DUST Search - Slaughter Rule

Noc Tempre wrote:

Jathniel wrote:

Sorry, OP.

A game like Battlefield has a match timer when objectives are captured, because there is no MCC there to blow. You hold objectives, and that's it.

The skirmish is just fine.
You've successfully pushed the enemy out, now successfully defend, until the MCC blows. If the enemy has given up, that's not a broken game mechanic, that's a tactical decision. Remember, players are going to cut their losses if they're smart.

Groups might leave a match, and allow players that can put up more of a fight, into the match. There has to be time to allow for that.
Skirmish isn't too bad, as it currently stands, because it still allows for victory by clone out.

I just got out of a match, where the opposing team held all objectives. I sniped to my heart's content as they ran out in the open trying to camp the redline, instead of camping an objective like they should have. We ended up cloning them by a difference of 30.

Skirmish, as it currently stands, permits foolish hotheads to lose their cool, and throw the match, just like in the one I just mentioned. I find this to be a good thing.

I couldn't ask for a more balanced game mode.

A victory timer of some sort would prevent this. So again, sorry OP. I understand your frustration, but I disagree with your point and intension.

EDIT:
As Cross recommended, a separate game mode is where this belongs.
Probably, like the single null-cannon game mode we had. Perhaps let the null cannon fire a mega shot if you hold the cannon for 3 normal shots.

Sniping so many people from the redline as to clone them sounds like a boring match from both sides. Furthermore, why would the NPCs let the MCC sit there and die if the battle is wholly lost? This isn't about a finite length on the match (although that is already there) so much as it is ending the battle when the fight is over.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Thranx1231 CowTek 90	Posted - 2013.02.01 01:32:00 - [31] - Quote Noc Tempre wrote: So if I want to have fun start tieing my hands behind my back? The redline is a problem. Hopeless games that you have to babysit the blues are a problem. Getting in a match that is already lost is a problem. I'm glad you're able to consistently find fun matches. The majority of my matches though are instant redlines followed by 15 minutes of picking off snipers. It's just not worth playing but you can't leave if you have assets on the field or want your SP. Granted the extremes are bad. And training Blues is tough, in particular when they don't want to be trained and have no mic. Or common sense for that matter. The problem is the Red Line Is Never Going Away. CCP has a reasonable solution to a common map design problem and it works pretty well for its intended purpose. We need to get used to it in some fashion. If you don't like the map don't play it. If it commonly gets Red Lined exit before deployment. Once we have a proper Battle Finder with filter options I hope these issues will become less important. I don't like being in a game with < 8v8 or under 5 minutes remaining for Ambush and really lopsided for Skirmish. I am merely suggesting some options. Try finding some method to get some enjoyment for you. I hold C on Manus Peak by myself with a Heavy/HMG. That has turned the tide of several battles and was fun. Some Red thinks nobody will be there and pop up in their LAV to die. Handicapping is common in many games from golf to chess which is why I made the previous suggestions. Can you beat them without a Queen? I have been in some where there were two good squads (from which corps I forgot) but the Red Lining was very quick. We made runs into the Red some get their snipers. Some worked and some didn't. I have been on the other side as well. The Blues did nothing and, no surprise at all, we were Red Lined. I tried everything I knew and some I didn't. Nothing worked. But I continued on. Just the way I am I suppose. The thing that will solve your dilemma consistently would be Corp Battles. That and a broader player base with more experience. Which will take time.
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. 1216	Posted - 2013.02.01 01:35:00 - [32] - Quote Noc Tempre wrote: Erm, I mean tactical retreat. If all points are red, the MCC starts a 60 second countdown. If no points are hacked or converted, the MCC warps out. With this change comes removal of the redline. If you get pushed back, it's over. Try again another day. Corp battles can just remove the redline and let corps decide if they want to keep throwing money around or not. NPC's will play more on the safe side. Not sure if you can warp that deep in a gravity well, but I like the idea of being able to retreat. Kind of like how Skirmish 1.0 worked.
R F Gyro ZionTCD Legacy Rising 315	Posted - 2013.02.05 23:39:00 - [33] - Quote Terry Webber wrote: There is a forum that discusses this issue and I think it provides a perfect solution. Here's the link: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=50015 Too hard to implement. You'd have to wait a year or more for CCP to prioritise the work required to implement boarding a ship and fighting on it.
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 1062	Posted - 2013.02.05 23:55:00 - [34] - Quote There should be some grace period for the start of the game, ofc.
Icy Tiger Universal Allies Inc. 1026	Posted - 2013.02.06 00:14:00 - [35] - Quote Noc Tempre wrote: Erm, I mean tactical retreat. If all points are red, the MCC starts a 60 second countdown. If no points are hacked or converted, the MCC warps out. With this change comes removal of the redline. If you get pushed back, it's over. Try again another day. Corp battles can just remove the redline and let corps decide if they want to keep throwing money around or not. NPC's will play more on the safe side. i had this thing where Siege mode would begin, attackers would use jumppads to infiltrate the MCC and destroy it, while Defenders prevented this. It would take lots of force from attackers to do this though.
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis 775	Posted - 2013.02.06 01:00:00 - [36] - Quote Noc Tempre wrote: R F Gyro wrote: Ooop, sorry Noc. I'd already posted this for you. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=45370&find=unread I'll shut that thread down. 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
Noc Tempre Imperfects Negative-Feedback 1339	Posted - 2013.05.02 19:40:00 - [37] - Quote Nanite injecting an important suggestion.
Mary Sedillo XERCORE E X T E R M I N A T U S 11	Posted - 2013.05.02 22:39:00 - [38] - Quote I like the idea of a retreat if all points are held. However, I must say with a resounding no that spawn camping is HORRID. Red line needs to stay.
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis League of Infamy 902	Posted - 2013.05.03 00:28:00 - [39] - 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 ^
Noc Tempre Imperfects Negative-Feedback 1346	Posted - 2013.05.03 00:40:00 - [40] - Quote Cross Atu wrote: 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 ^ Well, I said all the way back then that it can be a way to differentiate Hisec, Lowsec, and Null. "Skirmish" is a terrible game mode atm and has only gotten worse since I wrote this.

Jathniel G I A N T EoN. 208	Posted - 2013.05.03 07:14:00 - [41] - Quote Sorry, OP. A game like Battlefield has a match timer when objectives are captured, because there is no MCC there to blow. You hold objectives, and that's it. The skirmish is just fine. You've successfully pushed the enemy out, now successfully defend, until the MCC blows. If the enemy has given up, that's not a broken game mechanic, that's a tactical decision. Remember, players are going to cut their losses if they're smart. Groups might leave a match, and allow players that can put up more of a fight, into the match. There has to be time to allow for that. Skirmish isn't too bad, as it currently stands, because it still allows for victory by clone out. I just got out of a match, where the opposing team held all objectives. I sniped to my heart's content as they ran out in the open trying to camp the redline, instead of camping an objective like they should have. We ended up cloning them by a difference of 30. Skirmish, as it currently stands, permits foolish hotheads to lose their cool, and throw the match, just like in the one I just mentioned. I find this to be a good thing. I couldn't ask for a more balanced game mode. A victory timer of some sort would prevent this. So again, sorry OP. I understand your frustration, but I disagree with your point and intension. EDIT: As Cross recommended, a separate game mode is where this belongs. Probably, like the single null-cannon game mode we had. Perhaps let the null cannon fire a mega shot if you hold the cannon for 3 normal shots.
Jason Pearson Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 928	Posted - 2013.05.03 08:55:00 - [42] - Quote Needed, all the guys asking for "different game modes" when the one we have is already boring as it is. Every game I sit in we either cap all the points or cap nothing. You're in a pub match scrubs, stop thinking your team will actually pull it together. Make it start falling back from battle, if a point gets rehacked in time, the MCC starts moving back into position, that way it can't be "restarted" by letting the red hack and then insta hacking it back. Also need it for when PC begins to cost more (Buying our own MCC), we need the choice to withdraw it, if it seems like a losing battle.
Noc Tempre Imperfects Negative-Feedback 1349	Posted - 2013.05.03 15:00:00 - [43] - Quote Jathniel wrote: Sorry, OP. A game like Battlefield has a match timer when objectives are captured, because there is no MCC there to blow. You hold objectives, and that's it. The skirmish is just fine. You've successfully pushed the enemy out, now successfully defend, until the MCC blows. If the enemy has given up, that's not a broken game mechanic, that's a tactical decision. Remember, players are going to cut their losses if they're smart. Groups might leave a match, and allow players that can put up more of a fight, into the match. There has to be time to allow for that. Skirmish isn't too bad, as it currently stands, because it still allows for victory by clone out. I just got out of a match, where the opposing team held all objectives. I sniped to my heart's content as they ran out in the open trying to camp the redline, instead of camping an objective like they should have. We ended up cloning them by a difference of 30. Skirmish, as it currently stands, permits foolish hotheads to lose their cool, and throw the match, just like in the one I just mentioned. I find this to be a good thing. I couldn't ask for a more balanced game mode. A victory timer of some sort would prevent this. So again, sorry OP. I understand your frustration, but I disagree with your point and intension. EDIT: As Cross recommended, a separate game mode is where this belongs. Probably, like the single null-cannon game mode we had. Perhaps let the null cannon fire a mega shot if you hold the cannon for 3 normal shots. Sniping so many people from the redline as to clone them sounds like a boring match from both sides. Furthermore, why would the NPCs let the MCC sit there and die if the battle is wholly lost? This isn't about a finite length on the match (although that is already there) so much as it is ending the battle when the fight is over.
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe Planetary Response Organisation 284	Posted - 2013.05.03 17:08:00 - [44] - Quote Man, I've suggested this in a couple threads and I was shouted down every time. Screw you guys. Point is, this is a good idea. I support it.
Noc Tempre Imperfects Negative-Feedback 1357	Posted - 2013.05.03 19:03:00 - [45] - Quote Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe wrote: Man, I've suggested this in a couple threads and I was shouted down every time. Screw you guys. Point is, this is a good idea. I support it. Look at the date on the OP... the idea is ancient. Just happened to bump my own because it was easy to find. Anything to get people talking about it seriously again.
Jathniel G I A N T EoN. 213	Posted - 2013.05.04 07:54:00 - [46] - Quote Noc Tempre wrote: Jathniel wrote: Sorry, OP. A game like Battlefield has a match timer when objectives are captured, because there is no MCC there to blow. You hold objectives, and that's it. The skirmish is just fine. You've successfully pushed the enemy out, now successfully defend, until the MCC blows. If the enemy has given up, that's not a broken game mechanic, that's a tactical decision. Remember, players are going to cut their losses if they're smart. Groups might leave a match, and allow players that can put up more of a fight, into the match. There has to be time to allow for that. Skirmish isn't too bad, as it currently stands, because it still allows for victory by clone out. I just got out of a match, where the opposing team held all objectives. I sniped to my heart's content as they ran out in the open trying to camp the redline, instead of camping an objective like they should have. We ended up cloning them by a difference of 30. Skirmish, as it currently stands, permits foolish hotheads to lose their cool, and throw the match, just like in the one I just mentioned. I find this to be a good thing. I couldn't ask for a more balanced game mode. A victory timer of some sort would prevent this. So again, sorry OP. I understand your frustration, but I disagree with your point and intension. EDIT: As Cross recommended, a separate game mode is where this belongs. Probably, like the single null-cannon game mode we had. Perhaps let the null cannon fire a mega shot if you hold the cannon for 3 normal shots. Sniping so many people from the redline as to clone them sounds like a boring match from both sides. Furthermore, why would the NPCs let the MCC sit there and die if the battle is wholly lost? This isn't about a finite length on the match (although that is already there) so much as it is ending the battle when the fight is over. Well, to be fair. Not everyone was sniping. We had some brave souls actually bothering to put clones on the line going for objectives. I'd cover a couple blueberries as they approached a point, they would capture it, then go get killed at another point, and the enemy would retake it. Objectives captured doesn't mean fight over. Not being on the offensive, doesn't mean that the game should end. Our opponents were supposed to defend their objectives, not try to push into our red zone, and because they did, they were sniped, and died. A good offense is a superior defense.... at least until you no longer need an offense. lol
Gunner Nightingale Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 629	Posted - 2013.05.29 22:37:00 - [47] - Quote Good stuff noc i think a redline removal altogehter in PC has higher implications than the slaughter rule which can be a secondary mechanic that i really like. Its more a question of should there really be a safe zone of any kind in a PC match? Having a safe zone encourages its utility to the detriment of competitive play at times. It at time almost serves a literal way of being a child that state nah nah you can't touch me . You know that game kids would play teasing someone over a boundary they know their tauntee would get in trouble for if they crossed. Yea thats what the redline in PC is like.
Treablo James Howard WarRavens 2	Posted - 2013.05.29 22:53:00 - [48] - Quote You bet your sweet ass my MCC has a warp scrambler. You bitches are going no where! Die where you stand! If you can't defend yourself, you deserve to get slaughtered. If you attack and can't event make it out of the MCC without being sniped. You deserved to get slaughtered. We are attached to a "sand box" game. Sit in that MCC and pray to god they can't make it up there.
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis 1028	Posted - 2013.05.29 22:56:00 - [49] - 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
TERMINALANCE Zumari Force Projection Caldari State 67	Posted - 2013.05.30 13:49:00 - [50] - Quote Noc Tempre wrote: Erm, I mean tactical retreat. If all points are red, the MCC starts a 60 second countdown. If no points are hacked or converted, the MCC warps out. With this change comes removal of the redline. If you get pushed back, it's over. Try again another day. Corp battles can just remove the redline and let corps decide if they want to keep throwing money around or not. NPC's will play more on the safe side. The timer should be pushed to 4 or 5 mins.

Chinduko KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 145	Posted - 2013.05.30 14:09:00 - [51] - Quote Remove the redline and spawn players on the opposite side of the map when spawn camping happens.
R F Gyro Krusual Covert Operators Minmatar Republic 358	Posted - 2013.06.08 11:47:00 - [52] - Quote Can we keep hitting this thread with the nanite injector until someone headshots it?
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis Covert Intervention 1108	Posted - 2013.06.08 14:30:00 - [53] - 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.
R F Gyro Krusual Covert Operators Minmatar Republic 358	Posted - 2013.06.08 15:45:00 - [54] - Quote 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)?
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis Covert Intervention 1109	Posted - 2013.06.08 16:09:00 - [55] - 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.
R F Gyro Krusual Covert Operators Minmatar Republic 359	Posted - 2013.06.08 16:54:00 - [56] - Quote 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 :-) 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. 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. 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.
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis Covert Intervention 1113	Posted - 2013.06.08 19:49:00 - [57] - 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
R F Gyro Krusual Covert Operators Minmatar Republic 360	Posted - 2013.06.08 21:38:00 - [58] - Quote Cross Atu wrote: 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. Which is perfect. And you can continue to do so. As long as anyone on the losing team is still fighting back and managing to start to hack objectives, the fight continues. Only when the whole of one team gives up completely does the MCC retreat and the battle finish early.
Noc Tempre Imperfects Negative-Feedback 1868	Posted - 2013.06.09 06:38:00 - [59] - Quote Cross is a masochist and enjoys punishingly uneven games. Fortunately for you, the system I proposed in OP still lets you do that. It just gives an out so you are not FORCED to sit there and take it if you truly give up. Play with the reward structure a bit so it isn't the first, second, or third option; the intention is not to remove the tug and pull, just give both the dominators a mechanic to secure the knockout that the current mechanics do not support. Leaving the battle is the same effect for the person leaving, but the people they left behind are simply stuck. It's not a comprehensive change, it's just ADDING options to the sandbox for the defeated to turn tail. Losing early does not mean you deserve to sit there and take it for 10 minutes.
hgghyujh Expert Intervention Caldari State 38	Posted - 2013.06.19 02:42:00 - [60] - Quote I'm gonna leave this here



Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page