I wish the youtube influeners would stop talking crap and just wait till the trailer drops.
Again i am pretty excited
If its going to be 64 v 64 that is a pretty epic battle.
@Hudson009 wrote:I wish the youtube influeners would stop talking crap and just wait till the trailer drops.
Again i am pretty excited
If its going to be 64 v 64 that is a pretty epic battle.
The 64 vs 64 would be insane and most welcomed!
64 v 64 would be great. I remember playing Joint Ops Typhoon Rising way back in the mists of time on PC and that had 100+ players. However that game had huuuuuge maps where it would take forever to move from objective to objective on foot and you had to work as a team to capture objectives. Team play was properly rewarded also. I seem to remember a pilot of a transport plane got points if they ferried passengers and vehicles to an objective and those players went on to get kills. Conversely if said transport was shot down and the 10 guys in the back got killed then the pilot was 'awarded' minus points. Team work needs to be emphasized and even a 'requirement' for the game modes or else 128 headless chickens doing the Conquest flag capping merry go round will be horrendous. Air power ( and other big weapons) will also need to be well balanced. Id go as far as to say, if the devs cant balance it, dont introduce it. My bug bear with that has always been shotguns. They are either useless or one hit uber weapons, and the devs spend half a games life cycle flopping between the 2.
@x--Fusi--x wrote:
@ninjapenquinuk64 vs 64 means 128 nades every few seconds. Will be funny for sure!
When people go "ooooh cooool!" they often don't think things through, and that my friend is a terrifying prospect!
Pebbles in a pond.....
@Trokey66 wrote:
@x--Fusi--x wrote:
@ninjapenquinuk64 vs 64 means 128 nades every few seconds. Will be funny for sure!When people go "ooooh cooool!" they often don't think things through, and that my friend is a terrifying prospect!
Pebbles in a pond.....
Terrifying prospect it is...:
128 players camping with nades and noob tubes stuck on a single chokepoint in Metro anybody??? =8-!
And in comes an army of remote controlled robot rottweiler dogs to join the meat grinding, ripping and slashing... ;o)
I hear all you guys basically talking about how 128 players supports chaos and the zerg rush.
I hear you in that a lot of players play with no team focus at all. But I think the Zerg rush is caused more by the current points scoring system.
I think a change to objective scoring could eliminate or minimize the Zerg rush.
The problem right now is that you get the most points for winning an objective and then losing that objective then winning it back over and over again. So you actually want to lose objectives after you win them.
This leads to winning an objective and then leaving it undefended to run to the next objective and capture it. Rinse and repeat in a big zerg circle jack and you get a lot of points.
A better scoring system would give more points just for continually holding an objective. This type of scoring system focused on taking and holding objectives would remove the current scoring incentives that help lead to the Zerg rush.
@Trokey66 wrote:
@Forkbeard84not saying you hypothesis is wrong but it is not the only reason for the zerg.
Another one for me is survivability. In a game where stats are increasingly seen as sign of a good and hard epeen, people are becoming increasingly risk avoiding in my opinion.
Why risk getting smashed at flag B when flag C is safer because half the team is there.
Stats, especially kill/death related stats are a big driver in the way people play.
So my hypothesis is valid then? Per your question above, if the point scoring system is changed, so that many more points are given for defending flag B, more than half the team will be defending flag B. Your risk of getting smashed will be actually be lower for defending B. If they change the point system to reward defending, that's what most the team will do and therefore even the risk averse guys will start defending. Right now the point system and the lowest risk/highest reward are for zerging. But if they change the point system to reward defense, that's what most of the team will do.
Does it make sense to you that more points should be awarded for taking B, losing B, taking C, losing C, Taking B, losing B, ad infinitum? Or does it make more sense to award more points for taking B and defending it the entire time? I think many more points being rewarded for simply holding and defending an objective will help stop the zerg.
@cso7777 wrote:
@Forkbeard84A funny thing is that if you stay and defend an objective (that is being contested over and over), you are often called out as a camper...
Good point and ironic isn't it? Right now the way the point system works, your team takes an objective and it ticks red as the enemy comes in and your team just zergs away. No one even tries to hold the objective for a beat. Its better to just lose it and take it again later. More points that way. Thats a big reason why everyone zergs.
