DUST Search - Acquistion bases need to move more often. Agree/Disagree?

CELESTA AUNGM wrote:

I haven't played an Acquisition match yet, so my perception is only from what the players have been reporting, and CCP's description of the purpose of this mode.

I DON'T think the panels should be spaced further apart. Players are upset about the difficulty of trying to PUSH the opponent team out of an area after they have established a good defense,GÇª and we're hoping the "game" will allow us to remove their defense for us by making everyone start all over again running for the next far finish line.

Baseball competition isn't played that way.

Chess isn't played that way. Checkers game isn't played that way.

A Relay race competition isn't played that way.

Not even REAL combat encounters are played that way. And I have the feeling Acquisition isn't intended to allow separate mini-races,GÇª it's unpredictable, adapt-to-this-next-development-fast, phases of ONE race.

If your team doesn't have (or hasn't practiced) a way of "cracking through the defense" that an enemy team has been able to set up against you (and do it without taking too LONG), then it's only proving that all those OTHER fps "combat" games we played were just wanna-be-wussie combat titles--they didn't require or teach any of the important abilities that are needed to win "real" war-fighting encoutners.

LOL, up until Dust, we players have been duped.

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Heracles Porsche Capital Acquisitions LLC 308	Posted - 2015.04.29 09:17:00 - [1] - Quote While I like this mode and find it promising, the panel just doesn't move frequently enough to help this game reach it's full fun potential. During a typical match the panel will only move 3-4 times. During a one sided match the panel will only move 2 times. 5 minutes is far too long for a panel to stay put, I say cut that down by at least half. A panel should be in the same location for maximum 2.5 minutes. Honestly though, I think the more the panel move the more fun this game mode will be. A lot of people have started threads saying that Domination is redundant now. Moving the panel more often during Acquistion games will make the mode more unique and cut down on the number of people calling for game mode merges. Videos Erry Day https://www.youtube.com/c/HeraclesPorsche
Foo Fighting Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 278	Posted - 2015.04.29 09:27:00 - [2] - Quote Fully agree, the distance between panels should also be increased. Most people seem to adopt an overwatch position, these positions mostly don't change when the panel does, especially on the ubiquitous train map.
shaman oga Dead Man's Game 4532	Posted - 2015.04.29 10:24:00 - [3] - Quote Agree and players should be 16 not 32. Shifted in time, your tomorrow, my today.
Joel II X Bacon with a bottle of Quafe 7245	Posted - 2015.04.29 12:03:00 - [4] - Quote I was thinking the same thing last night. I agree.
Mejt0 Dead Man's Game RUST415 1314	Posted - 2015.04.29 12:11:00 - [5] - Quote Meh. 75% of players go for kills and very easy WP Sure cut it by half as long as it will continue to be ambush+ gamemode. Caldari Loyalist thecreaturehub fan Mejt0 Sale List
A-P-P-Baby KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 286	Posted - 2015.04.29 12:21:00 - [6] - Quote Definitely shorter timer. I was thinking 2-3 minutes but they should probably go in increments. Start by changing it to 4 minutes and see if it works out. I'm sure the 5 minutes was planned out in a way that 4 minutes plus the last minute speed up of points just equate to good numbers. Changing that timer will mess with the metrics of what they were going for with the pt distributions. They call me "Mr. Vacation"... I used to be relevant, but I learned to delegate so I could island hop
Squagga Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 579	Posted - 2015.04.29 13:01:00 - [7] - Quote Aquisition bases need to move to different maps, that we travel to. Talkin bout skirm 1.0 Reloading, the silent killer.
devjo88 Escrow Removal and Acquisition 52	Posted - 2015.04.29 13:01:00 - [8] - Quote i agree which is better - to be born good or to overcome your evil nature through great effort
Kierkegaard Soren Eridani Light Horse Battalion 789	Posted - 2015.04.29 13:37:00 - [9] - Quote Five consoles to claim every match, and the distance needs to be greater when the changeover occurs. I've had some really good matches these past few days on the more open maps, but in more urban environments it's too easy to blob the objective and then move said blob forty meters away to the new console and co tinge to dominate. Dedicated Commando. "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing."
Scheneighnay McBob And the ButtPirates 6280	Posted - 2015.04.29 14:33:00 - [10] - Quote Agree. And no, domination isn't redundant. Domination is more infantry friendly because of the larger number of installations and that the objective is well protected. Acquisition is more of a vehicle game mode because the objectives are usually exposed, with very few installations. Some details can be ignored

Moochie Cricket Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 1174	Posted - 2015.04.29 14:57:00 - [11] - Quote It would be pretty interesting if a new capture point opened up when there was 2 minutes remaining on the existing point. FOR THE STATE
Knightshade Belladonna Mannar Focused Warfare Gallente Federation 1252	Posted - 2015.04.29 15:01:00 - [12] - Quote increase distance to at least 250m from last spawn point , and shave 1 minute off the clock would be nice
CELESTA AUNGM Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 548	Posted - 2015.04.29 15:33:00 - [13] - Quote I haven't played an Acquisition match yet, so my perception is only from what the players have been reporting, and CCP's description of the purpose of this mode. I DON'T think the panels should be spaced further apart. Players are upset about the difficulty of trying to PUSH the opponent team out of an area after they have established a good defense,GÇª and we're hoping the "game" will allow us to remove their defense for us by making everyone start all over again running for the next far finish line. Baseball competition isn't played that way. Chess isn't played that way. Checkers game isn't played that way. A Relay race competition isn't played that way. Not even REAL combat encounters are played that way. And I have the feeling Acquisition isn't intended to allow separate mini-races,GÇª it's unpredictable, adapt-to-this-next-development-fast, phases of ONE race. If your team doesn't have (or hasn't practiced) a way of "cracking through the defense" that an enemy team has been able to set up against you (and do it without taking too LONG), then it's only proving that all those OTHER fps "combat" games we played were just wanna-be-wussie combat titles--they didn't require or teach any of the important abilities that are needed to win "real" war-fighting encoutners. LOL, up until Dust, we players have been duped. Universe of good wishes for the 49, especially CCP Eterne... No story can have life without writers and publishers.
Retarn Dominus H.A.R.V.E.S.T. Lokun Listamenn 59	Posted - 2015.04.29 15:54:00 - [14] - Quote I think increase the points needed to win the game. Seams that just when your getting into the swing of things it ends abruptly. I like this game mode but it needs tweaking. What? You think your Complex armour plating on your sweet Proto will save you? Think again BOOM
LOL KILLZ LulKlz 42	Posted - 2015.04.29 15:59:00 - [15] - Quote Increase distance and make it random. Don't increase time for each hold but make it so we need more points to win. CEO of LulKlz/ chat channel LulKlz, code 0000 <--- numbers
Knightshade Belladonna Mannar Focused Warfare Gallente Federation 1252	Posted - 2015.04.29 16:01:00 - [16] - Quote CELESTA AUNGM wrote: I haven't played an Acquisition match yet, so my perception is only from what the players have been reporting, and CCP's description of the purpose of this mode. I DON'T think the panels should be spaced further apart. Players are upset about the difficulty of trying to PUSH the opponent team out of an area after they have established a good defense,GÇª and we're hoping the "game" will allow us to remove their defense for us by making everyone start all over again running for the next far finish line. Baseball competition isn't played that way. Chess isn't played that way. Checkers game isn't played that way. A Relay race competition isn't played that way. Not even REAL combat encounters are played that way. And I have the feeling Acquisition isn't intended to allow separate mini-races,GÇª it's unpredictable, adapt-to-this-next-development-fast, phases of ONE race. If your team doesn't have (or hasn't practiced) a way of "cracking through the defense" that an enemy team has been able to set up against you (and do it without taking too LONG), then it's only proving that all those OTHER fps "combat" games we played were just wanna-be-wussie combat titles--they didn't require or teach any of the important abilities that are needed to win "real" war-fighting encoutners. LOL, up until Dust, we players have been duped. I seen one spawn 30m away from old( we controlled it)...what is the point of a new one even spawning..it just becomes domination then.
Meisterjager Jagermeister 908	Posted - 2015.04.29 16:52:00 - [17] - Quote I absolutely agree! All the fun is in the shifting objective. Reduce the time by at least one minute. AKA - StarVenger- Horizons' Edge
Flint Beastgood III GunFall Mobilization 1708	Posted - 2015.04.29 16:54:00 - [18] - Quote Strongly agree. 'LR4-Trading' Protester
Vell0cet OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3043	Posted - 2015.04.29 16:56:00 - [19] - Quote 4 minutes with a guaranteed one extra switch per match in order to win would be an excellent place to start. If the timer is too short then you loose the attack/defend mechanic and it degenerates into a circus of running around, with the focus on getting the next hack instead of trying to push for the existing one. Best PvE idea ever!


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page