| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
E-Rock
Ahrendee Inc.
Negative-Feedback
80
   |
Posted - 2015.04.15 00:38:00 -
[91] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Dear players,
I have been mulling and considering an idea passed on to me. So bear with me for a second and read it all before jumping to conclusions.
What if Skirmish, as the most tactical game mode becomes FW only.
Players that want to play Skirmish will migrate over there, which in turn will make queuing shorter and more attractive.
Domination, Ambush and maybe another Game mode will be in the Public Contracts, thematically "smaller affairs" which makes sense. Skirmish to me is taking over a district, for your own in PC or for a Faction in FW.
To make the transition easier, we would add ISK rewards to FW so players can make LP and ISK at the same time. Solid ISK rewards to make it a closer match between PC and FW.
To get rid of the AFKing, as obnoxious as it is, we would add a WP threshold to FW for all rewards.
New players no longer get thrown into a 5 point skirmish, which is always a disorienting experience.
Please discuss.
Other things that are more difficult to do
Team Deploy
Locking to Faction
I think that this idea is absolutely terrible. I like skirmish and I like the payouts for coming in first. It is also the only game mode to play to "practice" pc and helps to get to know the maps better. I think that limiting game mode to pubs or FW is a mistake. In my opinion, taking away things from the game that people already like will only dwindle an already, seemingly, diminishing player base.
I have an idea that might be able to added.
1) Adjusted contracts...
They would provided merits/demerits conversely to complete/uncompleted contracts. I would suggest ranking contracts of all pub modes, to high sec, low sec, and nul sec, and have payouts for COMPLETED CONTRACTS be adjusted accordingly i.e. lower payouts for high sec contracts, higher payouts for nul sec contracts. This idea could prevent people from leaving games because of possible payout and won't totally punish people for being disconnected (which I believe is a conundrum that you are facing with players leaving battles when they see the player list). The one problem is the continuous disconnects, that at least I have received, since the 1st of April.
At this point in the game it is very hard to get a skirmish map to stay full with or even be full for that matter because of this "matchmaking (if you can even call it that in regard to skirmish)". Skirmish is personally my favorite game mode because it is the most tactically complex game mode and seems to weed out the C.O.D., Battlefield players, and squeekers (little kids). I like to make isk and don't like ambush because of the Japanese players getting on the game and just beating the **** out of my blue dots or being on their side and just beating the **** out of the competition leaving me with 3kills, 16 assists, and 0 deaths. Now that tanks are no longer on ambush of any sort, they have all migrated to domination, so even with people "ranked at the same level, ground troop heavy teams either dominate or get dominated, which is the namesake of the game, but I find, since the new match making game are 95% of the time, one sided battle, for my team or the opposing team. The people that still like to play tactically remain on skirmish and get paid isk for their victories or losses. Now if you could just keep people in the match...
Japanese players call "hate mail", "fan mail".pÇǵùѵ£¼F¬PsñºS+êsñ½
-Founder of CKC and UCKC
-Ahrendee Inc. #bringbackthewarbarge
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
8745
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 01:05:00 -
[92] - 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
|
MINA Longstrike
Kirjuun Heiian
2565
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 02:00:00 -
[93] - Quote
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.
Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian.
I have a few alts.
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
8747
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 02:50:00 -
[94] - 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
|
THUNDERGROOVE
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
1707
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 02:59:00 -
[95] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:
Locking to Faction
I can haz?
Mace yourself, blame someone else itGÇÖs okay, no one will believe you
AIV member.
|
Vell0cet
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
2947
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 03:43:00 -
[96] - Quote
I like this plan. I'd suggest you guys eliminate domination and replace it with acquisition (when that's ready), leaving only 2 public modes. This will result in larger pools for the matchmaker to do its thing. If the improved matchmaker works out, we could see player counts begin to rise again. If this happens, we could bring back skirm to pubs assuming we have the players to support it. With the low numbers though, It's healthier for the game to consolidate the queues, having full, well-balanced matches.
The biggest downside is the 150WP threshold. There are times when this is difficult to achieve when you're running solo and get thrown into a match mid-way. Ideally CCP could figure out a better method of preventing AFKing.
CCP Rattati, it's probably too early to tell, but has the new matchmaking improved new player retention? My gut tells me it has to have helped a lot. o7
Best PvE idea ever!
|
Alena Ventrallis
Ahrendee Inc.
Negative-Feedback
3012
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 04:31:00 -
[97] - Quote
It'd certainly be worth a try, but if it doesnt work out you should be ready to switch it back with a quickness.
Whirly gun make much thunder! - Victor
|
Alena Ventrallis
Ahrendee Inc.
Negative-Feedback
3012
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 04:38:00 -
[98] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:Lost me at "WP Threshold".
Decline until that bit is taken out. so you like fighting 8 MCC campers with no wp, no kills, no deaths
It also makes new players unable to get rewards because they are being stomped. Which would you rather have; someone who AFK farms, or someone who deletes the game because they can't make any progress?
Whirly gun make much thunder! - Victor
|
Zaria Min Deir
0uter.Heaven
Back and Forth
1322
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 05:00:00 -
[99] - Quote
In some ways, yes, a reasonable idea and not a bad way to potentially help with the generally atrocious FW queues.
However, and this is a big however, I personally would be incredibly saddened by Skirmish being removed from pubs, because the recent matchmaking improvements have actually improved it as a game mode tremendously. For the most part, since the updates, Skirmish teams are balanced and the actual battles are fun and challenging - and close. From my experience, the changes have had an almost opposite effect on Domination, and while admittedly my sample size for Ambush has been very small, what little I have experienced there has not been promising. But Ambush has never been my preferred game mode anyway.
Have you considered installing the improved keyboard?
"Go Go Power Rangers!"
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3090
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 05:03:00 -
[100] - Quote
You want to know what my answer is?
Skirm 2.0 isn't really a good mode for FW in the first place. It doesn't allow it to flow right, and it never has been a constant war, like it is in EVE. It gets so bad that not being able to fully play FW because there is no matches to play is a problem.
And that's why a lot of people have made suggestions going something along the lines of this.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3090
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 05:05:00 -
[101] - Quote
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.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
WeapondigitX V7
The Exemplars
340
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 05:15:00 -
[102] - Quote
John Psi wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:
What if Skirmish, as the most tactical game mode becomes FW only.
Great idea, please do not forget: 1. Disable AIM ASSIST from hip. 2. Enable strafing penalty. 3. Fix RE's, as promised 2014.12.17 4. Tidy Scouts, light combat unit capable of rapid and covert movement, should not have the ability to carry a weapon, comparable in strength to the other units. Otherwise, you just create a branch of an existing arcade ugliness. Thank You.
I would disagree with aim assist being disabled, it would just make it harder for people to be accurate with weapons and thus reduce reliable DPS for many weapons, increasing the disparity again between militia gear and proto gear. It would make weapons harder to use in ranged fights and thus reduce the battle range of low range weapons without scopes like the AR for many players etc.
|
Starlight Burner
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
206
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 05:40:00 -
[103] - Quote
You have my full support for this.
Go for it!
x Starlight Burner
CCP Rattati, stop buffing things based on use!
Unemployed, LFC
Thank you CCP for DUST 514!
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
8749
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 06:25:00 -
[104] - 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
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
1010
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 06:49:00 -
[105] - Quote
Depends on how pragmatic this thing is implemented.
Put isk rewards in FW first and see if players migrate there. If a large enough of the player base starts to play FW instead of skirmish go ahead. If not leave things as they are.
I have my doubts that suddenly caldari and amarr will become just as popular as the minmatar and gellente. At least in skirmish everybody can have a go without wrecking the loyalty point standing. But a long as i, or everybody for that matter have a group of friends that have different racial suit preferences, somebody will always be out of luck trying to run FW only skirmish.
Perhaps ditch or lower the loyalty standing penalty? So players an migrate freely between the races and more importantly, star fighting for the caldari and amarr to make up better fights. Winning those two modes should be reliant on que syncing.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
anaboop
Ahrendee Inc.
Negative-Feedback
167
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 06:49:00 -
[106] - Quote
Concerning the factional lock, what if u base it around current standings? (Which may need to be reset or introduce an option to set your faction standings . with a 24hr cooldown)
So say i set it at 75% caldari and 25% amarr, i would get 75% of the payouts from caladri and 25% from amarr. Thus locking me from gallente and min for 24 hours. Then i could change to gallente 25% amarr 25% caldari 50%. (U get the idea)
if they are 100% dedicated to one faction they are restricted to said faction
if they are 75% dedicated to one faction they can run for an extra faction at 25% dedication
If they are 50% dedicated to one faction they can run for 2 extra factions at 50% for one or 25% on both
If they are 25% dedicated to one faction they can run for all factions 75% to one 50% + 25% to two or 25% to all factions
So if u want to be an all rounder u recieve less lp , unlike running for a certain faction and recieving maximum payouts.
I think i saw something about changing payouts you could base it on those payouts.
Anywho just a thought.
Fully sick Anaboop trading card
|
KalOfTheRathi
Nec Tributis
1467
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 07:36:00 -
[107] - Quote
Hey, CCP Rattati. Interesting idea. I really don't like it.
I hate Domination. Yet wind up playing it or get no matches. Skirmish allows something other then, "Oh map A, do plan A" being the only solution that will work. Not to mention that many of your domination maps give an insurmountable barrier for the point to be hacked successfully. At least with skirmish a few blue belles that know what they are doing can outflank the reds.
Also, not a fan of FW. I really have no interested in it either, never have, doubt that is going to change. I want to get paid. Not cheesy parts from the limited selection in the loyalty store. The stores don't even have vehicle and drop suit modules separated.
Fun, left for five months, back a month and wondering what else you have planned to make me rethink my decision?
My favorite tank is a Lightning. Just sayin.
|
sabre prime
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
998
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 11:23:00 -
[108] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Dear players,
I have been mulling and considering an idea passed on to me. So bear with me for a second and read it all before jumping to conclusions.
What if Skirmish, as the most tactical game mode becomes FW only.
Players that want to play Skirmish will migrate over there, which in turn will make queuing shorter and more attractive.
Domination, Ambush and maybe another Game mode will be in the Public Contracts, thematically "smaller affairs" which makes sense. Skirmish to me is taking over a district, for your own in PC or for a Faction in FW.
To make the transition easier, we would add ISK rewards to FW so players can make LP and ISK at the same time. Solid ISK rewards to make it a closer match between PC and FW.
To get rid of the AFKing, as obnoxious as it is, we would add a WP threshold to FW for all rewards.
New players no longer get thrown into a 5 point skirmish, which is always a disorienting experience.
Please discuss.
Other things that are more difficult to do
Team Deploy
Locking to Faction
I think it is a great idea to move skirmish to FW, but as a compromise why don't we keep three-point skirmish as part of public contracts, but move four-point and definitely five-point skirmish to FW. The larger skirmish maps have always been difficult to enjoy playing, especially if you want to play solo (which players often do in public contracts).
This way newer players will first get a taste of the 'smaller' game modes in public contracts: Ambush, Domination and 3-point skirmish. And maybe that new game mode that is coming (moving objective domination). Then they can 'graduate' to the larger-scale battles of FW and PC.
Haven't read everybody else's comments so this may have already have been mentioned.
The slow blade penetrates the shield.
|
shaman oga
Dead Man's Game
4386
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 11:36:00 -
[109] - Quote
It's getting interesting, go on Rattati.
One thing would help in locking to factions, radio box to choose between conflicts.
One can choose to queue Amarr OR Minmatar and Caldari OR Gallente, then it would be rather easy to count players in queue instead of ETA.
Play from Japan, rule the game!
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides
Learning Alliance
6240
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 12:17:00 -
[110] - Quote
After sleeping on this idea I think I support it.
- It will dramatically increase the amount of people playing FW, which will make FW a lot more viable.
- Since FW actually has an effect on EVE, having more FW matches will strengthen the EVE/DUST link. With more FW battles, it will be easier for EVE pilots to get involved in OB (Although having a way of predicting where DUST FW battles will happen would also help.)
- Having to think about what faction they are fighting for will get more players interested in New Eden lore and help immersion.
- We will soon have a new game mode that can be added to the Pub rotation, so there will still be variety in Pubs.
- FW has a progression system so players have a way of progressing besides just accumulating skill points.
- With more people doing FW we will start to see Faction specific Corps, which will make the meta game interesting.
This assumes that ISK payouts are added.
I am also still looking for Team Deploy, which will encourage Corps and Alliances to grow.
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
|
|
|
Celus Ivara
DUST University
Ivy League
333
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 12:24:00 -
[111] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Dear players,
I have been mulling and considering an idea passed on to me. So bear with me for a second and read it all before jumping to conclusions.
What if Skirmish, as the most tactical game mode becomes FW only.
Players that want to play Skirmish will migrate over there, which in turn will make queuing shorter and more attractive.
Domination, Ambush and maybe another Game mode will be in the Public Contracts, thematically "smaller affairs" which makes sense. Skirmish to me is taking over a district, for your own in PC or for a Faction in FW.
To make the transition easier, we would add ISK rewards to FW so players can make LP and ISK at the same time. Solid ISK rewards to make it a closer match between PC and FW.
To get rid of the AFKing, as obnoxious as it is, we would add a WP threshold to FW for all rewards.
New players no longer get thrown into a 5 point skirmish, which is always a disorienting experience.
Please discuss.
Other things that are more difficult to do
Team Deploy
Locking to Faction
Deeply disagree with this.
The elephant in the room with FW is, for good and ill, the absence of Matchmaker & Team-Balancer.
Skirmish is (as you said) the most tactical game mode; I'd like to continue to enjoy it against equal opponents. 
The core idea you are getting at though, that FW could be bettered by having a unique and tactical game mode, is very valid.
My fantasy for FW has long been to introduce a new, a-symmetrical game game mode for it.
(Think a classic FPS Base Capture, or maybe the reincarnation of "Skirmish 1.0" that everyone keeps QQing about.)
The great thing about this is that the fundamental problem of the game-mode can be used to solve the fundamental problem of FW.
- A-symmetrical game-modes are incredibly hard to balance so that it's fair for two equally matched teams.
- FW teams are fundamentally un-equally matched.
One can be used to solve the other.
To offer an example, let's say FacWar now uses a mode where the defender starts with full control of a city socket and all of it's installations, and the attacker starts outside and is trying to take it.
So today Gallenttee are attacking Caldari, and are better staffed as usual. They win a bunch of matches and start pentrating deeper into Caldari territory. But, as they get closer to Caldari homespace, the fights become harder. Defender installations take longer to hack; defender turrets deal more damage and have more HP; perhaps even the defending mercs themselves are buffed.
Eventually the randos who joined Cal-FW will find themselves in an even fight against the que-synced Gallentte.
Everyone will have a compelling challenging match, and both FacWar and the game-mode will retain their unique character.
...I was going to call this "Killing two birds with one stone", but it's more "Killing one bird by hitting it with another bird". ;) |
Haerr
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
2743
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 13:25:00 -
[112] - Quote
... |
Protected Void
Nos Nothi
408
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 14:22:00 -
[113] - Quote
I'm against this. I find ambush or domination to be either boring or annoying most of the time. My low HP, sneaky scout is mostly useless compared to other playstyles in those two game modes.
If I have to go to FW to play skirmish, that means I also have to put up with teamkilling to play the one game mode I enjoy. Also, it would mean I have to do either of these two:
- Only squad up with people playing for the same factions as me
- Squad up with anyone and consequently be pulled into any faction. I'm not big on role playing, but others are and might find this annoying. Plus it would hamper my progress for all factions because of standing loss.
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
8757
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 14:24:00 -
[114] - 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
|
Haerr
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
2747
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 16:46:00 -
[115] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:[...]Haerr, players right now on our busiest battleserver are waiting 5-10 minutes to get into a match.[...] ^ This is why I made that frustrated post. I'd rather have a single queue than 5 (Ambush, Domination, Skirmish, Cal/Gal, Ama/Min). Bonus points if CCP removes the ability to pick server. Let Scotty pick server instead, if wait times on a players home server grows to long Scotty could expand to the next closest server.
I prefer Skirmish Proper (5-point) over any other game mode, if it was my choice there would be only a single queue, naturally to Skirmish Proper.
Perhaps it is time to return the weighted choice for game modes... |
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
8765
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 18:00:00 -
[116] - 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
|
The Dark Cloud
The Rainbow Effect
4430
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 18:00:00 -
[117] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Dear players,
I have been mulling and considering an idea passed on to me. So bear with me for a second and read it all before jumping to conclusions.
What if Skirmish, as the most tactical game mode becomes FW only.
Players that want to play Skirmish will migrate over there, which in turn will make queuing shorter and more attractive.
Domination, Ambush and maybe another Game mode will be in the Public Contracts, thematically "smaller affairs" which makes sense. Skirmish to me is taking over a district, for your own in PC or for a Faction in FW.
To make the transition easier, we would add ISK rewards to FW so players can make LP and ISK at the same time. Solid ISK rewards to make it a closer match between PC and FW.
To get rid of the AFKing, as obnoxious as it is, we would add a WP threshold to FW for all rewards.
New players no longer get thrown into a 5 point skirmish, which is always a disorienting experience.
Please discuss.
Other things that are more difficult to do
Team Deploy
Locking to Faction
Locking to faction? So would that mean that my caldari char is forced to play caldari? So you would basically lock me out of the other 3 factions just for that. I think that would rather harm the community then do any good.
I make the scrubs scream and the vets cry.
|
Happy Violentime
OMFGZOMBIESRUN
1051
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 21:35:00 -
[118] - Quote
The Dark Cloud wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Dear players,
I have been mulling and considering an idea passed on to me. So bear with me for a second and read it all before jumping to conclusions.
What if Skirmish, as the most tactical game mode becomes FW only.
Players that want to play Skirmish will migrate over there, which in turn will make queuing shorter and more attractive.
Domination, Ambush and maybe another Game mode will be in the Public Contracts, thematically "smaller affairs" which makes sense. Skirmish to me is taking over a district, for your own in PC or for a Faction in FW.
To make the transition easier, we would add ISK rewards to FW so players can make LP and ISK at the same time. Solid ISK rewards to make it a closer match between PC and FW.
To get rid of the AFKing, as obnoxious as it is, we would add a WP threshold to FW for all rewards.
New players no longer get thrown into a 5 point skirmish, which is always a disorienting experience.
Please discuss.
Other things that are more difficult to do
Team Deploy
Locking to Faction Locking to faction? So would that mean that my caldari char is forced to play caldari? So you would basically lock me out of the other 3 factions just for that. I think that would rather harm the community then do any good.
No, locking faction means that you don't get to farm Cal for 4 hrs then change it to Gal in battle finder and farm for another 4 hrs then change it back to Cal etc. |
LOOKMOM NOHANDS
506
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 22:09:00 -
[119] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote: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) Contingencies1. If the number of players online is insufficient to support timely Public Contract matchmaking at any given time, temporarily disable FW and Raids for that time; re-enable the mode(s) automatically the moment headcounts return to sufficiency and/or Public Contract queue times return to target ranges. 2. If Public Contract matchmaking consistently performs beyond target ranges, further consolidate Public Contract queues. First, merge three queues into two (perhaps Bush/OMS, Dom/Skim/Acq) and -- if efficiency and/or quality remain at issue -- then two queues into a single one.
What do you think?
First of all I play Amarr so if I was to be put into a Caldari I would immediately leave and many other people would be the same way. What we do need is a restriction that you can not search for both a team and their direct enemy. For example as soon as I select Amarr, minmatar is unchecked.
Mu in FW is just no. That is an all around bad idea and would probably make me quit the game.
Payouts are fine we just need a system added to that which rewards activity. Keep what you kill salvage would be AMAZING.
Squad size to 8 I am all for. I really do not care what they do to squads in pub contracts.
Battle server region selection already does not affect FW as far as I know.
I do like the idea of keeping skirmish "llite" in public contracts. These should be only 2 or 3 points inside of single large socket with very tight red lines. It would make it a CQC only version where all of the randoms are kind of forced to stick together. It would be really cool if these matches also had smart deploys all over the city so that redlining is impossible.
The number of players online is not the issue. The estimated time showing 0:00 until the first battle has taken place is a huge issue and the sole reason FW has trouble getting going unless a bunch of us get together and "jump start" it. This needs to be immediately replaced with a "Queue count" which shows the number of people searching for each faction. Players would stay searching if they knew they were just waiting on 2 people to start searching for example.
Battles should also become locked after a short amount of time so that people stay in the queue to start a new match to get everyone going instead of having one person thrown into a half over battle and then another battle have to wait 4 - 5 minutes for some one else to hit search and fill the contract.
The battle finder has already essentially merged the game modes by allowing a vote system on what type of match to start. I think this is working very well and should be left alone. |
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
8768
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 22:35:00 -
[120] - 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
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |