Aleutius Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 It's not OK, that's why they're trying to get cross server ques going. If there's a larger que pool then that won't happen as much. When people don't take que, for whatever reason, there isn't a replacement for them so your match stays short handed. If there were more people in que, then there would be someone to take that place and the matches would stay full longer. Also, imo, you should only have 45 seconds to take que to get more que cycles in before the game starts. That way there would be less a chance of starting short handed. It would help, but is by no means a fix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoobings Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 It would help, but is by no means a fix. You can't fix people not taking ques. Real life happens, and I haven't seen a MMO that's been able to fix the problem of short handed matches yet. The best I've seen is minimizing the occurances, and you do that by maximizing the size of the que pool. You can't fix stupid, as they say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subatomix Posted April 16, 2012 Author Share Posted April 16, 2012 You can't fix people not taking ques. Real life happens, and I haven't seen a MMO that's been able to fix the problem of short handed matches yet. The best I've seen is minimizing the occurances, and you do that by maximizing the size of the que pool. You can't fix stupid, as they say. I agree with you on your last point. But I disagree about the issue of N vs N matches. There are many algorithms that fix this. If nothing else, the queue system can ensure the match STARTS with only an equal number of players. Stupid has nothing to do with it, on a conceptual level anyhow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleutius Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 (edited) You can't fix people not taking ques. Real life happens, and I haven't seen a MMO that's been able to fix the problem of short handed matches yet. The best I've seen is minimizing the occurances, and you do that by maximizing the size of the que pool. You can't fix stupid, as they say. No there is a fix. It just means that mmos would have to work like real life. The strong get stronger, the weak get weaker. You would have your warzones though. But people seem to think that real life logic does not apply in video games. They like to think that everyone can be the hero. Truth of the matter is, as long as skill vs. rewards continues to be neglected, this problem will always exist. People will continue to live in the delusion that everyone is equal and will drive themselves crazy to try and make it work (communism is funny that way). Heck, this is even a weakness in Democracy. But hey, not everyone can accept this cold truth. It's why we have warm and fuzzy Bioware to make us feel better, and help us live in ignorance. Edited April 16, 2012 by Aleutius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullwrath Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Games should *never* start with an uneven number of players. Period. We figured this out in 3rd grade kickball. I wonder how long it will take Bioware to achieve the same wisdom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iiell Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 BioWare has no control over unbalanced populations. The only thing they can do is merge servers, which I think will be the next big thing to happen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kellour Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 It is being officially changed, thankfully. Check the sticky at the top of the PVP forums or the Dev Tracker. WZ Shutdown for incomplete teams will be back. They are also increasing the time they take looking for a full 8 ppl so we wont start as Shorthanded as often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astarica Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Are people playing on some kind of utopia server where people on your side don't decide to quit the game before they even see the enemy because they don't like your name? Just be glad you don't play on my server where some people join up for the sole purpose of quitting on your team. There's no amount of detection that will stop someone who joins and then immediately quits. A deserter debuff wouldn't help because then that guy will just stand somewhere for the whole fight and that'd be worse because you won't even have a shot at replacement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwrtheyn Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 they want runing matches with the new reward system nearly 50% of em will end fast cause of the losing side leaves,so the winning side gets the "extra" medals for fast winning(happend on pts all the time) easy fix would be: ->que for warzone ->warzone pops -> rdy check(marked 30sec as rdy) ->if all rdy -> loading warzone starts ELSE waiting 4 players window(30s) so all matches start 8 vs 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subatomix Posted April 16, 2012 Author Share Posted April 16, 2012 It is being officially changed, thankfully. Check the sticky at the top of the PVP forums or the Dev Tracker. WZ Shutdown for incomplete teams will be back. They are also increasing the time they take looking for a full 8 ppl so we wont start as Shorthanded as often. I only see the note about changing minimum medal rewards, not the abort timer. Please post a link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subatomix Posted April 16, 2012 Author Share Posted April 16, 2012 Are people playing on some kind of utopia server where people on your side don't decide to quit the game before they even see the enemy because they don't like your name? Just be glad you don't play on my server where some people join up for the sole purpose of quitting on your team. There's no amount of detection that will stop someone who joins and then immediately quits. A deserter debuff wouldn't help because then that guy will just stand somewhere for the whole fight and that'd be worse because you won't even have a shot at replacement. A deserter debuf + kick would mean that player gets removed and replaced. Also, that player wouldn't be able to requeue for a while. Increase the debuf for repeated wz ejection and that player is less and less involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astarica Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 A deserter debuf + kick would mean that player gets removed and replaced. Also, that player wouldn't be able to requeue for a while. Increase the debuf for repeated wz ejection and that player is less and less involved. No because there's absolutely no way you can stop people from being useless. Otherwise you just give any random 4 guys the ability to grief anyone. In fact, given there are usually more useless players than useful player in a WZ, what's stopping from the useless guys from uniting and kick out the useful guys as an act of revenge? I see games where you got 3 guys sitting around doing nothing the whole time. Those guys are just 1 away from at least having a majority and I'm sure there's probably another useless guy in there too hiding in a less obvious location. You can't vote kick anybody without at least a majority and it's not hard to see the lazy come up with a majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwrtheyn Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 btw bevore they removed it the timer to end was 30sec on PTS so it was random most of the time which side wins(hutball who gets get ball first) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoobings Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 No there is a fix. It just means that mmos would have to work like real life. The strong get stronger, the weak get weaker. You would have your warzones though. But people seem to think that real life logic does not apply in video games. They like to think that everyone can be the hero. Truth of the matter is, as long as skill vs. rewards continues to be neglected, this problem will always exist. People will continue to live in the delusion that everyone is equal and will drive themselves crazy to try and make it work (communism is funny that way). Heck, this is even a weakness in Democracy. But hey, not everyone can accept this cold truth. It's why we have warm and fuzzy Bioware to make us feel better, and help us live in ignorance. I'm not really sure we'er talking about the same thing. The game isn't just queing 5 people on one side and 8 on the other, and then moving on. Everyone realizes that right? The game is queing up 8 on each side, and then for one reason or another people aren't taking their ques. Then, there isn't replacements for those people so the match stays short handed. Before 1.2 I've had 6v6 warzones before. You COULD make it so the match doesn't start until both sides are full... but only if X-server ques were in. Otherwise you could potentially get stuck in a nonstarting warzone for a really long time and that would be even more stupid than just playing it out short handed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kellour Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 I only see the note about changing minimum medal rewards, not the abort timer. Please post a link? http://www.swtor.com/community/devtracker.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astarica Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 I'm not really sure we'er talking about the same thing. The game isn't just queing 5 people on one side and 8 on the other, and then moving on. Everyone realizes that right? The game is queing up 8 on each side, and then for one reason or another people aren't taking their ques. Then, there isn't replacements for those people so the match stays short handed. Before 1.2 I've had 6v6 warzones before. You COULD make it so the match doesn't start until both sides are full... but only if X-server ques were in. Otherwise you could potentially get stuck in a nonstarting warzone for a really long time and that would be even more stupid than just playing it out short handed. Or the guys join and then quit immediately and if there's no replacement you're now short-handed. Unless BW can start predicting who will quit you can't stop this unless you want to just lock the people who accept the queue inside a waiting zone if anybody quit before the match started, and that'd suck too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subatomix Posted April 16, 2012 Author Share Posted April 16, 2012 Or the guys join and then quit immediately and if there's no replacement you're now short-handed. Unless BW can start predicting who will quit you can't stop this unless you want to just lock the people who accept the queue inside a waiting zone if anybody quit before the match started, and that'd suck too. If you quit immediately, you get a 30 minute timeout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astarica Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 If you quit immediately, you get a 30 minute timeout. Then you're just asking that guy to be useless in the entire fight, and there's no method to deal with uselessness either seeing a lot of people have no problem being useless even while trying to be useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subatomix Posted April 16, 2012 Author Share Posted April 16, 2012 Then you're just asking that guy to be useless in the entire fight, and there's no method to deal with uselessness either seeing a lot of people have no problem being useless even while trying to be useful. He would have to move his mouse and acknowledge / deny vote kick requests. It would require some input. The point is, there are better systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subatomix Posted April 16, 2012 Author Share Posted April 16, 2012 http://www.swtor.com/community/devtracker.php Awesome. Thanks. I've also asked guildmates to keep me posted if things improve. Guess I'll have to wait and see if this "minor patch" solves some of the problems 1.2 created. Wish they'd fix the que'ing as group thing too though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoobings Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Awesome. Thanks. I've also asked guildmates to keep me posted if things improve. Guess I'll have to wait and see if this "minor patch" solves some of the problems 1.2 created. Wish they'd fix the que'ing as group thing too though. That'll be with ranked WZs. Unranked will always allow premades of 4, Ranked will keep premades with premades, and solo quers with solo quers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McGarnagle Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 (edited) While this doesn't completely apply, you have to remember the bug where a person is not in the ops frame even though he is in the warzone. I cannot even count how many times a group member is missing from the ops frame. That is horribly annoying for a healer, and of course really annoying for the person not in the ops frame since he probably won't get healed very often. And yes, it's still there post 1.2 (only took a couple of games before it happened to one of my team members). Doesn't really apply to the 5v8 situation you mentioned, but there are times I think we are short handed but in reality someone is not in the ops frame. Edited April 16, 2012 by McGarnagle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astarica Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 He would have to move his mouse and acknowledge / deny vote kick requests. It would require some input. The point is, there are better systems. You'll be surprised how much effort people will go through to be useless. I've seen a game with 3 guys standing in our only turret the entire game in Alderran, and they acknowledge chat. If someone attacked that turret, they will actually defend (because if they just die they'll have to run back from spawn). But they sure aren't doing anything useful toward winning the game. If there's a deserter debuff, expect to see a lot of people guarding a completely useless area in your game. They're not AFK, and they're not doing anything illegal. In Voidstar you can simply stand by a blown door. No enemy is going to come through there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subatomix Posted April 16, 2012 Author Share Posted April 16, 2012 You'll be surprised how much effort people will go through to be useless. I've seen a game with 3 guys standing in our only turret the entire game in Alderran, and they acknowledge chat. If someone attacked that turret, they will actually defend (because if they just die they'll have to run back from spawn). But they sure aren't doing anything useful toward winning the game. If there's a deserter debuff, expect to see a lot of people guarding a completely useless area in your game. They're not AFK, and they're not doing anything illegal. In Voidstar you can simply stand by a blown door. No enemy is going to come through there. Well, just because people all die eventually doesn't stop researchers from curing diseases, ya know? Some system would be an improvement over no system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astarica Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Well, just because people all die eventually doesn't stop researchers from curing diseases, ya know? Some system would be an improvement over no system. But it's a worse system. Right now those guys leave and I have a slim chance of getting someone who might actually contribute. In your proposed system those guys will just huddle by a turret/blown door/middle of nowhere forever and contribute 0 toward winning. There are games where my side started out 6v8 and we adapted our strat to stall time to keep the game tied until reinforcements arrived. In a deserter system, we'd start with 8 but 2 of those guys will just stand around doing nothing for the whole game and there wouldn't be any reinforcements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts