28 replies to this topic

[Crockdaddy]

Lily from animove, on 19 December 2014 - 06:38 AM, said:

thats how war works if you are outnumbered.

So we should go the route of other competitive teams and shift away from our roots and stack onto Steiner, Davion, CJF ? It is already happening. It won't make much sense for everyone to team stack on a House and keep a viable game mode for CW.

Personally, I think more drop transparency would help and maybe the mechanic PGI has implemented with a planet counter will make a difference.

[pwnface]

Lily from animove, on 19 December 2014 - 06:38 AM, said:

thats how war works if you are outnumbered.

History is filled with stories of numerically inferior forces winning out against a larger invading force.

If the numbers are stacked like 100 to 1 attacker defender ratio then sure any defense you put up shouldn't matter, but 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 you should at least be able to delay the attackers significantly if not outright stop them.

[Jon Gotham]

Lily from animove, on 19 December 2014 - 06:38 AM, said:

thats how war works if you are outnumbered.

But we are playing a game. A game where people are exploiting ghost drops to get unfair wins. We are not partaking of real war.
We are trying to suggest ways in which this game, can be made fairer and more enjoyable for everyone-except the exploiters that is:)

[pwnface]

kamiko kross, on 19 December 2014 - 11:18 AM, said:

But we are playing a game. A game where people are exploiting ghost drops to get unfair wins. We are not partaking of real war.
We are trying to suggest ways in which this game, can be made fairer and more enjoyable for everyone-except the exploiters that is:)

I wish you wouldn't call it an exploit. It is pretty clear that this is how PGI intended it to work, it was just extremely short-sighted of them to design it this way.

[Adamski]

pwnface, on 19 December 2014 - 11:41 AM, said:

I wish you wouldn't call it an exploit. It is pretty clear that this is how PGI intended it to work, it was just extremely short-sighted of them to design it this way.

Exploiting current game balance mechanics. Or taking advantage of would be a more appropriate term.

PGI has already admitted that it was overtuned by doubling the wait time. I'm sure they will slowly continue to tweak it and other factors as CW Beta continues to try to reach a happy balance.

[Jon Gotham]

pwnface, on 19 December 2014 - 11:41 AM, said:

I wish you wouldn't call it an exploit. It is pretty clear that this is how PGI intended it to work, it was just extremely short-sighted of them to design it this way.

I guess....but honestly...ask yourself this.....how many of them ARE using ghost drops to get wins?
It's awful to win a defence and come out to see 3 drops worth of attacks to your one defence.....

PGI need to redesign it PRONTO. Currently as is, it's not fair.

[pwnface]

kamiko kross, on 19 December 2014 - 03:12 PM, said:

I guess....but honestly...ask yourself this.....how many of them ARE using ghost drops to get wins?
It's awful to win a defence and come out to see 3 drops worth of attacks to your one defence.....

PGI need to redesign it PRONTO. Currently as is, it's not fair.

I agree 100%, the ghost drop system needs to be redesigned which the point of my original post.

[Lily from animove]

pwnface, on 19 December 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:

History is filled with stories of numerically inferior forces winning out against a larger invading force.

If the numbers are stacked like 100 to 1 attacker defender ratio then sure any defense you put up shouldn't matter, but 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 you should at least be able to delay the attackers significantly if not outright stop them.

pwnface, on 19 December 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:

History is filled with stories of numerically inferior forces winning out against a larger invading force.

If the numbers are stacked like 100 to 1 attacker defender ratio then sure any defense you put up shouldn't matter, but 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 you should at least be able to delay the attackers significantly if not outright stop them.

in that case a proper simulation would be creating X matches where all numbers of attackers are opposed to all numbers of defenders, and then you can even be outnumbered 8:12 but letting the outnumbered team slaughter the attackers in waves and also getting "repair" after 4 waves is not really fairly simulating this.

[pwnface]

Lily from animove, on 19 December 2014 - 03:39 PM, said:

in that case a proper simulation would be creating X matches where all numbers of attackers are opposed to all numbers of defenders, and then you can even be outnumbered 8:12 but letting the outnumbered team slaughter the attackers in waves and also getting "repair" after 4 waves is not really fairly simulating this.

I'm not asking for a fair simulation (although that would be cool and I wouldn't be opposed to it), I'm just asking that an outnumbered defending force be given a fair chance to actually defend. The current mechanic allows a numerically superior force to simply bypass defenders. Even if it were 12v48 in an actual match, at least you get to face your opponents and TRY to stop them.