Full Share = Unranked?

[BLITZ_Molloy]

Just a thought. It's probably been discussed before. Might be a bit noob unfriendly but I think it could make sense in a lot of ways.

[-_V_-]

It simply does not

Being "noob" is killing one ACU without thinking of the consequences, that could possibly blow up back to your face!

[RoundTabler]

Why is this such a big deal? If you don't want to play full share DON'T. If you don't want to play no share - DON'T. Lets not unrank every game because we don't like them. Thermo, full share, no share, there are several threads right now trying to explain just why every single game mode is terrible and should be unranked. Make a choice about what games to play, and stop trying to get other play styles removed from competitive (ranked) play.

[BLITZ_Molloy]

I don't typically host games cos my connection isn't fantastic.

I don't think anybody would argue there are too many good hosted games. Not enough Thermo matches. I play a fair bit of ranked but anything that incentivises playing proper maps with more typical competitive rules surely isn't a bad thing. TA Spring got destroyed by people playing nothing but choke point maps endlessly. Big dumb team games are a good idea up to a point but letting dumb games dominate TOO much can be annoying.

Anyway if this is unpopular I don't mind that much. I was only making a suggestion.

[-_V_-]

TA Spring got destroyed by people playing nothing but choke point maps endlessly. Big dumb team games are a good idea up to a point but letting dumb games dominate TOO much can be annoying.

Anyway if this is unpopular I don't mind that much. I was only making a suggestion.

So you wanna FORCE people to play the type of maps you judge better ?

I personally hate thermo as I think it's the dumbest map ever. But well people like it, and people feel the same way about Setons. FAir enough, to each his own.
But then I wouldn't put the blame on those players for "destroying" a game. That's plain ridiculous

[FunkOff]

edit: nvm

[BLITZ_Molloy]

Put words in people's mouths much? There might be more helpful beta feedback if the atmosphere round here was less hostile.

Spring was ruined by noobs (and I use the term affectionately I'd still be a noib at FAF by many people's standards) they let them dictate every aspect of the game. Thankfully FAF is really well run and managed.

Nobody is forcing anybody. Just saying gentle incentives to play more maps wouldn't be a bad thing. With Setons at least there's variety of air and sea combat.

I'd be all for making other stuff ranked to replace it. Maybe Phantom or the beta testing patches.

[CopyyyCattt]

Spring was not ruined by noobs lol.
By the way its still running with about the same community size(problem is its not increasing).
It was ruined(for me personally) because its main game was not properly maintained or updated(didnt even have a website or an installer) and some pathfinding changes were made to the engine that made pathfinding shit for a long time.
It is true that the ability to play 16 player games might have encouraged people to play these bigger games on a few select maps instead of tighter smaller more competitive games but that was again not because of noobs asking for it but because of some of the devs of the engine.

I think a team com ends victory conditioned added to supremacy would make an outlet for people who feel full share and assassination are not enough or are not flexible enough.

P.S spring's early draw was the fact it it was a FREE well balanced 3D rts with innovative mechanisms but as more free games became popular some of it's flare went off(and because of some internal issues).

[noms]

If a game is full share is it obvious in the game lobby (eg. shown in bold at the top) or do you need to scroll down to check?