Jump to content

Saaz

Members
  • Posts

    58
  • Joined

Reputation

10 Good
  1. Personally, I feel the Meta for GSF is broken. We had a very active GSF guild and while not so noticeable with the Gunship, scout and SF combo at launch, with the addition of the bomber, the focus of the meta has moved away from dogfighting, to more strategic deployment of mines and Gunships. For me, the most fun part of GSF was the dogfighting - which is really lost in the current GSF experience. I know you don't want to remove content but even simply having Scout / SF only matches would make me return to GSF because the current meta just isn't fun.
  2. yeah but even with that same pool of players the matchmaker could have reorganised based on rating. So DJ and Cat were heals the rest were dps It could have been DJ - 1260 Thumps - 1517 Erex - 1564 Rexus - 1272 Average Score - 1403 Cat - 1480 Ash - 1439 Pill - 1308 4th - unknown Average Score - 1409 Now I recognise 2 assumptions 1. that the 4th player had a decent rating and 2. these are based off the website (so dependant on website accuracy and fact the ratings haven't changed much in between updates) - but for an order of magnitude - you can see that there seems to be no reorganising of grps based on individual rating - it just seems to be First In First Out with only a matching based on heals/dps/tank. So I'm going to record my next games to see if its organising this way or if any attempt to level grps is being made
  3. Matchmaking is totally borked I just had this game: Erexion - 1564 Thumps - 1517 Cathinka - 1480 4th - can't remember Average Score - 1520 Pill - 1308 Dajama's - 1260 Ashwins - 1439 Rexus - 1272 Average Score - 1319 What the f__k Bioware? What the hell is up with the matchmaking system. if only I could remember the 4th on their team but it would have had to be at 715 to make it equal teams - and from memory the person wasn't that bad Hypothesis - Matchmaker is completely borked. I will be recording names from now on to build proof.
  4. Wow, I was able to stimulate thought in a dev's mind while they drove to work half a world away. Bless this internet magic. Alex, let's see if I can't stimulate some more thoughts for your drive in tomorrow =) Sure a reward of rating will increase your rating at a specific point in time, but over subsequent qualifying periods the effect of the reward is marginalised (I think you are suggesting a Space PvP quest reward basis rather than a ground unranked PvP reward basis). I agree that there is a statistical advantage for completing the quest each time it refreshes. For the top spot on the ladder sure you could beat no1 in class if you are behind that person by less than the reward value, but the no1 person has the very same opportunity to gain the same reward from playing and I think it adds a unique aspect to continued competitive top end play. Not only must you be the best but you must continue to participate! Consider this, if we keep the value of the reward small (20 rating points), and kept the frequency of the quest at a long enough duration (weekly only). If a season runs for 3 months as has been stipulated, the maximum possible gain is 240 points (12x20). Now comes the question of qualifying criteria. How do we achieve success of this weekly based on: 1. Is it awarded based on games played or won? 2. What is the number of qualifying games required? While there are pages in this thread on the first issue - put very, very simply, if a reward is win based, it will reward winners. If a reward is participation based, it will reward participants. Each person has their own internal value system, which determines how much they are willing to invest in a game to get a reward. When their level of investment exceeds or is expected to exceed the reward, they won't be incentivised to participate. As long as a win based quest is realistically achievable at all levels of skill, it should be effective at promoting wide base participation. If it is not realistically achievable, the incentive is redundant and a participation based quest should be implemented. On the second issue - if we keep the requisite amount of games required high, at 10 matches a week, we are incentivising 120 ranked games per toon per season. 10 games are significant, as it also represents the minimum number of games we recognise to generate a meaningful rating score! Ergo - 20 points of bonus is trivial to the win/loss adjustments made to rating over those 10 games. However, 20 points for me is an incentive. While I know it will only give me a marginal statistical advantage, it is an advantage and in competitive arena play any advantage, no matter how small, is compelling. I want to also recognise some truly brilliant suggestions in this thread so far that really go to the heart of the issue: 1. A PvP Reputation for continued ranked play in a season - a really brilliant idea (as long as the rewards purchasable from the vendor hold no value for an afk'r) 2. Substituting normal for ranked comms as a reward from ranked arena, or removal of ranked comms from ranked arena totally. 3. Rewarding medpacs and stims only for completing the ranked daily quest Thanks for acknowledging the earlier post - really encouraging to see you listening!
  5. Thanks for the explanation Jedi. I think on your first point is a matter of perspective - it wouldn't penalise non-performance but would incentivise more participation!! Certainly there would be a benefit to doing your ranked everyday. On rating inflation that could be managed through a few different mechanisms - rebaselining the rate of elo awarded after a win and decay on a loss as elo increases. Secondly (and more drastically) it could be done through a bonus 'pool'. I refer to the following article as a good example: http://Http://en.chessbase.com/post/the-nunn-plan-for-the-world-che-championship Its an old article but it talks to some really good points around an activity bonus (noting we need to adjust the frame of reference to tor from chess). Some good points that talk to encouraging vigorous participation from new entrants and continued participation of high elo members are encouraged.
  6. Can you explain why not then? I thought I had a good handle on how Elo works but if I'm missing something I'm all ears.
  7. Sorry Alex but I really think you're missing the forest through the trees here. When setting any reward you must think of the behaviour you are incentivising. A warzone comm based reward based on wins will work for those who want warzone comms. As a ranked PvP player the last thing I need or want is more ranked or normal warzone comms - if I'm stepping into ranked without full min/max brutaliser then I am not taking ranked or my rating seriously. Comms have no meaning to me - they are only useful for the player gearing up (excepting medpacs of course). So we need to assess the thing I value most as a ranked player - and that is - more rating. A PVE player has no value for rating so is not incentivised to do a daily that rewards it. Conversely it will promote people who have high rating to keep playing to continue to escalate in score when the competition might only yield marginal increases. "But we can't reward more rating based on a daily - it will only inflate the maximum possible ratings" - then boundary test the system to see how decay will work at high rating although I suspect the current MMR regime should work largely intact (unless a player never ever loses and then I'd be asking questions). But how much should we set the values at? Well low - for daily +10 rating and +20 for weekly but feel free to adjust based on testing. I love ranked - and want more participation of serious competitors in s2 - a daily and weekly that has an appropriate incentive will do that - but it must be closely linked to the objective ranked pvp'rs desire.
  8. The idea of the ranked pvp vendor is a great one but I can see people would get annoyed at it. At the end of the day we're balancing how to set unique rewards amongst a large population. I love the idea of being able to earn a girrada rancor but I recognise it is a special reward for those who met the prerequisites in season 1 and allowing it out to others lessens the value of the original achievement. I know 1500+ will still be 'allstars' so they still have a title to signify their end of s1 ranking but if we change the system people would have had the expectation that this was a one off. The idea of a scalable mount that goes to all participants also lessens the uniqueness of the reward, and I don't think everyone should get a mount just for participating in ranked. That said we need a way to get more people to participate - hopefully the combination of knowing there are good rewards at the end of s2, a daily / weekly ranked quest (could the rewards of completing the daily be a +10 to your rating rather than rwz comms?) and a shorter season will promote better participation. Again, I'd just say I think we should keep the top 96 as only cosmetic rewards ie titles because I'd hate to see significant development effort applied to such a tiny proportion of the playerbase. Spend your time on top bracket rewards instead which while account for only approx 5% of the pop this is much higher than 96 players - and it will serve as a better incentive for the larger community.
  9. Hey all - love the ideas so far - just my 2 cents. I love the way the last season was bracketed - 1500 while not super high it was an achievable aim for any serious pvpr given the right conditions. It incentivised a large population of the players to try ranked. Gating the next season mounts to the top96 means it will be beyond nearly all players so please don't spend too long developing the top96 rewards. What would be a tragedy is you only incentivise the top 96 over the majority of the playerbase. Stick with titles or something cosmetic for these guys - interviews on the website perhaps? For the 3 tiers love the ideas so far: Tier 1 - pet / title (mini-deathmark who screams 'don't kick the ball' when you right click him / PvP vendor) Tier 2 - armor (PvP unique - class unique - default color black / black) - as the set is PvP unique - recolour it / make slight mods over consecutive seasons (so development effort is lessened) Tier 3 - mount / regen item (love a 'teabag' emote if a character can pull out a mug with a teabag in it and start dunking) or a personal AT-AT or regen where you do tricks/dribble the huttball That's it for now Keep up the good work
  10. I'm having trouble on this too - is it bugged?
  11. If you're like me you want to get the War Hero schematics before they taken away in 2.0. If you buy the Schematics on one side (lets say Imp) and then send those recipes to your armormech / synthweaver on the other side (lets say pub), then those recipes AUTOMATICALLY change over to the destination side. So if you wanted the assassin gear and bought it from the imp fleet and sent it through your legacy to your pub synthweaver, the recipes would automatically change to shadow gear models - not assassin. Don't be like me spending 100's of thousands of credits to find this out the wrong way.
  12. Now - if I've got the time conversions right...that makes it: 5pm servers up tomorrow?!?! Don't tell me we'll be rocking 2.0 during peak time!!
  13. Bioware know we are getting shafted but they have thought long and hard about all the implications of that, and so at the end of the day you are judged - unimportant. Thanks for your money bye
  14. Relax guys - due to the difference in time zones, PvP will be against drunk and insomniac Americans. Should be a cake walk - don't know what your complaining about.....
  15. Ok, so we have an answer right. As far as I remember, APAC Servers were originally created due to the gameplay experience being no good when trying to operate off NA servers from the Asia region. Bioware - you realised this at launch - what has happened since? Obviously there has been no technical improvements to the engine, so you know this decision will result in a sub-optimal gameplay experience. Having played since EGA on American servers, the whole experience was awful. Indeed recently I was in the states trying to link back to Aussie servers and at 250 ping, the game engine really struggles under the pressure. PvP in the main is unplayable. I really don't want to unsub. I love this game. I want to keep playing - so help me out here. Are there any intended engine refinements that can be made to improve the gameplay experience or are we hamstrung at 250 ping in pvp? Are there any technical tips like getting a tunneller which would improve the gameplay experience? Or better still - can you please reconsider this decision in light of an Aussie server merge - Dalborra works well at the moment and is likely to see a jump in subs with RoTHC. Add MDN and GD to Dalborra!!
×
×
  • Create New...