Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'campaigns'.
Found 3 results
Hi, so I just got into a great game with my Z-23. Finish 3rd on my team in a Tier X game, landed a couple of torps, helped sink two destroyers, got capture ribbons, etc. My team won, easily. The problem is that I got two kills with my guns. Opening fire on low health targets is perceived as "skill stealing" by some players, and it will sometime get you negative karma. It doesn't happen very often, but often enough that it gets noticeable; every time I get kills by opening fire on low health targets, I come back in port, check my karma and sure enough, there is 1 out of 18 chance maybe it will get decreased by one. Reality is; it can happen with any ship that has a fast firing rate, and lightly armored targets that get uptiered often can't engage targets with guns until they're soft enough that the exchange of fires won't last more than 1 or 2 reload for the enemy target. Securing those kills as fast as possible and ensuring they don't get to return fire on your team is how you help your team achieve victory, but it will add frustration to players who are looking for kill ribbons. Some players are just "greedy" by nature and nothing is going to change that, but the issue is somewhat magnified by the fact that many players need kill ribbons to complete mission objectives and campaigns. Thus, if we are (un)lucky enough to get the kill, we do "steal" something from them given the current game design, as it increases the amount of time they will need to complete an event, a mission objective, a campaign, etc. We're stealing their time, basically, as we play the game objectives. This fuel toxicity, which is something a good game design should actively try to remediate. My suggestion is to introduce a new ribbon, for dealing a certain amount of damage to a target. Upon damaging a target by 25%, 30% or some arbitrary numbers that will need to be defined, a player will obtain this new ribbon. A tentative name for the new ribbon could be "devastation". The goal behind it, is to provide an alternative for "destroyed" ribbons required in mission objectives. Which means a ship that dealt significant damages to a target will get compensated even if that target gets sunk by another fragile support ship that has high RoF. I would also suggest that the new "devastation" ribbon yield more base XP that the traditional "destroyed" ribbon, and that a new achievement tied to it gets introduced. The idea here is to lower the perceived value of the destroyed ribbons, and rewards damage dealers even more. This would only be fair because the destroyed ribbons are more situational, and sometime a pure matter of luck (especially when you stick fires/flood on a target that is getting focused, and get the kill because of it). Overall, this is a very small step to fight the toxicity in a PVP environment but I believe every positive steps count, and should get considered. Thank you.
warheart1992 posted a topic in General Game DiscussionWith more than a year since the last permanent Campaign was introduced to the game ( talking about Halsey, the Christmas ones were time limited), I can't help but think Campaigns are in a bit of a weird spot. During this past year WG has pushed small, monthly time limited "Campaigns" in the form Directives, both for earning ships and Commanders in tandem with Collections. Oftentimes I find myself pressed irl and can't really devote the time in doing all Directives. Meanwhile due to their limited nature, they often feel more of a chore; not only that, but they promote often certain behaviors in order to complete them as soon as possible. While I understand the objective of these Directives, to establish a frequent presence of a grind so someone who just jumps in has something to do, or to push people into buying certain premium content to ease a grind, I feel permanent Campaigns still have a spot in the game. They offer a more relaxed "do it at your own pace" logic, they are pretty demanding but the rewards are often worth it (Shinonome/Yamamoto/Halsey+ all the supercontainers you get) and with the addition of co-op objectives with Halsey aren't restricted to PvP. Now, there is of course an argument to be made that most Campaigns reward high tiers, which is true due to most requirements. This doesn't mean that there can't be Campaigns with a bit toned down rewards, but also available to mid tiers. There are loads of potential Commanders, loads of ships that can be reward material. That way, people that have limited time in their hands can also work towards some reward. Sadly the solution in most cases lately is just to pay. Bottom line, do you fine forumers feel a new Campaign would be good for the game? What would you like it to be? Tl;dr: Not everything needs to be a time limited series of Directives. P.S, @Bualar, @Umbaretz, is there any data on how many people have completed the current Campaigns? Am pretty curious on that matter.
No doubt I'll get a ton of incoming over this but I'd like to suggest a change in these long term, "Win a ship" contests, specifically those tasks that require a "win" to complete it. As an example, the trigger for this post is the "Win a battle, get a Hits to Citadel ribbon and destroy one ship" combat mission. I have done two out of three of those in FIVE matches straight. This morning, when I got sunk in my bama, we had 3 minutes remaining, outnumbered the reds six ships to three and were leading. Yup, pretty solid odds of a win. Nope, we lost. One guy ran away, at the SAME TIME telling people "my internet went down". LMBO on that one... but yea, we lost. I think what I'm suggesting is they be turned more towards the individual player than the team obtaining a win. The team is not winning a ship - the players, individually, are working their way to a ship. Random is not operations - there, it's expected the team wins/loses the "prizes/rewards" as a team. So I do hope any such future missions for ships will remove the requirement of a win cause dammit Jim, I'm just a doctor, not a coach. tiafyc