|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
775
   |
Posted - 2013.02.06 01:00:00 -
[1] - Quote
Noc Tempre wrote:Lol, no worries. Sometimes I miss things  If I had seen that thread I would have just kept it going strong. Furthermore, gaming the system means you have to cover at least 3 spawns (the two default and the "gamed" objective). While it is still possible, it would be a lot harder than the current system.
How so? I see this happening now even on maps with more than three objectives (tho the three point maps have the most of it). In that regard the "gamed" version with the new system is something that already happens so clearly it's not prohibitively difficult.
That aside why force Skirmish to be "ambush with objectives"? Some players don't want to run only fast cycle games like ambush, and there's no functional reason to force them to do so.
Beyond that altering skirmish to be less like Corp Battles reduces the training value of those matches thus making the transition harder for players newer to the game.
The OP as a suggestion for a new game mode +1 with a bullet.
The OP as a replacement for the current skirmish -1 don't damage game diversity and player choice.
Cross |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
League of Infamy
902
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 00:28:00 -
[2] - Quote
Cross Atu wrote:The OP as a suggestion for a new game mode +1 with a bullet.
The OP as a replacement for the current skirmish -1 don't damage game diversity and player choice.
Cross
Since it seems we're reiterating things ^ |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
1028
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 22:56:00 -
[3] - Quote
N-N-N-NECRO THREAD!
For faster games play Ambush and OMS (or even Domination).
For Skirmish games that aren't redline camping it's simple, don't redline the opposing team. Leaving at least 1-2 spawn points outside the redline keeps the match more interesting and more rewarding (both SP and ISK) for players on both teams.
There's no need to spend development resources on 'flattening' the game play experience between modes. It mucks with PC, makes FW more exploitable, reduces the diversity between game modes and skews the value of gear already present in the game causing less overall balance (speed and hacking fits as well as dampening and it's counters are all things which really shine in turning the tides on losing situations. they still maintain a value outside of that but it's a diminished one).
0.02 ISK
Cross |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
Covert Intervention
1108
|
Posted - 2013.06.08 14:30:00 -
[4] - Quote
R F Gyro wrote:Can we keep hitting this thread with the nanite injector until someone headshots it?
It's already a zombie, let it die in peace and spawn in a new fit better adapted to the current battlefield conditions. |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
Covert Intervention
1109
|
Posted - 2013.06.08 16:09:00 -
[5] - Quote
R F Gyro wrote:Cross Atu wrote:It's already a zombie, let it die in peace and spawn in a new fit better adapted to the current battlefield conditions. I'd love to. What's changed? Has redlining been solved? Is it easier to get back into the game when redlined? Is being redlined more fun (for either side)?
This thread is not a solution to any of those problems nor does it suggest fixes which avoid flattening the play experience between game types. A "slaughter rule" is at its base a way to end matches faster under certain conditions.
A faster end to the match does not prevent redlining.
A faster end to the match does not create new/more possibilities for getting back into the game (it in fact diminishes them thus devaluing various tactics and skills/fits ultimately decreasing game diversity).
A faster end to the match does not make redlining either more fun or more rewarding (it may arguably make it less tedious for the victors while making it more frustrating for the defeated but regardless of those subjective aspects it most certainly diminishes total end of match rewards.)
So in short nothing has changed, "slaughter rule" type ideas are still not a viable solution to the problems or shortcomings of Dust 514.
Hence why I said (albeit via metaphor) that this thread should be allowed to die rather than re-necro'ed and that other threads better adapted to address the specific problems should be presented instead thereby searching for new ideas which may actually present a solution to the present problems. |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
Covert Intervention
1113
|
Posted - 2013.06.08 19:49:00 -
[6] - Quote
R F Gyro wrote:I understand what you're saying Cross, but nothing you've mentioned is new and I was responding to your "better adapted to the current battlefield conditions" point. I guess we'd just stretched the metaphor too far :-)
Fair enough, I do see how my prior post wasn't as clear as it could have been.
Quote:
In response to your "not a solution to [..] those problems" point, I disagree. I think it is perfectly valid for matches to be uneven, and I think it is in both side's best interests to end the match quickly when that is the case.
My stance on this is yes uneven is fine (assuming it's based on skill not broken mechanics) and no truncating the mach is not a valid option. There are game types for a reason, differing play styles appeal to diffrent people. Also the base mechanics of a match, especially when it comes to skirmish which is the standards for FW and PC, very much relate to aspects of balance in both the skill tree and market. To truncate the match reduces the value of some tactics (and thus the fits and skills which support them) while artificially inflating others. If a player wants a faster cycle game mode because that's more to their tastes no problem, but that match type is not skirmish. In fact essentially every other play mode is faster so all truncation of the skirmish mode does is reduce the diversity of the game.
Quote:
We don't need to prevent redlining, it is just an indication that one side has effectively "won".
Ending an uneven game creates more possibilities because those involved will start new games, probably more even ones.
Being completely outclassed by the opposition is never going to be fun, but it is inevitable. Keep the "not fun" short.
Diminishing end-of-match rewards is countered by the fact that players will simply move on to the next game quicker and get rewards from that; there's also no reason the redlining team can't get a bonus.
I have, on more than one occasion, turned a redline game into a victory while running solo, it's even easier to do with a squad. Now I'm not claiming I can do it every time or against any/every team but it's totally doable and in fact was the role that a chose for most of a build during closed beta. Low profile, fast movement, hacking mods, uplinks = one merc game changer. Ironically this fit is somewhat less effective against teams that aren't busy "red lining" but that ultimately underscores the point.
Quote:As for allowing the losing team to get back into the game, you are assuming they want to. A lot of them won't. If enough of them do want to fight it out, all they need to do (if this was implemented the way I think it should be done) is *start* a hack on any objective. That's not that hard, and if they can't manage it then my guess is they aren't really trying anyway. The slaughter rule is a way for both sides to agree to end the match quickly.
No one is saying that this is a solution to all the problems or shortcomings of Dust 514, just a way to improve a situation that is inevitable in all competitive games/sports.
If you want other threads to suggest other potential solutions to the problems you see, feel free. I suspect you've already posted a few.
I am indeed assuming that the other team wants to get back in it, or more specifically that there are some players who do and that there shouldn't be game mechanics actively preventing them from trying (especially when some of us not only enjoy it but can do it) since there are already shorter game modes for others to play. Beyond that it also impacts the balance of FW and PC which while they are still developing will become more significant over time according to CCP.
I don't think there is a single solution that will address all aspects raised I believe it needs a more granular approach, and that no solution will be completely final/perfect but there is a workaround in game right now, which while imperfect does still work and that is simply for players to choose not to hack everything. Leave the opposing team a couple spawn points and the matches are more interesting and more rewarding.
All that being said, you're right Gyro it's about time I set myself to the task of coming up with some possible improvements to related issues, and thank you for carrying on an actual conversation about it.
Cheers,
Cross |
|
|
| |
|