Should they change when teams switch from Attacking to Defending?

(Grave_Knight) #1

The problem with switching after 6 rounds of a best of 12 is that if one side landslides as Attackers or Defenders than they only have to win one round as the opposite side. If sides switch every three rounds (which I would prefer) than a team would have to win three rounds as attackers and defenders plus one (depending on which side they started as) for a landslide. Games would generally last longer.

(XavienX) #2

I’m not sure what to think about this so I choose:
I don’t care.

(Aazhyd) #3

Should definitely switch after 3 rounds. After each round is too much, though.

(Mr-Penguin) #4

Gives teams a fairer chance. Some team absolutely suck at defending but kill it on offense, and every 6 rounds results in either stomps or draws most of the time. Three would solve it.

(signofzeta) #5

I made up a weird way when you switch after 3 rounds, switch after 3 rounds, switch after 2 rounds, switch after 2 rounds, switch after 1 round.

It means if you start out as attack, you attack on rounds 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, and 11. This means it is kind of a hybrid between the first choice and the second one.

(SpectraBlitz) #6

While I agree that a 3 round rotation would be better for balancing purposes, I feel like the idea suggested by @signofzeta above would be worth a consideration, though it may confuse new players if they are repeatedly getting switched from side to side, exaggerated by the fact that when level 1 players quickjoin a server they are dropped into an execution match.

(Grave_Knight) #7

Eh. sighofzeta’s idea is needlessly convoluted.

(bontsa) #8

Would be a sweet idea to try out. After all, since devs are still insisting we’re on Beta stage, any changes should be tried out more frequently, since they can be just reverted back if seen to be ineffective or bad. Which is kinda why I miss the fact there are no weekly smaller updates :confused:

(Grave_Knight) #9

So they should waste time on something that might not even be a good idea?

(bontsa) #10

So they should waste time on something that might not even be a good idea?[/quote]

Sometimes “Fail Faster” is indeed a good way to go. Since it is still stated as a Beta phase, it doesn’t seem like a waste for me to confirm if something works or not. In case like this where one can’t say it’d be bad right off the bat. Any changes should be thought through obviously, not just put in for sake of change, but some things can be pondered and wondered for ages yet only thing that gives real data how it works, is to test it in reality.

For example, they made Quickjoin assign all level 1-2’s straight into Execution. Soon after they said to look into it again. Did they waste time? No, they thought of an idea for a while (possibly), implemented it to see the results and then revisit it if it seems required.

But since that’s not the point of this thread of yours, yes I would still like to see, like my previous comment stated, this switch sides more often happening.

(MarsRover) #11

So they should waste time on something that might not even be a good idea?[/quote]

Everything can be a good or bad idea until you try it out.

(Grave_Knight) #12

So they should waste time on something that might not even be a good idea?[/quote]

Sometimes “Fail Faster” is indeed a good way to go. Since it is still stated as a Beta phase, it doesn’t seem like a waste for me to confirm if something works or not. In case like this where one can’t say it’d be bad right off the bat. Any changes should be thought through obviously, not just put in for sake of change, but some things can be pondered and wondered for ages yet only thing that gives real data how it works, is to test it in reality.

For example, they made Quickjoin assign all level 1-2’s straight into Execution. Soon after they said to look into it again. Did they waste time? No, they thought of an idea for a while (possibly), implemented it to see the results and then revisit it if it seems required.

But since that’s not the point of this thread of yours, yes I would still like to see, like my previous comment stated, this switch sides more often happening.[/quote]

Yes, but quick join’s code is pretty simple. For what was suggested, that convoluted mechanic, requires a convoluted code. Changing the code for quick join could take hours, changing the team switch to a code like that could take weeks. Look at Pineapple Juggler; we know they’re going to change it but whatever they’re doing to change it is taking more time than it took to change the values of the perks that did get buff.

(bontsa) #13

Ach I do get the point you made about wasting time now, my bad! I know about as much of coding as dog knows of how it’s house is made. That there is lot these funny looking human-thingies hassling franticly around with stuff and wibble-wobble this and tingle-wingle that and then it’s done. Or something.

I ment more to imply that I personally don’t see any kind of changes, even if put in for just a week and then reverted back on the next, as a “waste of time”. So man can dream though, despite it’d need tons of resources some weekly stuff would be neat. Maybe the test-realm someday they’ve been talking about and hoping for in Warchest forums… Whenever we agree or agree to disagree on that is not a point of this thread anymore aye? Just had to answer this last time to make it clear I got yer point now ^^

(Lieutenant_Falcon) #14

Yep switch after every 3 rounds.

(Grave_Knight) #15

Ach I do get the point you made about wasting time now, my bad! I know about as much of coding as dog knows of how it’s house is made. That there is lot these funny looking human-thingies hassling franticly around with stuff and wibble-wobble this and tingle-wingle that and then it’s done. Or something.

I ment more to imply that I personally don’t see any kind of changes, even if put in for just a week and then reverted back on the next, as a “waste of time”. So man can dream though, despite it’d need tons of resources some weekly stuff would be neat. Maybe the test-realm someday they’ve been talking about and hoping for in Warchest forums… Whenever we agree or agree to disagree on that is not a point of this thread anymore aye? Just had to answer this last time to make it clear I got yer point now ^^[/quote]

Testing something like that in a PTS would be nice. They kind of do need a PTS though, would ruin the secret of the next merc (though not really much a mystery now, it’s either Aimee or Turtle) but it would generate instant feedback on changes to abilities, perks, and what not.