Sylwester Dziewiecki
511
   |
Posted - 2015.10.15 22:41:00 -
[1] - Quote
It's not cowardice to back out of a match or sign of bad faith; It is more like cold calculation.
Matchmaking system should remind courier contract in EVE: before accepting contract you can check plenty of data associated with the task, like size of cargo, travel rout, reward, collateral(so if you fail to deliver goods to destination you will have to pay for it) etc. those data are open to player and there is no surprises.
We can certainly can assume that it would never look like this in 514 game, because of certain reasons.. I have feeling that we have definitely more chances to see something compliantly opposite to transparency coming to Dust, and being part of it, a way to trick players, fool them to play with someone that they do not want to play with.
Some time ago development team disallow players to join squads or see them while being in battle, and since that moment complaints, like "we are fighting with no squads against at least 2" suddenly stop appearing on forum. In my opinion it was another nail in the 'I want to play a lone wolf in strangers squad' coffin, and another not needed nerf. BUT we no longer have those stupid complains on forums, happy days!
So, victory is knowledge, removing option to see players corporations on match score board would reduce players leaving match, because they would no longer see connections with other players. They would no longer be able to tell if they are fighting against extremely good players, or with a swarm of noobs that did not left NPC corps.
I know, it's sic and I felt really really bed to telling you this  , but it is very easy solution to implement  .
In case you have time to read something else here is some interesting proposal to make pub matches more interesting:
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2943553#post2943553
G Speed Scout. MM Logi/Assault.
EVE side of me: Nosum Hseebnrido
|
Sylwester Dziewiecki
511
|
Posted - 2015.10.19 15:44:00 -
[2] - Quote
DiablosMajora wrote:
Proposal:
When joining a match you choose what gear to bring with you to the MCC (what, are you gonna bring your whole armory with you every time?), up to a certain limit of stuff. If you make the conscious action of leaving the battle, you could potentially lose some (or all) of the stuff you brought with you, which would then be split up among the winners (either your team or the enemy).
If you happen to get disconnected, you have until the battle actually ends to rejoin without penalty.
If you have to leave... well... don't fly what you can't afford to lose?
0.02isk
That was one of the Legion idea for PvE maps. Player were suppose to buy packed of clones that they were planning to take for the mission, if they would run out of them, mission ends for them.
It's to complex for dust.
Kevall Longstride wrote:Rightio.
So some have raised the issue of matchmaking, problems with Scotty, issues with the games poor net code etc etc. By and large I agree with those concerns. I wouldn't expect such a punishment/ reward system to be implemented if there was technical problems preventing it from being fairly enforced.
So let's reframe the question or rather give it a different context.
If Rattati and the team managed to eliminate a lot of these problems to the point where match making and team size balancing issues were no longer relavant, rendering these concerns moot, how would you then feel about a punishment system in place. Quite a few games do have them, the League of Legends example given earlier being a good one. So it's not like it's without precedent.
A lot of the feedback has been centred on improving the carrot aspect. This is fine but there is a point where, the carrot gets so juicy that players will leave a match without hesitation if they don't think they'll get it. If we improve the carrot to that point then I think it only fair that an equally large and effective stick should be in place.
Now, over the years many claims have been made about Dust and how it was to be a game of consequence. That's the part that appealed to me to begin with. I'd grown bored of the experience that COD offered being as it was, just another rinse and repeat lobby shooter.
But because of the failings of previous leadership, Dust is getting dangerously close to being just another formulaic Lobby Game. And like those games there's no consequence to your actions.
Now if we got to the hypothetical situation of a #portdust514 becoming reality and with it a chance to fix these issues then how much better would the game be, in terms of its meta, if true consequence became part of it. Bold part is impossible, objectively speaking. Team of that size is impossible to fix all issues that accumulated over several years.
Taking in to account World of Darkness I do not believe that Rattati team works only on Dust, especially in times of Valkyrie delays. Beside, is it really worth to focus that amount of human resources to fix this game, if they can spend less time to make "+2%/-2%" changes and keep current amount of player base alive? Sorry bro, but you have head in the clouds. When I'm looking at the past, It was always players who was some how successful who were nerfed, not those who was unsuccessful by game mechanics.
G Speed Scout. MM Logi/Assault.
EVE side of me: Nosum Hseebnrido
|