Jump to content

AndriusAjax

Members
  • Posts

    592
  • Joined

Reputation

13 Good
  1. I agree. but I think some of the new pvpers will have really bad experiences if that were the case. The system definitely feels like an effort to ... level out... the winning for all types of pvpers. Fun for everyone! Equally! Democratic! I guess my thinking is... if you're gonna make a metric like battlelogs - something that is shareable/gloat-able and a pretty clear replacement of 'rankings'... then have it reflect something meaningful. currently, there seems to be a cap of about +20 wins before it tries to overcorrect. Making all good-to-great-to-elite players roughly +20 wins. It waters down the upper end of winning percentage imo.
  2. I guess to answer my own concern, as well as propose a fix... I know the issue is pop. 'elo' systems are 'supposed' to punish high percentile players (winning %) via placing them in matches where they form the upper-end of the balancing mechanic and thereby get placed in with lesser winning% players. I just think it needs to be a 24 hour or 1 week 'look-back'. Knowing that I'm queuing into a carry, where my winning% is muted to 50% bc i started 24-4 is, ...bad. its a bad system.
  3. I started 24-4 on my main, and now every match feels like I have about 2-3 players who are new to pvp (currently 28-10). I'm not trying to bad shame, but its a pretty transparent 'ELO' system that uses our cumulative/historical winning percentage to form teams, placing high winning% with low winning% (and probably tries to balance average dps as well). It creates a ton of uphill battles. A friend said he went 22-0 before basically maintaining a .500 winning % until were he is currently, 95-70~. I went 34-4 on another account, on another server fwiw, now I'm like 39-11. It's just a pretty obvious trend imo. There's a point where it makes me hesitant to queue. Also.... premades. I get them being in the same queue as solo players. Our poor population dictates that. But why should their battle log not indicate that they are in a group or not? Just like specs, Solo or Group should have unique battle logs.
  4. I think the problem is that 8v8 warzone participants are balanced based on: Roles/Premades Win% or D/H-PS -in something similar to that order, or rather in tandem, with the first being prioriry. I.e., First, they're going to try to separate premades and support roles by pairing them off against each other. Second, they're going to supplement those teams, or even base their pairings in the first criteria, by looking at cummulative group win rate and per-second stats, and then fill out each team accordingly. And the problem there is, objective players like myself seems to get paired off against teams that have a lot of DPS, and usually ones that are not playing for the win. I constantly find that on any given night of my 85%-winning percentage, sweaty objective pvp, I never have the zergy premades on my side. Like literally less than 5%. BW seems to have the matchmaking looking at the winning percentage or DPS as mutually exclusive in terms of putting them on a team; high PS premades on one side, high winning %s on the other. And that does make a little bit of sense.. I know that some of the worst defeats I'll have, the ones that make me want to log off for the night, are the ones where the other team has a ridiculous premade dragging their exposed, huge (huge for swtor) 6.25 inch lightsabres around the 8v8 map AND a few sweaty scoundrels playing objectives. Very frustrating matches that make most want to tap out. But I guess to summarize, the games are not balanced around 'fun' or fairness of combat - It's largely balanced around what BW feels are "competetive matches in terms of winning and losing." Not competitive matches in terms of having 6.25 inches of lightsaber down your throat.
  5. You're just tracking correlation. And, as i think anyone would logically expect, high damage correlates with wins. There is not a comparable objective stat (objective points are random and not reliable), so your thesis or hypothesis of 'farming dps being more productive towards wins vs trying to play objectives' is not achieved by your tracking. Aka: Correlation does not imply causation. Now that said, a good damage dealing team undoubtedly helps winning. Its just usually not the damage dealers, but rather a couple or so objective players using the distraction and uptime gained by the damage dealers. Fact is, its a team game. You need dmg dealers, tanks/heals, and a few sweaty objectivers to win most games, or at least 2 out of those 3. A better, but still flawed test would be to play 20 warzones as every spec, do 10 objectively and 10 dpsly. I think youll find some classes help win more via objectives (conc op) and others help more selling out for dps.
  6. Lol after reading some of these posts... I'm embarrassed that I dipped my toes back in the water that is the swtor forums.
  7. This is where someone needs to post the Billy Madison vid or quote about how we are all stupider for having read this. [i skipped to end after reading the OP - but I'm certain you're all stupider] Yes, premades who ignore wins and losses make the 8v8 queue a worse place. I don't mind them bc they generally make games easier to win, but I can see why others do - especially the people learning how to pvp. But premades who are trying to win are great. And you just can't remove grouping in 8v8s. That would be the death of the pvp player base, no doubt.
  8. There is. And it works well enough for the environment. I tend to have challenging games nearly every match. They pair off comparable premades, support roles, and they have some form of system that balances winning % among each player/group within the respective teams so that the net winning %'s are somewhat equal - imo.
  9. Please do not remove the lockout timer. Funny story.. when they introduced the lockout timer, someone made a post about how unfair it was that they could not leave a 4v4 where they backfilled into a match where their team didn't have a healer. They went on to blast the MM system for not giving them a healer... It's as if they didn't realize that the absence of the lockout timer was almost certainly the reason their teams' healer left and they backfilled in lol. It's like... how can any MM system work if the game allows people to leave whenever they want? People blast the MM system, but I don't get why. It's decent enough for the population it has to work with. I mean, they're matchmaking goods, bads, dpsers, objective players, winners and losers, at low pop and *high* pop times... it's not an easy environment to MM in- and the lockout timer gives some level of surety to any system they do utilize. So yea, please don't remove the lockout timer.
  10. Dot spreading in a voidstar, 11k is kinda standard for anyone who is not bad. I don't think it's something I would brag about and post videos of in an effort to undermine objectives as a game mode. First match I played with my balance sage in a year, I did 10k and I was playing objectives, and I was rusty, and it was civil war. A sweaty 11k in a voidstar is nothing unusual at all. Fact of the matter is that some people enjoy objectives and the mind games that objectives can yield. If you're not into them, that's fine. But there's two other game modes for attrition based PvP. And people like this video poster usually suck or are forgettable at both of them, and bc of that irrelevance, they spec dots and post videos of voidstars as a way to validate themselves. Again, that's fine. Some people literally need it. But you don't have to tear down objective players as a way to lift up yourself.
  11. SS arguably has better objective play in 8v8 pvp, but that's only bc SF probably has more farming/dps/zerg/offnode-DMing. SF ranked (solo and grp) is more populated and has better players. DM server is probably comparable to SF, but with cuter accents. And i respect the wpvp inquiry, but open world in swtor is so infrequent, and tbh unplayable, that it's hard/arbitrary to rank one sever over another. And I would even argue - based on 10 years of looking for and even trying to coordinate wpvp - that past results don't necessarily represent future results; i.e. just bc SS had X more wpvp events or occurrences vs SF in '21, doesn't mean it's likely to continue in '22 and beyond. My old guild went hard trying to form wpvp events in like 2015, and by 2017 we stopped. Wpvp occurrences are usually based on a guild or groups' shortlived, futile belief that wpvp isn't a janky mess that ends with 70% of participants saying "too laggy" and leaving.
  12. I didn't mean to say or imply that your opinion was irrelevant. Sorry <3 All I meant by that line was that people seem to focus on the 'acquisition' process of gearing far more than the options. Before the thread headed in that singular direction, which is a fine direction, I wanted to mention my thoughts on how our options have become more and more limited over the years. I'm curious if I'm alone here, and others are fine with standardized stats/builds.. [i know they have plans to make augments work again, and they could eventually bring back mods/enhs. But I still feel like utilities, tactics and implants lack viable options. I want options that alter classes or how you address a certain class in a 1v1. Bubble pop for Sorcs, Ops reflect-vs-lowerCD on dodge may fit the bill... but I'd like to see more options in that realm. If each class had 3-4 substantially different options (that are viable in pvp!), that would make me happier.]
  13. They need to just remove the bolster, and let stats be stats in pvp. Make augments and crystals register again, bring back mods and enhancements (craftable!) that allow a minor degree of minmaxing. So... the base 326 gear should be like 90% effective. With minmaxing, you should be able to achieve the extra 10% (and it should take two months or more to do). High-end pve gear whose total stats exceeds the stat pool of the 326 (or w/e currently constitutes max pvp gear) can be scaled. I.e. 330 gear stat pool (3748) should be scaled to Thyrsian 326's stat pool (3651) evenly. So they'll end up with higher endurance, but lower offensive stats until they get pvp gear. Really terrible gear should NOT be raised to the stat pool of 320 or 318 or something... just sell some generic pvp gear for like 45k credits and 5 medals of commendation, and let people who want to dabble in pvp have like 80-85% effective gear. I just don't see how 'bolstering' stats is that hard. I mean, they make it so much more difficult than it needs to be.
  14. I could give two poops about RNG vs a steady 'currency' model. And even if that does matter to you, it's not alone in what dictates a good vs bad gearing system. Not sure about the OP, but when I complain about this new gearing system, my beefs are about how simply stupid they've made min-maxing. I mean, think about this timeline (which has not been fact checked for dates): 4.0 - Removed skill trees. Instead of being able to place skill points in various trees, now they make you choose 1 of 3 advanced classes with utility options (now we're are all just 1 of 24 ACs, with whatever utilities we decide to run). With the tree system, I played a hybrid VG that speccd into tank just enough to get tank's leap ability. So I was primarily bursty spec, but with a leap. Loved it. I never saw many run that build, and I felt unique. With 4.0, every VG/PT became the exact same thing. This was the beginning of them actively making the game simpler (aka, easier for their 5 employees to 'maintain' {was gonna say 'balance', but lol}) 5.0/6.0 - removed Power as a tertiary stat and now made it primary/secondary. Basically, this was the beginning of spoon feeding standard stats to pvpers. You no longer had to go get your high power; you were served it. They mostly standardized the amount of power and mastery available to everyone by moving both into primary status. Minmaxing simply became hitting certain alacrity thresholds and dumping rest in crit. But at least I could still scour for R-2 mods and R-18/19 enhancements... 7.0 - Mastery, power and endurance all now come in standard amounts. Minmaxing is now: using a drop down and selecting another class/spec's piece to get the desired tertiary stat. Instead of manipulating bite-sized mods and enhancements to minmax, now you get to manipulate just your 13 gear pieces, by themselves. So on my scoundrel, my minmaxing/options are: 1K alac (via the preferred 2 implants), 3.8k crit 0 alac, 4.8k crit (using implants that are not very good (bushwack refunds 1 UH, and a 30s insta crit on bludgeon iirc) 2k alac (2050~) get the 1.3s gcd, but then have 3k~ crit, and hit like a wet noodle... That's it. 500 point jumps in tertiary stats. So yeah, we all have two, maybe 3, options for minmaxing. That's where we're at. They actively moved from stats mattering to stats being served into standard amounts with tacticals, implants and utilities being the "things" that separate us. That's fine, but atm the choices are pretty limited, and most pvpers are kinda pigeon-holed into a certain tactical or implant anyways. That's not the amount of 'choice' I'm used to in MMos. [Now when I read that old message where they talk about slow dripping gear in 7.0 and possibly bringing back mods and enhancements... all of this just says to me: We're completely winging it.]
×
×
  • Create New...