It would be wise of you heed the experience of some of the members here.
There are a lot of AoE weapons in this game, and a lot of very stupid players that use them at Danger Close to friendly units. EM Torps, Guided Torpedoes, Coil Mortars, Nukes…
Those are this game’s N00bTubes. And players use them just as recklessly. Adding in Friendly Fire won’t make them change tactics.
Please, from now on don’t address me on the question of friendly fire. Simply because you don’t take into account my experience as if I had never been killed by a grenade thrown by one of my team mate when we were rushing out of spawn. I had this discution pretty every where and you are no better than the others. I won’t change my mind. I need friendly fire and I will keep pressing this suggestion.
I am more interest in the opinion of a point system for team balance or any idea for uneven battle.
It would be wise of you heed the experience of some of the members here.
There are a lot of AoE weapons in this game, and a lot of very stupid players that use them at Danger Close to friendly units. EM Torps, Guided Torpedoes, Coil Mortars, Nukes…
Those are this game’s N00bTubes. And players use them just as recklessly. Adding in Friendly Fire won’t make them change tactics.
Em torps require a lot of skill, at least in sec con. between torping beacons and and not. the xxxx of the guys in front of you, or yourself. its harder than. it seems
There is Friendly fire, but it is allocated to more organized game mode. We use to have friendly fire in the game for all game modes, a while back and it was terrible, amount of clueless people annihilating half of the friendly team by they lack of knowledge or simply ignorance was to damn high.
I am more interest in the opinion of a point system for team balance or any idea for uneven battle.
I think you are confusing our term for “even” battle, (of which we have very few) with a boring static battle. In every game I have played, players wanted the teams to be as evenly matched as possible
to create an environment where the better plan and teamwork win against an evenly matched opponent. Otherwise it’s just seal clubbing and becomes very boring…for both sides.
SoldiersFortune, not really (though the video is nice to explain why balancing and not listening to nerfing request is a must). I mean skirmish scenario with different numbers of players on each side or having different mechanic.
example one : put 8 tier IV players against 4 tier V player (I don’t know if this fit my requirement for balance, but for the sake of the example I suppose it is balance) Other mix are possible (like 4 tiers IV and 2 Tier 5 against an equivalent mix but with different tiers and number of ships).
example two : A side with lets say 4 ship and an armed base with unlimited reinforcement as long as the base is not destroyed and a team with 8 ships with limited reinforcement.
example three : The deseperate battle : a side with may be 20 ships and unlimited reinforcement again 15 ships (may be with a base at least with better class) they have no or very limited reinforcement but they win if they do twice as must damage to the attacker when the last of them is taken (the idea is that the attacker lose if they use a simple respawn zerg attack).
Of course rewards number and actual balancing (not too much) should be thinked according to the actual way the game works.
Nutz, I am a wargamer and if you look at napoleon tatics in Italy it is baiscally seal clubing the opposing force, that would like to seal club him if he let us the time to do it, so for me it is what is expected. I don’t expect battle to be fair. I am not a sportman. But that gave me another idea for a more complete battle with production and player jumping in and out according to production schedule. As production is the only way to create a coherent imbalance of forces.But I need to test the sector battle to see where this proposal can go and if it is not too much for this game. Though it can be a create opportunity to use all tier in the same great battle.