wadecounty Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 Is this intended? Did Bioware ever offer an explanation for this? On my server, especially in the lower brackets, the republic side is undermanned. So often a game will start 8 on 4, and it'll just continue. Even if people slowly trickle in, it tends to change nothing, as most games are decided in the first couple of minutes, but often times the game will just stay 8 on 4 for its entirety. The worst part is, when you're outnumbered 2:1, sometimes its difficult to even get medals, especially in the lower level brackets when you may be missing key abilities for your class. So, is there a reason these games don't end early anymore? Any explanation on this, or was this an intended change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkJedi Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 intended change by bioware Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chloe Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 (edited) I actually put in a CS ticket about this just yesterday. They say it's working as intended and was changed at the request of the community... It baffles me they think we want 3-4 v 8... I think warzones ending early are fine. Maybe it wasn't before because people got shafted out of medals, but now you get the "under x minutes victory" medals so who cares. Imo, if it's not 8v8, make it end. Edited May 19, 2012 by Chloe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampari Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 Is this intended? Did Bioware ever offer an explanation for this? On my server, especially in the lower brackets, the republic side is undermanned. So often a game will start 8 on 4, and it'll just continue. Even if people slowly trickle in, it tends to change nothing, as most games are decided in the first couple of minutes, but often times the game will just stay 8 on 4 for its entirety. The worst part is, when you're outnumbered 2:1, sometimes its difficult to even get medals, especially in the lower level brackets when you may be missing key abilities for your class. So, is there a reason these games don't end early anymore? Any explanation on this, or was this an intended change? Pretty selfish ! Think about the 8! Twice as many people have something to gain compared to your team so stop whining! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sookster Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 I actually put in a CS ticket about this just yesterday. They say it's working as intended and was changed at the request of the community... Really? I haven't seen anyone ask for that, nobody wants a 3 vs 8 match, why would they say it was a request by the community? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limibeans Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 Because there are not very many players left, its easy to abuse the 90 sec timer and farm comms by strategically queuing. There wouldnt be an issue if there wernt so many empty servers. You could literally farm 3000-5000 comms an hour by queuing two coordinated groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renita Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 Pretty selfish ! Think about the 8! Twice as many people have something to gain compared to your team so stop whining! I have to disagree, as someone who has been on both sides. Personally I would rather just get back in queue and wait for the next full match when either side outnumbers the other team by 2 or 3. Even when I am on the team that has 8. I like it much better when I play a game where we are evenly matched. It feels like a cheap win when the other team is short handed or worse half of the team gives up and just sits trying to get defensive medals. I like to pvp to pvp, not just to get coms. Also, as mentioned earlier in the thread, the fact that people get medals for quick victories solves the issue of people not getting anything for matches that end early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WickedImage Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 The better questions is why do 8v4's start in the first place.....hmmm? People who have cued up for a WZ should have to accept some type of command prompt before the zones actually launch. That way, you could minimize this problem. Had a Imp vs. Pub start last night and end on civil war, by the time we reached the start pad on the trip down. Match started like 8 v 2 or some garbage. Its a waste of time to start those matches. Fix the mechanics of how wz's start up and this could go away, by and large. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V-Serp Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 Really? I haven't seen anyone ask for that, nobody wants a 3 vs 8 match, why would they say it was a request by the community? There were lots of long threads with people ************ about games ending early, claiming that people were exploiting wzs to gain levels quickly and get a lot of comms. Never mind that Bioware debunked those claims. On early release, people insisted there were level 50s running around 2 days into early release because of this. These people were hysterical and there were plenty of threads about it, and the threads got really long. The devs basically just flat out called the people making those claims liars, I personally thought they were probably Blizzard employees or trolls. At any rate, the community outcry was apparently loud enough that Bioware listened to it. Along with nerfing Sorc/Sage I guess, and the other design decisions in 1.2. The community is absolutely atrocious, and Bioware seems to listen to the dumbest people when deciding balance and design. I don't know whether those people that were ************ are still playing or if they're happy with what's going on now. Maybe they are. Shrug, that's an MMO for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cempa Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 (edited) If you want your answer ask one simple question: What would happen if the PvP window indicated that the game is ongoing? ..and thats is your answer, very few would enter. Edited May 19, 2012 by Cempa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbizzle Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 Really? I haven't seen anyone ask for that, nobody wants a 3 vs 8 match, why would they say it was a request by the community? Imps = Community Majority. Imps win in 120 seconds a game on low pop, so why would they not want that? Easy gear grind. And like was stated earlier. Trickle in lates dont make a lick of difference usually because its usually all solo pugs and by that time its 390 - 95 in alderaan and the games already over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eartharioch Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 Does the zone end if it's 8:0? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HollowVamp Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 I actually put in a CS ticket about this just yesterday. They say it's working as intended and was changed at the request of the community... It baffles me they think we want 3-4 v 8... I think warzones ending early are fine. Maybe it wasn't before because people got shafted out of medals, but now you get the "under x minutes victory" medals so who cares. Imo, if it's not 8v8, make it end. rofl, the community didn't demand it. we all tried to stop it when it was on the ptr, but nope. they would rather everyone on the other team leave then a early end Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luciferhawke Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 i didnt want it. there is no punishment for leaving, so if you are one of the ones saying you would rather get back in queue, go do it. With 30min+ queue times, I didnt see any harm in just sticking it out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizersan Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 This was a mistake brought on by ranked WZ they turned off the timer for ranked wz when testing but it effected normal wz too so they just left it off till they can figure out how to leave it off for ranked and put it back on for normal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizersan Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 The answer to 8 vs 0 is no it doesn't end until you reach the goal of winning the wz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frostbyt Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 We should get an outnumbered medal or something. Played a huttball 3 v8 .. The other team just killed us again and again at spawn. I got 0 medals and 0 comms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V-Serp Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 We should get an outnumbered medal or something. Played a huttball 3 v8 .. The other team just killed us again and again at spawn. I got 0 medals and 0 comms I won a 3v8 on CW once. Eventually we got the remaining players, but for the first several minutes it was just us 3. 2 people came in, 1 called us a loser, and both of them dropped. I went left and mauled the two people there and capped. My teammates faked mid and then went E. Eventually they capped. People coming in saw that we had 2 to the opponents 1, so they started to stay. By the time the opposing side started launching offensives against us, our backup got in and we managed to hold, and win. I think we even got a 3 cap. I didn't get an MVP vote though. This really only worked because the opposing side really sucked though, and then I think half of them quit on the 2 cap. If they only knew 1 lone person was holding one side and there was no way I'd get backup. Fortunately with the sides you can just hop back onto a speeder and stop caps repeatedly, almost no matter how badly you're outnumbered. In mid you can actually do that too sometimes, spawn, speeder, stop cap, die, repeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vimm Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 'Cause people were exploiting it to get their daily/weekly done as fast as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMKnave Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 (edited) I actually put in a CS ticket about this just yesterday. They say it's working as intended and was changed at the request of the community... It baffles me they think we want 3-4 v 8... I think warzones ending early are fine. Maybe it wasn't before because people got shafted out of medals, but now you get the "under x minutes victory" medals so who cares. Imo, if it's not 8v8, make it end. rofl, the community didn't demand it. we all tried to stop it when it was on the ptr, but nope. they would rather everyone on the other team leave then a early end The reply above is correct. The CS rep either lied to you or is grossly misinformed. It was not requested by the community. It was changed by BW as a bandaid to the terrible coding of their queue system. There were so few people queueing up for ranked warzones on the PTS that their queue system kept bugging out and launching matches of 8vs1, 2vs1, 1vs1 and they would all end early and no ratings would be recorded. This meant that they could not collect any viable feedback or data at all on ranked warzones. So they changed it to force players to complete uneven matches in order for the rating system to begin rating players. The community on the PTS actually warned them about the change and more than a dozen+ other bugs with warzones and the queue system in general. They actually listened to the latter and pulled ranked warzones from the 1.2 patch. Edited May 20, 2012 by JMKnave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HelinCarnate Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 I actually put in a CS ticket about this just yesterday. They say it's working as intended and was changed at the request of the community... It baffles me they think we want 3-4 v 8... I think warzones ending early are fine. Maybe it wasn't before because people got shafted out of medals, but now you get the "under x minutes victory" medals so who cares. Imo, if it's not 8v8, make it end. Just goes to show how little they actually listen. The only complaints about wanting to keep warzones going instead of ending them early were from those wanting the 5vs5 matchups to continue instead of ending without giving the teams time to compete. Easy fix. Add 2 medals to the game. If the game ends early due to not enough players, the losing side gets 1 medal each. If you enter a game after it starts, you get one medal. Then put back the timer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williambr Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 why don't 8 vs 4's not end early? Cause twelve people on a server are some damn impressive numbers online nowadays. On my servers, we play stick ball, cause theres not enough players for wz's. Now if only bioware would add a stick and ball into the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HelinCarnate Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 There is a timer still in the game but it only goes off if one side has 1 or 2 people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankart Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 Because someone would rather see you suffer than save you butt early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illyean Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 Truly sick of this, thankfully its not something that happens all the time but sadly it does seem to run in streaks. Waited 25mins for queue to pop then hutball with 4v8 and they score in first 15 seconds, I quit the match though usually I take my lumps and play it out. Basic tech like this needs to be reliable and work every time, not fail as often as this does. I personally would prefer that queue had a lot more options for 4v4, 6v6, 8v8 for each warzone, Population dying, serious game mechanic issues, basic features missing, poor gearing and itemization, the list goes on. Come on BW you are really making it hard for people to want to keep on playing. Your poor communication, avoidance of core problems and general disregard for the things that make an MMO an MMO is being seen by some of us as a bad sign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts