USA General of the Army
Despite this being a game where team play is critical and the game being marketed as such there are always going to be some players who think that the only way for them to have fun is to troll. (A strong argument for private servers). i have seen giggling pubbies purposely engage in tking while spouting ridiculous attempts at being funny/ blasting music etc... They do not understand or care that they are usually the only ones that find themselves funny. They do not give a crud if at the end of a match they are told they have been defeated. So saying that its not possible for there to be intentional team killing for that reason is really missing the point. If you observe active servers when players are not holding events you see this behavior abundantly. Private servers need to really be considered in order to preserve the competitive scene within this game.
I feel like there needs to be some momentum behind the triggers for end game event. Like if the attacker is making significant progress on the cap, or the defender has been able to hold it. I think just triggering them once morale gets too low is just prolonging a match for no real reason especially when you consider on most maps the attacker has a bigger morale reserve. Maybe make it where the cap gets to a point of no return and have a rally that spawns in all dead defenders in an attempt to hold. Maybe leave Final Push the same, but have the numbers of deaths based on a ratio of players. So say if there are only 5 players left on the end game team, and 20 alive on the other, the end game team would loose since there's almost no way they can win.
Thank you for the feedback.
The goal of the end game events is to make it clearer that you are about to lose (while you also get a small new chance at turning the tide of the round).
We have seen so many players question how they can lose a round as a defender when they are still holding the point with a full force.
Last stand (while naturally up for debate and tweaks based of feedback) provides this by having the players experience their team shrink as they take casualties.
- Trusty
I get that, but I feel like if you've done that badly for the entire round the chance of turning it around is so small that you'd be better off taking the loss. There's also the issue of being overpowered on the point at the beginning of some maps where the defender never gets a chance to have any sort of last stand. That's why I think basing it off morale isn't working at the moment.
I can sympathize with this since there's no way of knowing how much of a reserve you have left.We have seen so many players question how they can lose a round as a defender when they are still holding the point with a full force.
If you have done badly for the entire round it should be close to Impossible to turn it around. The primary thought behind the end game events is not to give you more chances (although they do that too), but to make you and you comrades as well as your enemies get to experience a form of round closure (as a loser or winner).
We do not want end game events that have a huge chance of turning the match (that would defeat the whole point of having 45 minutes of a morale based gametype beforehand).
In short - you having little chance of winning a round after doing badly and ending up in last stand where your team gets smaller and smaller is as much for the attacker as it is for you to experience.
Not quite sure I understand the issue you’re reporting with not experiencing last stand.
The round is still able to be won (or lost) when the capture point changes hands from the defender to the attacker. This will not produce end game events as the main objective of the round is now taken/lost.
- Trusty