Obviously not this year
-
@rabid55wolverine said in Obviously not this year:
Your questions came after so just stop. It's been discussed on these forums so if you are curious, go take a look in those threads. I'm not butthurt, I responded to everything you said but none was good enough for you so why keep going? If you would have asked questions before the blow off of EA is trash and SDS has to keep its integrity which had nothing to do with anything I would have responded way different. Obviously looking through the forums, im not the only one who has this type of interaction with you but yeah, keep dropping that im butthurt.
Again, better interactions with people will get better results. Adios
Your just here to argue and get in the last word to derail thread! Be gone!
-
@rabid55wolverine said in Obviously not this year:
Your questions came after so just stop. It's been discussed on these forums so if you are curious, go take a look in those threads. I'm not butthurt, I responded to everything you said but none was good enough for you so why keep going? If you would have asked questions before the blow off of EA is trash and SDS has to keep its integrity which had nothing to do with anything I would have responded way different. Obviously looking through the forums, im not the only one who has this type of interaction with you but yeah, keep dropping that im butthurt.
Again, better interactions with people will get better results. Adios
Ok you know what fine i will tell you what i think of your "idiotic" post.
First of all since you didn't go into depth the rest of this post i am gonna assume just the same way you did. I will start fro beginning.
Me*- Solo battles? Can you explain plz?
You*- (What shoulv'e been posted) Solo battles were a thing that EA created in their DD style modes.
You get 4 (9) inning games a day vs other squads and gain points for how you play wether you win or lose. They could also allow you to play extra inning games vs other teams that users created. (assuming 4 more 9 inning games) And this would go all season long! So essentially for sake of arguement we will say 26 weeks. You would play on All star difficulty.
There is a leader board and each week you get some kind of rewards.
Ok lets sum this up! 8 (9) Inning games everyday every week for 26 weeks.
So 7 days in a week x 8= 56 (9) Inning games for 26 weeks
56 games a week X 26 weeks = 1,456 (9 inning games)
Now keep in mind your whole reasoning for this was b/c i said perhaps 6 inning games when going against strongholds. And your response was - "6 inning games are too long conquest is already a grind"
@rabid55wolverine said in Obviously not this year:
Not really sure what they can do to spruce up conquest, pretty much fine as it is in my opinion. 6 inning games to beat strongholds is too long and it is very dull after a while playing conquest and I'm an offline guy.
If they would come out with a solo battles type of idea, that would be 1000x better than conquest
So 6 inning stronghold games are too long and to much of a grind but 1,456 (9 inning games are not? And my post was idiotic?
So yeah now i will say your idea is "Idiotic" but mostly b/c you said this something EA came with so they are just as idiotic. Come in here and try to shoot down my idea and then you present this garbage pfffft. Oh wait you didn't even present it i did b/c you didn't understand the concept of a simple... Solo battles?Explain plz?
Only reason i am carrying on is now i see what the developers go through with likeminded "idiotic" posts, Like "This game is broke" "hitting sucks" so and so forth.
Mic drop i'm out!
-
@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:
@rabid55wolverine said in Obviously not this year:
Your questions came after so just stop. It's been discussed on these forums so if you are curious, go take a look in those threads. I'm not butthurt, I responded to everything you said but none was good enough for you so why keep going? If you would have asked questions before the blow off of EA is trash and SDS has to keep its integrity which had nothing to do with anything I would have responded way different. Obviously looking through the forums, im not the only one who has this type of interaction with you but yeah, keep dropping that im butthurt.
Again, better interactions with people will get better results. Adios
Ok you know what fine i will tell you what i think of your "idiotic" post.
First of all since you didn't go into depth the rest of this post i am gonna assume just the same way you did. I will start fro beginning.
Me*- Solo battles? Can you explain plz?
You*- (What shoulv'e been posted) Solo battles were a thing that EA created in their DD style modes.
You get 4 (9) inning games a day vs other squads and gain points for how you play wether you win or lose. They could also allow you to play extra inning games vs other teams that users created. (assuming 4 more 9 inning games) And this would go all season long! So essentially for sake of arguement we will say 26 weeks. You would play on All star difficulty.
There is a leader board and each week you get some kind of rewards.
Ok lets sum this up! 8 (9) Inning games everyday every week for 26 weeks.
So 7 days in a week x 8= 56 (9) Inning games for 26 weeks
56 games a week X 26 weeks = 1,456 (9 inning games)
Now keep in mind your whole reasoning for this was b/c i said perhaps 6 inning games when going against strongholds. And your response was -
@rabid55wolverine said in Obviously not this year:
Not really sure what they can do to spruce up conquest, pretty much fine as it is in my opinion. 6 inning games to beat strongholds is too long and it is very dull after a while playing conquest and I'm an offline guy.
If they would come out with a solo battles type of idea, that would be 1000x better than conquest
So 6 inning stronghold games are too long and to much of a grind but 1,456 (9 inning games are not? And my post was idiotic?
So yeah now i will say your idea is "Idiotic" but mostly b/c you said this something EA came with so they are just as idiotic. Come in here and try to shoot down my idea and then you present this garbage pfffft. Oh wait you didn't even present it i did b/c you didn't understand the concept of a simple... Solo battles?Explain plz?
Only reason i am carrying on is now i see what the developers go through with likeminded "idiotic" posts, Like "This game is broke" "hitting sucks" so and so forth.
Mic drop i'm out!
I like your squad battle idea but 4 nine inning games a day is too much. Make that one a day including the weekends (7 nine inning games total) and we are good to go.
-
No thx
-
@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:
@shuker23_psn said in Obviously not this year:
@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:
@shuker23_psn said in Obviously not this year:
I think it could do with a full rethink. At this point I don't touch conquest as I find it super time consuming and boring.
There must be other ways of presenting single player?Somtimes when i want a new approach to the mode i will set my lineup to match BR parameters. Or if there is an event i will set parameters to event type lineup, since both modes are 3-6 inning games.
I would just end up using random players I would never use online. The issue is the time consuming phases of conquering the map and the lack of variety in the matches. I think it's just boring.
I'm curious? Do you play every game of every territory is that why it's time consuming?
Ni O only play the territories. It still takes ages to go through all of the territory 'battles' screens.
-
@shuker23_psn said in Obviously not this year:
@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:
@shuker23_psn said in Obviously not this year:
@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:
@shuker23_psn said in Obviously not this year:
I think it could do with a full rethink. At this point I don't touch conquest as I find it super time consuming and boring.
There must be other ways of presenting single player?Somtimes when i want a new approach to the mode i will set my lineup to match BR parameters. Or if there is an event i will set parameters to event type lineup, since both modes are 3-6 inning games.
I would just end up using random players I would never use online. The issue is the time consuming phases of conquering the map and the lack of variety in the matches. I think it's just boring.
I'm curious? Do you play every game of every territory is that why it's time consuming?
Ni O only play the territories. It still takes ages to go through all of the territory 'battles' screens.
I gotcha. You referring to the turn base aspect of it.
Yeah there could be something they could possibly address there.
Maybe when it's CPU's turn all moves done by CPU are simultaneous instead of waiting for every team? Yeah i could see that being frustrating.
-
Trust me when I say it’s not worth responding to OP
-
@the_canuckler said in Obviously not this year:
Trust me when I say it’s not worth responding to OP
Minersvillemafia 2.0
-
Solo/squad battles would be a nice addition for the strictly offline crowd. It gives users an opportunity to play meaningful 9 inning games against the CPU.
The way other games do it, you can choose the difficulty level you want to play on, and the reward points you receive coincide with your performance against that team, on that difficulty.
Probably 1 game per weekday, 2 on the weekends would be the sweet spot for amount of games.
-
@the_canuckler said in Obviously not this year:
Trust me when I say it’s not worth responding to OP
But it is ok for you and your crowd to go to every thread i create and try to sabotage conversation?
I made a thread welcoming xbox users and i am nothing but nice and that is who i am.
your little group is just pissed b/c i don't back down from your bs thread derailing posts. Just like the one i just quoted! Litearally had nothing to do with convo just personal bashing trying to influence new readers. You are pathetic
-
@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:
Solo/squad battles would be a nice addition for the strictly offline crowd. It gives users an opportunity to play meaningful 9 inning games against the CPU.
The way other games do it, you can choose the difficulty level you want to play on, and the reward points you receive coincide with your performance against that team, on that difficulty.
Probably 1 game per weekday, 2 on the weekends would be the sweet spot for amount of games.
Is it 1 time play through? For instance someone can't play it on rookie get rewards and then play on veteran? Essentially double dipping?
-
@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:
@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:
Solo/squad battles would be a nice addition for the strictly offline crowd. It gives users an opportunity to play meaningful 9 inning games against the CPU.
The way other games do it, you can choose the difficulty level you want to play on, and the reward points you receive coincide with your performance against that team, on that difficulty.
Probably 1 game per weekday, 2 on the weekends would be the sweet spot for amount of games.
Is it 1 time play through? For instance someone can't play it on rookie get rewards and then play on veteran? Essentially double dipping?
You play the battle once, on your chosen difficulty. That's all you get. Then you wait for the next battle to be active.
-
@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:
@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:
@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:
Solo/squad battles would be a nice addition for the strictly offline crowd. It gives users an opportunity to play meaningful 9 inning games against the CPU.
The way other games do it, you can choose the difficulty level you want to play on, and the reward points you receive coincide with your performance against that team, on that difficulty.
Probably 1 game per weekday, 2 on the weekends would be the sweet spot for amount of games.
Is it 1 time play through? For instance someone can't play it on rookie get rewards and then play on veteran? Essentially double dipping?
You play the battle once, on your chosen difficulty. That's all you get. Then you wait for the next battle to be active.
So this mode wouldn't replace conquest just be another avenue for offline rewards?
What kind of rewards would you suggest? Are we talking diamond players or just perhaps packs, stub, and xp?
-
@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:
@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:
@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:
@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:
Solo/squad battles would be a nice addition for the strictly offline crowd. It gives users an opportunity to play meaningful 9 inning games against the CPU.
The way other games do it, you can choose the difficulty level you want to play on, and the reward points you receive coincide with your performance against that team, on that difficulty.
Probably 1 game per weekday, 2 on the weekends would be the sweet spot for amount of games.
Is it 1 time play through? For instance someone can't play it on rookie get rewards and then play on veteran? Essentially double dipping?
You play the battle once, on your chosen difficulty. That's all you get. Then you wait for the next battle to be active.
So this mode wouldn't replace conquest just be another avenue for offline rewards?
What kind of rewards would you suggest? Are we talking diamond players or just perhaps packs, stub, and xp?
It is just another avenue to play offline, except there would actually be a point in playing 9 inning games vs the CPU. No need to get rid of Conquest.
I would imagine the rewards would be packs and stubs. I suppose they can add choice packs, specific cards, XP, or whatever else as well. Usually the reward levels are tiered, with rewards being packs and stubs.
-
- Repayable
- Rewards based on difficulty selected.
- BR / Events type restrictions to force you to use different cards.
- CPU theme teams.
think babe ruth grind from last year but entirely in conquest.
it would be nice to have best of each team/ division/ league/ coast or area/ card type teams to play. - Wouldn't be opposed to some maps with 6 or 9 inning games occasionally.
-
@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:
@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:
@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:
@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:
@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:
Solo/squad battles would be a nice addition for the strictly offline crowd. It gives users an opportunity to play meaningful 9 inning games against the CPU.
The way other games do it, you can choose the difficulty level you want to play on, and the reward points you receive coincide with your performance against that team, on that difficulty.
Probably 1 game per weekday, 2 on the weekends would be the sweet spot for amount of games.
Is it 1 time play through? For instance someone can't play it on rookie get rewards and then play on veteran? Essentially double dipping?
You play the battle once, on your chosen difficulty. That's all you get. Then you wait for the next battle to be active.
So this mode wouldn't replace conquest just be another avenue for offline rewards?
What kind of rewards would you suggest? Are we talking diamond players or just perhaps packs, stub, and xp?
It is just another avenue to play offline, except there would actually be a point in playing 9 inning games vs the CPU. No need to get rid of Conquest.
I would imagine the rewards would be packs and stubs. I suppose they can add choice packs, specific cards, XP, or whatever else as well. Usually the reward levels are tiered, with rewards being packs and stubs.
Sounds like something i would do as long as it doesn't replace conquest. And are you using whatever players you want? Or are there parameters?
-
@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:
@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:
@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:
@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:
@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:
@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:
Solo/squad battles would be a nice addition for the strictly offline crowd. It gives users an opportunity to play meaningful 9 inning games against the CPU.
The way other games do it, you can choose the difficulty level you want to play on, and the reward points you receive coincide with your performance against that team, on that difficulty.
Probably 1 game per weekday, 2 on the weekends would be the sweet spot for amount of games.
Is it 1 time play through? For instance someone can't play it on rookie get rewards and then play on veteran? Essentially double dipping?
You play the battle once, on your chosen difficulty. That's all you get. Then you wait for the next battle to be active.
So this mode wouldn't replace conquest just be another avenue for offline rewards?
What kind of rewards would you suggest? Are we talking diamond players or just perhaps packs, stub, and xp?
It is just another avenue to play offline, except there would actually be a point in playing 9 inning games vs the CPU. No need to get rid of Conquest.
I would imagine the rewards would be packs and stubs. I suppose they can add choice packs, specific cards, XP, or whatever else as well. Usually the reward levels are tiered, with rewards being packs and stubs.
Sounds like something i would do as long as it doesn't replace conquest. And are you using whatever players you want? Or are there parameters?
Maybe a new "barn storming" mode or something along those lines would be really cool. I just really want them to not have any full games within moments. full games should be in conquest or another mode.
-
@agent512_psn said in Obviously not this year:
- Repayable
- Rewards based on difficulty selected.
- BR / Events type restrictions to force you to use different cards.
- CPU theme teams.
think babe ruth grind from last year but entirely in conquest.
it would be nice to have best of each team/ division/ league/ coast or area/ card type teams to play. - Wouldn't be opposed to some maps with 6 or 9 inning games occasionally.
So moments meet conquest interesting!
-
@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:
@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:
@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:
@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:
@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:
@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:
Solo/squad battles would be a nice addition for the strictly offline crowd. It gives users an opportunity to play meaningful 9 inning games against the CPU.
The way other games do it, you can choose the difficulty level you want to play on, and the reward points you receive coincide with your performance against that team, on that difficulty.
Probably 1 game per weekday, 2 on the weekends would be the sweet spot for amount of games.
Is it 1 time play through? For instance someone can't play it on rookie get rewards and then play on veteran? Essentially double dipping?
You play the battle once, on your chosen difficulty. That's all you get. Then you wait for the next battle to be active.
So this mode wouldn't replace conquest just be another avenue for offline rewards?
What kind of rewards would you suggest? Are we talking diamond players or just perhaps packs, stub, and xp?
It is just another avenue to play offline, except there would actually be a point in playing 9 inning games vs the CPU. No need to get rid of Conquest.
I would imagine the rewards would be packs and stubs. I suppose they can add choice packs, specific cards, XP, or whatever else as well. Usually the reward levels are tiered, with rewards being packs and stubs.
Sounds like something i would do as long as it doesn't replace conquest. And are you using whatever players you want? Or are there parameters?
You can use whatever you want. It's not events. If you want to use your best team, or a team to complete dailies or TA, that up to you.
-
@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:
@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:
@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:
@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:
@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:
@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:
@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:
Solo/squad battles would be a nice addition for the strictly offline crowd. It gives users an opportunity to play meaningful 9 inning games against the CPU.
The way other games do it, you can choose the difficulty level you want to play on, and the reward points you receive coincide with your performance against that team, on that difficulty.
Probably 1 game per weekday, 2 on the weekends would be the sweet spot for amount of games.
Is it 1 time play through? For instance someone can't play it on rookie get rewards and then play on veteran? Essentially double dipping?
You play the battle once, on your chosen difficulty. That's all you get. Then you wait for the next battle to be active.
So this mode wouldn't replace conquest just be another avenue for offline rewards?
What kind of rewards would you suggest? Are we talking diamond players or just perhaps packs, stub, and xp?
It is just another avenue to play offline, except there would actually be a point in playing 9 inning games vs the CPU. No need to get rid of Conquest.
I would imagine the rewards would be packs and stubs. I suppose they can add choice packs, specific cards, XP, or whatever else as well. Usually the reward levels are tiered, with rewards being packs and stubs.
Sounds like something i would do as long as it doesn't replace conquest. And are you using whatever players you want? Or are there parameters?
You can use whatever you want. It's not events. If you want to use your best team, or a team to complete dailies or TA, that up to you.
Then i have a problem with it if that's the case. People who spend money on players (early game) would have advantage. Rewards would then have to be same for everyone along with difficulty.
