JGames Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) Being an attacker on Voidstar is now broken (in the good way). It's too easy to win as an attacker unless the team before you made it to the datacore very quickly. Here is what I think are the good and the bad changes (I think that there is only 2 changes total?)... Good: The gates in between the bridge in the first room blocking easy cap-stops Bad: Now you ONLY have to make it to exactly where the before team made it (i.e. if the attackers opened the bridge but not the next door, then the round 2 attackers don't have to open the next door either). So pretty much, in my opinion, the first room is good, but the round 2 win system is bad. The round 2 win system should not have changed. Does anyone else feel this way? Edited June 28, 2012 by JGames Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrantyJPS Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Being an attacker on Voidstar is now broken (in the good way). It's too easy to win as an attacker unless the team before you made it to the datacore very quickly. Here is what I think are the good and the bad changes (I think that there is only 2 changes total?)... Good: The gates in between the bridge in the first room blocking easy cap-stops Bad: Now you ONLY have to make it to exactly where the before team made it (i.e. if the attackers opened the bridge but not the next door, the next attackers don't have to open the next door either). So pretty much, in my opinion, the first room is good, but the round 2 win system is bad. The round 2 win system should not have changed. Does anyone else feel this way? For your example, I'm pretty sure the game only ends like this if the 2nd attackers extend the bridge in a quicker time than the first team did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGames Posted June 28, 2012 Author Share Posted June 28, 2012 I should have put "the round 2 attackers" instead, but yes, that's what I meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllanGand Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 they would win anyway, no one has an advantage. It's all about time when you're tied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGames Posted June 28, 2012 Author Share Posted June 28, 2012 they would win anyway, no one has an advantage. It's all about time when you're tied. They wouldn't necessarily win. I have played games where you can keep them off the 2nd door for long enough to win plenty of times. The problem is if you get to the bridge as round 1 attackers, all the round 2 attackers have to do is kill everyone and then get the bridge, because the defenders go to a respawn across the reactor core pit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HelinCarnate Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) In the event of a tie, the team that gets the last point in the fastest time wins. Pre 1.3 if the first team downed the bridge 6 min into the game and the 2nd team got it at 1:00,(assuming 2-2 tie) the game could keep on going for another 5 min even though a winner had already been determined. Post 1.3, as soon as there is a winner, the game ends. Edited June 28, 2012 by HelinCarnate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts