Star Conflict OBT v.0.9.18 Discussion

Mercenary Center Patch Discussion
101

So rating decreases 1% per 24 hours for pilots…is this regardless if the pilot is flying or not?  Imo, it should go down only if the pilot has not flown for 24 hours.  Let’s say someone plays for 24 hours straight.  Their skill rating was 1000 at the start, and went up to 1200 by the end.  At the end of their session, do they lose 12, 10, or 0 skill rating?

 

AFAIK it’s not skill rating but the leaderboard. SR cannot really deteriorate, as it is your MMR, kinda. Those only start to rot if you don’t play for weeks.

 

Yes, because not everyone has 16 players online all the time or a pool of 150

 

So, you want special treatment? Keep the small club and granted boons? Protip: it won’t fly. A corp with triple the number and half the skill should and will have an advantage.

102

No they shouldn’t! That’s precisely what people are complaining about!

 

You should not be rewarded for massing a corp of 150 crap players. You should be rewarded for having the best team on the field.

 

Zerg Corps are not respected, nor welcome. The whole reason Wings exist is Corps wanted a way to have Corp vs Corp battles, and the reason Corps want Corp vs Corp battles is so they don’t have to put up with Pugs and Zerg Corps dragging them down!

103

Wings is a nice addition to the game, if two good corps go head to head with 12 players on each side, it will make for a very intense and tactical battle

104

No they shouldn’t! That’s precisely what people are complaining about!

 

You should not be rewarded for massing a corp of 150 crap players. You should be rewarded for having the best team on the field.

 

Zerg Corps are not respected, nor welcome. The whole reason Wings exist is Corps wanted a way to have Corp vs Corp battles, and the reason Corps want Corp vs Corp battles is so they don’t have to put up with Pugs and Zerg Corps dragging them down!

 

Just try to read what i wrote. Quality is important, but quantity is important too. I wrote triple quantity and half quality, so the product is still more. What you want is that even a little superiority in skill should compensate for huge number disadvantage. That won’t happen and should not happen.

105

Just try to read what i wrote. Quality is important, but quantity is important too. I wrote triple quantity and half quality, so the product is still more. What you want is that even a little superiority in skill should compensate for huge number disadvantage. That won’t happen and should not happen.

 

It depends, ill illustrate how that matters a Lot.

 

If i recall correctly, the movie Black Hawk Down is based on some real facts.

 

In the end of the movie, they show you the casualties on both sides.

 

Basically both sides had assault rifles, the americans had some utility gear, and some air suport. But in terms of casualty and battle strenght the numbers are bellow:

 

UNOSOM II (USA and Pals)

160 military

12 vehicles (nine HMMWVs)

19 aircraft (sixteen helicopters - 8 Black Hawks and 8 Little Birds)

 

Somali National Aliance

 

4,000–6,000 militiamen and civilian fighters.

 

 

At the end of that battle the casualties:

UNOSOM II

 

U.S.

18 killed[1]

73 wounded[1][2]

1 captured

Malaysia

1 killed

7 wounded

Pakistan

1 killed

2 wounded

 

SOMALI

 

US source: Up to 700+ killed. Est. 1,500+ wounded. 21 captured.

Militia source states 315 killed, 812 wounded.

 

 

So, as you can see, the skills of the proper soldiers, who trained hard, learned strategy, tactics, and improved their skills, aims, how to prevent fire, how to avoid fire with a very low number killed A LOT, while the nawbs with the GUNZ killed very few even having the terrain as their advantage.

 

My point is: YES lower number with HIGH quality should matter as much as a horde of untrained, undisciplined mindless swarm.

 

 

And dont think that a player with 1100 rating is half as good as someone with 1500, and you cannot even use SR to determine how good ppl are, even i, a Ace player with 300ms all the time reached 1600+ SR, by farming with gauss+tackler, but when im playing as a group, with squadmates to WIN, usually i float around 1500 or a little less (ofc now im a little bit bad since im leveling ships that im not used to fly).

 

I see people from many corps that i will not name, with 1300+ SR charging suicide trying to kill the cap, solo on his fat guard, so dont you dare to say that zerg corps have even half the quality of quality corps.

106

It depends, ill illustrate how that matters a Lot.

[…]

So, as you can see, the skills of the proper soldiers, who trained hard, learned strategy, tactics, and improved their skills, aims, how to prevent fire, how to avoid fire with a very low number killed A LOT, while the nawbs with the GUNZ killed very few even having the terrain as their advantage.

Well, the “nawbs with the GUNZ” successfully prevented the highly trained soldiers from achieving their objective. Same in game. The corps that have higher numbers than you may take more casualties, but they can afford to because of their numbers. They’ll achieve the objective anyway. :yes_yes:

107

No, they didnt prevent the highly trained soldiers from achieving its objective, they successfully captured the targets. But there were international repercussions and some bla bla bla from politicians that made the military presence on the site being removed, and the victory (objectives achieved) was considered a bit hollow due to the fact of the big consequences that came out later.

 

The time when number of men defined the victory in a war is long past with the improvements of new killing tecniques developed by the weapons industry. And even here on starconflict we saw that quality should be equal to quantity is the fact not very long ago, some members of WPK fought a mix of a LOT of players from a lot of corps and people that didnt have corps, and even if the number of enemies were far bigger, they were crushed in that captain mode, when they managed to score 1 kill the whole match while WPK killed dozens literaly.

The same thing we observe in pratically any game. Taker wow for example, it is simply IMPOSSIBLE for 2000 players level 10 to kill one level 80. The level 80 would blast them all with a xxxx. Or a arena master team of 4 against 15 pvers. Every game, every war, every place we see this, that quality even exceeds quantity.

 

Even at production as the[fasz](< base_url >/index.php?/user/243310-fasz/) said, you can have 10.000 workers doing some manual labor, and even so, 100 robots would do much more product in less time than workers.

 

If that were not true, why would any army have what they call, the special forces, or something like that, to achieve goals with a small numbers of soldiers, they could do the same if they sent 20000 men. But no, you can do with quantity or with quality, and those who choose quantity usually get a lot of losses.
 

So i think the rewards should be greater for small wings, not greater per se. But fix a value to it, and distribute among those in the battle, the more ppl with you, the more divided is the prize.

 

Well, i lost myself during this post, so dont mind if i said garbage cause im sleepy now.

108

The whole problem with the quality vs quantity argument is this - failure is not punished. If corps lost Conquest Points when they lost a battle, Zerg Corps would have no sectors whatsoever. The systems do not reward skill, and Wings as they are now take too much effort to set up, with no incentive to do so. Why bother getting 12 people from your Corp together if no other Wing is flying? Why make an 8 man Wing if you risk being ganked by a 12 man ESB Wing?

 

Sector Conquest is meant to be end game content, but it doesn’t feel like end game. The fact that the best Corps have the fewest territories is proof of that. If SQ was purely based on skill, ESB would own all of the Federation. Hell, they would own all of the map! That alone should be the indicator the Devs use - this is the one time that catering to ESB is the right thing to do.

109

We can cite irrelevant facts all day long. The fact stands: Average Joes (not terrible players, just not devoted, not terribly good) will have the advantage if they stick together in one corp. If the game would reward small teams, it would lead to isolated groups, just like WPK. I see why you want what you want, of course you want good for yourself, but the game wants big corps.

 

And it is perfectly normal that number wins over some quality. As i said, every citation from RL or other games are perfectly null and void, and even in the game we cant really measure skill. But. What you want is that 150 average people shouldn’t be able to beat your 12 man wing. That is bullshit.

110

But. What you want is that 150 average people shouldn’t be able to beat your 12 man wing. That is bullshit.

 

 

10 vs 16, and those 16 are not just randoms

 

Numbers doesn’t matter, seriously

111

10 vs 16, and those 16 are not just randoms

Numbers doesn’t matter, seriously

There hardly 5-6 “good” players and you concentrated almost best ofthe best you had, on top of that they had no voice comm, i really dont see how this particular example say anything, its like take a hellicopter and than go to war on some africans tribes that dont even have bows, and than tell everybody about skill. If it was 10 vs 30 in same conditions than random team might have a slight chance and some what comparible to skill vs numbers

Nonetheless, there should be balance and no clear favoritism of one or another, currently it is clearly in favor of raw numbers rather than skill. But in the same time i don’t think that Corporation that can provide 1, 2 at most wings should be more influential than a Corporation that can throw 100 bodies into the war.

112

When I watched it I saw “Kill ‘squad’ protects themselves, doesn’t advance, and goes for kills.  The other team sees their best option is a captain kill for a win and rushes more but sadly fail.”

 

Seriously, after a 10-1 kill ratio, your best option for a WIN is kill their captain.  The only thing they didn’t do is coordinate their rushers.  It becomes an issue of people who play to win and people who play to kill.

113

That captain was a complete disaster for his team, he didn´t do anything to avoid being killed.

114

We can cite irrelevant facts all day long. The fact stands: Average Joes (not terrible players, just not devoted, not terribly good) will have the advantage if they stick together in one corp. If the game would reward small teams, it would lead to isolated groups, just like WPK. I see why you want what you want, of course you want good for yourself, but the game wants big corps.

 

And it is perfectly normal that number wins over some quality. As i said, every citation from RL or other games are perfectly null and void, and even in the game we cant really measure skill. But. What you want is that 150 average people shouldn’t be able to beat your 12 man wing. That is bullshit.

 

Sure, IF you could field all your 150 average joes at the same battle, surely you would win. BUT, the capability of a zerg corp to field multiple 12-man wings and gain more rewards than that one high quality and performance team, thats what i dont accept.

115

Btw, I changed my mind, if we cannot get a proper captain selection system I want to be it 100% of the time again. I haven’T been captain once yet under the “new” system yet get to suffer T2 captains in T4 and nonsense like that.

116

Sure, IF you could field all your 150 average joes at the same battle, surely you would win. BUT, the capability of a zerg corp to field multiple 12-man wings and gain more rewards than that one high quality and performance team, thats what i dont accept.

 

Sure, there has to be a balance, as Kostyan said. But providing one wing who beats everyone should not result in superior results.

 

ALERT ALERT very bad allegory incoming.

Imagine two huge armies go against each other. The armies consist of separate mercenary groups, who have a race to have the most kills. Your small elite unit thrusts forward, and slaughters the line before it, racks up 10 kills per person. On the other hand, a nameless group with 5-6 units goes, kills, gets 3 kills per person. They will beat you in numbers, and that is how it should be. If they can muster up 1 kill per person, because they are that bad, you will beat them. But playing small elite club is not a viable thing. If you are terribad, you should get nothing even with 150 people, but if you are simply good, numbers will count. Not everything can or should be countered by skill.

 

Currently the problem is, just throwing yourself in will result in some points. No incentive not to rush with 150 people, without equipment or training. One suggestion was to have a punishment, like a cost to pay when going in the game. Obviously this must be much lower than the gain, but still would provide some counterbalance.

117

Speaking of “Zerg”

pUrCNli.jpg

118

Why did the numbers drop?

119

Why did the numbers drop?

Previous numbers were all corps aligned to the faction, current numbers are only those participating in SQ or something like that

120

Btw, I changed my mind, if we cannot get a proper captain selection system I want to be it 100% of the time again. I haven’T been captain once yet under the “new” system yet get to suffer T2 captains in T4 and nonsense like that.

 

I saw alot of tards as captain recently, they will have r3 ships equipped and a r7. So when they go into pvp they decide to use their tier 1 ship in a tier 3 game and when they end up as captain you might as well not bother : P

 

all the tier jumpers recently have absolutely no idea what day it is, let alone how to play the game…