View Single Post

Banderal's Avatar


Banderal
05.30.2019 , 07:13 AM | #9
Quote: Originally Posted by DarthEnrique View Post
Okay let me give an example: Take Ancient Hypergate, without the kill count and the ability to grab both pylons the teams would be fighting over orb gathering which I am fine with because youíre doing the objective trying to gather more orbs before the other team. Nothing wrong with that.
Half the objective in AHG *is* killing the other team. AHG was never designed to be purely a "gather orb is the objective" map. You actually earn points with kills, and the way it is designed, it's actually better to get kills early on than it is to get orbs. Kills are counted again and again every round. Orbs, while worth more up front, are only counted once. Of course, the best is to get both. And later in the match it probably starts to switch to orbs being more valuable (I haven't done the math).

Also, removing the ability to take both pylons would completely ruin some of the great come-backs that happen on that map. Where a weaker team can still pull off a win by ninja-capping the 2nd pylon.

All of that, in my opinion, is *objective* based game play.

The "deathmatchers" in that game are the ones, as you say, who camp spawn, and don't even bother to go take a pylon at all.

Quote: Originally Posted by DarthEnrique View Post
The turret oriented ones same thing, youíre focused on the objective. Eg. A team gets two of the side turrets but not mid, they are unable to get mid at all leaving them to have to to fend off the team from stealing theirs or stop them from getting mid all together and youíd still need someone there guarding them just in case that does happen, eg. you have 1 person at one of the turrets which is what most teams end up doing two to 4 people come after that turret and take it before you can stop them. But if they donít have mid itís still a fight for both teams to get either mid or the other one back the lock out only happens when 1 team gets both. Honestly itís the teams that go for all 3 that bug me. It really just stops them from being able to take all 3 and allows people to get at least 8 medals.
I'm all for adjusting how medals are handed out. I agree that the current system rewards the wrong thing. But taking the turrets *IS* the objective play. To stop a team from taking all 3 (or trying to) is not, in my opinion, going to stop the death-matchers. I think very few of the people that "go for the third" actually care about taking the third. They do it for "sh*ts and giggles" mostly.

But there's also definitely a strategy, again for the "weaker at fighting" team, but maybe "better at strategy". Maybe we know we can't actually hold 2 in straight up fights... so while a couple people who are good at delaying the enemy capping on us hold them off, the rest of the team goes and grabs the one they have. We might have 3 for a bit, but we know we are going to lose the other one. Admittedly, that's judgement call - and also I'll agree that *most* people who go for the 3rd aren't doing it for that reason. But I still want that option open if I happen to get on a team that cares and is good enough to recognize the need and pull that off.

Anyway, it sounds like mostly you want the game changed so that it practically guarantees 8 medals for anyone who comes in. I think that's a mistake. I actually wish that 8 medals was *harder* to get. I understand you don't do PvP regularly? But for anyone who does, even a mediocre skill person like myself... 8 medals is way too easy.

Slippery When'wet, FistFullOfCandy - SF