Players that ignore calls during a match should be kicked

[RaithHarth]

For example during my "Civil War" match, I had kept the enemy players from capping the east turret for about 5 minutes, then more came over to help the enemy team, what does my team do? stay in the middle to get kills, even after I got beat by two players on the east side, I came to help cap the middle turret. I thought they had it under control so I moved over to the west side because one of our players left it abandoned so I stationed myself there. Guess what? the middle turret is capped within a few minutes after I had capped it for my team, they were too focused on kills.

This is exactly whats wrong with pvp, some players don't listen to reason and switching tactics, especially these amateurs who haven't pvp'ed before.

[ZUHFB]

its not that they are bad, its they don't care about the outcome, I for example want to pvp in pvp and not click some turret

[Bigfallenstar]

9 hours ago, ZUHFB said:

its not that they are bad, its they don't care about the outcome, I for example want to pvp in pvp and not click some turret

Oh yes. Nothing like zurging number farmers who can only care about big numbers in a warzone.

[ZUHFB]

8 hours ago, Bigfallenstar said:

Oh yes. Nothing like zurging number farmers who can only care about big numbers in a warzone.

its not about that, I want to be challenged. I have no fun in beating up people without hands. I want to be THREATENED by the opponents, I want to never die. Never dying is easy if you play objective because either there is nobody around, or so many people that its not worth fighting.

Being in a unwinable 1v2 situation vs 2 regstars is more entertaining than being in a winable 1v6 against objective players.

Its just how I want to play, its not like you pay my sub so I can do what I want regardless of what you think I should be doing.

[RikuvonDrake]

its unreasonable to demand others players play this game the way you want them to instead of the way they want 🙃

Edited January 1, 2023 by RikuvonDrake
added smile for drama

[sGroggy]

18 hours ago, ZUHFB said:

its not that they are bad, its they don't care about the outcome, I for example want to pvp in pvp and not click some turret

Yes. It is very much that they are bad. At objective based pvp. They may be great at dpsing and you may talk all about dps pressure. But they're simply bad at WZ. In arenas they may be great; I don't care. In WZ they're bad. The not winning at the end makes it quite obvious only dpsing is not how it was intended to or should be played. "Clicking node is not pvp" according to you, is completely irrelevant. Playing for objectives (note I didn't say clicking nodes like an idiot and forego any dpsing while appropriate == objective based pvp) is what's intended for WZ. Hence, if you're not doing that, you're objectively (pun not intended) bad at it.

[Crazykidddd]

1 hour ago, sGroggy said:

Yes. It is very much that they are bad. At objective based pvp. They may be great at dpsing and you may talk all about dps pressure. But they're simply bad at WZ. In arenas they may be great; I don't care. In WZ they're bad. The not winning at the end makes it quite obvious only dpsing is not how it was intended to or should be played. "Clicking node is not pvp" according to you, is completely irrelevant. Playing for objectives (note I didn't say clicking nodes like an idiot and forego any dpsing while appropriate == objective based pvp) is what's intended for WZ. Hence, if you're not doing that, you're objectively (pun not intended) bad at it.

PvP for long enough, you'll get there. Eventually everyone stops caring about objectives, they're boring and a complete waste of time. Plus unless you can give players a pvp mode (not arenas) where they can have fun fighting other players instead of afk'ing at a node waiting for anyone to show up then none of you have any right whatsoever to dictate how others should play the game. 

[Weswhitebore]

3 hours ago, RikuvonDrake said:

its unreasonable to demand others players play this game the way you want them to instead of the way they want 🙃

Tell that to Bioware Riku, tell that to Bioware.

[Weswhitebore]

However, this brings me back to my suggestion. Bring back Vote Kick but with the change that the vote can't be cleared unless everyone votes, the vote only passes if 5 players agree the person should be kicked. If 5 People, aka, the majority agree you shouldn't be there, then you likely shouldn't be there. This may or may not be a problem with premades but I see no reason for a premade to abuse this, if they restrict the premade group size back to 4 then that eliminates the premade problem all together, because that's only half, they would never be able to force a majority vote. At most, like congress, it would remain a stand still. If you restrict the Arenas premades to 2 then that also loves the same thing for Arenas. Though I'm fine with it being only in WZs and not Arenas.

Edited January 1, 2023 by Weswhitebore

[ZUHFB]

4 hours ago, Crazykidddd said:

PvP for long enough, you'll get there. Eventually everyone stops caring about objectives, they're boring and a complete waste of time. Plus unless you can give players a pvp mode (not arenas) where they can have fun fighting other players instead of afk'ing at a node waiting for anyone to show up then none of you have any right whatsoever to dictate how others should play the game. 

this

+ there is no reward for winning

[sGroggy]

4 hours ago, Crazykidddd said:

PvP for long enough, you'll get there. Eventually everyone stops caring about objectives, they're boring and a complete waste of time. Plus unless you can give players a pvp mode (not arenas) where they can have fun fighting other players instead of afk'ing at a node waiting for anyone to show up then none of you have any right whatsoever to dictate how others should play the game. 

This changes nothing about what I said.

I'm at valor 100 for many years already. And I'm not "there yet". But sure, let's say that at some point I am. Then I would also be bad at WZs.

[ZUHFB]

So when is the showdown? 8v8 ranked players vs objective players, lets see how that goes

[juanmf]

On 12/31/2022 at 4:47 AM, ZUHFB said:

its not that they are bad, its they don't care about the outcome, I for example want to pvp in pvp and not click some turret

Then why join a team based objective mode and screw it over for everyone? You can do both PvP and "Click some turret". This is the kind of behaviour that makes PvP Unbereable for the people that want to actually *win* the match and not have their time wasted by people throwing it.

[Nee-Elder]

7 hours ago, ZUHFB said:

+ there is no reward for winning

Other than:

• unobtained Codex entries (per character)
• unfinished Achievements (per legacy)
• 3 wins for the WEEKLY (potentially)
• basic satisfaction from seeing a pop-up screen saying "You WON!" in bold letters
• 8 or more medals = faster PVP Seasons advancement, which in turn also = REWARDS

Personally, similar to Chess, i think the best teams are a combination of tunnel-vision kill kill kill pawns  mixed with more tactically sophisticated obj obj obj  knights/rooks/bishops.

That being said, trying to regulate ignorance out of "casuals" in a SW video game is about as futile as trying to regulate toxic contempt (for casuals) out of the "hardcores" .

p.s. Open-world PVP is the best because of simple  red = dead  ... The End.

[ZUHFB]

1 hour ago, Nee-Elder said:

unobtained Codex entries (per character)

They are unique, once you have them there is #1 no point to have them and #2 no reason to ever win again

1 hour ago, Nee-Elder said:

unfinished Achievements (per legacy)

sooner or later this will be completed anyway

1 hour ago, Nee-Elder said:

3 wins for the WEEKLY (potentially)

a weekly rewarding nothing of value, how great

1 hour ago, Nee-Elder said:

basic satisfaction from seeing a pop-up screen saying "You WON!" in bold letters

I get more satisfaction from killing other people

1 hour ago, Nee-Elder said:

8 or more medals = faster PVP Seasons advancement, which in turn also = REWARDS

now that is an actual thing.... but you also get 8 medals when you lose

1 hour ago, Nee-Elder said:

Personally, similar to Chess, i think the best teams are a combination of tunnel-vision kill kill kill pawns  mixed with more tactically sophisticated obj obj obj  knights/rooks/bishops.

in no way is this at all comparable to chess - they are different games, but lets roll with it anyway: attacking weak pawns can very well be a winning strategy. Also knights, rooks and bishops can move, attack and defend other pieces, all of which an objective can't, it's just there

nevermind that if you lose a pawn in any kind of attack its (looking at value, gambits excluded etc) a straight up loss

[Nee-Elder]

33 minutes ago, ZUHFB said:

a weekly rewarding nothing of value,

Completing the Weekly helps advance new 7.2  PVP 'seasons' faster, thereby gaining the new/old PVP rewards sooner ( or at all , depending upon the player ) .

33 minutes ago, ZUHFB said:

 but you also get 8 medals when you lose

Sure but my point was: You typically get more medals "easier" by completing the objectives.

33 minutes ago, ZUHFB said:

in no way is this at all comparable to chess -

Everything is comparable to Chess.

33 minutes ago, ZUHFB said:

 - they are different games,

Yes i am aware of that, Capt. Obvious.

C'mon ZUHFB, don't always default to your patented ______ response.

smh

Edited January 1, 2023 by Nee-Elder
Reason: dude is sorta hopeless sometimes

[ZUHFB]

1 minute ago, Nee-Elder said:

Completing the Weekly helps advance new 7.2  PVP 'seasons' faster, thereby gaining the new/old PVP rewards sooner ( or at all , depending upon the player ) .

I have all of them

2 minutes ago, Nee-Elder said:

Sure but my point was: You typically get more medals "easier" by completing the objectives.

No. Other people have this mindset too, they fight at the voidstar doors anyway so you get those anyway, and even if I don't... nothing happens, I just go again

6 minutes ago, Nee-Elder said:

Everything is comparable to Chess.

No. And even if, let's say we assign the value points of each piece to a player in a warzone we end up realizing that the most valuable player is usually not a good defender because 1, it's value could be used somewhere to attack and 2. if the opponent adds more attackers the most valuable piece is unable to defend and stuck defending vs. less valuable pieces from the opponent. So yeah, if we compare swtor regs to chess, ranked players should not be defending. 

[Nee-Elder]

10 minutes ago, ZUHFB said:

I have all of them

Other people don't.

11 minutes ago, ZUHFB said:

No.

Yes.

11 minutes ago, ZUHFB said:

No.

Yes.

 #beinginathreadwithZUHFBsometimes ^

[Samcuu]

1 hour ago, ZUHFB said:

I get more satisfaction from killing other people

Why don't you queue for arenas then where thats the main objective? You don't have to answer the question I've been playing long enough and know enough pvpers to understand that many of them just enjoy the schadenfreude of the whole thing. 

[juanmf]

9 minutes ago, Samcuu said:

Why don't you queue for arenas then where thats the main objective? You don't have to answer the question I've been playing long enough and know enough pvpers to understand that many of them just enjoy the schadenfreude of the whole thing. 

Because he would get decked by people that know how to PvP. 

Edited January 1, 2023 by juanmf

[ZUHFB]

57 minutes ago, Samcuu said:

Why don't you queue for arenas then where thats the main objective?

because a warzone is a longer match and also lethality is only ok in arenas but broken in warzones. If I were to play ling I'd do arenas

51 minutes ago, juanmf said:

Because he would get decked by people that know how to PvP. 

if you click on the link in my bio and go to S14, the last ranked season, you can check for yourself

[juanmf]

1 minute ago, ZUHFB said:

because a warzone is a longer match and also lethality is only ok in arenas but broken in warzones. If I were to play ling I'd do arenas

if you click on the link in my bio and go to S14, the last ranked season, you can check for yourself

Prime example of what we are talking about right here.

[Samcuu]

4 minutes ago, juanmf said:

Prime example of what we are talking about right here.

If you go to they gym and play basketball and someone shows up and gives u a beat down how do u react? At the end of the day it's a competitive game mode. You have the same opportunity to create your own advantages as well. Let this be your villain origin story. I hope to see you and ur pvp guild terrorizing the queue in the near future o7

[Weswhitebore]

3 minutes ago, Samcuu said:

At the end of the day it's a competitive game mode.

It's the only game mode where there is competition and it's starting to become a non-factor thanks to the Devs "positive play" initiative.

 

4 minutes ago, Samcuu said:

You have the same opportunity to create your own advantages as well.

That is entirely true. Bioware is encouraging you to use those advantages.

4 minutes ago, Samcuu said:

I hope to see you and ur pvp guild terrorizing the queue in the near future o7

Same actually, same.

[sGroggy]

14 hours ago, ZUHFB said:

So when is the showdown? 8v8 ranked players vs objective players

Why? Do you like getting humiliated? 😉

No seriously, it would be interesting indeed. For example let's call it a 4v4 ranked players team vs for example former 8v8 ranked players. I'm mentioning former 8v8 players as an example, because I'm not talking about the "let's click clicky thingy and die while I'm being mercilessly tunneled by the enemy team" kind of objective player, to be clear.

However, I have a very strong feeling. The "4v4 ranked players" team would suddenly start caring a lot more about objectives in order to win. Because if they don't, they will obviously lose. Which is exactly the point.

Look, I'm not saying even a non-idiot objective player can take on a 4v4 ranked player in a duel - maybe they can, maybe they can't, it's irrelevant for the point I'm trying to make. But as I have the impression you think this is what I'm discussing about, sure, let's say hypothetically the 4v4 ranked player wins in a duel for all I care. I'm saying as long as this player completely ignores the objectives, he is bad at objective based pvp.

I would hope this is something we can agree on.

Maybe the 4v4 ranked players would be better objective based pvpers, if only they cared about the objectives, sure. But as long as they don't ("because boring/it's not pvp it's pve/whatever", which is an opinion you're entitled to), they're not. Are they better in a duel/arena format? Sure, could be, I'm not even trying to dispute that.

Edited January 2, 2023 by sGroggy