Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lead Squall
Planetary Response Organisation Test Friends Please Ignore
54
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 18:44:00 -
[1] - Quote
I was in a game where my team lost control points at the end of the match, it was rather close but we were ahead. However, after losing the control points and not regaining any, we still managed to win.
I'm of the opinion that if the game is going on, there should still be a means for both teams to win. If one team is going to win, the game should be over. The only way the other team had to win was to kill off our clones, so the game should have been over IMO.
I'm not positive how to fix this. The MCC's do damage to basically put a timer on how long the match will last. Also, considering the substantial time it takes for a capture to occur, it's possible to be in an unwinnable scenario where you cannot capture in time. The obvious way to attack this is have the the null cannons do no damage while being captured, but that can prolong the engagement as well.
so, what are people's thoughts on how to fix this? |
Theos Bell
ZionTCD Legacy Rising
5
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 22:02:00 -
[2] - Quote
You won even though the other team controlled all of the control points? The control points were all completely red to you? And not just that way for a second (like a salvo of missiles from the control points were already inbound to the MCCs)?
|
Shiro Mokuzan
GunFall Mobilization Covert Intervention
106
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 22:11:00 -
[3] - Quote
There is no problem here. Having control of the null cannons is a means to an end, not the goal in and of itself. |
Necrodermis
GunFall Mobilization Covert Intervention
460
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 22:23:00 -
[4] - Quote
there is a set damage amount the MCC does to the other MCC. I'm having trouble following what you are saying though. the enemy controlled all the points but you still won? because i see that quite a bit, at some point it doesn't matter if the enemy controls all the Null cannons you will still win because the base damage is enough to finish off the enemy MCC.
i think the reason the match still continues on at that point is because sometimes it isn't the case sometimes a single null cannon can be the difference between victory and defeat.
one of my matches for starters my squad joined a game already going and the two allies that were on our team lost three objectives to another 2 well equip guys. after we joined we started taking the points and the enemy MCC was at half shield and our MCC was on armor. more enemies and allies joined eventually but at the end we both had 2 bars of armor and all 3 control points on our teams side.
there are instances where it is impossible for the enemy to win other than kill the remaining clones but they are few and far between. making an extra objective would just complicate the missions even more. have 3-5 objectives while on a limited clone count would just pull people away to kitten around something else. |
Lead Squall
Planetary Response Organisation Test Friends Please Ignore
54
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 23:40:00 -
[5] - Quote
Necrodermis wrote:there is a set damage amount the MCC does to the other MCC. I'm having trouble following what you are saying though. the enemy controlled all the points but you still won? because i see that quite a bit, at some point it doesn't matter if the enemy controls all the Null cannons you will still win because the base damage is enough to finish off the enemy MCC.
i think the reason the match still continues on at that point is because sometimes it isn't the case sometimes a single null cannon can be the difference between victory and defeat.
one of my matches for starters my squad joined a game already going and the two allies that were on our team lost three objectives to another 2 well equip guys. after we joined we started taking the points and the enemy MCC was at half shield and our MCC was on armor. more enemies and allies joined eventually but at the end we both had 2 bars of armor and all 3 control points on our teams side.
there are instances where it is impossible for the enemy to win other than kill the remaining clones but they are few and far between. making an extra objective would just complicate the missions even more. have 3-5 objectives while on a limited clone count would just pull people away to kitten around something else.
I'm not saying that there needs to be another object; I think that if the game is going there needs to be some chance of both sides winning. If one side has already won, then what's the point? The game should have ended when there was no chance for one side to win. |
Longshot Ravenwood
Algintal Core Gallente Federation
680
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 02:12:00 -
[6] - Quote
Lead Squall wrote:I'm not saying that there needs to be another object; I think that if the game is going there needs to be some chance of both sides winning. If one side has already won, then what's the point? The game should have ended when there was no chance for one side to win.
Once you realize the enemy is going to win you can choose how you're going to play. Me personally? I choose to do my best to inflict as much damage upon them as possible. They might have a win, but that doesn't mean that I'm not going to do my damnedest to make those last 2 and a half minutes hell for them. |
Naturi Riclenore
BetaMax.
120
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 12:35:00 -
[7] - Quote
Lead Squall wrote:
I'm not saying that there needs to be another object; I think that if the game is going there needs to be some chance of both sides winning. If one side has already won, then what's the point? The game should have ended when there was no chance for one side to win.
I think you are missing the point. There are 2 ways to win a skirmish map.
1. Take out the enemy MCC 2. Deplete the enemy clone reserves
There is ALWAYS a chance you can still win, even if the enemy has control of ALL the points. Deplete their clone reserves and you will still win; even if your MCC has taken more damage. SO both sides always have a chance to win, even if it might only be slim. |
Dragon Grace
Osmon Surveillance Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 14:01:00 -
[8] - Quote
i think thats its strange that no one has yet addressed the comment that th OP made when refering to the MCC on MCC war. It DOES cap the max time a match can last. in an MMO? really? doesnt really make a lot of sense, and doesnt really show a sense of persistance. the EVE side of thing will be seeing the persistance more than the Dust side of things.
To the dust bunnies.....its match after match. naturally, the beta status has something to do with that. but whats the direction here in reference to that "persistance" aspiration. lets take planetside or planetside 2 for example. you are in a war, you log off....come back (to the right server) and its the same war. a persistant battle that is always going on. while your are taking a little downtime, your comrades are fighting the good fight and holding the lines until you get back to cause more mayhem for the enemy.
....so my question is this? although we all know that eventually dust will be effecting the shape of eve a little.....does anyone else feel like itll still just feel like "bout's" of war on the planets? isnt that just like COD with a bigger map and longer time limit (time limit being the maximum time taken for one MCC to kill another without any player aid from null cannons.)
i dont like limits.
or will there be a ton of persistant, ever fighting wars and defense that you can jump into based on your access to contracts or stuff. imagine......you log into dust, you look at your corp contracts......a dozen contracts come up with battle that are going on right now. you choose which one needs the most assistance and jump in. you fight until the problem is quelled a little, and then you jump into another contract needing help. of course eventually, things may heat up again on the original contract. ever persistant wars going on, managing your corps actions on the planets, all that kinda stuff.
or will it be just a list of contracts that you know will last a max of about 20minutes, and you choose the one you think will last the longest before it end? in hi sec....maybe. thats what the hi sec "instant battle" is for.
but for the faction warfare or low/null......a timer seen a little two scripted for a place where "we" write our own stories and live them out in our way.
do you get what im mean? |
develsgun
Phyrexian Engineering Legacy Rising
19
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 14:09:00 -
[9] - Quote
Longshot Ravenwood wrote:Lead Squall wrote:I'm not saying that there needs to be another object; I think that if the game is going there needs to be some chance of both sides winning. If one side has already won, then what's the point? The game should have ended when there was no chance for one side to win. Once you realize the enemy is going to win you can choose how you're going to play. Me personally? I choose to do my best to inflict as much damage upon them as possible. They might have a win, but that doesn't mean that I'm not going to do my damnedest to make those last 2 and a half minutes hell for them. amen to that my friend
Sorry but its quite a simple fact of the game if ur getting walloped so badly that theres no way for u to pull back well the other team would normally have over 100 clones left and unless ur team gets there hads out of their ass nothing u can do wil deplete the clone reserves in most cases the entir team trying wont deplete the reserves in time
The few times ive seen the reserves get depleted the match was close between the 2 teams all the control points were always swaping hands and the mcc were neck to neck in hp level. These matches are the good ones but they take so long that it basicaly comes to who ran out of clones befor whic mcc takes the lead in hp loss and dies first |
RedBleach LeSanglant
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz RISE of LEGION
136
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 16:22:00 -
[10] - Quote
An ever persistent war does not mean an ever persistent battle - 24/7 fighting. How would any 1 corp be able to handle that. Our wars today and of the past are the meetings of two forces for usually seconds to minutes depending on the conflict. Move to an area, wipe it, move on. These are the battles we play.
We fight for specific areas, for strategic points that EVE players want to own. The clashes of our game are more similar to the wars of acient and long dead civilizations that predate our modern ways of war.
You take issue with timers, what if there are reasons for that limit. Your employer set the limit, or that is the amount of time you can fight until you are chased off by squadrons of EVE players, etc. Allow your mind to think of all the possibilities and use whatever you must to have A GAME make sense to you. And perhaps you will be happier in the Low-sec environment where you can loose or gain anything and everything in a moment. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |