What's new

#9 Tau Ceti Part 3 & Conquest Rework

Vesperion

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
Messages
1,279
Reaction score
172
Server
Askone
Main Pilotname
Vesperion
Rank
95
i do have 18 skulls between the servers i've played and i can tell u that nearly none of them were "free given" as u think they are
Maybe i did just not correctly put it in "what i meant exactly" even when have done it in a previous reply but however.

I can see "some competition" that happenes every now and then for a skull at the 1st Devision. However what i see as a big issue of the current system is that the 1st placed pilot in the 1st devision does not get set back to the entry division once he obtained the skull what "should make sense to some degree" imo.

Atm it is so that you only need to make sure to stay in division 1 with the place of 1-5 while 6th place gets changed with the 1st place of 2nd division. If you can manage to stay in 1st division you have every week the chance to obtain another skull. If this skull is now obtained with or without any competition is another story but in many cases you will always see the same 4-5 pilots in the 1st division every week either fightig for the skull or they just stay in 1st division due of their acitivity.

In compare to Achives WS farming is basicly a "full time activity" you need to attend to in order to either "set your point" or even to have the chance to obtain the Skull and not everyone may have this time to go for it.

Basicly this is the main gripe i have with the whole ladder system so i really look forward to see more offical information about the system cus the wording of @Highway is currently a thing that worries me.
 

nemesis1900

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
207
Reaction score
44
Goodnight.

After participating in several conquests and as an admiral assigning cryonite to my members, you will come to the conclusion that the allocation system is a bit imprecise and sometimes fails.

By fail I mean situations in which you select a player and give to donate and it is passed to another player.

I think this situation causes uncomfortable situations. Double confirmation methods must be implemented. In addition, it will be possible to incorporate the possibility of returning the badly donated cryonite or that the admiral can cancel an incorrect assignment made.

These improvements would be more pleasant for the operation of the clans.

Best regards.
 

dontbelive

Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2020
Messages
54
Reaction score
60
Server
Korell
Main Pilotname
dontbelive
Rank
95
What about implementing an update which shows how much cryo you made in cqs for each player? For example

Participated x Times
Won x Cryo

Would be great to see how much cryo u made while cqs.
 

Poland

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
570
Reaction score
138
Server
Askone
Main Pilotname
JustaRavenPL
Rank
95
Clan
Death Watch
About the skulls themselves, going back to little off top from the Conquest Rework, for sure these should be rewarded by some Golden Skull shop, but there is no solo pvp ranking in the game too, like for Colossus wins or such.

There could be some kind of Red, Silver or other skull ladder that would give skulls for first 3 pilots that have gained most amount of points divided by the amount of lifes lost during all of those fights. So, if new PvP Events would be implemented (i.e. Neptune's Bliss PvP on Neptune on Sol; gonna talk about this idea later), more rankings could fill into that ranking, so every month those pilots would be rewarded greatly for their PvP effort.

Why do I write this idea here? The ladder have been grearly changed so that it allows many more things now. Conquests were always some kind of nice PvP content, but rest of the events are not priced enough imho. Still, on Colossus, we can see many teaming issues being exploited. So, yes, PvP needs even more love in this game. However I would not like to see any major patches to be delayed coz of it. Everything got its time.
 

Getagripx

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2020
Messages
44
Reaction score
39
Server
Askone
Main Pilotname
Getagripx
Rank
95
Landing timer could use some changes. It is rather unfortunate if someone crashes or disconnects when the CQ starts so they are unable to land. Rather instead teleport them to the surface when time is up if they are in orbit (online or not) so they can participate. Of course only if they have a valid ship and config for that CQ.

No Ancient tech CQs? :ROFLMAO: 55 Sol already exists anyways. Is that even popular? :rolleyes:
I believe this is something many of us would like to see be implemented, I would suggest forcefully causing players to land 90 seconds after the CQ has begun if they are in orbit of said CQ planet and have them be disqualified only if they are elsewhere at the 90 second mark.
Things like connectivity issues or PC/client freezes can be very annoying when they occur at the beginning of a conquest battle so this change would indeed be very welcome.
 

Highway

Splitscreen Studios
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
1,446
Reaction score
640
Update for tomorrow will fix many stability issues. Especially the nasty crash that could happen just before the conquest match:
 

The_Ghost

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
93
Reaction score
22
Main Pilotname
Mine
Rank
99
Update for tomorrow will fix many stability issues. Especially the nasty crash that could happen just before the conquest match:
:oops:
oops.png
 

KingSub

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 31, 2018
Messages
238
Reaction score
231
Server
Korell
Main Pilotname
X-12
Rank
95
@Highway what u think about this Idea.. Let us Players in PvE Materialize directly to our Squadleader just like in the CQ? Also alow Materialize in LZ.. That would be a nice feature😁

* however CQ rework is nice 👍
 

dontbelive

Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2020
Messages
54
Reaction score
60
Server
Korell
Main Pilotname
dontbelive
Rank
95
@Highway what u think about this Idea.. Let us Players in PvE Materialize directly to our Squadleader just like in the CQ? Also alow Materialize in LZ.. That would be a nice feature😁

* however CQ rework is nice 👍
That would be amazing to implement that feature.
Would come really handy and avoid loading screen if u dont want to change your ship.
 

Poland

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
570
Reaction score
138
Server
Askone
Main Pilotname
JustaRavenPL
Rank
95
Clan
Death Watch
Highway what u think about this Idea.. Let us Players in PvE Materialize directly to our Squadleader just like in the CQ? Also alow Materialize in LZ.. That would be a nice feature😁
The costs of energy should apply here, if that would be implemented in the open world. Of course lower than the regular materialization on the spot but to avoid exploits, it should cost some energy ^^
 

KingSub

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 31, 2018
Messages
238
Reaction score
231
Server
Korell
Main Pilotname
X-12
Rank
95
The costs of energy should apply here, if that would be implemented in the open world. Of course lower than the regular materialization on the spot but to avoid exploits, it should cost some energy ^^
Why exploit? Thats good for us and good for Devs. We're gonna buy more Energy than regular. So its a win win situation here. @Highway could implement the same Cooldown times from the CQ for PvE Players. Of course the normal Materialization should be the same Cooldown, except the Materialization to Squadleader and for LZ they should take here the Cooldown times from the CQ it worked fine. I've seen alot players Materialize after they podded in CQ. This Feature is a nice thing and popular. 😁
 

nemesis1900

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
207
Reaction score
44
Hello.

I propose something very simple. If they enlist to participate 10vs8. So the conquest is 8vs8. Therefore, two players from the fleet that listed 10 will be left out.

Those two players should be substitutes.
Why alternates? In case, in the beginning of the conquest, their connection drops when they go down to the planet, which is why it does not allow them to go down and participate, then they can be replaced by the substitutes instead of the holders.

Because disconnections at the beginning of the conquest and the conquests at a disadvantage in number are very normal, it is not fair or fun for both parties.

Best regards.
 

Iron Black

Member
Joined
May 12, 2020
Messages
29
Reaction score
23
Server
Gaia
Main Pilotname
iron black
Rank
95
Clan
Tropa de Elite Kps
the conquests are fine as they are
 

Iron Black

Member
Joined
May 12, 2020
Messages
29
Reaction score
23
Server
Gaia
Main Pilotname
iron black
Rank
95
Clan
Tropa de Elite Kps
Hello.

I propose something very simple. If they enlist to participate 10vs8. So the conquest is 8vs8. Therefore, two players from the fleet that listed 10 will be left out.

Those two players should be substitutes.
Why alternates? In case, in the beginning of the conquest, their connection drops when they go down to the planet, which is why it does not allow them to go down and participate, then they can be replaced by the substitutes instead of the holders.

Because disconnections at the beginning of the conquest and the conquests at a disadvantage in number are very normal, it is not fair or fun for both parties.

Best regards.
va a llorar?
 

nemesis1900

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
207
Reaction score
44
the conquests are fine as they are
I consider that nothing is perfect and nothing is ever complete. Everything must always be tested and reformed to produce greater well-being.

I think the conquest system is fine, but the problem of disconnections at the beginning is a point to be solved.

I have nothing to cry about, I'm just trying to contribute to the well-being of the whole game.

Best regards.
 

Highway

Splitscreen Studios
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
1,446
Reaction score
640
The client crash that often happened just in the beginning of a conquest was fixed with the last update, so this should not be an big issue anymore. Sure it can happen that due some coincidence someone is not able to land on the planet in the given time, but i suspect that will be rare.

Our data shows that even when the crash was still in the game most of the time all players landed to participate for the conquest match.
 

KingSub

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 31, 2018
Messages
238
Reaction score
231
Server
Korell
Main Pilotname
X-12
Rank
95
In my opinion there are problems with Ore distribution. For example, I got 18 kills, the opposing team 8, of which only 2 to 3 ores dropped. The problem is that the opposing team sends out an ore collector and it doesn't matter how many you kill, it doesn't do anything if you only collect 1-2 ores and can hardly reach the ore collector. We lost in a ratio of about 130 to 24 even though we achieved more Kills. The solution would be that everyone drops Ores instead of having permanent collectors and in this situation no one has chance of winning the CQ. We weren't that bad.. But fairness is also missing here. Everyone should drop ore.. If the team has any
 

Vesperion

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
Messages
1,279
Reaction score
172
Server
Askone
Main Pilotname
Vesperion
Rank
95
Well if you can´t win a CQ with PvP you can win with strategy and i would say that it is a viable strat to say that only 1-2 Pilots are collecting the ore and get heavily guarded in return to protect the recources they have collected.

The only way to prevent such a strat however would be to give every Pilot an "limited storage" of how much ore they can collect and then it would require some sort of "storage location" they need to deliver it to what then would result in new strats.

Balancing PvP in every aspect to say "now is everything perfect and has no possible exploit/strat that can be abused" will you never find cus someone will always find a new way to benefit from the mechanic of it
 
Top