Laurent Cazaderon
Villore Sec Ops
Gallente Federation
1155
   |
Posted - 2013.01.30 13:09:00 -
[1] - Quote
First i'll start with a classic : skirmish 1.0 >>>>>>> skirmish 2.0.
The whole "run around and hack" part of it is just inherent to the domination game itself. BF3 conquest mode is just as boring on that matter. Skirmish 1.0 had a real front line and in case you were getting stomped it was pretty quickly over.
Now, i'm not a fan of the "got all points, extra damage" as some map design just make it easy for a team to get 2 points or more very early compared to the opponents.
Instead, just add a 5 minute or so timer when all objectives are owned. If no objective can be hacked back in that time frame, the losing team just retreats. And ISK bounty for the losers is cut big time. Which would make sense for the contracter to try and save its MCC in a fight where defeat is guaranteed.
Regarding MCC boarding, it is imo a massive pain in the ass to add. The idea is tempting but how would it work coz you dont develop that part ? Where would you enter the MCC, where would you hack it so it would blow up ? What about the red line issue, the fact that it would to have actual room in the MCC so redesigning it and making maps even heavier. What about control points when you can board the MCC ? Still available to hack ? Think of all the specifics and it's becoming a very heavy coding mess.
Your suggestion would be more of an entirely new game mode similar to MAG's basic mode (hell cant remember the name oO). Start on a small map. Need to hack two points simultaneously and that allows boarding ennemy MCC with DS, and or spawning on boarded CRUs. etc... And tbh, even then i'd rather see my WarBarge fight game mode first 
For skirmish 2.0, The best is to incentize players to just go fight (no WP in redline, no kill registered), and\or just put them out of their misery (auto-retreat timer or else). |
Laurent Cazaderon
Villore Sec Ops
Gallente Federation
1155
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 13:27:00 -
[2] - Quote
Umbat Boki wrote:The reason for unbalanced games is that the matchmaking system doesn't work as indented. With increase in player since open beta has started, devs should clearly see this and hopefully plan to fix somehow.
In my opinion, it's isn't possible to calculate player's skill because player's performance can differ based on fitting used. I think we need several manually selected difficulty level for each game mode with benefits for playing in higher difficulty level and drawback to play lower difficulty levels with high cost fittings.
Except that's against the single shard experience. Every possibility to choose a difficulty, or to separate the player base according to specific tier of weapons\armor chosen by the players themselves etc... is a bad idea.
A better solution would be to have a kind of standing thingy. Or a "merc reputation" stat. Something equivalent but not especially linked to one faction.
According to that merc reputation, you'd get access to different levels of NPC contratcs, just like in eve. The higher the contract, the higher the ISK multiplier. Thus, the higher the merc reputation, the higher the skill of the players are. Those "high reputation" merc could still play lower rewarding contracts but they should be drawn to the higher reward. Or play lower battles with lower grade equipment.
Sole problem with that is that low rep mercs could end up in very empty fights and struggle to gain access to the higher contratcs.
Maybe PVE could raise that merc rep as well.
Anyway, just thoughts. |