Home  | Login  | Register  | Help  | Play 

2v2 ally link

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [EpicDuel] >> EpicDuel Suggestions >> 2v2 ally link
Page 1 of 212>
Forum Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
8/19/2018 12:08:41   
Optimise
Member

The title is quite self-explanatory. 2v2 link between buddies so you can always 2v2 alongside them. This would motivate people to play 2v2 more, and also encourage strategic gameplay.

I understand this suggestion is in the Frequently Suggested Ideas, but would ask that the moderators don't lock this thread. We need to weigh the pros and cons (if any at all) of this suggestion and examine whether adding this feature would be beneficial to the game at this time. There haven't been many if any valid arguments against this idea. I'm not entirely sure how long this will take for the developers to implement but since they may be looking into adding more features in the future -- they can have a think about this one too.

Unlocked despite being in the FSI ~Battle Elf


< Message edited by Battle Elf -- 8/19/2018 16:58:38 >
Post #: 1
8/19/2018 12:57:45   
RaXZerGamingZ
Member

if it messes with random 2v2 battles then i'm against it, if it's in its own seperate "mode" then sure.
Post #: 2
8/19/2018 13:24:01   
Mr. Delector
Member

I support this for 2v2 mode in general. Would make 2v2 more social with friends, make getting in battles faster because more people would do 2v2s and you could avoid getting annoying noob partners who skips, leaves or are bad.
Epic  Post #: 3
8/19/2018 13:57:36   
Mother1
Member

Only if they make it where 2 vs 2 links DO NOT! go against unlinked players. That was the major reason why they vetoed the idea seeing as it would be 100% unfair for unsuspecting unlinked players being paired against 2 linked players possibly sporting the favor of the week builds or even builds that work well together as well as Juggernauts.

So as long as the linked players aren't apart of unlinked players and juggernauts I can support it.
Epic  Post #: 4
8/19/2018 14:19:36   
Mr. Delector
Member

@Mother1 I disagree, I don't see anything wrong with players who do not link with their friends being teamed up against friends who have linked up. It's their own choice to not link with anyone, besides a team with unlinked players have a just as big chance of winning unless their builds are horrible which is their own fault and they should be punished for.
Epic  Post #: 5
8/19/2018 15:15:34   
RaXZerGamingZ
Member

why should you get punished for going solo?

< Message edited by RaXZerGamingZ -- 8/19/2018 15:16:17 >
Post #: 6
8/19/2018 16:00:27   
Grandma
Member

I'd only support this idea if they bought P2W back in a big way. No for now. Mother1 has the right idea.

quote:

@Mother1 I disagree, I don't see anything wrong with players who do not link with their friends being teamed up against friends who have linked up. It's their own choice to not link with anyone, besides a team with unlinked players have a just as big chance of winning unless their builds are horrible which is their own fault and they should be punished for.
If two linked players are on to it (work well together, have builds that work wel together and so on) unlinked players don't have just as big a chance as winning unless it's a lucky match.



< Message edited by Grandma -- 8/19/2018 16:05:38 >
Epic  Post #: 7
8/19/2018 16:15:31   
Mother1
Member

@ Mr. Delector

what if I want to play unlinked or I can't play linked due to none of my friends being on? That alone will be punishing the masses who are unlinked because unlike linked players who don't have this issue unlinked players will. It is basically turning anyone who can't or won't link up into fresh young lambs ready to go to the slaughter house unless they somehow manage to get lucky and get a good partner.

The game already has enough punishment in it as it is due to bad balance, we don't need to add more punishment to players due to making it so players who choose to link up go against those who can't or won't.

So while I am not against Ally links, I am against having linked players fight against unlinked ones. with linked players only fighting other linked players there is a balance all around which is fair. it is as pointed out why the staff originally refused to add this idea and had it placed in the FSI.
Epic  Post #: 8
8/19/2018 16:36:17   
Optimise
Member

I appreciate the discussion taking place, some interesting concerns are being brought about.

quote:

RaXZerGamingZ wrote:

if it messes with random 2v2 battles then i'm against it, if it's in its own seperate "mode" then sure.



why should you get punished for going solo?

Would you explain how it messes with random 2v2 battles? I'm all for people taking part in the discussion, but would also appreciate it if logical arguments are made rather than broad and sweeping statements with no reasoning or explanation.

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.

-

Good question, why should you get punished for going solo? -- Why not?

The game mode as it is, isn't any better for obvious reasons. Having an ally link for 2v2 would encourage people to actually make better builds and put more thought into strategies. Not to mention that it will be quite fun and enjoyable to be able to play linked with someone where you can complement each others strategy/build. Teamwork would be more of a thing, and strategies needed for the battle mode would make things much more interesting.

This feature would create an environment whereby players are enticed into making groups, teams, where you'd be planning strategies and builds -- essentially increasing creativity. These days, builds and strategies are so bland, normalised, and common -- that follow a certain pattern with no thought put into it.

While I do acknowledge the disadvantage presented to those who are playing solo, no one is really stopping them from linking with players, right? It can also be argued as to why players would want to go solo for 2v2 in the first place? Having been playing this game for nearly 10 years, don't think anyone would be against linking up with another player for 2v2. If you would rather want to go solo and have a randomised partner, then please explain why.

I would obviously like to see more improvements made to 2v2, and all the game modes in general -- such as adding weapon requirements before entering battles, rank/matchmaking adjustments, balance, etc.

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.

EDIT:

@Mother1:
Already addressed some stuff in my post above. 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.

As for your concern about it being in the FSI, this was locked initially and was then unlocked. There are things in that list that have been implemented, and quite frankly I think the FSI is rather outdated -- which should hopefully be updated by NW soon. I've purposely requested that this thread be kept open, so it can be discussed by the community as we've never been able to reach a proper conclusion on this suggestion or receive a devs response. NW is evidently browsing the forums these days, so there's no harm in a healthy discussion taking place for a feature that has been requested time and time again with no solid arguments taking place around it.

< Message edited by Optimise -- 8/19/2018 16:50:42 >
Post #: 9
8/19/2018 18:12:09   
Cataleptic
Member

It's a good idea but I can see it being used in a negative manner.
Post #: 10
8/19/2018 18:18:30   
Mother1
Member

@ Optimise

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.

We already had many unfair features and ideas added to the game which while fun for a certain group of players punished another. For example when Varium used to give power instead of being used for pure time. Anyone who didn't update were made to battle fully powered players who could update quick vs them who couldn't and because of the difference in stats with varium and non varium gear even if the non varium was somehow fully powered up (which was rare it at all) they were still at a disadvantage against the paying player due to that. Then there was and still is Juggernaut. When it first came out non variums even though there was two of them rarely if at all didn't stand a chance against the varium jug. I can't count the amount of partners I had run out on be back in the day due to this unfairness. Then there is the jug we have now which is in most cases even worse seeing as unless you get a human partner with a good build (which again is rare) they are left at the mercy of a powerful jug with only a NPC partner.

My point with these examples is that while I do see the merit of your suggestion and the pro's of it, the cons are also there and shouldn't be ignored either especially without legit reasoning. Cause as you pointed out we already have a small player base that only recently started coming back to life due to NW throwing in (unbalanced at times) updates. This is why we need to have things added into the game that are fair to all, and not just a certain group. Otherwise it will cause newer players (which we desperately need by the pay) to possibly and very likely avoid at best or quit at worst the game.

Cause as you seen RaXZerGamingZ and myself aren't completely against your idea. the two of us are worried about ourselves as well as anyone else who likes the battle mode (Which by the way is my favorite battle mode) don't once again get the short end of the stick due to not being able to get a partner.

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.

Though with the FSI and this being in there, while i will agree some things were added that were previously remember there was more than one reason for something being put onto said list back then.

1) The idea was biased and unfair to a certain group of players
2) They couldn't put it into the game due to limitations at the time
3) It wasn't on top of their priority list, and would be put into the game in the future.
Etc

However, with this suggestion I remember one of the staff members coming in at the time literally saying they weren't doing it for the same reasons both me and RaXZerGamingZ mentioned as well as due to other balance issues (Meaning two players linked coming in with FOTW builds going against unlinked players who weren't in the same box) which is why while I mentioned before I am not completely against this (since i see the good as well) I couldn't support it if that one precaution for unlinked players wasn't added in.

Epic  Post #: 11
8/19/2018 18:36:56   
Cataleptic
Member

quote:

Anyone who didn't update were made to battle fully powered players who could update quick vs them who couldn't and because of the difference in stats with varium and non varium gear even if the non varium was somehow fully powered up (which was rare it at all) they were still at a disadvantage against the paying player due to that. Then there was and still is Juggernaut. When it first came out non variums even though there was two of them rarely if at all didn't stand a chance against the varium jug. I can't count the amount of partners I had run out on be back in the day due to this unfairness.


This is a very flawed point. You can't blame the players that bought varium to win matches with non-varium players when they could've done the same. Every MMO or MMORPG game is solely based on p2w. That's why they're successful.

quote:

This is why we need to have things added into the game that are fair to all, and not just a certain group. Otherwise it will cause newer players (which we desperately need by the pay) to possibly and very likely avoid at best or quit at worst the game.


Nothing on ED has really been fair and I don't see that happening. On any game for that matter. There will always be some form of imbalance to the game. That much is undeniable.

Post #: 12
8/19/2018 19:14:56   
Daph Duck
Member

@cataleptic yeah i agree we should have aly link would make it more fun i mean 2v2 is unbalanced anyways why cnat we let couples duo 2v2 and have a duo leaderboard that would spice up the game and make some more competition

Removed off topic content. ~WhiteTiger

< Message edited by WhiteTiger -- 8/19/2018 21:35:26 >
AQW Epic  Post #: 13
8/19/2018 20:39:10   
RaXZerGamingZ
Member

it's pretty obvious how it can mess with 2v2, linked players going up against unlinked players
Post #: 14
8/19/2018 20:50:11   
Cataleptic
Member

^Optimise has already addressed that.

Removed off topic content. ~WhiteTiger

< Message edited by WhiteTiger -- 8/19/2018 21:36:45 >
Post #: 15
8/19/2018 20:58:05   
Mother1
Member

@ Cataleptic

Every game is P2W? have you been in a cave? a lot of the games I see out their now are more free to play, with money if anything going into cosmetic features rather than power creep. It was power creep that caused a lot of free to play players to complain and quit in the past, and it was because of this that the staff created omega which nerfed Varium power drastically.

As for the imbalance part While I agree to an extent there are still people who care about "Fair" fights and adding a feature like this and just saying 'screw it' to fairness just because it will at best inconvenience us due to 'wait' times because of a small player pool is basically saying to anyone who isn't using said feature that 'what you want doesn't matter' which as I pointed out isn't fair to them and at this point unlike 6 - 10 years ago we can't afford to lose players due to a lack of good compromise.

Asking for a separate mode for linked players to battle only other linked players and visa versa isn't unreasonable and it works for both parties involved.
Epic  Post #: 16
8/19/2018 21:28:19   
Cataleptic
Member

@Mother1
I would like to start off by saying, and I'm not trying to sound rude by saying this, but please use punctuations when replying to said comment. I've been getting a bit off-track by what you were saying.


quote:

Every game is P2W? have you been in a cave? a lot of the games I see out their now are more free to play, with money if anything going into cosmetic features rather than power creep.


MMO or MMORPG are very P2W based. This can be supported by AE games.

In response to your 2nd response: If you've been up to date with the past few balances, then you would know some of the changes were made because players asked it for said change. So again, your point is flawed. Players ideas are being cared for, whether you think it or not.

Removed off topic content. ~WhiteTiger


< Message edited by WhiteTiger -- 8/19/2018 21:37:57 >
Post #: 17
8/19/2018 21:39:18   
  WhiteTiger

Majestic Feline of AQ3D & ED


Please stay on topic to discussing ally link in a constructive manner, there's no need to attack other people for having different opinions.
AQW Epic  Post #: 18
8/19/2018 22:04:16   
Mother1
Member

@ Cataleptic

quote:

In response to your 2nd response: If you've been up to date with the past few balances, then you would know some of the changes were made because players asked it for said change. So again, your point is flawed. Players ideas are being cared for, whether you think it or not.


I never disagreed with this seeing as many of the changes I have seen were ones suggested, however not all of them were good.

Plus as I pointed out before I am not against ally linking. The pro's of the idea are actually good ones which I can 100% get behind seeing as I love 2 vs 2 more than any other mode despite playing Juggernaut far more as of late.

However as I pointed out a couple of times already, there are still players who don't like getting punished by a new feature especially when a solution to keep it fair is in play. This was why me and the other person suggested make 2 separate modes for those who want to play with links and those who don't. This way the players who want to have linked partners and not get screwed over by the system (despite it not being biased itself) can battle other linked players while at the same time those who can't link up for the reasons I mentioned in a previous post and more won't be screwed over due having to deal with battling linked players which unless the team itself his horrible, or they managed to get a decent partner by luck will end up being the ones going to the slaughter house.

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.
Epic  Post #: 19
8/19/2018 22:24:30   
Cataleptic
Member

quote:

Only if they make it where 2 vs 2 links DO NOT! go against unlinked players. That was the major reason why they vetoed the idea

Please be sure to give supporting evidence for this claim

The game has been unfair for quite some time now. I get that you want fairness and all but I don't think you'll get it on ED. Just look at the past few things that transpired in the game. Examples: Juggernaut- some players use this mode unethically to their advantage. Ratings- sink cheevos have been introduced into the game that you can't upgrade till gifting, and you have a slim chance of getting any gifts if you aren't friends with any gifters. I could name more but I think you get my point. The game won't ever be permanently fair; same goes for life.

quote:

This was why I and the other person suggested make 2 separate modes for those who want to play with links and those who don't.

Optimise has already addressed this. I'll sum it up for you. It wouldn't be a good idea to set it in a different mode looking at how many people currently play the game. If the game had a lot more players, say 1,000 for example, then it would actually work out. It won't currently.


Post #: 20
8/19/2018 22:49:50   
Mother1
Member

@ Cataleptic

quote:

Please be sure to give supporting evidence for this claim

The game has been unfair for quite some time now. I get that you want fairness and all but I don't think you'll get it on ED. Just look at the past few things that transpired in the game. Examples: Juggernaut- some players use this mode unethically to their advantage. Ratings- sink cheevos have been introduced into the game that you can't upgrade till gifting, and you have a slim chance of getting any gifts if you aren't friends with any gifters. I could name more but I think you get my point. The game won't ever be permanently fair; same goes for life.


The credits sinks actually were the staff's answer to the over abundance of credits that was mentioned back in 2014 when gifting first came out. It was also why many of the items given out at the time were overly expensive as well. It was never meant to be unfair to the players.

As for the evidence, Hopefully I can find the threads seeing as I did see them years ago with the staff saying this. If I find them I will post them assuming they still exist.


quote:

Optimise has already addressed this. I'll sum it up for you. It wouldn't be a good idea to set it in a different mode looking at how many people currently play the game. If the game had a lot more players, say 1,000 for example, then it would actually work out. It won't currently.


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.

quote:

The suggestion is bias, only favoring a particular group or just themselves. We have to consider the entire EpicDuel community when implementing new features.


Epic  Post #: 21
8/20/2018 10:31:34   
Satafou
Member

This topic is one in which usually ends up as a stalemate with there evidently being both pros and cons to it's implementation at least on a superficial level. However I would like to say I am heavily in favour for 2vs2 ally link to be implemented and I will explain why, whilst addressing some of the apparent cons that appear whilst looking into this idea at a superficial level, that a further more in depth elaboration and comprehensive understanding can show the true extent as to how beneficial 2vs2 ally link would actually be for Epicduel.

Firstly I'll discuss the golden standard for 2vs2 ally link. This would involve 2vs2 ally link having it's own separate battle mode, with it's own separate leader board and of course with win ratio's showing, to see who the best players in terms of team work, communication, strategy and synergy are within the game. This would be done by the ally link functioning for bosses serving as a means of linking players to battle, in terms of simplification like with juggernaut when originally implemented, a NPC (Slayer in the juggernaut case) could be used to act as a catalyst to allow for 2vs2 ally link in it's own unique battle mode. In terms of leader boards a daily and all-time leader board would be made with the names being presented as PRIMAL ASSASSIN / Optimise e.g. with the portraits being the same size in total (half size per player) but with 2 characters in them like a split screen, with of course win%s also showing.

Now this is the tricky and controversial part, how we decide the rules behind the battle mode. The following questions I a going to highlight and give an answer but I expect the players community and devs alike to think about these questions and the optimal answer for them.

Are players limited to a single duo, a selected amount such as 3 or 5, or 100? In order to make it much easier to program i'm presuming a single duo would be ideal, however being limited to a single duo would have a negative effect on the mode itself and personally I view 3/5 possible partners being ideal.

However what would this mean for the leader boards? Would a player potentially reappear on the same leader board 3/5 times? Would that cause some bugs within the leader board updating wins and getting confused? In terms of simplification a single partner would be rather simple to do, if there is the option like for bosses to unbind a linked ally to play with another person and effectively ceasing the collaborated wins with the previous partner whilst keeping track of the wins previously gained for the all-time leader board it could work, however even with that, how would win ratios work in the bottom of your screen (when you click on your character). Perhaps ally 1/2/3 all below one another would be somewhat feasible.

What effect 2vs2 ally would have on solo 2vs2 and how can we resolve it? Providing we had the player population (which could massively spike, and likely would) having 2vs2 ally link a separate battle mode is ideal. However the issue we currently face is that if this was implemented solo 2vs2 would be a dead mode, no question about it. Although for the majority of players this would not be an issue whatsoever as it is a fairly dead mode, (although a little bit brought back to life due to the latest patches). The fact still stands that some players would be negatively affected by the implementation of 2vs2 ally link. However this can be resolved. The likes of league of legends for example, although very different games, some ideals could be used. If player population really is such an issue then you could just merge solo 2vs2 and ally link together and call it "Solo/Duo 2vs2". Keep the leader boards as they are right now, 100 partners available (100 buddy slots) and yes this would punish solo players which as I have said it's not ideal as they should be separate as I have previously stated. However the point behind this alternative is that the option is there no one is unable to duoQ, for some it might be harder to find a partner yes, however all that should do is actually promote communication skills in battle (if solo) and even better they might find another friend who is solo if they win vs a paired team and then the 2 solo players team up together. If the option is there for everyone, nothing is stopping them finding an ally apart from laziness, end of. There is in-game, Twitter, forums, Facebook whatever ED players are on these days there is several options and if the devs went out their way to properly advertise it in game or on their Twitter and provide a help spot for players to find an ally it would actually work out very nicely. A further way to keep solo 2vs2 alive is that if separate or merged you could immensely buff the rewards for playing solo although imo that's just a quick fix but for some who care about the rewards it could work or help slightly.

So to now address common thoughts throughout this thread.

Yes the golden standard is to make 2vs2 ally link a separate battle mode, however if the only way to implement in terms of population is merging (Solo/Duo 2vs2) I would still say that overall it would be extremely beneficial for the game. Especially since if the devs make effort with a help spot for solo players to find someone, there really shouldn't be issues as 2 solo players if played well can just add each other and partner up.

Also I'm not understanding the upbringing of varium. Varium gave a humongous stat advantage yes (although this could of been resolved without removing enchantments and just making the credit option much cheaper instead of 12k i think it was per 1 enchantment which was absurd at the time). 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.

@Mother1 Yes I agree with you in the sense that some players want 2vs2 ally link more than others due to beneficial reasons for themselves and that it may not at present be for everyone. However you have to remember there is absolutely nothing stopping people from finding an ally to play with. Especially if the devs as I have previously mentioned, put effort into this and come up with even just a forum page and advertise that on their twitter, or a twitter page acting as a help spot for solo players. If you look outside the box and at the greater picture, 2vs2 ally link could and is highly likely in my opinion to revive this game. It's just so unique and would be very addicting to the point that it would not only bring back lots of old players but I can guarantee that it will bring new players into the player base as well.

Everyone here for the most part is thinking hypothetically. Hypothesises are pointless if you can not see the actual application of them. You have to think from several different angles and perspectives, if not all you have is an opinion without any feasible forethought.



Post #: 22
8/20/2018 13:28:16   
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.
Post #: 23
8/21/2018 10:31:35   
nowras
Member

Successful games like fortnite don't really care about wether your duo is randomly matched or not. Playing 2v2 with friends is definitly more fun and I, as a 1v1 player would actually start 2v2ing if this ever happens. You should always be linked, that's how 2v2 is supposed to work. It's all about team work and not just getting matched with a stranger that doesn't even know you and end up losing because of how weak your partner was. With this, 2v2 won't be about luck anymore but it would be more about how skilled you and your partner are. And about how your build works with your partner's build. This could bring excitment to this mode and might actually make it more fun than 1v1 by far and will be something enjoyabale after years of nothing exciting in ED and could potentially bring back players. I totally support this suggestion. Also, winning as a non-linked player vs a linked player could be a challenge and could be something to brag about so, it's not bad after all.

< Message edited by nowras -- 8/21/2018 10:34:58 >
AQW Epic  Post #: 24
8/21/2018 14:50:45   
Mother1
Member

@ Optimise

Everyone had different views to be honest, and it isn't that I don't see the potential of this idea. I truly 100% do. As stated 2 vs 2 has been my favorite battle mode for the longest time and even though I do jug now for quicker grinding, my heart will always be in 2 vs 2. However, me and anyone else who has caused the back and forth in this thread only state it because we want to see it done "RIGHT".

you mentioned you understand this, but at the same time conditions aren't ideal to do it right so for the sake of this idea becoming reality we have to do it wrong. That is where my problem lies with the idea. While you might feel it is needed to throw unlinked players to the wolves for the sake of linked players finally escaping the negatives of the current two vs two, I feel it is unacceptable and that if you can't find a way to make the idea be done right it shouldn't be done at all.

For players like Nowras who might find it challenging and worthy of bragging rights, how about adding a feature similar to Juggernaut where the player pays a one time fee for permanent access this way any an all unlinked players who want to play in this harder mode for them can come in and battle against linked players for bragging rights assuming they win.

As for the population issue why not use the very same thing that the staff used prior massive decline of players as well as bringing back life to juggernaut in the form of NPC's. They could fill the gaps for linked players when there aren't enough players around, and with the button or switch that would allow unlinked players into said mode anyone who wants a challenge could very well join the mode while those who don't want to be made punching bags (be it because they aren't skilled enough, can't find a partner, etc) won't be punished for the sake of another players fun.

That was why there was a back and forth. It isn't the issue of the mode itself, but rather the issue of throwing unlinked players who don't wouldn't want to be in this to the slaughter house for the sake of linked players due to a lack of a population to support making the modes separate as it should be.

< Message edited by Mother1 -- 8/21/2018 14:53:39 >
Epic  Post #: 25
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [EpicDuel] >> EpicDuel Suggestions >> 2v2 ally link
Page 1 of 212>
Jump to:






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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Forum Content Copyright © 2018 Artix Entertainment, LLC.

"AdventureQuest", "DragonFable", "MechQuest", "EpicDuel", "BattleOn.com", "AdventureQuest Worlds", "Artix Entertainment"
and all game character names are either trademarks or registered trademarks of Artix Entertainment, LLC. All rights are reserved.
PRIVACY POLICY


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition