I got into a Pacific Conquest match. It's day 9 and me and my 3 other coalition mates have all eliminated all the active players, all that's left are just bots - but we can't retire cause' there'd have be only 3 of us left for retirement to be available.
It'd be nice if the no. of players required for the game to trigger a retirement vote reflect the no. of players that could fit in a coalition for that map - 3 for CoN, 4 for Pacific Conquest, and so on...
I just find it weird how retirement works in Pacific Conquest as it's only an option if only 3 players remain despite the fact that 4 could fit in a coalition which encourages 4 man parties.
It's just not really exciting killing bots, especially if there aren't really any real competition. I understand that some players who've gone inactive might return, but after 2 days of absence, they would've fallen behind anyways if not already conquered and checking in at least once in a 2 day period doesn't really take that much.
Now I haven't really thought this through, there might be some things I've missed and haven't considered - but this where you guys come in, so feel free drop your thoughts.
I'm playing the US game, I am the only player left, 30+ days, being attacked by 9 different bots. but the clock still hasn't begun to tick. I'm thinking everyday, how long does this have to continue with me being the only player? Are they really going to make me gather enough points while being attacked by every bot in the game. Just a weeeee bit frustrating.
This is a solid idea, but the game devs probably want to encourage players to actually play, even if that's against AI. I still think that this could be a good feature, should it be implemented. The game devs should at least consider this.Z. Sakki wrote:
I got into a Pacific Conquest match. It's day 9 and me and my 3 other coalition mates have all eliminated all the active players, all that's left are just bots - but we can't retire cause' there have be only 3 of us left for retirement to be available.It'd be nice if the no. of players required for the game to trigger a retirement vote reflect the no. of players that could fit in a coalition for that map - 3 for CoN, 4 for Pacific Conquest, and so on...
I just find it weird how retirement works in Pacific Conquest as it's only an option if only 3 players remain despite the fact that 4 could fit in a coalition which encourages 4 man parties.
It's just not really exciting killing bots, especially if there aren't really any real competition. I understand that some players who've gone inactive might return, but after 2 days of absence, they would've fallen behind anyways if not already conquered and checking in at least once in a 2 day period doesn't really take that much.
Now I haven't really thought this through, there might be some things I've missed and haven't considered - but this where you guys come in, so feel free drop your thoughts.
Please log in to post a reply.
