5vs5? or 6vs6? To Difficult to code?

[Infernofrost]

How hard is it to limit the sides of a PVP match so they're even? By forcing a non-stop disadvantage on the one side (republic in this case), it makes those who are trying to win with 3 men down not even bother cause it pointless being down 37% strength. Paying to play a game I cant play because of 20 minute queues is Stupid. Why would a customer base remain loyal? cross server WZ's are not in the "design philosophy" of "server faction rivalry" .

 

Well after 5 month try I gotta so goodbye Bioware. I wont pay to wait for things to be done. I gave blizzard 6 yrs of cash cause Its fun to hop in and out PVP style. You guys are digging a big hole here. There is no fluidity to this game what with the countless loading screens and un-polished group interfaces.

 

Start building some roads so your game feels like a game, a living breathing galaxy, not some clunky ghost town DCUO crap. Connect the players or your doomed

Edited April 17, 2012 by Infernofrost

[Icysunx]

They still have not even fixed the bug that prevents warzones from not counting, and it took them 4 months just to fix the regular pre 1.2 raids. I think you already know your answer.

[Pekish]

it's not the code it's the people

People that leave warzone or queue but is doing other stuff... if 8 join and other 8 join then if as soon as they enter check health of the group and they see someone < 13K they leave (no penalty to leave plus on the forum everybody seem to agree that leave is a smart idea)

 

you get lot of match 5vs8 becuase 3 left

 

 

Why u see it more here then other game? because it's 8vs8 and not 5vs5 so the percentual of people that queue and leave is higher and the number of player needed at start is higher so less replacement (and statistically more warzone unbalanced)

 

Make warzone 4vs4 and you will see they will almost never miss people but people will whine that is too little too small they play MMO not single game etcetc.. premade bla bla bla even worst

 

 

I got at least 10 warzone in which 3 left in the first minute

some say "i dont like this map" some say "i wanted to join the next one "(*** excuse is this?)

 

Yeah BW could force them to play I agree big penalty for leaving no quite in the first 5 minuts etcetc BUT who want to play with those whiners? i mean i rather they leave and let someone better to join the problem IS PEOPLE NOT WARZONE

Edited April 17, 2012 by Pekish

[Subatomix]

it's not the code it's people that leave the problem if 8 join and other 8 join then if as soon as they enter check health of the group and they see someone < 13K they leave (no penarlty to leave plus on the forum everybody seem to agree that leave is a smart idea)

 

you get lot of match 5vs8 becuase 3 left

 

I got at least 10 warzone in which 3 left in the first minut

some say "i dont like this map" some say "i wanted to join the next "(*** excuse is this?)

 

Yeah BW could force them to play I agree big penalty no quite in the first 5 minuts etcetc BUT who want to play with those whiners? i mean i rather they leave and let someone better to join the problem IS PEOPLE NOT WARZONE

 

There are ways around that. There are WZs that start with 5 v 8. I'm not 100% convinced that's because 3 didn't accept the queue. But even still, the WZ should not start until an equal number join.

 

It's not the player's fault. The system can and should be designed to ensure equal teams. It's really not that hard to implement a better system than what's in place. Seriously.

 

They've acknowledged that removing the abort timer was a blunder. Why they're taking so long to fix it makes no sense at all.

[Pekish]

are you willing to wait in behind glass door 5 minuts that the game fill up if someone leave?

 

or u prefear it start make you wait 2 minuts behind the glass door and then quit... so u have to requeue wait again and it even break up your playing time even more

 

it's people i tell you

people would grow some ball warzone would be more full

Edited April 17, 2012 by Pekish

[iceperson]

always funny when people talk about how easy something would be when it's clear they have no clue wf they're talking about. i'm guessing the OPs big fix would be for both teams to sit in the holding area at the start of a warzone for 20 minutes until teams are even, or better yet, require 32 people in queue before a warzone pops, so no warzones pop at all during non-peak times...

[Infernofrost]

always funny when people talk about how easy something would be when it's clear they have no clue wf they're talking about. i'm guessing the OPs big fix would be for both teams to sit in the holding area at the start of a warzone for 20 minutes until teams are even, or better yet, require 32 people in queue before a warzone pops, so no warzones pop at all during non-peak times...

 

Actually if only 5 Rep are queuing and 24 Sith are queing. The game should only allow a 5 on 5 to happen (this is without cross server) it just causes more frustration then growth of play. why would I queue a 2nd or 3rd time when I maybe get an extra team member a match and that's IF everyone stays and isn't frustrated by the last games disadvantage. Ever reducing fraction of imbalance

[Quinlynn]

The OP is only asking what the deal is.

 

In SWG for example we had Battle Grounds that were same as WZs.

 

The que for each was veiwable by anyone logged in.

 

When 7 Imps Que'd and 6 Rebs Que'd, the Battle Ground would leave the 7th imp in the que out unless a 7th Reb joined before the Battle Ground launched.

 

I Figure if SOE can make it work that way, WTH can't BW?

[Pekish]

and if that 5 when it start 2 leave you are back to step 1

 

honestly excpet to very off peak hours my warzone always start 8vs8 but before the door open 2 or 3 leave... so what 5vs5 will accomplish to stop people from leaving if they see <13K health

 

actually 5vs5 will never happen on my server since 99% of the time it always start 8vs8 we are not short in people we are short in people with balls that stay in warzone even when it's a difficult match

Edited April 17, 2012 by Pekish

[Pekish]

honestly they should make that if you leave you lose 10.000 credit and you cannot queue for 30 minuts (this if u PRESS the "leave" button)

 

the real problem is the disconnection thing untill disconnection happens it's hard to really punish people leaving but at the same time people will start unplug the connection (because we know how lame people are)

 

and again PEOPLE is the problem that would rather unplug internet the actually play a game that they are losing

 

if Player would be a minimum honorable trust me we wouldnt have ANY problem with this queue system

so you say it's BW fail of the queue system because they didn't create an IMPOSSIBLE perfection

i say it's people faul because they dont even try just a tiny bit to be decent honorable player

 

so what is easier researching an utopic perfection in queue system or make player PLAY the game

Edited April 17, 2012 by Pekish

[Subatomix]

always funny when people talk about how easy something would be when it's clear they have no clue wf they're talking about. i'm guessing the OPs big fix would be for both teams to sit in the holding area at the start of a warzone for 20 minutes until teams are even, or better yet, require 32 people in queue before a warzone pops, so no warzones pop at all during non-peak times...

 

You're right ...

 

We can program photorealistic 3D graphics shaders that render in real time.

We can program network code to synchronize to within a few milliseconds of each other.

We can send a man to the moon.

 

But we can write code that allows an equal number of people to play against each other in a competitive environment. Major League Gaming and pretty much every game that runs on a console are completely fictitious.

 

Also, the world is actually flat.

[Pekish]

yes you can remove the quit bottom from warzone and you will se ALWAYS same number of player (unless disconncetd)

 

there is a thing called "freedom" that human beeing pretend usually that screw up everything

[Quinlynn]

honestly they should make that if you leave you lose 10.000 credit and you cannot queue for 30 minuts (this if u PRESS the "leave" button)

 

the real problem is the disconnection thing untill disconnection happens it's hard to really punish people leaving but at the same time people will start unplug the connection (because we know how lame people are)

 

and again PEOPLE is the problem that would rather unplug internet the actually play a game that they are losing

 

if Player would be a minimum honorable trust me we wouldnt have ANY problem with this queue system

so you say it's BW fail of the queue system because they didn't create an IMPOSSIBLE perfection

i say it's people faul because they dont even try just a tiny bit to be decent honorable player

 

so what is easier researching an utopic perfection in queue system or make player PLAY the game

 

The current que system is easily abused by players using alts as well.

 

No reason at all that BW cannot create a que system that ensures equal numbers.

 

If someone LDs in the middle then as soon as one of the opposing teams players dies, they cannot re-enter until another repub joins / another of their team mates dies.

 

This is not hard and all based on Boolean logic. From my perspective it is just catering to the EMO babies that are horde playing on the most popular faction.

[Kovaos]

Yesterday a buddy of mine and I queued and got in the new WZ. We had 5 players to their 8 for the first few minutes. We gathered at the West node and sat there complaining how dumb it was. Then, 3 people joined our team at the same. We ended up capping another node and won.

 

Quitters quit. Winners win.

[iceperson]

You're right ...

 

We can program photorealistic 3D graphics shaders that render in real time.

We can program network code to synchronize to within a few milliseconds of each other.

We can send a man to the moon.

 

But we can write code that allows an equal number of people to play against each other in a competitive environment. Major League Gaming and pretty much every game that runs on a console are completely fictitious.

 

Also, the world is actually flat.

 

I didn't say you couldn't as long as you don't care about negative consequences. you could wait until both factions have enough players queued for 4 warzones before popping one and that would "fix" the OPs problem

Edited April 17, 2012 by iceperson

[mksaccount]

Yesterday a buddy of mine and I queued and got in the new WZ. We had 5 players to their 8 for the first few minutes. We gathered at the West node and sat there complaining how dumb it was. Then, 3 people joined our team at the same. We ended up capping another node and won..

 

That does happen from time to time, but by far the exception and not the rule. Just consider this, if the game had started at 5 vs 5, would you have gathered at the west node to gripe, or actually played the game?

[Subatomix]

On low pop servers, short handed matches like 5 v 8 happen quite often. I'm talking about start to finish.

It makes pvp senseless.

It should not be this way.

[Reeny]

I support this.

 

Do not understand why this isnt in game.

Why does it have to be 5 v 8 at the start?

 

Just let 5v5 into the game!

If another person join in, then let one other person into the game, so it becomes 6v6 and so on.

 

It's easy to code so that there are always even numbered people on each team.

 

It's laziness not to do it.

[iceperson]

I support this.

 

Do not understand why this isnt in game.

Why does it have to be 5 v 8 at the start?

 

Just let 5v5 into the game!

If another person join in, then let one other person into the game, so it becomes 6v6 and so on.

 

It's easy to code so that there are always even numbered people on each team.

 

It's laziness not to do it.

 

if queues popped when both teams had 5 then you'd be complaining about 5v3 because 2 people on your team didn't accept/afk'd.

[Reeny]

Glad u arent coding any games.

Tell u what, just take the job flipping burgers and dont design any games.

 

Start the game and only let people who zoned into the instance play the game.

In your example, it would be 3 v 3.

The two people on the 5 people team would be sitting out until more people arrive on the other team.

Get it?

 

 

if queues popped when both teams had 5 then you'd be complaining about 5v3 because 2 people on your team didn't accept/afk'd.

[iceperson]

Glad u arent coding any games.

Tell u what, just take the job flipping burgers and dont design any games.

 

Start the game and only let people who zoned into the instance play the game.

In your example, it would be 3 v 3.

The two people on the 5 people team would be sitting out until more people arrive on the other team.

Get it?

 

fail logic is fail

 

10 people are in queue so queue pops. 5 on one team accept, three on the other team accepts. or are you popping the accept window 1 at a time rotating teams? now you're looking at 5-9 minutes of waiting between player 1 getting prompted and player 10. seriously, how do some of you people get through life with such poor logic skills?

[Infernofrost]

fail logic is fail

 

10 people are in queue so queue pops. 5 on one team accept, three on the other team accepts. or are you popping the accept window 1 at a time rotating teams? now you're looking at 5-9 minutes of waiting between player 1 getting prompted and player 10. seriously, how do some of you people get through life with such poor logic skills?

 

Thats not the point at all. The Games are starting with 5 on 8 based off of server faction imbalance, not afk warzoners. Most of the time there are actually only 5 or 6 republic pvpers and a much higher number of sith. None of the afk arguments work well at all because of the auto fail 50% warzone. Warzones wont start a countdown with a 5v8 but a 4v8 its starts. And yes winning as the underdog is so much sweeter. But should a hockey team really start every faceoff with 2 defenceman and a goalie?

[Trineda]

Hello everyone,

 

We do appreciate when anyone has taken the time to express their thoughts and concerns. We will be closing this thread, as there is little room for constructive discussion. However, we do value any feedback and do encourage anyone to voice their feedback on the forums. We only ask that feedback focus on Star Wars™: The Old Republic™ itself, and that it is constructive and as detailed as possible.

 

We thank you for your time and your understanding that we've closed this thread.