| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Bogon Vdemotch
Expert Intervention
Caldari State
2
   |
Posted - 2013.03.05 07:07:00 -
[1] - Quote
Clone count as a victory condition should be dumped in favor of total ISK destroyed. This is the only way to create an appropriate risk/reward balance for calling in expensive eq. |
Hagintora
Chatelain Rapid Response
Gallente Federation
64
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 07:18:00 -
[2] - Quote
If you want to add another win condition to the game, then I'm all for it, but there shouldn't be only one way to win a match. Now adding that when they release the Commander Role wouldn't be bad (again, as long as they kept clones and MCC detruction as well). Say by having a counter on the Commander's screen (since he's playing a top-down RTS game) that keeps track of ISK lost in the current match, the Commander could then decide if the fight is becoming too costly for his Corp.
I think there should only be one or two "hard wins" (like clone count), and the rest should be left up to the players to decide if they want to continue the fight. If the players (the Commander of the team, or the individual players themselves) want to retreat from the match, or press on in the face of overwhelming odds, then I think they should be allowed to do that. |
Bogon Vdemotch
Expert Intervention
Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 07:38:00 -
[3] - Quote
Hagintora wrote:If you want to add another win condition to the game, then I'm all for it, but there shouldn't be only one way to win a match. Now adding that when they release the Commander Role wouldn't be bad (again, as long as they kept clones and MCC detruction as well). Say by having a counter on the Commander's screen (since he's playing a top-down RTS game) that keeps track of ISK lost in the current match, the Commander could then decide if the fight is becoming too costly for his Corp.
I think there should only be one or two "hard wins" (like clone count), and the rest should be left up to the players to decide if they want to continue the fight. If the players (the Commander of the team, or the individual players themselves) want to retreat from the match, or press on in the face of overwhelming odds, then I think they should be allowed to do that.
If your going that far, then just ditch hard conditions altogether. However, I don't think that's reasonably happening in pub games. Right now games are boring as hell; The team that drops max tanks and proto heavies wins in five minutes and there's no opportunity for the losing side to get back in it. Because the game doesn't have (or really want) real logistical limitations, how else to you make games competitive? |
Lonnar
KILL-EM-QUICK
RISE of LEGION
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 07:48:00 -
[4] - Quote
Hagintora wrote:If you want to add another win condition to the game, then I'm all for it, but there shouldn't be only one way to win a match. Now adding that when they release the Commander Role wouldn't be bad (again, as long as they kept clones and MCC detruction as well). Say by having a counter on the Commander's screen (since he's playing a top-down RTS game) that keeps track of ISK lost in the current match, the Commander could then decide if the fight is becoming too costly for his Corp.
I think there should only be one or two "hard wins" (like clone count), and the rest should be left up to the players to decide if they want to continue the fight. If the players (the Commander of the team, or the individual players themselves) want to retreat from the match, or press on in the face of overwhelming odds, then I think they should be allowed to do that.
This idea is over the top. Do you have any idea what you just suggested? The awesome scope of this idea is insane. Imagine if both sides never gave up, and kept on fighting, clone, after clone, after clone. A battle with a victory set by a team's withdrawal can last for HOURS, maybe even DAYS.
I'd recommend posting this idea as an individual suggestion of it's own to grab people's attention. If you don't feel like making a new thread, then I will, I'll make sure to mention you at least as the original creator of this fantastic idea. |
Hagintora
Chatelain Rapid Response
Gallente Federation
65
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 07:53:00 -
[5] - Quote
Isn't your ISK idea a hard condition as well? Just counting up how much ISK is destroyed until you reach a certain number? Unless you were saying that it should be the players option to quit the fight?
And how would you ISK idea negate having teams "max out tanks and proto heavies"? Espescially if they're already winning in five minutes? Adding win conditions is one thing, but limiting win conditions will just make things, like the example you gave, worse. By adding win conditions, you give the losing team a chance to change strategies and turn the fight around.
I don't really understand what you mean by "real logistical limitations", could you explain that further? |
Hagintora
Chatelain Rapid Response
Gallente Federation
65
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 07:58:00 -
[6] - Quote
Lonnar wrote:This idea is over the top. Do you have any idea what you just suggested? The awesome scope of this idea is insane. Imagine if both sides never gave up, and kept on fighting, clone, after clone, after clone. A battle with a victory set by a team's withdrawal can last for HOURS, maybe even DAYS.
I'd recommend posting this idea as an individual suggestion of it's own to grab people's attention. If you don't feel like making a new thread, then I will, I'll make sure to mention you at least as the original creator of this fantastic idea.
Be my guest, my friend. Although be prepared for people not being as excited as you or I over fights that last hours or days. I like it, but it just makes sense in my head that it would take that long (or longer) to take over a District, or a Planet.
I will stop now, as I don't want to hijack Bogon's thread too much. |
Bogon Vdemotch
Expert Intervention
Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 08:15:00 -
[7] - Quote
Hagintora wrote:
I don't really understand what you mean by "real logistical limitations", could you explain that further?
In real wars, you're inherently limited by what you brought with you. You cannot order up tanks from space, or buy new dropships and have them delivered in 2 minutes* You cannot adapt to the enemies disposition just by pushing a few buttons, and even if you could, there'd still be limits.
As to how the idea creates balance, the team getting stomped goes to gimp gear with a focus on taking out the high value targets to get the win. It lets them ignore KdR, play cheap and try to grind a win by swarming the enemy with low quality suits.
*OR YOU ORDER IS FREE! LIMITATIONS APPLY. OFFER NOT VALID ON CALDAR PRIME. |
Baal Omniscient
L.O.T.I.S.
Legacy Rising
269
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 09:12:00 -
[8] - Quote
Won't work. 2 words. Militia Gear. I could fund a 3 week straight campaign with no breaks for under 50,000,000 ISK. And that's IF we aren't using blueprints.Now if we had to buy every clone we used, that might be different.... |
Hagintora
Chatelain Rapid Response
Gallente Federation
67
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 09:51:00 -
[9] - Quote
Bogon Vdemotch wrote:In real wars, you're inherently limited by what you brought with you. You cannot order up tanks from space, or buy new dropships and have them delivered in 2 minutes* You cannot adapt to the enemies disposition just by pushing a few buttons, and even if you could, there'd still be limits. As to how the idea creates balance, the team getting stomped goes to gimp gear with a focus on taking out the high value targets to get the win. It lets them ignore KdR, play cheap and try to grind a win by swarming the enemy with low quality suits. *OR YOU ORDER IS FREE! LIMITATIONS APPLY. OFFER NOT VALID ON CALDAR PRIME.
I feel that KDR does have its place in this game, just not a very big one. Since, from the posts I've read on this forum, people can recieve about 5 deaths before they have to switch to lower level gear in order to make a profit from the match, your KDR is basically a measure of how long a player can run top gear in a fight. Now in order to make that truly useful, CCP would have to add in a ranking that would calculate the average deaths per match that a player recieves. I'd say toss in a similar ranking that measures average WP's recieved in a match as well, so people would be able to judge how "active" the player is in each match.
That said, I agree with most of the rest of your post. My only concern is how to balance that in game. All of our equipment right now is personally owned, so limiting how many times a player can call in a tank is currently limited to how many tanks they own. If all vehicles and suits were owned by the Corp, then this would absolutely work. As it stands there are going to be a lot of players who will be upset because they can't use the items and vehicles they've purchased. So the question is: Regardless of Clone Count being present or not, how would you balance the issue of "personally owned" items being used in battles?
The part I don't agree with is your idea of how this would balance the game. The team running PRO gear is already at an advantage over over the team running Militia Gear. The team running MLT Gear is dealing less damage, and is taking more damage, and the only way a swarm tactic would work is if one team could truly out number the other by having more players on the map than their opponents. In battles where both sides have an equal number of players, swarming just isn't really possible.
Baal Omniscient wrote:Won't work. 2 words. Militia Gear. I could fund a 3 week straight campaign with no breaks for under 50,000,000 ISK. And that's IF we aren't using blueprints.Now if we had to buy every clone we used, that might be different....
Now if we were to combine this idea of Corps having to buy the clones used in battles (an idea that has been mentioned several times, but is still a good one), with Bogon's idea of Logistics, then we have something. Cloning out a team is an acceptable way to win, because if nobody is left to fight you then win. This is how a lot of small battles are usually won, with the larger battles/wars being decided by whether or not one side still has the resources to continue. If Corps had to purchase clones (BioMass) before battles, you could win simply by making it too costly to continue to fight against you. |
Bogon Vdemotch
Expert Intervention
Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 11:04:00 -
[10] - Quote
The short answer is without scarcity, the whole attempt at economic warfare is moot. |
|
|
Kazio De Vihura
Ostrakon Agency
Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 11:14:00 -
[11] - Quote
Bogon Vdemotch wrote:Clone count as a victory condition should be dumped in favor of total ISK destroyed. This is the only way to create an appropriate risk/reward balance for calling in expensive eq.
Seriously why people want make from dust another call of duty ? |
Chinduko
KILL-EM-QUICK
RISE of LEGION
21
|
Posted - 2013.03.06 03:12:00 -
[12] - Quote
Very good Idea! |
Johnny Guilt
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
50
|
Posted - 2013.03.06 03:35:00 -
[13] - Quote
Victory through bankruptcy? Sounds like a real war now |
Thrillhouse Van Houten
Expert Intervention
Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2013.03.06 03:57:00 -
[14] - Quote
I think the idea has merit way out in null sec. Hell, if two corps have sick amounts of money to spend on clones, fits, vehicles, orbital support, etc... then why not allow them to have a battle over a district go on until one corp decides it has become too costly? Why should the fight end if the "loser" is just going to redouble and attack the district they just lost until they recapture it?
In all game modes in every place, though? I don't see it working. The major reason is that matchmaking is random and therefore you don't know who is on each team. What if I get spotted on a team full of super rich mercs and the other team is paupers. We simply couldn't win because they don't have enough money to max out the ISK counter anyways...how lame would that be? If a team captain gets to decide...then how much money he has impacts when your team quits.
Clone count being a hard victory condition makes perfect sense. You only have x clones to use and once they get used, you lose. The number of clones could be up to the corps, I guess, but they should still be fixed by the available number in the MCC. ISK as a hard victory condition makes much less sense. It doesn't cost a set ISK value to conquer a place. The better the attackers, the more likely they will have a good ISK/clone loss ratio. Thats the advantage of having a great merc corp doing your fighting for you.
The one hard victory condition that has never made sense to me is a timer. In pubs, I see them as a necessary evil but they should go once corps get fighting.
Bankruptcy should be a victory condition...in a war, not a single engagement. Let the Eve alliances spending the billions of ISK on fleets and hiring mercs decide if the expense of hiring the mercs is worth capturing this or that piece of turf. |
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe
Planetary Response Organisation
Test Friends Please Ignore
126
|
Posted - 2013.03.06 04:03:00 -
[15] - Quote
Clone count makes sense as a victory condition because they're counting the victor as whoever is in control of the battlefield when the battle is over. Basically one team runs out of available clones and can't put any more boots on the ground.
You can win the field without being isk efficient, and if you have the wallet to back it up there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that. If you don't you have what's called a Pyrrhic victory. |
Ulysses Knapse
Nuevo Atlas Corporation
86
|
Posted - 2013.03.06 16:23:00 -
[16] - Quote
No. Prototype users would always lose, Militia users would always win. That doesn't seem logical or fun. |
Chinduko
KILL-EM-QUICK
RISE of LEGION
21
|
Posted - 2013.03.06 18:47:00 -
[17] - Quote
And the clone count benefits the proto gear users. I'd prefer more consequences for using OP proto gear by adding the ISK idea. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |