| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
19
   |
Posted - 2015.07.02 20:55:00 -
[391] - Quote
The Attorney General wrote:
And will those 8 disparate groups stay in matches against team deploys? Unlikely. Will they wait until they have their own sixteen?
So now the prereq for getting into FW is join a squad, wait until it fills then q for a match? Why should smaller groups be penalized with other steps just to play FW?
Irony at its best. Why should larger groups be penalised for the unwillingness of solo players to actually contribute?
The issue between out two disparate philosophies is that on one hand you have players who genuinely want to institute a real change in the FW setting. These players achieve this by communicating and working with other players.
Then you have those who don't feel inclined to institute these changes. As solo players they cannot do so. Not with the current FW model we have in Dust
Neither side is particularly well catered to. Certain players simply want to take the mode seriously and need the agency to deploy when they want and where they want in larger sized groups. A model that allows us to determine which areas of the FW we can deploy to and keep deploying to would benefit us. This way if solo players joined these specified matches in highly contested systems they are quickly brought to expect squad-centric gameplay whereas if they deployed to other systems and regions they could find similar groups and matches.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
Kain Spero
Negative-Feedback
5
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 20:55:00 -
[392] - Quote
Attorney General, I know you don't like me and that's fine. That you would turn personal feelings against me into some sort of grounds to start some tin foil parade against a systems that would help players realize a multi-year dream is hilarious.
Please explain to me in detail how team deploy can be exploited any differently than 4 eight-man squads on coms in a custom channel selecting two opposing factions and syncing?
Also, please explain to me in detail how you perceive these matches would be exploited given that CCP has policies against boosting and 32 players attempting to do so would be red flagged.
Please explain to me in detail how this group would magically bypass the SP thresholds per match CCP has put in place, the 150 clone limit for each side in a match that determines the maximum amount of equipment that can be destroyed, or the progressive reduction in ISK value of BPOs such as LAVs whose destruction CCP tracks and whose value would be reduced further if they detected outliers in the system?
Also, I'd like to thank your persistence in ensuring that this topic stays on the front page of the forums. This issue's visibility to the community is paramount. 
Owner of Spero Escrow Services
Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
|
Balistyc Farshot
MONSTER SYNERGY
258
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 21:05:00 -
[393] - Quote
The Attorney General wrote:Balistyc Farshot wrote:The Attorney General wrote:
Now please address the ease with which a team deploy system would be able to be staggered and virtually assure dominant matchups, which has been my primary point, and which no one wants to refute. Putting in place an easily gamed system does no one any good, and it will be exploited, either by Kane or some other equally selfish group.
Why do you think having 16 guys together makes them unbeatable? I agree this could happen but with the payoff being too low why would that be present. LP is hard to use to fund proto. Where is the driver or profit? - Counter is there is minimal incentive. Blah! Because people will game any weak system. That people think that this is some unique situation is absurd. That people think the people still playing this game with a history of seeking every tiny edge wouldn't jump on a broken bandwagon is puzzling. I agree that they are in the minority, however, they are also some of the most committed no life dust players out there. And giving them the chance to screw over FW and profit off of it and they will. It doesn't even have to be about profit, as it would be about ease of play. If you can manipulate the queue to get uncoordinated matches, you gameplay in between hyper competitive PCs becomes a walk in the park and profitable, all at the expense of people you don't care about. Balistyc Farshot wrote:
Qsyncs happen today and no one feels exploited. If Kane gives us issues, lets deal with it then.
Hell no. You don't give people a broken system and say if they abuse it we will change it. It will be abused. The chances of a team deploy system in FW being manipulated are about the same as the sun rising in the east tomorrow.
Ok - Firstly, you are very annoying pushing for trolling to be an approved game style just because. That is typical forum troll response. It makes the rest of this very thin, so lets just move on from you approving of that behavior.
You don't seem to want to acknowledge that having a team would make it easier to counter a team, but you don't sound like you understand the value of teamwork with all these posts you are depicted a distinct dislike for being told how to improve in any way.
Back to the point. You want CCP to code the game so that people can't organize to remove any possibility of united gaming of the system. So you want to punish the wicked and the innocent in one motion. Interesting.
So you must dislike qsyncs as well. Even though tons of randoms love them.
I think you are painting yourself in the minority here. Most people want to play together as a team and win as a team. Small solo playing structure is the basis for games like COD. Dust is supposed to be more about community, hence the corp structure. If the new PC mode keeps the exploiting jerks busy, then perhaps we can have actual fun FW battles. That is why we want team deploy.
Your statement about exploiting due to team stomping would require the team that wins gaining something of value. LP has too little value currently for the stomp to be profitable. That is why this is the perfect place for fun loving team players. The only people who would be stacking are KDR and Win/Loss board lovers. Those people are really not gaining anything you care about.
Your explanation of their plan:
Form proto stomp team
Join sync against noob team
Stomp Team and acquire LP at cost of isk
...
Profit
Explain their angle for exploiting and I will try to see why we should fear the exploit. Otherwise we should fear every move we make because they will exploit it. That will stop good features like team entry. I am trying to see your side here. Trust me, I hate the exploiting community in Dust. It caused many great (not just skilled) players to leave this game.
"Dying with your rep tool out - the logi-flasher!"
Who hasn't been caught by a cute little female scout doing this?
|
The Attorney General
3
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 21:15:00 -
[394] - Quote
Kain Spero wrote:Attorney General, I know you don't like me and that's fine. That you would turn personal feelings against me into some sort of grounds to start some tin foil parade against a systems that would help players realize a multi-year dream is hilarious.
Me pointing out that the idea is bad isn't personal. Me pointing out that you have a history of taking maximum advantage of any soft spots in systems is not personal, merely a fact.
Do I dislike you? Absolutely. I don't need to rehash my criticisms of you here, as me liking you wouldn't stop my opposition to this idea.
Kain Spero wrote:
Please explain to me in detail how team deploy can be exploited any differently than 4 eight-man squads on coms in a custom channel selecting two opposing factions and syncing?
Its slightly easier, and of course doesn't have the RNG interference from other people in the q. Its a more efficient way of generating stacked matches.
Kain Spero wrote:
Also, please explain to me in detail how you perceive these matches would be exploited given that CCP has policies against boosting and 32 players attempting to do so would be red flagged.
Please explain to me in detail how this group would magically bypass the SP thresholds per match CCP has put in place, the 150 clone limit for each side in a match that determines the maximum amount of equipment that can be destroyed, or the progressive reduction in ISK value of BPOs such as LAVs whose destruction CCP tracks and whose value would be reduced further if they detected outliers in the system?
See post 288.
It isn't about WP boosting. Its about queue management to get 16 versus randoms.
Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
|
Balistyc Farshot
MONSTER SYNERGY
259
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 21:25:00 -
[395] - Quote
The Attorney General wrote:psyanyde wrote:
It would seem that if team deploy were instituted in FW, it would cause solo berries to gravitate towards a corp.
Having team deploy wouldn't stop people from going solo into FW matches. It would only insure that once 16 losers were found they would get dumped into a team stomp. They would then leave the match over time, creating a super easy win for the scrubs stacking. Put two groups together, one for Minmatar and one for Amarr. Group one queues for a match. Once they get one, the other group fires up their search. Now you have two syncs going for the price of one, and both teams are almost assured wins. Free LP for everyone they like. Everyone else gets left out in the cold.
Post #288 above.
So again you think 32 people with skill are going to be able to push around the queues. The population of jerks can't arrange that. Sorry, but you are chasing windmills here. (Sorry, I read. Comparing your argument to a crazed spanish knight.) Also you think this will happen for LP, but why?
Also, not everyone will back out and what happens when another queue of guys comes in and stomps them back. Goon Feet used to love doing that. I miss those guys a little.
Each race has its heroes in Dust who can rally a good fight back. Go read some posts about us shaking sabers at each other. This isn't corp fights. People have party lines we have drawn for fun. Hell, message me what race is doing this and I will go take them down myself. As long as they aren't Matari.
"Dying with your rep tool out - the logi-flasher!"
Who hasn't been caught by a cute little female scout doing this?
|
The Attorney General
3
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 21:28:00 -
[396] - Quote
Balistyc Farshot wrote:
Ok - Firstly, you are very annoying pushing for trolling to be an approved game style just because. That is typical forum troll response. It makes the rest of this very thin, so lets just move on from you approving of that behavior.
We most certainly not just move on from that. It isn't about approved playstyles. Its about people being able to AWOX, which I fully support, even if I don't engage in it myself. I'm not supportive on things that wall off parts of the game, or forbid playstyles. Especially in FW, if someone wants to make an army of alts and spend all day awoxing and getting kicked, they can rock out until they get bored. Such is the nature of what should be an accessible form of gameplay in service of your chosen faction, instead of a farm LP for skins garbage we have going on now.
Balistyc Farshot wrote:
You don't seem to want to acknowledge that having a team would make it easier to counter a team, but you don't sound like you understand the value of teamwork with all these posts you are depicted a distinct dislike for being told how to improve in any way.
And you seem to think this is about gameplay instead of matchmaking queue mechanics.
Balistyc Farshot wrote:
Back to the point. You want CCP to code the game so that people can't organize to remove any possibility of united gaming of the system. So you want to punish the wicked and the innocent in one motion. Interesting.
So you must dislike qsyncs as well. Even though tons of randoms love them.
Please provide a quote where I said I want CCP to remove organization options. You can't because I didn't. You talk about trolling then try and put words in my mouth, thats some bad form. Congrats on getting your posts hidden.
Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
|
thor424
Namtar Elite
Gallente Federation
550
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 21:52:00 -
[397] - Quote
Shouldn't a game like Dust be competitive enough that a few groups of 16 couldn't run unchecked in a game mode?
If the potential rewards are so game breaking why aren't more groups willing to go after it? It just doesn't add up to me. |
deezy dabest
Evil Syndicate Alliance.
2
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 22:22:00 -
[398] - Quote
Kain Spero wrote:Deezy your examples are all flawed and full of bias in order to provide support for your hypothesis. Unless you magically have the actual numbers of players queuing for FW over some period of time there is no way for you to effectively model the system. By all means though keep wasting time coming up with fantasy scenarios.
So you claim that when a squad of any size between 1 and 16 can be formed that everyone is going to just make sure to hop in 8s and 16s to keep in nice and orderly?
You can say my numbers are flawed, full of bias, just plain stupid, full of tin foil, or any other insult you want to try but the simple fact is you have had every chance to disprove them in the slightest and have not even attempted to. It is all really basic common sense but that is obviously something that has escaped you totally.
Remove NPC orbitals from FW. -- Fix orbital timers for Eve players assisting in Planetary Conquest.
|
deezy dabest
Evil Syndicate Alliance.
2
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 22:29:00 -
[399] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:The Attorney General wrote:
And will those 8 disparate groups stay in matches against team deploys? Unlikely. Will they wait until they have their own sixteen?
So now the prereq for getting into FW is join a squad, wait until it fills then q for a match? Why should smaller groups be penalized with other steps just to play FW?
Irony at its best. Why should larger groups be penalised for the unwillingness of solo players to actually contribute? The issue between out two disparate philosophies is that on one hand you have players who genuinely want to institute a real change in the FW setting. These players achieve this by communicating and working with other players. Then you have those who don't feel inclined to institute these changes. As solo players they cannot do so. Not with the current FW model we have in Dust Neither side is particularly well catered to. Certain players simply want to take the mode seriously and need the agency to deploy when they want and where they want in larger sized groups. A model that allows us to determine which areas of the FW we can deploy to and keep deploying to would benefit us. This way if solo players joined these specified matches in highly contested systems they are quickly brought to expect squad-centric gameplay whereas if they deployed to other systems and regions they could find similar groups and matches.
This is absolutely a joke. Larger groups are given easier ability to queue together while mid sized groups are more likely to have actual support and randoms are still there to fill in. This lunatic agenda of screaming that not having team deploy hurts large groups is absolutely hilarious rhetoric.
Remove NPC orbitals from FW. -- Fix orbital timers for Eve players assisting in Planetary Conquest.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
19
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 22:42:00 -
[400] - Quote
deezy dabest wrote:True Adamance wrote:The Attorney General wrote:
And will those 8 disparate groups stay in matches against team deploys? Unlikely. Will they wait until they have their own sixteen?
So now the prereq for getting into FW is join a squad, wait until it fills then q for a match? Why should smaller groups be penalized with other steps just to play FW?
Irony at its best. Why should larger groups be penalised for the unwillingness of solo players to actually contribute? The issue between out two disparate philosophies is that on one hand you have players who genuinely want to institute a real change in the FW setting. These players achieve this by communicating and working with other players. Then you have those who don't feel inclined to institute these changes. As solo players they cannot do so. Not with the current FW model we have in Dust Neither side is particularly well catered to. Certain players simply want to take the mode seriously and need the agency to deploy when they want and where they want in larger sized groups. A model that allows us to determine which areas of the FW we can deploy to and keep deploying to would benefit us. This way if solo players joined these specified matches in highly contested systems they are quickly brought to expect squad-centric gameplay whereas if they deployed to other systems and regions they could find similar groups and matches. This is absolutely a joke. Larger groups are given easier ability to queue together while mid sized groups are more likely to have actual support and randoms are still there to fill in. This lunatic agenda of screaming that not having team deploy hurts large groups is absolutely hilarious rhetoric.
As I've said the sole aspect of FW that I am interested in is ensuring that it is a narrative driven persistent conflict that allows people to take it as seriously as they want.
If I want to take the mode seriously I see no reason why I should not be able to. Player determined combat zones somewhat do this as larger groups would ideally convene in the more hotly contested areas while smaller group could finish themselves in less contested area.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
|
|
deezy dabest
Evil Syndicate Alliance.
2
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 22:53:00 -
[401] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:deezy dabest wrote:True Adamance wrote:The Attorney General wrote:
And will those 8 disparate groups stay in matches against team deploys? Unlikely. Will they wait until they have their own sixteen?
So now the prereq for getting into FW is join a squad, wait until it fills then q for a match? Why should smaller groups be penalized with other steps just to play FW?
Irony at its best. Why should larger groups be penalised for the unwillingness of solo players to actually contribute? The issue between out two disparate philosophies is that on one hand you have players who genuinely want to institute a real change in the FW setting. These players achieve this by communicating and working with other players. Then you have those who don't feel inclined to institute these changes. As solo players they cannot do so. Not with the current FW model we have in Dust Neither side is particularly well catered to. Certain players simply want to take the mode seriously and need the agency to deploy when they want and where they want in larger sized groups. A model that allows us to determine which areas of the FW we can deploy to and keep deploying to would benefit us. This way if solo players joined these specified matches in highly contested systems they are quickly brought to expect squad-centric gameplay whereas if they deployed to other systems and regions they could find similar groups and matches. This is absolutely a joke. Larger groups are given easier ability to queue together while mid sized groups are more likely to have actual support and randoms are still there to fill in. This lunatic agenda of screaming that not having team deploy hurts large groups is absolutely hilarious rhetoric. As I've said the sole aspect of FW that I am interested in is ensuring that it is a narrative driven persistent conflict that allows people to take it as seriously as they want. If I want to take the mode seriously I see no reason why I should not be able to. Player determined combat zones somewhat do this as larger groups would ideally convene in the more hotly contested areas while smaller group could finish themselves in less contested area.
We all know that you can take it as serious as you want to. Large groups are free to sync in as much as they want and in the new system they are probably going to be met with alot more persistent higher level combat than before.
Unfortunately the people like me and you who care about a narrative or lore or any of that are in the minority. FW is at its core meant to be a middle ground between pubs and PC which highly rewards coordination but allows anyone the chance to join and get the crap kicked out of them if they do not participate in more organized ways. Simply put FW is survival of the fittest to give people a chance to learn the ways of working together with the team while they hope to make it up to PC.
FW is not PC and it is not meant to be.
Remove NPC orbitals from FW. -- Fix orbital timers for Eve players assisting in Planetary Conquest.
|
deezy dabest
Evil Syndicate Alliance.
2
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 23:00:00 -
[402] - Quote
Powerh8er wrote:
Shouldnt FW be more competitive than pubs? People will q sync Fw with or without team deploy, team deploy just makes it easier especially corp a vs corp b.
Wish I could play more solo though, but im just too damn handsome and popular.
Making corp A versus corp B as easy as possible is what PC is for. That is why an incredible amount of work has gone into lowering the barrier to entry for PC while shutting off the farmability. Just because PC has been constantly dumped on and broken for the entire history of this game does not mean we should break FW for most of the community just to make it a PC substitute.
Remove NPC orbitals from FW. -- Fix orbital timers for Eve players assisting in Planetary Conquest.
|
The Attorney General
3
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 23:20:00 -
[403] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
As I've said the sole aspect of FW that I am interested in is ensuring that it is a narrative driven persistent conflict that allows people to take it as seriously as they want.
If I want to take the mode seriously I see no reason why I should not be able to. Player determined combat zones somewhat do this as larger groups would ideally convene in the more hotly contested areas while smaller group could finish themselves in less contested area.
The bold portions I agree with 100%.
I'm all for creating a system where there is a place for full teams and low number people. How they come to that is not clear to me, although I do like your combat zone idea.
Heck give me an 8 v 8 with no squads on smaller maps for lesser rewards, I'd be all up on that ****.
But I would still disagree with team deploy for FW.
Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
19
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 23:23:00 -
[404] - Quote
The Attorney General wrote:True Adamance wrote:
As I've said the sole aspect of FW that I am interested in is ensuring that it is a narrative driven persistent conflict that allows people to take it as seriously as they want.
If I want to take the mode seriously I see no reason why I should not be able to. Player determined combat zones somewhat do this as larger groups would ideally convene in the more hotly contested areas while smaller group could finish themselves in less contested area.
The bold portions I agree with 100%. I'm all for creating a system where there is a place for full teams and low number people. How they come to that is not clear to me, although I do like your combat zone idea. Heck give me an 8 v 8 with no squads on smaller maps for lesser rewards, I'd be all up on that ****. But I would still disagree with team deploy for FW.
However you cannot segment them. FW systems are not always important all the time. Serious fights would eventuate pretty much whenever a militia says "Oi **** boys go get X System for us, were pushing it in two days."
8v8 could work in FW if we were talking about complex sizing....but ruling out squads from it and demanding it have a place in FW....god no.
When you go solo you take the risk that some random fleet out for blood will pop by and destroy you with incredible ease. That's just how FW is. It's not supposed to be fair, it's not balanced all the time, it requires large scale player participation.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
19
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 23:30:00 -
[405] - Quote
deezy dabest wrote:Powerh8er wrote:
Shouldnt FW be more competitive than pubs? People will q sync Fw with or without team deploy, team deploy just makes it easier especially corp a vs corp b.
Wish I could play more solo though, but im just too damn handsome and popular.
Making corp A versus corp B as easy as possible is what PC is for. That is why an incredible amount of work has gone into lowering the barrier to entry for PC while shutting off the farmability. Just because PC has been constantly dumped on and broken for the entire history of this game does not mean we should break FW for most of the community just to make it a PC substitute.
I can agree but FW IS NOT PUBLIC CONTRACTS 2. *******-OH!
It's Low Sec. You know what that's like mate I know you do OB's and you don't get fair fights. FW should be hard, it should encourage team work, encourage wider militia connections not selfish gameplay. Unlike EVE solo plexing is not possible and it doesn't help in a semi-competitive setting where you are taking up slots other squadded players could be using.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 23:34:00 -
[406] - Quote
deezy dabest wrote:
FW is not PC and it is not meant to be.
Inclined to agree on this point.
APEX suits aren't exactly end-game gear, and they're arguably of greater value to newer players than old. Should we put end-game play between APEX suits and the players who'd benefit the most from them?
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
The Attorney General
3
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 23:35:00 -
[407] - Quote
thor424 wrote:Shouldn't a game like Dust be competitive enough that a few groups of 16 couldn't run unchecked in a game mode?
If the potential rewards are so game breaking why aren't more groups willing to go after it? It just doesn't add up to me.
It isn't about the rewards being gamebreaking, nor should that be the only consideration when deciding is a system is robust or not.
Part of why I am arguing against the team deploy option is that although it appears on the surface to promote competition, that competition is dependent on two equally skilled and organized groups looking for matches at the same time.
I think that everyone can agree that pubs can sometimes be frustrating if you are not q syncing for quality. Being in a short squad, with a team full of muppets can cause much hair pulling and gnashing of teeth at the biblical incompetence one can see from randoms.
The biggest issue I foresee is the ability of teams to create non-competitive matches. It wouldn't be difficult, with so few players, to massage the q and get 16 Corp a versus 16 idiots who q'd up, while the B team gets 16 more idiots who queued up.
Run into another stack, back out, try again. Rinse and repeat for easy, easy LP.
It would seem that some people are getting stuck on the word exploit as a software term rather than the transitive verb usage.
Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
|
The Attorney General
3
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 23:48:00 -
[408] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
Unlike EVE solo plexing is not possible and it doesn't help in a semi-competitive setting where you are taking up slots other squadded players could be using.
Me bringing my tank into Amarrian matches would be a great benefit to the empire. No mic, not in squad, still an asset.
You want me to not support my Glorious Empress because I don't want to listen to a bunch of tryhards squeeling when they get a core locus in the face, but too stupid to report an enemy tank sighting?
As a vehicle operator, there is a very small group of people I enjoy playing with. Those people understand vehicle dynamics in the game, and know how to work in coordination with armor. These are the people I trust with my whip, and I will drive it into the most redonkulous situations to help them. Everyone else is so ignorant of how vehicles actually work, that playing with them is a hindrance to my enjoyment of the game.
Telling me I have to team form up with a bunch of people who think that my assets are only there to serve their interests and who will abandon me at the first sign of trouble is not conducive to me having a good time. Forcing me to do so in order to get into a not 16 v random stomp just means no supporting the empress for me.
All of this is really moot though, unless there is some hidden plan to allow FW players to actually affect the warzone instead of just changing a percentage readout and adding or removing a plex or three from the total count needed to flip a system.
Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
|
The Attorney General
3
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 23:58:00 -
[409] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
However you cannot segment them. FW systems are not always important all the time. Serious fights would eventuate pretty much whenever a militia says "Oi **** boys go get X System for us, were pushing it in two days."
8v8 could work in FW if we were talking about complex sizing....but ruling out squads from it and demanding it have a place in FW....god no.
When you go solo you take the risk that some random fleet out for blood will pop by and destroy you with incredible ease. That's just how FW is. It's not supposed to be fair, it's not balanced all the time, it requires large scale player participation.
As someone who solo'd an IHUB with a dread, I dispute that you need large scale participation to have an impact. You just need balls. That is eve side though. All a set of big brass ones gets you in Dust is looking at the respawn screen going "Well of course, what did I expect attempting to take on 7 people?"
Small scale participation in FW eve side also includes things like farmer hunting, medium plex recon camping, and a host of other small gang options, where a gang can have an impact greater than their numbers. In Eve 5 can fight 30, and win. In dust numbers matter, and the zerg horde at flag a will always defeat the lose collection of randoms. The only question is how much do they lose to do it.
I did not mean to imply that having a low player count small map option had to be exclusively no squad. You could have a 8 v 8 raid-esque format, both in a squad less and squaded option. I'm not about limiting options at all, I would rather expand things, although given the restrictions of the playerbase, more options are not always best.
What I want to know is why we can't join the 24th in game. Would solve a lot of the OB nonsense where the militia doesn't know where the battles are. Maybe add team deploy for only faction members, so that you have to show your commitment to a particular faction to enable it. At least then it would be 16 committed faction players instead of 16 LP farmers.
Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
|
Imp Smash
Molon Labe.
RUST415
871
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 00:10:00 -
[410] - Quote
Personally I don't think we should have ANY carebear protections. Limiting squad size in pub to help the poor casuals? I hate it. The only thing casuals deserve (and they should be notified of this at every end of match screen) is more ISK and SP gain for fighting opponents using better gear with more SP levels.
Think like the 'You COULD have this much more isk/sp if you had a booster on! ring -- but for their level/average isk used vs opponents avg isk used. Calculate average meta-level spawned per team and give the lower team an ISK/SP bonus based on that.
But outside of THAT -- I think FW and up should be a full on free for all. 100% sandbox. Squad sizes? This is just my opinion, but I am in the camp of squad "1 to 16 if I damn well please" size. |
|
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 00:20:00 -
[411] - Quote
Imp Smash wrote:
But outside of THAT -- I think FW and up should be a full on free for all.
Hadn't considered no-squad as an alternative option to 8-man vs 16-man debate; could make for some interesting FW fights. Can't imagine the Team Deploy crowd getting behind this though. 
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
PARKOUR PRACTIONER
D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N
D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
3
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 00:21:00 -
[412] - Quote
Understand the concerns for both parties but have one thing to say. This, DO IT NOW! WE NEED THIS NOW! is equivalent of a kid stomping his feet and holding his breath cause he doesn't get what he wants immediately. And personal opinion, it will get you NOWHERE.
It will be noticed but its more likely to be ignored cause of what i think is childish bickering. Getting your thoughts and concerns out there is important and wanting it done is nothing wrong, but the GIMME GIMME NOW NOW! and trying to rush them will only result in MORE problems. This comment probably will get picked apart or ignored but calling it how i see it. Not everybody is doing this so don't take offense to something that isn't there.
One word; patience.
Matari IRL xD
Matari=Gets SCR BPO. It really doesn't matter what race you are :shrugs:
Doesn't comprehend stupid
|
Kain Spero
Negative-Feedback
5
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 01:01:00 -
[413] - Quote
PARKOUR PRACTIONER wrote:
One word; patience.
I think over two years waiting for implementation is patience enough.
Owner of Spero Escrow Services
Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
|
PARKOUR PRACTIONER
D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N
D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
3
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 01:08:00 -
[414] - Quote
Kain Spero wrote:PARKOUR PRACTIONER wrote:
One word; patience.
I think over two years waiting for implementation is patience enough.
True, sometimes no one understands the point till ya snap. I think once the new PC changes are finished and more team based balance is achieved, THEN you can talk team deploy. Also, so you're or someone else is losing/lost patience is a reason to take it out on others?
Even you got it you'd still have no choice but to wait cause it won't happen overnight. We have way better Devs now then then, so i think it'll work out.
Matari IRL xD
Matari=Gets SCR BPO. It really doesn't matter what race you are :shrugs:
Doesn't comprehend stupid
|
thor424
Namtar Elite
Gallente Federation
552
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 01:17:00 -
[415] - Quote
The Attorney General wrote:thor424 wrote:Shouldn't a game like Dust be competitive enough that a few groups of 16 couldn't run unchecked in a game mode?
If the potential rewards are so game breaking why aren't more groups willing to go after it? It just doesn't add up to me. It isn't about the rewards being gamebreaking, nor should that be the only consideration when deciding is a system is robust or not. Part of why I am arguing against the team deploy option is that although it appears on the surface to promote competition, that competition is dependent on two equally skilled and organized groups looking for matches at the same time. I think that everyone can agree that pubs can sometimes be frustrating if you are not q syncing for quality. Being in a short squad, with a team full of muppets can cause much hair pulling and gnashing of teeth at the biblical incompetence one can see from randoms. The biggest issue I foresee is the ability of teams to create non-competitive matches. It wouldn't be difficult, with so few players, to massage the q and get 16 Corp a versus 16 idiots who q'd up, while the B team gets 16 more idiots who queued up. Run into another stack, back out, try again. Rinse and repeat for easy, easy LP. It would seem that some people are getting stuck on the word exploit as a software term rather than the transitive verb usage.
I only brought up rewards and exploits because you started going on about it with your buddy Deezy.
Most of the people that don't want to fight don't leave battles in FW, they just do what most people do in pubs (stay in redline or ignore objectives).
If there is any hope for team play in this game then persistent team play is needed (over 2 years ago). |
thor424
Namtar Elite
Gallente Federation
552
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 01:19:00 -
[416] - Quote
PARKOUR PRACTIONER wrote:Kain Spero wrote:PARKOUR PRACTIONER wrote:
One word; patience.
I think over two years waiting for implementation is patience enough. True, sometimes no one understands the point till ya snap. I think once the new PC changes are finished and more team based balance is achieved, THEN you can talk team deploy. Also, so you're or someone else is losing/lost patience is a reason to take it out on others? Even you got it you'd still have no choice but to wait cause it won't happen overnight. We have way better Devs now then then, so i think it'll work out.
PC can't evolve without persistent team play. There's a reason why closed beta vets with corp battle experience set the foundation for the successful PC corps. |
thor424
Namtar Elite
Gallente Federation
552
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 01:23:00 -
[417] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Imp Smash wrote:
But outside of THAT -- I think FW and up should be a full on free for all.
Hadn't considered no-squad as an alternative option to 8-man vs 16-man debate; could make for some interesting FW fights. Can't imagine the Team Deploy crowd getting behind this though.
If it was an option sure, but I'll never understand why soloist want to COD up Dust when they could just go play one of the many solo FPS games.
At least I'll say, why are they vocal about not being overly successful solo in a team based game. |
The Attorney General
3
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 01:31:00 -
[418] - Quote
thor424 wrote:
I only brought up rewards and exploits because you started going on about it with your buddy Deezy.
Most of the people that don't want to fight don't leave battles in FW, they just do what most people do in pubs (stay in redline or ignore objectives).
If there is any hope for team play in this game then persistent team play is needed (over 2 years ago).
I made no mention of rewards, so you need to check your statements.
The people who don't want an actual fight are the people in the 16 man team form up. The people who don't want a fight are the same people who q sync pubs all night calling people scrubs when they back out.
There are plenty of people in Dust who consider themselves good players, but have literally spent years avoiding any sort of challenging contest. Giving them team deploy allows them to stomp on uncoordinated groups while still maintaining their own illusions of competence. You know them, the guys who are deadweights in a PC, but the most vocal eager scrubs in pubs.
The hope for team play isn't on having team deploy in pub matches(which FW essentially is), but rather a compelling competitive end game mode for people to either aspire to play or dominate.
Its funny that you mention persistant teamplay as a necessity, which clearly shows you weren't in PC when it started. Battles every hour, 24/7. The burnout from high end competitive play 24/7 destroyed corps and made people throw up their hands at the horrible performance of the game when it mattered. Maybe if you had experienced what a full time war against Nyain San or Imperfects meant you wouldn't be clamoring for it so hard. The luxury of not being at the peak of the game when the war was real I guess.
Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
|
Kain Spero
Negative-Feedback
5
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 02:15:00 -
[419] - Quote
thor424 wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Imp Smash wrote:
But outside of THAT -- I think FW and up should be a full on free for all.
Hadn't considered no-squad as an alternative option to 8-man vs 16-man debate; could make for some interesting FW fights. Can't imagine the Team Deploy crowd getting behind this though. If it was an option sure, but I'll never understand why soloist want to COD up Dust when they could just go play one of the many solo FPS games. At least I'll say, why are they vocal about not being overly successful solo in a team based game.
If any game mode were to be made solo only it'd be Ambush I think.
Owner of Spero Escrow Services
Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
|
Aeon Amadi
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 03:59:00 -
[420] - Quote
Not having team deploy isn't going to stop people from Q-syncing, but it may just reduce the amount of people that leave matches in FW whenever they want to q-sync with their friends.
I can understand that a lot of people may want to prevent full teams from fighting other full teams but attempting to do so is just going to put an unnecessary barrier in front of the inevitable. If players are going to do it, and they're going to do it en masse (such is the nature of gamers, we want to play with our friends), than trying to stop them is going to lead to failure and it is actually going to cause more problems in an unintentional way.
No matter how you look at it, team deploy is the better outcome here. We can't hold player's hands in every game mode and FW is intended, designed, and meant to be competitive - hence why there isn't a match maker attached to it. I can understand and support the justifications for wanting to prevent team deploy in pub matches but in FW there isn't much justification. If players go into FW, they know (or at least, should know) that they are going all out and there aren't any training wheels to help them along.
We need to quit acting as though every game mode needs to have some kind of safety mechanism.
Some people ask us, "Where do you call home?"
And we say, "Home is where the bullets fly. Where the shells land."
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |