3 replies to this topic

[Tordin]

Just got these ideas after my coffee break.

Now lets say maps gets returned to randomness. No more voting maps.


Lets say only game modes are votable. How could that turn out? Balance wise and such.
So lets say we can pick between all modes. But also with variations
But each one have at least two variations.

Skirmish

-> Classic. Like what we have now. 15 minute team deathmatch
-> Long war. 45- 60 min match with 3-4 x times the cbills, exp and gxp.

Domination. Increase overall match time to 20 minutes. Double the c-bill, gxp and exp at least. In compensation for increased match time.

-> Fixed center point but with a few turrets, increased c-bill gain and be placed in the most open places on maps as possible to promote higher risk/ high reward.
-> Random moving point with time intervals

Conquest. Ordinary match time. BUT! Each cap point gives increased c-bills. To promote the importance of cap points instead of pure skirmish.

-> Classic. Like now, several fixed capture points.
-> Blitz. Half of the cap points from the standart mode, but they move around randomly. Capture time halved.

Assault. Base stuff including defenses (anti air/ anti airstrike?), important buildings like generators operating turrets, walls (?) etc .Increase match time to 30 - 45 min and increse c-bill, gxp and exp at least to the triple.

-> Symmetrical (both sides get a base)
-> Asymmetrical (one side gets a base, the other team needs to assault) The attacking team could get artillery as a means to break the defense. This is the one we might see in November as far as Im concerned.

Now I know, the reason behind the voting mechanics were to decrease search times and lessen buckets? But for the sake of these ideas, lets say PGI finds a workaround without any if little sacrifice of some kind Guess money is the keyword?

Just some impulsive ideas, work in progress. Needs tweaking (?)

Your thoughts?

Edited by Tordin, 17 October 2016 - 11:06 AM.

[Ace Selin]

Anything that brings about a change in play is good in my books.
I believe pgi is working on a new assault mode.

[Chuck Jager]

The last challenge had folks actually trying to get in close for KMDDs. It made pug matches more of a reward to bring some brawl because there were folks coming in close (also lrms did not do as well cause folks were not targeting.

Leroy Jenkins still lost the matches, but I had fewer 600m+ until one team was up by 4-6

[Gaden Phoenix]

PGI going to have to spin it like crazy if they want to make changes to voting.

Because if we keep on getting HPG and Mining. Does that not mean the majority of players rather play those maps.

And thus obviously the majority really wants to vote for those maps.

So why would PGI change something the majority votes to a system that some forum people are requesting.

Personally I would like to have some more variety against the standard maps, but unlikely we will get any randomness.

If you are against HPG and Mining, etc. Constantly vote against them and convince others to do so. Because map voting is really the most fair system out there. If you are the minority, sure it is unfair to you. But it evens out percentage wise with your vote multiplier. So in the end, most fair system for all involved.

If you want effective change, change the people playing or voting habits.

In Political terms, you all are asking PGI to go from letting everyone vote for what they want (aka democracy) to a system of chance (aka autocracy by birth/ random). If they do it, not going to make majority happy.

So first step is to convince the majority that randoming maps are good.

Edited by Gaden Phoenix, 17 October 2016 - 09:02 PM.