You are here

Endurance mode

Before posting make sure you are aquainted with our forum rules.

13 posts / 0 new
Last post
Endurance mode

How about a gamemode without much difference but the score to get in the end, and the difference needed between the first and other players?

Example: first player to get 200 wins, and to win you must be at least 5 points ahead of the second player. And you win or lose 3 times as much rank as you would with a normal win. (All numbers here are a case in point.)

Offline
Clan: miss

bad idea

Maderator Alan joined the room

 

Spoiler: Highlight to view

 

FFA : 2079 / TEAM : 2038 / 1v1 1700

Offline
Clan: back

RaCuiNe wrote:

bad idea

 

So negative!

 

Want to give a reason?

 

I can't see a bad reason from a player's point of view, don't like it, don't play it!

;)

Edited by: 
Ethan Littlejohns on 25 May, 2015 - 11:56
sam_pum's picture
Offline
Champion
1v1 america top 6.3%
team america top 5.7%
Clan: Jeff

Could be nice, a team needs a good attack and defence for it *-*

Fun tactics! :3

My name is Jeff.

Offline
Clan: miss

pls sam

Maderator Alan joined the room

 

Spoiler: Highlight to view

 

FFA : 2079 / TEAM : 2038 / 1v1 1700

Offline
Clan: KOLL

Perceval de Galles wrote:

And you win or lose 3 times as much rank as you would with a normal win.

I don't want to be a pessimest, but I could bet that there would be just some days later some new rank records, as it would make it just easier to come to the top fast and it would be a lot easier for boosters to get rank.

 

~~signature~~

My time:

Quote:

it would make it just easier to come to the top fast and it would be a lot easier for boosters to get rank

With such numbers, it probably wouldn't be faster, since getting three times as much rank for reaching three times as high a score, that makes it pretty much fair. Actually, it would even make it a bit slower, because of the bigger difference needed, and because of momentum (When the game is to seventy, say you've been disconnected early and are thirty points behind, you're done. Here, missing a few rounds would be less of a handicap.)

Of course, there are two real flaws I can see here: if people leave (and that would happen, just because some players want to ruin the others' fun, or some others just give up.), most games would end up with, let's be realistic, three or four players.

The other flaw is, even though to me it isn't a flaw at all, that the best players would have a huge advantage, because it's easier to beat a "pro" who had a few bad rounds out of fifteen than one who had as many bad rounds out of fifty.

Jasonm7's picture
Offline
team america top 56%
Clan: YES

Let us set the points to end ourselves, thanks!

Sadness.'s picture
Offline
Clan: vS

This game will never end, especially on ffa! Not really nice idea 

 

Sie zerkratzen meinen Lack, aber niemals mein Ego

 

Tranquility. †'s picture
Offline
Clan: Blub

I think having a set rule would be a bit restrictive for this idea. For something like this to be successful, I personally think a user setting their own finishing conditions would be more dynamic. So perhaps instead of simply 8 players = 70, or teams finishing at 10, the user could set one of the following:

  • A target score for FFA between say 20 and 100
  • A target score for team between say 3 and 20
  • A set number of rounds between say 1 and 50

Of course there could be a default setting, but these options would give the user full control. Obviously this won't be done short term if it was to be considered, but maybe in future....what do you think?

 

Tranquility.

I think a dynamic system would be harder to set up.

On the gameplay side, I think a totally dynamic version would allow too many configurations. Players are sometimes already fighting over a few % for the item drop rate, imagine the confusion if they can set any target score they want.

Tranquility. †'s picture
Offline
Clan: Blub

A fair point to make really

Offline
Clan: Tree

Some new gamemodes would be nice