17 replies to this topic

[Chef Kerensky]

Welcome to CW, where a coinflip now determines whether or not your drop is worthwhile. This is a system that has been implemented in favor of anything simple or rational, like, say, taking a node every time you win a match.

This might be the worst implementation of RNG I've ever seen in a video game, and I play a lot of castlevania.

[Maxwell Albritten]

Sick reference.

None the less, random attack/counter-attack is better than the "first to queue" system. It was wholly unfair to a faction that could field 1 less 12-mans than the other faction.

[YCSLiesmith]

Maxwell Albritten, on 22 April 2015 - 01:11 PM, said:

Sick reference.

None the less, random attack/counter-attack is better than the "first to queue" system. It was wholly unfair to a faction that could field 1 less 12-mans than the other faction.

it's not better at all, because now you waste huge amounts of time ghostdropping without even the benefit of a tick on the planet. What's the point of ghost dropping on defense? so you spend 20 minutes on that, then drop again and again it's ghost drop defense, until you want to die. then you quit the game forever and now whoever is still playing is that much more likely to ghost drop.

I'm just some forum troll but maybe it's not a good idea to add game modes whose only purpose is to make people stop playing your videogame.

[Maxwell Albritten]

YCSLiesmith, on 22 April 2015 - 03:40 PM, said:

it's not better at all, because now you waste huge amounts of time ghostdropping without even the benefit of a tick on the planet. What's the point of ghost dropping on defense? so you spend 20 minutes on that, then drop again and again it's ghost drop defense, until you want to die. then you quit the game forever and now whoever is still playing is that much more likely to ghost drop.

I'm just some forum troll but maybe it's not a good idea to add game modes whose only purpose is to make people stop playing your videogame.

Ah, I was misinformed then. I was under the impression that ghost drops would still be attacks. Then yes, that specifically needs to be fixed. I thought the complaint was about just not always getting attacks when queued first.

Edited by Maxwell Albritten, 22 April 2015 - 04:32 PM.

[0phialacria]

Clans are so ****** right now we haven't taken a planet in two months.
So I agree with the "Game mode that makes you want to stop playing the game".
Biggest waste of time I've ever tried. We don't even have a chance. I want to see the devs playing CW on the side of the clans for one week. I want it to be uncensored footage.

[YCSLiesmith]

uuuuuh maybe try getting good clanner

[Cleaver404]

When I read "auto-win" I was hoping for something like a popup saying: "RNG decided you're defense, not enough attackers, here's some C-bills equal to what you make on average in PUB queue, thanks for trying," not something even less interesting than a turret drop for 75k. For that, I could also do the same thing: watching episodes of MST3K on my other monitor, but in a PUB queue AFK, and at least make more money.

My only actual hope is that this is a total hack (well, it is that, let me finish) for the purpose of this weekend to keep people playing a variety of drop types no matter what the whacky populations that will surely occur, and after Tukayyid, it'll be instantly removed.

It's made this week in CW "worst week ever," but again, I hold out hope it's just a shim for Tukayyid weekend...

[HARDKOR]

0phialacria, on 22 April 2015 - 04:30 PM, said:

Clans are so ****** right now we haven't taken a planet in two months.
So I agree with the "Game mode that makes you want to stop playing the game".
Biggest waste of time I've ever tried. We don't even have a chance. I want to see the devs playing CW on the side of the clans for one week. I want it to be uncensored footage.

Your tears, they taste like stupid.

[Stormthorn]

I'm just here to bump the thread. I think the new system is more broken than the last.

[Crockdaddy]

I can live with a ghost drop on offense ... it sucks but at least we get a tick. On defense .. whatever.

[Scoops Kerensky]

Please revert back to the old CW system so there's actually movement on the map again. Namaste.

[Stormthorn]

Scoops Kerensky, on 03 May 2015 - 08:16 AM, said:

Please revert back to the old CW system so there's actually movement on the map again. Namaste.

I think a better solution would be to just give the winning a team a tick when they hold a territory. That way winning a hold territory game is actually meaningful.

[Maxwell Albritten]

Stormthorn, on 03 May 2015 - 09:33 AM, said:

I think a better solution would be to just give the winning a team a tick when they hold a territory. That way winning a hold territory game is actually meaningful.

What it should do is not decide the game mode until either a match is made or a ghost drop happens. Match of teams is made? Let RNG decided if it's counter-attack or reg. attack. Ghost Drop? Regular attack.

[Stormthorn]

Maxwell Albritten, on 03 May 2015 - 10:51 AM, said:

What it should do is not decide the game mode until either a match is made or a ghost drop happens. Match of teams is made? Let RNG decided if it's counter-attack or reg. attack. Ghost Drop? Regular attack.

That is a good alternative as well.

[Chef Kerensky]

Maxwell Albritten, on 03 May 2015 - 10:51 AM, said:

What it should do is not decide the game mode until either a match is made or a ghost drop happens. Match of teams is made? Let RNG decided if it's counter-attack or reg. attack. Ghost Drop? Regular attack.

This still results in victories that do absolutely nothing to change ownership of the planet and feel like a waste of time, except instead of avoiding that by queueing up quickly you just have to resign yourself to a coinflip. It's precisely the same thing we have now without the ghost drops that don't earn ticks, and that's not a good system.

If I win a match, I win a node. That's mechanically sound and makes complete and total sense. I don't understand the aversion to this train of thought. Are you afraid of losing a node because you lost a match? Then don't lose.

[Richter Kerensky]

Win Match, Take Node. Lose Match, Lose Node. How is this system not fair for everyone. It de-emphasizes numbers and emphasizes victories, but allows the system of pressuring enemies that don't want to defend to play defense to play the game instead of the optimal course being to do nothing.

Edited by Richter Kerensky, 06 May 2015 - 02:22 AM.

[Stormthorn]

Richter Kerensky, on 06 May 2015 - 02:21 AM, said:

Win Match, Take Node. Lose Match, Lose Node. How is this system not fair for everyone. It de-emphasizes numbers and emphasizes victories, but allows the system of pressuring enemies that don't want to defend to play defense to play the game instead of the optimal course being to do nothing.

I like Richter's point.

[Grynos]

Richter Kerensky, on 06 May 2015 - 02:21 AM, said:

Win Match, Take Node. Lose Match, Lose Node. How is this system not fair for everyone. It de-emphasizes numbers and emphasizes victories, but allows the system of pressuring enemies that don't want to defend to play defense to play the game instead of the optimal course being to do nothing.

The best part is with this solution, is that PGI could still use their silly system because a defensive win would take a node...So it wouldn't matter whether you were on attack/defense, the winner would always get a node.