Jump to content

What exactly is a "quality match" in your mind?


Lhancelot

Recommended Posts

I am just curious what different people consider a "quality match" in PVP. I think it's an interesting topic, because I never really thought on it much till I seen some Nautolans bringing it up in the other thread.

 

All I've been doing is explaining reality to people. Your view of what constitutes "high quality matches" is based purely on whether you win the match or not.

 

 

Personally, I call a quality match one where you literally fight a closely contested WZ till the very end, and even when the match ends you are not sure who won. I like these types of battles!

 

Whether it's a deathmatch that is highly competitive or an objective based map like Huttball. In fact, I don't even get angry when I lose after matches like these, because of the fun they provide while in the WZ.

 

How about you Rodians? What do you consider a quality match? My definition is definitely not the same as the guy who Alex describes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am just curious what different people consider a "quality match" in PVP. I think it's an interesting topic, because I never really thought on it much till I seen some Nautolans bringing it up in the other thread.

 

 

 

 

Personally, I call a quality match one where you literally fight a closely contested WZ till the very end, and even when the match ends you are not sure who won. I like these types of battles!

 

Whether it's a deathmatch that is highly competitive or an objective based map like Huttball. In fact, I don't even get angry when I lose after matches like these, because of the fun they provide while in the WZ.

 

How about you Rodians? What do you consider a quality match? My definition is definitely not the same as the guy who Alex describes.

 

I mean, you understood the context of my quote right? I would never describe a high quality match as one where you steamroll the other team. I was clarifying that that must be the way Zurules feels, because that's the only way to explain why he preferred the old matchmaking, which frequently stacked teams in high ranking players' favor.

 

Many people claim to want high quality matches where it's very even, closely fought, etc, but when it really comes down to it, a lot of people are lying to themselves and all they really want is to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, you understood the context of my quote right? I would never describe a high quality match as one where you steamroll the other team. I was clarifying that that must be the way Zurules feels, because that's the only way to explain why he preferred the old matchmaking, which frequently stacked teams in high ranking players' favor.

 

Many people claim to want high quality matches where it's very even, closely fought, etc, but when it really comes down to it, a lot of people are lying to themselves and all they really want is to win.

 

I understood you were describing someone, I just left it open-ended though because I am curious if others feel the same way?

 

I am sure many people don't view a team that seems low-skilled can provide a quality match, but in reality for me I have had some of those types of matches be very competitive and fun.

 

When both sides seem to have about the same talent and skill in PVP when both teams are compared overall, that can lead to a fun game even if you find yourself as the only veteran or even if you find yourself as the less skilled player on the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understood you were describing someone, I just left it open-ended though because I am curious if others feel the same way?

 

I am sure many people don't view a team that seems low-skilled can provide a quality match, but in reality for me I have had some of those types of matches be very competitive and fun.

 

When both sides seem to have about the same talent and skill in PVP when both teams are compared overall, that can lead to a fun game even if you find yourself as the only veteran or even if you find yourself as the less skilled player on the team.

 

In that sense, I sort of agree with you. Sometimes it can be quite annoying when you are surrounded with people a lot less skilled (not trying to sound arrogant, there are many more skilled than me), but like you say, sometimes that can still lead to fun. The other day I had a match where I had to win a 2v1 at the end of both rounds in order to win. Even though both of those players were pretty bad, and two of my own teammates got globaled both rounds, it still turned out pretty fun for me. I'm not sure that would turn it into a high quality match though. I'd probably call it a low quality match that just happened to turn out fun for me personally. And winning obviously helps. If I had lost those 2v1s, I probably would have been annoyed.

 

So I guess for me, a high quality match requires two ingredients: the teams have to be very evenly matched, and there has to be a certain threshold of skill met. I don't think the teams being even is quite enough alone, but I'm also not saying both teams have to be filled with pros either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, I want a match where...

 

1. Neither team dominates in the "we just kill them off" department, but also both teams can actually kill off people (no healer stalemate where no one dies).

2. Both teams are trying to win the game by employing various tactics to overcome the "even kill ratio".

3. It's questionable right to the end as to who's going to win.

 

Huttball, for example, is my favorite type of match, when both teams are playing, and employing "plays". Both teams come close to scoring over and over, and either do score or get stopped. And then when the timer runs out, the score is 3 to 3 (or whatever) and there's a desperate fight down to the end, where the guy BARELY holds onto the ball for the win (or passes to a team mate at the right time, or spikes it, or there's a last second turn over). I would play that kind of match over and over, win or lose, and never get tired of it.

 

By way of comparison, I was in a quesh match the other day where my team grabbed the ball, then the premade went to our own goal line and just stood there throwing the ball back and forth. The other team didn't care at all, and deathmatched in the middle. At the end, it was 0 to 0, and tie breaker decided because we held the ball. Ugh. Worst. Game. Ever.

 

For the count down games, the score can sometimes not reflect that it's a good game. In NC for example, I've lost 100 to 0, but still had it feel like a close game, because we came close to flipping a second node our way many times, and it was good play by the other team that let them keep it.

 

And contrast that with games where we might finish up with a 30 point difference, but neither team was actually caring about objectives at all. Instead constantly abandoning nodes to rush off in mobs to the "third". Meanwhile, maybe myself on my team, and one guy on their team stood and guarded or whatever - but those games, even though close in score, are no fun for me.

 

For arenas, I like 3-round games, where losing team in round 1 adjusts strategy to compensate, and then round 3 is decided by who adjusts better to the results of the first two rounds. That's kind of the extreme. Two round games can also be fun it feels like either team can win, again until basically one or the other does. This could be because people get killed off and it comes down to a 1v1 at the end and it's close. But I've also been in games where the healers (& tanks) were really good at keeping people alive (or maybe us DPS were bad at killing - either way it doesn't matter) and it came down to who swapped & cc'd at just the right time and caught the healer/tank off guard and manage to get one down - turning it into a 3v4 which then cascaded to the win for that side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many people claim to want high quality matches where it's very even, closely fought, etc, but when it really comes down to it, a lot of people are lying to themselves and all they really want is to win.

 

but isn't that everyone, to a large degree?

 

I get bored when I'm getting carried or my presence is irrelevant. I want arenas/WZs in which my actions are meaningful. but if ELO is on the line, of course the win is what really matters regardless of what anyone says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll give it one last shot to try and explain to you what is important to me. When I talk about quality matches, I mean put the 8 best players In the same game and make the fairest teams between those 8 players. Right now, this never happens. The system seems to put the worst players with the best players to help create more fairness (which is a good thing to aim for), but it absolutely does this with the cost of the quality of the match.

 

We want stacked teams vs stacked teams at the higher elo. In other words, we want to play with people at our supposed level and also vs people at that same level too. When your whole team is at similar level and vs that same level you often get high quality matches.

 

i'll give you an example: Take any game you want that you consider that has a clear way to determine who are the best in the world at that game. Let say that game is 4v4 based. Now, consider these two possibilities:

 

1) You have the top 8 players in the world for that game in the finals. team 1 had players ranked 1,4,5,8 and team 2 has players ranked 2,3,6,7.

 

2) In that same final, you replace the bottom 4 ranks (5,6,7,8) with celebrities© who have maybe very little experience playing this game and are not good at it. Team 1 is now: 1,4,C1,C2 Team 2 is now: 2,3,C3,C4

 

What I consider a HIGH QUALITY finals is clearly shown in ONE of these two options. If you still cant figure out which one I would prefer, then I seriously have no idea how to explain it too you.

 

 

Here above is my post where I explain what a high quality match is to me.

 

To Alex,

All I've been doing is explaining reality to people. Your view of what constitutes "high quality matches" is based purely on whether you win the match or not.
Quality of a match has nothing to do with the result. You clearly misunderstood the whole point of my previous post In which I explained why I preferred the old system.

 

I ask you to stop trying to tell everyone what you think my reasoning is for anything. Every time you have done this, you have been flat out wrong. Each time after, I made a post explaining my reasoning for all my opinions. You just seem to refuse or you are unable to comprehend my explanations even though I have tried to make them as clear and simple as possible. But even with all my efforts, you continuously create your own explanations for my reasoning and then try to tell everyone that YOUR explanations are my explanations. It's this repeated behavior of yours that leads me to conclude for myself that you are a simple troll and that is why I have no respect for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a good match is like a good duel. if either players have sub 15% left it was a gg.

 

if an arena ends with 2 players dead and 1 player almost dead but you win... its a gg.

 

by the same token if you have 50% or more of your hp after a duel you are dueling outside your weight class, and if you win an arena with 4 people and at full hp its not a fair match.

 

 

(4s are a tad different. in Gr what specifys a good match is how much hps/Proc/dps is done, if the difference between dps/hps is more than 3k you are in the wrong weight class, as for proc, I dont tank but if you have 100k less proc than him and you didnt get TTd, maybe not your level)

Edited by Seterade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good quality match would be, one where cc is used effectively at the opener and is followed up with 2nd cc correctly if some breaks immediately or when it wears off, correct targets are attacked, people actually use taunts / off guards and offheals when needed. Finishes with a good 1v1 or 2v2 that is close.

 

Not really high expectations for ppl to just do the basics and support each other.

Edited by Loki_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Alex,

I ask you to stop trying to tell everyone what you think my reasoning is for anything. Every time you have done this, you have been flat out wrong. Each time after, I made a post explaining my reasoning for all my opinions. You just seem to refuse or you are unable to comprehend my explanations even though I have tried to make them as clear and simple as possible. But even with all my efforts, you continuously create your own explanations for my reasoning and then try to tell everyone that YOUR explanations are my explanations. It's this repeated behavior of yours that leads me to conclude for myself that you are a simple troll and that is why I have no respect for you.

 

I'm just pointing out your lies and delusions, that's all. Your explanations about "high quality matches" have no basis in reality. I think it's important that people understand that the only reason you preferred the old matchmaking was because it stacked teams in higher ranked players' favor and therefore you won a lot more. It had nothing to do with supposedly "higher quality matches." The matches were never of "higher quality." In fact, it's the opposite, because the current matchmaker creates the most balanced matches possible, unlike the old matchmaker. The truth is important here, and I will keep repeating it as long as you keep denying it.

Edited by JediMasterAlex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understood you were describing someone, I just left it open-ended though because I am curious if others feel the same way?

 

I am sure many people don't view a team that seems low-skilled can provide a quality match, but in reality for me I have had some of those types of matches be very competitive and fun.

 

When both sides seem to have about the same talent and skill in PVP when both teams are compared overall, that can lead to a fun game even if you find yourself as the only veteran or even if you find yourself as the less skilled player on the team.

 

For me, a high-quality match only depends on my own team. I could care less if the other team is awesome or sucks. At the end of the match, if people were calling out objectives, stunning/knocking back healers, stopping caps, focusing targets, doing great healing or protection, etc. I will congratulate all for an awesome job win or lose. Of course, winning still feels slightly better, lol. But if everyone played awesomely, I feel like it was an honor to fight alongside them.

 

On the other hand, if we only managed to win because of pure chance, one or two great players and the rest deathmatching, etc. so we almost lose because of it, it irks me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The OP asked What exactly is a "quality match" in your mind?

 

That is, therefore, a subjective view point.

 

He didn't ask for a definition, he asked how we construe quality matches as being.

 

To my view, you can have a quality match even when you lost.

 

If each of the players is knowledgeable and skilled in their spec and there isn't any great gear differences [even that is questionable], you would probably be in a good position to experience a quality match.

 

These kinds of things can get a bit colored by the elo factor, whether or not people even realize it consciously, I'd imagine.

 

Best way I might word it, 'you know it when you see it".

 

:::***** *****:::my 2 cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am just curious what different people consider a "quality match" in PVP. I think it's an interesting topic, because I never really thought on it much till I seen some Nautolans bringing it up in the other thread.

 

 

 

 

Personally, I call a quality match one where you literally fight a closely contested WZ till the very end, and even when the match ends you are not sure who won. I like these types of battles!

 

Whether it's a deathmatch that is highly competitive or an objective based map like Huttball. In fact, I don't even get angry when I lose after matches like these, because of the fun they provide while in the WZ.

 

How about you Rodians? What do you consider a quality match? My definition is definitely not the same as the guy who Alex describes.

 

 

for me quiality matches if we win and we kill alot and steamrolled anemy , if i lose and get rekted by premade i say that is not quality matches

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One where both teams try to win by playing properly and are evenly matched in classes and skill.

 

That’s all I ask for. Win or lose, they are the quality matches. Running around death matching or stomping other teams isn’t my idea of quality. I want a challenge and I also want my team and theirs to ALL try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for me quiality matches if we win and we kill alot and steamrolled anemy , if i lose and get rekted by premade i say that is not quality matches

 

I figured this perspective exists, too. That's really what I was wondering thanks for posting! I figured, to some a quality match has to be a win, and one where the player enjoys an overwhelming strength that crushes the enemy team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking from a solo ranked perspective, to me what constitutes a quality match is 2 teams who end up being virtually even in skill and the game could go either way. I've rarely had games like that but, when they do happen and they get your adrenaline pumping, your throat drying, your palms sweaty - win OR lose - you know that's a quality match. Edited by ColorfulCaiques
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've already expressed my view on what a high quality match is for me in ranked. My view for a quality match in regs has two possibilities.

 

1) When a game had both teams take control of the majority of the objectives and the lead changed sides multiple times over the course of the wz duo to GOOD plays and not STUPID mistakes by the defenders. If it ends close in terms of score, that is a bonus.

 

2) When a team can take the lead in objectives and hold on to them even if they die 50+ times and end up winning the wz with having barely if any kills at all.

 

The first point is the more general format for a quality game for me in regs which is probably similar to most people's idea of a quality game in regs.

 

My second point, is a more specific strategy which is unconventional and a lot of people would disagree with as a quality game as it seems like the opposite of my first point. The sole focus on objectives at ALL cost, including your lives even if it leads to a complete massacre, is the strategy that I personally prefer the most when I play reg wz's. This is where I believe most pvpers would think the team doing the massacre is the better team because they dominated the "stats' department aspect of pvp. If you dominate the stats department but cannot translate that into a WIN, I think the other team deserves to say they were the better team during that wz.

 

Everyone goes into a wz with 1 of two goals: Win or just have fun (sometimes both). No pvper goes into a wz with the goal of losing before the game even starts. So if a team dominates but still manages to lose the wz, I can still call that a quality match if the team who got dominated committed to the all cost strategy to win and winning is what is the most important for them.

 

*Just want to clarify that reg wzs do NOT include regular arena matches for me as there is only one form of objective in arenas which is to kill all your opponents first.*

Edited by Zurules
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What ever it is, its not this.
Hah it could be that if you manage to come out on top.

 

I'm not one of the players that loves objective based game types. I'll assist my team in completing objectives ( defend the ball carrier, capture points, guard doors in voidstar, ect ) but all of that is secondary to a good fight. To me a quality match ( 8v8 ) is one where both teams are of a similar gear score and even skill level where the fights are long, and a well placed cc can make or break the engagement.

 

The chaos of an 8v8 tends to bring out the best in me. Well placed slows, taunts, intercedes, aoe taunts, clutch guards that people don't expect, and a fair amount of duels that could go either way result in a high quality match in my opinion. One where the fights are so exciting that winning or losing the match becomes irrelevant. I only care about the quality of each engagement. I'm also partial to outnumbered fights where you have to act quickly to defend yourself and rotate cc on multiple opponents in order to stay alive for as long as possible. On occasion even win a 2 v 1.

 

Oh and an honorable mention to beating die hard "ranked" players in a 1v1 or our pug team ******** on their premade. Hmm...and a day of pvp is never complete without killing my fair share of mercs, operatives, and snipers.

 

I'm sure you can see a trend. So long as there's a trail of bodies i'm happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hah it could be that if you manage to come out on top.

 

I'm not one of the players that loves objective based game types. I'll assist my team in completing objectives ( defend the ball carrier, capture points, guard doors in voidstar, ect ) but all of that is secondary to a good fight. To me a quality match ( 8v8 ) is one where both teams are of a similar gear score and even skill level where the fights are long, and a well placed cc can make or break the engagement.

 

The chaos of an 8v8 tends to bring out the best in me. Well placed slows, taunts, intercedes, aoe taunts, clutch guards that people don't expect, and a fair amount of duels that could go either way result in a high quality match in my opinion. One where the fights are so exciting that winning or losing the match becomes irrelevant. I only care about the quality of each engagement. I'm also partial to outnumbered fights where you have to act quickly to defend yourself and rotate cc on multiple opponents in order to stay alive for as long as possible. On occasion even win a 2 v 1.

 

Oh and an honorable mention to beating die hard "ranked" players in a 1v1 or our pug team ******** on their premade. Hmm...and a day of pvp is never complete without killing my fair share of mercs, operatives, and snipers.

 

I'm sure you can see a trend. So long as there's a trail of bodies i'm happy.

 

I highly suspect you are my long lost brother. If I didn't see the name I would have sworn I wrote what you did.

.

:csw_deathstar_un:

Edited by WayOfTheWarriorx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...