| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Hansei Kaizen
The Jackson Five
352
   |
Posted - 2015.03.13 10:19:00 -
[1] - Quote
I just watched a vid by CEO Pyrex. His pretty negative attitude aside, there was a pretty good point.
Making a match end faster if a one-sidedness can be confirmed somehow could do much good for the game.
Maybe it could be done through a damage multiplier for Null Cannons, that increases over time after completing the hack. That would mean that a Dom would end much quicker if there is no successful counterhack. Same in Skirmish, if there is no frequent counterhacking of the objectives.
This has the potential of reducing the pain of protostomps for newberries, because if they gain no ground, the match will be over much quicker, reducing the time they have to bear stompage or they have to bear cowering in the redline.
An additional plus would be that it could be implemented easier (I am no programmer, but that is what I imagine)
Any thougths on this anypne?
The answer to your complaint is PvE. Always.
NPE status: (Gò»°Gûí°n+ëGò»n+¦ Gö+GöüGö+
Casual solo
|
1e 3peat
Corrosive Synergy
RISE of LEGION
27
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 16:12:00 -
[2] - Quote
Hansei Kaizen wrote:I just watched a vid by CEO Pyrex. His pretty negative attitude aside, there was a pretty good point.
Making a match end faster if a one-sidedness can be confirmed somehow could do much good for the game.
Maybe it could be done through a damage multiplier for Null Cannons, that increases over time after completing the hack. That would mean that a Dom would end much quicker if there is no successful counterhack. Same in Skirmish, if there is no frequent counterhacking of the objectives.
This has the potential of reducing the pain of protostomps for newberries, because if they gain no ground, the match will be over much quicker, reducing the time they have to bear stompage or they have to bear cowering in the redline.
An additional plus would be that it could be implemented easier (I am no programmer, but that is what I imagine)
Any thougths on this anypne?
People would just give up in the first 30 seconds instead of halfway through like they do now. There is no fixing lazy mercs. |
Summa Militum
Hidd3n Dragon
258
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 18:24:00 -
[3] - Quote
Hansei Kaizen wrote:I just watched a vid by CEO Pyrex. His pretty negative attitude aside, there was a pretty good point.
Making a match end faster if a one-sidedness can be confirmed somehow could do much good for the game.
Maybe it could be done through a damage multiplier for Null Cannons, that increases over time after completing the hack. That would mean that a Dom would end much quicker if there is no successful counterhack. Same in Skirmish, if there is no frequent counterhacking of the objectives.
This has the potential of reducing the pain of protostomps for newberries, because if they gain no ground, the match will be over much quicker, reducing the time they have to bear stompage or they have to bear cowering in the redline.
An additional plus would be that it could be implemented easier (I am no programmer, but that is what I imagine)
Any thougths on this anypne?
I am torn on this idea. I am against it because it gives the team that didn't get the initial jump on the match less opportunity to turn the tides in their favor. On the other hand there are so many ****** players playing this game and matchmaking is so jacked up that even with extra time to try to make something happen a whole bunch of ****** players on your team will just screw up any attempt you make. |
Hansei Kaizen
The Jackson Five
354
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 20:04:00 -
[4] - Quote
Summa Militum wrote:Hansei Kaizen wrote:I just watched a vid by CEO Pyrex. His pretty negative attitude aside, there was a pretty good point.
Making a match end faster if a one-sidedness can be confirmed somehow could do much good for the game.
Maybe it could be done through a damage multiplier for Null Cannons, that increases over time after completing the hack. That would mean that a Dom would end much quicker if there is no successful counterhack. Same in Skirmish, if there is no frequent counterhacking of the objectives.
This has the potential of reducing the pain of protostomps for newberries, because if they gain no ground, the match will be over much quicker, reducing the time they have to bear stompage or they have to bear cowering in the redline.
An additional plus would be that it could be implemented easier (I am no programmer, but that is what I imagine)
Any thougths on this anypne?
I am torn on this idea. I am against it because it gives the team that didn't get the initial jump on the match less opportunity to turn the tides in their favor. On the other hand there are so many ****** players playing this game and matchmaking is so jacked up that even with extra time to try to make something happen a whole bunch of ****** players on your team will just screw up any attempt you make.
I think that depends much on the curve of the acceleration. There could be improvements on the concept.
So far there you gave reasons why it is unfixable (cant change bad players), but can you provide alternatives? (besides making players better) What could drive players to Play the way you think would be best?
The answer to your complaint is PvE. Always.
NPE status: (Gò»°Gûí°n+ëGò»n+¦ Gö+GöüGö+
Casual solo
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |