| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kaeru Nayiri
Ready to Play
629
   |
Posted - 2015.03.13 18:33:00 -
[1] - Quote
What if FW battles were persistent, whether people are online or not, they go on and end regardless of whether there are enough people to fight on either side or not?
Let's say when a squad hits up factional warfare they see a list of battles that are going on. These are battles that would be going on whether anyone was fighting in them or not !
Example:
System1: Caldari (4 players) vs Gallente (0 players) (5 mins left, or warbarge HP progress)
System2: Caldari (16 players) vs Gallente (12 players) (15 mins left, or warbarge HP progress)
System3: Amarr (14 players) vs Minmatar (16 players) (about to begin)
System4: Amarr (12 players) vs Minmatar (12 players) (2 mins left, or warbarge HP progress)
etc...
Then the squad could PICK which system to go to. Here are the PROs:
- Battle X is about to end, but the warbarge is pretty even, let's go there and make a difference !
- Battle Y is only 3 minutes in, but it looks like a total loss, our efforts are better spent in Battle Z which is about to begin.
- Squad 1 wants to q-sync with Squad 2 and Squad 3, let them just pick the same battle in the battle finder, and voila, no queue time.
- A squad has Eve players on standby and only picks the battles in the vicinity of the Eve fleet for easy coordination.
- Even Solo players would never have to wait for a match, or at least see that all matches for his given faction are full and queue up for the next available fight.
I think this mimics FW of eve fairly well in the sense that people pick where they want to go. People who want big fights will go to the big fights and lone wolf squads will take their chances in empty battles, though they may get a sudden rush of enemy forces mid-way to stomp them.
Special contracts that existed in the past for events and whatnot used to work this way already, therefore it hopefully requires a bit less overhead to put this together.
Know what cannot be known.
|
Kaeru Nayiri
Ready to Play
641
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 16:36:00 -
[2] - Quote
any feedback at all would be welcome !
Know what cannot be known.
|
Blade Vulu
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 16:53:00 -
[3] - Quote
It seems like a great idea overall.
Currently I have only two concerns and a question of clarification.
The first is due to the current matchmaking system which is trying to stop putting people near the end of the game. So in essence this concern is more that example at system 4 might not work well with the match making system currently implemented. (otherwise nothing else on that aspect.)
My second concern, Is the viewing of the number of people versus (forgive me if I misread); My concern comes from possible free LP gains via viewing that particular info about amount of players via each side. As we know, there will be many player that would love to tag on to an end of the battle where they can join a winning side of (eg. caladari 16 vs Gallante 4) and get loyalty points via that route [whether at the last minute or just by viewing information. (of course then some people complaining about uneven or possible proto stomp or even corp stomping).
-my suggestion don't provide that number for each side on the main hud of battle. (the general count from x/32 ) should give enough information to say f they really want to join seeing that matchmaking system tries to balance the match out either way.
-Otherwise, hopefully matchmaking system will take care of this concern for the most part.
Lastly. my question for clarification to help me understand: I understand there is a thing where corps can fight for districts. my question will this effect factional in anyway?
Reason for question is if districts is effecting factional in general we could have an issue where people avoid certain factional because specific corps will protect certain system and can possible over dominate (or even under dominate ) certain areas.
In advance thank you for your clarification since I'm still relatively new.
Overall Thoughts:
I feel its a great idea and provides a great tie to eve and gives a more dynamic tactical aspect to the fighting in factionals. My best wishes to see if this pans out with ccp. |
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3017
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 18:35:00 -
[4] - Quote
Blade Vulu wrote:It seems like a great idea overall.
Currently I have only two concerns and a question of clarification.
The first is due to the current matchmaking system which is trying to stop putting people near the end of the game. So in essence this concern is more that example at system 4 might not work well with the match making system currently implemented. (otherwise nothing else on that aspect.)
My second concern, Is the viewing of the number of people versus (forgive me if I misread); My concern comes from possible free LP gains via viewing that particular info about amount of players via each side. As we know, there will be many player that would love to tag on to an end of the battle where they can join a winning side of (eg. caladari 16 vs Gallante 4) and get loyalty points via that route [whether at the last minute or just by viewing information. (of course then some people complaining about uneven or possible proto stomp or even corp stomping).
-my suggestion don't provide that number for each side on the main hud of battle. (the general count from x/32 ) should give enough information to say f they really want to join seeing that matchmaking system tries to balance the match out either way.
-Otherwise, hopefully matchmaking system will take care of this concern for the most part.
Lastly. my question for clarification to help me understand: I understand there is a thing where corps can fight for districts. my question will this effect factional in anyway?
Reason for question is if districts is effecting factional in general we could have an issue where people avoid certain factional because specific corps will protect certain system and can possible over dominate (or even under dominate ) certain areas.
In advance thank you for your clarification since I'm still relatively new.
Overall Thoughts:
I feel its a great idea and provides a great tie to eve and gives a more dynamic tactical aspect to the fighting in factionals. My best wishes to see if this pans out with ccp.
There is a easy fix for you second concern; if you aren't in the match for X amount of time, or did X amount of work, then you didn't help enough and you get no rewards. If they meet the requirements, then they deserve it.
Also, why the hell would there me MM in FW?
FW corps does that a lot. Teamwork is OP, deal with it.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3017
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 18:36:00 -
[5] - Quote
I'm not sure how this would work, as I don't really understand what you're getting at. Also, this doesn't fully solve the woes of FW, especially the fact that people don't want to play it because it's so unrewarding.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Kaeru Nayiri
Ready to Play
901
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 20:56:00 -
[6] - Quote
Blade Vulu wrote:It seems like a great idea overall.
Currently I have only two concerns and a question of clarification.
The first is due to the current matchmaking system which is trying to stop putting people near the end of the game. So in essence this concern is more that example at system 4 might not work well with the match making system currently implemented. (otherwise nothing else on that aspect.)
My second concern, Is the viewing of the number of people versus (forgive me if I misread); My concern comes from possible free LP gains via viewing that particular info about amount of players via each side. As we know, there will be many player that would love to tag on to an end of the battle where they can join a winning side of (eg. caladari 16 vs Gallante 4) and get loyalty points via that route [whether at the last minute or just by viewing information. (of course then some people complaining about uneven or possible proto stomp or even corp stomping).
-my suggestion don't provide that number for each side on the main hud of battle. (the general count from x/32 ) should give enough information to say f they really want to join seeing that matchmaking system tries to balance the match out either way.
-Otherwise, hopefully matchmaking system will take care of this concern for the most part.
Lastly. my question for clarification to help me understand: I understand there is a thing where corps can fight for districts. my question will this effect factional in anyway?
Reason for question is if districts is effecting factional in general we could have an issue where people avoid certain factional because specific corps will protect certain system and can possible over dominate (or even under dominate ) certain areas.
In advance thank you for your clarification since I'm still relatively new.
Overall Thoughts:
I feel its a great idea and provides a great tie to eve and gives a more dynamic tactical aspect to the fighting in factionals. My best wishes to see if this pans out with ccp.
Your first concern:
Actually Matchmaking does NOT apply to factional warfare. You decide which faction want to fight for, and when, therefore, even right now, matchmaking cannot even up the teams. You set your filter to only "Caldari" for example, and you will join the next battle that Caldari can fight. Matchmaker cannot decide that your team is OP and put you on the Gallente side.
Your second concern is a valid one. However I think emergent gameplay will naturally prevent it from being a real problem. For example, it's the middle of the night and player count is low. You see a few full matches and one pops up that is almost empty. You go for it hoping to get some easy LP, except you are not the only one doing this. The more people scavenging for easy LP, then the more the match will fill up naturally. Perhaps it would be wise as you suggest to only put the total amount of players, and not necessarily the amount for each team?
Your third concern is a non issue as planetary conquest and the player controlled districts have no impact on factional warfare and vice versa.
Thank you for reading and raising these concerns, I'd love to continue discussing your #2 if you have any ideas, or disagree with how I see it.
Know what cannot be known.
|
Kaeru Nayiri
Ready to Play
901
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 21:03:00 -
[7] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:I'm not sure how this would work, as I don't really understand what you're getting at. Also, this doesn't fully solve the woes of FW, especially the fact that people don't want to play it because it's so unrewarding. EDIT: Would something along the lines of this be something you would be interested in?
This is just my opinion, but the "reward" problem of FW is dwarfed by the problems of coordinating an effort to fight for a desired faction.
Right now Eve players have to jump 10 to 15 systems over to follow their squad around. This is slightly ridiculous.
Right now fighting for your own faction can sometimes be IMPOSSIBLE because there is NO opposition. No ennemy team means no match to fight. People pick Caldari and Amarr for large q-syncs NOT because they want LP from them, but because gallente and minmatar always have a large amount of people starving for a match, so it's a guaranteed deployment.
There are 2 kinds of FW goers, those who want the standing with their faction, and those that just want a coordinated battle involving their whole team (instead of just a squad). The latter do not care who they fight for. This system will allow both to get battles more often, more readily, and have tangible feedback from the state of FW as a whole.
I am not saying the rewards problem doesn't exist, but that's a separate issue that can be resolved outside of the battle creation design. Simple things like increasing LP payout by more when you have high standing, fixing the disparity of LP cost for some modules and adding more exclusive items to the LP store. None of these things have to do with the way a FW match is initialized, though.
Edit: I will also read your proposition and try to provide a reply in your thread for it, to build on positively as well.
Know what cannot be known.
|
Blade Vulu
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 12:18:00 -
[8] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:
There is a easy fix for you second concern; if you aren't in the match for X amount of time, or did X amount of work, then you didn't help enough and you get no rewards. If they meet the requirements, then they deserve it.
Also, why the hell would there me MM in FW?
FW corps does that a lot. Teamwork is OP, deal with it.
I would say out of the two fixes, the latter (did x amount of work) would make everyone happy and probably the best fix for the latter.
In regards to your question EDIT I figure out what MM meant (sorry Im still new). I though that in general matchmaking might decided to try to put people into games that were not filled or try to start a new game with people instead of filling up current battles.
In regards to the last. No question about teamwork being powerful. I just like to make note that there will be always someone complaining about either about to many nooberry/noobs mistakes or on their team or the other side there to many corp or proto stomper. Myself I just learned that just dust. work with it, choose you engagements as best you can, and fight on :)
Also in I will say I have to agree with nayiri that the rewards might be overlooked (at least temprarily though i do know it needs to have some work on it) if there was the ability to coordinate a little better (which I read also in the proposal link.)
Note: I also read the proposition that you left a link in response to Kaeru Nayiri. (though since Im new I didn't find the thread that it is in. I like the idea would like to give my thoughts on it in expansion. If so, please leave a link for me to find thread.)
Note 2: I thought it might be interesting that both the ideas here and the proposal might work very well hand in hand in the future. |
Blade Vulu
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 12:56:00 -
[9] - Quote
Kaeru Nayiri wrote:
Your first concern:
Actually Matchmaking does NOT apply to factional warfare. You decide which faction want to fight for, and when, therefore, even right now, matchmaking cannot even up the teams. You set your filter to only "Caldari" for example, and you will join the next battle that Caldari can fight. Matchmaker cannot decide that your team is OP and put you on the Gallente side.
Your second concern is a valid one. However I think emergent gameplay will naturally prevent it from being a real problem. For example, it's the middle of the night and player count is low. You see a few full matches and one pops up that is almost empty. You go for it hoping to get some easy LP, except you are not the only one doing this. The more people scavenging for easy LP, then the more the match will fill up naturally. Perhaps it would be wise as you suggest to only put the total amount of players, and not necessarily the amount for each team?
Your third concern is a non issue as planetary conquest and the player controlled districts have no impact on factional warfare and vice versa.
Thank you for reading and raising these concerns, I'd love to continue discussing your #2 if you have any ideas, or disagree with how I see it.
Thanks for the clarification on Matchmaking.
Though it leaves me for another point of clarification: Does Factional matchmaking always try to fill up the current battles or tries to fill up a new battle when it jumps over the max player per battle count?
For #2: I will say I admit I didn't think that far into the emerging player gameplay (the comment to 'Godin the killer' help me see more into the possible gameplay and corp reactions).
I will say it would generally prevent that (though I will admit my uncertainty during low player times) but it might just be me over worrying.
My new concern- Could the choice of battle might lead to corps (or groups of friends or squads) just sticking to certain areas? (though this might not be so much of an issue as long as the battle mode changes between domination and skirmish at locations).
Possible idea to help improve my concern about easy LP: to is the suggestion godin made. I feel if we tweak that "x" amount to get LP idea a bit. (more to that you get BONUS LP on top of the regular LP rewards (for winning or losing) might make the player base more app to follow the examples you gave in response [possible ratio 5wp:1LP]. Also, it might encourage smaller corps to stay in battle even against bigger corps or overwhelming odds because at least they have some influence (control) on their LP gain.
Examples at ratio [5wp:1lp] at standing level 0:
EXAMPLE A: Player Red gets 5 kills but his team loses - he gets approx. (256 lp + 50lp bonus)
EXAMPLE B: Player Blue get 2 kills but his team wins - he gets (756lp base + 20lp bonus)
I admit i digressed a little into rewards a bit but I still agree that first we must fix the issue of choosing and being able to coordinate more though.
Also thank you for clarifying my district control question.
Let me know what ya think and hope this helps.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |