Alliance Mission Difficulty Based on Individual Player

DIKAIO

I've had the opportunity to play with many alliances and have made many new friends. Skill varies widely but the common variable in the game as I see it is everyone want's to play with their friends. Currently you can't be in an Alliance with friends if the skill level is too wide. If you do this causes piloted accounts or skilled players bored because they are playing below thier potential. Is it possible to change AM so that each individual player could change his Alliance difficulty based on his own skill level? This would allow that player to go down his path with bots for say difficulty 40 if he needed to while other players (friends) could go down their path at difficulty 80. In the end, it would be the accumulated score that would determine where an alliance places.

DIKAIO

Expanding on the thought above. I would think you would have less players quitting because they would be playing at a comfortable difficulty for them individually and you would be playing with a solid group of 18 friends hopefully.

KillMasterC

Since there are linked nodes, I'll go for battlegroup settings instead of individual.

Manthro

KillMasterC wrote: »

Since there are linked nodes, I'll go for battlegroup settings instead of individual.

If this were to happen, battlegroup settings make the most sense, I dunno if it would be possible to run individual settings

Faithz17

Yes it would be good if we can run different levels on a BG basis in the same alliance. I can think of so many scenarios where this would be good for the game, to keep both alliances and players active. Points are currently computed based on BG totals so implementation would not be impossible. Do consider this suggestion please.

JKL

I like the possibility of different difficulties for each BG. It’s much easier to find 6 people of similar skill level than finding a whole alliance of 18.

KingChris2

Is great idea, but it is unrealistic. Why because there a lot of coding need to be change for this to work.

Dircules

KingChris2 wrote: »

Is great idea, but it is unrealistic. Why because there a lot of coding need to be change for this to work.

There;s a lot of coding to make a game. Might as well not do it.

nomisu

i do like the idea of having different different difficulty setting for each battlegroup as well.

my only concern is yeah whether it would mess up the coding too much and create moar game crashing bugs...

Rework

nomisu wrote: »

i do like the idea of having different different difficulty setting for each battlegroup as well.

my only concern is yeah whether it would mess up the coding too much and create moar game crashing bugs...

If we think that way, there will never be another improvement in the game.

Allowing for different BGs to run different levels shouldn't be that hard of a coding task.

KillMasterC

Different bg can have different level in different map. Summing up respective bg scores (1/3 of the current 18 player setup) to make the final score. Then comes the question: are the milestones map-specific or not?

Darm0k

KillMasterC wrote: »

Different bg can have different level in different map. Summing up respective bg scores (1/3 of the current 18 player setup) to make the final score. Then comes the question: are the milestones map-specific or not?

I'm for different levels per battle group, but should keep it the same map.

Manthro

I'll cut and paste my thoughts on individual BG difficulty from another thread.. I think this is important to help prevent abuse if they were to ever implement dynamic difficulty:


There should be a limit of the differential between the highest difficulty being run and the lowest.

Say, 10 levels difference max.