|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
8719
   |
Posted - 2015.04.14 18:54:00 -
[1] - Quote
This idea makes me uncomfortable.
Maximizing odds of victory means doing everything possible to minimize the odds of a fair fight. Scotty 2.0, mu and squad-size limitations exist to decrease the players' ability to dictate odds and to increase the frequency of high quality, evenly sided matches. These "battle quality controls" do not apply to FW, where q-syncs are customary and stomps are the norm, even at today's low pay. If players can dictate odds, they will dictate odds, especially if higher pay makes it worth the added effort.
I'd expect Skirm/FW to become the new stomp-or-be-stomped queue, and the absence of quality controls would make low battle quality a very difficult problem to solve.
Skirmish isn't my mode of choice, but it is the mode of choice of many players. For whatever reason, a large percentage of players hate Ambush and Domination. I imagine that those players are very much looking forward to higher quality Skirmish matches down the road thanks to Scotty 2.0. If instead, the one mode they play were taken away and relegated to the "q-sync queue" ... I can only imagine that they'd be disappointed. I know I'd be ticked if it were announced that all quality controls were being lifted from Ambush.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
8745
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 01:05:00 -
[2] - Quote
In followup to Post 67:
Alternative Idea
* Disable FW during off-peak play periods (weekdays); enable FW during peak play periods (weekends).
* Add Barge Components and competitive Isk payouts to FW EOM pay.
* Merge Acquisition and Dom into common queue (Haerr's suggestion).
Goals
* Increase pool of players available to Scotty during offpeak hours (improve pub quality; decrease wait times).
* Increase FW interest; increase FW participation rates; decrease average FW wait time.
* Limit component earnings by limiting match availability to peak hours.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
8747
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 02:50:00 -
[3] - Quote
MINA Longstrike wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:In followup to Post 67: Alternative Idea* Disable FW during off-peak play periods (weekdays); enable FW during peak play periods (weekends). * Add Barge Components and competitive Isk payouts to FW EOM pay. * Merge Acquisition and Dom into common queue (Haerr's suggestion). Goals* Increase pool of players available to Scotty during offpeak hours (improve pub quality; decrease wait times). * Increase FW interest; increase FW participation rates; decrease average FW wait time. * Limit component earnings by limiting match availability to peak hours. Dear Christ no, this is an even worse idea.
Of the 35 minutes I played today, spent approximately 12 minutes in battle. Used to average one Ambush match every ten minutes under Scotty 1.0. In a word, Scotty 2.0 needs more players to work.
Subtracting from Scotty 2.0's available player pool extends queues, lessens battle quality and increases occurrences of partially full matches. Here are some ways to subtract from Scotty 2.0's player pool:
* Increase FW participation
* Add a new playmode
* Open PC 2.0
* Add Raids
* Lose players
The worse Scotty performs, the higher the likelihood we'll lose players. People aren't OK with waiting 5 minutes to play a partially filled match.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
8749
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 06:25:00 -
[4] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:In followup to Post 67: Alternative Idea* Disable FW during off-peak play periods (weekdays); enable FW during peak play periods (weekends). * Add Barge Components and competitive Isk payouts to FW EOM pay. * Merge Acquisition and Dom into common queue (Haerr's suggestion). Goals* Increase pool of players available to Scotty during offpeak hours (improve pub quality; decrease wait times). * Increase FW interest; increase FW participation rates; decrease average FW wait time. * Limit component earnings by limiting match availability to peak hours. **** no.
So instead, let's pull a widely utilized, quality controlled product -- something that people actually want, use and like -- off the shelves to bolster interest in an alternative product; one which has (1) no quality controls in place, (2) a proven track record of low quality and (3) a history of low utilization rates.
Seems legit.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
8757
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 14:24:00 -
[5] - Quote
Not trying to be an arse here; more a devil's advocate.
Haerr, players right now on our busiest battleserver are waiting 5-10 minutes to get into a match. When they do finally get into match, those matches are often partially filled, and quite frequently against the same mercs they played in the previous match. Long waits, partially filled battles, seeing the same players over and over and over again ... these send a clear message to the playerbase:
"People aren't playing anymore. Dust is dying."
While that may not be the case, the message is nonetheless delivered. That's a dangerous message to send, and the present is a dangerous time to send it. The draw down on pub population due to the FW Event has taken a significant toll on pub quality and playability. People are annoyed and people aren't having fun. If the pattern is held, people will stop playing. I seriously doubt that pubs in today's state will be sustainable.
FW is a wonderful concept, but if Public Contracts fail, Dust will fail. As we speak, these modes are competing for the same, scarce resource and the results, in my humble opinion, are far from sustainable.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
8765
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 18:00:00 -
[6] - Quote
Agreed on all counts!
Public Contracts (3 queues)
Ambush
Domination
Skirmish Lite - 3pt
* Add Acquisition to either Dom or Skirm Lite queue
Fac War (2 queues)
MN ---> MN/GA (Skirmish - 5pt)
GA ---> MN/GA (Skirmish - 5pt)
AM ---> AM/CA (Skirmish - 5pt)
CA ---> AM/CA (Skirmish - 5pt)
Other Considerations
* Increase / modify FW payouts
* Consider adding Mu and Matchmaking to FW
* Consider reducing Pub squad size to 4
* Consider increasing FW squad size to 8
* Consider removing battleserver toggle (pair players by region automatically)
Contingencies
* If headcounts are insufficient to support timely matchmaking, temporarily disable FW
What do you think, Haerr?
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
8768
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 22:35:00 -
[7] - Quote
LOOKMOM NOHANDS wrote:
Mu in FW is just no. That is an all around bad idea and would probably make me quit the game.
What's wrong with ensuring fairer fights? In my mind, fair fights make for a good gameplay experience, and lopsided matches make for either a bad or boring experience. What am I missing?
LOOKMOM NOHANDS wrote:
The number of players online is not the issue.
This morning's 10 minute wait times beg to differ.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
8941
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 05:29:00 -
[8] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:LOOKMOM NOHANDS wrote:
Mu in FW is just no. That is an all around bad idea and would probably make me quit the game.
What's so bad about fair fights? In my experience, fair fights make for a good time, and lopsided matches make for either a bad or a boring experience. Not trying to be combative here; please help me understand ... what am I missing? Because forcing specifically fair fights in a arenas designed not to be fair, but based on more of a war situation is ******* stupid?
If the urge to stomp with impunity becomes unbearable, you can always fire up a single-player game. Or call in an HAV.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
8950
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 11:40:00 -
[9] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:LOOKMOM NOHANDS wrote:
Mu in FW is just no. That is an all around bad idea and would probably make me quit the game.
What's so bad about fair fights? In my experience, fair fights make for a good time, and lopsided matches make for either a bad or a boring experience. Not trying to be combative here; please help me understand ... what am I missing? Because forcing specifically fair fights in a arenas designed not to be fair, but based on more of a war situation is ******* stupid? If the urge to stomp with impunity becomes unbearable, you can always fire up a single-player game. Or call in an HAV. So I assume you want MM for PC too scrub? 
Nah. If we took the game's most popular playmode and locked it away in PC, then districts would need to be tiered with SP caps. That'd make more sense than MM.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9060
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 12:32:00 -
[10] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:Fox Gaden wrote:How about we try introducing Team Deploy in FW first and see if that increases FW popularity?
It would also be less painful to fight for Caldari if you can build a decent team before you que up.
Agreed.
Also, I retract my negative comments about q-syncs in FW being a bad thing. I was under the impression that they only led to stomps, and I was wrong. 8-man squads for FW would be fantastic. Team Deploy would be even better.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|