Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Do you mean 
Reply
Uncharted Territory
Registered: 06/21/2013
Offline
1507 posts
 

Re: Supply/part rebalance suggestion

Aug 21, 2013

I apparently should've read the OP more closely.  Basically, what you're saying is that you did well but didn't get enough parts, so you think that the ammount of parts given out should be lowered drastically?  Downs are harder to obtain than kills, so they should still be worth more than kills.  BOTH should be rewarded more highly than they are.  Revives are also fine.  They're time consuming and can be difficult to pull off, and they contribute quite a bit towards winning the match.  If anything they could use a boost.  The reason you got hosed in this situation had nothing to do with any of this.  It's the fact that these three basic elements give such a small ammount of parts, while healing/crafting/collector run the show as far as parts go.

Message 11 of 37 (217 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Sackboy
Registered: 08/11/2013
Offline
441 posts
 

Re: Supply/part rebalance suggestion

Aug 21, 2013

I'd prefer not more parts for downs themselves, but for downs that actually end in an execution. So let's say you down someone, you get the normal amount, then he gets executed and you get a boost. Even more so if YOU are the one executing. If he gets revived, you don't earn more than for the down.

 

Also, if it is about supplies, I believe that too few people actually pick up the ones dropped by enemies. And if not, ND could increase this number first.

 

How does this sound?

GRAB
Message 12 of 37 (207 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 11/21/2009
Offline
4874 posts
 

Re: Supply/part rebalance suggestion

Aug 21, 2013
I maintained a clan of 130+ and finished the 12 weeks with over 85 and unlocked the skull mask by using a loadout of only First Aid 3 and Collector 2. Now, I also acquired a handful of Downs, Executions and Revives along the way, as well as accomplishing every mission to completion to either gain the max amount or lose the least amount of clan members each time.

Since I have unlocked the skull mask, I have been messing around with other loadouts which get me a higher KD and WL, but in which I don't acquire enough parts. But as long as some of my clan survives the 12 weeks, that's all that really matters. There's no bonus for having a large clan population....other than silly one use boosters which can be acquired in many other ways.
Message 13 of 37 (204 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 07/23/2012
Online
5879 posts
 

Re: Supply/part rebalance suggestion

Aug 21, 2013

I'm pretty sure they made the points the way they did so people would work together more rather than play more selfishly. I mean if all the support points from revives, heals, gifting, marking, etc. etc. gave much much less than regular downs people wouldn't do them as much. Which will lead to ultimately more selfish playstyles to get more points and put some hurt on the whole teamwork aspect of the game.

True Balance:
We felt that the Hunting Rifle wasn’t effective enough at mid-range due to its very slow fire rate. While every weapon doesn’t have to be as effective at every range, so much combat occurs at short to mid ranges in The Last of Us that we felt the Hunting Rifle felt was not effective in enough situations. By increasing its damage the Hunting Rifle user is now more likely to get a down on a wounded player, or can combo a Hunting Rifle with a pistol to try and fight effectively at mid-range.
Message 14 of 37 (186 Views)
Uncharted Territory
Registered: 06/21/2013
Offline
1507 posts
 

Re: Supply/part rebalance suggestion

Aug 21, 2013

sanddude20 wrote:

I'm pretty sure they made the points the way they did so people would work together more rather than play more selfishly. I mean if all the support points from revives, heals, gifting, marking, etc. etc. gave much much less than regular downs people wouldn't do them as much. Which will lead to ultimately more selfish playstyles to get more points and put some hurt on the whole teamwork aspect of the game.


The thing is, support isn't limited to reviving/healing/gifting.  You can very easily support your team by helping them out in a firefight, and yet an Assist is only worth +50, and that's IF the game applies it at all.  Downing somebody BEFORE they down your teammate, instead of after, means you miss out on +100 for the revive.  That shouldn't be how it works.  As it is now, the more damage your team takes and the more times they go down, the more total parts you can get.  It really shouldn't work this way.  And a simple, static win bonus, no matter how big it is, doesn't change the fact that a near loss will still give you more points than winning by a landslide.  I'd say that a bonus of something like +500, and then +100 per teammate for every life left, wouldn't be an unreasonable bonus.  It can potentially be a MASSIVE bonus, but only for a massive win, in which case I feel it's deserved.

Message 15 of 37 (170 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 07/23/2012
Online
5879 posts
 

Re: Supply/part rebalance suggestion

Aug 21, 2013

win bonuses are fine sure. I don't mind bigger win bonuses for lives left rounds won etc.

 

I was referring to the comments saying kills should be more support should be less.

True Balance:
We felt that the Hunting Rifle wasn’t effective enough at mid-range due to its very slow fire rate. While every weapon doesn’t have to be as effective at every range, so much combat occurs at short to mid ranges in The Last of Us that we felt the Hunting Rifle felt was not effective in enough situations. By increasing its damage the Hunting Rifle user is now more likely to get a down on a wounded player, or can combo a Hunting Rifle with a pistol to try and fight effectively at mid-range.
Message 16 of 37 (165 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Uncharted Territory
Registered: 06/21/2013
Offline
1507 posts
 

Re: Supply/part rebalance suggestion

Aug 21, 2013

sanddude20 wrote:

win bonuses are fine sure. I don't mind bigger win bonuses for lives left rounds won etc.

 

I was referring to the comments saying kills should be more support should be less.


I DO still think that downs/kills should count for more points.  Support should be a decent ammount of parts, but they shouldn't be able to so easily outscore kills.  Somebody who gets 10 downs, 10 kills, 0 deaths should outscore somebody with 2 downs, 1 kill, 8 deaths, no matter how much healing or crafting the second guy did.

Message 17 of 37 (161 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 07/23/2012
Online
5879 posts
 

Re: Supply/part rebalance suggestion

Aug 21, 2013

just think the guy who got the 10 kills probably would've done worse if he didn't have someone keeping him alive/ giving him free stuff.

True Balance:
We felt that the Hunting Rifle wasn’t effective enough at mid-range due to its very slow fire rate. While every weapon doesn’t have to be as effective at every range, so much combat occurs at short to mid ranges in The Last of Us that we felt the Hunting Rifle felt was not effective in enough situations. By increasing its damage the Hunting Rifle user is now more likely to get a down on a wounded player, or can combo a Hunting Rifle with a pistol to try and fight effectively at mid-range.
Message 18 of 37 (158 Views)
First Son
Registered: 08/19/2013
Offline
4 posts
 

Re: Supply/part rebalance suggestion

[ Edited ]
Aug 22, 2013

 


AST2008 wrote:
.Sounds like a good round but the key to high parts totals lies in using Collecter 2, Gifting and healing.

 


 

 

Well, this is exactly the problem. That there is a recipe to part-collection. The gameplay should be balanced so that any part that plays a crucial role for the groups success should be rewarded, be it a support, or someone darn good at racking kills. If I count 200 parts per kill, I have to kill ALL of the enemy players, ALONE, to get enough supplies to get 85 survivors at the 12. week. This is not how this game mode should be. Quite simply, a good round should be when you have won supremely, not when you have gathered lots of parts by exploiting the part reward system. The round I got the most parts, thus the most supplies, was one of my worse rounds. I killed few, I merely drove off my attackers, and ressurected a lot of teammates, and ended up with about 110 supplies. Of course, I played tactically well, and I feel that I was deserving of those points, but in the round where me and my team just demolished the enemy, had really few casualties, and just simply steamrolled them, suddenly I had 40 supplies. That's just stupid.

Message 19 of 37 (151 Views)
First Son
Registered: 08/19/2013
Offline
4 posts
 

Re: Supply/part rebalance suggestion

Aug 22, 2013

Tacco_Ray wrote:

I'd prefer not more parts for downs themselves, but for downs that actually end in an execution. So let's say you down someone, you get the normal amount, then he gets executed and you get a boost. Even more so if YOU are the one executing. If he gets revived, you don't earn more than for the down.

 

Also, if it is about supplies, I believe that too few people actually pick up the ones dropped by enemies. And if not, ND could increase this number first.

 

How does this sound?


That was what one of my points was about. Make only 50 parts for the down, and reserve 75 parts if that down ends in a kill. If it's you, who executes, if the person just bleeds out, or someone else executes, is irrelevant. There's a 75 part bonus if a down results in a kill, making a down count, but not that much if all it does is delay the enemy.

Message 20 of 37 (149 Views)
Reply
0 Likes