| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Coleman Gray
RED COLONIAL MARINES
Covert Intervention
115
   |
Posted - 2013.03.23 12:53:00 -
[1] - Quote
Heres an idea for a strange way to balance out teams, how about each team gets a limit of so much total SP between players? This way the won;t be games of one side all advance and above while the other is mostly militia to standard? So for example a game could be a few "Elite" players against a full team of newberries.
Peopls thoughts?
|
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
2097
|
Posted - 2013.03.23 12:59:00 -
[2] - Quote
This would be highly entertaining.
But I think it would unbalance things - particularly in the higher SP ranges - in favour of the players with less SP.
You get a guy with 6 or 8 million SP, there are very few roles he can fill which require more than 2 million, so he's actually not going to be significantly more effective in a 1 vs. 1 fight than a well-built character with only 2 or 3 million SP, but the game counts him as being worth more than twice as much.
I think, where possible, the game should preferentially match players with similar SP levels. |
Himiko Kuronaga
SyNergy Gaming
73
|
Posted - 2013.03.23 13:00:00 -
[3] - Quote
Introduce instant battles where militia gear is banned.
Nerf all SP and Isk gains from regular instant battles.
Suddenly everybody playing a lot harder to win! |
Taarec
Zero Tolerance.
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.23 13:02:00 -
[4] - Quote
Himiko Kuronaga wrote:Introduce instant battles where militia gear is banned.
Suddenly everybody playing a lot harder to win!
A game mode where you have to invest ISK to participate.
Voila! |
Himiko Kuronaga
SyNergy Gaming
73
|
Posted - 2013.03.23 13:05:00 -
[5] - Quote
Right. Corp matches are sort of a prelude to this already, but they take too long to get rolling and don't involve guy who prefers to stay out of corporations.
This allows the soloist a shot at a more competitive gametype with like-minded people. |
Laheon
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
206
|
Posted - 2013.03.23 13:15:00 -
[6] - Quote
I don't think this would work. As someone stated above, SP is too vague a distinction. Someone could have 2m SP spent in vehicles, but really be a sniper. Or have 4M invested in being a heavy before deciding he wants to go logi.
Or a newbie who has specced everything because he simply doesn't know better.
I think a better way of balancing out teams is by balancing average WP per match. High WP means they either get a lot of kills, they support the team, or they get the objectives. Low WP means they're new, not brilliant, or just don't do much.
Could also introduce a new leaderboard, the average WP per match. Would also get corporations involved to try to get the best players. And get players to do better to get into the better corps. |
Soozu
5o1st
31
|
Posted - 2013.03.23 13:51:00 -
[7] - Quote
Laheon wrote:I don't think this would work. As someone stated above, SP is too vague a distinction. Someone could have 2m SP spent in vehicles, but really be a sniper. Or have 4M invested in being a heavy before deciding he wants to go logi.
Or a newbie who has specced everything because he simply doesn't know better.
I think a better way of balancing out teams is by balancing average WP per match. High WP means they either get a lot of kills, they support the team, or they get the objectives. Low WP means they're new, not brilliant, or just don't do much.
Could also introduce a new leaderboard, the average WP per match. Would also get corporations involved to try to get the best players. And get players to do better to get into the better corps.
Can't do average WP per match either as many of the old timers are the ones guilty of hanging in the MCC farmer John types. |
Laheon
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
206
|
Posted - 2013.03.23 14:02:00 -
[8] - Quote
By having a leaderboard, you'd encourage them to play better, so that they can climb the ranks. |
N1ck Comeau
Planetary Response Organisation
Test Friends Please Ignore
142
|
Posted - 2013.03.23 14:21:00 -
[9] - Quote
Laheon wrote:I don't think this would work. As someone stated above, SP is too vague a distinction. Someone could have 2m SP spent in vehicles, but really be a sniper. Or have 4M invested in being a heavy before deciding he wants to go logi.
Or a newbie who has specced everything because he simply doesn't know better.
I think a better way of balancing out teams is by balancing average WP per match. High WP means they either get a lot of kills, they support the team, or they get the objectives. Low WP means they're new, not brilliant, or just don't do much.
Could also introduce a new leaderboard, the average WP per match. Would also get corporations involved to try to get the best players. And get players to do better to get into the better corps.
This is something i have thought of for a while now. With a game with such a big learning curve as this one It needs to be a little easire on the noobs |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
2098
|
Posted - 2013.03.23 14:27:00 -
[10] - Quote
HighSec matchmaking could be SP-based, so there's a cap on total player numbers in the battle, but NOT a cap on each team's size, and the game will keep teams within a certain % of each other's total SP count. That way, really high-level players will AVOID HighSec because they'll only get into matches where they're outnumbered, even by mid-tier players with half the SP count but because it's 3-to-1 odds, you're still screwed. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |