CQC CQC is a joke.

[Krieger]

Absolutely agreed... But if we do consider the score example (potentially from a Team Deathmatch?) which merited some of the comments:-

6 Kills + 1 Assist - 6 Deaths = 650 points
5 Kills + 1 Assist - 0 Deaths = 550 points​

The first player was scored higher, even though they gave the other team a quarter of the points needed to win (by being destroyed 6 times), and as such got a net score of 0 (ignoring assists). The second player did not give away a single point to the enemy, but still gained 5 for his team, a net score of 5 (ignoring assists)...

Again, I'm not suggesting the score system needs to change, but it is interesting 6-6 is deemed "better" than "5-0", when clearly it's hard to argue that (certainly in Team Deathmatch IMHO).

Anyhoo...

I see no problem with that score. No one can score kills if nobody dies. People who die make it possible to have an outcome at all (other than a draw). The player dying gave a kill to another player. It would be a double penalty if his death would be deducted from his score in some way.

 

[mossfoot]

I see no problem with that score. No one can score kills if nobody dies. People who die make it possible to have an outcome at all (other than a draw). The player dying gave a kill to another player. It would be a double penalty if his death would be deducted from his score in some way.

You could always have a small penalty for death instead - like if a kill is worth 100 and an assist is worth 50, then a death might take away 25 or even 10. That wouldn't significantly hurt their score, but would reflect reward skill for those who keep their deaths to a minimum.

 

[NeilF]

I see no problem with that score. No one can score kills if nobody dies. People who die make it possible to have an outcome at all (other than a draw). The player dying gave a kill to another player. It would be a double penalty if his death would be deducted from his score in some way.

Fair point in deathmatch... No so sure in Team Deathmatch...

But in truth I find the score system a reasonable "assessment"... I will always raise my eyebrows though when 6k/6d is considered better then 5k/0d though

 

[Gremlin]

cqc is boring all it is , killdiekilldie repeat

Reminds me of the old Descent days back when Voodoo cards were KOTH. fun fun fun.

As for ED - Seems like CQC is just like trading/smuggling/mining/pirating/pvp/powerplay and every other choice in the game - If you dont like it - dont play it.

Apparently lots of peeps *are* still interested in that type of gameplay: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/descendentstudios/descent-underground

Adding it to ED, is a smart move and will drag in console cash. Have you tried to play ED proper on the XBone, with a controller? OMFG not fun and I'm very glad the XBone account is not my PC account..

Incidentally, I supported the new descent thing; Even in alpha it is a blast and I was shredded - if CQC is anything like that much fun; I'll play.

 

[Krieger]

You could always have a small penalty for death instead - like if a kill is worth 100 and an assist is worth 50, then a death might take away 25 or even 10. That wouldn't significantly hurt their score, but would reflect reward skill for those who keep their deaths to a minimum.

In Unreal Tournament a suicide means one kill is deducted from the player's score. A suicide in UT is like a Darwin award: players who managed to kill themselves in stupid ways. Maybe something for CQC too?
.
My experience with UT is that a deathmatch game flows better if players do not try to avoid death too much. Otherwise everybody just jumps around (literally) but no one scores.

 

[Derath]

I have no experience with cqc whatsoever however I can make a statement that the majority of players in the big wide in open are extremely bad at combat, this would make it very difficulty to associate skill with any game mode, in a majority of multiplayer games you get a fairly even dispersion of player skill, ED has very rare player encounters and until recently very bad AI which is possible to just overcome via equipment. This makes it very unlikely people will improve, you genuinely have to be somebody who seeks out player engagements with the few players that are good to actually improve, this is unlikely and also you tend to get stick if you pick fights in open.

So what i'm saying is give it time, cqc will create skillful players if its anything like the regular game combat, its just about doing it enough that your average player is competent not embarrassing.

 

[xXCheeChowXx]

I tried CqC for the first time yesterday. It was fun...kill em die respawn...kill em die respawn....Change of pace from the big wide open. Got 3rd place not bad for my first match...was FFA.View attachment 68755

 

[Moriarte]

What puzzles me is this: is combat in the core game top notch, in need of no improvements? They get a bunch of guys working together, get them off the existing game development most likely, and create a spin-off game within a game, while the core remains full of unsolved issues and potential. Potential is the word. Make special places, invent stuff, fuse it with facilities in the main game, pepper it with story. 1+1=3. A living-breathing galaxy? The clock has long ticked past all the deadlines, interest has peaked and the player base won't be growing in the same proportion, ever, and yet, instead of getting it together and improving what exists to the point of perfection and thus attracting even more Sci-Fi fans to the core, they make this bizarre move - a clone of descent, or whatever this long forgotten dinosaur was called. This.. fragmentation of vision is a terrible idea. According to me that is.

I refuse to understand.

If it is about money, then I understand.

 

[Red Dirt Nurse]

It is absolutely about skill.

Situational awareness being the most important and the general lack of it being the reason that so many people get splattered.

Agreed. This became evident in the first air battles of the Great War, and subsequent conflicts thereafter (the exception being Vietnam*).

The general rule is that: the pilot who gets the visual on another pilot and opens the engagement, will typically win the encounter. Typically.


*There is a commonly held theory that pilots in the Vietnam air war became heavily reliant on advanced weapons systems and missiles, that they lost their basic dogfighting skills. I cant' remember if this is an actual fact, or just a flashback I had to the movie Top Gun Recollection of this idea is mixed with hazy memories of beach volley ball games and muscular men in showers, I can't be certain.

 

[Krieger]

<snip>... Recollection of this idea is mixed with hazy memories of beach volley ball games and muscular men in showers <snip>...

Want to elaborate?

 

[Krieger]

What puzzles me is this: is combat in the core game top notch, in need of no improvements? They get a bunch of guys working together, get them off the existing game development most likely, and create a spin-off game within a game, while the core remains full of unsolved issues and potential. Potential is the word. Make special places, invent stuff, fuse it with facilities in the main game, pepper it with story. 1+1=3. A living-breathing galaxy? The clock has long ticked past all the deadlines, interest has peaked and the player base won't be growing in the same proportion, ever, and yet, instead of getting it together and improving what exists to the point of perfection and thus attracting even more Sci-Fi fans to the core, they make this bizarre move - a clone of descent, or whatever this long forgotten dinosaur was called. This.. fragmentation of vision is a terrible idea. According to me that is.

I refuse to understand.

If it is about money, then I understand.

Money or market share probably is part of it. I can understand that for Frontier a spin-off like CQC is a good way to get a foothold in the XBox market AND to attract new ED players there. XBox players get the full game so many of them will try the core game and hopefully a lot of them like ED and become loyal ED players. If that market strategy works it is well worth the diversion of developers from the main game. (And maybe CQC diverts single-minded PvP-ers away from the main game where they sometimes behave badly for lack of challenge?)
.
About the pace of development of the main game, yes, I find it a little frustrating too that some problems and improvements don't get worked on sooner but OTOH Frontier is a relatively small company they can't do it all at once. In that respect I think not CQC but Power Play was a mistake. Not that something like Power Play is a bad idea but maybe they introduced it too early and rushed it. Maybe those developer hours would have been better spent tackling the problems in the main game first? (background simulation, multi-stage missions, PvP and coop missions, etc.)

 

[Daffan]

I'm only rank 18 or something but my k/d is like 2.6

It's really basic - even when flying with subpar weapons (anything that requires lead). It's really easy just to have chaff and pulse and YOLO into people so even the worst players can be annoying.

Seriously, the default pulse condor is the best weapon/ship in the game. If you are fighting good players the lead is way too much effort for low reward on the other weapons, any idiot can use hitscan pulse.

 

[DragonIV]

The fact that you play not against equals, but against various ships of various strength in a deathmatch set makes this a fool's errand. Yes, you can grind your way into better ships/equipment, but I already do that in the main game. It's too bad, because the maps are enjoyable, especially on the rare occasion all players in a match are in the Condor.

 

[Jukelo]

It's easier to live longer when your ship is upgraded too, but.. again that doesn't = skill required. I just went 2 games in a row without dieing once.. but its due to my ship being upgraded, and slight situational awareness, again, not really skill. It's just me not being a complete moron. So equipment + not being brain dead = auto win? seems to be.. but that's not how it should be entirely..

OP, you are just underselling yourself. After playing 4 years of World of Tanks, I have come to the conclusion that situatinal awareness is absolutely a skill, and that the vast majority of players lack it. I wouldn't consider myself particularly good at any game, even World of Tanks, but the numbers don't lie. It's the opposite side of Dunnig-Kruger: you don't consider yourself as exceptionaly good, so anybody lower than you must be a scrub.

CQC will however always feel like luck is involved a lot, for the simple reason that it's matching players of the same skill together. At some point you'll reach the matchmaking rating that fits your actual skill, and will mostly face players as good as you are. And in such situations where both sides are closely matched, the victor is logically decided mostly on luck.

 

[DbulHelix]

OP, you are just underselling yourself. After playing 4 years of World of Tanks, I have come to the conclusion that situatinal awareness is absolutely a skill, and that the vast majority of players lack it. I wouldn't consider myself particularly good at any game, even World of Tanks, but the numbers don't lie. It's the opposite side of Dunnig-Kruger: you don't consider yourself as exceptionaly good, so anybody lower than you must be a scrub.

CQC will however always feel like luck is involved a lot, for the simple reason that it's matching players of the same skill together. At some point you'll reach the matchmaking rating that fits your actual skill, and will mostly face players as good as you are. And in such situations where both sides are closely matched, the victor is logically decided mostly on luck.

Interesting that you should compare this with WOT. I'm pretty new at ED, and just tried CQC today. My first impression was that matchmaker doesn't do a very good job; my first 2 matches put me in matches such as me, along with my 3 tier 1 team mates, up against a t1, a t13, and a t23. I came out on top with 5 kills, my teammates together amassed 4 or 5 between them, and the t23 guy had 15 kills alone. So, naturally being a new player, my first thoughts are "this isn't fair". Back to WOT; I've played a lot... 12k+ (+another 6k during the beta), so I know my way around. So often newbs come into the forums with exactly the same statements. "MM sucks; this isn't fair", and I having long since forgotten the plight of the newb, feel the statements are incorrect, if not simply premature. So, I temper my confusion with this in mind, but I don't understand why CQC MM starts out a player with that kind of matchup. Sure, opfor has 3 while we have 4, but when the t23 can basically sweep, it makes me wonder why it's not limited to a lower spread of tiers. My first thought was, lack of available players.

I have work to do if I'm going to be competitive... I need to stop ignoring flight-assist; it's simply a necessity in CQC. Otherwise, I don't think I'll do too poorly if I put in some time. The fighting is fun, the maps are well-conceived, and it's a good break from roaming the galaxy. I just hope that after a few dozen battles that I have a better impression of matchmaker.

 

[Jukelo]

Interesting that you should compare this with WOT. I'm pretty new at ED, and just tried CQC today. My first impression was that matchmaker doesn't do a very good job; my first 2 matches put me in matches such as me, along with my 3 tier 1 team mates, up against a t1, a t13, and a t23. I came out on top with 5 kills, my teammates together amassed 4 or 5 between them, and the t23 guy had 15 kills alone. So, naturally being a new player, my first thoughts are "this isn't fair". Back to WOT; I've played a lot... 12k+ (+another 6k during the beta), so I know my way around. So often newbs come into the forums with exactly the same statements. "MM sucks; this isn't fair", and I having long since forgotten the plight of the newb, feel the statements are incorrect, if not simply premature. So, I temper my confusion with this in mind, but I don't understand why CQC MM starts out a player with that kind of matchup. Sure, opfor has 3 while we have 4, but when the t23 can basically sweep, it makes me wonder why it's not limited to a lower spread of tiers. My first thought was, lack of available players.

I have work to do if I'm going to be competitive... I need to stop ignoring flight-assist; it's simply a necessity in CQC. Otherwise, I don't think I'll do too poorly if I put in some time. The fighting is fun, the maps are well-conceived, and it's a good break from roaming the galaxy. I just hope that after a few dozen battles that I have a better impression of matchmaker.

That's because ranks in CQC don't mean much when it comes to player skill or ship performance. Ranks let you unlock sidegrades for the most part, this isn't like WoT where unlocking modules and tanks objectively makes you perform better compared to stock tanks or tanks from a lower tier. The stock Condor is probably one of the best and most versatile ships in the whole game.
Instead CQC matches you according to player skill (something WoT doesn't do) following an ELO-like system. Meaning that if you're a fast learner, even at rank 2 or 3 the MM might match you with you somebody of a much higher rank who is as good as you - because gaining ranks only requires them to play enough, not to play well -. Now this is kind of messed up for rank 1 players, because ELO systems rely on a history of your performance to know with whom to match you - so it starts off by assuming your skill is average and matches you with average players. Which I guess can be a problem for complete beginners, as you still need to learn the maps to be effective.. But really that's only a matter of a few games and you can still perform good enough by just shooting what you see and boosting and chaffing when you're getting shot - especially against average players

 

[Bam]

I'm rank 23 and I am always having a plate of buttocks handed to me by people of rank 1-10.
Persistence got me to 23 not being any good at it.

 

[Daffan]

I'm rank 23 and I am always having a plate of buttocks handed to me by people of rank 1-10.
Persistence got me to 23 not being any good at it.

Yup. Rank shows how long you played, not how good anyone is.

 

[raok]

What puzzles me is this: is combat in the core game top notch, in need of no improvements? They get a bunch of guys working together, get them off the existing game development most likely, and create a spin-off game within a game, while the core remains full of unsolved issues and potential. Potential is the word. Make special places, invent stuff, fuse it with facilities in the main game, pepper it with story. 1+1=3. A living-breathing galaxy? The clock has long ticked past all the deadlines, interest has peaked and the player base won't be growing in the same proportion, ever, and yet, instead of getting it together and improving what exists to the point of perfection and thus attracting even more Sci-Fi fans to the core, they make this bizarre move - a clone of descent, or whatever this long forgotten dinosaur was called. This.. fragmentation of vision is a terrible idea. According to me that is.

I refuse to understand.

If it is about money, then I understand.

Exactly.

Wings, PP, CQC, Planetary Landing... But where is the content?!?

How much more time David needs to understand this?

 

[ElectricZ]

What puzzles me is this: is combat in the core game top notch, in need of no improvements? They get a bunch of guys working together, get them off the existing game development most likely, and create a spin-off game within a game, while the core remains full of unsolved issues and potential. Potential is the word. Make special places, invent stuff, fuse it with facilities in the main game, pepper it with story. 1+1=3. A living-breathing galaxy? The clock has long ticked past all the deadlines, interest has peaked and the player base won't be growing in the same proportion, ever, and yet, instead of getting it together and improving what exists to the point of perfection and thus attracting even more Sci-Fi fans to the core, they make this bizarre move - a clone of descent, or whatever this long forgotten dinosaur was called. This.. fragmentation of vision is a terrible idea. According to me that is.

I refuse to understand.

If it is about money, then I understand.

Wondered that about 1.3/Powerplay as well. They keep adding things to the spaceship sim that don't improve the experience of simulating a spaceship. Here's hoping that 1.5 will reverse that trend.