Optimise
Member
|
I request that everyone please stay on topic and refrain from dragging in other discussions into this suggestion, we've reached over 20 posts already with just back and forth opinions with little to no real progress made on the suggestion at hand.
@Mother1:
quote:
Mother1 wrote:
Actually thanks to updates the player pool has spiked seeing as prior to updates the player pool during cooldown of wars, wasn't even in the hundreds, and on peak barely passed 200, vs now were off peak is 100+ and on peak is 200+. Not much of an increase but it is one that I have noticed.
However, having a small player pool and worrying about wait times while is a reason I would more than accept seeing as I like quick match starts, isn't a really valid reason to add such a feature to the game.
I agree that there should be a separate game mode for this, there are however many drawbacks with that. Would having a separate game mode at this current time be beneficial for the game, especially with its dwindling player base? I think not. Introducing another game mode would divide the player base as it is, resulting in longer waiting time, and less players in each mode. No point expending time and effort for a feature that will divide players when it's meant to have the opposite effect, especially with the game in its current state. That being said, I cannot see this being implemented as a separate game mode.
All in all, this would be a step forward towards improving the game in a fun but yet competitive way, as this feature would undoubtedly increase player retention, creativity, playtime, and also add that fun factor to the game. Whether the developers want to implement this as a separate game mode is in their discretion and what they deem good for the betterment of this game.
The above is from my initial response. It addresses most of what you said. But to add, I am not in disagreement with whatever you are saying. As stated in my posts, I myself would like to see a separate game mode for this, though you would have to really think about whether waiting times will be the only consequence.
We barely have 200 players online, how many are actually battling? 100 at max? Others NPCing, chilling, etc. 100 split between 3 game modes would be disastrous -- it wouldn't be playable. Even if it were playable, it would be abused as you're more likely to get matched with opponents (dummies, bots, etc...) you want. I'm sure no one would want to constantly battle the same teams every time you click 2v2 after waiting for so long.
quote:
But here is something that I am throwing out there for you to help your suggestion and address one of my concerns. Make it so you can link with anyone within your level range if you want to battle. The buddy list to be honest while nice is also very limited and with the way it is now if all your buddies are offline, you are basically screwed if you want to play 2 vs 2.
Once again, this has been addressed. Good point but once again there are bound to be players everywhere -- you don't need to necessarily team up with just your friends. You might find a random person in 2v2, add him -- make a team, new strategies, new tactics, new builds. This is what I meant by creativity and encouragement of more social play in the form of allying and interacting with other players to come up with better ways to play.
quote:
Satafou brings a good point too:
However I can assure you I can confidently beat the majority of linked 2vs2 teams solo as long as my partner has a reasonable build that isn't trolling and listens to what I tell them to do. People are overestimating the advantage linking gives. The biggest advantage is the complimentary builds that synergise with each other. However any sensible solo 2vs2 player would just pick a flexible all rounder build that can counter these.
quote:
Mother1 wrote:
We have to also remember that while suggestions are being put into the game, with features like this the staff has to look at "All" parties involved in this which shows that despite them adding new features they also care about fairness to "all" the players.
That is not addressing the issue that is basically saying "I know this is here and I know this is a problem, but I am going to ignore it anyways. The FSI even mentions that when coming up with ideas they need to make sure idea's don't just favor a certain group of people and that they have to look at the needs of "All" the players as stated in the FSI thread reasons for not implementing ideas. while the older threads will be harder to locate (assuming they are still here) said quote from the FSI thread can be found lickey split as posted.
I have addressed the issue, all of which is said above in my posts, and also quite aptly answered by Satafou. I'm not saying "I know this is here and I know this is a problem, but I am going to ignore it anyways", rather I know this is here and I acknowledge that it is a problem, but there is a workaround to it. There wouldn't be 20+ posts in this thread if people were ignoring each others posts, or the issues being raised by them. ;)
I'm quite bewildered by the constant excuse of "Frequently Suggested Ideas". The notion that this suggestion should be locked or not discussed just because it's in the FSI is rather absurd. Yes, there are reasons as to why these ideas are in that list. Are those reasons valid at this current time? We talk about fairness in terms of whether the feature applies to everyone. But is that really a valid point looking at past features and just the general nature of how things work.
If we're just looking at things from outside and not properly examining the feature, isn't everything favouring a certain group of people and not meeting all the players' satisfaction? When we're talking about things like this, we have to look at the past features implemented and the very interpretation of what you deem fair to everyone. For me it's about accessibility, and equal opportunity. 2v2 ally link will be accessible by every player, the opportunity is there. There may be restrictions and divisions as with anything else, but that depends on how this is implemented.
One thing that I doubt may change is how the developers still can't please everyone. It's just how things are, there will always be complaints to a new feature. Things will be better if we actually focused on how suggestions can provide more equal opportunities, less restrictions and divisions.
Satafou has nicely summed up the entire suggestion. I was planning on doing something similar for my very first post, but left it open-ended so everyone can chip in and contribute to the discussion -- so far so good! We have the option of implementing this separately or as a merge -- both sides have been explained thoroughly by Satafou.
I would ask if the developers are interested in implementing this, they can do an in-game poll and see what the current playerbase think of having 2v2 ally link. There are obviously many ways of having the initial release, similar to that of Juggernaut mode release, we can grant access to this mode through a card, mission chain, or something else.
Peoples views and opinions are subject to change every now and then. Most people have different answers, some anecdotal, some factual. But in the end what matters the most is what the developers deem good or bad and view as worthy to implement.
|
Printable Version
Icon Legend
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread
