View Single Post
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 3
02-05-2010, 10:13 AM
Originally Posted by The_Rabbit
I think the problem is that the match types are fundamentally flawed, fixing map problems is like putting a bandaid on someone with 2 cracked ribs that's having a heart attack.

See my thread here for thoughts on changing the way pvp matches are fought:
Uh actually no. What you are referring to is commonly called "Assault/Defend" mission archtypes. Where a team has a certain advantage that the enemy must overcome. I read your thread and do not agree with it at all.

Fixing the maps is not "putting a band-aid" on it. Fixing the maps would balance it out. The biggest issue with both styles is that killing someone (when faced against opponents who communicate and support each other) doesn't do enough. Respawn timers are too short, and travel times are ridiculously short. Maps need to have risk vs reward.

Risk is: If i go to this spot, I can capture it. But I'm spending time travelling there, and I might get ganked, and therefore I might not recieve help from allies because I'm not easily reachable.
Reward is: If I suceed in getting to this spot and holding it for X amount of time. I've captured a spot that the enemy has to make a risk for (See above risk).

There currently is no RISK involved in any of the maps because they are too small. There's no "travel time" there's no "wait until we get more people because if we go i now, we will get slaughtered, fail, and then end up losing alot of points".