CAELAN Andoril
Tronhadar Free Guard
Minmatar Republic
11
   |
Posted - 2013.05.21 18:20:00 -
[1] - Quote
I thought of this today as I was playing: while the Battle Academy certainly helps new players to work out the game without being stomped constantly, once they hit a certain point they are still thrown to the wolves rather suddenly, and pub stomping is still a bit of an issue. This was when I thought of a possible answer: a genuine difference between Hi-Sec battles and Low-Sec battles. As far as I can tell, at the moment the only difference is that Lo-Sec battles are Mercenary Battles while Hi-Sec are Instant.
My proposal is a series of new Game Types for Instant Battles, set in Hi-Sec and Lo-Sec, and marked as much. The game modes themselves wouldn't be new, they would be identical to the game modes we have now (Domination, Skirmish, Ambush), but the difference is the Security Status of space. So, for example, there would be Hi-Sec Domination, Hi-Sec Skirmish, Hi-Sec Ambush, but there would also be Low-Sec Ambush, Low-Sec Skirmish, Low-Sec Domination, etc. However, there is one major difference between these two types of game modes. Namely, in Hi-Sec, allow no squads or vehicles and disable Precision Strikes.
From what I can tell, most of the pub stomping and general imbalance comes from uncoordinated teams being overtaken by coordinated teams, or two teams somewhat even in terms of infantry, but one team having one or two dedicated tankers/DS pilots and then using their vehicular advantage to flatten the other team. In addition, Precision Strikes are a bit of an instant-win option, allowing teams to further increase their advantage over another, as I have rarely seen a team that is losing use a Precision Strike unless it was a rare game where the teams were fairly even.
There would be drawbacks to only staying in Hi-Sec, however. ISK and SP gains would be diminished, so it would be more profitable and rewarding to play Lo-Sec matches, it just won't be the only option. In return, however, Lo-Sec matches should be more dangerous to encourage coordinated gameplay. Limited FF [explosives only], but in return greater SP and ISK gains, so people who have really nice equipment would be encouraged to use it. This way people who despise tanks or vehicles in general will have their own little corner to play in while players who don't want their team to be full of 'scrubs' can rest a little easier knowing that they will likely play elsewhere. |
CAELAN Andoril
Tronhadar Free Guard
Minmatar Republic
20
|
Posted - 2013.05.23 23:09:00 -
[3] - Quote
Urukabarr wrote:I've always had this idea where dust battles could be set up kind of in the same way as the mission system in eve. You start off at the bottom tier which is level 1 missions. This would be where your typical noob starts off. You wouldn't get much money and the salvage you get would be pretty mediocre.
As the noob gains more warpoints and sp he could advance to the next tier which are level 2 missions. Then the loot and the payout would progressively get better. This would continue the same way until the person reaches level 4-5 missions. I feel if dust went in this direction it could justify bringing out expensive fits and vehicles while giving newer players a sense of progression.
To prevent veterans from queuing up into level 1 missions it would probably be better that once you reach a certain threshold in your sp/warpoints you'd be locked out of doing lower level missions until you finally reach level 4-5 missions. If there aren't alot of people queued up for a certain level of mission or if the system cant find you a game, it could put you in the tier below the one you queued up for just for the sake of finding a game.
That sounds like it would be perfect for PvE when [if] they put it in. Lower tiers be more noob-friendly but less rewarding while high-level tiers be more rewarding.
Hell, for the people who are all FF crazy, make the higher tier PvE missions have FF enabled. |