|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Piercing Serenity
Immortal Guides
Learning Alliance
991
   |
Posted - 2015.06.29 16:14:00 -
[1] - Quote
I have a question for those in favor of Platoons in FW: What prevents your version of FW from turning into the version of PC that we are actively trying to move away from?
Currently, new players are excluded from PC (With full team deploy) because the corporations or groups competing with each other are fighting for something important to them - It's "serious business". Non-competitive players, or players that don't have the the highest level of gear are kept out.
Under this new FW system, what is to prevent a ~10M player who is interested in FW from being kicked from the squad because Serious FW channels want their best 16 to compete because your enemy will likely have their best 16? If there is only one queue for FW, and platoons are allowed in FW, then I foresee a second coming of the same stale game mode that is being overhauled as we speak. But I would like to hear some opinions to the contrary
I got enemies,
got a lot of enemies
, got a lot of people tryna drain me of this energy
|
Piercing Serenity
Immortal Guides
Learning Alliance
992
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 19:29:00 -
[2] - Quote
Kain Spero wrote:Deezy you've already agreed that FW syncs are already in the system. There is no "breaking the system more" unless you are referring to solo players that shouldn't be in the system anyways and if they are they've taken the risk on themselves.
Again, allowing higher barriers to entry than other players that are more organized and have their own channels makes no sense.
I don't think that anyone disagrees that people are already doing large scale FW syncs. But I - along with some others (I presume) - are arguing that the current system is beneficial for smaller organized groups, which is a good thing. If you make it logistically easier to get a whole 16 in, you've made the small group of heavy FW players happy. However, you've also made the FW pool much smaller physically and psychologically.
Physically, the community of 16 active FW players is smaller than the active DUST community. Psychologically, no one is going to queue for a FW match knowing that they don't have a full 16. Furthermore, no decent FC will put newer (~10M) SP players in when they can choose to have 30 and 40M SP player in. This is the same as PC now.
Like Deezy is saying, the current implementation can't support platoons in a good way (in my opinion). If there was a way for 16 players to opt in to larger FW battles, and a way for smaller squads (8 man) to play less intense FW matches, then we could implement platoons with no worries
I got enemies,
got a lot of enemies
, got a lot of people tryna drain me of this energy
|
Piercing Serenity
Immortal Guides
Learning Alliance
992
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 19:30:00 -
[3] - Quote
deezy dabest wrote:Kain Spero wrote:Deezy you've already agreed that FW syncs are already in the system. There is no "breaking the system more" unless you are referring to solo players that shouldn't be in the system anyways and if they are they've taken the risk on themselves.
Again, allowing higher barriers to entry than other players that are more organized and have their own channels makes no sense. Are you openly saying you want to eliminate anyone from FW that feels like running solo or does not waiting on 16 people? I am not sure when you last checked but we do not have the player numbers to eliminate anyone from any mode little less shut off FW to well over half of the player base.
And I'm sure, even in EVE, it is possible to run FW solo. You might not have a noticeable impact, but you can do it without being curb stomped for trying.
I got enemies,
got a lot of enemies
, got a lot of people tryna drain me of this energy
|
Piercing Serenity
Immortal Guides
Learning Alliance
992
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 20:46:00 -
[4] - Quote
Kain Spero wrote:Piercing, again whether you like it or not 16 man syncs are already in the system all you are doing is limiting their competition, but restricting platoons.
I would argue that, although 16 man syncs are already in the system, their effectiveness is limited by logistical inefficiency (Lack of Team Deploy). The negative space caused by this logistical inefficiency has a net beneficial effect, however, in that there is space for other less coordinated groups to also enjoy the game mode.
If I had to re-design the FW system to incorporated platoons (because I'm not against them in principle), here is how I would do it:
- Allow individual players and corps to declare allegiance to a FW group
- Create a "Priority District" mechanic that operates similar to old CBs. In this system, the attackers would get a large team reward if they won (F.ex 150M bonus cash for capturing valuable assets) and the defenders would get X Lp per kill if they won. (For defending valuable assets).
- Attacking players have a 5 minute warbarge wait time when they queue for these battles. Anyone who has pledged allegiance to the FW group being attacked gets a notification (Like you do for PC) that an important FW district is being attacked.
- For the first 3 minutes of the timer, matchmaking attempts to match a platoon (explicitly) on the defending side against the attacking platoon.
- If, and only if, no platoon queues for the defenders in the first three minutes, then matchmaking takes any players or squads that have queued into FW to fill the spots, and the match begins. This is to simulate that the districts are so important that the militias would rather throw bodies at the districts to defend them, rather than let them fall.
I think that a system like this does a few good things: First, it offers a space for serious FW corps to play without locking out less serious (but still interested) players from the game mode. Second, it offers a strong incentive to play FW in a competitive group (due to huge ISK or LP prizes) while still offering a decent incentive for those who are less competitive.
Further still, it preserves the idea that FW is still a more ruthless space, and allows for more effective role playing. If, for example, the Caldari militia does not have organized platoons fighting for it, then the lesser skilled FW players "feel" the pressure by being attacked by the opposing militia's best troops. Caldari allied players can "take the heat off" of the militia by grouping up and defending these priority districts, allowing for the rest of the FW players to exist in more peaceful conditions.
Thoughts?
I got enemies,
got a lot of enemies
, got a lot of people tryna drain me of this energy
|
Piercing Serenity
Immortal Guides
Learning Alliance
993
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 21:10:00 -
[5] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:As I've said before I am not interested in being penalised because my opposition is too lazy or disorganised.
FW is a semi-competitive setting and if I or a group of players that can amass an deploy a full team wish to make it competitive and organise ourselves we should be able to.
People say FW should be 'the middle ground' between public and PC contracts. I disagree. It should be its own game mode with its own challenges that corporations if they should want to can establish and sustain their Dust 514 careers.
EVE side FW you can fly alone if you like. Just don't expect to shift system wide control particular greatly unless you spend hours grinding out plexes in low traffic systems. Don't expect to be able to stand and fight against roaming fleets because they will annihilate you. You can fly solo but you are encouraged to fly in groups.
The bold sentence is the heart of the issue that I am talking about. I believe that a platoon mechanic eliminates this (bold) as a possibility. We don't have an open world like EVE does, so the ability to have control of the entire roster of players is a very powerful one. I still think that we need to have a system that allows for those solo players to exist in the game mode. The current system, while flawed and logistically clunky for competitive teams, does allow that space
I got enemies,
got a lot of enemies
, got a lot of people tryna drain me of this energy
|
Piercing Serenity
Immortal Guides
Learning Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 15:58:00 -
[6] - Quote
This argument is not a discussion of two sides of the same coin. Some people like Kain and Bright are arguing: "DUST deserves a game mode that supports TD". Other people like me are arguing: "The current implementation of FW cannot support TD". Although these argument are related, they are not in opposition. I don't think Deezy, Mina or I are against team deploy. We are just opposed to putting TD into a FW system where there is a limit on players.
At the end of the day, I agree with Kevall. If we implement team deploy in FW's current state , we're going to see "CCP fix FW now!", "[Suggestion] Improving FW incentives" and "[Faction 1] / [Faction 2] kickstart event" threads on the forums.
"For people who don't really do S**T, ya'll really doing the most"
Lv. 1 Forum Warrior
|
Piercing Serenity
Immortal Guides
Learning Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 20:42:00 -
[7] - Quote
Leither Yiltron wrote:Piercing Serenity wrote:This argument is not a discussion of two sides of the same coin. Some people like Kain and Bright are arguing: "DUST deserves a game mode that supports TD". Other people like me are arguing: "The current implementation of FW cannot support TD". Although these argument are related, they are not in opposition. I don't think Deezy, Mina or I are against team deploy. We are just opposed to putting TD into a FW system where there is a limit on players.
At the end of the day, I agree with Kevall. If we implement team deploy in FW's current state , we're going to see "CCP fix FW now!", "[Suggestion] Improving FW incentives" and "[Faction 1] / [Faction 2] kickstart event" threads on the forums. That's a bit of a null implication, since those threads should be present with or without any changes to deploying mechanics. FW isn't in a fantastic state, and needs to be in contention for the next "big thing" to be looked at after PC. It probably should have come before PC. If you have a good logical reason why people will vacate FW given a change to 16 players instead of 8, by all means. But I don't think that FW's reward structure being broken is a product of any grouping concerns.
I think that people will leave more often with 16 man squads for some of the same reasons that newer corps don't go into PC: there isn't a reasonable expectation of an even fight. I understand that FW is not designed to be even all of the time. However, think one of the conditions for queuing for FW is: "I believe that, more often than not, me and my team mates will get good fights instead of bad ones", where "Good fights" could be defined as "Fight that we win", "Fights that give me lots of LP", "Fights that are close", etc.
I don't think that the aforementioned condition will be satisfied for a group of 4-8 people who want to play FW. They will be going up against a much more organized team, and (I contend) will lose more often than not. Instead of queuing for a game mode where the reasonable expectation is: "I will, more often than not, get into bad fights instead of good ones", people will queue for game modes where that condition is satisfied. And that is going to be Pubs.
"For people who don't really do S**T, ya'll really doing the most"
Lv. 1 Forum Warrior
|
|
|
| |
|