Posts: 16
Joined: 2005-01-20
User Profile OK, I know this was discussed before but can we try just one tournament as a W/L? All points go towards clan standing and players are ranked by how many games they get and what their w/l ratio is or something?
We are getting into a rut with these games that often never go beyond Tech1 because no one wants to give up points--this for many makes the tournaments not so fun. I am just asking if we can try it one time and see how it goes. Please give this a try just once. Thanks for considering it.
Posts: 5
Joined: 2006-06-22
User Profile Yes I agree. This scoring system isn't very fun. Because most players who are smart will only use fighters and thats a very boring game. The games would be much more enjoyable if it was playing win/loss. I have heard several people from other clans say this.
Posts: 16
Joined: 2005-01-20
User Profile I appreciate that. It is important that we get other clan reps to speak up on this as well.
Posts: 7
Joined: 2006-12-25
Location: Old Bridge, NJ, 08857, USA
User Profile I couldn't agree more with FiReBall and Donovan.
The scoring system as it is right now for IW prevents players to tech up and build ships.
The game was not designed to be played like that.
I also would like to see the heroes back.
Posts: 16
Joined: 2005-01-20
User Profile Why not shake things up a bit. The declining volume of clan participation is an indicator that something needs to change.
Posts: 15
Joined: 2006-11-18
Location: thunderbay,ontario
User Profile i think a w/l will work out really good..it shows alot more skill when people play for pionts they are more scared about lossing pionts so they dont play to there fullest..we should at least give it a try
Posts: 559
Joined: 2005-08-05
Location: Oregon, U.S.A.
User Profile OK well first of all, I agree with you guys. Playing against an opponent who is so terrified of losing points that they don't make capital ships and when they do, makes them run away from battle when they are about to die, is extremely boring. We cant just go to a Win/Loss scenario though. It will just lead to bigger problems. A win/loss game doesnt give enough flexibility in the the rankings. a person could just win 6 games against the worst player in the event and would pretty much be sitting in the top 3. They could just disappear from the remainder of the event and nobody could touch them. Plus I don't think it will change much in the way people play. One of the reasons that people use only fighters to win is because it gets the job done fast. If its all about wins/losses then you want to get the win as fast as you can and that will probably make people do the same thing they do in events right now. If fighters showed up on the losses screen then we wouldnt have to worry about because the scoring system would be fine, but as of now only FoC shows fighters as losses. But lets take a look at this recent event. Sithmaster had the most games and the most unique opponents and is in 1st, but with a system that is primarily dominated by wins and losses he would be down in 4th which really doesnt seem fair when he was the events biggest participant. If you guys want a Space Tournament on some weekend then I would be happy to set one up for a given weekend if there is enough support. Those would be based solely on wins and losses, and would have players fighting against an opponent at random. We held one before but over half the people who signed up didnt play so I'm skeptical. Really guys, if we had some way of making fighters worth points and factoring that in then believe me, we would do it. But as of now there is no apparent way to factor fighters in unless we want to ban the use of them (which obviously makes no sense at all). If you guys have any ideas of how to make fighters worth something or at least make them used less, then please by all means, hit me up on xfire and we can discuss it.
Posts: 123
Joined: 2006-06-01
Location: South Africa
User Profile The problem isn't fighters or the over use of them, its the scoring system. I understand that EaW doesn't list fighters or bombers as FoC does. Inverting the scoring system would force players to use bigger ships to lose less points and thus prolong games. The only problem with this is that it wont work on EaW with reference to fighters and that it's exactly the opposite extreme situation of what we have now. There are other viriables you havn't considdered. Like Mines and turrets counting towards points. The higher the enemy points per game of the better players, the more things will balance out if that factor counts more in favor of their opponents. The short answer is that unless you plan on making this event extremely unfair and keeping it as is or banning EaW in favor of FoC, there is no solution to this within sight.
If you go on win/loss only, then as Krayt said, people like J.R.K.S, Raven etc will always have the top spots and the guys who play the game the most, like Sith wont due to his lower win ratios. But have a go at a w/l tourney only and see what happens.
Posts: 28
Joined: 2006-07-28
Location: Maryland(USA)
User Profile That is why we would have it not just win/loss, but also game number. So win ratio counts as some amount and game number counts as another. We could also have a average rating played to help make it better.
Posts: 1
Joined: 2006-11-23
User Profile Personally i like the idea of a w/l game, cause the points system is a bit hard for me to underdstand
Posts: 559
Joined: 2005-08-05
Location: Oregon, U.S.A.
User Profile You dont have to understand a system for it to work. Like i said, if you guys have enough support for a tournament some weekend in which wins/losses are the only things that matter then i would be happy to set it up for you but making a week event only go off of wins/losses wont solve anything, players will still only use fighter because they are cheap and you can get them quickly. What i'm looking into is a new scoring factor of game time. The longer a game the more points that are given or something to that effect. It isnt finished yet but it is in the works and could be a possible addition in the next event or 2.
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-02-12
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
User Profile You could try something like losing points as well. Right now we are on a positive point system only. If you could somehow factor in getting lots of points but also losing points it could be interesting. Like if a space station destroyed ment you lost 50 points people would be quick to upgrade it instead of leaving it tech 1 to be easy target for fighters. I think a system of a type of extremes would be good but it might difficult to find a nice balance, but we could always test it out. Say if u lost a station no matter the points it would be 50 points negative. Then people would upgrade the stations with no fear of giving the enemy too many points but instead want it as strong as possible. Same thing with capital ships. Give yourself maybe 3 points for destroying a Neb, but the enemy loses 1 point for having it destroyed. Simply, with a second variable of negative points in the equation it allows for a chance to make it a lot more balanced persay as well as a lot more fun.
Posts: 16
Joined: 2005-01-20
User Profile You could also reduce the points to one or zero for a level one SS. That might prompt people to upgrade to at least level two which means tarts and corvettes to deal with the fighter threat.
I also like the thinking of giving points for a team that does upgrade. Meaning if you make it to a level two SS (level 3, 4, 5) you get a certain amount of points like half of the destruction value. So this is incentive for teams to upgrade (at least they will get some points) and get out of this level one strategy rut.
Posts: 28
Joined: 2006-07-28
Location: Maryland(USA)
User Profile Why not make win/loss ratio worth alot more then points?
Posts: 559
Joined: 2005-08-05
Location: Oregon, U.S.A.
User Profile Originally written by BLESS_Erik on 2007-06-03 3:50 AM
You could try something like losing points as well. Right now we are on a positive point system only. If you could somehow factor in getting lots of points but also losing points it could be interesting. Like if a space station destroyed ment you lost 50 points people would be quick to upgrade it instead of leaving it tech 1 to be easy target for fighters. I think a system of a type of extremes would be good but it might difficult to find a nice balance, but we could always test it out. Say if u lost a station no matter the points it would be 50 points negative. Then people would upgrade the stations with no fear of giving the enemy too many points but instead want it as strong as possible. Same thing with capital ships. Give yourself maybe 3 points for destroying a Neb, but the enemy loses 1 point for having it destroyed. Simply, with a second variable of negative points in the equation it allows for a chance to make it a lot more balanced persay as well as a lot more fun.
You could try something like losing points as well. Right now we are on a positive point system only. If you could somehow factor in getting lots of points but also losing points it could be interesting. Like if a space station destroyed ment you lost 50 points people would be quick to upgrade it instead of leaving it tech 1 to be easy target for fighters. I think a system of a type of extremes would be good but it might difficult to find a nice balance, but we could always test it out. Say if u lost a station no matter the points it would be 50 points negative. Then people would upgrade the stations with no fear of giving the enemy too many points but instead want it as strong as possible. Same thing with capital ships. Give yourself maybe 3 points for destroying a Neb, but the enemy loses 1 point for having it destroyed. Simply, with a second variable of negative points in the equation it allows for a chance to make it a lot more balanced persay as well as a lot more fun.
Making it so that people have negative scores for losing isnt going to help much, it will just make people stop playing if their ranking is good and they dont want to risk lowering it. As for the deducting of points if you lose a capital ship, that doesn't make much sense. We are looking for a way to get people to use capital ships more, not make them use them less for fear of getting points deducted. Some of you may have had the same experience I had in this last Gw, where your opponent is so terrified of giving up points when a capital ship dies that they make wounded ships run from the engagement. Needless to say, these types of games are no fun to play.
Originally written by DS_FiReBaLL on 2007-06-03 12:28 AM
You could also reduce the points to one or zero for a level one SS. That might prompt people to upgrade to at least level two which means tarts and corvettes to deal with the fighter threat.
I also like the thinking of giving points for a team that does upgrade. Meaning if you make it to a level two SS (level 3, 4, 5) you get a certain amount of points like half of the destruction value. So this is incentive for teams to upgrade (at least they will get some points) and get out of this level one strategy rut.
Reducing the points of tech 1 to O only means that people will be less likely to upgrade because they wont give away any points if they lose. As for giving points for teching up, it is a good idea in theory, but unless you are the one that loses, the station tech level doesnt appear on the end game screen. I am working on a similar solution however.
Originally written by DS_Commander on 2007-06-03 10:22 AM
Why not make win/loss ratio worth alot more then points?
Why not make win/loss ratio worth alot more then points?
Making wins/losses worth a lot just takes emphasis of the other stats which means all a person would have to do is find the weakest player they could and beat them a few times. Because the victory ratio counts for so much the low number of games they have and their poor average rating played doesn't effect them enough to hurt them for picking on a single player they know they can beat.
Posts: 123
Joined: 2006-06-01
Location: South Africa
User Profile So why not invert the station points? They lose less points at a higher level while at the same time producing ships worth more points...
On the other hand, that might not be such a smart thing to do since it will encourage fighter and bomber rushing more to grab the points you can get from a level 1 SS...
Posts: 5
Joined: 2006-06-22
User Profile Well more and more clans are deciding this is pointless. So we have to change something Krayt or pretty soon it will be down to about 3 or 4 Clans. Thats not very exciting right there, we need something simple, enjoyable and effective. Why don't we run a win loss and point system. Win/loss could be a large percentage of a persons score, say 75%.Every ship could be 1 point. That would make people less afraid to use bigger, badder ships. Of course some people would still use fighters from a tech 2 station, but if you made the point value for 1,2,3,4,5 stations all 2 points. And if you stayed at tech 1, you could even lose 2 points. If you lost and you had a tech 1 your opponent could get 2 points and you would lose 2, this would highly encourage use of higher stations, and if all ships were 1 point well then people wouldn't be as afraid to toss out those Mon cals.
Posts: 3
Joined: 2006-08-22
Location: Iowa
User Profile What if we score like IW use to be. Give points for a certain level of space station, and don't make units worth points. Then ppl wouldn't worry about giving points from ships. They would just have to worry about someone attacking thier stations. And if I know some ppl that protecting thier SS wouldn't be a problem.
Posts: 28
Joined: 2006-07-28
Location: Maryland(USA)
User Profile I like that Titan. Points for the space station, like 5 points for it, no matter what tech it is, and no points for ships. This way people will tech up and use ships because it doesn't give away more points.
Posts: 559
Joined: 2005-08-05
Location: Oregon, U.S.A.
User Profile Having all station techs be worth the same points and no unit points is the exact same thing as just having the win/loss system and it doesnt work. We already thought of inverting station points like Asuka said, but as he stated, all that does is promote the use of fighters and bombers to destroy a station before it Upgrades and again doesnt solve anything. And Donovan, we are already at the 3 or 4 clans mark, we pretty much have been since the event started.
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-02-12
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
User Profile Originally written by DS_Titan on 2007-06-04 11:58 AM
What if we score like IW use to be. Give points for a certain level of space station, and don't make units worth points. Then ppl wouldn't worry about giving points from ships. They would just have to worry about someone attacking thier stations. And if I know some ppl that protecting thier SS wouldn't be a problem.
What if we score like IW use to be. Give points for a certain level of space station, and don't make units worth points. Then ppl wouldn't worry about giving points from ships. They would just have to worry about someone attacking thier stations. And if I know some ppl that protecting thier SS wouldn't be a problem.
Originally written by Asuka on 2007-06-04 2:50 AM
So why not invert the station points? They lose less points at a higher level while at the same time producing ships worth more points...
On the other hand, that might not be such a smart thing to do since it will encourage fighter and bomber rushing more to grab the points you can get from a level 1 SS...
So why not invert the station points? They lose less points at a higher level while at the same time producing ships worth more points...
On the other hand, that might not be such a smart thing to do since it will encourage fighter and bomber rushing more to grab the points you can get from a level 1 SS...
Nah because that just then makes people attack the station as their main focus. People will be bomber, fighter rushing in t1 without a second thought as Asuka said. However, either of these could work even with the potential to rush. Bombers take longer than fighters to make and if someone focused on bomber rush in t1 purely the other player could get the rest of the map. Also bomber attacks aren't too hard to defend against early in the game. Its later in the game you have to worry. And if you keep a corvette or 2 handy you should be fine. This seems most logical for the time being. People would just have to learn to play this way like the did in the point system to leave their station level one.
Posts: 5
Joined: 2006-06-22
User Profile I really don't see what the problem is by making it so that all stations tech 2 or above have the same amount of points. Tech 1 could make you lose points, people would upgrade. Theres no real problem I don't think, keeping it the way it is will just make more people leave, you can shoot down every idea you would like to Krayt but eventually its gonna be just DW in this thing. Basically we have to change the rules to something or this thing will keep losing people.
Posts: 3
Joined: 2006-08-22
Location: Iowa
User Profile My idea was that the stations get different point values each level. Like lvl 1 is 6 points lvl 2 is 12 , something along those lines. This way while u may be risking pointss, u have a better chance of winning cause u have access to better ships. Also we could make the mines and turrents a couple points as well.
Posts: 5
Joined: 2006-06-22
User Profile I agree with maybe mines, not turrets as much. But I think we should take away point values for ships. This way you may keep a level 1 to give less points but the enemy will make a level 2 station to beat you.
Posts: 559
Joined: 2005-08-05
Location: Oregon, U.S.A.
User Profile Originally written by DS_Donovan43 on 2007-06-06 6:13 AM
I really don't see what the problem is by making it so that all stations tech 2 or above have the same amount of points. Tech 1 could make you lose points, people would upgrade. Theres no real problem I don't think, keeping it the way it is will just make more people leave, you can shoot down every idea you would like to Krayt but eventually its gonna be just DW in this thing. Basically we have to change the rules to something or this thing will keep losing people.
I really don't see what the problem is by making it so that all stations tech 2 or above have the same amount of points. Tech 1 could make you lose points, people would upgrade. Theres no real problem I don't think, keeping it the way it is will just make more people leave, you can shoot down every idea you would like to Krayt but eventually its gonna be just DW in this thing. Basically we have to change the rules to something or this thing will keep losing people.
Ok like I have said We are making changes to the event, only we are making ones that solve the main problem here instead of helping it. If we make Tech 1 worth the most points that just promotes the very situation we are trying to solve and doesnt make much sense. A lot of you are also assuming that because a player is Teched up they will use their new ships which is untrue. I have played people who are on tech 2 that use no tech 2 ships and if they do, they make them run away from fights when losing.
Originally written by DS_Titan on 2007-06-06 6:42 AM
My idea was that the stations get different point values each level. Like lvl 1 is 6 points lvl 2 is 12 , something along those lines. This way while u may be risking pointss, u have a better chance of winning cause u have access to better ships.
My idea was that the stations get different point values each level. Like lvl 1 is 6 points lvl 2 is 12 , something along those lines. This way while u may be risking pointss, u have a better chance of winning cause u have access to better ships.
Um... Ok... That is how the system is now, so... are you agreeing with it or did you just not know that?
Posts: 16
Joined: 2005-01-20
User Profile I think we have given Kryat enough to chew on for now. Let's see what his new plans are and give it a whirl in the nest GW. We can always refine again and try something new.
In the mean time, we need to seek out other clans and get them to sign up here so we have more competition.
Posts: 28
Joined: 2006-07-28
Location: Maryland(USA)
User Profile Originally written by DS_FiReBaLL on 2007-06-06 7:58 PM
In the mean time, we need to seek out other clans and get them to sign up here so we have more competition.
Here Here!
Posts: 3
Joined: 2006-08-22
Location: Iowa
User Profile Originally written by -(DW)-Krayt88 on 2007-06-06 6:11 PM
Um... Ok... That is how the system is now, so... are you agreeing with it or did you just not know that?
Um... Ok... That is how the system is now, so... are you agreeing with it or did you just not know that?
I was just stating that we shouldn't make the stations the same amount of points for each level, as some ppl have suggested.
Posts: 28
Joined: 2006-07-28
Location: Maryland(USA)
User Profile With points the way they are now, nobody like ever ups, AKA game sucks. If you give away points by upping, it won't be done much. Points are worth as much as winning pretty much.
Posts: 559
Joined: 2005-08-05
Location: Oregon, U.S.A.
User Profile They arent worth as much as winning actually but they do help. And even if we set the system up to reward people for teching up that doesnt mean that they will use the ships they get and they will continue to use only fighters and bombers which, lets not forget, is the issue that is hurting game play.
Posts: 7
Joined: 2006-12-25
Location: Old Bridge, NJ, 08857, USA
User Profile Fighters wouldn't be so important if you enabled Heroes.
Tier 2, you bring Boba or Han and boom, no more fighters.
Why don't you enable Heroes? it's the fun of the game !!!
Posts: 559
Joined: 2005-08-05
Location: Oregon, U.S.A.
User Profile it also makes the game incredibly one sided. it is only slightly one sided as it is now. You mention Boba but fail to mention anybody on the rebels who can take out fighters just as fast. And besides, if heroes are on they will also be worth points, people will not use them just as they don't use capital ships and nothing is solved.
Posts: 7
Joined: 2006-12-25
Location: Old Bridge, NJ, 08857, USA
User Profile EaW with normal settings is pretty well balanced.
The fact that you disable heroes just makes the game less fun, it does not solve any problem.
I think putting back heroes solves the fighters spam problem.
And it does not unbalance the game.
If you want to solve the fact that nobody makes capital ships, you have to see why.
The reason 1 is because they cost points.
Reason 2 is in EaW, the end result game is pretty much known at tier 1, so if you know you are going to loose, then why upgrade and give free points.
The drastic measure would be to eliminate the point system.
And if you want to keep points, then I'd say everything is worth a point, and mine as well. Plus SS 1 counts more than SS 2, ...
Posts: 559
Joined: 2005-08-05
Location: Oregon, U.S.A.
User Profile Originally written by qam4 on 2007-07-01 7:39 AM
EaW with normal settings is pretty well balanced.
The fact that you disable heroes just makes the game less fun, it does not solve any problem.
I think putting back heroes solves the fighters spam problem.
And it does not unbalance the game.
...
EaW with normal settings is pretty well balanced.
The fact that you disable heroes just makes the game less fun, it does not solve any problem.
I think putting back heroes solves the fighters spam problem.
And it does not unbalance the game.
...
Oh but it does unbalance the game. Imperial heroes cause much more damage then the Rebels do. This only makes it more unbalanced as normal imperial ships already cost less and any imp ship acclamator or bigger spawns fighters. Before you mentioned boba and his ability to sonic charge fighters as a way to make people rely on fighters less. that would be a great way to keep people from using fighters if the rebels had the same type of hero. However they dont, so all that ends up happening in that situation is that boba clears out rebel fighters and then imperials are able to send in all their fighters to attack the station relatively unopposed. A 1v1 or 2v2 tournament in which heroes are on is definitely a fun possibility however.
Originally written by qam4 on 2007-07-01 7:39 AM
If you want to solve the fact that nobody makes capital ships, you have to see why.
The reason 1 is because they cost points.
Reason 2 is in EaW, the end result game is pretty much known at tier 1, so if you know you are going to loose, then why upgrade and give free points.
The drastic measure would be to eliminate the point system.
And if you want to keep points, then I'd say everything is worth a point, and mine as well. Plus SS 1 counts more than SS 2, ...
If you want to solve the fact that nobody makes capital ships, you have to see why.
The reason 1 is because they cost points.
Reason 2 is in EaW, the end result game is pretty much known at tier 1, so if you know you are going to loose, then why upgrade and give free points.
The drastic measure would be to eliminate the point system.
And if you want to keep points, then I'd say everything is worth a point, and mine as well. Plus SS 1 counts more than SS 2, ...
We have previously gone over why making station level 1 worth more then station level 2 does not help and actually encourages the use of fighters and bombers. as for the reason to upgrade, it will help you win. If you can get to tech level 4 while your opponent is on tech level 1 then you are pretty much set. however since most players now are in if for the win rather then the fun of the game, matches rarely go on long enough to even upgrade to tech level 2.
Posts: 5
Joined: 2006-06-22
User Profile Well lets see. DS does internal tournaments. We allow heroes and its kinda funny but the rebels seemed to do pretty well. If you up the credits, Take away the points for ships, make it so only Stations are worth points you have might actually have something. People wouldn't care about ships anymore, if some guy bomber rushed em they would tech up and with han or boba and some vettes knock out the bombers. So that solves the fighter problem. All I'm saying is we have a lot of good ideas in this topic. And we should at least TRY something new, if we keep with this everyone will get bored, most already have, why don't we just try something new?
Posts: 559
Joined: 2005-08-05
Location: Oregon, U.S.A.
User Profile Originally written by DS_Donovan43 on 2007-07-01 7:00 AM
Well lets see. DS does internal tournaments. We allow heroes and its kinda funny but the rebels seemed to do pretty well. If you up the credits, Take away the points for ships, make it so only Stations are worth points you have might actually have something. People wouldn't care about ships anymore, if some guy bomber rushed em they would tech up and with han or boba and some vettes knock out the bombers. So that solves the fighter problem. All I'm saying is we have a lot of good ideas in this topic. And we should at least TRY something new, if we keep with this everyone will get bored, most already have, why don't we just try something new?
Well lets see. DS does internal tournaments. We allow heroes and its kinda funny but the rebels seemed to do pretty well. If you up the credits, Take away the points for ships, make it so only Stations are worth points you have might actually have something. People wouldn't care about ships anymore, if some guy bomber rushed em they would tech up and with han or boba and some vettes knock out the bombers. So that solves the fighter problem. All I'm saying is we have a lot of good ideas in this topic. And we should at least TRY something new, if we keep with this everyone will get bored, most already have, why don't we just try something new?
That actually doesn't solve the fighter problem because half of the reason people use fighters to take out a station is because they are cheap and effective. If you are only in it to win it fast then whether or not other ships are worth something, fighters are the way to a quick win. And I will say this one more time: there is a new system being developed that doesn't get rid of points and promotes the use of capital ships. So just take that into account before you make it sound as if nothing is being done.
Posts: 7
Joined: 2006-12-25
Location: Old Bridge, NJ, 08857, USA
User Profile We are just giving our 2 cents Krayt, no pun intended.
We just argue for the sake of improving the tournaments so that people have fun playing them and that we can get more clans to participate.
If you have ideas, we'd be glad to hear them.
Posts: 10
Joined: 2007-01-12
Location: Brookhaven, Pa. USA
User Profile i know I and much of Cosmics stopped playing because people were point whoring and not playing. take away points and do wins and loses. we'll see who'se truly skilled then.
Posts: 15
Joined: 2006-11-18
Location: thunderbay,ontario
User Profile while we are waiting more this new system we should have a space week but make it win/loss to see how it goes and how people like it and if people do we can have that every 2 months. so we can also use the new system
Posts: 123
Joined: 2006-06-01
Location: South Africa
User Profile I have sent you a message via your own clan members and yet you fail to respond to me. I dont know if it was passed on or not, but the fact that your not communicating or doing anything is troubling and should send off sirens in the minds of the readers. As I've stated in the message I got no response from:
I've gotten a few Star Wars based clans with around 10 or so members for EaW interested in ER and esp these events, however the game section here at ER is dead. I have also enquired about the willingness to participate in future EaW evets at ER from all our older clans such as TWNZ. While the majority of their and our players have since moved on from EaW, there are still enough members to warrent activity here.
Krayt, you and I have a history, but hear this out.
In order to get clans to play here, the events must flow. In order to get them to flow on a regular basis, you need to redesign them. I agree with what both DS and the Cosmics said here. If we enable heroes and play the game as was intended without a point system, going by wins and losses only as a straight ladder would, then we're getting somewhere. I understand ER is a weighted gaming league and al of its events use stats from different facets of teh game to give less uber players a boost. The problem is however, EaW due to crappy coding isnt cut out for this. FoC is beautifully suited since it displays fighters on teh losses screen. However, I dont understand why people dont play FoC compared to normal EaW... Its beyond me.
We have seen this event decline over the past year and nothing has been done. Your position on blackballing has only served to worsen the matter and must also be adressed. If we got rid of this warning system you put in and remove the players in question from the event(for the duration of the event) upon proof that he/she is infact blackballing a party here at ER then that will start to go a long way. I also dont see the need to play two rounds anymore. Its not battlefront. You dont play two rounds of JA, for the sake of playing with both colors. Its stupid. Lower the games per round to one and give players the option to play more if they want. Their more than welcome to.
However, this event is to closely moddeled after the Battlefront systems in my opinion. Its not as easy as shoot this guy/grab a flag/capture a point and then go report it. You actually have economy in this game & Micromanagement. JA uses kills/deaths and wins/losses I imagine. BF uses tons of stats. Our biggest issue wth EaW is the fact that fighters and bombers dont show up on losses screens. Otherwise, it would have been as simple.
If you must have points, count a loss or kill(regardless of class, be it fighter or capitol ship) as 1 point. Thus, blowing up 3 Mon Cals will give you 3 points minus(whatever you lost - calculating the points in the same fashion, 1 point per item lost) plus a win or a loss for either team. Moddleing this event after JA will work allot better than assigning individual points to individual playing pieces, which as we've noticed, tends to favor the cheapest, massproducable units.
So in short, this is what I think the rules should look like:
Starting Credits: 5000
Heroes: On
Superweapons: On
Victory Condition: Destroy Enemy(to avoid rushing stations)
Points:
fighters/bombers/capitol ships all = 1 point per ship/group of fighters
Wins & Losses
Number of players played
Average Rating of players played.
