|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Cal Predine
StarKnight Security
38
   |
Posted - 2013.04.21 14:29:00 -
[1] - Quote
Any good Engineer will tell you "you get what you measure". If you measure a production line's worth by the number of widgets it produces, it will absolutely churn the things out.
And the number of rejects they produce will be enormous.
So you measure the number of "usable" widgets they produce. Simples...
My point is, any chance of another balancing round on the points awards guys?
Remove points awards for destroying neutral structures
Many matches, some genius will decide that it's their job to blow up every turret in sight before their allies have a chance to press them into service for the team's benefit (they'll often try the CRU or equipment depot as well, but they have enough armour that they attacker usually gives up and looks for softer targets before they blow. Usually...) I now firmly expect to hear a bunch of voices saying "ahhh, that's so they don't fall into enemy hands". Aha. Right - that's why they blow them up while their team-mates are actively hacking them I guess? The truth is nothing of the sort, it's just selfish me, Me, ME!!!! gameplay, where someone is grabbing any and all warpoints he can, to the detriment of the overall team effort, without exposing himself to significant danger. It's also frequently followed by a column of enemy vehicles rolling (largely unopposed) into the team's end-zone, but that's by the by. What is beyond doubt is that a neutral control point is no threat, and is a potential aid. No points should be awarded for destroying it.
Make the points rewards reflect the objectives.
I generally play Skirmish games. For me, having no objectives makes Ambush games just feel like they lack depth of gameplay. Now and then I have a quick blat in Ambush, and there are some great players out head-hunting there. And I do my bit to make sure my K/D is high. Because killing people while conserving your clones is how you win Ambush...
I think you all know where I'm going with this...
And then I go back to Skirmish, and I see... exactly the same thing. There's a small minority of players "putting ourselves out there" to take control points and win the game. Because that's how you win Skirmish - you destroy the enemy MCC, and that requires you to take, and hold, control points. And yet, even now, many players are sitting in the hills sniping, or running round in HAVs collecting kills, not taking those control points.
Now, I'll agree that I'd rather have a decent sniper on my side than against me, and I acknowledge that a small minority of Skirmish games end when one side runs out of clones. But far more end in failure because insufficient players had the strength of character to support a press forward to take a control point. Or because the "snipers" aren't covering the ground infantry, so every attempt to take a control point (which, after all, requires you to stay in one place for quite some time) results in their being killed by unopposed enemy snipers.
So the question is, why is a sniper kill worth as much in Skirmish as it is in Ambush? Players, it seems, will cheerfully ignore their objectives if it pays for them, and while that's a very New Eden concept, who the hell is rewarding these idiots who report in after the battle "oh, yeah, I completely ignored what you asked me to do, and sure, we lost like dogs, but check out these scalps I collected! Can I get paid now?".
And looking at some of the higher-rewarded players in Skirmish, it's pretty clear they didn't put themselves out to meet objectives. Shouldn't the actual objectives of a match guide the rewards?
Or, as any good Engineer will tell you, "you get what you measure".
Thanks for reading. |
Cal Predine
StarKnight Security
41
|
Posted - 2013.04.22 19:13:00 -
[2] - Quote
I have to say it's a valid observation that turrets get flipped pretty quickly. In general, there's very little defensive play going on in Dust. I find this a bit of a shame, but unsurprising given that the game doesn't reward you for defending a point of interest, but *does* reward you for allowing it to be captured, then capturing it back.
To my mind, that doesn't make a great deal of sense, and discourages some of the more cerebral elements of gameplay. I'm sure we've all seen people waiting for the enemy hack on control points to complete so they can hack them back. Unfortunately, it's more in their interest to allow the enemy to achieve their objectives (albeit briefly) than to actually counter them, even when the hack has a long time to run and it's clearly within their power to do something about it. Once again, you get what you measure - it seems to me, if you get there fast and act decisively to prevent a hack from completing, you should be rewarded at least as well as someone taking the point back later.
Someone will say "Ahh, but hacking it back gives more warpoints towards your team's next orbital strike" Very true. And allowing the hack to complete gives more warpoints towards your enemy's next orbital strike. And while you're stationary hacking that point back, guess where it's going to land?
For a counter-example on the defensive play argument, the game does reward defending control points by planting explosives around them, and we see this tactic being used fairly frequently (and well, exploits-aside).
I think a battlefield without turrets, CRUs and Equipment Depots would be pretty dull for everyone except vehicle crews, but that's what we're increasingly seeing. While it may be some people's idea of a driver's paradise, it makes the game less interesting for everyone who needs to spawn in near the action, and re-equip to deal with an evolving battlefield. And that's from someone who uses vehicles. Fast ones which somehow can still survive a bit of fire from a rail turret if they're set up right. |
Cal Predine
StarKnight Security
41
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 07:48:00 -
[3] - Quote
Among the reflexive commentary, there are some valid points being brought up here.
"Turrets are an afterthought", for example - again I have to agree that their design and associated gameplay is kind of raw, and they could certainly use some love, but is that going to just be a waste of CCP's time?
Those who've been keeping up with the longterm plans will know it's intended that such battlefield furniture will be called in much like it is in the OMS maps, but under player control, and at their own cost in ISK. Clearly something will need to be done before that's implemented, because as it stands, unless the turrets arrive "blue" the "see turret shoot turret" reflex will make that feature rather redundant, and costly to the players who are trying to use turrets to help them defend.
And for all the protestation and vitriol, what I'm talking about *is* largely WP farming. I'm not saying that there aren't players who genuinely believe they're helping the team by destroying turrets which single shot all friendly vehicles while apparently representing zero threat to enemy vehicles, but let's set those aside for the moment...
I'm thinking about the guys who run to a turret, hack it, and use it to destroy all the other turrets within LoS. That, I think you'll agree, rather conflicts with the "destroy all turrets, they're bad M'Kay?" ethos we're hearing here, and is a result of the fact that it's faster to do that than to run on to the next turret and hack it.
So why do these turrets get flipped with such ease that they represent a threat to friendly units? Partly turret mechanics and placement, for sure (it's usually not that hard to advance on an unmanned turret without getting shot up, if you know what you're doing), but also partly because there are too few defensively-aware players to hold everything that needs to be defended.
Why are there so few of us willing to "hold the line" and defend?
Because it doesn't pay so well.
So, how can we incentivise defensive play? Reward it! I'm not saying the game should promote sitting at a control point waiting for an enemy attack which may never come - there's not much fun to be had there - but intelligent defensive play. Roving defence squads, maybe in an LAV or two, which keep an eye on the map (or get dispatched by the field commander when that feature gets implemented) and defend territory from enemy advances - that's smart gameplay. It doesn't seem unreasonable to give them some recognition for responding fast and repulsing attacks, rather than just rewarding the occasional kill they may get.
You get what you measure.
And smarter defence would in turn encourage clever tactical attacks, rather than WTFZergLOL.
And if we *really* wanted to help and encourage defenders, we could give them some sort of force multiplier to help them.
We could call it a turret...
If we were really thinking blue-sky, we might even make it un-hackable once you take control of it (that would *really* filter the concerned players from the blatant WP farmers), or possibly (in the case of player-spawned turrets) allow it to be extracted from the field for a partial refund once the tactical situation has moved on, or even adopt a smaller design which is man-portable but has a setup/ takedown time, so it doesn't become a liability once its job is done.
Or we could go lowest common denominator and just blow it up, I guess...
But most of all, CCP, remember that you get what you measure. Reward helpful objective-focussed acts, but reward them all, not just the flashy high-glory redline-rush ones. And destroying neutral emplacements? Should that be rewarded? Best look where your roadmap is heading, and whether it includes player-summoned battlefield furniture. |
|
|
| |
|