So do you think they will change the req rewards system at general launch?

[willfarlow]

The reason I ask is, it seems to me, in a "Domination" game where the goal is to capture and defend points, that taking and holding those points should garner MUCH greater rewards than simple "hunt and kill", but as far as I can tell, that isn't the case. It seems as if a player who ignores their team and just racks up kills can get great requisition rewards, even if the team they are on loses the match.

I know there has been more content promised at full release, and I can see there being different types of matches..."Domination" being only one type. Will we see straight up "attrition" matches, with victory being based on total kills? Or total kills-versus-deaths? (Wow, THAT could get screwy).

What are the thoughts? Anyone want to whip out their crystal ball?

[renegadeimp]

Objectives give the most req in GSF. Go and cap 3 -4 nodes ( very easily done. You just need to be there when they 'turn') and go afk at the capital ship. Youll easily get 1k req. Now go and simply kill people. Youll be lucky to get 600.

[willfarlow]

Objectives give the most req in GSF. Go and cap 3 -4 nodes ( very easily done. You just need to be there when they 'turn') and go afk at the capital ship. Youll easily get 1k req. Now go and simply kill people. Youll be lucky to get 600.

 

So do you think that they will introduce dogfight-heavy content at launch, something where the kills are the point? I'm just curious what others are thinking/predicting.

[renegadeimp]

So do you think that they will introduce dogfight-heavy content at launch, something where the kills are the point? I'm just curious what others are thinking/predicting.

 

I hope they bring in multiple game modes. That way the players who think they are awesome because all they can do is kill, get their game mode, and the players that want to use actual teamwork and strategy have theirs.

 

Right now, you just cant have the two play-styles in one type of match. Especially when half the players dont understand english and refuse out of sheer stubbornness to read the Ops chat and follow the strat.

 

Bioware have said they have more game-modes in mind, but they need to start taking notice that if they spread the playerbase out over too many types of gamemodes, there wont be many people playing, and queues will be long. This is the EXACT thing which caused Blizzard to spend over a year designing and implementing cross server queues.

 

If Bioware start to go down the same route, they had better be ready to follow suit, or all the dev effort will be wasted and people just wont use that part of the game.

[willfarlow]

I hope they bring in multiple game modes. That way the players who think they are awesome because all they can do is kill, get their game mode, and the players that want to use actual teamwork and strategy have theirs.

 

Right now, you just cant have the two play-styles in one type of match. Especially when half the players dont understand english and refuse out of sheer stubbornness to read the Ops chat and follow the strat.

 

Bioware have said they have more game-modes in mind, but they need to start taking notice that if they spread the playerbase out over too many types of gamemodes, there wont be many people playing, and queues will be long. This is the EXACT thing which caused Blizzard to spend over a year designing and implementing cross server queues.

 

If Bioware start to go down the same route, they had better be ready to follow suit, or all the dev effort will be wasted and people just wont use that part of the game.

 

That occurred to me too...right now I am really liking the GSF we have available, but if they introduced other types of matches, who is to say I wouldn't like another type more, and not play "Domination" any more? And yeah, then you have a diluted player base and my queue times, which can already be long (granted I'm on a PVE server) would go through the roof. That would just stink.

Maybe the influx of new players at full launch would help compensate? Although I keep reading things about "tons" of new content...let's hope that it isn't SO much that it bewilders new players with options, or just thins out the crowd at every match so much that no one waits in the Q long enough to actually play. As a player with somewhat limited time, I can see just having to log off and do other stuff with too long a wait.

[renegadeimp]

That occurred to me too...right now I am really liking the GSF we have available, but if they introduced other types of matches, who is to say I wouldn't like another type more, and not play "Domination" any more? And yeah, then you have a diluted player base and my queue times, which can already be long (granted I'm on a PVE server) would go through the roof. That would just stink.

Maybe the influx of new players at full launch would help compensate? Although I keep reading things about "tons" of new content...let's hope that it isn't SO much that it bewilders new players with options, or just thins out the crowd at every match so much that no one waits in the Q long enough to actually play. As a player with somewhat limited time, I can see just having to log off and do other stuff with too long a wait.

 

With the limited population on the servers ( Not everyone likes or wants to play GSF), if they add on tons of content, such as battles etc, then cross server queues is a no brainer. Bioware keep giving the reason "tech issues" for them not being able to do it, but pretty much every single MMO has cross server queues in some form. Tech issues is no longer a valid excuse unless they employ interns as tech managers and their coders are just writing from a set script.

[willfarlow]

With the limited population on the servers ( Not everyone likes or wants to play GSF), if they add on tons of content, such as battles etc, then cross server queues is a no brainer. Bioware keep giving the reason "tech issues" for them not being able to do it, but pretty much every single MMO has cross server queues in some form. Tech issues is no longer a valid excuse unless they employ interns as tech managers and their coders are just writing from a set script.

 

Or maybe management is suidgy about anything server related...I don't know if you were playing at launch, but if you were then you remember the vast number of mostly-empty servers and then all the hoo-hah about merging servers and transferring characters and blah blah blah...I wonder if it might be that non-tech-saavy management just breaks out in a cold sweat at the mention of "server-anything".

[Mystry]

I'd like gamemodes other than domination, but I can't image what they would be besides an obvious team deathmatch mode.

[willfarlow]

I'd like gamemodes other than domination, but I can't image what they would be besides an obvious team deathmatch mode.

 

A deathmatch with a kill-die ratio...that could be fun...although I just pictured 12 gunships sitting just inside the range of their mothership and got a cold chill...

[Bleeters]

Assaulting a capital ship by destroying multiple points (with high shields and armour, let's say) whilst trying to defend your own seems like something that would be fun.

[willfarlow]

Assaulting a capital ship by destroying multiple points (with high shields and armour, let's say) whilst trying to defend your own seems like something that would be fun.

 

Oh, boy, I LOVED attacking capital ships in the old TIE fighter game...

[Bleeters]

I'm mostly trying to think of things that would support ship layouts other than 'blowing up other ships' and generally give strike fighters something to excel at.

 

I was also going to suggest some manner of 'capture the Floating Space Resource Thingy' mode which required teams to gather objects that appear around the map and return them to their spawn ship, whilst also having said objects feature built in dampeners to give sensor and communication equipment more of a purpose, but that still feels like it'd be great for scouts and not much else.

 

Perhaps a mix of both? Gather resources to power a turret that assists with attacking the enemy capital ship. It also means you can't just play all gunships and turtle your ship.

Edited December 24, 2013 by Bleeters

[reclipsed]

I'd like gamemodes other than domination, but I can't image what they would be besides an obvious team deathmatch mode.

 

Some type of huttball game. Remember those mini-games in starfox where you had to fly through those tiny floating loops in succession for bonuses?

 

Maybe have a ticking bomb as the "huttball", and you have to pass it to teammates and go through some kind of "fire" to get to the other side with "ball". The endzone would be the opposing teams capital ship, the score would be the BOOM!

[Ramalina]

I doubt the req rewards will change much at general launch. The problem being that even if there's 'good' play that the devs want to encourage, coding for the ability to recognize good play is not very simple.

 

Oh, and as long as we're doing thread hijacking about general release game modes, more options open up if you stop thinking MMORPG PvP game and start thinking military inspired mission design.

 

Escort, strike, Combat Air Patrol, Suppresion of Enemy Air Defenses, and of course in Star Wars you sort of expect a live fire obstacle course like an asteroid belt or a Death Star run. One problem being that there aren't Death Stars in this era,

 

With the additional problem that scores of

Republic: 0,

Empire: 0,

Walls, Force Fields, and Asteroids 1000

 

would produce a tremendous amount of outrage among inexperienced pilots.

 

Another variation is putting the mission on a tight timer. For a lot of the old X-wing missions doing the mission was easy. Doing it before the timed failure condition was what made things interesting.

[Svarthrafn]

I doubt the req rewards will change much at general launch. The problem being that even if there's 'good' play that the devs want to encourage, coding for the ability to recognize good play is not very simple.

 

Oh, and as long as we're doing thread hijacking about general release game modes, more options open up if you stop thinking MMORPG PvP game and start thinking military inspired mission design.

 

Escort, strike, Combat Air Patrol, Suppresion of Enemy Air Defenses, and of course in Star Wars you sort of expect a live fire obstacle course like an asteroid belt or a Death Star run. One problem being that there aren't Death Stars in this era,

 

With the additional problem that scores of

Republic: 0,

Empire: 0,

Walls, Force Fields, and Asteroids 1000

 

would produce a tremendous amount of outrage among inexperienced pilots.

 

Another variation is putting the mission on a tight timer. For a lot of the old X-wing missions doing the mission was easy. Doing it before the timed failure condition was what made things interesting.

 

Please military-inspired game mode design. There are dozens of missions in the TIE and XWing games that could be adapted as game modes.

 

Please no CTF Clone #5643, or MMO PVP Format #677. They have an opportunity to make something really good and special. Game modes like that really blow the immersion for me, and if I want to play them, we have plenty of it in ground PvP as it is.

Edited December 25, 2013 by Svarthrafn

[Gavin_Kelvar]

Escort, strike, Combat Air Patrol, Suppresion of Enemy Air Defenses, and of course in Star Wars you sort of expect a live fire obstacle course like an asteroid belt or a Death Star run. One problem being that there aren't Death Stars in this era,

 

Well we do have Hammer Station as a kind of Death Star of this era. Whose to say what happened to the prototypes?

 

Anyway I agree with your list of game modes, it would bring back so many happy memories of the mission diversity in X-Wing series games. The whole team death match and such might be fun a few times but I think overall just end up as a FotM fest and/or be dominated by whichever ship class is designed to fulfill the role of space superiority in the game (and team death match is in essence just space superiority so such a mode would place any starfighters not balanced to perform that role exclusively at a disadvantage).

[Sharee]

The reason I ask is, it seems to me, in a "Domination" game where the goal is to capture and defend points, that taking and holding those points should garner MUCH greater rewards than simple "hunt and kill", but as far as I can tell, that isn't the case. It seems as if a player who ignores their team and just racks up kills can get great requisition rewards, even if the team they are on loses the match.

 

I have to disagree with you there.

 

If some pilot truly 'racks up kills', yet his team cannot win despite several enemy pilots being constantly sent back to their respawn (and thus unable to contribute to the fight in any meaningful way), it is not the pilot racking up kills whos at fault for the loss.

 

Even in the worst case, where one of your pilots constantly chases one single enemy, ignoring objectives, without ever getting a kill, even so it's one of your pilots not contributing in exchange for one of their pilots not contributing, so it's even.

 

Compare this to 4 of your own guys humping your only satellite while the enemy holds the other two. THAT is what i call useless.

[Fractalsponge]

I have to disagree with you there.

 

If some pilot truly 'racks up kills', yet his team cannot win despite several enemy pilots being constantly sent back to their respawn (and thus unable to contribute to the fight in any meaningful way), it is not the pilot racking up kills whos at fault for the loss.

 

Even in the worst case, where one of your pilots constantly chases one single enemy, ignoring objectives, without ever getting a kill, even so it's one of your pilots not contributing in exchange for one of their pilots not contributing, so it's even.

 

Compare this to 4 of your own guys humping your only satellite while the enemy holds the other two. THAT is what i call useless.

 

This.