|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Fivetimes Infinity
Immobile Infantry
1086
   |
Posted - 2012.12.07 18:21:00 -
[1] - Quote
What we need is corp battles that are more than 8v8. Letting a corp fully stack one team against random people would be ridiculous, there'd be little chance an unorganized team could beat an organized team used to working together. |
Fivetimes Infinity
Immobile Infantry
1086
|
Posted - 2012.12.09 20:29:00 -
[2] - Quote
slap26 wrote:Agreed, +1. Pub matches are normally pretty one sided anyways. The only time I normally get a good fight is when our squad gets paired against another corp squad. And hell the outcome is normally decided on what team has the better blue dots (more corp players)
No they aren't. Letting one corp stack an entire team would go a long way to making sure more public games are one-sided, though.
The bottom line is that it would be bad for Dust. Non-corp casual players would be driven away from the game, and corp players wouldn't really get anything out of it beyond an easy win, which isn't fun either. Nobody benefits from this. If you want to play with friends, you can as a single squad. If you want a big, organized fight for your corp, pick a battle with another corp. There's zero reason to allow pub stomping. |
Fivetimes Infinity
Immobile Infantry
1086
|
Posted - 2012.12.09 20:31:00 -
[3] - Quote
J'Jor Da'Wg wrote:I disagree. Make a game for casuals, and they move on when the newest ice cream flavor comes out. Poof, there goes your fanbase. Hardcore players are left disgusted, and now you got no one.
Too many casual games out there right now. DUST needs to differentiate itself to people; MAKE IT HARD.
Fun, rewarding, deep, but don't cater to the capricious whims of a casual.
My 0.02 ISK
This is absurd. The game can be good for BOTH casuals AND "hardcore" players. It's incredibly foolish to make it exclusively for one or the other, and hey, guess what, hardcore players often begin as casual players. If you drive away casuals by making the game ****** for them to play, you ensure that your playerbase will not grow and that your game will not succeed. |
Fivetimes Infinity
Immobile Infantry
1086
|
Posted - 2012.12.09 21:44:00 -
[4] - Quote
J'Jor Da'Wg wrote:Ok. Then make a place for corps to deploy full teams and still gain SP and ISK. Like, a seperate queue for those who want to play with a full team. Keep high sec 4 player squads only, but form an early precursor to low sec where full teams can play matchmaking in another queue. Randoms could still join, but they would know that there would be corps in there.
Is that a better solution?
No, it isn't a better solution, for the same reason you don't get any SP or ISK from corp v. corp matches currently. Two organized teams against one another would result in two very organized teams trading kills/revives in militia gear against one another until the timer runs out. It would be incredibly open to abuse, and absolutely would be abused the moment it's allowed.
And allowing random people to join is pointless, as nobody would ever voluntarily play against organized teams while being solo themselves and on a team of other solo players. Being redlined and farmed probably isn't high on the list of things people are liable to volunteer for.
Ultimately it's just a lot of crap. CCP isn't going to let you farm pubbies, and they aren't going to let you trade kills with friendly corps for SP and ISK. |
Fivetimes Infinity
Immobile Infantry
1086
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 05:22:00 -
[5] - Quote
J'Jor Da'Wg wrote:Well, I presented a median solution.
No, you didn't. You didn't present a solution, because there isn't a problem. If you want to fight in large, organized teams, you have corp battles which reward no ISK/SP beyond the contract terms to the winner. If you want to play with friends for ISK/SP, you can hop in a squad and queue for public games.
Quote:So the question remains... How do we have organized teams play pub matchmaking against other teams, whilst still earning ISK and SP? All while avoiding pubstomping randoms?
The question doesn't remain. The question was solved by CCP the moment they added in squads and squad-queuing for fights. |
Fivetimes Infinity
Immobile Infantry
1086
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 05:28:00 -
[6] - Quote
xprotoman23 wrote:The player base needs to be conditioned to join corporations and pub-stacking is the only way to make that possible tbh.
This is horseshit and you have no idea what you're talking about. Making new player experience in Dust consist of playing public matches where they get redlined and farmed by full corp teams repeatedly will do little more than drive people away from the game. Console FPS gamers have a ton of great titles to choose from, and they aren't going to put up with that kind of crap. They'll get farmed a few times, then delete the game and go play something that's actually fun. The notion that the response of new players would instead be to go and find a corp to play with is silly.
The sensible thing to do, and what CCP is aiming for, is to make the new player experience not the equivalent of EVE, and to count on the game being fun and the lure of organized play and big ISK payouts be enough to compel people to join corps. That's how you do it. You make people really like the game, and want to get even more involved with it, and get them to join a corp that way. You don't make the game **** and force people to join a corp out of necessity. |
Fivetimes Infinity
Immobile Infantry
1086
|
Posted - 2012.12.11 05:17:00 -
[7] - Quote
Leither Yiltron wrote:Should we reduce fleet size to 4 in Eve as well as long as you're in high sec? This should keep industrial players feeling safe and playing the game. Should CCP have stopped Burn Jita? It would have probably saved them some industrial subscriptions. Maybe even a lot of them.
Your analogies are silly. New players aren't the ones hauling tons of stuff around in empire. New players are perfectly safe. Unusual events like Jita being "burned" are an exception. Making people able to stack teams would not be an exception, it'd be Burn Jita 24/7, and for new players rather than more advanced players who actually have **** to do at Jita.
Dust isn't a sandbox game. Nowhere have they used the word sandbox. It's meant to be a good FPS game that people will want to play. Not some social experiment like EVE, where CCP breaks new ground in making obscure, unpopular games which are famous for their stories and infamous for their actual gameplay.
Quote:When imposing low caps on player groups in any capacity, all you're doing is ruining the enjoyment of the player corporations that drive your game forward. In fact, you're crippling them and crippling your capacity to move forward as a social game.
CCP is not obliged to support the enjoyment of corps if that means farming new players all day. If corps want to group fight, there are corp contracts. If that isn't enough, propose changes to that system. The new player experience of Dust is more important than you getting your rocks off spawn camping people.
Quote:Let's take a look at Planetside 2, a game many of the people reading this post have played and possibly enjoyed. There's no group limit in Planetside 2, but the game has been a huge free to play success. New players haven't suddenly left in droves after being beaten by huge outfits. Limiting the squads and platoons in PS2 to a particular size would be pointless, and in fact doing so would just be a disservice to those people who organize such large numbers of players.
Even the biggest Planetside 2 outfit isn't anywhere close to being able to comprise the entire enemy team. Nobody in Planetside 2 is rolling multiple platoons and hundreds of players all working together. Having a platoon of 48 players in Planetside 2 is the equivalent of having a squad of 4 players in Dust. As well, death in Planetside 2 is unimportant. You can respawn at a totally safe area with the click of a button, and you lose nothing upon dying. Conversely, in Dust you'd need to leave and find an entirely new game, and the price of being dominated is the amount you're paying on your fittings. So once again, your analogy is terrible. The fact that you'd try to use this contrived nonsense as a point in favour of uncapped squad sizes speaks volumes. |
|
|
| |
|