Jump to content

Zucadragon

Members
  • Posts

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Personal Information

  • Steam ID
    76561197962036455

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Zucadragon's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

4

Reputation

  1. Nah, I disagree, in various instances, depending on the amount of players available, holding the plageau actually limits your capabilities. It was like 14 vs 14 match, and about 5 - 6 enemies were on the plateau, meaning we could drive around 7 - 8 people with rockets with APCs into the enemy base and ruin it because they couldn't defend quick enough. It's close, but not quite there.
  2. No, I think I actually understood the system wrong, I thought what you described above was the only means to get points, if points mostly come from matches, I'm pretty happy with that!
  3. I like the idea, but I also realize that it's impossible for me to really gain points through it. I'm not the best shooter, I'm only slowly learning how to command, and despite spending whole matches just fixing and defending the base, I've never been best defense or support. In many matches I find that one single person is often MVP, best offense AND best defense all at once, so they'd be getting a nice 5000 points while I'm looking forward to being stuck at 1000 points, having to play 5 matches in order to achieve what some others might do in 1 match. Delete this comment if I'm just being a noob btw, but wouldn't it be better to create a specific point pot for each match? Say 1K per game per player. So in a match with say, 30 players, this is 30K. And this is then divided between the two teams. Generally, the winning team will have a higher score, let's say for our example, that score is 27000 for team A, while the team that lost, team B only has 21K This means that team A gets: 16875 points Team B gets: 13125 points Then those points are distributed to the players based on their score, so the players with high achievements, like destroying buildings, get higher point rewards because they did something significant in the game. But players like me, who are generally spending their time healing, would still be able to get a nice amount of points when we do well with that, because I can often get myself in the top 5 - 6 players by doing that effectively. Otherwise I fear that plenty of players feel like they will never have a chance for anything, because they either haven't been part of the game that long, or just aren't good at sniping or other such things. This method also means that when a team really drops the ball and gets overrun really heavily, they will lose out on a lot of points, though when games are really close and exciting, this is reflected in the score as well. Again though, I'm just a noob, so if this is all a stupid idea, just delete this comment, I just wanted to give my two cents based on how I feel I would experience this system, I don't know if there's anyone else that would agree with me on this, I know that high skill players would most likely enjoy getting heavier rewards a lot more. But I feel like lower skilled players would eventually just give up on this entirely because they're getting 1000K because they just barely never seem to reach any of those coveted Best positions and they see other players racking in large amounts of points and generally the same players again and again. I do feel the commander should get a bonus of some sort, because they have to manage the whole team, so that's a very intense job
  4. Yeah, but you can fight this by making the hill very hard to defend effectively. In the second idea, you could put the hill further away from the base, meaning both teams have to weigh in options, if everyone just zergs and holds the hill, they can't attack the vulnerable base, if they go to attack the vulnerable base, they'll be less good at defending the hill. Both teams would be forced to split their forces. Though it's generally easier to defend the base than to attack it, meaning the side that's on the defense because the hill has been taken, has more of an option to assault the hill.
  5. So I've been seriously thinking (Yes I know, it's painful for me) about how to inject a new game mode without making it either so hard to implement it would require a massive amount of changes to the game, or so unfair to a certain team, that it would break the balance that is there now. And so I have come up with a king of the hill mode. Basically, a central structure of some sort, for every minute(couple of minutes?) held, provides a 1-3% health increase for all units of that team, this increase is permanent. Some changes would have to go through in order to make this feasible. First up, structures in the base would need to have more morale in general, currently, what's to stop an enemy team from just rushing your base and winning that way? Nothing, but if base health were doubled, maybe even thrown up higher than that, it would be hard to use that as a viable strategy in order to win the match. Nukes and Ion cannon beacons would not be available, pushing this to be a war of attrition wherein the team that gets the most boost will just be much more capable of surviving and thus eventually end up pushing the other team back further and further until they lose their base. A variation of this is that instead of the bonus a team gets, that a team needs to HOLD the structure in order for the enemies base to become vulnerable, so both bases start off invincible but when the capture point is captured, after one minute or some other time span, the enemy base becomes vulnerable to attack.
  6. How about something like what you see in WH40K, where you have a map of an area set up in different sectors, and over a long campaign, fights on certain in game maps will end up with those areas becoming part of NOD or GDI. I'm not sure this would be possible, but could certain techs/units/vehicles be limited based on the area? Like say, a certain area would give the faction mendozas or Sydney's so having that area would be a big boon. A couple of game-masters would decide what areas would become warzones to fight over or there could be a vote as to which province/sector gets attacked/defended. The problem is the steam roll effect in this, if the enemy team has say. Mammoth Tanks, but then the other team doesn't even have artillery, that would either push them to be really creative in how to tackle problems... Or most likely, get completely crushed after a certain point. Still though, it would allow for smaller matches over a long campaign.
  7. Oh shit yeah, I have played that one, though it was with bots, so I didn't quite explore the dam!
  8. I don't think so, not sure actually, I'm pretty bad with names of well, everythings.
  9. I disagree, with the 50% more cost and loss of base defences, it really just depends on the map how much of an impact it has, but on some maps, the impact is pretty heavy. How about, a new kind of structure that can be taken over by either team, and whoever owns it opens up this secondary path for their team to use?
  10. So you get an advantage on top of the advantage that you got from destroying their PP? Sounds rather nasty
  11. What's an sbh though? I've heard that term being thrown around a lot.
  12. Yeah, and I'm not talking about a system that specifically ranks people on what they've accomplished or anything, purely on say, game time in game, to show that they are a veteran or something based on the time they've played this game and it's logical to assume they know what's going on now.
  13. But the point isn't to somehow prove that a player is the best. Like the leader-boards we have. It's only supposed to be an indication of peoples skill. 1. I have no idea how you get to that conclusion, why would it convince people even more that players are cheating when they have a high rank? If we base it on "time played" in total for instance. 2. I'm not sure, but I reckon that could be avoidable, I'm not sure how someone could hack a statistic like "Time played in matches" or something like that, but maybe I'm wrong on that.
  14. Not so much to earn anything or such, but to avoid issues where people think certain people are cheaters, it's good to know which players have been playing for a long time. Basically it's a time thing that introduces a small little blip next to their name, or a title of some sort... Where you go from "Newbie" and then if you play for a certain time, you go to "novice" and then up to "Intermediate" and "Skilled" and "Expert" "Master" "Godlike" Or some series like that, could just be fun, but in that case, if some really good player on here gets a lot of kills on a server and people start to complain about it (Because, despite that fact that some on here seem to enjoy the complaining, it is the kind of thing that pushes people away from the game, and that's not a good thing) they can see the rank of Master or Godlike and be like... Ohhhh, right, well, that makes sense then. I think this might cut down on cheating complaints, because it also sets a president... This is not some new player that got into the game being shitfacingly awesome at it, how suspicious... Nope, this here player has been playing this for a long ass time. And here ends my pitch.
×
×
  • Create New...