Kurj Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 Would this solve anything or make things far worse than they are? My thinking was as follows: 1. It would remove the division between ranked and unranked, which seems to create problems for both ranked and unranked. For ranked, it results in a low population of players and limitations on WZ types to serve that population. For unranked, it would remove the "barrier to entry" (i.e., abject terror) of entering ranked given that elite population's tendency to *ahem* intensely educate the less skilled. (Then again, maybe it would result in the death of PVP because people are just afraid of getting their a***s handed to them. What do I know?) 2. It would result in more competitive matches, reducing the current trend of either overpowering wins or crushing defeats. I think this also would encourage more to PVP. I realize nothing prevents a skilled player from making an alt with a low rating to terrorize lower-skilled players, but I think there are lots of checks against that, like the fact that it wouldn't take very long before the alt had a high rating. I'm new to PVP so please don't take this as me preaching or thinking I've solved the world's problems. But I like the idea of a unified PVP system (i.e., no ranked/unranked) that encourages everyone to compete and results in season winners who truly have faced the best that the game has to offer (i.e., cross-server). I think that would bring a lot more serious PVPers to the game, and I don't understand how that would be a bad thing for us as players or for EABW as a business.
Jaroloth Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 I totally agree with all points given here.
Psychopyro Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 No it wouldn't. People are already getting it handed to them in unranked matches. The barrier to entry is premade roflstomping unranked. If anything, it would make that problem worse. It would heighten the barrier for entry because now you have more people in ranked gear, premade, stomping... Until faction imbalance is fixed in one way or the other, it won't fix anything. Besides, some people have better things to do then flex epeens all day. Besides the fact that now if there is more to lose, it will drive PvP participation down because once people get the desired rank, they stop pvping so they don't risk losing it. Trust me, it would be worse all the way around.
Jadescythe Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 No it wouldn't. People are already getting it handed to them in unranked matches. The barrier to entry is premade roflstomping unranked. If anything, it would make that problem worse. It would heighten the barrier for entry because now you have more people in ranked gear, premade, stomping... Until faction imbalance is fixed in one way or the other, it won't fix anything. Besides, some people have better things to do then flex epeens all day. Besides the fact that now if there is more to lose, it will drive PvP participation down because once people get the desired rank, they stop pvping so they don't risk losing it. Trust me, it would be worse all the way around. Outside of the top 3 or whatever, I'm pretty sure your PvP ranking is based on highest achieved, not end of season rank. People who stop PvPing have just moved on to other toons to raise their rank up. As to getting stomped, that is not specific to new players or solo players. I see plenty of old players and premades getting stomped by the other team. It's just people not being good up against players who are good. It's why my solo matches generally end up with me in the top 3 for damage accompanied by 5-6 players from the other team before the first guy on my team with 1/4th the damage dealt. If all players were ranked, even with a hidden rating, it may make for some closer games. I mean, I had a guy trying to tell me how imp classes were just better than pub classes the other day and that's why we lost. As if our team doing less than half the damage of the other team was because of unequal mirror classes
Master-Nala Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 I'm new to PVP so please don't take this as me preaching or thinking I've solved the world's problems. But I like the idea of a unified PVP system (i.e., no ranked/unranked) that encourages everyone to compete and results in season winners who truly have faced the best that the game has to offer (i.e., cross-server). I think that would bring a lot more serious PVPers to the game, and I don't understand how that would be a bad thing for us as players or for EABW as a business. WELCOME! Here's the thing. There's absolutely no chance of them doing that. They have already said they aren't planning to do cross-server. Best case scenario is that someday they will consolidate the servers 1 or more mega servers. As to making ranked warzones, they've said they aren't doing that either. Ranked is Arenas only for the time being. As for making everything ranked, that would hasten the end of this game faster than anything. And since they would leave the warzones unranked in any event, it can't happen. So the devs have already shot down your ideas. That's not to say that they have no merit, just that they have no chance of coming to pass.
Psychopyro Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 I mean, I had a guy trying to tell me how imp classes were just better than pub classes the other day and that's why we lost. As if our team doing less than half the damage of the other team was because of unequal mirror classes It's rare, but there are a couple of cases where the pub classes actually suffer that I know of due to animation issues. It would not cause a loss or massive damage differences, but it does make some of the mirrors slightly better... Yes, it's based on highest gained now, but if they went all ranked, I could just hear the top end screaming that ranking means nothing cause now every noob could be ranked in the top bracket, blah blah blah. In which case they would have to change it. Or those people would find the door, which I hate to say, without those people, would probably end PvP even faster as they are usually the ones doing it all the time.
Kurj Posted November 30, 2015 Author Posted November 30, 2015 WELCOME! Here's the thing. There's absolutely no chance of them doing that. They have already said they aren't planning to do cross-server. Best case scenario is that someday they will consolidate the servers 1 or more mega servers. As to making ranked warzones, they've said they aren't doing that either. Ranked is Arenas only for the time being. As for making everything ranked, that would hasten the end of this game faster than anything. And since they would leave the warzones unranked in any event, it can't happen. So the devs have already shot down your ideas. That's not to say that they have no merit, just that they have no chance of coming to pass. Whether it is a mega-server or something else, anything to increase PVP population would go a long way towards helping things out. I like the idea of cross-server because it makes being a season winner more meaningful, but if they aren't going to do it, they aren't going to do it. (Does anyone know why? Is it a technical issue with how they set their servers up? A cost issue? I'm sure they haven't told us, but part of me still wants to know.) As far as making it all ranked, something mentioned above would work just as well for what I'm talking about, i.e., a hidden rating for all PVPers. We just need some mechanism that reduces mis-matches. For example, the MX/Pierce quest. It's a great idea with horrible implementation because of low population and mis-matches. However, if there were hidden ratings that matched up most PVEers doing the quest with others doing the same thing, they would have challenging matches that, heaven forbid, might make them realize how much fun PVP can be and encourage them to do more of it. I just don't understand how that would be a bad thing for anyone concerned.
Psychopyro Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 Whether it is a mega-server or something else, anything to increase PVP population would go a long way towards helping things out. I like the idea of cross-server because it makes being a season winner more meaningful, but if they aren't going to do it, they aren't going to do it. (Does anyone know why? Is it a technical issue with how they set their servers up? A cost issue? I'm sure they haven't told us, but part of me still wants to know.) I don't think it's technical so much as it is expensive. I mean the naming thing could be an issue, but I doubt that is what it is. I'm guessing it has more to do with setting up a dedicated PvP shard that essentially mirrors your character and transfers the connection to that server, then after the match, mirrors you back with the updated stats, all on demand. EA probably just does not see any money in doing that for such a small population. I'm hoping that EQNext will have decent PvP. If they link all the servers like Landmark, it xserver will already be built in. I'm hoping more large scale games in the future will go to that system.
gblXsw Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 One problem with ranking is that it can be off putting - nobody wants to be told they suck and it's even worse when everyone can see it. But an invisible rating could help: no reward, no leaderboards, no added pressure, no shaming for low rating - just a tool for the game to decide who gets put on which team.
Kurj Posted November 30, 2015 Author Posted November 30, 2015 I don't think it's technical so much as it is expensive. I mean the naming thing could be an issue, but I doubt that is what it is. I'm guessing it has more to do with setting up a dedicated PvP shard that essentially mirrors your character and transfers the connection to that server, then after the match, mirrors you back with the updated stats, all on demand. EA probably just does not see any money in doing that for such a small population. I'm hoping that EQNext will have decent PvP. If they link all the servers like Landmark, it xserver will already be built in. I'm hoping more large scale games in the future will go to that system. So they won't do something to increase the population because there isn't enough population to justify the expense. If that's what is driving it, their thinking is mind-boggling to me, because the business model they are trending towards with their "story-driven" focus has such limited return for so much investment. It takes a ton of ongoing work to create new stories on a regular basis, whereas if they would bight the bullet and get PVP worked out correctly, it's a much more self-sustaining system because the players make their own content. I played a ton of original EQ, great memories, but for the Star Wars geek in me, nothing is ever going to compare to killing things with a lightsaber.
Psychopyro Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 So they won't do something to increase the population because there isn't enough population to justify the expense. If that's what is driving it, their thinking is mind-boggling to me, because the business model they are trending towards with their "story-driven" focus has such limited return for so much investment. It takes a ton of ongoing work to create new stories on a regular basis, whereas if they would bight the bullet and get PVP worked out correctly, it's a much more self-sustaining system because the players make their own content. It's called the mentality of having to answer to investors... If you put a spreadsheet in the investor meeting that says w number of people do this, but x number of people do this. y people would add to x people because they said if it had more of this they would come back. Sure z people said they would come back if we added to w, but not nearly as many as the other... And that is how story (and PvE in general) funding always win vs PvP funding.... Let's face it, anyone who was here for pvp and left has gone on to greener pastures.... Want a SW PvP fix, play Battlefront..... Keeping in mind all SW games belong to EA now, so they can kinda pull this BS....
Kurj Posted November 30, 2015 Author Posted November 30, 2015 It's called the mentality of having to answer to investors... If you put a spreadsheet in the investor meeting that says w number of people do this, but x number of people do this. y people would add to x people because they said if it had more of this they would come back. Sure z people said they would come back if we added to w, but not nearly as many as the other... And that is how story (and PvE in general) funding always win vs PvP funding.... Let's face it, anyone who was here for pvp and left has gone on to greener pastures.... Want a SW PvP fix, play Battlefront..... Keeping in mind all SW games belong to EA now, so they can kinda pull this BS.... I understand what you're saying. It just seems like a short-sighted approach to me. Folks who want nothing but story will re-sub to level their toons, cancel when they're done, and then re-sub when more story comes out. That's exactly what I did for the first 3 years I played this game until I tried PVP earlier this spring. Now I play too much (don't get my wife started) and it's solely because of PVP. I tried ops too, but I have no desire to remain at my keyboard for 2 hours straight to kill something I killed last week. PVP, on the other hand, comes in nice, bite-sized chunks and never gets old.
DomiSotto Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 Everything being ranked will prevent any new level 65 character from entering, as they would not have the prerequisite gear. There is an inherent contradiction in an attempted matchmaking by skill and a single competitive venue. There is an inherent contradiction in rating an individual based on a random team performance. 80% (or more) of the players under the current system of ELO will end up with zero rating if regs were rated today based on the loss>>> win ratio as solo. If you cannot maintain win>loss ratio under the current system, you will not start winning under any other system either. Entering to lose repeatedly is pointless. The population will simply move into the lowbies/midbies if 65 is all ranked all the time. Imo, ranked should only be open for teams on a PTS type server where they can copy their team. The team should have a name, a fixed season’s roster, and earn a team rating.
Kurj Posted November 30, 2015 Author Posted November 30, 2015 Everything being ranked will prevent any new level 65 character from entering, as they would not have the prerequisite gear. There is an inherent contradiction in an attempted matchmaking by skill and a single competitive venue. There is an inherent contradiction in rating an individual based on a random team performance. 80% (or more) of the players under the current system of ELO will end up with zero rating if regs were rated today based on the loss>>> win ratio as solo. If you cannot maintain win>loss ratio under the current system, you will not start winning under any other system either. Entering to lose repeatedly is pointless. The population will simply move into the lowbies/midbies if 65 is all ranked all the time. Imo, ranked should only be open for teams on a PTS type server where they can copy their team. The team should have a name, a fixed season’s roster, and earn a team rating. Those are really interesting points, which raise some questions for me. 1. What goes into a rating? Just wins/losses? Why don't they make a more comprehensive scheme, that includes things like kills, deaths, objective points, gear level, wins/losses, total matches played, etc., with further factors to take into account the strength of opposition encountered in the match you earned those stats, etc. That would mean that anyone is, in theory, eligible for a match, but their rating would help assign them to a match with folks who have similar gear, experience, etc. At the beginning of a season you would have mismatches, but as the season progressed that should reduce significantly. I'm not a "math guy," but doing something like that ought to be possible. 2. I agree, as someone pointed out, making everyone "ranked" would discourage less skilled players, but you could have a hybrid system, i.e., everyone gets a hidden rating, and only folks who surpass a certain high threshold will have their rating made public. If your rating isn't public, then you're part of the masses, nothing embarassing about that. If the rating/matching system is good, and the population size is large enough, that should reduce match imbalance a lot. Granted, folks will still get steam-rolled from time to time, but anything would be better than the current mix. I don't keep track, but I *feel* like 90% of my matches are totally lopsided, with either my team or the other team winning by a large margin, and maybe 10% of my matches are close. If that ratio switched to even 66/33 I think it would be a huge improvement in play experience.
Jadescythe Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 Those are really interesting points, which raise some questions for me. 1. What goes into a rating? Just wins/losses? Why don't they make a more comprehensive scheme, that includes things like kills, deaths, objective points, gear level, wins/losses, total matches played, etc., with further factors to take into account the strength of opposition encountered in the match you earned those stats, etc. That would mean that anyone is, in theory, eligible for a match, but their rating would help assign them to a match with folks who have similar gear, experience, etc. At the beginning of a season you would have mismatches, but as the season progressed that should reduce significantly. I'm not a "math guy," but doing something like that ought to be possible. The only way to guarantee people aren't abusing the system to raise ranking without trying to win is by making that the determining factor in your ranking. You might have groups of healers standing in acid to get huge heal numbers in Huttball without contributing anything to the team. You might have 3-4 people standing on a node defending it for objective points without knowing whether they actually needed that many. There is no way to quantify your contribution to the team through stats because they can be misleading. If you have bad stats it almost certainly means you weren't a credit to your team, but having good stats doesn't mean you were helping. So you get your rating based off of wins, but it should certainly be adjusted based on your expected win%. Ergo, if my team has a rating of 2000 and the enemy team is 500, a win would only be a 1 or 2 point rating change for everyone.
-Bob- Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 It's called the mentality of having to answer to investors... If you put a spreadsheet in the investor meeting that says w number of people do this, but x number of people do this. y people would add to x people because they said if it had more of this they would come back. Sure z people said they would come back if we added to w, but not nearly as many as the other... And that is how story (and PvE in general) funding always win vs PvP funding.... Let's face it, anyone who was here for pvp and left has gone on to greener pastures.... Want a SW PvP fix, play Battlefront..... Keeping in mind all SW games belong to EA now, so they can kinda pull this BS.... I see your point and what you say makes business sense ( if that isn't a misnomer). I sort of get the feeling that BW is pulling stunts like requiring valor 40 to get companions and pushing some pvp on to the pve community as a way of trying to bolster the pvp community so they can argue to get approved for a larger pvp budget next fiscal year so to speak. Now i wonder if the mentality of this PVP community might change if this were the case, *Tolerate some n00bs, teach them the ropes, be patient and help build the pvp player base to justify more/better PVP content in the future* Its just a thought, i could be so far off target that there is no target. I love IPAs
DomiSotto Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 If the rating/matching system is good, and the population size is large enough, that should reduce match imbalance a lot. It is not large enough. You have a very limited number of PvP elite world-wide that also tend to sleep at different times. There are 58 alts in ranked with 2K rating last season, and about 200 with T1 rating. Those alts are owned in all likelihood by at most 50-100 players. The moment you do not have a multiple of 16 of them on line simultaneously, the system starts matching Wayne Gretzky with Adan Johnson, age 8 from Tim Bits Hokkey team to play together and vs.
Kurj Posted November 30, 2015 Author Posted November 30, 2015 The only way to guarantee people aren't abusing the system to raise ranking without trying to win is by making that the determining factor in your ranking. You might have groups of healers standing in acid to get huge heal numbers in Huttball without contributing anything to the team. You might have 3-4 people standing on a node defending it for objective points without knowing whether they actually needed that many. There is no way to quantify your contribution to the team through stats because they can be misleading. If you have bad stats it almost certainly means you weren't a credit to your team, but having good stats doesn't mean you were helping. So you get your rating based off of wins, but it should certainly be adjusted based on your expected win%. Ergo, if my team has a rating of 2000 and the enemy team is 500, a win would only be a 1 or 2 point rating change for everyone. That makes sense, and it reminds me of that thread about the 9 layers of PVP hell.
Kurj Posted December 1, 2015 Author Posted December 1, 2015 It is not large enough. You have a very limited number of PvP elite world-wide that also tend to sleep at different times. There are 58 alts in ranked with 2K rating last season, and about 200 with T1 rating. Those alts are owned in all likelihood by at most 50-100 players. The moment you do not have a multiple of 16 of them on line simultaneously, the system starts matching Wayne Gretzky with Adan Johnson, age 8 from Tim Bits Hokkey team to play together and vs. Understood, but that is just a small segment of the PVP player base. If the entire system resulted in more balanced matches for more players (and especially those who are starting out), then that *should* increase the number of PVPers in total, which *should* eventually increase the number of top players. The more we discuss this, the more I think the real problem is that the PVP system is set up to divide its player base into too many categories, i.e., ranked vs unranked, imp vs pub. The result is that we do not have a large enough pool of players to ensure good play. If cross-server is out of the question, even cross-faction would help a lot.
DomiSotto Posted December 1, 2015 Posted December 1, 2015 (edited) Cross-server has happened after the cheap transfers, because most of the population consolidated on the Harbinger and ToFN. The Harbinger has an almost immediate regs pop on the imperial side, slightly slower on the Republic. I guarantee you that almost everyone who plays PvP has a toon or three on either one of these. Cross-faction has happened as well, in the way of consolidating into the dominant faction for the ranked. Both Harbinger and ToFN run mostly Imperial ranked PvP. Factions are a myth anyway, since, again, huge majority either runs Empire only or has mirror toons both sides. Virtually no one plays Republic only. I used to think the way you think, but after looking at the numbers in the past year, I came to realize that the population that plays within each timezone is too small even hyper-consolidated. The game is too old and tired, and the community too toxic to expect a large increase in population. BioWARE making leveling and gearing faster created the first increase in ranked apparent participation in Season 6, but in all likelihood it is an artificial inflation of numbers due to multiple alts, and people hunting for that first 7+ wins curve. We are simply too late to the table. Edited December 1, 2015 by DomiSotto
AlrikFassbauer Posted December 1, 2015 Posted December 1, 2015 It's rare, but there are a couple of cases where the pub classes actually suffer that I know of due to animation issues. It would not cause a loss or massive damage differences, but it does make some of the mirrors slightly better... Can you give me, the ancient anti-faction-favouritism-guy, a few examples ?
Jadescythe Posted December 1, 2015 Posted December 1, 2015 Can you give me, the ancient anti-faction-favouritism-guy, a few examples ? I wouldn't mind some of these examples too. Regardless of animation, all damage is calculated immediately now. The only complaints I have heard as of late are differences in Merc/Mando resource management, but that's from PvE players, not PvPers.
Psychopyro Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 (edited) Can you give me, the ancient anti-faction-favouritism-guy, a few examples ? Off the top of my head... Maul/Shadow Strike. The animation for Shadow Strike hitches sometimes because it pulls all the way back as opposed to being an instant forward hit like Maul, causing it not to hit. This also makes the animation longer. Spinning Kick and Spike also behave strangely as well, though not 100% sure what the issue with that is. Because I play both shadow and assassin almost exclusively, I see these two all the time. My wife says there is some weirdness between a couple of BH/Trooper skills as well, but since I don't play the mirror for Trooper with any regularity, I have no idea what it is... Edited December 2, 2015 by Psychopyro
gblXsw Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 (edited) Because I play both shadow and assassin almost exclusively, I see these two all the time. My wife says there is some weirdness between a couple of BH/Trooper skills as well, but since I don't play the mirror for Trooper with any regularity, I have no idea what it is... Off the top of my head: the kickback on the Mercenary's Jet Boost is delayed compared to the kickback on the Commando's Concussion Charge. Edited December 2, 2015 by gblXsw
Spor Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 Carnage Mara/Combat Sentinel are supposed to be the mirror Specs. Some of the buff times are different causing the sentinel's rotation to be slower and resulting in less dps using identical skill rotations and gear, it is not even an animation issue, the mechanics literally are different for supposedly identical specs. (more info in the thread on the Mara/Sent forums).
Recommended Posts