Interception Affinity range needs to be increased

[SolarDwagon]

With the changes to many interception maps to attempt to force point holding, most interception maps put the two opposite points more than a hundred metres apart, well out of the fifty metre affinity share (and well out of even Vazarin buff range). Interception maps need an increase to affinity share range to prevent players congregating in the middle of the map and ignoring points because otherwise they get no Xp (and therefore no levels or focus).

[Bibliothekar]

30 minutes ago, SolarDwagon said:

well out of the fifty metre affinity share (and well out of even Vazarin buff range)

* forty metres

31 minutes ago, SolarDwagon said:

Interception maps need an increase to affinity share range to prevent players congregating in the middle of the map and ignoring points because otherwise they get no Xp (and therefore no levels or focus).

Agreed:

 

[ChuckMaverick]

21 minutes ago, Bibliothekar said:

* forty metres

WIkia states 50m, where do you get 40m from?

[NinjaZeku]

Interception Towers (and Excavators) could provide "Affinity sharing areas" around them (maybe less than 50m),
where if someone kills within one of those areas, everyone within one gets the shared Affinity.

It's very very silly that doing it correctly, with everyone holding one Tower, means doing it wrong in terms of Affinity gains.

[NeithanDiniem]

Its 50, that was what it was set to when they specifically REDUCED the affinity share range on Interceptions from infinite range to 50m so as to follow the rest of the game and cut down on the interception exp-cave problem.

[SolarDwagon]

1 hour ago, NeithanDiniem said:

Its 50, that was what it was set to when they specifically REDUCED the affinity share range on Interceptions from infinite range to 50m so as to follow the rest of the game and cut down on the interception exp-cave problem.

Except that AFTER that change, they subsequently expanded interception rooms massively because of farming strategies. At the time of the change, 50 m covered end TOWER to end TOWER (not end to end of the map, which was fine). It now barely covers end tower to mid.
Secondly, if you're sitting on towers you're not doing XP cave, because XP cave involves leaving towers uncapped.
Thirdly, 'hallway heroes' was why they introduced affinity range, not XP cave anyway.

Edited February 26, 2017 by SolarDwagon

[NeithanDiniem]

7 minutes ago, SolarDwagon said:

Except that AFTER that change, they subsequently expanded interception rooms massively because of farming strategies. At the time of the change, 50 m covered end TOWER to end TOWER (not end to end of the map, which was fine). It now barely covers end tower to mid.

The size of the rooms never changed, at all. They only added a minimal few new tiles as eligible interception tiles. Old tiles remained exactly the same, and they were the majority.

Edited February 26, 2017 by NeithanDiniem

[SolarDwagon]

2 hours ago, NeithanDiniem said:

The size of the rooms never changed, at all. They only added a minimal few new tiles as eligible interception tiles. Old tiles remained exactly the same, and they were the majority.

They moved the towers significantly on many of the old maps.

[NeithanDiniem]

1 hour ago, SolarDwagon said:

They moved the towers significantly on many of the old maps.

Moving towers != expanding rooms.

[SolarDwagon]

Just now, NeithanDiniem said:

Moving towers != expanding rooms.

Moving towers further to the edges of the map widens gaps between towers, which widens gaps between the areas that players playing as intended are meant to be in.

Long story short, it is considerably harder to stay within affinity range while defending the objective than when the limit on affinity range was put in.

[(PSN)iBoiz]

Yeah I agree, this just doesn't make sense. They tried to stop Draco/Viver play style by spreading out capture points, and yet made interception maps have 50m affinity which pretty much forces Draco play style if you want affinity. Playing Cerberus is just pointless.

[NeithanDiniem]

Just now, (PS4)iBoiz said:

Yeah I agree, this just doesn't make sense. They tried to stop Draco/Viver play style by spreading out capture points, and yet made interception maps have 50m affinity which pretty much forces Draco play style if you want affinity. Playing Cerberus is just pointless.

Its the same affinity range as the rest of the game, Survival often has people running to every corner of the map and people arent demanding that mission type have its system changed. How does the 50m not make sense if it is the same system used in the rest of the game, including game modes that promote the same split-party gameplay common in general PUG play?

[(PSN)iBoiz]

1 minute ago, NeithanDiniem said:

Its the same affinity range as the rest of the game, Survival often has people running to every corner of the map and people arent demanding that mission type have its system changed. How does the 50m not make sense if it is the same system used in the rest of the game, including game modes that promote the same split-party gameplay common in general PUG play?

There was no affinity range for interception maps back in the day, specifically because it required people to be spread out at once.

In survival you don't have to be spread out, and the game doesn't punish you as much because even if the timer runs out you can still extract at any point. Compare that to interceptions where the mission would simply fail.

[NeithanDiniem]

6 minutes ago, (PS4)iBoiz said:

There was no affinity range for interception maps back in the day, specifically because it required people to be spread out at once.

In survival you don't have to be spread out, and the game doesn't punish you as much because even if the timer runs out you can still extract at any point. Compare that to interceptions where the mission would simply fail.

You don't have to be spread out in interception either. Ive played several maps where the players zerg around between the points as a group and keep them capped, letting the enemies always cap one once all 4 are capped by the Tenno so you get the added benefit of that 500 affinity of capping the 4th point. I've also played in one where everyone camped the one point the enemies kept trying to take, to which the enemy will send MOST units to if they can get to a console and start sounding the alarm there. Makes holding the other points a lot more easy when their focus is primarily at one place. You don't HAVE to spread out, and never have had to, and have been encouraged not to specifically.

In survival you are "punished" just like you are in any mission where the players can choose to spread out, just like you do in interception; you don't get shared exp. Its the same exact system in all of them.

[(PSN)iBoiz]

29 minutes ago, NeithanDiniem said:

You don't have to be spread out in interception either. Ive played several maps where the players zerg around between the points as a group and keep them capped, letting the enemies always cap one once all 4 are capped by the Tenno so you get the added benefit of that 500 affinity of capping the 4th point. I've also played in one where everyone camped the one point the enemies kept trying to take, to which the enemy will send MOST units to if they can get to a console and start sounding the alarm there. Makes holding the other points a lot more easy when their focus is primarily at one place. You don't HAVE to spread out, and never have had to, and have been encouraged not to specifically.

In survival you are "punished" just like you are in any mission where the players can choose to spread out, just like you do in interception; you don't get shared exp. Its the same exact system in all of them.

I don't think you understood what I wrote. Interception punishes you by failing a mission, in survival if the timer reaches 0 you can still extract and get the rewards. Heck, you don't even need to get life support pods for some time in survival if you have efficient group/nekros/ivara etc.

Edited February 26, 2017 by (PS4)iBoiz

[SolarDwagon]

Also, people being spread out in survival is something DE have repeatedly said they want to discourage.

In contrast, holding towers in interception is playing the game mode as intended.

[NeithanDiniem]

12 hours ago, SolarDwagon said:

Also, people being spread out in survival is something DE have repeatedly said they want to discourage.

In contrast, holding towers in interception is playing the game mode as intended.

And as I have explained, holding towers does not require the players to spread, they just do so because they think it maximizes their effectiveness, when if all 4 are held non-stop, it actually reduces the affinity gained because you loose that repeatable "cap the 4th tower" affinity bonus.

12 hours ago, (PS4)iBoiz said:

I don't think you understood what I wrote. Interception punishes you by failing a mission, in survival if the timer reaches 0 you can still extract and get the rewards. Heck, you don't even need to get life support pods for some time in survival if you have efficient group/nekros/ivara etc.

Yes, and I see that as an inconsistency with the game modes that needs rectification. Fixing the way the mission rewards you in an endless if you fail to be consistent across the board would be a very good change in my eyes.

[osuman]

32 minutes ago, NeithanDiniem said:

And as I have explained, holding towers does not require the players to spread, they just do so because they think it maximizes their effectiveness, when if all 4 are held non-stop, it actually reduces the affinity gained because you loose that repeatable "cap the 4th tower" affinity bonus.

Lmao, looks like you have no idea what you are talking about. Reduces affinity? You do realize that you might as well kill those few enemies trying to capture the point to instantly get the affinity. You better off killing as many enemies as you can to let them respawn, instead of letting them capture, and then recapturing it for measly 500 affinity.

[NeithanDiniem]

Just now, osuman said:

Lmao, looks like you have no idea what you are talking about. Reduces affinity? You do realize that you might as well kill those few enemies trying to capture the point to instantly get the affinity. You better off killing as many enemies as you can to let them respawn, instead of letting them capture, and then recapturing it for measly 500 affinity.

Considering that if all 4 people are standing around their own towers complaining about not sharing affinity? And that the towers don't get a universal same number of enemies as the others? And how affinity range is 50m which is typically not within range of other players? And that in my system of playing them the players all stay together and share affinity while they kill enemies they cross? Sounds like you are the one that doesn't know what you are talking about, at all.

[osuman]

6 minutes ago, NeithanDiniem said:

Considering that if all 4 people are standing around their own towers complaining about not sharing affinity? And that the towers don't get a universal same number of enemies as the others? And how affinity range is 50m which is typically not within range of other players? And that in my system of playing them the players all stay together and share affinity while they kill enemies they cross? Sounds like you are the one that doesn't know what you are talking about, at all.

Or capture all 4 points, gather in the middle to stay within 50m, kill enemies, prevent them from capturing. Not only do you get all the affinity, you also complete waves faster, and most importantly, you don't screw up enemy spawning with your stupid let them capture/recapture strategy so you get much more affinity that way. So yes, you are the one that doesn't know what you are talking about. I for one don't give a dam about 50m affinity range in interception as it doesn't change my play style.

Edited February 26, 2017 by osuman

[NeithanDiniem]

Just now, osuman said:

Or capture all 4 points, gather in the middle to stay within 50m, kill enemies, prevent them from capturing. Not only do you get all the affinity, you also complete waves faster, and most importantly, you don't screw up enemy spawning with your stupid let them capture/recapture strategy. So yes, you are the one that doesn't know what you are talking about. I for one don't give a dam about 50m affinity range in interception as it doesn't change my play style.

Or if you were paying attention before at all, your strat there is the EXACT SAME ONE that I mentioned that I also use. Congratulations. And enemy spawning over all doesn't change if they cap or try to cap a point, which if you may or may not know, when they try to cap a point they focus paths to that location, making that place be a hotspot for spawns and thus prime farming locations for the team since almost everything is coming towards you rather than away from you.

[osuman]

1 minute ago, NeithanDiniem said:

Or if you were paying attention before at all, your strat there is the EXACT SAME ONE that I mentioned that I also use. Congratulations. And enemy spawning over all doesn't change if they cap or try to cap a point, which if you may or may not know, when they try to cap a point they focus paths to that location, making that place be a hotspot for spawns and thus prime farming locations for the team since almost everything is coming towards you rather than away from you.

Lmao, you really have no idea do you? Your arguments are wrong, you don't get more affinity by letting enemies capture and recapture points, and capturing and recapturing points messes up with spawning. 

Looks like you never even played most efficient set up back when Draco was around. Otherwise you'd know that if you have 1 capture point taken, and then someone else goes there to re-capture it it messes up with spawning of enemies.

[NeithanDiniem]

25 minutes ago, osuman said:

Lmao, you really have no idea do you? Your arguments are wrong, you don't get more affinity by letting enemies capture and recapture points, and capturing and recapturing points messes up with spawning. 

Looks like you never even played most efficient set up back when Draco was around. Otherwise you'd know that if you have 1 capture point taken, and then someone else goes there to re-capture it it messes up with spawning of enemies.

If they cap a point while you are actively killing them, you gain 300 affinity shared with the team when you recap it, if that point you recapture is the 4th point for your team, you gain a bonus of 200 additional affinity, for a total of 500. So yes, you do gain affinity by letting them cap a point because you would recap it afterwards. If you are murdering them before they are capable of reaching the points you are gaining more, you would gain the equivalence of the kill affinity, but if they cap a point while you are murdering them, you gain The equivalence of the kill affinity plus the bonus points by retaking it. Since not every team will run with a pristine team build designed for max effectiveness for that particular map, enemies taking points happens of you don't have every point covered by a player. However if you wish to maximize shared affinity, you stay together, which makes enemies taking points more likely and you killing them before they do capture a point less likely. This is most prevalent on maps that aren't fully open like seen on old Draco and Viver.

Draco worked the way it did because it, alongside Viver, were the smallest sized maps with close-proximity towers where the entire room was practically covered from key locations, letting you cap the points then kill enemies with minimal movement and maximum shared affinity. People never let the enemy cap the other points because from their vantage they could skill spam and get rid of enemies before the towers got capped, or CC them long enough to let the former happen. This was possible because of how open the maps were and how close the towers were placed. That doesn't work on most of the other maps, where you DON'T have a line of sight on 95% of the map from an easily stood-on location like the Draco box. I'm well aware of how the Draco efficient runs worked, most utilized that line of sight for ability spam, notably ones that bypassed obstacles to further reduce the small margin of locations not fully in sight of the group-up location. Enemy spawns are all behind closed doors, to block line-of-sight on the spawn location to give an illusion to enemies not appearing out of thin air. If a player is particularly close to one of those locations, that location doesn't make spawns, but others do since all possible spawn locations aren't used at the same time in the map. A set number of enemies attempt spawn over time, and the game uses as many spawn locations to make that possible which makes the number of enemies spawned at one location lower. If a location is disabled because of a player being too close, it can move spawns elsewhere, generally not affecting total spawn numbers much unless the players are in key locations to cut off as many spawnable locations as possible. Total enemy spawns are typically the same between runs unless a bug occurs or a wave lasts particularly long, which can happen if too many points are allowed to be captured for too long a time. One player going to a tower to cap it or prevent a cap would not cut off enough spawn locations to make a noticeable difference, instead the spawns just shift to be a little more heavy in all other locations that aren't turned off, which if you are in the center of the room, are typically nearer to you than they are to the person capping the point and thus more easily shot down by you anyways.

[osuman]

5 minutes ago, NeithanDiniem said:

If they cap a point while you are actively killing them, you gain 300 affinity shared with the team when you recap it, if that point you recapture is the 4th point for your team, you gain a bonus of 200 additional affinity, for a total of 500. So yes, you do gain affinity by letting them cap a point because you would recap it afterwards. If you are murdering them before they are capable of reaching the points you are gaining more, you would gain the equivalence of the kill affinity, but if they cap a point while you are murdering them, you gain The equivalence of the kill affinity plus the bonus points by retaking it. Since not every team will run with a pristine team build designed for max effectiveness for that particular map, enemies taking points happens of you don't have every point covered by a player. However if you wish to maximize shared affinity, you stay together, which makes enemies taking points more likely and you killing them before they do capture a point less likely. This is most prevalent on maps that aren't fully open like seen on old Draco and Viver.

Draco worked the way it did because it, alongside Viver, were the smallest sized maps with close-proximity towers where the entire room was practically covered from key locations, letting you cap the points then kill enemies with minimal movement and maximum shared affinity. People never let the enemy cap the other points because from their vantage they could skill spam and get rid of enemies before the towers got capped, or CC them long enough to let the former happen. This was possible because of how open the maps were and how close the towers were placed. That doesn't work on most of the other maps, where you DON'T have a line of sight on 95% of the map from an easily stood-on location like the Draco box. I'm well aware of how the Draco efficient runs worked, most utilized that line of sight for ability spam, notably ones that bypassed obstacles to further reduce the small margin of locations not fully in sight of the group-up location. Enemy spawns are all behind closed doors, to block line-of-sight on the spawn location to give an illusion to enemies not appearing out of thin air. If a player is particularly close to one of those locations, that location doesn't make spawns, but others do since all possible spawn locations aren't used at the same time in the map. A set number of enemies attempt spawn over time, and the game uses as many spawn locations to make that possible which makes the number of enemies spawned at one location lower. If a location is disabled because of a player being too close, it can move spawns elsewhere, generally not affecting total spawn numbers much unless the players are in key locations to cut off as many spawnable locations as possible. Total enemy spawns are typically the same between runs unless a bug occurs or a wave lasts particularly long, which can happen if too many points are allowed to be captured for too long a time. One player going to a tower to cap it or prevent a cap would not cut off enough spawn locations to make a noticeable difference, instead the spawns just shift to be a little more heavy in all other locations that aren't turned off, which if you are in the center of the room, are typically nearer to you than they are to the person capping the point and thus more easily shot down by you anyways.

Why don't you test your theory next time before trying to claim it as a fact. Capturing 4 points and staying in same place forces consistent spawns. If you were to allow farthest capture point to be taken it wouldn't affect spawn rate, but if the teammate goes there and captures it it messes up spawn rate for some time. Doing that for measly 500affinity is simply useless when all 4 could just stay in the same place and keep killing waves of enemies to get much more affinity.

[Bibliothekar]

16 hours ago, (PS4)iBoiz said:

Interception punishes you by failing a mission, in survival if the timer reaches 0 you can still extract and get the rewards.

3 hours ago, NeithanDiniem said:

Yes, and I see that as an inconsistency with the game modes that needs rectification.

Why? Other mission types have hard failure, too. (Mobile) Defense: Pod/terminal is destroyed - mission failed. Capture: Target gets away - mission failed. Rescue: Hostage dies - mission failed. Spy: Failed too many vaults (1-3, depending on mission) - mission failed. All of those fail immediately once the condition is met. Exterminate, Hive and Assassination can only be failed by running out of revives. Sabotage is a mixed case that can either hard-fail (enemy destroys the reactor / stops the hacking before you're done) or by running out of revives. Actually, soft-fail missions (Survival, Excavation) are the minority.