Custom Battle - upgrade

Suggestions Game Modes and Maps
1

I wondered why the mode: Custom Battle is not used more frequently by me and other players.

And I found that its interface/window or UI is rather simple and none appealing.

 

The UI window to select from which Custom Battles to join, in SC, does not even display the ranks of ships needed to participate:

 

[Srceen shot of the ‘Choose battle’ UI window from SC]

 

 

The window to create a custom battle in SC has only a very minimal set of options:

 

[Screen shot of a PvE Custom Battle ‘Create’ UI window]

 

 

In comparison, for example, the only other game I have on my PC, The Battle for Wesnoth, has lots of switches and informations displayed in its UI window for creation of battles (with many tabs and second degree option subwindows):

 

[Screenshot of ‘The Battle for Wesnoth’, a cross-platform free and open (GPL2) turn-based strategy video game, German language version]

 

The thing is, if the matchMaker (especially for PvP) really is a problem, why not try to avoid its limitations by letting the players do what they might can do best: create the battles they like.

Human players might be superior in self-organizing fair and satisfying battles. For that to happen, in SC, the UI windows for Custom Battles must be overhauled and reworked.

 

One could even imagine the benefits if the pro guys (like NASA, STORM) would do their ‘stuff’ in custom battles, exclusively (docked on imaginary future Station Fort Muerto in the middle of the galaxy map)!

 

 

 

2

I like actual UI.

3

imho.

the game is built around progression

 

custom games give no progression, so they only get used very few times.

progression got disabled, because some abused the custom games to farm stuff

usually games which are just “fun to play” without any progression work better with this.

you will notice, custom lobbies and inhouse gaming usually do not come with progression based games, except sometimes “unlocks”, like in some dota variants, or hero arenas.

 

in a way, you can’t have both, i guess. with every bit of more complicated progression we have, we are actually walking further away from a custom battle being interesting, especially, since you still got some farming to do!

 

 

14 hours ago, avarshina said:

The thing is, if the matchMaker (especially for PvP) really is a problem

i am getting a bit curious why the “matchmaker” is being a “problem”.

i mean yes, obviously, it isn’t really smart and seems to not really make fair teams by players most of the time

or starts a 2v2 on a huge map and decides not to add any further players until 2 minutes before the end of the game

but sometimes it also makes good teams

 

the question - imho - is rather, if the game is only played because of progression, what is its value?

if everybody would have access to everything in star conflict, just theoretically, would you play it?

would it be fun and fair, with every ship offering something for the bigger picture?

that is how the meta should be designed, and that is where the problems can be located.

 

 

in a way i also missed giving you an answer to another (closed) thread, and it kinda fits this topic philosophically: i am not trying to distinguish between “newcomer”, “medium” and “veteran”, when it comes to endgame. endgame is not, where only the “good” players play. endgame is, where you expect the good player to beat you, on even grounds, where you expect that the game stops holding your hand, and sometimes you lose, sometimes you win, and most of the time, its less about the individual, and more about the teamplay. anything lower is, where you expect the veteran to be regulated, the solo player to farm his progression. you expect to have some risk/reward. of course in that arena, also there should be no “progressive” differences. i hope you get what i mean.

 

Myself I realized, that the distinction of player-skill-level is more important as long as you progress yourself.

 

4

Interesting answer.

I, personally, do not find the “matchmaker” being a “problem”, but that’s what I hear some people say all the time, and I stay in t3 (t4) most of the time. I hear ppl say there’s a more sub-optimal environment to play in t5.

 

1 hour ago, g4borg said:

…

Myself I realized, that the distinction of player-skill-level is more important as long as you progress yourself.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

in a way i also missed giving you an answer to another (closed) thread, and it kinda fits this topic philosophically: i am not trying to distinguish between “newcomer”, “medium” and “veteran”, when it comes to endgame. endgame is not, where only the “good” players play. endgame is, where you expect the good player to beat you, on even grounds, where you expect that the game stops holding your hand, and sometimes you lose, sometimes you win, and most of the time, its less about the individual, and more about the teamplay. anything lower is, where you expect the veteran to be regulated, the solo player to farm his progression. you expect to have some risk/reward. of course in that arena, also there should be no “progressive” differences. i hope you get what i mean.

 

Myself I realized, that the distinction of player-skill-level is more important as long as you progress yourself.

 

Yes - but how to measure that “player-skill-level” automatically, or how to calculate it, that’s the big question, I guess.