| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
![[Veteran_Leither Yiltron]](https://forums.dust514.com/themes/ccpDust514/dust-avatar-128.png "[Veteran_Leither Yiltron]")
[Veteran_Leither Yiltron]
0
   |
Posted - 2012.06.04 03:30:00 -
[1] - Quote
I mentioned this in the original forum. Here is the entire premise:
The spawning system right now punishes you for waiting to deploy into the battle. No matter when you start the "spawn timer" for a particular location, such as a CRU, that timer starts as soon as you decide a location, not as soon as you bleed out. This seems like a system which punishes smart play. Let me explain. If you, a player, delay in choosing a spawn location because you are trying to understand how the battle is currently unfolding, you are essentially "wasting" time on the spawn screen. Even worse, if you happen to choose a spawn point that gets hacked or destroyed during your spawning timer, you have to do the process all over again.
The solution I suggest is relatively simple and has the ability to retain all elements of the current system. That does include the idea of slower spawn times with Drop Uplinks. Instead of having a countdown timer that starts as soon as a player selects a spawning location, you can instead have a timer that starts counting UP in time as soon as a player bleeds out. If a player's timer hasn't reached a particular threshold that is characteristic of the spawn point in question, they cannot spawn there. As an example, players would be able to spawn at a CRU after 10 seconds had elapsed and at one of those special Drop Uplinks after 20 seconds had elapsed.
In this way players aren't punished for spending time making an informed decision, they aren't as harshly punished for selecting a volatile spawn point, and overall players are able to get back into the action slightly faster. All of this is true while the idea of Drop Uplinks is also maintained.
Thanks for bothering to read and consider. :D |
[Veteran_Nadroj Isk]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 03:32:00 -
[2] - Quote
agreed! |
[Veteran_Leither Yiltron]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 18:21:00 -
[3] - Quote
I feel pretty strongly about this one. Forgive the bump. S_S
It really does get under my skin that the current spawn system seems to encourage players to make poor decisions rather than thinking out their spawn choices. |
[Veteran_Castor]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 02:13:00 -
[4] - Quote
Agreed, or at the very least if the CRU you select gets hacked before you spawn don't start the timer all over again. All in all a flat rate for a re spawn would be better though. |
[Veteran_Schweinstein]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 02:19:00 -
[5] - Quote
Agreed on most parts
BUT DISAGREED on the subject of hacked CRU's:
If find the extra delay reasonable price for taking such a risk of picking a CRU close to being overrun. |
[Veteran_Schweinstein]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 02:29:00 -
[6] - Quote
I just answered CCP's survey and I'll repeat one thought on the matter here for you guys:
- Current Cloning Center/respawn -mechanic isn't satisfactory (even though you're likely to fix totally predictable spawnpoints and therefore diminishing the 100% pre-aimed spawnkilling )
Suggestions:
1)Perhaps option to choose the side 'door' of the center to enter the game (after loading screen on your client)? CRU's should be made slighty larger then.
2) On the idea of real real insertion to the battlefield from above (drop coffins=):
There definately should be a restriction where to drop. That could be achieved by flipping the spirit of the clone centers around and name them "inertial dampening nullifiers"( with 300m or so range?) in order to make it impossible for the attacker to insert assets/respawns at will. Controller could ofc shut it off permanently, or just for a while to get turrets in place. That would also support the idea of attackers forming further away as nullifiers would tend to be located near installations.
|
[Veteran_Orin Fenris]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 03:49:00 -
[7] - Quote
I like the TC's idea. It seems logical, and would help with the flow of the game. |
[Veteran_Leither Yiltron]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 17:36:00 -
[8] - Quote
Schweinstein wrote:Agreed on most parts
BUT DISAGREED on the subject of hacked CRU's:
If find the extra delay reasonable price for taking such a risk of picking a CRU close to being overrun.
I'd be inclined to agree most of the time, but how can you tell if a CRU is "risky" in the sense of its being hacked? Sure, there are some environmental clues you can guess at, but ultimately it's possible for an enemy to begin hacking a CRU and for a player to have no knowledge of WHICH CRU is being hacked. This is a separate problem, but given the current state of things I don't see why it's fair to penalize players simply for choosing an "unlucky" spawn point. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |