FDev please notice: the international CQC community requests improvements for this great game!

Maidor

Maidor
Northpin said:
CQC is fine as it is.
It just need players.
And if it gets enough players, it will have proper match making (rank/skill based)

So if they could incentivize CQC playing (by any means like credits, decals, paints, whatever) and get the cmdrs to actually play CQC, everything would be fine.

Now, in terms of changes, IMO:
  • Main issue: allow solo bot (npc) play with selectable skill levels for NPC (Harmless to Elite). This way people can practice the maps with the help of bots so when they join the games against players, they at least know the maps and have a basic skill set
  • Remove PowerUps - this way the very good players that can dominate the maps anyways, dont get the benefit of the constant power-ups loop-play thus giving them total control of the map.

To conclude: That's all CQC needs (IMO): more players, solo bot play so they can learn the maps and train (and eventually powerups removal - altho this could added as a game mode if the player numbers get high enough)
Click to expand...

This is the same as saying a bankrupt restaurant only needs more clients.
More players would come if the game was better...

The ranking system is not a ranking system, so more player does not mean proper matchmaking.
Currently it is just a status bar of levels.
A monkey can eventually reach Elite rank because rank = number of kills and games. Have you ever heard of a competitive ranking system in any other game that does not go down with your bad results?

Powerups are a fundamental aspect of arena competitive gameplay.
Or else there is no objective or focal points to the map. Every map is the same in gameplay, even though the objects place are different.
On equal footing, battles would resume to who engaged from a better angle first + ship stats comparrison. The better player would just abuse this fact instead of the PU
That is why there is also not a single arena combat game without objectives on the map. Or else it would be a fighting game.
But fighting games are mostly 1x1 for this very reason, controlling the space around you is the only objective. And you use resource management to achieve it.
The game could deal away with them, but then again. It would need a rework of how objectives and map-layout impact the gameplay variations.

A lot of comments from ''i think'' not a single comment based on actual Game design fundamentals
 
Last edited:

Steven G

S
Maidor said:
This is the same as saying a bankrupt restaurant only needs more clients.
More players would come if the game was better...

The ranking system is not a ranking system, so more player does not mean proper matchmaking.
Currently it is just a status bar of levels.
A monkey can eventually reach Elite rank because rank = number of kills and games. Have you ever heard of a competitive ranking system in any other game that does not go down with your bad results?

Powerups are a fundamental aspect of arena competitive gameplay.
Or else there is no objective or focal points to the map. Every map is the same in gameplay, even though the objects place are different.
On equal footing, battles would resume to who engaged from a better angle first + ship stats comparrison. The better player would just abuse this fact instead of the PU
That is why there is also not a single arena combat game without objectives on the map. Or else it would be a fighting game.
But fighting games are mostly 1x1 for this very reason, controlling the space around you is the only objective. And you use resource management to achieve it.
The game could deal away with them, but then again. It would need a rework of how objectives and map-layout impact the gameplay variations.

A lot of comments from ''i think'' not a single comment based on actual Game design fundamentals
Click to expand...
What's your CQC rank & prestige ?
 

Northpin

Northpin
Maidor said:
More players would come if the game was better...
Click to expand...

I dont play the cqc because, due to very low number of players, i get pitted against vets and i dont stand any chances.
And it's really not fun to get fragged not even seeing who shot you and without having any chance of learning the map - because most of the vets will not only do the powerups loops, they will also use every trick in the book to stomp noobs absolutely ruthless, giving them zero chances to learn anything.

And yes, a better system of rewards will attract more players, in which case i will join since i'll have a chance to deathmatch against similarly skilled players.
 
Last edited:

Maidor

Maidor
Steven G said:
What's your CQC rank & prestige ?
Click to expand...

Something like amateur and 25, I don't remember. As I said I only played enough to understand all it's elements. But why does it matter?
Since the begining I'm pitted agains people of 50+ prestige and it's all random. Guys with 10 have humiliated me while people on 40+ struggle.
Northpin said:
I dont play the cqc because, due to very low number of players, i get pitted against vets and i dont stant any chances.
And it's really not fun to get fragged not even seeing who shot you and without having any chance of learning the map - because most of the vets will not only do the powerups loops, they will also use every trick in the book to stomp noobs absolutely ruthless, giving them zero chances to learn anything.

And yes, a better system of rewards will attract more players, in which case i will join since i'll have a chance to deathmatch against similarly skilled players.
Click to expand...

It's not your fault. It is how the Ranking is designed.
In games like CS:GO / Valorant, new players usually have a horrible time, even though the games offer all the training components. That is because it's PVP-Competitive Experience. No amount of bot training will prepare you for how players interact.

But the main drive of any pvp oriented player is to overcome hardship and get better. Stop dying like a helpless cone and become the fearsome foul they faced before.
This is only possible to be achieved if there is a proper sence of progression related to your skill level.
Those games can retain lots of players even though they are very hard in the beggining. Because they offer great sence of progression and matchmaking.

You can feel when you are the best in a lobby, as you can feel when you are the worst. If you are consistently the best, than you will rise and become avarege in those next matches. If you are very bad, you will be demoted and probably feel better, but still need to keep this better performance consistent to rise up again.

You can all see a clear indication that you are performing worst or better as your rank changes up or down.

If whatever represents your skill level only goes up. Than it is an experience bar representing the passage of time and not your current performance level.
And the whole matchmaking system will fall apart. And not so good players will have the worst experience ever.

In those games only 0.5% of players are the top rank, more than 50% of players in League of Legends are Bronze Rank, placed on the worst ranks. Still those games have loads of people playing because the matches feel fair and you are offered a clear indication of this fairness. Fun results from fair competition more than win-rate.

I hope the game changes to welcome more players like you to the PvP a aspects of the game. It's sad to see how many people are driven away from ED PvP because it's just so hard to find fair competition.
 
Last edited:

Northpin

Northpin
Maidor said:
It's not your fault. It is how the Ranking is designed.
In games like CS:GO / Valorant, new players usually have a horrible time, even though the games offer all the training components. That is because it's PVP-Competitive Experience. No amount of bot training will prepare you for how players interact.
Click to expand...

More than 20 years ago I used to play a lot of CS and UT (i even participated in local UT competitions)
And for a while, on the server i used to play, i was really ruthless too. Up to the point where people would curse me and leave the server when i was joining in
So i know how it looks from the other side :D

But then again, since UT was not fun with the bots, i had to change my tag and play less ruthless, losing a game here and there and tryin to win the matches like 25-20 and throwing a GG here and there as opposed to winning 25-0 every single time and mocking the hell out of everyone else. 🤷‍♂️
 

metatheurgist

metatheurgist
It's pretty clear what CQC was meant to be imo.

They wanted to get into the e-sport arena, and if it worked it'd been a great thing for ED. Free publicity, regular press, more eyeballs on the game. Unfortunately it didn't work out.

It's a spent round. Nothing will bring it back. If they'd hedged their bets and made it more part of the main game it might have had a life.
 

MUSKETEER

MUSKETEER
Maidor said:
This is the same as saying a bankrupt restaurant only needs more clients.
More players would come if the game was better...

The ranking system is not a ranking system, so more player does not mean proper matchmaking.
Currently it is just a status bar of levels.
A monkey can eventually reach Elite rank because rank = number of kills and games. Have you ever heard of a competitive ranking system in any other game that does not go down with your bad results?

Powerups are a fundamental aspect of arena competitive gameplay.
Or else there is no objective or focal points to the map. Every map is the same in gameplay, even though the objects place are different.
On equal footing, battles would resume to who engaged from a better angle first + ship stats comparrison. The better player would just abuse this fact instead of the PU
That is why there is also not a single arena combat game without objectives on the map. Or else it would be a fighting game.
But fighting games are mostly 1x1 for this very reason, controlling the space around you is the only objective. And you use resource management to achieve it.
The game could deal away with them, but then again. It would need a rework of how objectives and map-layout impact the gameplay variations.

A lot of comments from ''i think'' not a single comment based on actual Game design fundamentals
Click to expand...


Even if you don't play CQC it's so refreshing to read posts from someone who finally understands the concept of Arena mode. People on CQC Discord are not very successful / competitive in the arena because they don't get how the arena mode works. Their proposals for the change is just an utter nonsense and I'm glad FDevs just ignore them because they don't know what they are talking about and they suggest changes that won't make CQC a better game.
 

VR micmacmoc

VR micmacmoc
I love cqc in vr with my proper joystick, x52pro. I wish there were new maps etc.

Too much willy waving in this thread, childish.


It might be good if we all were put in in the same ships, same set up etc. Yeah, random power ups type and positions.
Trying to get back into the ED world after a break. Hope cqc isnt always just the same people who i cant beat. Yeah i know, try try again but its quite soul destroying to lose to nil repeatedly. See you in cqc folks!
 

DaftTree

DaftTree
Some interesting ideas and points of view in this thread.
  • Respawn timer randomisation: changing the set time for Power-Up respawns to a range (e.g. 10 – 90 sec
  • Location randomisation: while keeping their physical locations on the map the same, randomise which Power-Up appears per-respawn at those locations.
Click to expand...
This will essentially turn the power-ups from a tactical element of the game to a random lottery. Not likely to encourage skill based use
  • Remove Power-Up stacking: flying through a second Power-Up immediately causes the first to expire.
  • Weapons Power-Up reduction: consider reducing the 45 seconds length of this Power-Up, or its effectiveness from a 100% damage increase to a 50% increase. Taking the weapons power-up could also be changed to slow the weapons capacitor regen rate.
Click to expand...
Diluting the effectiveness of the Power-ups, reduces the point of taking a risk to try to grab one. A looping player would still have an advantage by denying other players the opportunity to take one.
  • Clear & obvious weapons identifier on whoever has taken the weapons power up – glowing aura, bigger weapons graphics, red exhaust trail (similar to the player who has the flag in Capture the Flag) etc.
Click to expand...
Not completely against this, but I don't see it making much difference. Also, one of the interesting parts of a duel can be trying to work out whether your opponent has the power up or how much time they have left.

With regards to Rewards and Ships.... I would welcome any additional/unique rewards in the main game that might attract more players to take part in CQC. A few new ships would be nice, but any additions must be balanced.

There are currently only 4 maps, all with fixed power locations. It really doesn't take long to learn where most of them are. Adding more variety and randomness is actually going to make it harder for new players to get used to the environment.

I think the biggest factor regarding player retention, is the nature of CQC. It is highly competitive and skilled gameplay and that's just not for everyone. It really comes down to each players attitude and personal motivations:
  • Players who are willing to accept CQC as it is and are prepared to keep improving across all aspects will probably enjoy their time and be likely to keep coming back as long as there are people playing.
  • Those who decide to cherry pick opponents or choose not to embrace all aspects of the game mode (such as battling for control of and the effective use of power-ups) are likely to have a difficult and frustrating time.
  • Likewise, anyone just after another Elite badge should be prepared for a long journey.
Not everyone is going to be able or willing to put the required time and effort to improve. This means there will always be those players in between that are unhappy playing against the strongest players. Just a population of 10-15 players (current matchmaking errors aside) would start separating the players into different games. Whilst this will be good for the weakest few, it will then make some of the inbetweeners unhappy, because they'll end up getting put into matches with the stronger players with no easier opponents, so you'll never please everyone.

Even if you removed the power ups, the best players would still find a way to dominate and win. Then I am sure there will be calls to nerf the next thing. It won't keep more people playing and will simply make the game less interesting.

My advice to anyone thinking about playing CQC... Just play. Roll with the punches. Have fun and engage (Inara/Discord) with the other players you come across. Most of us are happy to share tips and advice.
 
Last edited:

varonica

varonica
Northpin said:
More than 20 years ago I used to play a lot of CS and UT (i even participated in local UT competitions)
And for a while, on the server i used to play, i was really ruthless too. Up to the point where people would curse me and leave the server when i was joining in
So i know how it looks from the other side :D

But then again, since UT was not fun with the bots, i had to change my tag and play less ruthless, losing a game here and there and tryin to win the matches like 25-20 and throwing a GG here and there as opposed to winning 25-0 every single time and mocking the hell out of everyone else. 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...

Yeah I used to play competitive Desert Combat in the AU league, practicing on public servers I never used to mock anyone but it was pretty clear to everyone if they faced me they were going to die, never got involved in slanging matches or name calling or anything, that's just not how I play, if people asked me to hold back a bit sure I would do that, but a competitive league player versus a random server full of players, well it's always going to be lopsided. Not sure how they would successfully make CQC have competitive ranks, just not enough players or enough interest.
 

Northpin

Northpin
varonica said:
Not sure how they would successfully make CQC have competitive ranks, just not enough players or enough interest.
Click to expand...

With enough players, the matchmaking could be much more "fair"
And the required level of "enough players" could be reached if the CQC would have a solo training mode providing potential players with the same maps as in live, but NPC as opponents.
At least this way players can train and gradually increase their skill level.

Facing Musketeer or the other PROs out there is not nice and it doesnt help me learn anything if i die before i even manage to figure the map
 

cmdr_Giboulot

cmdr_Giboulot
The easiest "fix" would be casual and ranked mode, so each CQC enthousiast would enjoy it, WRYR squadron would enjoy a competitive gamemode of CQC, and casual for training and chilling in the spirit of CQCD squadron... :unsure:
 

Steven G

S
cmdr_Giboulot said:
The easiest "fix" would be casual and ranked mode, so each CQC enthousiast would enjoy it, WRYR squadron would enjoy a competitive gamemode of CQC, and casual for training and chilling in the spirit of CQCD squadron... :unsure:
Click to expand...
lol, if you try to make a full 8 cmdrs game, some spend their time to try enter & troll it, just to annoy. Horizons or Odyssey.
it's like breaking a window to enter a party where you've not been invited.
 

Maidor

Maidor
So many more important and easly fixable problems in the main game's loops and systems.
Still they persist for years
I don't see CQC being touched anytime soon

The thread was a good show of the CQC communities mentallity though
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom