Jump to content

Anti-Hide Objective For Skirmish


5 replies to this topic

Poll: Anti-hide condition for Skirmish (5 member(s) have cast votes)

Would you like anti-hide condition for Skirmish?

  1. Yes, add anti-hide condition to Skirmish (1 votes [20.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 20.00%

  2. No, don't add anti-hide condition to Skirmish (4 votes [80.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 80.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 MrMadguy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,221 posts

Posted 17 March 2016 - 12:51 AM

Why do we have game mode objectives? To encourage active playing and prevent players from playing too passively: dragging out the match and winning via starving enemies out. So, all game modes have such an objectives...except Skirmish. May be we should add objective, that will prevent players from running away and hiding, to skirmish too? Recent implementation of Domination game mode proves, that now it's possible to implement "engagement" trigger, so nothing stops PGI from improving Skirmish mode, so it will meet it's intended spirit.

That's, how it should look like:
1) Add another timer for every team. Once it runs out - team automatically loses.
2) This timer ticks down only when no players from this team are engaged.
3) This timer stops for 5 seconds every time, some player from this team takes or deals damage.
4) At start of match and with every death of player from this team - this timer resets to <75 seconds> x <Number of players left>.

So initially team will have whole 15 minutes to engage, but last 'Mech standing will have only 75 seconds.

This will allow winning team to secure it's victory via avoiding becoming a hostage of last enemy 'Mech standing, playing his Hide'n'Seek game and risking to be killed for 10 minutes, which, in opposite to avoiding engagement via running away and hiding, is absolutely legitimate tactic.

Edited by MrMadguy, 17 March 2016 - 04:05 AM.


#2 NoiseCrypt

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 596 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationDenmark

Posted 17 March 2016 - 02:33 AM

I like the concept. But couldn't you just speed up the game timer when people are jerking around instead of "skirmishing".

I have no idea what criterias should activate this speedup, but it should probably not be an option until the after the first (non-friendly-fire/bump) damage have been dealt.

#3 MrMadguy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,221 posts

Posted 17 March 2016 - 03:17 AM

View PostNoiseCrypt, on 17 March 2016 - 02:33 AM, said:

I like the concept. But couldn't you just speed up the game timer when people are jerking around instead of "skirmishing".

I have no idea what criterias should activate this speedup, but it should probably not be an option until the after the first (non-friendly-fire/bump) damage have been dealt.

No. Adjusting global match timer - is bad idea. The problem is in fact, that walking towards each other at the beginning of match can be treated as avoiding engagement. Adding "First engagement" trigger - is a little bit complicated, as some maps are big and match usually starts from shooting from long distance/Light engagement. So, system shouldn't affect beginning of match, i.e. moment, when both teams are full. That's why timer should depend on number of 'Mechs left. And therefore it should be separate timer, cuz otherwise amount of time, left for engagement, won't be fixed and will depend on how much time was already spent in this match, that is wrong - if both teams legitimately engage at the end of match, they should have their full 15m match duration, no matter, how "slow" beginning of match was.

Also it will be more intuitive, if timer will be separate. But I agree, that may be we don't need 2 timers - one for every team. Cuz taking damage for one team automatically means dealing damage for another and avoiding engagement for one team automatically means no engagement for another. In this case it may be one timer, that is affected by Min(<Team 1 players left>, <Team 2 players left>) amount of players. As it expires - team, that has more 'Mechs, wins. This will be true, if we won't limit "engagement" to dealing damage only (will prevent survival squirrels, who runs away, keeping safe distance, taking damage, but not enough to be killed).

Edited by MrMadguy, 17 March 2016 - 03:38 AM.


#4 Exilyth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 2,100 posts
  • LocationTerra

Posted 18 March 2016 - 06:22 AM

Imho, removing skirmish from quickplay, renaming quickplay to team queue or something and introducing a solaris queue for smaller deathmatch and free for all fights (8 people max, 10 mins max, small arenas) would be a better solution.

#5 VinJade

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,211 posts

Posted 21 March 2016 - 09:53 AM

Sorry but arena is not a good idea, I like quick play, it give two sides and not a free for all which areas are.
What they should just do is give an option for eject at the end of the game if the other mech is unable to fight because of loss of weapons.

weapons are everything but tag, bap, ecm, & narc.

They deal no damage and if there is no frendly left that can make use of TAG or narc then both are useless.

so instead of hiding and dragging out just offer the eject button at the end of the fight as the button would be grayed out until the match is more or less over.

if you are still are able to fight and chose eject at the end then there is a penalty to C-bills & a automatic drop in psr regardless of how well you did.

#6 KursedVixen

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Wolf
  • The Wolf
  • 3,243 posts
  • LocationLook at my Arctic Wolf. Closer... Closer...

Posted 23 March 2016 - 02:14 AM

I would accept the eject button, but we'd also need compensation for the ejection, say a small salvage bonus or somethign since you didn't lose your fusion engine? say 2 4k c-bills for ejecting and having your fusion engine intact?

Edited by KursedVixen, 23 March 2016 - 02:15 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users