Terry Webber wrote: But Breaking Stuff, there is still a possibility that one side would lose a battle if they can't leave their spawning area. So instead of having the redline as a barrier, CCP can just make it a boundary colored yellow instead of red for the battle and have the game notify the player that they're leaving the battlefield. It won't kill them if they stay in the redline too long.To protect a side's spawn area under the MCC, the MCC's guns and the turrets on the ground can shoot any enemy that breaches the perimeter. Dynamic. Spawn. Points. having two, and ONLY two that are right under each other was dumb. if you have two or better yet, the whole side of the battlefield where you enter is littered with spawns, you can't get pushed into one area and farmed. That could work but one side can still just block the other if they can predict where their opponents will spawn next and get there fast enough. Having weapons that monitor the redline can help discourage this practice. Dynamic Spawns seem to imply randomness in this case. But we all know that there is no such thing random in the universe. Even if you built the code to try to be random, the code will inadvertently create a pattern over time. Anyone who is smart enough to catch this pattern, will be able to exploit it. If you want truly dynamic spawning make it player controlled. CCP needs to take a page from battlefield 2142's book and make it where if you are all capped the MCC activates launchers that can shoot players out into the map. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16667	Posted - 2015.01.19 00:37:00 - [114] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: Terry Webber wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Terry Webber wrote: But Breaking Stuff, there is still a possibility that one side would lose a battle if they can't leave their spawning area. So instead of having the redline as a barrier, CCP can just make it a boundary colored yellow instead of red for the battle and have the game notify the player that they're leaving the battlefield. It won't kill them if they stay in the redline too long.To protect a side's spawn area under the MCC, the MCC's guns and the turrets on the ground can shoot any enemy that breaches the perimeter. Dynamic. Spawn. Points. having two, and ONLY two that are right under each other was dumb. if you have two or better yet, the whole side of the battlefield where you enter is littered with spawns, you can't get pushed into one area and farmed. That could work but one side can still just block the other if they can predict where their opponents will spawn next and get there fast enough. Having weapons that monitor the redline can help discourage this practice. Dynamic Spawns seem to imply randomness in this case. But we all know that there is no such thing random in the universe. Even if you built the code to try to be random, the code will inadvertently create a pattern over time. Anyone who is smart enough to catch this pattern, will be able to exploit it. If you want truly dynamic spawning make it player controlled. CCP needs to take a page from battlefield 2142's book and make it where if you are all capped the MCC activates launchers that can shoot players out into the map. Those launchers are back in Final Stand....except they only fire you from one objective to another...... since the the technology is not "fully developed" in that time line. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Kaze Eyrou DUST University Ivy League 1764	Posted - 2015.01.19 02:53:00 - [115] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: Terry Webber wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Terry Webber wrote: But Breaking Stuff, there is still a possibility that one side would lose a battle if they can't leave their spawning area. So instead of having the redline as a barrier, CCP can just make it a boundary colored yellow instead of red for the battle and have the game notify the player that they're leaving the battlefield. It won't kill them if they stay in the redline too long.To protect a side's spawn area under the MCC, the MCC's guns and the turrets on the ground can shoot any enemy that breaches the perimeter. Dynamic. Spawn. Points. having two, and ONLY two that are right under each other was dumb. if you have two or better yet, the whole side of the battlefield where you enter is littered with spawns, you can't get pushed into one area and farmed. That could work but one side can still just block the other if they can predict where their opponents will spawn next and get there fast enough. Having weapons that monitor the redline can help discourage this practice. Dynamic Spawns seem to imply randomness in this case. But we all know that there is no such thing random in the universe. Even if you built the code to try to be random, the code will inadvertently create a pattern over time. Anyone who is smart enough to catch this pattern, will be able to exploit it. If you want truly dynamic spawning make it player controlled. CCP needs to take a page from battlefield 2142's book and make it where if you are all capped the MCC activates launchers that can shoot players out into the map. Or maybe like this? CB Vet // Logi Bro // @KazeEyrou Kaze's Helpful Links


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page