HuggyTheBear Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Why cant the daily's for WZ be kills? Be like 200 WZ kills = daily. but keep the weekly WZ the same (9 wins) Atleast that way you can make progress when your new to pvping Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jestunhi Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) I'd prefer "Complete 3 warzones" myself. :edit: Encourages people to stay in match even when losing, whereas winning or killing can cause people to quit when it's obvious they will lose and die a lot but not get many kills. Edited February 2, 2012 by Jestunhi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dannomite Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Playing 3 matches would have to award less than winning 3. Maybe a modest chunk of Mercenary commendations. Kill counts could be counter productive in any objective based WZ. A cooler weekly would be win 2 HB, 2 Alde and 2 VS (since you have no control over queuing 2 each would be fairer than 3) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Philar Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I say you should have to complete 6 warzones and get a bonus objective of winning 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannah_banana Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 That's funny. Roll a healer, then come back and say thats what you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jestunhi Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Playing 3 matches would have to award less than winning 3. Maybe a modest chunk of Mercenary commendations. Kill counts could be counter productive in any objective based WZ. A cooler weekly would be win 2 HB, 2 Alde and 2 VS (since you have no control over queuing 2 each would be fairer than 3) Playing, but not winning, 3 matches *does* give less reward. Less valor, less commendations (maybe less credits? I don't pay attention to how many credits i get for a match). The point is there would be no 3 x wins daily, it would be 3 x played instead. There's no "less" mission reward because there's nothing to be less than. It encourages players to stay in losing games, but the fact that valor & commendations still change based on win / loss encourages them to try to win (medals awarding deathmatch stats is a whole other issue for a whole other thread). Having to win pub vs. imp matches would be fine when all servers have balanced populations. As long as it's one side getting constant huttball it's not a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuggyTheBear Posted February 2, 2012 Author Share Posted February 2, 2012 I'd prefer "Complete 3 warzones" myself. :edit: Encourages people to stay in match even when losing, whereas winning or killing can cause people to quit when it's obvious they will lose and die a lot but not get many kills. Thats the problem on the republic side here i do alot of WZ's get part way into the match and we are losing by a little bit and then we lose 2-4 players that are only looking for the win. Thus unbalancing the match for minutes. changing the daily to kills would work in keeping players in till the end of the match(only get kills after match finishes), and keep the weekly the same it would help in keep the players doing the objectives. I know there would some kind of farming going on and other things that i cant see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jestunhi Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Thats the problem on the republic side here i do alot of WZ's get part way into the match and we are losing by a little bit and then we lose 2-4 players that are only looking for the win. Thus unbalancing the match for minutes. changing the daily to kills would work in keeping players in till the end of the match(only get kills after match finishes), and keep the weekly the same it would help in keep the players doing the objectives. I know there would some kind of farming going on and other things that i cant see. Have you never been in a match which was basically one side farming the other? In that situation, if kills were the target, why would the losing side remain in the match when they could just requeue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannah_banana Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 There is another flaw in logic... If there is no incentive to win (getting your daily completed) it will become less fun and less competative. Sure its frustrating to lose, nobody likes it, people leave - but it would be MORE frustrating if nobody cared about objectives and just medal farmed the whole time. Talk about lame and depressing PVP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jestunhi Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 There is another flaw in logic... If there is no incentive to win (getting your daily completed) it will become less fun and less competative. Sure its frustrating to lose, nobody likes it, people leave - but it would be MORE frustrating if nobody cared about objectives and just medal farmed the whole time. Talk about lame and depressing PVP. 1. winning gives comm / valor / possibly credit bonus. 2. medal system rewarding deathmatch stats is idiotic, but it's a whole other issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savionen Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 That's funny. Roll a healer, then come back and say thats what you want. Healers get credit for kills... Keeping your team alive = more kills. Although really I think something like "play 5 games" would be best, but that's assuming those games actually get counted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannah_banana Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Healers get credit for kills... Keeping your team alive = more kills. Although really I think something like "play 5 games" would be best, but that's assuming those games actually get counted. Sorry, is that in the senario you are describing? Because they certainly dont get them with the current system unless you throw AOE bombs and hope at least a few of the things you hit dies eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageLaL Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Healers get credit for kills... Keeping your team alive = more kills. Although really I think something like "play 5 games" would be best, but that's assuming those games actually get counted. You really should try rolling a healer. Healers dont get credit for kills unless they damage the person who dies. This is a huge flaw with the suggestion made since it would discourage anyone from healing. Not that the medal system isn't doing that already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancient_karp Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 How about /dance with 6 enemy players like it was in Ilum when the game released! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts