Jump to content

sGroggy

Members
  • Posts

    158
  • Joined

Everything posted by sGroggy

  1. That's not the only issue: https://forums.swtor.com/topic/926577-pvp-scoreboard-bugs/ But I don't PvP as much anymore due to their latest bs, so maybe they fixed it in the meantime, but I doubt it.
  2. Not saying this is incorrect, but just as an FYI: if I'm not mistaken the launcher is (for a big part) also based on a solution from a third party vendor. Although that still doesn't absolve BW of course.
  3. We are all afraid of your ass whuppin', so we stop queueing when you're online.
  4. It's quite clear "match ditchers" are not the only ones being affected. And even then...
  5. Not sure if this has been discussed before, but if BW wants this "battle record" to have any meaning - which I guess they do as otherwise it would not have been added - being backfilled in a match, have the match end in the next 30s, and then have this counted towards your win/loss ratio is rather ridiculous. I guess nobody would complain too much if it's a win, but it still doesn't make any sense. Yes, I know this is far from the only issue. This is an additional issue nonetheless, IMO. Initial idea would be not to have backfilled losses count toward win/loss ratio, but this is obviously a teribble idea, especially as it may be abused. Not count a backfilled win/loss at all? Also not a great idea. Don't backfill if the match is about to end anyway? Still doesn't solve it completely as the amount of time left in many cases is probably not enough to have any meaningful impact anyway. Also, question then is, which amount of time left is the threshold. Trying to solve this issue with the severe lock-outs they have currently? An even worse idea and obviously also not working. Maybe show a message to the player that (s)he's about to be backfilled, so (s)he has the chance to decline being backfilled and thereby prevent the W/L ratio issue if the player cares about it at all? Any other ideas on how to solve this? Any other MMOs with a similar system; how do they solve this?
  6. sGroggy

    Solos Ruin PVP

    Feel free to send me a pm if you ever feel the need to talk.
  7. Aha, so that's what I've been doing wrong. Thanks.
  8. @TrixxieTriss My bad for the off-topic, but: that's good information. Can you please tell me how to add someone to my ignore list on the forum? I can't seem to find this option. Maybe you can link me to a relevant thread? Thanks.
  9. I have noticed the same behavior as described by the OP. "Having a bad driver" doesn't make too much sense really. Although I did not (yet) verify for myself, what @SteveTheCynic is stating on the other hand, sounds very plausible. Meaning it's not a matter of "winning the lottery", it's simply a matter of a certain setting being used or not (in your case, not, I would assume). So if it's indeed the windows scale factor, I guess it's not a bug, it's a feature 😑
  10. Getting a lot of medals does not mean you're a good player. It simply means you're good at doing what needs to be done to earn said medals. In an ideal world, those two things would coincide. In practice however, they do not. And in my opinion, they never truly will. They can definitely improve upon the current situation. But they will never be able to automatically award medals with 100% accuracy only when contributing to the team, because this is simply not a trivial thing to define. I'm 1v8ing at enemy pylon for the entire round. I'm obviously doing something good. I'm 1v2ing at the enemy pylon, I get killed. Did I contribute by stalling and were my team mates able to cap/grab orb in the meantime, or did I just give the enemy team points from being killed? Not so clear this time. Bad example maybe, but you get the point. As others have pointed out; you could be essential to your team's victory (by stalling, clearing ramps in HB for ball carrier, ... ), and not get any medals for it. But as said: this is not something trivial to define medals for.
  11. The only reason, or at least one of, that medal count was so high, is presumably because of a lot of medals for winning within x minutes. It's been posted by numerous people that getting medals as a healer is, let's say, not the easiest. Seemingly gloating with that thread is not very constructive; especially as I only see that happening with VS. Unless someone can show screenshots from WZs different than VS where people consistently get such a high medal count, getting 19 medals in only VS is irrelevant for the bigger discussion at hand. If someone does come up with such screenshots, I will gladly admit that I'm wrong. Until that time, we should not claim there's no issue, just because of a single VS game. Please, I urge BW to do listen to these other people.
  12. sGroggy

    Valor in 7.2

    Why is it absurd? It serves its purpose perfectly. So? If you want the title, you have to put in the effort. Why is this absurd? Agreed. However, I would hope that by the time you reach valor 100, you would've picked up something along the way.
  13. What does 64 bit, according to you, have to do with any of this?
  14. Yeah, even if I'd have the time; I don't want to. I don't care about operations. Neither should I have to, to be able to PvP without a disadvantage (if actually the case).
  15. Agreed. I tend to ignore it as well as it's completely ridiculous. Don't be surprised though if you get a 1 point warning, stating the following: Oh well...
  16. sGroggy

    Something new

    Oh, @TrixxieTriss, what an unexpected appearance. Welcome back (?).
  17. I did not say that it does. I said this makes them bad at objective based pvp.
  18. sGroggy

    Valor in 7.2

    I definitely wouldn't use it in such a case, others might. I care. So it's quite likely others do to. If you find them or me "of note" or not, that I don't care about. Although the answer to that is clear. Although far from fool proof it's a nice indication of experience, and accomplishment. Again this kind of "X is already bad so let's make Y also bad" reasoning to justify something... Justifying making the valor titles more meaningless just because some other achievements (wings, ... ) were rendered meaningless although they shouldn't have, is a strange way of thinking IMO.
  19. sGroggy

    Valor in 7.2

    Yes I am aware, and I'm not a fan of that either. It would be taking something bad (just with the second style), and making it worse (all alts).
  20. sGroggy

    Valor in 7.2

    So I can flaunt this title at one of my alts with a class with which I never even pvped and would absolutely suck? I'm not a fan.
  21. I really have the impression they're doing something like: At some point generate a new order of maps. E.g.: VS, AHG, NC. Now let's say there's only 1 queue going; they will go through this map order. If a second queue is needed, they will fire up a queue with the same map order. I get this impression, because I think I mainly get such "same map streaks" when I take a while to look at the scoreboard. So, assume I'm playing VS in queue 1 initially. If I wait too long, to queue again, I end up in queue 2, etc. Or in table form to make it more clear, with x marking the matches I would end up in: Match | Match | Match | Match | Match --------------+-------------+--------------+--------------+----------+------- Queue 1 | VS (x) | AHG | NC | | Queue 2 | n/a | VS (x) | AHG | NC | Queue 3 | n/a | n/a | VS (x) | AHG | NC Or, the above is complete bs and it's absolutely not working like that. But that's at least what it looks like to me.
  22. Why? Do you like getting humiliated? 😉 No seriously, it would be interesting indeed. For example let's call it a 4v4 ranked players team vs for example former 8v8 ranked players. I'm mentioning former 8v8 players as an example, because I'm not talking about the "let's click clicky thingy and die while I'm being mercilessly tunneled by the enemy team" kind of objective player, to be clear. However, I have a very strong feeling. The "4v4 ranked players" team would suddenly start caring a lot more about objectives in order to win. Because if they don't, they will obviously lose. Which is exactly the point. Look, I'm not saying even a non-idiot objective player can take on a 4v4 ranked player in a duel - maybe they can, maybe they can't, it's irrelevant for the point I'm trying to make. But as I have the impression you think this is what I'm discussing about, sure, let's say hypothetically the 4v4 ranked player wins in a duel for all I care. I'm saying as long as this player completely ignores the objectives, he is bad at objective based pvp. I would hope this is something we can agree on. Maybe the 4v4 ranked players would be better objective based pvpers, if only they cared about the objectives, sure. But as long as they don't ("because boring/it's not pvp it's pve/whatever", which is an opinion you're entitled to), they're not. Are they better in a duel/arena format? Sure, could be, I'm not even trying to dispute that.
  23. This changes nothing about what I said. I'm at valor 100 for many years already. And I'm not "there yet". But sure, let's say that at some point I am. Then I would also be bad at WZs.
  24. Yes. It is very much that they are bad. At objective based pvp. They may be great at dpsing and you may talk all about dps pressure. But they're simply bad at WZ. In arenas they may be great; I don't care. In WZ they're bad. The not winning at the end makes it quite obvious only dpsing is not how it was intended to or should be played. "Clicking node is not pvp" according to you, is completely irrelevant. Playing for objectives (note I didn't say clicking nodes like an idiot and forego any dpsing while appropriate == objective based pvp) is what's intended for WZ. Hence, if you're not doing that, you're objectively (pun not intended) bad at it.
×
×
  • Create New...