+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By Aguni
  • 1 Post By SWGMOD010

Thread: Maybe we should reverse the CQ changes a bit.

  1. #1
    Ascendant Aguni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    3,387

    Default Maybe we should reverse the CQ changes a bit.

    For example, 55% didn't work too well because there were too few extractors.
    65% doesn't work too well because again, too few extractors meaning it is easier to block people. Heck I rarely even see 60%.
    People are also too slow to dfend their extractors for the 55% mark. (yes the 10% difference causes issues for the attackers, not defenders.)

    Furthermore, the removal of the extractors at CM has hurt NF, since it must now compete with Oathsworn and Dom to obtain extractors, where as Oath and Dom both have a "home field" area to hold. As a result, they are in the least favorable position.

    My proposition would be the following.

    Lowering the requirement to 55%, and putting back the extractors in CM. Perhaps not all 3, but putting 2 extractors inside of CM.
    If not that, returning 1 or 2 extractors that are close to the NF base.


    I also do believe that the health of the extractors should be toned back a bit as well because the huge amount of health means capping is much more difficult and demands larger groups, rather than small, more numerous groups that can be used to counter zerging.



    Alternatively... we can just remove all of the extractors except for 5 of them.
    Stick 1 in each home base, stick 2 on the outside, and then say 2/3 extractors ends the game 8D.
    What? No sense of humor?

    I like this idea more since it forces people to defend.
    People still have this habit of running off instead of staying in place to DEFEND.
    Last edited by Aguni; 09-27-2012 at 07:01 AM.

  2. #2
    Sword of Telara SWGMOD010's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    823

    Default

    More favor plox.

  3. #3
    Ascendant
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2,248

    Default

    Personally for me:
    - Change it back to the original 60% threshold.

    - Implement some way for people to earn Marks of Conquest outside of the end phase. ie. Make it possible to earn a respectable amount of MoC for a players time spent in CQ so they don't get lose out if they have to leave before the game concludes. This is probably a really big killer of CQ at the moment, given current average game length being really long. It really feels like the player population is extremely low in CQ. The end boss spawns with really low health (I know it scales with player count) and sometimes the boss never spawns because there's not enough players to kill all the foci in time).

    - Maybe shuffle some extractors around, like move the extractor that's right at the bottom of the hill from Dom's base to Desolate Field, and move the Desolate field to the dirt path on the way to CM. Or either that add 1-2 extractors to the CM area.
    White Fang

    Adastra@Greybriar

  4. #4
    Ascendant
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,486

    Default

    Getting marks of conquest per x number of kills would be a nice incentive.
    Raenryong@Deepwood R69 ~ Amathys@Zaviel (Rogue)
    Serefina@Deepwood R66 ~ Solserefina@Zaviel (Warrior)
    Seraena@Deepwood R80 ~ Seraena@Zaviel R70 (Cleric)
    Avalonia@Deepwood R66 ~ Avalonia@Zaviel (Mage)
    <Dauntless> ~ <Excellence>

  5. #5
    Champion
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aguni View Post
    For example, 55% didn't work too well because there were too few extractors.
    65% doesn't work too well because again, too few extractors meaning it is easier to block people. Heck I rarely even see 60%.
    People are also too slow to dfend their extractors for the 55% mark. (yes the 10% difference causes issues for the attackers, not defenders.)

    Furthermore, the removal of the extractors at CM has hurt NF, since it must now compete with Oathsworn and Dom to obtain extractors, where as Oath and Dom both have a "home field" area to hold. As a result, they are in the least favorable position.
    On Saturdays and Sundays, you can see that all the previous changes have made CQ a fairly fun and competitive battle. The problem is not that the threshold is 65%, or that the extractors are too hard to kill, or that no one pvps. The problem is that in 80% of games played (at non-peak times) you have approximately 30-40 people playing. 25 are on the team that ends up winning (ie. Nightfall), 5-10 are on the team that used to win (ie. Oath), and 0-5 are on the 3rd team (ie. Dominion).

    With these numbers... the game CAN'T be balanced. No matter what changes you make, the team with 150% more players on it is going to win. There aren't enough players to compete in that large of a zone battle. Period!

    During busy times, the teams end up being a lot more even and the game can last anywhere from 2 to 5 hours. To me, that tells me the game is not fundamentally broken... only that team balance during non-peak hours is.

    As for Nightfall losing... um, excuse me? On the Deepwood Cluster, NF always wins hands down. It's not a positioning thing.. it's a numbers thing. If anything, Oath has an advantage because of the difficulty of getting to the extractors on the East side of the map.
    Last edited by Bhrawn; 09-27-2012 at 08:05 AM.

  6. #6
    Ascendant Aguni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    3,387

    Default

    Where are you getting your player numbers from Bhrawn?
    I'd really prefer people not drop population out of nowhere like that.

  7. #7
    Ascendant Lords0fpain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,827

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aguni View Post
    For example, 55% didn't work too well because there were too few extractors.
    65% doesn't work too well because again, too few extractors meaning it is easier to block people. Heck I rarely even see 60%.
    People are also too slow to dfend their extractors for the 55% mark. (yes the 10% difference causes issues for the attackers, not defenders.)

    Furthermore, the removal of the extractors at CM has hurt NF, since it must now compete with Oathsworn and Dom to obtain extractors, where as Oath and Dom both have a "home field" area to hold. As a result, they are in the least favorable position.

    My proposition would be the following.

    Lowering the requirement to 55%, and putting back the extractors in CM. Perhaps not all 3, but putting 2 extractors inside of CM.
    If not that, returning 1 or 2 extractors that are close to the NF base.


    I also do believe that the health of the extractors should be toned back a bit as well because the huge amount of health means capping is much more difficult and demands larger groups, rather than small, more numerous groups that can be used to counter zerging.



    Alternatively... we can just remove all of the extractors except for 5 of them.
    Stick 1 in each home base, stick 2 on the outside, and then say 2/3 extractors ends the game 8D.
    What? No sense of humor?

    I like this idea more since it forces people to defend.
    People still have this habit of running off instead of staying in place to DEFEND.
    Agree, got off work last joined in CQ (late) there were 5 NF (total ppl) at 0%, 2 of tried to take the closest extractor, 1 died near instantly and the other was able to keep firing on me for about 5 miles (I died and said screw it) as I TRIED to move out of range (guess they shoot half across the map now, lol).
    So only Dom and oath were slugging it out. Neither team got over 55% in the 2 hours I was there. I ended just leaving to do world event. People in chat, were asking for timer, again showing ppl are just wanting to show up at the end for the free marks (can't really blame them).

    Personally a quick and simple (lets give it a try, already) just drop it to 60%. I am sure they are working on SL and don't want to mess with CQ too much.
    Last edited by Lords0fpain; 09-27-2012 at 08:49 AM.

  8. #8
    Ascendant Lords0fpain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,827

    Default

    Oh, and the kill count was still well over 4700, when I left.

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts