98 replies to this topic

[Marquis De Lafayette]

SunRunner, on 09 August 2021 - 06:00 AM, said:

I am in the Random Attacker/Defender group. I would also like to see the game modes randomized better. Right now I manage to get 4 or 5 drops in a night and 1 of them might be something besides sige. I would like to see the other game modes more in FP. But I would also like for my 4 siege drops not all automatically be Attacker or Defender for no other reason then what faction I am playing. Just do like the OP said and in the Drop deck selection screen let it say Siege Attacker Emerald Taiga, or Siege Defender Emerald Taiga, so we will know what side were playing.

The main problem with randomized attack/defense would be it would lead to more stomps… on some particular maps especially. Boreal defense is awful to attack with PUGs and against an organized team it can (and has) lead to some massively lopsided scores…like 48-0 , 48-1. It’s better how it is now where pugs and bad teams can choose to drop defense and good squads can choose to drop attack (to make the match more challenging if they want). More balanced this way.

[IronWolfPack64]

Marquis De Lafayette, on 09 August 2021 - 09:19 AM, said:

The main problem with randomized attack/defense would be it would lead to more stomps… on some particular maps especially. Boreal defense is awful to attack with PUGs and against an organized team it can (and has) lead to some massively lopsided scores…like 48-0 , 48-1. It’s better how it is now where pugs and bad teams can choose to drop defense and good squads can choose to drop attack (to make the match more challenging if they want). More balanced this way.

True but some nights I don't always want to attack, and others I don't always want to defend. Agreed it is more balanced but spam playing the same mode can get old? I'd rather see a two bucket system with two systems in conflict, one attack one defense for both sides and people can pick what they want to do.

[Yondu Udonta]

Marquis De Lafayette, on 09 August 2021 - 09:19 AM, said:

The main problem with randomized attack/defense would be it would lead to more stomps… on some particular maps especially. Boreal defense is awful to attack with PUGs and against an organized team it can (and has) lead to some massively lopsided scores…like 48-0 , 48-1. It’s better how it is now where pugs and bad teams can choose to drop defense and good squads can choose to drop attack (to make the match more challenging if they want). More balanced this way.

Yet right now experienced players would also queue on the defending side because of the disadvantages on Siege Attack in pug drops while inexperienced players would not know better and queue on the attacking side only to get stomped.

[SunRunner]

Well for my part I dont see that as a problem. Lets be honest, a group of Rando Puggers dropping into a even an 8 man Organized group is generally going to get stomped and stomped bad regardless of any advantage one side or the other of a map or game mode offers.

[Yondu Udonta]

There is no doubt that a coordinated group would beat a bunch of pugs most of the time. Right now we are looking at a pug vs pug scenario. Also having randomized sides would quite possibly increase player population because you would not have certain loyalist units see the conflict and be like 'my side is attacking and we do not have that many people on we might as well not play today because attacking is harder'.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

Yondu Udonta, on 10 August 2021 - 06:41 AM, said:

Yet right now experienced players would also queue on the defending side because of the disadvantages on Siege Attack in pug drops while inexperienced players would not know better and queue on the attacking side only to get stomped.

A valid counterpoint.
I guess I am hoping that the larger experienced groups (in particular) wouldn’t drop defense unless they thought they were going to be facing another larger group. But, you are correct there are some experienced players out there who don’t care what makes the best match and are glad to roll inexperienced players who don’t understand that siege attack is harder or some who just legitimately don’t want to risk dropping attack with pugs…which I totally understand

Edited by Marquis De Lafayette, 10 August 2021 - 11:47 AM.

[Rexxxxxxxxx]

Being on attach or defense should be based off the group player skills or/ their combined ELO.

Which ever team is better has to attack.

I remember attack/defense being randomized and appreciated it far more than now.
But if attack or defense was based of the skill of the group, I believe that would be ideal.

[IronWolfPack64]

Rexxxxxxxxx, on 11 August 2021 - 07:29 PM, said:

Being on attach or defense should be based off the group player skills or/ their combined ELO.

Which ever team is better has to attack.

I remember attack/defense being randomized and appreciated it far more than now.
But if attack or defense was based of the skill of the group, I believe that would be ideal.

This is the best idea in the history of ideas, maybe ever

Edited by IronWolfPack64, 11 August 2021 - 09:42 PM.

[vonJerg]

Unfortunately, this opens another can of worms: how do you measure skill/ELO related to FP?

[Ignatius Audene]

And even if i am better. I dont want to end up always attacking. Its simply to boring.

[IronWolfPack64]

I like this idea because it would encourage more experienced players to drop with greener players who are new to FP in order to drop defense. Gigga stacks would just never be able to drop defense so if people wanted to do that they would need to recruit newer players into their unit and train them up. More new players in the game+ more balanced matches between sides= I see this as an absolute win. (If it were realistically possible)

Only problem is gen rushing is kinda the only way to stick it to a team that’s significantly better than yours so it couldn’t be 100% of the time either way probably maybe just severely increased chances.

Edited by IronWolfPack64, 12 August 2021 - 08:30 AM.

[Nightbird]

Not a snowball's chance in hell PGI will spend 1 second on FP updates.

[Charles Sennet]

vonJerg, on 12 August 2021 - 01:19 AM, said:

Unfortunately, this opens another can of worms: how do you measure skill/ELO related to FP?

Using the Jarl's list rankings average would be accurate enough 99% of the time in FP. Never going to get perfection.

[SunRunner]

Interesting Idea about skill levels, but it would just lock the high skills into alway attacking and the low skills into always defending and we get a lack of variety for another reason. On the measuring skill levels, they have pilot levels in QP for that. I suppose people could create alt accounts to get access to Tier 5/4 drops but if they make FP matches count towards the tier system it would mean the good players would get jumped up pretty fast and not be able to noob stomp too long.

[Ignatius Audene]

Exactly why do u think, that existing units dont recruit fresh players? There simply are not many fresh players looking out for a unit. If there is one problem than, that current population is split around far too many units. Most of this giga stacks u meet are not one unit but the 2-3 veterans of each unit, that simply check their friendlist.

I have done enough herding the cats. There simply are not that many cats and bigger units remaining.

[IronWolfPack64]

Ignatius Audene, on 12 August 2021 - 10:59 AM, said:

Exactly why do u think, that existing units dont recruit fresh players? There simply are not many fresh players looking out for a unit. If there is one problem than, that current population is split around far too many units. Most of this giga stacks u meet are not one unit but the 2-3 veterans of each unit, that simply check their friendlist.

I have done enough herding the cats. There simply are not that many cats and bigger units remaining.

There are actually plenty of people in t5-4 who are interested in getting into faction play if you just recruit there then its really not to big a deal getting people into it and building up a decently sized unit. If teams like DSX, 2War and people like that did more of that it would not only lead to more competitive games but also increase the population of the mode drastically. Now they don't want to do that as they just want to play with their friends and not worry about losing because of the newer players on their team not pulling there wait which is fine for them. Its just the line toeing between being a serious hard core vet and have a kind of casual player mind set that composes such a position. I won't go so far as other to say it's the problem with the game mode. It just definitely isn't part of the solution.

[justcallme A S H]

vonJerg, on 12 August 2021 - 01:19 AM, said:

Unfortunately, this opens another can of worms: how do you measure skill/ELO related to FP?

Yep. You then get alt Accounts, ELO tanking etc etc. And mark my words, some units out there would do it to avoid fights.

Then the fact FP doesn't even have ant ELO associated with it. So PGI gotta build a whole new system for it etc etc.

Pie in the sky ideas simply ain't happening. It was hard enough to get conquest ticket count changed

Edited by justcallme A S H, 12 August 2021 - 06:03 PM.

[tee5]

justcallme A S H, on 12 August 2021 - 06:02 PM, said:

It was hard enough to get conquest ticket count changed

Wait. What? Is this really confirmed?

After 1 year of begging for it? They are finally changing it?
Let's hope the number is not too high, so that it will be just another skirmish.

[IronWolfPack64]

justcallme A S H, on 12 August 2021 - 06:02 PM, said:

Yep. You then get alt Accounts, ELO tanking etc etc. And mark my words, some units out there would do it to avoid fights.

Then the fact FP doesn't even have ant ELO associated with it. So PGI gotta build a whole new system for it etc etc.

Pie in the sky ideas simply ain't happening. It was hard enough to get conquest ticket count changed

You could base it off of LP accumulated? Not a perfect system but better than nothing.

Edited by IronWolfPack64, 14 August 2021 - 08:15 PM.

[Kotis77]

Yondu Udonta, on 10 August 2021 - 07:00 AM, said:

There is no doubt that a coordinated group would beat a bunch of pugs most of the time. Right now we are looking at a pug vs pug scenario. Also having randomized sides would quite possibly increase player population because you would not have certain loyalist units see the conflict and be like 'my side is attacking and we do not have that many people on we might as well not play today because attacking is harder'.

Yes every changes to game will bring more players. And i dont mind if we go back to random and give it a try if we get more players that way. But knowing PGI every decision that they makes is permanent/endgame, there is no give that a try and fix it later. So you really think endgame should be random again? Im not so sure..

Edited by Kotis77, 22 August 2021 - 07:23 AM.