Those should be enough stats for the event to work with. I would like to see this section take off again. That way, I can play C&C, WiC and EaW over my Summer Break. I'm sure, if your not in a posistion to do anything about this and let this section suffer more, that we could always host our own private event and invite all those willing to participate, then moddle the future EaW events after that in the event that its a success.
What do you gusy think?
Posts: 1045
Joined: 2005-06-16
Location: USA
User Profile Asuka you were successful in getting a Game Director and a Mod removed in SWBFII section so now what your bored and are going to move on to your next target?When are you going to relize that your actions only create more problems and lead to less people wanting to play?The more sections you stick your nose in and screw things up the more people stop playing,so why dont you just be quiet for a change?
Posts: 1
Joined: 2006-07-11
User Profile Originally written by RagE_Visualizer on 2007-10-28 1:46 AM
Asuka you were successful in getting a Game Director and a Mod removed in SWBFII section so now what your bored and are going to move on to your next target?When are you going to relize that your actions only create more problems and lead to less people wanting to play?The more sections you stick your nose in and screw things up the more people stop playing,so why dont you just be quiet for a change?
Asuka you were successful in getting a Game Director and a Mod removed in SWBFII section so now what your bored and are going to move on to your next target?When are you going to relize that your actions only create more problems and lead to less people wanting to play?The more sections you stick your nose in and screw things up the more people stop playing,so why dont you just be quiet for a change?
Contstructive comments, for the good of ER and the fun of the games, are hardly problem causing. Asuka played this game pretty extensively, both competively here at ER and for fun so if he has a suggestion about a simple scoring system then its worth reading, I'm sure he has the insight on the mechanics of E@W to come up with something workable at the very least. Secondly he didn't say anything drastically different from what the DS people posted and you didn't have any complaints with them-- so what specifically could he have done wrong? I'm sorry but there's not always vendettas. This post was perfectly peaceful, he tried to level with Kryat and make suggestions that would improve the game for those participating, which many people here are lobbying for. I'm sorry to say but baseless accusations in a nonconfrontal thread about someone seem rather hypocrital especially when completely off topic like your remarks.
As for the actual game though...yes i'd like to see it focus longer battles rather than just fighter fests. I'm not sure exactly how it would work but if you're saying the Imp. heros, boba in particular, are to strong then if there's a points system still in place once this is all resolved then just make him worth more points than the Falcon to level the field in that regard. I know there'd be interest in severl DR players to get back into E@W, and GW in particular, if the system was tweaked to promote longer fights. Frankly I'd love to play some competive games which i could enjoy with my friends in DS like fireball and Commander.
Posts: 16
Joined: 2005-01-20
User Profile I didn't take Asuka's words as an attack either. We just want to play the game here...and is clearly not happening. What is the plan Kryat? There were many suggestions of how to make this work however you have tried none of them.
In the mean time, DS will continue to play internal tournaments. It is a shame we can't get something going here.
Let us know if you get your act together. Thanks.
Posts: 17
Joined: 2006-12-29
Location: Rio De Janeiro/RJ
User Profile "Oh but it does unbalance the game. Imperial heroes cause much more damage then the Rebels do"
Sorry but that's a laughable statement. You know the Alliance faction was built to rely on it's heroes a lot more than the Empire does. Kinda like... You know, those movies that spawned the game? The Alliance is not at a disadvantage and that comes from a Rebel player. Okay, Boba Fett has that mine which you forget you can mostly escape from if you're not stupid and you also forget that Solo can destroy him in a flash and escape from the mine's damage. After that, he'll take care of the fighters real fast. There are other examples like Ackbar's gigantic Calamari cruiser which can stand up to Piett or Thrawn pretty well and let's not get started about the land heroes.
I agree with pretty much every DS who posted above, if fighter and bomber spam is a problem then you should start considering enabling heroes. I know I'm unfortunately not really inclined to play another no heroes tournament.
PS:Asuka didn't attack anyone we would all know if it was an attack.