View Single Post
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 4
02-05-2010, 10:27 AM
Originally Posted by Sykomyke View Post
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".
I agree partially. I think a lot of problems stem from basic design choices, like having battles start before the teams are full, and not having spawn points NPC defended on some maps. Making travel times longer would *possibly* improve this, causing people to wait for reinforcements before rushing off somewhere. However, it would instead likely just cause one side to wipe out the other, and then the opposing losing side would much more slowly trickle in, and die one by one, due to reinforcements not being able to arrive quickly enough. Whereas now, you can pop in quickly, eat a battery or use an emergency power skill, and be right back in the fight.