Luthien Is Doomed
#161
Posted 18 October 2017 - 04:07 AM
Not to mention the outright hypocrisy posted by some....
To bad cannot call them out.
#162
Posted 18 October 2017 - 04:34 AM
#163
Posted 18 October 2017 - 04:50 AM
#165
Posted 18 October 2017 - 10:12 AM
xX PUG Xx, on 18 October 2017 - 02:47 AM, said:
We know the I.S. will never get an outright win.
So that leaves the tie as the only thing for the I.S. to shoot for.
I think PGI accidentally stumbled on asymmetrical
I hope PGI doesn't change a thing (other than i want my mauler dammit) for the next event.
#166
Posted 18 October 2017 - 02:13 PM
Which means if this happens 2 more times, Clans 'lose' Season 1 by stalemate, which means IS 'wins' since they retain occupation of the planet.
I've never seen another videogame company try to spin the idea that two sides both won and lost at the same time and still keep a straight face-ever.
When those tactical results come out showing clear as day that Clans won more matches than they lost, but still lost the planet, PGI is going to look like buffoons if they don't already.
Just make the next competition count the total number of wins between sides and let THAT decide which Faction wins. Done!
#167
Posted 18 October 2017 - 02:22 PM
Commander A9, on 18 October 2017 - 02:13 PM, said:
Which means if this happens 2 more times, Clans 'lose' Season 1 by stalemate, which means IS 'wins' since they retain occupation of the planet.
I wouldn't sweat it. Clan tech is still pretty superior to IS tech so enjoy it while you pilot it. (We just broke clan loyalty after three weeks and will be going IS loyal next week for some more easy goodie farming).
Maybe this is another way to balance the tech that they are trying out. First it was tonnage (they say they didn't do it for balance but they did). Now if IS wins because clans didn't win every match they can say "Look, IS held them back! Nothing wrong with the IS tech! Balance is great."
Edited by Lovas, 18 October 2017 - 03:19 PM.
#168
Posted 18 October 2017 - 02:24 PM
Now everyone knows that the Capitol events will not follow Tukayyid procedures, guess we get to see how people will step up for the next one instead of resting on their laurels.
Edited by Tarl Cabot, 18 October 2017 - 02:31 PM.
#169
Posted 19 October 2017 - 03:53 AM
The current 'Tug-of-War' graphic could easily serve this purpose and it would only take PGI altering the position of the Win - Neutral - Win poditions, although I think we should also consider the status of both sides. Invaders SHOULD have a harder time capturing a planet compared to the defenders, who by definition already own the planet, it is ridiculous to say that the Invader only needs to capture 46% of the planet for it to switch to their ownership. Again this is something that could be used as a balance mechanic but something I don't have sufficient time to type out on my phone, I can feel a "FP Planetary Conquest mechanics" thread forming in my nether regions........
#170
Posted 19 October 2017 - 04:47 AM
xX PUG Xx, on 19 October 2017 - 03:53 AM, said:
The current 'Tug-of-War' graphic could easily serve this purpose and it would only take PGI altering the position of the Win - Neutral - Win poditions, although I think we should also consider the status of both sides. Invaders SHOULD have a harder time capturing a planet compared to the defenders, who by definition already own the planet, it is ridiculous to say that the Invader only needs to capture 46% of the planet for it to switch to their ownership. Again this is something that could be used as a balance mechanic but something I don't have sufficient time to type out on my phone, I can feel a "FP Planetary Conquest mechanics" thread forming in my nether regions........
All of this makes a lot of sense, yet you might as well spare your nether regions the trouble: We know for a fact by now that PGI has zero interest in addressing population imbalance.
Experience shows that a hypothetical dialogue would proceed as follows:
Community: "[Awesome proposal brought forward by 50 50 et al.]"
PGI: "Nah. Too much effort. Programming is hard. You live on an island. Buy a mech pack!"
#171
Posted 19 October 2017 - 05:48 AM
I don't think the Clan sphere will be taken surprise of again, and you'll have people staying up late to ensure victory if the timing is similar.
#172
Posted 19 October 2017 - 09:27 AM
Commander A9, on 17 October 2017 - 08:17 PM, said:
This isn't about one side being good or better than the other, although if you want to throw THAT gauntlet, look us up on the Loyalist leaderboards and compare. Better yet, look at the map.
Getting back on subject, 6 hours into the competition on Day 1, Clans had the bar in their capture threshold.
A 4 day event that was over after 6 hours. Should have just ended the event right there.
Maybe next event PGI will make some changes so the competitive portion of the event last longer.
Quote
Winning conditions were GROSSLY stacked against
Oh wait, i won? Where's my Mauler dammit
Commander A9, on 18 October 2017 - 02:13 PM, said:
So the event would decided in the 1st hour?
Or are we going to magically balance Faction Warfare so both sides have an equal opportunity for a win?
#173
Posted 19 October 2017 - 01:35 PM
xX PUG Xx, on 19 October 2017 - 03:53 AM, said:
The current 'Tug-of-War' graphic could easily serve this purpose and it would only take PGI altering the position of the Win - Neutral - Win poditions, although I think we should also consider the status of both sides. Invaders SHOULD have a harder time capturing a planet compared to the defenders, who by definition already own the planet, it is ridiculous to say that the Invader only needs to capture 46% of the planet for it to switch to their ownership. Again this is something that could be used as a balance mechanic but something I don't have sufficient time to type out on my phone, I can feel a "FP Planetary Conquest mechanics" thread forming in my nether regions........
Ghost drops worth 1/4 or 1/8th of a 'win' for the planet cycle, though still count as 1 'win' for the unit in context of who gets the tag on the planet and the MC. This mitigates population advantage some (though it shouldn't be mitigated completely IMO) without shafting teams who play a lot and should earn tags.
In reality wins should be valued based on who you beat. Smashing pug teams (drunken redneck locals often in farm equipment mechs) really isn't helping take the planet. Smashing other teams (actual military defense force) should.
What FW has always needed is a sort of PSR (not the tier system, just the individual player point value) from which to determine your payout for winning/losing and also the relative change in the win bar.
Taking a planet defending by hordes of incompetent rednecks with shotguns is not a challenge - though you do have to shoot a LOT of rednecks. Taking a planet defended by an organized and coordinated military force is far more challenging but will involve fewer actual engagements. A pug team beating a 12man should make orders of magnitude more cbills than a 12man flattening a pug team.
Honestly? If KCom made more dunking objectives and smashing a match in 3 minutes than they did farming bads in their DZ after 3 disconnect immediately and the rest refuse to leave I suspect we would do more of the former and less of the later.
We also need tools for scouting to show us who is in queue on the other side and in matches and opt to wait for that match - for which we get paid more to play another good team.
Edited by MischiefSC, 19 October 2017 - 01:35 PM.
#174
Posted 19 October 2017 - 01:53 PM
Edited by ccrider, 19 October 2017 - 01:54 PM.
#175
Posted 19 October 2017 - 02:02 PM
ccrider, on 19 October 2017 - 01:53 PM, said:
Oh NKVA
echos of you haunt us still
like farts of old dog
Also cc, you forgot the anime/asian meme short clip at the end.
#176
Posted 19 October 2017 - 02:05 PM
MischiefSC, on 19 October 2017 - 02:02 PM, said:
Oh NKVA
echos of you haunt us still
like farts of old dog
Also cc, you forgot the anime/asian meme short clip at the end.
#177
Posted 19 October 2017 - 02:57 PM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users