Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Gudgeon

Tier 9 and 10 confirmed as campfests

2 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
385 posts
17,837 battles

I have just read this gem in the latest patch notes....

 

"As part of our efforts to eliminate cases of the AFK/Inactive status being erroneously assigned to players in Tier IX and X battles, we reduced the required minimum distance (in-game kilometres) to be covered in battle by 2 times." 

 

You should have left the parameter as it was, or even doubled the distance that determines if the game thinks you are AFK. Then send the players to co-op for 10 battles if determined as AFK. This is exactly why tier 9 and 10 suck, BB's camping bow on until sunk. This idea just encourages static play. Design maps that encourage more fluid play. Sort the in-game economy out so players are not hemorrhaging credits, hence encouraging better play which you are not punished for, as can occur at the moment. Reward brave decisions taken by players who attempt to win games. But not the above game change please.

 

It is a sad fact, but tiers 1-4 offer the most entertaining play on a more regular basis, as the higher the tier, the more static the game play becomes, in general. Static play is not just due to the game being 'more serious and tactical', it occurs for a number of reasons which you should consider, before making changes like this.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
[ADRIA]
Players
5,061 posts
8,562 battles
3 hours ago, Gudgeon said:

I have just read this gem in the latest patch notes....

 

"As part of our efforts to eliminate cases of the AFK/Inactive status being erroneously assigned to players in Tier IX and X battles, we reduced the required minimum distance (in-game kilometres) to be covered in battle by 2 times." 

 

You should have left the parameter as it was, or even doubled the distance that determines if the game thinks you are AFK. Then send the players to co-op for 10 battles if determined as AFK. This is exactly why tier 9 and 10 suck, BB's camping bow on until sunk. This idea just encourages static play. Design maps that encourage more fluid play. Sort the in-game economy out so players are not hemorrhaging credits, hence encouraging better play which you are not punished for, as can occur at the moment. Reward brave decisions taken by players who attempt to win games. But not the above game change please.

 

It is a sad fact, but tiers 1-4 offer the most entertaining play on a more regular basis, as the higher the tier, the more static the game play becomes, in general. Static play is not just due to the game being 'more serious and tactical', it occurs for a number of reasons which you should consider, before making changes like this.

tyTc1Nl.jpg

 

 

There are cases when some ships, generally cruisers (especially the ones that tend to die to a single salvo more often than others - like Mino / Neptune / Donskoi), would actually be present and moving (so not AFK), get spotted and die instantly which leads to game marking them as AFKs as they hadn't passed that minimum distance yet.

 

This is why the minimum distance covered is cut in half - better chance that the game recognizes you as being in it before dying instead of marking you as an AFK.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×