Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined


10 Good
  1. Did you get any messages about "the game will end in XX seconds unless more players join"? That's the only thing I can think of that might "legit" end the game early in round 2 with a defeat if the other side didn't make it to the core. If either side had a bunch of players leave, then the game might have ended early because of that. And if that happened, and you actually had not made it as far as they did, then that might count as a defeat (even if it was their team that did the quitting). Actually, even if they do make it to the core, then it adjusts your timer for round 2, and so even then it should not end with a defeat before the timer runs out. So I think round 2 should never end in a defeat before the timer runs out. I think it can only end in a win before the timer finishes. So if that doesn't apply, then it was probably a bug of some sort.
  2. This is coming in a patch near you soon (6.1.4)... http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=984359
  3. "Right back where we started"? You mean, owning the node and generating points for your team towards a win? [before I start on this, you should know I dislike this map for pretty much the same reason as you, but to be fair...] Why does someone coming to your aid mean you have to survive? Especially on that map, where it's a game of "we just have to keep this long enough", so that the round finishes, and the nodes reset? There was someone on these boards a while ago lamenting that a team could keep a node (in any "keep the nodes" game mode) by just having one person make it there in time and interrupt. That even though the "stronger" team kept wiping out the opposition, the owning team could keep it by just constantly BARELY getting someone there to interrupt over and over. They wanted more the ESO style, where the team with the most people at the node would just take it. I would HATE that method... I mean, I don't hate it in ESO, because that's the way they did it. But if someone wants that style of "node ownership", then go play one of the other 15million MMO PvP games that do it that way. For this game, it IS valuable and worth it for one person to delay a capture long enough for help to get there, even if that first person then dies. So your "what use are you now"... your value was in the past, where you held it long enough for someone else to get there. Your use "now" I think doesn't matter as much. And, again, especially in OPG. Don't ranged have just as much a disadvantage as you, just from the other side of things? Once they own the node, they have to sit there. They can't use any kiting to avoid a melee that comes to try to take it from them. Well, maybe not JUST AS MUCH disadvantage, since they can at least still pew-pew you, while you can't really attack a ranged at all while they sit 30m away - but still, they do lose a lot of the advantage they have by not being able to reposition during a fight if they are solo guarding. Right, I think your solution is to call for help, claim the node, and hope your team is actually playing the game. If your team is playing the game, then someone should be on their way. (You know, I just thought of something, it'd be nice if nodes under attack would flash or something - I don't mean when you can see them go dim AFTER your team has all died or abandoned it, but it should flash if anyone in the node starts taking damage.) If your team is not bothering to play the map... ya, you are screwed. But if your team is not playing pretty much any of the maps, and you are trying to do objectives solo against an enemy team that's working together, you are also screwed. So OPG isn't alone in that regard. This is my biggest beef with OPG. The best way to win the game is to basically not fight. I believe, in the other maps, hardly anyone actually *likes* being the person standing at the off node, waiting for something to happen. And so what does bioware do? They make an entire map where that's basically the most valuable thing to do! The worst thing you can do is get bogged down in a fight trying to take over a node. If you already own it, and are fighting to keep it fine, but fighting to try to claim one... waste of time unless you have a big enough advantage to just wipe them quick - and what fun is that fight? This game was originally described as a "king of the hill" mode, and it's not remotely a king of the hill map. If it were king of the hill, then if there were a big fight at some node, and eventually one team came out on top, then that "winning" team would get a bunch of points. Instead, they get basically nothing, because the timer ran almost all the way down before the node was captured. And, as you say, someone standing off to the side by themselves, bored out of their minds, was racking up all the points. I think they should change it so it does something like... whenever there is fighting "near" a node, then it starts accumulating points, maybe the number of points is relative to however many are fighting there. But neither team gets them yet, no matter who owns it. Then, when the round time expires, whichever team owns it at that point gets the spoils. So kind of like the kill points in AHG. I'm sure that method would suck in some way too, but at least it would make it worth it to actually fight over a node. Anyway, "Yes", OPG sucks even when you do understand how to play the map... I'm with Trix, I leave it most of the time it pops. Actually, now-a-days, most of the time when I see it, I just quit the game.
  4. You are more kind than I about people's motivations for not playing this map. I assume people generally know how, but that so many just don't care.
  5. LoL - how did you know!? I forgot about that one. Right, "I foolish used force leap, and ended up falling through the geometry and now I'm stuck in limbo", etc. I did quit a match once because I was headed to the ER. I was trying to race across the kitchen to get something from the stove and make it back by the time the door spawn opened, and I slipped and smashed my foot into the cabinet full speed. I was *sure* I broke it (I didn't, but man it hurt!). Of coursee, the 15 minute lockout wouldn't have mattered in that case. By the time they got through all the paper work it was hours later anyway.
  6. This concept seem so foreign to so many people it boggles my mind. Where does the concept of, "I've joined a massively multiplayer game, and yet it's all about ME!" come from? Right. If I had to hazard a guess (because I don't think bioware has said what drove them to put in the quitter debuf - but I'm happy to be proven wrong about that), I doubt very much that bioware read some forum posts and went "oh, Joe, Jane, and Rick think we need a quitter lockout, we better do that!". I think it's a lot more likely that they looked at their metrics for how often people quit warzones and said to themselves, "that's way more than we think is acceptable, let's do something about it". I do think they put in the punishment (the lockout) without trying to understand or address the "why" of people quitting. But "why" isn't measured in their metrics. Maybe they need to add a multi-choice box when people quit a warzone, like they have when you unsubscribe from the game. Why are you quitting this warzone? 1. Because I hate this map, and will never play it. 2. Because my team is losing and I can't handle losing. 3. Because of trolling players. 4. Because there are 30 seconds left in the match, and I love screwing over the next person in the PvP queue. 5. Because Joe is on my team, and that person sucks at PvP. 6. Because I can tell the other team is premade, because they are so good, and I won't play against premades. 7. My house just caught on fire, and I should probably handle that instead. 8. spouse agro 9. The baby just woke up and is crying. 10. My kids were playing the in other room, and everything suddenly went quiet. I have to go see what they broke. 11. ...
  7. This is just human nature... or perhaps "internet nature". I mean, there's the old (new?) adage... if you want to know something from the internet, don't post a question... post the wrong answer. Because people don't want to be helpful. People want to point out where other's are wrong. Can I upvote this about 1000 times? I'm sure there are premades that are in voice chat, and super coordinated, etc. etc. But I think the vast majority of "premades" are a few random people that grouped up because they noticed each other were both "pretty good" and also played the same way each other liked to (that is, death matchers are not likely to group with objectivites, and vice versa ). And also a lot of times, as said above, there's no premade involved at all... it's just the random nature of all us solo queuers happened to put a few people together who actually know what they are doing. Ok Trixie, to chime in about your suggestions... because I know MY opinion is so valuable. ... Actually, I like the lockout timer. Adjusting the time a bit wouldn't bother me too much, but if it's too short then the lockout will be moot. Granted, I've played mostly lowbies since I came back to see how the "steam incursion" is affecting things. But I have rarely seen people AFK, or troll matches, anything like that, despite some of the other posts I've seen here from people threatening to do so for maps/games they decide they should be allowed to leave without penalty. I've played some 75, and even there... haven't seen it. Also, while people still leave, it seems to happen a lot less now. Maybe it's the time of day. Although, I do play lowbies in early hours EST sometimes (6, 7, 8 AM, like that). Usually the first pop takes a while, and then after I get in-sync with the few people playing, it pops right along... all those arenas. I guess when I hit a lull, I just assumed it was because some people went for breakfast/lunch/dinner whatever. I haven't noticed it correlating with someone leaving, but as I typed above, I haven't noticed too many people leaving anyway. However, I agree that it would work a LOT better if they let us pick which maps we queue for. I also have absolutely no problem with this. I don't know why people are expecting to be able to complete **weeklies** on multiple toons in a single day. Well, yes I do, because we've been able to do that for so long, it now seems like an unalienable right. But I'm hardly some PvP god who can solo queue for a few hours and wrap up the weeklies for all 20 of my alts in a single day ( ), yet I have no problem finishing it on a couple toons, and I'm fine with that. Although, the other side of that same coin... I don't really give a cr*p about finishing the weeklies or dailies. The so called "reward" for them is pitiful anyway. I play to just play. I like to win, because winning is fun. I'm not sure when it started happening that a leisure activity was worthwhile only if you "got something out of it". Did people only play Monopoly if they got to use real money? Did people only play chess if there were collectible chess pieces that you got to take from the other person if you won? Do people only play basketball if they wager each other's sneakers on the game (I dunno, maybe that happens now?). What ever happened to playing a game just for the pure competition of it? So, sometimes you lose. And sometimes you lose because the deck was stacked against you. Tough noogies... in my opinion anyway. I'm not sure about this one. I almost always solo queue. I'm not good enough to get invites to groups that often. However, that said... I have no problem with adjusting the queue pops so that it tries to put premade against premade as you suggest. I have a sneaking suspicion though that it might not solve the "premades are ruining PvP!" problem like people think it will. First, I'm not convinced that people even know when they are facing a premade. I think, as stated way up there at the top, that most of the time when people hit any kind of coordination, or just a skill discrepancy, they tend to go for the "must be a premade on the other team". I'm also pretty sure that there are plenty of "premades" that are just a couple buddies grouped together who are not necessarily even that good a PvP. And now that I think about it... if there are in fact constantly super-coordinated-on-voice-comm premades rampaging through the queue, then it would really suck for those 2 or 3 (or 4) buds who decided to group up and give PvP a try for the first time. Becuase they would find themselves ALWAYS against the super-premade. I have a feeling they would not stay in PvP very long. 100% agree with this. Although, if the population is really low, like you experience, it would potentially let some troll basically halt the pops altogether. All they would have to do is queue up and never accept the pop. I wish. The matches I've been in have definitely been about 99.99999999999% completely lopsided. I remember a really good arena yesterday, where it went 3 rounds, and 2 of the three rounds came down to a final fight between 1 person on each side, and could have went either way. Other than that, I mostly remember matches where it was never even a question about which side would win. I don't know a solution to this, but if they'd make their current match making algorithm transparent, than at least some of the PvP geniuses could offer fixes. I'm torn about this. Sure, "no fault of their own", fine. But at the same time, they *did* just inconvenience 7 or 15 other people... well 8 or 16 actually, because there's that person who got the backfill to replace them. If the server boots them, I guess I agree that should not be on them. But if they play with spotty internet, and they get a disconnect because of that, I can see the argument that the lockout should still apply. I think vote to kick should just be GONE. Period. I've seen it work exactly once to actually kick a troll. The abuse far outweighs any successful legitimate use. (Not speaking for ranked... but even in my limited ranked experience from a couple season ago, vote kick == bad ). I agree with all of these. Although, it's also pretty hard to put in a medal system that 100% gives you objective points correctly. I've seen plenty of matches where the other 7 people spend the entire time fighting around the turret, and 0% of the time actually watching the turret and stopping caps. They shouldn't get any objective points for that. So maybe you could only give objective points for actually stopping a cap... but then what about that poor person who guards the off node all game and never sees any action? Or, like I do in voidstar on the 2nd door. I spend most of my time in the middle, watching both doors. I'm not near enough either door to get objective points for defending, and I don't fight that much because if I get bogged down in a fight, then I can't rush to a door-being-planted to stop it. So I end up with no objective points and ALSO no number farming points. But I do make a lot of clutch plays stopping caps that the rest of the team didn't care about. So in theory I like the idea of "revamp the medal system to give medals for better reasons", I think in practice whatever they (or we) can come up with will be just as open to abuse as the current system.
  8. Don't lie... it's obvious that you are just super toxic and you vote kicked everyone else from the match. Definitely a good way to make sure you get only the team mates and competitors that you approve of. Good job!
  9. You can't queue specifically for 4v4 or 8v8 (except for ranked at level 75, which is all 4v4). You just queue, and get whatever bioware decides to give you. They will pop an 8v8, unless there are not enough people in the queue, then you will get a 4v4. They have not said how long they wait for "enough for an 8v8" before giving up and giving a 4v4. Are you under level 75? If so, then you will usually get 4v4, simply because so few people queue for pvp in "lowbies" and "midbies". I haven't played for several week now, but I suspect it still the same, and that you will see more 8v8 as it gets closer to prime time EST. This is for Star Forge. I don't know about other servers. If you are at level 75, you might also be queuing off prime time. I think you have to be pretty far off prime time not to get 8v8, but I hear that on the other side of the world, where they are 12 hours off us normal people they get a lot of 4v4 . If none of that matches your situation, then I don't know what's going on for you. Maybe PvP has gotten to be even more of a ghost town since last I played?
  10. Ah sorry. I have a bit of a knee jerk reaction when people start telling other people how to spend their money. Besides, all I lost was STWOR. Pft. Who cares about that? Ha! That external drive WAS an old drive. I got it like 2 or 3 years ago. I already had a smaller SSD for the important stuff. And since then I saved up and have just built a brand new gaming computer. (So that I can play Squadrons! Assuming it's good when it comes out.) For that I got a nice NMVe 3x4 M2 card. So next time someone else mentions a "old fashion" drive failing, *I* can type "who still uses spinning disks".
  11. Already explained. Not needed. And also, speed not needed. Perhaps you'd like to explain to me how else I should be prioritizing the expenditures of my money? I mean, I don't often go looking for advice, but when I do I definitely go to random anonymous forums and get it from people who have no knowledge of the intended use of the thing I'm about to buy.
  12. 2TB "spinning disk" = $50. 2TB ssd = $250 Yeah, I had nothing critical I wanted to move there. And I have much better uses for the other $200.
  13. Thanks for the quote. Interesting that s/he says "that particular box". Was the context specifically about the PvP box, and thus it really was designed that *specifically* the PvP box would suck? Haha, that would not surprise me. Ah well, I guess it's just a wait and see if they actually do anything to improve gearing (by my definition of "improve", of course - I know some people like the gearing now). As far as "where the expectation came from" - I know it wasn't you asking - but the answer for me is the post from Eric Musco I quoted earlier. But it also would not surprise me that he really didn't know what he was typing about. I've worked in companies with broken communication like that, where the sales or marketing people send out a message and then when it gets back to us devs we respond with, "you told them WHAT? But it doesn't do that at all!".
  14. They did? The only yellow post I know of about loot drops and ilevel is from way back when it was on the PTS. In this post, http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?p=9765376#post9765376, Eric typed... I guess that is a bit open to interpretation, but given that he put in there "up through purple, etc.", especially the "etc." AFTER purple, that makes it sound to me like once you get to a specific color level of gear, you should no longer be getting any of the previous color, including gold level meaning you'd no longer get purple or lower. I don't know what happens in any other content, because I don't run any other content, but with PvP boxes I definitely am still getting a lot of purple gear even though my iLevel is 306 (i.e. "gold"). Is there some other dev post that supersedes that description?
  15. LoL. I was just putting the finishing touches on a new gaming PC I built, and I was moving an external USB harddrive over, and I dropped it. And now it just goes "chk chk chk chk" when I plug it in, and it can't be found by any computer I plug it into. Why do I tell this story? Because that was the drive I had installed SWTOR to. I was going to be able to just migrate it to the new computer without the hit on my limited bandwidth to download the whole friggin game again. Now I'm faced with the download. And yeah, with this gear grind (not to mention all the other PvP things)... meh. Why bother? I haven't logged into play in a couple days anyway, and I don't find myself missing it. At all.
  • Create New...