Dawncatcher Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 There are many games that already have match making systems for their pvp. I'm not a developer. If I was trust me, this would have been in place at launch. I don't care how the system is done, I just care that it gets done. And I realize that it would help with all these other things people love to complain about. In regards to your solution of freezing someone, why not bolster someone instead? Nobody likes to be stunned is my only qualm with your idea. Instead of stopping someone from playing on the other team, why not bolster the damage and/or healing output of the team that lost the player that quit to compensate? Yes, a sort of outnumbered buff. I've seen that before. And in a small space like a warzone it could actually work. Couldn't be too great a buff though to compensate for only one player. Matchmaking would be good, but only to the point of attempting to make a balanced match, without getting so obsessed with it that the queue never manages to pop. Unbalanced match is better than no match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperGrunt Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Please stop with this ridiculous idea of freezing players. If I became frozen for ANY amount of time because someone disconnected or rage quit, I would never pvp again. And no amount of comms would make up for the unbelievable frustration that would come from being frozen due to people quitting. In fact, people would start doing it on purpose to grief the other team. It's funny that we have at least 1 'WZ quitters" thread at least once a month since the game has been out and people still have no idea how to fix the actual problem. Everyone is focused on what to do with the players that quit instead of asking the important question - WHY are they quitting? Fix that first. And in case you don't know why people quit, it's because they feel like they don't have a chance to win. This is usually because one team has the most skilled players or a better group composition. If you fix this, you may not entirely fix people leaving, but people will want to stay if they know they have a decent chance of winning. We need individual ratings for pvp so we match equally skilled players against equally skilled players. Then you'll stop the wz quitters posts. Then you will stop all the premade vs pug posts. Then you will stop the recruit gear vs ewh posts. Stop trying to treat the symptoms instead of the actual problem. While I agree that the idea of freezing people who are playing is a bad idea, at least it's a suggestion that would actually help to fix the problem without hurting anyone if done properly, IE not just freezing one person, but instead freezing the entire WZ, with the team that has the disadvantage having the option to end the freeze period at any time by a majority vote, which would be a constant option. At any time you should be able to change from a no wait vote to a yes continue, however if you favor continuing then unless the balance changes because someone else leaves then you should not be able to change your vote. The only way that they can fix the problem so that people won't leave would be to completely remove Pre-mades from the same queues as PUGs, involve a gear check which would match you up with people who where similarly geared, and then well it would all come down to skill. There is no way to accommodate a skill check as the only possible skill determinate that would have any values would be a Win/Lose ratio, which then people would be able to affect by simply playing to lose. Remember when people would Derank in Halo 2? I do, it made winning while grouped with them so much harder, just so that they could get back to Rank 1 and play against "Noobs" when I just wanted to play and have fun. No sir I would not stand for that, and my option would most likely be to vote with my wallet. If they did this, do you realize what it would do to our WZ queues without a cross server option? OMG It would take forever to get a WZ. You would be exchanging all the posts we have now for more QQing complaining about the new matching system, and asking for cross server queues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kubernetic Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Yeah, I expect that is how a lot of people would respond. And I couldn't blame them. We're only talking about 30 seconds here. Maybe it's an extra commendation per second of frozen-time, or 2 commendations per second frozen. There's some reasonable bonus there that almost any player would gladly sit through. It just needs to be found. For anyone examining this idea of the "Freeze Beam" or freezing players, PLEASE check the link in my signature to my original post in this thread. That thread now has a list of some 7+ variables that I suggest the system should process through in order to determine which player gets frozen. I'm open to suggestions on any of it, but I still think it's a workable idea, solves the ultimate problem, and is able to be implemented, if the Devs are willing to fix this issue. Thanks for anyone who reads through that list. If it's a TL;DR thing, scroll down to the "Needed Solutions" in green. Furthermore, there are a few other things that I think are still valid... like stripping the animations before Voidstar and Novare Coast to optimize the amount of time it takes for a backfill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kubernetic Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 (edited) There are many games that already have match making systems for their pvp. I'm not a developer. If I was trust me, this would have been in place at launch. I don't care how the system is done, I just care that it gets done. And I realize that it would help with all these other things people love to complain about. In regards to your solution of freezing someone, why not bolster someone instead? Nobody likes to be stunned is my only qualm with your idea. Instead of stopping someone from playing on the other team, why not bolster the damage and/or healing output of the team that lost the player that quit to compensate? The only thing here is the ability to implement this idea. I think the mechanics of instituting a focused "freeze" on one player as a result of a dynamic event ("A Player Has Left The Warzone") is going to be far, far easier to implement than a dynamic all-team bolster based on the team member that left. The main reason is that this additional bolster would have to be added on top of the original bolster (which is coming in 2.0, for 50+, and already exists for 10-49) and that seems like a train wreck in terms of feasibility. Granted, both are possible. I just think one of them is going to be problematic as hell to get right, and the other is pretty easily (comparatively speaking) accomplished. I will say, however, this is 100% assumption on my part. If an all-team bolster is easier to accomplish and meets the same goals of fixing the warzone quitter problem, I'm all for it. I'm not married to one particular solution by a long shot. But I am bound and determined that this get fixed or I find something else to entertain and amuse myself that isn't as frustrating as 50+ warzones are right now. The problem still remains. If it isn't fixed... the problem will continue to have negative consequences. The only reason I'm even sticking around at this point, frankly, is the promise of 50+ Bolster in 2.0. Maybe BioWare hopes that will fix the problem all around. Let's hope. If not, someone better get cracking on a real, permanent solution. Edited March 27, 2013 by Kubernetic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUXs Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 (edited) No actually I have not queued for Ranked WZ's, as I did not want to do so while I had any recruit pieces still equipped. I also do not queue in groups. I will not now, nor ever will I reveal my toons names on the forums, it creates drama and it's not a situation I enjoy, so I guess you will have to take my word for it, unless you happen to be guilded with me in which case you already would know who my characters are. No worries, I found it: Name of server. Prophecy of the Five.Name of character(s) affected. Mosy. I'm on your server, but obviously not in your guild. If we were in the same guild, we'd PvP as a group. That's the best part of being in a guild tbh...having like minded people to play with. I suggest you try it. Edited March 27, 2013 by TUXs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawncatcher Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 We're only talking about 30 seconds here. Maybe it's an extra commendation per second of frozen-time, or 2 commendations per second frozen. There's some reasonable bonus there that almost any player would gladly sit through. It just needs to be found. For anyone examining this idea of the "Freeze Beam" or freezing players, PLEASE check the link in my signature to my original post in this thread. That thread now has a list of some 7+ variables that I suggest the system should process through in order to determine which player gets frozen. I'm open to suggestions on any of it, but I still think it's a workable idea, solves the ultimate problem, and is able to be implemented, if the Devs are willing to fix this issue. Thanks for anyone who reads through that list. If it's a TL;DR thing, scroll down to the "Needed Solutions" in green. Furthermore, there are a few other things that I think are still valid... like stripping the animations before Voidstar and Novare Coast to optimize the amount of time it takes for a backfill. 30 seconds can win or lose a match. I've won matches by charging in solo at a node being capped by 4 imperials, interrupting them with an AOE bomb, and healing/burning cooldowns on myself enough to keep me alive for just 30 seconds -- long enough for reinforcements to arrive from the rez. I've also lost matches by as little as a fraction of a second, when someone interrupted me when I was 97% of the way through planting a bomb or getting stunned half a second before I finished throwing the Huttball, but at least then it was actual players stopping me, and not the server. Freezing just one person will create far more problems than it solves. I can sort of see the merit behind freezing everyone, but even then, if there's 30 seconds left the the match, people need to either vote to continue or forfeit the match, especially if no replacement is forthcoming, and not make the opposing team wait 5 minutes or longer to get their rewards. (Although I suppose you could get around that by allowing the advantaged team to break the freeze by having one person voluntarily agree to remain frozen in exchange for frozen medals/rewards. Then someone who wasn't in the middle of something could choose themselves. Yes, they would probably pick one of their least valuable players, but hey, a lot of quitters, especially ones who quit because they are losing, aren't so valuable themselves.) Still, an outnumbered buff would probably work better at keeping the action going, especially during slow hours when it can take awhile to fill an empty slot. And it would be far less annoying. Obviously, if someone has to go AFK for 30 seconds to have a quick word with the wife or whomever, I understand, but that's real life, not something imposed by Bioware. And a few commendations per second is not sufficient compensation for missing out on a kill-blow medal, which is something that can be potentially earned in about 2 seconds, if it's the right 2 seconds. Especially for a healer who has a hard time getting killing blows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawncatcher Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I think the mechanics of instituting a focused "freeze" on one player as a result of a dynamic event ("A Player Has Left The Warzone") is going to be far, far easier to implement than a dynamic all-team bolster based on the team member that left. The main reason is that this additional bolster would have to be added on top of the original bolster (which is coming in 2.0, for 50+, and already exists for 10-49) and that seems like a train wreck in terms of feasibility. Freezing is complicated, especially if you do all sorts of calculations and logical chains to pick the right person to freeze rather than just picking someone at random and letting the chips fall where they may. And outnumbered buff would be a relatively simple mechanic. Sure, it would take some math to calculate the correct numbers, but say it was a 12% reduction to incoming damage for missing one player, the team with greater numbers would have to actually make use of their numbers to put out more damage to compensate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kubernetic Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 (edited) 30 seconds can win or lose a match. [...removed for space's sake...] And a few commendations per second is not sufficient compensation for missing out on a kill-blow medal, which is something that can be potentially earned in about 2 seconds, if it's the right 2 seconds. Especially for a healer who has a hard time getting killing blows. Just want to clarify... my purpose of saying "We're only talking about 30 seconds here" is to say that's the longest a player should have to wait inside a "freeze beam" or whatever (WHILE earning commendations or whatever) before being released back into the game. What is it that the "kill-blow medal" is getting you that commendations wouldn't? Surely you aren't claiming that your kill counts or medals are more important than the overall enjoyability of PVP for all, and a little more fairness (At least in terms of OPPORTUNITY to win, not saying GIVING OUT wins) by mitigating the imbalance that inevitably occurs when a player leaves a match? Please tell me you aren't saying that. Freezing just one person will create far more problems than it solves. I appreciate you believing this out of hand, but I'm going to have to ask you to substantiate this. How does freezing a number of players (according to a hierarchy of priorities, as listed in my post linked in my sig) equal to the number of players that just quit a warzone on one side (or both sides) "cause more problems than it solves"? What problems does it create? Again, please check the rules listed in my sig... I'm not just saying pick ANY random member on the other team. I absolutely feel that if a player is a single guard at a node, for instance, or is carrying a huttball, or is in the process of channeling to capture a node or plant a bomb or defuse a bomb, those players should be passed over for another player, preferably one that is not in combat. I think if it was just a random selection, that would be chaotic and undesirable. But a selection of rules based on priority of importance would almost always insure that the player selected to be "frozen" was of an equal value to the player that left, meaning as much as possible of the overall mix of the warzone teams will be preserved. And since it wouldn't freeze the entire team, you'd never run into the "frozen for 5 minutes" problem you were talking about. And if you were being rewarded with equivalent commendations for having been selected as frozen, then any medals you miss ought to be acceptable, at least in my opinion. Edited March 27, 2013 by Kubernetic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caeliux Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 (edited) And in case you don't know why people quit, it's because they feel like they don't have a chance to win. This is usually because one team has the most skilled players or a better group composition. If you fix this, you may not entirely fix people leaving, but people will want to stay if they know they have a decent chance of winning. I find it hilarious you guys are posting this nonsense about fixing this and changing that, and completely forgeting why people quit I will again give you that answer, people quit because they are egotistical, self absorbed, and will do as they please without rules. If rules are put into place then people will think twice about quitting and some will actually learn a lesson. There is already afk type of players in the game without no rules, those same people quit games and is in the same bracket of people that cry for nerfs, scream in the general chat and ops group, and complain daily. Blaming everyone else and quitting just shows the attitude and some people can't hack other people being better than them and want to blame team mates and game mechanics over the lack of skill that actually makes a good player. A good player takes a loss and plays a match the best they can, a bad player quits and screams and rages in general chat talking smash about guilds and crys on the forums to nerf smash, nerf bubble, nerf stealth, nerf sent, nerf powertech, ect ect ect. These are the same types of people, it don't matter what you change or what you do, they will still complain over an over because these types of people want attention and want to be held. Don't any of you see only rules will change the way people play? I mean serious think about it we are dealing with a child like attitude when you think about it, "I quit, I hate you, its your fault" /throws a tantrum and kicks the dog. Edited March 27, 2013 by Caeliux Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawncatcher Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Just want to clarify... my purpose of saying "We're only talking about 30 seconds here" is to say that's the longest a player should have to wait inside a "freeze beam" or whatever (WHILE earning commendations or whatever) before being released back into the game. What is it that the "kill-blow medal" is getting you that commendations wouldn't? Surely you aren't claiming that your kill counts or medals are more important than the overall enjoyability of PVP for all, and a little more fairness (At least in terms of OPPORTUNITY to win, not saying GIVING OUT wins) by mitigating the imbalance that inevitably occurs when a player leaves a match? Please tell me you aren't saying that. Of course not, but it does sound like you are saying that your views on perfect balance are more important than the overall enjoyability of PvP for all, most of whom do not like being crowd controlled, especially when it's not even by another player. Who cares if players rage quit en masse to go to other games because the server stopped them mid-saber-swing from achieving their goals so long as you are assured that people who do put up with it are "balanced" in numbers? And a kill-blow medal can make the difference between getting credit for a match and not getting credit for it. In some of the groups I was back-filled into, there wasn't enough time for the 75k healing medal, not enough luck for the 2.5k heal medic medal, no nodes left to guard for a defense basic medal, but I did manage to steal that one killing blow to get that one medal necessary to actually get credit for the match, valor and commendations and credits and everything. And besides, killing blows are fun! Sitting around crowd controlled by the server is not fun. Also, funny how you responded to something that was a personal goal, and deleted a bunch of stuff that affects the team as a whole. I appreciate you believing this out of hand, but I'm going to have to ask you to substantiate this. How does freezing a number of players (according to a hierarchy of priorities, as listed in my post linked in my sig) equal to the number of players that just quit a warzone on one side (or both sides) "cause more problems than it solves"? What problems does it create? Again, please check the rules listed in my sig... I'm not just saying pick ANY random member on the other team. I absolutely feel that if a player is a single guard at a node, for instance, or is carrying a huttball, or is in the process of channeling to capture a node or plant a bomb or defuse a bomb, those players should be passed over for another player, preferably one that is not in combat. In theory, assuming no one is AFK, everyone should be engaged in some goal or about to be engaged in some goal. Not always ones the server can easily recognize. Imagine, you are in position to catch the ball and carry it to the finish line... but before it can be thrown to you, someone else on the other side vanishes for reasons known only to themselves, and you freeze. The ball carrier doesn't have anyone to throw to. The Hutt kills them for having had the ball too long. Your team fails to get the one extra point needed to win. The server couldn't have known your plan, because you weren't technically in combat nor guarding a node. However, there was a strategy behind your location, and the server ruined your team's plans. Even if you just froze someone who was at the rez anyway, supposing they got themselves killed deliberately just so they could get a fast port to the rez to defend the goal? I think if it was just a random selection, that would be chaotic and undesirable. But a selection of rules based on priority of importance would almost always insure that the player selected to be "frozen" was of an equal value to the player that left, meaning as much as possible of the overall mix of the warzone teams will be preserved. Well, as stated above, a lot of people, unfortunately, do not leave because they have family to take care of, but because they can't stand to lose. And, generally speaking, people who can't stand to lose are terrible players who are always running from their game problems rather than facing and learning to deal with them. In other words, no great loss. If they don't want to be there, if they can't so much as have a little fun "death-matching" or run around getting medals so they can at least get loser's credit, then I'm not at all sorry to see them go. Unless it's literally the last minute of the match, in which case I feel sorry for the poor backfiller who won't have time to get a medal. So, if you freeze someone who was actively engaged in something, whether it be the actual match objectives, or even death-matching (which at least distracts other death-matchers -- I've run around away from the objectives just because there were four imperials chasing me and it drew them away from the objectives too, thereby leaving the rest of my team with only four imperials left to deal with so they could extend that bridge faster), it's not a fair trade. One side lost someone who didn't want to help anyway, the other side lost someone who did want to help. Of course, it's different if the person who left was actually a great player who just had to put real life first, but ultimately, that's the risk you take grouping with others chosen by a computer. And since it wouldn't freeze the entire team, you'd never run into the "frozen for 5 minutes" problem you were talking about. And if you were being rewarded with equivalent commendations for having been selected as frozen, then any medals you miss ought to be acceptable, at least in my opinion. At least if you freeze the entire team, everyone will be equally annoyed and no one will gain an advantage during the freeze time. And the server won't find a replacement any faster if you freeze only one person instead of everyone. At least if you froze everyone, and the server couldn't find a replacement, someone who didn't feel all that useful anyway could volunteer to be single frozen to keep the match numerically balanced, rather than a stupid computer making a bad choice. But overall, a buff would be much better and more seamless, since everyone could just go on doing what they were already doing. Although I imagine bad players might be asked to quit, if they were considered less valuable than the buff... so it probably shouldn't be overdone. I suppose you could also auto-summon one of the ops leader's companions, until an actual player replacement could be found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawncatcher Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 (edited) I find it hilarious you guys are posting this nonsense about fixing this and changing that, and completely forgeting why people quit I will again give you that answer, people quit because they are egotistical, self absorbed, and will do as they please without rules. If rules are put into place then people will think twice about quitting and some will actually learn a lesson. There is already afk type of players in the game without no rules, those same people quit games and is in the same bracket of people that cry for nerfs, scream in the general chat and ops group, and complain daily. Blaming everyone else and quitting just shows the attitude and some people can't hack other people being better than them and want to blame team mates and game mechanics over the lack of skill that actually makes a good player. A good player takes a loss and plays a match the best they can, a bad player quits and screams and rages in general chat talking smash about guilds and crys on the forums to nerf smash, nerf bubble, nerf stealth, nerf sent, nerf powertech, ect ect ect. These are the same types of people, it don't matter what you change or what you do, they will still complain over an over because these types of people want attention and want to be held. Don't any of you see only rules will change the way people play? I mean serious think about it we are dealing with a child like attitude when you think about it, "I quit, I hate you, its your fault" /throws a tantrum and kicks the dog. Sometimes they quit because they're family needs them, as well they should, if they aren't addicts. Good players accept that they can't control other people's real lives, and live with the loss, because that's just life. Or they take responsibility for gathering a premade of people who meet acceptable standards of reliability so they don't have to group with stressed out mothers with four kids, or whatever. Ragers complain about how it's other people's fault for quitting that they lose. They should've ignored their children, or never queued in the first place! But I refuse to lead premade groups and set my own rules! I demand that Bioware set rules for me and enforce them on every casual gamer in the queue! And while you're at it, don't let anyone who does take responsibility for choosing their own team be in the same queue as me! If I can't be bothered to take responsibility for choosing who I want to group with, I shouldn't have to face anyone who does! (I realize you personally probably didn't read the pages with that discussion, but they're there if you want to go back and check.) Edited March 28, 2013 by Dawncatcher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kubernetic Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 (edited) Of course not, but it does sound like you are saying that your views on perfect balance are more important than the overall enjoyability of PvP for all, most of whom do not like being crowd controlled, especially when it's not even by another player. Who cares if players rage quit en masse to go to other games because the server stopped them mid-saber-swing from achieving their goals so long as you are assured that people who do put up with it are "balanced" in numbers? And a kill-blow medal can make the difference between getting credit for a match and not getting credit for it. In some of the groups I was back-filled into, there wasn't enough time for the 75k healing medal, not enough luck for the 2.5k heal medic medal, no nodes left to guard for a defense basic medal, but I did manage to steal that one killing blow to get that one medal necessary to actually get credit for the match, valor and commendations and credits and everything. And besides, killing blows are fun! Sitting around crowd controlled by the server is not fun. So basically, your ability to brood over your stats at the end of a match is more important than making sure the match was legitimate. Or, you enjoy any chance you get to take advantage of an 8 vs. 6 or 8 vs. 5 situation. I can assure you, the team that is down 2-3 players while your team is roflstomping them is not enjoying the overall PVP experience. Do you get to take advantage of teams that have suffered quitters quite often, or are you just lucky in that you never experienced any of this, or are you just a masochist and enjoy the frustration? I will grant you this one thing... in those instances where we HAVE suffered 2-3 or more quitters, and we still came back to win the match, those are quite glorious victories. But they are so glorious and feel so great because they are so few and far between. They obviously don't occur enough to make everyone happy with the way these matches go, since so many recognize the quitter problem. Also, funny how you responded to something that was a personal goal, and deleted a bunch of stuff that affects the team as a whole. Just trying not to write a book, and already failing at it. In theory, assuming no one is AFK, everyone should be engaged in some goal or about to be engaged in some goal. Not always ones the server can easily recognize. Imagine, you are in position to catch the ball and carry it to the finish line... but before it can be thrown to you, someone else on the other side vanishes for reasons known only to themselves, and you freeze. The ball carrier doesn't have anyone to throw to. The Hutt kills them for having had the ball too long. Your team fails to get the one extra point needed to win. The server couldn't have known your plan, because you weren't technically in combat nor guarding a node. However, there was a strategy behind your location, and the server ruined your team's plans. Even if you just froze someone who was at the rez anyway, supposing they got themselves killed deliberately just so they could get a fast port to the rez to defend the goal? True, everyone at some point is doing something in a warzone. But I'm going to call this particular argument "Something Extreme Might Happen, So Let's Accept The More Frequent Clusterducks" or SEMHSLATMFC argument. Yes, if a freeze mechanic is implemented to take a player out of commission while the other team is down a member, someone, somewhere might be inconvenienced. But you are again, in trying to cultivate this SEMHSLATMFC argument, ignoring the fact that when one team opens in a particular fashion, and the other team immediately, and I mean often IMMEDIATELY, like 3 in a farking row immediately loses 3 members, I can once again assure you that you now have FIVE inconvenienced match members out of a possible total of 13. And what's more, it's 5/5 on one team and 0/8 on the other. Again, the fact that I keep having to remind you of this once more makes me think you enjoy taking advantage of the situation or that you've never experienced it. I'm doubting it's the masochistic angle. And let's remember that it isn't the server that would be ruining your strategy at that point, it would be the fact that the match was now completely imbalanced based on a few selfish players abandoning the warzone. All the server was doing is noting that an imbalance had occurred and did its best to fix that balance temporarily. I'm still not seeing the problem of noting when an 8 vs. 8 match has become an 8 vs. 5 match, and dynamically scaling the match to a 5 vs. 5 match until it can be expanded once more to an 8 vs. 8 match, unless the advantage is just too delicious. Finally, I jump into fire traps to respawn back at the goal in Huttball to run defense all the time. That's just how you play a great game of Huttball! Well, as stated above, a lot of people, unfortunately, do not leave because they have family to take care of, but because they can't stand to lose. And, generally speaking, people who can't stand to lose are terrible players who are always running from their game problems rather than facing and learning to deal with them. In other words, no great loss. If they don't want to be there, if they can't so much as have a little fun "death-matching" or run around getting medals so they can at least get loser's credit, then I'm not at all sorry to see them go. Unless it's literally the last minute of the match, in which case I feel sorry for the poor backfiller who won't have time to get a medal. So, if you freeze someone who was actively engaged in something, whether it be the actual match objectives, or even death-matching (which at least distracts other death-matchers -- I've run around away from the objectives just because there were four imperials chasing me and it drew them away from the objectives too, thereby leaving the rest of my team with only four imperials left to deal with so they could extend that bridge faster), it's not a fair trade. One side lost someone who didn't want to help anyway, the other side lost someone who did want to help. Of course, it's different if the person who left was actually a great player who just had to put real life first, but ultimately, that's the risk you take grouping with others chosen by a computer. Yes, I am well aware that the Warzone Quitter Problem is entirely caused by selfish little snowflakes who have to have everything perfect or they start to cry and throw things. They cannot be psychologically manipulated to just "get interested" in a match. They cannot be punished to the point of submission and participation. They cannot be (and maybe just SHOULD NOT be) bribed to participate other than normal rewards. They will always exist in every game with PVP. They will always be precious little snowflakes and rage quit. So why not let's find a system that does its level best to allow everyone else to ignore the snowflakes and get on with our match in a legitimate fashion? I don't want to cater to the quitters. I want to ignore them. But it's hard to ignore them when I see the 8 vs. 5 roflstomp raining down again and again just trying to do the stupid PVP daily. Forget the weekly if the quitters are filling the queues. And once more (and hopefully the last time), yeah one side lost someone who didn't want to help, which was bad enough, but now that side that's down a man (or plasma-swinging or gunslinging valkyrie) is facing an imbalanced warzone that is often impossible to recover from. You keep arguing for the supremacy of the advantaged team. You're eventually going to lose credibility as an unbiased observer, at least with this reader. At least if you freeze the entire team, everyone will be equally annoyed and no one will gain an advantage during the freeze time. And the server won't find a replacement any faster if you freeze only one person instead of everyone. At least if you froze everyone, and the server couldn't find a replacement, someone who didn't feel all that useful anyway could volunteer to be single frozen to keep the match numerically balanced, rather than a stupid computer making a bad choice. But overall, a buff would be much better and more seamless, since everyone could just go on doing what they were already doing. Although I imagine bad players might be asked to quit, if they were considered less valuable than the buff... so it probably shouldn't be overdone. I suppose you could also auto-summon one of the ops leader's companions, until an actual player replacement could be found. The point is not to equally annoy everyone. Good Lord. The point is to make the match as fun and enjoyable for all, given the fact that someone always wins and someone always loses. I'm fine with that. But don't tell me that if it was 8 Republic vs. 4 Imperial, or 8 Imperial vs. 4 Republic Day in the Warzones that you'd be absolutely gung-ho about playing. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue if it isn't that you enjoy the advantage and getting lots of comms due to quitters on the other side, but it doesn't really make sense. Especially when you keep defaulting to try to tick off EVERYONE in the warzone rather than ONE additional player or THREE out of more than the 10 to 15 players remaining in the zone. What gives? And the way you say that "no one will gain an advantage during the freeze time" is now making me wonder if you even understand what we're talking about. How is taking an 8 vs. 5 situation and making it a 5 vs. 5 situation CREATING AN ADVANTAGE?!?!? And okay, then buff it, whatever. JUST FIX THE PROBLEM. But I highly believe that this idea of a "super buff" on one team is an absolute mess. Just stopping to think about the computations to take the 8 players on one side and analyze their damage, health, specs, and then analyze all of the 5 remaining members on the one team to figure out how to buff one up against And adding some mechanic to freeze the ENTIRE teams, then give one player the chance to offer to be frozen individually, man it just sounds like non-starter. It sounds far too complicated, intrusive, and would completely interrupt warzones as opposed to re-balancing them temporarily with 1-3 people inconvenienced at most at a time in almost every case. Anyway, we might just agree to disagree. But I'm still having a problem believing you either understand or admit there's even a problem, and in that case, we completely disagree and will forever, at least until something major changes. Maybe as I said, Bolster 2.0 is it. We'll see. If not... Edited March 28, 2013 by Kubernetic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rasputein Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 i find it weird (and i really dont think im the only one) that people beleive someone should be "PUNISHED" for choosing to quit a match in a VIDEO GAME that they themselve pay for....dosnt anyone else feel this way? this isnt a "real life" learning experence...you dont learn life lessons about quitting something in a video game...sure its annoying but get over it, there are many reasons to leave a match, and a person should feel under NO obligation to explain or be punished for doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kubernetic Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 i find it weird (and i really dont think im the only one) that people beleive someone should be "PUNISHED" for choosing to quit a match in a VIDEO GAME that they themselve pay for....dosnt anyone else feel this way? this isnt a "real life" learning experence...you dont learn life lessons about quitting something in a video game...sure its annoying but get over it, there are many reasons to leave a match, and a person should feel under NO obligation to explain or be punished for doing so. If they don't want to play a warzone match, they shouldn't queue. If they want to play a warzone match, they should play the warzone match. If all they want to do is quit, there is already a quit button in the game. Hit Escape, then click Quit Game. Restart the game and then hit the Quit button on the left at the character select screen. Repeat this process as often as you wish. There's no need to select a character and then select to join a warzone queue and then to accept the queue pop, and then wait for the loading screen to finish just so you can click the Quit button. There are far more efficient methods that can really improve your QPM (Quits Per Minute). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caeliux Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 (edited) isure its annoying but get over it, there are many reasons to leave a match, and a person should feel under NO obligation to explain or be punished for doing so. When people have a opinion it ruins other peoples time, having a opinion is a self absorbed thing where some people don't care about anyone else. We see it daily, its called warzone quitters, the same people that have a opinion about the match and don't feel obligated to give a poop about that match, the people in it, and anyone having to backfill it. Here is what happens, They get a q pop, they enter the warzone, the match starts, (here is where the opinions begin, it could be a million things going wrong in the head of the person, and all sudden /CLICK LEAVE WARZONE). When this happens that match went from a 16 person match to a 15 person match, making one side lop sided and uneven. Now backfill comes in and takes the place of that quitter, but sometimes that backfill leaves and then its back to 15 people, sometimes when one person leaves 3 other people leave following the same quitter method as the first person. Let me remind everyone this happens almost every game where the other team performed better in the first 2 minutes, when that team has to try harder to win quitters start quitting. So now who's fault is it when the quitter quits? The quitters. Why? Cause that quitter should of sucked it up and instead they had a opinion, and since that opinion means more than that match and other people, a game gets ruined 9/10 times. Them are the facts folks, and Bioware don't want to do nothing about it at the moment, and they want to cater to the crowd of cry babys that quit. Edited March 28, 2013 by Caeliux Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawncatcher Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 So basically, your ability to brood over your stats at the end of a match is more important than making sure the match was legitimate. Or, you enjoy any chance you get to take advantage of an 8 vs. 6 or 8 vs. 5 situation. I can assure you, the team that is down 2-3 players while your team is roflstomping them is not enjoying the overall PVP experience. Do you get to take advantage of teams that have suffered quitters quite often, or are you just lucky in that you never experienced any of this, or are you just a masochist and enjoy the frustration? Of course I experienced it. Just the other day I was queueing solo for the Republic while an Imperial pre-made was out winning almost every single match (except for a couple times I convinced our side to try some non-standard tactics that surprised them). And quite frankly, the backfills were often better than a lot of the "we have no chance" complainers they were replacing, but early on in the morning often no one replaced them. And yes, I was mildly annoyed when that happened, especially if it was the same person five matches in a row (you do realize you can get the daily done from two losses, right, so long as you actually finish?), but I never wanted to take it out on the opposing team, who were doing quite well, and ruin their ability to participate, just because there were some hopeless people on my side. But that doesn't make me a masochist nor an enjoyer of frustration. PvP is an opportunity to live in the moment, seize the day! Even if the match is an overall loss, there are still dozens of opportunities to find smaller victories along the way. Find a lone imperial and win a 1v1! Or if they're way better geared, take comfort knowing you made them waste 3 whole minutes of their time killing you! Stun that imperial ball-carrier and obliterate them right before they otherwise would've scored! Carry the ball across their goal line yourself, even if they're already too far ahead to catch up! Zerg the person who just got the "So and so in unbeatable" announcement. Prevent 4 imperials from moving on to the next room of voidstar because they are too busy trying to kill you, while you run in the opposite direction everyone is supposed to be going, laughing all the way while it takes 4 imperials two minutes to zerg you all alone there. Top the charts on both healing done and damage taken. Be annoying and hit "Disappear" right when they're about to kill you, but preferably when you don't have any DOTs on. For someone who truly enjoys PvP for PvP, and not just for winning/rewards, there is always fun to be had, even when the rest of your team is not doing well. I will grant you this one thing... in those instances where we HAVE suffered 2-3 or more quitters, and we still came back to win the match, those are quite glorious victories. But they are so glorious and feel so great because they are so few and far between. They obviously don't occur enough to make everyone happy with the way these matches go, since so many recognize the quitter problem. Of course. If you ever do open map PvP, winning 3 versus 8 (all level cap) is great fun, even if the other people were undergeared and lacking in experience. In fact, I think they should offer pre-mades the option to deliberately be outnumbered. Check a box saying "If we can't get into a ranked warzone, or against another premade, please let the other side have extra people", and wind up having an 8 v 12 rather than an 8v8 (optional, recommended for experienced PvPers only). Just trying not to write a book, and already failing at it. I appreciate you believing this out of hand, but I'm going to have to ask you to substantiate this. How does freezing a number of players (according to a hierarchy of priorities, as listed in my post linked in my sig) equal to the number of players that just quit a warzone on one side (or both sides) "cause more problems than it solves"? What problems does it create? Again, please check the rules listed in my sig... I'm not just saying pick ANY random member on the other team. I absolutely feel that if a player is a single guard at a node, for instance, or is carrying a huttball, or is in the process of channeling to capture a node or plant a bomb or defuse a bomb, those players should be passed over for another player, preferably one that is not in combat. I've already given you a specific list of examples. True, everyone at some point is doing something in a warzone. But I'm going to call this particular argument "Something Extreme Might Happen, So Let's Accept The More Frequent Clusterducks" or SEMHSLATMFC argument. Yes, if a freeze mechanic is implemented to take a player out of commission while the other team is down a member, someone, somewhere might be inconvenienced. Warzones are fast paced. How often is someone *not* in the middle of something, unless they are AFK anyway, in which case they don't need to be frozen? You could wait 'til an appropriate breaking point to freeze someone, like after one set of doors have been blown up in Voidstar, or give them a 30-second warning that they will be frozen and should wrap up anything they are in the middle of and find a replacement, but by that time, except during slow hours, the slot should've been refilled anyway. A well-organized team is a delicate thing. Like a house of cards. Take out one piece, and the entire thing comes crashing down. Sure, you can rebuild it fast enough without that one card, but not necessarily fast enough to save the match. Freezing someone on the other side makes even less sense than the quitter debuff idea. At least the quitter debuff would punish the person who actually quit, often unfairly, if they actually left for the right reasons, but still, not some totally uninvolved innocent on the other side. But you are again, in trying to cultivate this SEMHSLATMFC argument, ignoring the fact that when one team opens in a particular fashion, and the other team immediately, and I mean often IMMEDIATELY, like 3 in a farking row immediately loses 3 members, I can once again assure you that you now have FIVE inconvenienced match members out of a possible total of 13. And what's more, it's 5/5 on one team and 0/8 on the other. Again, the fact that I keep having to remind you of this once more makes me think you enjoy taking advantage of the situation or that you've never experienced it. I'm doubting it's the masochistic angle. You really enjoy ad hominen attacks, don't you? You do realize it's a logical fallacy? Sure I've experienced it, but I take responsibility for doing what I have to do to enjoy warzones without expecting the whole match to revolve around me and do what what I want. If people on your side are quitting, for good reasons or bad, it's not the opposing team's fault. You shouldn't punish them for other people's choices (or other people's unavoidable life circumstances). There are solutions you know. Like making your own premade full of people who at least have every intention of fighting to the bitter end. And let's remember that it isn't the server that would be ruining your strategy at that point, it would be the fact that the match was now completely imbalanced based on a few selfish players abandoning the warzone. All the server was doing is noting that an imbalance had occurred and did its best to fix that balance temporarily. I'm still not seeing the problem of noting when an 8 vs. 8 match has become an 8 vs. 5 match, and dynamically scaling the match to a 5 vs. 5 match until it can be expanded once more to an 8 vs. 8 match, unless the advantage is just too delicious. That's like saying it's your neighbor's dog's fault that you yelled and screamed obscenities at your neighbor, just because the dog barked at you. Quitters are responsible for their own actions, not Bioware's. (Not that Bioware would ever implement your idea, but if they did, for the sake of debate.) And you've conveniently ignored other solutions to balance other than freezing paying customers, such as adding an outnumbered buff or letting a companion temporarily enter warzones. Finally, I jump into fire traps to respawn back at the goal in Huttball to run defense all the time. That's just how you play a great game of Huttball
Recommended Posts