Oswald Rehnquist
Abandoned Privilege
13
   |
Posted - 2013.05.19 12:25:00 -
[1] - Quote
I would feel more sympathy but I run militia only gear have like 3.5 k in skills (so I don't play a whole lot) which I didn't apply much outside of core skills yet because I was hoarding skill points (still need to apply them), but I am able to run an average .80-1:1 ratio against a full organized proto team while playing with randoms on mine. My general ratio is higher but that is because I fight more than just organized teams of protos.
These matches last like 2 to 5 mins so you shouldn't be racking up more than 4-5 deaths per match and if you are then there are just simple fps mechanics and tactics that are missing in your steps, something you just learn by playing fps. This was my first real fps shooter, so when I started I had a really low k/d ratio, but at that phase I wasn't getting bummed out for losing, I just got excited when I passed .6 on my ratio to eventually pass 1, 1.5, ect. I liked the idea behind this fps because it was slower progression than others, and it already has bars that slow down those crazy 24 hour players by having caps as I don't play as often.
Another thing, there are logis/equipment roles that can be piggy backed on to get skill points, in matches we get stopped I would drop a drop uplink and get first because everybody spawns at them, have a militia logi suit just for these cases and you will still gain points in those matches where you get stomped. I've gotten people hooked on the game by showing them these alternative methods
Lastly CCP has already addressed this saying they are going to implement tiers and that the academy is temporary until they can find a better system. There are really a lot of things to buffer new players when you think about it, from slower control reactions, academy, sp cap, alternative roles, ect. I'd just say that your friends don't like the lose and learn aspect of the game, which is unfortunate as I have ran into similar issues with people I know. The pro players who QQ on the forums are a testament that they wouldn't enjoy the game if they had less than a 3:1 ratio, meaning they have the same patience as a spoiled child and activity resist changes and balance. But for the rest of us who are capable of adapting and are ok with losing if it means getting better really is "The New Eden Way", and I've never played EVE either. |
Oswald Rehnquist
Abandoned Privilege
14
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 19:35:00 -
[3] - Quote
nukel head wrote:
That might work for you and your play style and the role you have, but it doesn't work for everyone. Some people just don't like to lose. That is not a flaw with those people, they are just competitive. They get beat down for being one of the few trying to take objectives. Better matchmaking might not put them up against a weaker team, but put them ON a BETTER team. That would match up more like-minded individuals and might even encourage more squads and corporate activity. It would be much better for EVERYONE.
To start off, I am competitive, just not an egoist who goes catatonic when a loss occurs or too afraid to take one for the team. Since the idea of losing is a limiting factor it would constitute it as a flaw. I have a moderate ratio that floats around 2:1, and only so much sp, so under you tier system I wouldnGÇÖt get to play against better players without long grinding to raise my k/d, sp, wp or whatever metric you use for tiers.
I am not against having different isk and sp rewards for killing higher equipment mercs, I'd be ecstatic on that actually considering my kills and equipment differences between them. That would also really make player skill more useful than equipment as the isk loss/gain ratio would be great for low equipped skilled players. Nor am I against a high sec, low sec, null sec construct but that doesnGÇÖt force players to separate but introduces incentives, as I would like to be in low or null.
What a heavy tier system would do is it wouldnGÇÖt have players review what they did wrong and improve their strategy for winning under uneven circumstances, even with one character build there are different strategy pending on the skill of your opponent, meaning it would create less adaptive players. Also there will never be even circumstances. Also I can personally attest that a discrepancy in game play skill is able to trump equipment and sp differences, team work on the other hand is a lot harder to topple and that difference would be hard to even out, unless you advocate breaking things up by equipment costs, sp, and by squad and no squad in which case the pools would be too small.
In regards to "getting beat down for trying to take an objective", mindlessly walking into the same situation over and over again without changing up your strategy and expecting different results is silly, but that alone is one of the best learning curves out there. If you got shot down with a head on charge dancing with a AR user, and you do the same thing again and again with that same AR user from the same direction, then the message starts to sink in and you see that reflected in how they approach things because things start to click after ones ego is able to let it go.
Also, learning occurs when you lose or see someone perform on a higher level. If you create a heavy tier system, no amount of equipment or sp is going to prepare you for the playing skill difference once you make that jump into the next tier, there is no avoiding that. Eventually there will be a point when you get bumped up and you will lose and then get bumped back down into the lower tier. The idea that veterans would ever see any new players is fictitious in and of itself.
Lastly, the elements we are working with here are entirely pvp oriented, no pve has been introduced and it is that sector which should be the home you are looking for. Tiers work for games which your side constitutes only you, in team oriented games tiers work as crutches, and that is my fear with a strict tier system in dust. |