Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
trollsroyce
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
545
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 19:44:00 -
[1] - Quote
PC mechanics completely cater towards the parties that can win 16vs16 consistently, mostly due to morale, player retention and spoils of victor mechanics. How is this type of a sandbox supposed to work? It is nothing but a glorified clan ladder at the current state of things. It is probably moving more players out of Dust514 than bringing in new ones.
In EVE, you can bring numbers. In Dust, numbers will get steamrolled out of the game by more skilled competition (case Orion). The argument of numbers providing more playerbase to pick fights from continuously is void, because playing any mediocre players with current mechanics decreases the morale for everyone through losses. The teams that field bad players are harshly penalized for allowing them in matches.
In fact, the most skillful entity will slow but steady steamroll everyone else out of the game, as the high end players like to polarize to the winning party. What will happen with Dust sandbox is that Molden Heath will fast narrow down to the 2-3 most skilled alliances that can consistently win 16vs16 with their top 3 ringer teams. Numbers play no role in this, as the losses take the toll and kill out any lesser skilled players, no matter how big their numbers are. When Molden Heath is controlled by the top dogs, PC will generate a steady isk revenue to them, putting them further into the region of untouchable. When new regions will be opened, the evolved skill coalitions will simply grab all of it and push out the new competition through the same player retention and morale killing mechanic that is removing lesser skilled alliances from dust514 currently.
The sandbox of Dust, PC, will thus be completely restricted to the good players. There is no room for bad or even average players in it. The only imaginable place for the 90% of dust playerbase in PC will be farming isk for the top 10%. Do you honestly think this game will survive upon a sandbox that favors winners, who already have a huge intrinsic advantage in morale? EVE online survives, because you can bring the blob. There is room for mediocrity - just bring enough of it.
Now this is of course no news in an FPS game. However, in order for dust to ever become a meaningful sandbox, direct ways for the average Joe to affect PC are needed. PVE? Secondary fights? Come up with something. All the numbers show that dust is dying rapidly, at this pace it is nothing but terminal and the life expectancy of the game is under a year.
1) Nerf artificial mechanics that favor the victor. Victor gets a morale boost and should not need to receive anything else. 2) Note down the clone efficiency of sides in the end of match under victor and defeated. 3) Come up with game modes for the average players to have their place in the sandbox.
|
RoundEy3
Condotta Rouvenor Gallente Federation
28
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 19:56:00 -
[2] - Quote
This is totally correct. Anyone who knows anything about EVE knows that once they are linked in a more cohesive way between corps, planetary control, and market that a relative few will milk every ISK out of it they can and make sure to put a stranglehold on the main struggle of the game.
Some will say this is how it should be. but that thinking only benefits the ones who are on top. There should be incentive for being the best, but complete control should never be possible.
This post has a very good point indeed. |
Bendtner92
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
597
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 20:36:00 -
[3] - Quote
Really?
God forbid that the good corps can do good in PC and that you can't just zerg with 1k players?
What they need to do is to make you able to actually deploy a full team into the FW matches. FW should be a middleground between pub matches and PC. |
Tallen Ellecon
KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION
52
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 20:39:00 -
[4] - Quote
95% of PC is played by 1% of the player base.
OCCUPY DUST!!!!! |
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
299
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 20:43:00 -
[5] - Quote
Dust Sandbox?
Those two words do not belong in the same sentence as of yet.
Hopefully one day we'll get a real sandbox, but we don't have that yet, all we have is "INSTANT BATTLES!!!!" |
Akaruiwrx
Deadly Blue Dots RISE of LEGION
15
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 21:00:00 -
[6] - Quote
The only thing I'm going to say is read some of the dev posts and get an idea of the long ball on this game. In the short term you are absolutely right. But in the long term there is a lot that will change. They have said multiple times that they intend on creating larger scale battles. As Dust moves to more capable hardware they will be able to implement more ambitious things.
Be patient. |
RoundEy3
Condotta Rouvenor Gallente Federation
28
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 21:05:00 -
[7] - Quote
Akaruiwrx wrote:The only thing I'm going to say is read some of the dev posts and get an idea of the long ball on this game. In the short term you are absolutely right. But in the long term there is a lot that will change. They have said multiple times that they intend on creating larger scale battles. As Dust moves to more capable hardware they will be able to implement more ambitious things.
Be patient.
Yeah, thinking of the potential of what can be done on the PS4 with this game is what I hold onto. Seriously no sarcasm. |
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
299
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 21:48:00 -
[8] - Quote
RoundEy3 wrote:Akaruiwrx wrote:The only thing I'm going to say is read some of the dev posts and get an idea of the long ball on this game. In the short term you are absolutely right. But in the long term there is a lot that will change. They have said multiple times that they intend on creating larger scale battles. As Dust moves to more capable hardware they will be able to implement more ambitious things.
Be patient. Yeah, thinking of the potential of what can be done on the PS4 with this game is what I hold onto. Seriously no sarcasm.
I'm hoping that they will move to the PS4, though TBH, I don't plan on being one of the necessary suckers (first adopters), so I also hope they keep it alive on the PS3. |
Draco Cerberus
Purgatorium of the Damned League of Infamy
98
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 22:23:00 -
[9] - Quote
If the better players win at PC then there is something going on that is broken? Did I read that right? Ok so basically you are not liking your chances at PC and are not willing or able to fund PC attacks or is it that you are seriously concerned that there is a problem? No matter who you are there is a chance you will win. No matter the battlefield, in the end it will always come down to how well does your team work together and what you are willing to do to make it work. If you have a problem with the good players all being on the other team then recruit some better players or train them. There is no excuse for not trying. |
Rachoi
HavoK Core RISE of LEGION
87
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 23:02:00 -
[10] - Quote
Draco Cerberus wrote:If the better players win at PC then there is something going on that is broken? Did I read that right? Ok so basically you are not liking your chances at PC and are not willing or able to fund PC attacks or is it that you are seriously concerned that there is a problem? No matter who you are there is a chance you will win. No matter the battlefield, in the end it will always come down to how well does your team work together and what you are willing to do to make it work. If you have a problem with the good players all being on the other team then recruit some better players or train them. There is no excuse for not trying.
think of it from an up and commer's veiw, think of the duanting task it would be to actually work up an average team, and then when you actually try to raid soneone in the current PC, you will get stomped, by the best that the other side has, yes, from time to time the best will get overwhelmed, but eventually they will jsut squeeze those groups into submission again, and again, and again. yes, the best should have a decent fortress, but TOTAL CONTROL is not something that should be possible. eventually, when we3 can wander the surface of our districts we will be able to do something meaningful AND profitable, but that is a good deal away.
as for them keeping it alive on PS3... they probably will for a year or two, because not everyone is going to instant jump to the new console, especially with the lack of games that would be available in that first release |
|
sammus420
Goonfeet
83
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 23:20:00 -
[11] - Quote
Farther down the line, if CCP ever manages to make bigger battles, I would like to see the option for teams to field as many players as they want in PC. A team might have 150 clones, and put 50 people on the field vs a team that decides to only field 16. |
Obodiah Garro
Tech Guard General Tso's Alliance
52
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 23:30:00 -
[12] - Quote
+1
OP has summed up the vast sentiment of PC perfectly. Something available to so few isn't a sandbox, and something in the eve universe like PC shouldn't be allowed to be continue with the severe restrictions in place that means only those nolifers with the best of gear can participate in.
To draw a comparison with dust to its parent, in eve 3 rifters can take down a stabber, in dust 3 militia will never be able to take down 3 prototypes (skill being equal and whatnot). |
trollsroyce
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
547
|
Posted - 2013.06.06 09:49:00 -
[13] - Quote
Bigger battles won't help. What would help are oddly favored battles:
During starting phase, queue up all the players you have online for bigger team size (e.g. +20 per player in que). Thus the alliance that drops 200 players in battle reservation list for a district fight, gets +10 team size for 26 vs. 16. This would emulate the effect of numbers in EVE sandbox. This would make numbers count approximately the same they do in EVE, where the sandbox works. |
trollsroyce
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
547
|
Posted - 2013.06.06 09:53:00 -
[14] - Quote
sammus420 wrote:Farther down the line, if CCP ever manages to make bigger battles, I would like to see the option for teams to field as many players as they want in PC. A team might have 150 clones, and put 50 people on the field vs a team that decides to only field 16.
This would be a simple and efficient way to make the sandbox work. It would only favor the big entities that can make use of the numbers correctly. An elite team of 16 would roflstomp 50 bads into a clone loss very fast, as should be. |
EXASTRA INVICTAS
Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation
66
|
Posted - 2013.06.06 10:44:00 -
[15] - Quote
trollsroyce wrote:sammus420 wrote:Farther down the line, if CCP ever manages to make bigger battles, I would like to see the option for teams to field as many players as they want in PC. A team might have 150 clones, and put 50 people on the field vs a team that decides to only field 16. This would be a simple and efficient way to make the sandbox work. It would only favor the big entities that can make use of the numbers correctly. An elite team of 16 would roflstomp 50 bads into a clone loss very fast, as should be. Dat Orbital strike.
+50 +50 +50 +50 +50 +50 +50 +50
.... |
sammus420
Goonfeet
84
|
Posted - 2013.06.06 12:05:00 -
[16] - Quote
trollsroyce wrote: This would be a simple and efficient way to make the sandbox work. It would only favor the big entities that can make use of the numbers correctly. An elite team of 16 would roflstomp 50 bads into a clone loss very fast, as should be.
Exactly. You might put 50 dudes on the field and hope they can overpower 16 elite guys due to superior firepower alone, but that runs the risk that the better players will murder all your guys extremely quickly and clone you out before the shield on the MCC even drop. |
Vermaak Doe
SVER True Blood Unclaimed.
773
|
Posted - 2013.06.06 12:21:00 -
[17] - Quote
Blob 514 I'd much rather have balanced battles than the "moar numberz" mechanic of Eve going on, especially when you condider up and comers will get blobbed 5 to 1. |
Jathniel
G I A N T EoN.
432
|
Posted - 2013.06.06 14:48:00 -
[18] - Quote
I think you're overlooking the other side of the coin, OP.
It is an absolute PAIN in the ASS to play with people who suck. Go, by yourself, into a random pub match during prime time and see for yourself.
The torture of going into a match, being with a whole team of randoms, and seeing yourself have to face a stacked team is unparalleled. Worse yet, when you TRY to coordinate the handful that ARE on comms. When that fails, you find yourself being the only fairly skilled player trying to carry an entire team. The post-game screen reflects this as well.
You somehow want to bring that experience into PC? In PC, we are happy. We fight battles together, and reap the rewards, with other people that know how to play. If we happen to lose in PC, it's not NEARLY as frustrating as in pub matches, because unlike the morons that dwell in pub matches, PC regulars learn from their mistakes. Top corps and alliances can enjoy rewarding and challenging games. The losses I've seen haven't been frustrating. The victories I've seen have been both morale-boosting and rewarding.
Are you saying that we should DELIBERATELY handicap and frustrate ourselves in what could be considered the ONLY fun and worthwhile game mode to play??
In my corp and alliance, we know each other and play with each other regularly. We ALL know when important matches are coming up, and when they do, our directors-in-charge (DIC) check the roster to make sure we can field what synergizes best.
We're all MORE than willing to surrender a spot on a roster to fill a need or to try to field a better player when we can. Even our best players will step out of a spot, if some other important need has to be fulfilled.
Drop a good slayer, to field a good tank? If necessary. Drop a good sniper, to field a good slayer? If necessary. We field whoever we can, and if we have room for extras that may not be the best (and we ALWAYS do) then they will be included and given instructions as well.
I hope this point doesn't come across as elitist, but as it's intended... as humble. We all have the HUMILITY to know when we're not the sharpest, and we have the AMBITION to follow the gameplay examples of the best and emulate them... in time to get on equal footing and even surpass them.
Iron sharpens iron. Every single alliance has players that may not be considered "good". But you know what? They are on those comms coordinating, doing their best, and following the game plan. Those people that TRY, and take the time to learn from better players will inevitably become better.
PC IS, and always will be, won, by the most driven, the most coordinated, and the most improved. Even then, most casual gamers DON'T WANT to own districts. Some of these casual gamers are some of the best players in the game, and they would rather be ringers-for-hire.
I'm sorry, OP. That's just how competitive gameplay is. Not just in Dust, but in every sport/game in existence. From Chess to American Football; from American Idol to Soccer. Players get drafted. People develop and improve. New talent replaces old talent. Teams rise and fall (just compare the Chicago Bulls today, to their heyday in the 80s-90s). In the end, you just dust yourself off and game on.
As Gatorade says: "Is it in you?" |
Lance 2ballzStrong
SyNergy Gaming EoN.
2130
|
Posted - 2013.06.06 19:48:00 -
[19] - Quote
Sounds like: "Hey CCP, us bad players are losing our land grab against good players cuz our 16v16 players are bad, and they should feel bad. Please make this game a numbers game and forget all the skill involved in a FPS. Numbers > skill! YEA YEAH! WAT!?! WES SIDE!"
|
JW v Weingarten
SyNergy Gaming EoN.
447
|
Posted - 2013.06.06 19:50:00 -
[20] - Quote
http://i.minus.com/izcTbqG7CjFfN.gif |
|
SoTah Pawp
Amarr Templars Amarr Empire
246
|
Posted - 2013.06.06 20:29:00 -
[21] - Quote
... You guys were told over and over again in closed beta that this would be how it would be. That CCP would never up player count enough for your numbers to matter - and you guys laughed in our faces sayin' how you could hit an entire planets district at once and how low player count couldn't properly counter it - guess what? It can.
Whose laughin' now? The corps who prepared diligently so there members are all up to Par - you big alliances were willing to throw away your best players on a morale ground and where did that get you? Owned in PC.
From the VERY beginning you guys should of realized PC was going to be for the dedicated and elite - not the average joe. The average joe is going to have to wait until there's so much space that the bigger corps won't care if they're around and losing a battle isn't so devastating.
if ANY game made a sort of PC system this will ALWAYS be the case to lobby shooters. CCP can't escape it and you guys should accept it and get good. (can't wait till they up numbers to 24 vs 24!)
Not sayin' I don't feel for your problems - just that it is due to poor forsight if you didn't believe this to be the case. This thread should of been made a long time ago when people figured out how PC works - why is it only being made now? Because CRONOS is very sad there numbers are now weighing them down and people are feeling demoralized over there constant losses. Which is only happening because you're fighting the very best Dust514 has to offer - and that as well is because you blued up with too many corps without checking there skill/talent.
In the end I pity PC as a bad system - but only because it's unfinished. When they polish it up it still won't matter for you guys if you can't field a single winning team. Any corp would be demoralized knowing there best aren't good enough.
Hope you guys keep tryin' though - wouldn't be the same without CRONOS anymore. |
dalt ud
Vacuum Cleaner. LLC RUST415
195
|
Posted - 2013.06.06 20:49:00 -
[22] - Quote
trollsroyce wrote:There is no room for bad or even average players in it.
Same for ANY multiplayer shooter. 10% players have skill, 90% have no skill. Sad but true.
On most important clan/corp battles - no room for bad and average players if this team have enough top players.
Why top players are top players? Because they want to be best and keep practice all the time on public.
Why bad players are bad? Or they dont want to improve their skill, or they have some problems and cant resolve this problems by themselves. If skilled players play with them - sometimes he can to give advice if see something wrong. But most of the time its impossible to see, because skilled guy have no time to see around.
p.s. and you forget about stacking top players with kbm. DS3 corp have no chaces at all against them.
2CCP------------------------------------------
Ok, 90% are bad - CCP GIVE TRAINING MOD FOR US, SPECTATOR MODE - WHERE I CAN SEE HOW PLAY MY CORP MATE AND CORRECT HIS MISTAKES.
Thats all we need. If we will have training arena and spectator mod - skilled guys can teach bad players.
CCP - your order of development of features is bad, sorry, but it is really bad. You do great things, but in wrong order. If you think about players it MUST be:
1. Really optimized engine, with stable 30+ FPS and no inputlag 2. Training ground (+ spectator mode in future). How it must work. Corp have 20 players online, directors split them to 2 teams and go to training ground immediately. And it must be cheap enough for often training (10 times per day as minimum). We need 1 infantry only map, 1 infantry+vehicle map - its enough for training. 3. Planetary Conquest + Faction Battles 4. Any additional features you want to add.
Now we have 3 - without 1 and 2 - and its really ****. |
Chinduko
KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION
167
|
Posted - 2013.06.06 21:39:00 -
[23] - Quote
The OP isn't wrong, but I don't know what CCP can do. Dust game mechanics just haven't turned out as great as they initially seemed and it's been almost a year since the beta began. I would have hoped the game was actually ready by now. |
Jathniel
G I A N T EoN.
435
|
Posted - 2013.06.06 21:42:00 -
[24] - Quote
dalt ud wrote:trollsroyce wrote:There is no room for bad or even average players in it.
Same for ANY multiplayer shooter. 10% players have skill, 90% have no skill. Sad but true. On most important clan/corp battles - no room for bad and average players if this team have enough top players. Why top players are top players? Because they want to be best and keep practice all the time on public. Why bad players are bad? Or they dont want to improve their skill, or they have some problems and cant resolve this problems by themselves. If skilled players play with them - sometimes he can to give advice if see something wrong. But most of the time its impossible to see, because skilled guy have no time to see around. p.s. and you forget about stacking top players with kbm. DS3 corp have no chaces at all against them.2CCP------------------------------------------ Ok, 90% are bad - CCP GIVE TRAINING MOD FOR US, SPECTATOR MODE - WHERE I CAN SEE HOW PLAY MY CORP MATE AND CORRECT HIS MISTAKES. Thats all we need. If we will have training arena and spectator mod - skilled guys can teach bad players. CCP - your order of development of features is bad, sorry, but it is really bad. You do great things, but in wrong order. If you think about players it MUST be: 1. Really optimized engine, with stable 30+ FPS and no inputlag 2. Training ground (+ spectator mode in future). How it must work. Corp have 20 players online, directors split them to 2 teams and go to training ground immediately. And it must be cheap enough for often training (10 times per day as minimum where each of us will die 500+ times). We need 1 infantry only map, 1 infantry+vehicle map - its enough for training. 3. Planetary Conquest + Faction Battles 4. Any additional features you want to add. Now we have 3 - without 1 and 2 - and its really ****. p.s. i explain why we need cheap training rooms. As example i am bad player, my corp mate great player. I want to improve my skill. We go to training ground, and i play vs him 1vs1 as many time as i can, if i have strong motivation -i will die 10 000 times, but i will gain skill with his help. So training rooms must be cheap for all.
Training is very very very important. A simulator room, as was mentioned in the CPM New Player Experience thread is vital. At least there they can learn to aim and test out weapons. The rest of their knowledge can come from actual matches, with squad mates in pub matches, etc. |
Lunamaria Hawkeye
SyNergy Gaming EoN.
185
|
Posted - 2013.06.07 00:53:00 -
[25] - Quote
Please.......no.........
So your basic complaint is that current mechanics exclude certain groups from PC, and your suggestion is to expand the player count. This would only succeed in excluding corps who cant field the same massive numbers from PC, no matter how good they are. So you are not making PC more inclusive, you are just swapping who it excludes.
It seems to me that your notion that bigger, less skilled groups will be kicked out of PC (really the whole premise of your post) is erroneous. Smaller 'elite' corps will have no trouble defending a district in a 16v16. However, the very nature of being a small elite corp means that the space you can realistically hold will be limited in proportion to your size. Therefore there will always be space for the zergs (bigger alliances), especially once PC is expanded to more regions.
I have seen a few suggestions that the limited clone reserves per fight will balance having an extremely high player count, and that a team of 150 clones fielding 50 players will quickly be cloned by a team of 16 'pros'. This is also not the case, for a few reasons. In this instance, losses for the 50 player team will be extremely low, as the game will be over in about 5 minutes once every objective is capped, and I promise you there is no team out there that will be able to hold 10 people and vehicles pushing each objective at once with 16 total players for more than 5 minutes from the start of the game. Once this happens and the 16 player team is being base raped, the game is effectively over, and there is no way for the 16 man team to get the 150 kills they need to win the game from their MCC.
I have long hoped that DUST will not turn into a zerg game, where numbers determine everything and skill counts for nothing, as many EVE players would have it be. I am currently pleased with the 32 person player cap and PC mechanics, and it would be a shame to see PC turn into a place where the weak can thrive. PC should be dominated by the most fearsome corps, not the biggest. |
Lance 2ballzStrong
SyNergy Gaming EoN.
2141
|
Posted - 2013.06.07 01:01:00 -
[26] - Quote
Lunamaria Hawkeye wrote:LOGIC
gtfo with logic, it doesn't belong in DUST
|
Cass Barr
Red Star. EoN.
138
|
Posted - 2013.06.07 01:24:00 -
[27] - Quote
"CCP, please make DUST be the first FPS to allow 8000 vs. 32 fights, cause it is a guaranteed winning strategy. Thanks!"
Seriously, is someone quite blatantly saying that they are losing fights because the opposing team is better, and this is somehow the game's fault?
I've seen it all. |
Jathniel
G I A N T EoN.
437
|
Posted - 2013.06.07 01:34:00 -
[28] - Quote
Lunamaria Hawkeye wrote:Please.......no.........
So your basic complaint is that current mechanics exclude certain groups from PC, and your suggestion is to expand the player count. This would only succeed in excluding corps who cant field the same massive numbers from PC, no matter how good they are. So you are not making PC more inclusive, you are just swapping who it excludes.
It seems to me that your notion that bigger, less skilled groups will be kicked out of PC (really the whole premise of your post) is erroneous. Smaller 'elite' corps will have no trouble defending a district in a 16v16. However, the very nature of being a small elite corp means that the space you can realistically hold will be limited in proportion to your size. Therefore there will always be space for the zergs (bigger alliances), especially once PC is expanded to more regions.
I have seen a few suggestions that the limited clone reserves per fight will balance having an extremely high player count, and that a team of 150 clones fielding 50 players will quickly be cloned by a team of 16 'pros'. This is also not the case, for a few reasons. In this instance, losses for the 50 player team will be extremely low, as the game will be over in about 5 minutes once every objective is capped. I promise you there is no team out there that will be able to hold 10 people and vehicles pushing each objective at once with 16 total players defending for more than 5 minutes from the start of the game. Once this happens and the 16 player team is being base raped, the game is effectively over, and there is no way for the 16 man team to get the 150 kills they need to win the game from their MCC.
I have long hoped that DUST will not turn into a zerg game, where numbers determine everything and skill counts for nothing, as many EVE players would have it be. I am currently pleased with the 32 person player cap and PC mechanics, and it would be a shame to see PC turn into a place where the weak can thrive. PC should be dominated by the most fearsome corps, who have spent time getting SP, practicing strategy, and perfecting gun game mechanics, not the corps who just bump a recruitment thread.
The weak thriving isn't a bad thing. As long as it's not to the exclusion of the strong, and those that are driven, and the current balances allow this. The majority of players being unskilled will inevitably be dominant in territory control, because they have the numbers, but the skilled minorities can also hold on to their territories. All can essentially fight on equal footing now.
The best alliances can take ANY district, but they can't take EVERY district. The best alliances can defend any district, but they can't defend EVERY district.
And that's where the balance comes in. |
sammus420
Goonfeet
87
|
Posted - 2013.06.07 01:34:00 -
[29] - Quote
Lunamaria Hawkeye wrote:
I have seen a few suggestions that the limited clone reserves per fight will balance having an extremely high player count, and that a team of 150 clones fielding 50 players will quickly be cloned by a team of 16 'pros'. This is also not the case, for a few reasons. In this instance, losses for the 50 player team will be extremely low, as the game will be over in about 5 minutes once every objective is capped. I promise you there is no team out there that will be able to hold 10 people and vehicles pushing each objective at once with 16 total players defending for more than 5 minutes from the start of the game. Once this happens and the 16 player team is being base raped, the game is effectively over, and there is no way for the 16 man team to get the 150 kills they need to win the game from their MCC.
Then prohaps the 16 player corp should recruit more players or hire ringers.
Not everyone will bring in 50 man teams, and a just having the option to create teams and battles with a large number of option as to how many people go in will encourage people to play Dust as they see fit. Corporations will have the option to talk with the people they are going into battle with to decide if each side is going to be honorable and try to bring a fair fight. Those who won't fight fair will get noticed by the community, possibly causing people to band together against them. All I'm saying is more options are always a good thing, especially in New Eden. |
Jathniel
G I A N T EoN.
437
|
Posted - 2013.06.07 01:51:00 -
[30] - Quote
sammus420 wrote:Lunamaria Hawkeye wrote:
I have seen a few suggestions that the limited clone reserves per fight will balance having an extremely high player count, and that a team of 150 clones fielding 50 players will quickly be cloned by a team of 16 'pros'. This is also not the case, for a few reasons. In this instance, losses for the 50 player team will be extremely low, as the game will be over in about 5 minutes once every objective is capped. I promise you there is no team out there that will be able to hold 10 people and vehicles pushing each objective at once with 16 total players defending for more than 5 minutes from the start of the game. Once this happens and the 16 player team is being base raped, the game is effectively over, and there is no way for the 16 man team to get the 150 kills they need to win the game from their MCC.
Then prohaps the 16 player corp should recruit more players or hire ringers. Not everyone will bring in 50 man teams, and a just having the option to create teams and battles with a large number of option as to how many people go in will encourage people to play Dust as they see fit. Corporations will have the option to talk with the people they are going into battle with to decide if each side is going to be honorable and try to bring a fair fight. Those who won't fight fair will get noticed by the community, possibly causing people to band together against them. All I'm saying is more options are always a good thing, especially in New Eden.
If limitless infantry were allowed on to the field, things will simply turn into EVE completely. Small 16-man corps wouldn't hire ringers, they would band together as EoN did. Or they would get absorbed into large alliances similar to yours EVE-side. (Goonswarm right?)
The current systems (including economic isolation) actually protect the DUST gaming experience from the irresistible ISK and manpower influences that the major EVE alliances would inevitably exert on it.
The size of the battles can be increased over time, but for now 16v16 is it.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a 2000-clone, 64v64 (or 100v100) battle across the entire 5x5km map, but besides serving hardware limitations, the current 16v16 is keeping a very delicate balance in check as corporations and alliances grow and evolve. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |