Page 2 of 3
Re: Minimum players in CW games
Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 4:47 pm
by James
Hi im alood wrote:Rapsey wrote:I don't think an alternative game mode would really change anything. If the players decide to cooperate for maximum gains rather than antagonizing each other in an effort to win, there's really not much you can do.
CTF? Let's just all run as many flags as possible instead of trying to stop each other.
TDM? Let's agree to meet up in the middle and do as much damage as possible.
S&D/DOM/KotH/...? Let's just do [whatever it is that gets us all the most points instead of actually playing the game].
A big part of the problem, I think, are the rewards for losing. The idea was that if you do well on the losing team you should still get good rewards, otherwise you can get shafted by your team and that's no fun. Sounds good in theory but it also means that actually competing and trying to win the game becomes unnecessary. I'm not saying there can't be any boosting if the losing team doesn't get much, you can still agree to take turns in winning. But if the rewards are more tuned to the actions you take in the game than to winning then you just create a situation where it's in everyone's best interests to let each other farm up the points.
Having expensive ass rewards mean that the “game” aspect of a mini-game is removed altogether and it becomes a chore. In reality it would have been fun if CW was something else to do with small, fun, rewards instead of what’s going on now. The only way people maintain a competitive mindset here is if they enjoy the game. Which isn’t fair if they don’t. Same with a lot of things on PKH, but this is one thing where the benefits of rewards are completely out of line with the process needed to obtain them.
ya
we've been saying it since release, there needs to be some low-tier and mid-tier rewards
Re: Minimum players in CW games
Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 4:50 pm
by Rapsey
Hi im alood wrote:Having expensive ass rewards mean that the “game” aspect of a mini-game is removed altogether and it becomes a chore. In reality it would have been fun if CW was something else to do with small, fun, rewards instead of what’s going on now. The only way people maintain a competitive mindset here is if they enjoy the game. Which isn’t fair if they don’t. Same with a lot of things on PKH, but this is one thing where the benefits of rewards are completely out of line with the process needed to obtain them.
I agree. Pretty sure the reasoning was that if the rewards are meaningless, no one will ever play it (think fight caves). And if the rewards are useful but only take a few hours to obtain then the game would be 10x as dead as it is now and a week after release it would be impossible for anyone to play it.
Re: Minimum players in CW games
Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 4:52 pm
by Not motti
Since when can salat actually post usefull things
Re: Minimum players in CW games
Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 5:14 pm
by D 4 u 4
To be honest though I think no matter what you do it will still be easily boosted.
Re: Minimum players in CW games
Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 5:28 pm
by Rapsey
D 4 u 4 wrote:To be honest though I think no matter what you do it will still be easily boosted.
Inb4 we close down CW except for during set times / events. But I do believe you're right.
Re: Minimum players in CW games
Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 5:35 pm
by I2aw origins
Rapsey wrote:D 4 u 4 wrote:To be honest though I think no matter what you do it will still be easily boosted.
Inb4 we close down CW except for during set times / events. But I do believe you're right.
I can already see the north korea memes.
I think that it should be 2v2 at the absolute minimum but I'd almost rather see 3v3 or 4v4 required.
Re: Minimum players in CW games
Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 5:41 pm
by Slap a ho
Rapsey wrote:A big part of the problem, I think, are the rewards for losing. The idea was that if you do well on the losing team you should still get good rewards, otherwise you can get shafted by your team and that's no fun. Sounds good in theory but it also means that actually competing and trying to win the game becomes unnecessary. I'm not saying there can't be any boosting if the losing team doesn't get much, you can still agree to take turns in winning. But if the rewards are more tuned to the actions you take in the game than to winning then you just create a situation where it's in everyone's best interests to let each other farm up the points.
Slap A Ho wrote:Each item needs to have a cap on the amount of tickets you receive - that’s the only surefire way to fix any sort of boosting. There also needs to be bonuses for winning - something like 10% chance to receive double tickets (non-stackable with pring.. or stackable, but that’d be OP imo). Winning bonus would help prevent “I win, then you win” scenarios.
Shouldn’t we also be deciding what the max allowed tickets per game is as a starting point? 25 doesn’t seem like it’s too many, does it? That would of course require a perfect game, utilizing barricades, flag caps, successful hits with the catapult, collapsing tunnels, & winning, with a max ticket amount of only 15 without using any obstacles or equipment & simply capping flags/winning.
Losing could be a max of like 15-20 tickets without the chance to double.
Would this provide the needed benefit to promote actually winning each round?
Re: Minimum players in CW games
Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 5:50 pm
by Rapsey
Slap a ho wrote:Slap A Ho wrote:Each item needs to have a cap on the amount of tickets you receive - that’s the only surefire way to fix any sort of boosting. There also needs to be bonuses for winning - something like 10% chance to receive double tickets (non-stackable with pring.. or stackable, but that’d be OP imo). Winning bonus would help prevent “I win, then you win” scenarios.
Shouldn’t we also be deciding what the max allowed tickets per game is as a starting point? 25 doesn’t seem like it’s too many, does it? That would of course require a perfect game, utilizing barricades, flag caps, successful hits with the catapult, collapsing tunnels, & winning, with a max ticket amount of only 15 without using any obstacles or equipment & simply capping flags/winning.
Losing could be a max of like 15-20 tickets without the chance to double.
Would this provide the needed benefit to promote actually winning each round?
I don't think so tbh. It might help but some of those things would ruin the game for everyone else.
We played with the idea of having a max tickets per "type of thing" but think about what that would mean. As a CW player it then becomes: OK so I gotta do a little bit of everything in each game. You spent the entire game being really valuable to your team defending the base? Get fucked on the rewards. Then you get situations where the team really needs another flag or two to win, but hey man, I've already run my 3 flags this game so I don't get anything for it, I'll just place some barricades here instead for some more guaranteed points.
EDIT: Plus it's also not that much harder for boosters. They too will just do what regular players are forced to do: run a few flags, use a few barricades, do some damage etc. Only difference is a booster wouldn't struggle to do those things since the other team allows them to do it unchallenged, or even helps them do it.
Re: Minimum players in CW games
Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:23 pm
by Basuraesti
Imagine needing a minimum to start a CW game on a server with 200 players that has PK in the server name.
Edit: just so this doesn't get deleted, I'm going to say 5v5. Lol
Re: Minimum players in CW games
Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 8:48 pm
by Gethigh udie
2v2 would be ideal. One to defend, one to cap on each team.