Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Baal Omniscient
L.O.T.I.S. Legacy Rising
442
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 15:44:00 -
[1] - Quote
I submitted this idea in General Discussions just to get feedback before I put it in as a request, and it got great positive encouragement, so I'm here to submit it as an official request. This first part is the original idea, and below the line is Garrett Blacknova's proposed adjustment.
How you can capture the enemy MCC:
- Put an MCC control override in the base camp of each team
- If you do not have control of a single objective for over 2.5 minutes, your redline becomes inactive, allowing enemies to enter your base camp
- If while your redline is inactive your team takes an objective, the enemy team has until the control of the objective changes hands to escape the redline before it becomes out of bounds again
- Once your redline becomes inactive, the enemy team can attempt to hack your MCC control override. The MCC control override will take around 2x the time it takes a null cannon to change hands once the virus is uploaded.
- If the enemy team successfully takes the MCC control override from you, they earn a 1.1x bonus to SP gains, a 2.5x bonus to ISK received, a 3x chance for receiving salvage and the battle ends immediately.
- Hacking the MCC control override in pub matches would destroy the MCC, whereas in corp matches the winner gets to keep the hacked MCC (once MCC's become a corp asset).
How would this improve the game?:
- This would deter AFK farming a bit since your gains from it could be cut very short if the match ends quickly and your team is on the losing side.
- Your team would be forced to try to take objectives instead of hiding behind the redline since the redline will disappear if you don't get an objective quickly.
- This would give the winning side something to do other than sitting back and camping the redline.
- This would provide a mercifully quick ending for matches where one team is completely out matched by the other.
- This would provide a mercifully quick ending for the winning team so that they aren't forced to just stand around hoping an enemy tries to make a run for an objective.
- It would introduce new strategic elements into skirmish since you would have to learn plans of attack against every type of enemy base.
___________________________________________________________________
And HERE is a quote from the origional thread explaining Garrett's idea:
Garrett Blacknova wrote:Baal Omniscient wrote:Garrett Blacknova wrote:Kane Fyea wrote:One question: Why would they have a control panel for the MCC on the ground? Why would they do that? This is why I think this idea is stupid. It can't just be down there because it is. There has to be a reason to have this panel on the ground. So it's not a control unit for the MCC. It's a TACNET control panel that manages data transfer between the MCC and ground forces. That would also help to explain why using it to hack the MCC and trigger a self-destruct would take so much longer than a NULL Cannon hack. Indeed, the point isn't WHAT it is in the base that can end the battle, the point is that there is SOMETHING there that can. It could be almost anything. The whole point of it is to open up the map and to allow the swift end of drawn out skirmish matches. It just has the side effect of solving many other issues as well. Another suggestion (which is simpler and more direct, but seems less logical) is some kind of shorter-ranged, but more powerful anti-air weapon that takes the MCC out much faster. It wouldn't insta-win the battle, but it would speed the process up if you can hold it, and with the limited range, it would only be able to reach the "friendly" MCC above it, rather than firing across the battlefield like the NULL Cannons do.
Perhaps set it up so that it's powered by the NULL cannons and it automatically starts firing after charging up (it charges while all NULL Cannons are under the control of one side for a set amount of time). You could even set up one on each NULL cannon and if the enemy owns that NULL cannon for too long, the AA cannon kicks in and begins to cause bonus damage on top of the NULL cannon damage. THAT would cause people to try to hold their bases much harder, as well as try to at least temporarily snatch away control of enemy cannons. Just different variants on Garrett's idea to toss around.
|
BlG MAMA
PLAYSTATION4
35
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 15:45:00 -
[2] - Quote
No , AFK is not a problem , this would kill the game.
When there are AFK people on the other team im glad because i win.
When there are AFK people on my team im glad i still win some . |
Tyrin Tonious
Wraith Shadow Guards
8
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 17:22:00 -
[3] - Quote
BlG MAMA wrote:No , AFK is not a problem , this would kill the game.
When there are AFK people on the other team im glad because i win.
When there are AFK people on my team im glad i still win some .
Troll is bad troll, get back in your cage, who let you out? |
Yotta Guns
Planetary Response Organisation Test Friends Please Ignore
8
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 17:39:00 -
[4] - Quote
absolutly love this idea!... i can't see any negative side to this. |
|
CCP Eterne
C C P C C P Alliance
1231
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 11:02:00 -
[5] - Quote
Removed some trolling from the thread. |
|
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
2341
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 11:45:00 -
[6] - Quote
Firstly, I'd like to say I can't take full credit for "my" idea in this thread - I got it from someone else, but at the time, I couldn't find the source to give proper credit. Still haven't been able to, actually. I didn't quote it word-for-word, and I'm very interested in where you took the suggestion.
Baal Omniscient wrote:Perhaps set it up so that it's powered by the NULL cannons and it automatically starts firing after charging up (it charges while all NULL Cannons are under the control of one side for a set amount of time). You could even set up one on each NULL cannon and if the enemy owns that NULL cannon for too long, the AA cannon kicks in and begins to cause bonus damage on top of the NULL cannon damage. THAT would cause people to try to hold their bases much harder, as well as try to at least temporarily snatch away control of enemy cannons. Just different variants on Garrett's idea to toss around. This puts me in mind of how Star Wars Battlefront: Elite Squadron works. At ground level, you could capture various objective points, and most provided some benefit beyond being a spawn point. One of these points on each map was an Ion Cannon Battery. While your team held onto that particular objective, the Ion Cannon slowly charged up, and if you got it fully charged, you could man the controls and fire on the enemy capital ship to destroy its shields and open it up for boarding actions.
A similar charging mechanic could be integrated with the current system in DUST, so that the NULL Cannons deal their steady DPS while charging up for a more powerful volley or locking onto a weak point where the shot will deal extra damage. If the enemy team even manages to successfully initiate a hack on the Cannon, it resets the process even if you counter-hack the point before they take control of the Cannon. |
Baal Omniscient
L.O.T.I.S. Legacy Rising
442
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 12:20:00 -
[7] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote:Firstly, I'd like to say I can't take full credit for "my" idea in this thread - I got it from someone else, but at the time, I couldn't find the source to give proper credit. Still haven't been able to, actually. I didn't quote it word-for-word, and I'm very interested in where you took the suggestion. Baal Omniscient wrote:Perhaps set it up so that it's powered by the NULL cannons and it automatically starts firing after charging up (it charges while all NULL Cannons are under the control of one side for a set amount of time). You could even set up one on each NULL cannon and if the enemy owns that NULL cannon for too long, the AA cannon kicks in and begins to cause bonus damage on top of the NULL cannon damage. THAT would cause people to try to hold their bases much harder, as well as try to at least temporarily snatch away control of enemy cannons. Just different variants on Garrett's idea to toss around. This puts me in mind of how Star Wars Battlefront: Elite Squadron works. At ground level, you could capture various objective points, and most provided some benefit beyond being a spawn point. One of these points on each map was an Ion Cannon Battery. While your team held onto that particular objective, the Ion Cannon slowly charged up, and if you got it fully charged, you could man the controls and fire on the enemy capital ship to destroy its shields and open it up for boarding actions. A similar charging mechanic could be integrated with the current system in DUST, so that the NULL Cannons deal their steady DPS while charging up for a more powerful volley or locking onto a weak point where the shot will deal extra damage. If the enemy team even manages to successfully initiate a hack on the Cannon, it resets the process even if you counter-hack the point before they take control of the Cannon. I was thinking it would give incentive to counter-hack without adding additional SP gains if it means that the longer you hold the objective, the shorter the match can be. The weird thing about this idea though is that on a 3 point map we could see some strange results. Say one team holds a single base all match and periodically picks up one other base, alternating between them, for just a few seconds piece before letting them fall back into the other team's control. If the AA weapon is stronger than a normal NULL cannon, and the NULL cannon continues to fire as well as the AA weapon, then a team holding a single base all match could win by simply preventing the other team from being able to charge their AA all the way.
While that may seem a little unbalanced, it would make for awesome strategic gameplay. We would see all kinds of new tactics emerging to both prevent AA's from charging and to protect a fully charged NULL cannon. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
2343
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 13:13:00 -
[8] - Quote
Baal Omniscient wrote:I was thinking it would give incentive to counter-hack without adding additional SP gains if it means that the longer you hold the objective, the shorter the match can be. That's a VERY good point that I overlooked... Well spotted. I'll retract that part of my earlier post (but I'm not editing it out, because then your comment would look weird). The charge/lock on should only be interrupted by the Cannons changing hands, not by a hack being initiated as I first suggested.
Quote:The weird thing about this idea though is that on a 3 point map we could see some strange results. Say one team holds a single base all match and periodically picks up one other base, alternating between them, for just a few seconds piece before letting them fall back into the other team's control. If the AA weapon is stronger than a normal NULL cannon, and the NULL cannon continues to fire as well as the AA weapon, then a team holding a single base all match could win by simply preventing the other team from being able to charge their AA all the way.
While that may seem a little unbalanced, it would make for awesome strategic gameplay. We would see all kinds of new tactics emerging to both prevent AA's from charging and to protect a fully charged NULL cannon. But this is why the idea seemed so awesome to me.
I don't think it would be unbalanced. One team is maintaining solid control over a single objective, the other team is constantly losing one objective or the other on a regular basis. When there's a significant benefit to holding onto an objective, you're going to want to hold onto the objective to gain that advantage. Breaking a team's secure position will become a higher priority, and that will make for some very interesting dynamics. |
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe
Planetary Response Organisation Test Friends Please Ignore
227
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 13:39:00 -
[9] - Quote
It really doesn't have to be anything this complicated. Just implement a mercy rule where when one side controls all of the NULL cannons a surrender timer starts. Your 150 second idea seems as good as any for the timer's duration. If the timer hits 0 without any NULL cannons being recaptured, end the match. |
Baal Omniscient
L.O.T.I.S. Legacy Rising
443
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 14:29:00 -
[10] - Quote
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe wrote:It really doesn't have to be anything this complicated. Just implement a mercy rule where when one side controls all of the NULL cannons a surrender timer starts. Your 150 second idea seems as good as any for the timer's duration. If the timer hits 0 without any NULL cannons being recaptured, end the match. A) Makes no sense lore-wise B) This allows a similar element to be added while being much more engaging as well as strategic C) The easy answer isn't always the best answer D) I need some coffee, so I'm gonna go make some now. |
|
Laurent Cazaderon
Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation
1259
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 14:56:00 -
[11] - Quote
This reminds me a lot of Mavado's idea in his post "adding a sense of urgency to skirmish 2.0" in which you had the opportunity to board the enemy MCC in when some conditions are met.
Now, i'm not a huge fan of playing with the redline mechanics (probably difficult to set) or the countdown thingy. Those stuff are way to difficult to add now and would feel imo as a bandage on an obviously broken game mode.
What you're suggesting is more or less turning skirmish 2.0 in a sort of skirmish 1.2 or 0.8. Some kind of two-stepped objective based game mode. With the second step only used once in a while when needed.
I'd rather see a real skirmish 1.0 being brought back and used in ANY battle that affects the universe (PC, FW) and keep that very poor skirmish 2.0 for pub games and gladiator arena.
All that would probably be needed (coding, reworking maps, debug, balancing, etc..) to do this is imo way too much trouble for what it's worth.
But i like how you guys are trying to rescue that sad skirmish 2.0. |
Yotta Guns
Planetary Response Organisation Test Friends Please Ignore
9
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 21:55:00 -
[12] - Quote
i still love this idea *bump*... but i see the concern of hiding under the mcc to spawn kill... that's kinda laready an issue, but you could adress it by leabing the redline under the mcc and making a base off to the side or something. :p |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |