Don’t add a deserter time out in this meta.

[Schoock]

So you respond to this stupid pvp thread, but with nearly 25 pages, total silence on the stupid tank changes.

 

They always respond to Trixxie's threads.

[Seelvir]

The fundamental problem in this entire thread is the notion that punishment of bad behavior is preferable to incentives for desired behavior. There is absolutely no system the developers have time/money/tech to deploy that will succeed at punishing bad guys with greater accuracy than it also punishes good guys. The victim of a notional "lockout on leaving a warzone" will far more often be people who don't deserve one than will be those who do.

 

Instead, can we think of a way to incentivize desired behavior? If you don't want people to leave regs, give them a reason not to. I suggest a hint to the devs ... eliminating the ability to get your conquest done through PvP alone, even when losing a lot of matches, hurt PvP. Not only do people have significantly fewer reasons to even queue, they have absolutely no reason to stay in a bad match. Let's be real, I PvP pubside on Harby/Shan. I'm a good player ... most of my wins are thanks to me single-handedly outsmarting the enemy on objectives ... the kind of matches where the opfor has top 3 DPS and top 2 healers, where the opfor's top DPS did more damage than the bottom 4 DPSers on my team combined ... but we won. That's pretty common. Most weeks, I complete my weekly in like 12 losses and 4 wins. But that was okay with me, because even those losses were getting me meaningful points on conquest. And that's with me /quitting out of sure-fire-loss arenas, 4 DPS on my team and I know the names of 2 and they are cannon fodder ... and the other team has a balanced skank/heals/DPS, or they have 4 DPS who will definitely global one of my cannon fodder teammates, and I know, because before the arena even starts, all 4 of the enemy have my cannon fodder teammate in their target-of-target frame ... yeah, I leave bad matches. And I still end up averaging a record of 1 win per 3 losses. Penalize me for leaving bad maps ... ? /facepalm.

 

On top of the conquest evisceration, to hear Eric on Vulkk's stream even whispering about PvP penalties ... do you guys, devs, realize that this is where conspiracy theories pop up that you secretly are trying to destroy the game?

 

So let's just get on already with you guys saying "lol j/k @ PvP lockout timers" and let's get on already with ideas for INCENTIVIZING full PvP participation.

 

Hell, I love to PvP, and I haven't PvP'd once since the conquest changes. It's not a protest, as such. It's just ... there's no incentive now. So I'm like ... meh /shrug.

Edited April 16, 2018 by CommunityDroidEN

[Costello]

A some point you have to ask what you want PvP to be about.

 

In the past we have seen it shouldn't be about gear and bolster should be at level cap.

 

Next it shouldn't be about the map/playing field and people have a right to only play the areas they want. Which can come down to only playing the map where your spec or build has the advantage.

 

We have seen that balancing is an issue and possibly unfairly there are accusations PvE specs suffer for PvP balance as every spec has to do the same target dps and skank tanks ruin everything, though nerfing tanks who are already always the needed class in pve group content can only be a bad thing.

 

Then it shouldn't be about organisation and team work as pre-mades are ruining the experience.

 

At the next stage will it be that inexpericed PVPers shouldn't have to compete against experienced ones as someone taking charge of a pug and directing people may make it appear to be a premade, which will ruin the experience.

 

Very few people like to lose, generally they are called losers and the village idiot that when they get slapped thanks the person for taking the time to slap them. PvP will be heated its the nature of the environment when your job is to gank and otherwise take out your opponent as quick as possible. So really you have to ask what do you hope to get from PvP and expect from other people.

 

Is it okay to desert if you see they are better organised, if they have some experienced PvPers, if you don't like the map, if you got a lag spike, if you had a bad start. Is it okay to quit if you see they have more skank tanks or more healers, maybe its a good idea to keep quiting until you get in a group where you see a premade on your team or you have the healers and they have nothing but melee dps. How many people have quit a match when they had the advantage out of a spirit of fair play? Where you can shop around for your PvP experience doesn't it risk becoming a situation where smart players keep quitting till they get on the right side and its only the idiots that try and stick out a fight which will inevitably lose.

 

There might be said to be a lot wrong with PvP, but aren't they what make it PvP as opposed to PvE.

[Seelvir]

Also ... right after I excoriate you guys for being tone-deaf ... um ... PLEASE don't listen to the players asking for choice on warzones. You guys know, and you're right, that doing that will render some warzones obsolete, and that's not healthy for the game.

 

Also ... VERY FEW PEOPLE LIKE POLYMORPH PVP. Please don't do that. It's a cool idea in theory, and it breaks instantly on contact with the playerbase. Please, PLEASE don't waste limited PvP development time on that.

 

Let's get more warzones like Odessan. The pure unadulterated brilliance of that map is underappreciated. And just for clarity, please read no sarcasm into this at all. I love that map. I want more like it.

[Glocko]

They would have to give us the vote kick option too nothing worse than getting in a WZ with RPers dancing somewhere off node. And you might want to consider fixing the falling through the map, getting stuck in walls, etc prior to a lockout... It has been happening for 7 years.... Edited April 14, 2018 by Glocko

[benmas]

Perfect example of elitist thinking and not wanting to give up their easy way out.. instead of blaming themselves they'd rather blame the rest of their team. Prime example of why we need a lockout. They are scared of lockouts They don't want to waste their time! But they are happy to waste other people's time They are squirming right now just thinking about having to complete an entire match! lol DO IT BIOWARE! Let them unsub if they have to, don't need that kind of toxic behaviour in this game anyways, more people would play pvp and stay subbed to this game if it was a more relaxed environment without a bunch of rage quitters.

 

we found the PvE player!

 

on a more related note, lockouts are stupid, they won't stop people leaving and will suck the little fun left out of this game. Sometimes people have to leave a match aswell so shouldn't be punished for that.

Edited April 14, 2018 by benmas

[eartharioch]

I honestly do not think that offering daily/weekly bonus for playing X random PvP will incent most players to actually play encounters they don't really want to play. You would have to make the incentive very high to get them to do so in my view.

 

It works fine for flashpoints, no reason it shouldn't for PVP. All BW has to do is literally implement the same UI for PVP as it has for FPs, no need to make anything new.

[DefenderTwo]

It works fine for flashpoints, no reason it shouldn't for PVP. All BW has to do is literally implement the same UI for PVP as it has for FPs, no need to make anything new.

 

That can be exploited though should the mass decide to boot someone they don't like.

[eartharioch]

That can be exploited though should the mass decide to boot someone they don't like.

 

I'm not talking about the boot function, I'm talking about the function where I get to choose which FPs I'm queuing for (all or just specific ones). I can either choose to queue for specific ones and not get the reward or queue for all FPs and get rewards. No reason not to treat PVP the same way. After I've completed my Daily/Weekly missions with all WZs possible (i.e., got the rewards), why not let me choose which WZ I'd rather play for the rest of the week, assuming I care enough, since choosing could increase my queue times.

Edited April 14, 2018 by eartharioch

[Suzsi]

The abandonment lock out could happen after the WZ timer itself has counted down to 0.

Gives people more than enough time to quit that wz and join a different one if they dont like the map or the team they got.

 

As for other reasons like being abused etc if you gotta leave do it just put up with a lockout for your troubles. A 5 min lockout would be ample time to make folks think twice about rage quitting in the middle of a map. You end up with a bad draw deal with it stop being sore arsed losers just because its not going your way.

 

Everyone starts somewhere, not everyone starts out as great at pvp maybe it would give others more incentive to play nice and teach fellow team mates if they are stuck playing with them, instead of abusing them.

 

Not just ranked but both.

[TrixxieTriss]

They would have to give us the vote kick option too nothing worse than getting in a WZ with RPers dancing somewhere off node. And you might want to consider fixing the falling through the map, getting stuck in walls, etc prior to a lockout... It has been happening for 7 years....

 

Not so long ago people trolled me for saying I’ve had multiple matches I’ve lost because RPers were off RPing and not trying to play to win. I’m glad someone else has seen this too.

Edited April 14, 2018 by TrixxieTriss

[Glzmo]

Indeed, please don't add a timeout. That would ruin any chances of set 8 vs. 8 or 12 vs. 12 events ever working. Trying to get those going and synched between two teams is a nightmare, and requires teams to leave matches if the desired matchup doesn't occur. In addition, some players want to play certain game modes only, be it for IC character reasons (characters that are roleplayed as Huttball players only wanting to play Huttball maps, for example), they just loathe certain game modes, get out of matches with people that are griefers or trolls, or whatever other reason. Also, such a timeout would be detrimental if a player crashes or loses connection during a match (perhaps their slot should be held for 2-3 minutes after losing connection so they could get back into the same game if their client crashes, etc.?).

 

Hey Eric, an idea for giving us a choice of which WZs we want to play when we queue is to have a system like the group finder for flash points. Let us tick which maps we want to do. But make it so we have to pick a minimum of 3.

I like the idea, although perhaps there should be no minimum, so you can pick a specific arena if you want to. A large enough bonus for rewards could be added for every Warzone you have ticked, so you can still get some rewards when you only tick one warzone, but if you tick more, you get more rewards which makes it a more attractive option. This would still allow players to get into game modes they like only (for example, someone that Roleplays a Huttball player could pick only Huttball maps and play those). Ideally, the maps would be divided by sub-categories as well, so you could, for example, tick Hutball and all hutball maps are ticked, etc..

If such a thing is implemented, I'd like to see the same choices for Galactic Starfighter as well.

 

On a side note, it would be nice if we finally got private lobbies or at least a way to challenge another specific team to a match (and also give us a map choice for that as stated above) with one ops leader challenging the other. Such private matches could yield less or no rewards either, if that's a concern. It's way too hard to try to get 8 vs. 8 not to say 12 vs. 12 matches between two sides synced and going for events, private matches would greatly help with that.

Edited April 14, 2018 by Glzmo

[TrixxieTriss]

The abandonment lock out could happen after the WZ timer itself has counted down to 0.

Gives people more than enough time to quit that wz and join a different one if they dont like the map or the team they got.

 

As for other reasons like being abused etc if you gotta leave do it just put up with a lockout for your troubles. A 5 min lockout would be ample time to make folks think twice about rage quitting in the middle of a map. You end up with a bad draw deal with it stop being sore arsed losers just because its not going your way.

 

Everyone starts somewhere, not everyone starts out as great at pvp maybe it would give others more incentive to play nice and teach fellow team mates if they are stuck playing with them, instead of abusing them.

 

Not just ranked but both.

 

The only problem with locking it when the timer hits zero is you often pop right when it’s starting or people are just leaving the gate. Happens all the time, especially in arena matches.

 

I could deal with a 5 min lock out, but that’s not what they mean, they are suggesting a 15min lock out and that would be penalising people who have to leave to get away from abusive people or trolls and not the ones who should be penalised for their behaviour. It also leaves that system open for abuse by those people trying to get people to leave. Can you imagine how toxic it would become if they knew they were getting people locked out by being abusive or trolling people. People just wouldn’t set foot in pvp again.

[TrixxieTriss]

I like the idea, although perhaps there should be no minimum, so you can pick a specific arena if you want to. A bonus for rewards could be added for every Warzone you have ticked, so you can still get some rewards when you only tick one warzone, but if you tick more, you get more rewards which makes it a more attractive option. This would still allow players to get into game modes they like only (for example, someone that Roleplays a Huttball player could pick only Huttball maps and play those).

If such a thing is implemented, I'd like to see the same choices for Galactic Starfighter as well.

 

On a side note, it would be nice if we finally got private lobbies or at least a way to challenge another specific team to a match (and also give us a map choice for that as stated above) with one ops leader challenging the other. Such private matches could yield less or no rewards either, if that's a concern. It's way too hard to try to get 8 vs. 8 not to say 12 vs. 12 matches between two sides synced and going for events (which cause people to leave when the desired matchup doesn't occur), private matches would greatly help with that.

 

I’d like them to allow dueling on the fleet near the Bolster terminals and WZ / OPs dummies. That way you’d have something to do while you wait for it to pop. It would also be away to help people learn from watching others.

[Glzmo]

I’d like them to allow dueling on the fleet near the Bolster terminals and WZ / OPs dummies. That way you’d have something to do while you wait for it to pop. It would also be away to help people learn from watching others.

I wasn't aware you can't duel near those. I guess you learn something new every day. In any case, ops vs. ops/group vs. group "duel" challenges anywhere would be a nice thing to have as well. Edited April 14, 2018 by Glzmo

[AdrianDmitruk]

While PVE has an option to disable backfill, PVP doesn't.

While PVE has an option to filter what you're queueing for, PVP doesn't.

While PVE respects ignore lists, PVP doesn't. (Yes I recognize people can abuse ignore by ignoring only bads, but it's also impossible to /ignore abusive trolls in PVP, and PVP is nowhere near moderated heavily enough to offset the ignore list being disabled.)

 

Just a few reasons off the top of my head why PVP shouldn't be subjected to a lockout. When PVP has the same pre-pop options as PVE, maybe I'll reconsider my opposition, but the above are my minimum requirements therefor.

[Yamahara]

Keep the feedback coming. Discussions like these are helpful for us so continue to let us know your thoughts.

 

-eric

 

There's no reason for lockouts in regs due to having a quick backfill. Solo ranked is the only place this would be needed.

[Alericus]

My real problem with lockouts is its a response that creates more problems that it solves. Ive played PvP since launch and since then Ive seen cheaters, exploiters, afk players, players just goofing around and win trading. If you bring in a lock out, okay so now I'm stuck in a match with players win trading or overwhelmed in a triple cap, so what will happen eventually is players will simple walk away from pvp. I think better than a deserter time out, start setting minimum requirements for pvp for regs and ranked. One thing to consider is creating a filter to prevent the ranked teams from walking into regs to destroy beginners or casual players for cheap points. Id also suggest you need a minimum geared stat for reg 70 matches as well. Ive seen way too many lvl 70 players(not sure if intentional or uninformed ) eith missing gear or wearing green gear way below most of their other slots ( I smell hijinks usually) there has to be a way to resolve this issue. As for arenas, I don't know how many times Ive seena team that's losing to us then one of their fourth drops, next thing you know they have a new fourth who is suddenly OP and they win, lets get real players are dropping in ringers and you know it. In any event this outcry is just coming form the win traders..Ive seen way too much of it this last year maybe its time you started punishing that?

[TrixxieTriss]

While PVE has an option to disable backfill, PVP doesn't.

While PVE has an option to filter what you're queueing for, PVP doesn't.

While PVE respects ignore lists, PVP doesn't. (Yes I recognize people can abuse ignore by ignoring only bads, but it's also impossible to /ignore abusive trolls in PVP, and PVP is nowhere near moderated heavily enough to offset the ignore list being disabled.)

 

Just a few reasons off the top of my head why PVP shouldn't be subjected to a lockout. When PVP has the same pre-pop options as PVE, maybe I'll reconsider my opposition, but the above are my minimum requirements therefor.

 

While you do still pop with people on the list. You don’t actually see anything they say. The problem with that is if they call incoming and are guarding, you won’t actually see

I’ve an extensive troll list. Luckily most have left the game for the foreseeable future.

[Andryah]

While PVE has an option to disable backfill, PVP doesn't.

While PVE has an option to filter what you're queueing for, PVP doesn't.

While PVE respects ignore lists, PVP doesn't. (Yes I recognize people can abuse ignore by ignoring only bads, but it's also impossible to /ignore abusive trolls in PVP, and PVP is nowhere near moderated heavily enough to offset the ignore list being disabled.)

 

Just a few reasons off the top of my head why PVP shouldn't be subjected to a lockout. When PVP has the same pre-pop options as PVE, maybe I'll reconsider my opposition, but the above are my minimum requirements therefor.

 

All of the above is true, and I get your point about game mechanics for LFG.

 

However, I would offer up that comparing PvP with PvE in this context is invalid. Not for basic mechanics reasons, but because PvP is all about killing other player characters, and taking and applying any advantage available to do so. (not commenting specifically about any forum member)......After all the "Care Bear" pejoratives over the years about PvE players by some of the PvP community, I find it highly irregular to now want to apply the care bear LFG model to PvP LFG.

 

In other words.. PvP is NOT a friendly segment of MMO play, and never has been. PvP is by definition an environment soaked in "unfairness" and "frustration" which is part and parcel to human conflict models. There is little to no signs of chivalry or honorable conduct, and as such... the same safeguards that exist in PvE to enforce "proper behaviors" is largely absent.. save for very overt and deliberate griefing.

 

The first thing I learned in MMO PvP almost 20 years ago is -----> PvP is neither a fair nor friendly environment to play in. It requires a lot of player adaptation to be successful and enjoyable.. and it really is not for everyone.

Edited April 14, 2018 by Andryah

[AlienEyeTX]

Name the map when we get the pop, not afterwards when we see the load screen.

 

That's a pretty good idea.

[Glocko]

Or just maybe do basic matchmaking and eliminate 75% of the problem while actually working on something that has been discussed fro several years....

 

Seems really odd that the devs even bothered to post anything about this. They have to know there is no way to implement a lockout with all of the issues that they never addressed bugs, matchmaking, exploiters, etc.

[AdrianDmitruk]

All of the above is true, and I get your point about game mechanics for LFG.

 

However, I would offer up that comparing PvP with PvE in this context is invalid. Not for basic mechanics reasons, but because PvP is all about killing other player characters, and taking and applying any advantage available to do so. (not commenting specifically about any forum member)......After all the "Care Bear" pejoratives over the years about PvE players by some of the PvP community, I find it highly irregular to now want to apply the care bear LFG model to PvP LFG.

 

In other words.. PvP is NOT a friendly segment of MMO play, and never has been. PvP is by definition an environment soaked in "unfairness" and "frustration" which is part and parcel to human conflict models. There is little to no signs of chivalry or honorable conduct, and as such... the same safeguards that exist in PvE to enforce "proper behaviors" is largely absent.. save for very overt and deliberate griefing.

 

The first thing I learned in MMO PvP almost 20 years ago is -----> PvP is neither a fair nor friendly environment to play in. It requires a lot of player adaptation to be successful and enjoyable.. and it really is not for everyone.

 

Really the only thing that I pointed out that I could see this response as applicable is the fact that PVP doesn't respect ignore lists. That doesn't necessarily mean I expect PVP to be all care bear and friendly matches. In fact, I expressly recognized that there are valid reasons for PVP to not respect ignore lists.

 

I generally ignore only gold spammers as I know how useless /ignore is for most of the content that I do. However, if /ignore worked for PVP, I'd really only ignore the following:

 

1) Known chronic AFKers

2) Match throwers

3) Win traders

 

of which 2 and 3 are explicitly recognized as cheating by Bioware (even if enforcement is woefully insufficient).

 

I presently don't ignore people who are abusive in ops chat for the exact reason Trixxie pointed out--I want to see their incoming calls.

 

None of this should imply that I expect PVP to be care bear. And perhaps it is inappropriate to compare PVP LFG to PVE LFG, in the current meta. But Bioware is proposing to introduce a PVE LFG mechanic (lockouts) to PVP LFG. That proposal makes such comparisons more appropriate than they would be for the current build of the game.

Edited April 14, 2018 by AdrianDmitruk

[Stellarcrusade]

Think of this whole concept as a problem with a bad solution. The problem IS NOT that it bugs people that other people leave. Nobody cares if it bugs you. The issue is that it takes a good minute or so before a back filler can get into position to help compete and in the mean time the surging side has a power-play of sorts sometimes causing more people to quit. Then the weaker side has a big hole to dig out of.

 

Keep in mind, a bad player leaving your team shouldn't be a bad thing. Most leavers are bad players. So instead of trying to find a way to keep the bad players on your team, lets fix the actual problem. The idea of a deserter flag will just make it worse because players who do not want a deserter flag will simply go idle, which is way worse than a replacement player. Others who do not care about the deserter flag will quit anyhow, and not queue for a few mins, thus slowing the queues.

 

Ok, so now that we have established that a deserter flag WILL NOT FIX THE PROBLEM. Lets come up with ideas to fix the problem. I'll start the process:

IDEA: When a player drops, eliminate the imbalance until about 1 minute after the team is back filled. HOW? You could add a buff on the remaining players to offset the loss. Some sort of shield/damage buff may work fine.

 

Thats just an idea, hopefully others will provide even more good ideas how to actually fix the problem and lets stop talking about a failed idea like the deserter.

[Yamahara]

I can see the need for a deserter lockout if we had solo ranked 8v8 or something, but there's no need for it in 8v8 regs. I've been pvping since I hit 50 a week'ish after launch. I queue solo a lot when my friends arent on and run into ridiculous premades/unbalanced teams myself. I just roll with it and do what I can. The problem with matchmaking is that it will make the queue pops much longer than they are now, and imo that's not worth it. Just befriend competent players you run into regularly and group together, 4 good people can make a difference.