Ilintar
-
Posts
145 -
Joined
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Posts posted by Ilintar
-
-
Gear pretty much does decide don't listen to that other guy. The amount of coordination and teamwork that would be necessary for a team of fresh 50's to beat a team of geared 50's is more than anyone ought to expect in a pug warzone. The OP is right. Geared players will have the same advantage they already have against undergeared players, it just won't be against lowbies anymore. Which is nice I suppose.
Nobody expects a full team of fresh 50s to beat a full team of geared 50s. However, such situations are extreme bad luck cases. In most cases, what you get is a mixed team of fresh 50s, partially geared 50s and geared 50s against a team of overall better geared 50s (but usually also not 8 fully geared battlemasters). In such cases, teamwork and coordination does help if only your side is composed of people that are willing to play team and not just run the map excitedly thinking "wow, my lightning now does 2000 damage!".
-
I call bullsh*t.
First of all, the requirements for daily/weekly PvP quests aren't very restrictive. You're not required to win 10 warzones daily to get the bonus, three are enough. Even on a very imbalanced server, 3 warzone wins are reasonably obtainable if you grind enough. Beside that, there's only so much more that the opposing team gains from winning more than you gain from just grinding.
Secondly, the fact that some players will get discouraged isn't really that bad, as long as there's a decent enough playerbase. Adversity promotes skill. If you're used to roflstomping opposing teams, you won't really have an incentive to get better tactically and to outsmart your opponents. On the other hand, if you know your side is worse, you'll have even more motivation to learn to play team ball and win warzones that way. Eventually, the faster skil increase you get, coupled with the grind will even the odds. Where do the discouraged players appear in that equation? Well, these are mostly the players that are not interested in learning to play strategically, all they want is unload their lightning / rockets on their opponents. As such players get discouraged on one side (and stay on the other), the skill disparity shifts more to the side that's the underdog, thus evening things out even further.
Thirdly - gear and expertise bonus is overrated. On our server, we managed to win a couple of warzones where out of the top 8 ranking slots, 6 were taken by Imperials (I'm Republic). Nevertheless, we held our ground against guys much better geared than we were, simply by playing smart team ball. For example, we communicated well in the CTF scenario, thus always holding 2 guns even though, if we fought 8vs8 at one, the Imperials would win. Not focus firing is a much bigger handicap than having superior gear ever will be.
The real problem with PvP from my perspective is lots of PvP guys who are selfishly focused on leveling themselves up @ lvl 10 and don't really care about the team at all (or sometimes even do, but have no game experience and don't even know how to use their class abilities) - having 11-50 and 50+ brackets will fix this (since there's no incentive for bad lvl50 PvPers to stay).
-
Possibly the same thing that happens when you try to solo a heroic 2+ and your companion breaks your CCs - companion's aoe. Even if you didn't perform any area effect on the mobs, your companion probably did.
-
Well, it's really an issue of an open world type PvP and a tightly contained and balanced PvP. I'm not sure Bioware has decided on which direction to take the game. Balancing PvP like you suggest isn't really an MMO, it's a ladder/lobby match making system.
The fun part is, MMRs are flexible. That is, there's really no need to make a really balanced MMR - but once you have an MMR in place, you can adjust it to rule out large imbalances just to keep new people interested in the game.
What I'm saying doesn't amount to making SWTOR an SC2 in personal combat, but keeping the balance between the bonus for grinders and the incentives for newcomers. It's paintfully clear at the moment that this balance is off - it's never fun to get constantly bashed again and again and again and have your bashers be yet more powerful than you as a result.
-
If this system is incorporated it needs to have a few things in it.
- We need to have it based on individual performance
- Badges can be used to determine your MMR where damage/healing/protection give equal values and objective points give a much larger amount.
- Wins can provide an added bonus to your MMR but have it scale based on individual performance
- The game needs improvements on detecting who's really getting objective points (carrying/throwing/assisting gives nothing). I've gone in matches where we 6-0 within 5 mins and my guildies and I only get 1-3 badges. No reward given for carrying our team to victory.
(a) Obviously, that's the idea of MMR.
(b) Yeah, this is quite important. A perfect scenario would be also to get a good mix of players in a group, but step one would be implementing any MMR in the first place - then you can fine-tune it.
© Yep, wins are obviously overrated in a sense that if your side is stronger / has better players, you can be really good and still win nothing (which is very demotivating).
(d) This is really hard to implement. ET, which I mentioned before, also suffered from this - there were "experience points" there, but you obtained them basically for doing your class stuff (killing people / raising people) and not doing objectives, so people were just playing stupid kill'em all instead of focusing on the objectives at hand. The problem is, there's no easy solution. How do you check whether people are involved in doing an objective? Sure, you can check whether someone is in the vincinity of an objective - but then, what about diversions? Two players sent to lure out a large part of enemy forces away from one objective to the other wouldn't get any points this way - and so on, and so on. Ultimately, there's no way to focus this then to just award people for good performance and correlate this with winning on a comparative (not absolute) basis - NBA has such a stat named "Win Shares Per 48 Minutes", it basically shows how a player contributes to their teams' wins, there should be something like this in a good MMR algorithm.
- We need to have it based on individual performance
-
There is no imbalance jsut get to 50? LOL? Bolster is just to ahve some fun in the mean time and I killed 50's all day and night.
Comeplain about something broken instead of well done.
Thank you very much for the constructive criticism of the "you suck learn to play" variety based on hard evidence and large sample sizes.
-
MMR ruined wow pvp
Can you elaborate? As I wrote in the initial post, I never played WoW.
-
MMO's are inherently unequal by their nature. To implement that would mean changing the nature of the game. I am not sure that is what Bioware had in mind when giving us PvP aspects.
Yeah, I know. I don't propose discouraging grinders since grinders are a large part of the target population. What I propose is a balance between promoting grinding and setting a "glass ceiling" for newcomers. In every ladder system, if newcomers get newb-bashed a lot without rewards then they will leave and the pool of players will eventually dry out. I think protecting against that possbility is worth toning down the rewards for hardcore grinders a bit, especially since it's only _bad_ hardcore grinders that will get penalized (since they'll find themselves outmatched by equal valor rank opponents).
-
Okay, I'm a noob in PvP, but I basically don't see the problem.
Yeah, healer is a multitasking-intensive job. You have to cast heals _and then_ also help dps some enemies, then insta-switch to healing when your partners get low on HP, so playing healer is harder than playing pure DPS.
Then again, as somoene nicely pointed out, healer's shouldn't be "pocket medics". My best comparison is the medic role in RTCW/Enemy Territory. There, healers were mostly used to raise fallen teammates - but they could dish out quite a bit DPS as support, too. Sure, not as much as dedicated "fighter classes", since they didn't have the AOE damage that other classes had, but still they were quite crucial (and similarly to SWTOR, they could offset their low amount of offensive output by self-healing, being really annoying in 1v1 situations).
Also, some people here said that AOE healing is trash. Those people clearly don't get the idea of positional warfare. If there's a fight over a bomb spot and I place an AOE healing effect there, it's huge - basically, 5 teammates instantly get health regeneration, so 3-4k of opposing damage _per person_ gets offset. Which is also a great way to get your healing medals up _and_ help the team in a meaningful way. Plus, after you place the AOE healing effect, you can go help DPS a bit :>
-
Okay, how in the world did ANYONE actually think that this removal was actually a good idea?
I mean, we already have the problem of "rich getting richer" with the current top lvl50 players dominating warzones and killing beginners. Now the patch removes one of the ways through which it was possible to catch up. This won't nerf the top players in any way, since they already got all their gear. This will only hurt newcomers, since they now have no way of quickly catching up.
-
This can work for premades only. And we will get rated WZ anyway.
This can't work with a bunch of random zerglings put together.
Well, the funny thing is, on SC2 it works _both_ for premades and for randoms.
You have a separate ranking if you play 4v4 in your own team and if you play 4v4 solo with random teams. The funny thing is, it actually encourages good teamplay because it tends to weed out the solo players who aren't able to perform in a team.
Of course, this still won't balance out arranged teams being on Teamspeak / having good coordination / whatever, but would still be better than the system we have currently.
-
ELO is just one example of an MMR rating. There's more to MMR than just a single rating, altough in fact some matchmaking systems rely on MMO. For group combat, you certainly need some group matchmaking algorithm and/or leagues/"brackets".
As for the plausibility of implementing MMR without cross-server battles - as I said, it can't hurt to try, after all, the worst-case scenario is battles happening exacly as before, but with adjusted rewards and/or handicaps for actual PvP performance instead of pure level (which discriminates really badly).
As for implementing cross-server battles - as a programmer who's done some networking stuff I can tell you that it's really, really hard to do if the system wasn't originally designed this way. The reason for this is, a server is basically a separate entity, with their own system of player statistics, its current state and so on. Implementing cross-server PvP requires (a) cross-server synchronization of stats (b) cross-server synchronization of battle dynamics. Synchronizing anything on this scale is really hard and requires months of programming/testing/optimization. Thus, it's certainly doable, but I wouldn't count on cross-server battles implemented before next Christmas.
-
First of all, I am new to the whole MMO business, I haven't been playing WoW or any other MMOs at all. However, I did play StarCraft quite a bit, both BW and now SC2.
Why is this relevant? Because SC2 has probably one of the better public matchmaking functionalities out there. It's based on the idea that people are divided into multiple leagues and within leagues people have MMR (matchmaking rating). Also, SC2 has team games with random teams, so the matchmaking there is not limited to pure 1v1 combat.
That system keeps players happy - high-level ones because they get to climb the ranks and play with the best, lower-level ones because they are not bashed every single game by an expert who is just looking for points. Obviously, it is not always possible to assign the players to teams so that they are well-balanced - but if that happens, one of the teams is "favored" and the reward for winning is higher for the non-favored team.
In SWTOR, it would be an even better idea to implement matchmaking because there are inherent imbalances due to PvP gear (expertise). As has been stated before, current "top" 50 level PvPers have an advantage simply because they started earlier, so they accumulated both superior gear _and_ experience and now it's hard for other to catch up because those very players keep winning all warzones - therefore, the rich get richer.
A well-done MMR system could solve the following problems:
1) teams are balanced not based on level, but based on prior PvP performance. Therefore, if it is only possible, teams of similar level compete.
2) when teams cannot be balanced, one of the teams is "favored" and the other team maybe gets some handicaps or gets a bigger reward both if they win and lose (while the favored team gets a smaller reward). This makes it possible for players to catch-up.
3) adding PvP leagues/ranks and publicly visible ratings (do not have to be the same as MMR) adds another social element to the game and therefore makes PvP more competitive. Since ranks are based on performance and not on grind time, you give players an incentive to get better in PvP and also allow better PvPers who grind less to be somewhat competitive.
I don't think there are any negatives of implementing MMR. One could point to the queues getting longer, but that needn't be - as I said, a team can be marked as favored and the _worst case scenario_ is that a team plays a superior team exactly as it is right now, but the stronger team gets the "favored" marker, so that rewards are better balanced.
-
September 17th, just got mine.
The 50s bracket will kill WZ PVP on some servers.
in PvP
Posted
Ok, what if you had 2 premades with equal gear and valor ranks, but one played completely egoistically and the other played a good team game? Tell me I'm wrong. Teamplay > gear.