Jump to content

rambolnet

Members
  • Posts

    39
  • Joined

Reputation

10 Good

Personal Information

  • Location
    UK
  • Homepage
    https://www.rambol.net/
  1. I agree that the game should be balanced around the arena format but that's a red herring. Firstly, it's possible to address problems in other PvP formats without impacting team ranked. Secondly, the proposed changes to Electro Net wouldn't seriously affect team ranked—and even if they did, so what? These proposals would be most impactful in solo ranked and unranked warzones, where it's common to see several mercenaries/commandos on a team. I'm reading some contradictions ("Electro Net isn't a problem") and ad hominems ("nerfs are lazy", "you're biased/salty") but no compelling counterarguments or refutations. Cybertech grenades are a pertinent precedent here (and why I am in favour of the first proposal): if not for the Bastioned machanic, Cybertech grenades would be hell to play against. It's too easy to lock down a player with successive nets—no particular skill, coordination or planning is called for—and there is no real counterplay. You can have solid positioning and use your breaker and defensive cooldowns intelligently to survive one net, maybe two, but you're quickly going to run out of resources. Class stacking does cause problems and there are other examples of abilities that are difficult to defend against (Predation comes to mind) but that doesn't mean it's wrongheaded to try to address the worst of these problems.
  2. The acid mechanic was changed in game update 5.9.2 to disincentivise that behaviour. Yes, a lone stealther can troll and waste everyone’s time but they no longer have a real shot at winning in overtime. It becomes a DPS race. Yes, matchmaking issues like you describe stem from the low population. Bronze- and gold-tier players should never be in the same match but it can’t be helped if there aren’t enough players in queue. This is something BioWare can only address by attracting more people to the game and keeping them playing.
  3. In response to a few comments in this thread: arenas don’t interest everyone and that’s fine. The deathmatch format appeals to a subset of the PvP community. If you don’t enjoy that content, move along. If you don’t appreciate the skill involved in setting up a good hard swap, move along. I have no interest in the storyline or in PvE but I don’t complain when another companion returns or when BioWare adds a new operation boss. Nor do I insult, say, NiM raiders by playing down their skills. Couldn’t agree more. I’m sure there are some group ranked veterans who would jump at the chance to work with the developers. From best to worst, I’d rank the maps as follows: Tatooine Canyon Corellia Square Makeb Mesa Orbital Station Rishi Cove Mandalorian Battle Ring Tatooine Canyon is my favourite map because teams have several viable options for where to set up. LoS is thoughtfully placed. Knockbacks can be impactful but not overly punishing. I also love Corellia Square. Like Tatooine Canyon, there are several places for teams to set up. It’s nice and open but has enough LoS not to advantage melee over ranged or vice versa. Makeb Mesa also offers teams choice in terms of positioning: up on the bridge, under the bridge and by the ramps. In my view, Makeb Mesa is the only map that does verticality well. Rishi Cove’s central platform is a nightmare. Knockbacks are too punishing if the fight goes upstairs. Below, there is too much LoS and clutter (which also causes camera collision issues). Mandalorian Battle Ring is even worse than Rishi Cove. Teams are funnelled onto the central platform, which dominates the map and gives ranged DPS a big advantage. It’s difficult to intercept opponents before they set up in a favourable position on high ground. Even with the addition of railings, it can be hard to avoid knockbacks and they are far too punishing: it takes too long to get back into position, even with the vents. Too often, a team’s only option is to hunker down under the platform and run out the clock—not fun. The area under the platform is not suited to team fights (too confined, too many pillars) and neither is the outer ring (no LoS). Orbital Station isn’t nearly as bad as MBR but it suffers from a similar problem: knockbacks are too punishing. It’s a lot more fun when team fights take place downstairs. However, like MBR, it often turns into a standoff.
  4. Without evidence to the contrary, we can reasonably assume the matchmaking system is working as described. I think hidden MMR is a red herring. The small population is the simplest explanation for the matchmaking issues we're experiencing. I doubt there is anything more BioWare can do to make matches fairer and more fun... other than attract more players to the game and keep them playing. Yes, there are problems with the netcode/HeroEngine that may not be fixable or would require a lot of investment/development hours to fix. Yes, there are balance issues (to quote Yahtzee, "Cows go 'moo', dogs go 'woof', MMO players go 'the PvP is unbalanced'"). However, I still think SWTOR's PvP is fantastic and that its enormous potential has never been realised. Had the game been more polished at launch and had EA invested in the game's continued development, SWTOR could have had a competitive scene to rival WoW's. I hope BioWare can turn around the game's fortunes and revitalise PvP in particular. Unfortunately, EA seems less interested in developing games than in developing ingenious ways to monetise them.
  5. Divisiveness and finger-pointing get us nowhere. There are self-important idiots in every skill bracket and in every game mode. Labelling ranked players elitists is, at best, a gross overgeneralisation. At worst, it smacks of insecurity. Don’t mistake competence for arrogance. Ranked players typically have a lot of warzones under their belts. The skills honed in arenas are also transferrable to warzones. Odds are that the ranked player on your team is an asset, not a liability. The crux of the matter is the game’s small PvP population—it’s at the root of most complaints voiced in this thread. The fewer players in a queue, the longer the queue times and the poorer the matchmaking (i.e., the greater the skill variance of players in a typical match). This leads to frustration, boredom and toxicity. Despite server merges and cross-faction matchmaking, there are still too few players to support a ranked warzone queue and team and solo ranked arena queues. There are too few players to support splitting the unranked warzone queue into solo and group queues. Suggestions along these lines are not workable. Remember that the matchmaking system already tries to account for players’ roles and hidden MMR and tries to distribute parties evenly between teams: it cannot do this if there are not enough players in the queue. I appreciate that some people prefer warzones to arenas but ranked warzones were replaced by ranked arenas because too few players were queueing for them—and that was years ago, when the population was much healthier. Like it or not, for many, the unranked warzone queue is analogous to quick play mode in Overwatch or other games. I try to win, yes, but I treat it as a practice mode and somewhere to have fun with my friends—and my perspective is just as valid as that of someone who treats warzones like ranked matches. My honest advice is to find likeminded people to queue with and not to take warzones too seriously—and not to construe that advice as a personal attack. Organised PvP in SWTOR is a team affair, requiring communication and coordination. You are handicapping yourself if you queue solo into warzones: there are too many variables out of your control and your impact on the game is dilute. Of course, solo ranked has its issues too: chief among them is poor matchmaking (owing, again, to the low population). Team ranked is the most competitive and challenging format but it also suffers from a dearth of players. As an aside, Seagull, a former Overwatch pro, recently published a and his experiences queueing solo in a 6 vs 6 competitive format. SWTOR and Overwatch are very different games, of course, but many of his points are salient to this discussion. TL;DR: Poor matchmaking is a consequence of a small PvP population. Restricting unranked warzones to solo queuers wouldn’t address that. I don’t think anybody in this thread said regs don’t matter. I don’t personally begrudge people enjoying warzones. I do think it’s important to be realistic about them, however.
  6. She's not making judgements, but pointing out facts: people of very different skills levels, with all sorts of interests and motivations, will queue for PvP. RP PvP servers are no more and the population is too small to separate players by skill. This can't be helped but I don't think it's fun for anybody (as evidenced by the complaints in this thread). Ranked arenas are inherently more competitive than unranked warzones. I don't think anyone can seriously argue against that. It's an objective fact, not a personal attack against people who don't queue for ranked PvP.
  7. Carnage/Marksmanship is the best burst comp in PvP right now (even after the Carnage nerf). This is because both specs have great DCDs, team utility, short CDs on their mezzes and their burst combos have high uptime over a 5-minute period. When it comes to burst, Fury doesn’t compare to Carnage. Carnage has hard-hitting abilities and its burst is up more often than Fury’s. Just because Fury parses higher overall, doesn’t mean it has the best burst output. Yes, AP has good burst but it has a lot of downsides in PvP: it’s bad in comparison to something like a Carnage Marauder and struggles without the support of teammates. It has weak DCDs and its burst windows are very predictable: just pop your DCDs when Thermal Detonator/Assault Plastique is about to go off. EZ Clap The bottom line is that burst means nothing if you lack survivability. If someone wants to play a great burst class that is also tanky in PvP, Marksmanship Sniper or Carnage Marauder are solid choices.
  8. SWTOR's player base is splintered and not all content appeals to all groups. This update was explicitly aimed at the PvP community, who've long been overlooked. The RP crowd (for lack of a better label) has been comparatively well catered for: there are six other strongholds with no PvP features to speak of. I am happy for endgame raiders when they get a new operation, even though I am unlikely to play through it. Similarly, I am happy for the RP community when they get new story content, etc. While there are some bugs/annoyances with the Rishi stronghold and its aesthetic appeal is subjective, most of the criticism seems to be coming from those who do not play PvP.
  9. As someone who exclusively plays PvP, from what I've seen of the stronghold so far, I'm a big fan! Thanks to the dev team for all the hard work. A feature request: would it be possible to add the healing dummies to your party? Most players select teammates through the ops or group frames and it's a real pain to tab to/click on the dummies directly.
  10. Yup, Maim and Leg Shot have physical effects and are correctly listed as such in the guide.
  11. Good on you for trying to put together a resource for the community. Can you share your methodology? According to Bant's model, healers benefit more from Critical Rating and Alacrity Rating than Mastery or Power well beyond current stat budgets. In other words, it's not a matter of preference: stacking Mastery or Power is objectively worse.
  12. Appreciate you and shyroman pointing that out! Is the key just not to drop below a 1.4s GCD or is there an optimal Alacrity value between the 1.4 and 1.3s breakpoints? Thank you for the feedback. There’s a note under Damage Types mentioning flytext colours for M/R and F/T attacks but on reflection, it belongs under Attack Types. Thanks for the correction. I’ll revise the paragraph under Attack Types to reflect this.
  13. My coauthor and I are women and we thank you for your kind words. It’s really important to us to put out good information. Better-informed players mean better, more competitive matches.
  14. Thanks very much! Means a lot coming from you. Re. Alacrity: yes, I probably should explicitly reference their work in the guide. As good science is all about replicability, I ran some of my own tests, which are recorded in this spreadsheet (includes links to the combat logs on Parsely). I couldn’t figure out where the variance in my initial parses was coming from till doc pointed out my Ability Activation Queue Window was set to 0s. Enabling a queue window greater than 0 greatly reduces the variance—what is left is presumably attributable to input lag, etc. I left that data in the sheet for those interested. I also fixed the link—thanks for pointing that out.
×
×
  • Create New...