First of all , thanks for a great game. This game has been extremely fun and addictive to play for last weeks after I discovered it. So I decided to give my contribution for suggestions aswell.
To make the mode more interesting and less passive defence based we need a change.
Too often you see games where whole team is just defending and trying to farm kills instead of even one player trying to kill enemy team captain. Winning the game by this kind of playing is just not right, it’s embarrassing.
Fix is simple, remove victory parameter in case of a draw situation from kills, and replace it by damage done to enemy captain.
And now we have a mode that really requires attackers and defenders to win. And the most active side always wins. (unless captain is killed naturally).
So victory parameters in order:
-
Captain dead (remains the same)
-
Damage done to captain. (changed)
DalWill
That is a very reasonable idea.
I do like the current Game Type how it is but this would be fun, too.
My only experience is Tier 1 and 2, ,though.
I’d like to see them both.
Star Conflict’s variety in Game Types won me over straight away.
The more Game Types the better.
Something needs to change in this game mode, that’s for sure. The objective is to kill the enemy captain and/or all enemy ships. How is it then that you can win the match by NOT completing the said objectives. It’s simply just contradictory to the whole mission. Whatever the change, it has to encourage attacking the captain, and attempting to complete the stated objective(s).
Comparing damage done to the captain’s ship would have the advantage that if anyone manages to even scratch the captain’s ship a bit, the attacker has already secured a win for the secondary objective, which in turn encourages the opposing team to try and do MORE damage to the winning team’s captain, because they can no longer win with full-on defense, even if they can keep the captain alive. (Also, I would suggest the comparison be the lowest percentage from full hull/shield at any point in the match, rather than total damage, because I’d suspect frigates would otherwise really allow the opposing team to tally a lot of total damage, making them a less desirable choice for a captain.)
I’m not sure how a situation with 0 damage to both captains would be handled at the end, but I suppose the team with most kills could win as a tertiary objective. At least it would be relatively easier to win the secondary objective, compared to what it is now. The tertiary objective would be there just for the extreme cases.
I do like the current Game Type how it is but this would be fun, too.
My only experience is Tier 1 and 2, ,though.
I’m up to T3, and I’d say there’s a huge difference between T2 and T3. T3 is way more passive. T2 is fun sometimes. I’m yet to have a fun match in this mode on T3. :<
No, currently Combat Recon requires a tactical approach. If any immediate takedown of the enemy cap doesn’t work your own cap has to decide whether the enemy onslaught is too strong to advance or he can slowly advance with his entire team. I’ve seen captains showing up with full force around 5-3km away from the other teams captain and still survive. Yes, we have a lot of captains that get scared off from trying out new tactics by other players insulting/screaming at them should they die. That is however, a problem with the community and not with the game mode.
Your approach would only enforce the “diehard” attitude seen when 1 or 2 players charge off all alone (and subsequently die) into a wall of enemies instead of waiting for their team.
No, currently Combat Recon requires a tactical approach. If any immediate takedown of the enemy cap doesn’t work your own cap has to decide whether the enemy onslaught is too strong to advance or he can slowly advance with his entire team. I’ve seen captains showing up with full force around 5-3km away from the other teams captain and still survive. Yes, we have a lot of captains that get scared off from trying out new tactics by other players insulting/screaming at them should they die. That is however, a problem with the community and not with the game mode.
Your approach would only enforce the “diehard” attitude seen when 1 or 2 players charge off all alone (and subsequently die) into a wall of enemies instead of waiting for their team.
I’m yet to see decision-making like that in a public match.
You can’t change the community. You can change the game mode.
I’m yet to see decision-making like that in a public match.
You can’t change the community. You can change the game mode.
No wonder you don’t see it a lot. Like I said people get discouraged from doing so by other players.
As long as the community is like that nothing will change no matter the game mode. Like I mentioned the diehard attitude is no better and would only be enforced
There are 3 ways to achieve victory, one is dependent on score, second is the death of a captain, third, when all enemies are destroyed. The first two are dependent on time limit. The current system actually grants you many chances to achieve victory. The game mode actually reflects more on survival than the others.
As the Detonation is more along the lines on how well a team can be defensive or aggressive. As it has two ways to achieve victory. You can either you destroy more sites than your enemy, or you kill off the bomb carrier more than the enemy team can kill off your own thus allowing you to play either defensively or aggressively.
Domination, there is only one way to win and that is to take off the amounts of points down to 0. In this game mode it is purely on how quick one can respond to a capture or a defense. The points are effected by kills but it is more effected by how many positions you hold.
No wonder you don’t see it a lot. Like I said people get discouraged from doing so by other players.
As long as the community is like that nothing will change no matter the game mode. Like I mentioned the diehard attitude is no better and would only be enforced
I don’t think the issue is with people discouraging others. The issue is that there’s always going to be the other half of the public that doesn’t read chat, isn’t interested in what you think, and who want to play their own way. You can’t get rid of these people, but you can give them a role in games. Futile as those diehard players’ attempts may be, they’re actually the people playing directly for the objective, and the team having them currently gets punished extra for it in Combat Recon. None of the other game modes have as big of an issue regarding this, because it doesn’t matter if you’re part of an organized group or going solo, as long as you play for the objective (carry a bomb, chase a bomb carrier, capture a beacon, etc) you more or less play for the team. While failing at the objectives can mean the other team’s victory, it’s rarely wrong to try. In Combat Recon going for the objective can be the wrong thing to do.
Combat Recon would probably work well in an organized corp vs corp environment, but it’s just not working well for public games with the current rules.
I don’t think the issue is with people discouraging others. The issue is that there’s always going to be the other half of the public that doesn’t read chat, isn’t interested in what you think, and who want to play their own way. You can’t get rid of these people, but you can give them a role in games. Futile as those diehard players’ attempts may be, they’re actually the people playing directly for the objective, and the team having them currently gets punished extra for it in Combat Recon. None of the other game modes have as big of an issue regarding this, because it doesn’t matter if you’re part of an organized group or going solo, as long as you play for the objective (carry a bomb, chase a bomb carrier, capture a beacon, etc) you more or less play for the team. While failing at the objectives can mean the other team’s victory, it’s rarely wrong to try. In Combat Recon going for the objective can be the wrong thing to do.
Combat Recon would probably work well in an organized corp vs corp environment, but it’s just not working well for public games with the current rules.
No the diehards are the ones that want the point reward for killing the captain. The ones who work towards the objective are the ones that fly in groups. And there is no need to dumben down a game mode for a few people who don’t read chat or want to pay a lot of repair costs. And yes trying is very often wrong especially if the enemy team is approaching, your team has a 10 kill deficit and valuable defenders keep charging blindly into a wall of frigates the moment they spawn.
Glad to see reasonable discussion about the topic.
Hammashaukka you have valid points in your statements, however you have only talked about the issue where people actually work together and try (which means you propably play in an organized group).
But what about the situation where both teams at start turn around to take distance , and both teams are just staying away from enemy team after 5 minutes of gaming. That has happaned few times and I have to say I didn’t have fun. Few people were calling chat to just defend and get easy win. Both team staying away from other team by a distance of 25km. That was no fun.
Even this mode in it’s current state has some tactical points in it, the fact is that it’s only deathmatch in it’s current state, Captain being just a secondary objective to score a lucky kill.
I agree that maybe damage done to captain wouldn’t be the optimal choise as it would cause only few solo rampart runs (which are still better than 10min def with only deathmatch going on). But we really need another way than kill count to decide winner in draw situations.
My general problem is that victory is achievable without even trying to kill enemy captain, as solo or as a team.
Keep the discussion going 
Respect, DalWill
An interesting experience were t4 cr matches for me. Because of few players, the places get often filled with bots. bots dont listen to the chat and they dont follow orders. They move often forwards and get killed very soon. But because of this, they bring an “unstable element” in the match. So as times goes by, one team is forced to do sth, because they have fewer (bot)-kills. The dynamic of a cr match is therefore complety different from t3 matches.
Well, i dont think myself, that we need bots to bring more fun in the game mode. But we could need some of this “unstable element”. For this reason, i find the suggestion of changing the victory parameters to “most damage dealt at the captain” not bad. In the fight, no one can realy exactly estimate, how much damgae was dealt. An other “unstable element” could be to increase the bonus of killing the captain (not the assist). I dont mean points, i talk about a realy big amount of credits and reputation for the player, who gets the kill. Just for him, no one else. That would reward the aggressive playstyle.
Even this mode in it’s current state has some tactical points in it, the fact is that it’s only deathmatch in it’s current state, Captain being just a secondary objective to score a lucky kill.
I have to disagree with you there, the whole point if Recon is to kill the enemy captain while trying to keep yours alive. Normally an average player will never just sit and wait for the enemy unless he’s sniping. If two teams were to do nothing, they will get no reward. Killing off the captain is always a primary objective, and to play this game modes like a TDM, its mainly secondary for recon. Sometimes you get a bad captain or a bad team, yes but you have to make due with what you got. The captain understands that if he dies, he puts his team in a bad situation. If the other players don’t stay together, they will get picked off. If the players don’t help the captain, they wont be able to spawn and play. There are many ways to lose just as there are many ways to win and all players eventually understand this when they play recon.
There are many ways to lose just as there are many ways to win and all players eventually understand this when they play recon.
Up to T3 and dozens of matches behind, both organized squads and solo, and I just don’t see this. There are only two ways to win. You win by risking an attack or by camping for most kills. Anything else is just either of these two in different clothing. And since attacking tends to penalize the whole team, what’s the point. It always turns passive if the teams are even marginally balanced. Passive is boring.
All that aside, on a related note, this whole thing wouldn’t be an issue if players could choose which modes to queue for. It’s rather absurd to expect people to want to play everything. It’s more likely that people have a favorite mode or two and that they’d prefer playing those modes (plus having modes separated would be an excellent way for the devs to see which ones are more popular, and thus fine, and which ones are less played, thus needing adjustment). One reason we have people wanting to change the game modes is probably because these people would rather play any of the other modes instead to begin with, but the queue keeps throwing everything at them. I have fun moments on Detonation and Domination, but I rarely have fun on Combat Recon (and the only times I have fun are during attempts to kill the enemy captain). I’d rather opt-out from the mode entirely with the way it is currently. That’s my personal preference anyways.
Sorry for the slight derail. Just happened to cross my mind.
Well.
No. That would encourage even more of this Brickwalling going on by now. And it’s harder to calculate as the Captains get constant regging from T2+. Or SHOULD recive. It encourage solo runs with Suicide stuff or mines just to score some points contraire to Teamplay and coordination. So i am Against the Suggestion. Sorry.
And well before anyone gets ideas. 49 Captains Killed here 2 as Captain Myself. And the Game Mode is Fine as it is. It’s just the Tactic and Inovation that lacks with MOST teams.