These lockout demands only ever came out of the mouths of those that are bad at PvP. Noone else, ever.

Some of these people would fail at heroics if they didn't have companions to carry them.

These lockout demands only ever came out of the mouths of those that are bad at PvP. Noone else, ever.

 

Some of these people would fail at heroics if they didn't have companions to carry them.

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.

If they add a lockout, they must allow us to choose which WZ's we want to queu for. Otherwise there should never be a lockout. whenever I get the rare impulse to PvP, I ALWAYS leave any huttball, (normal or quesh), and every arena even before they start.

I shouldn't be punished because I don't want to participate in maps I do not find fun. I stay in every other match regardless if I'm getting my butt handed to me or not.

definitely needs a lockout because of players just like the OP.

Please explain what you mean by this?

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.

Care to share your character names? I'd love to watch you play.

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.

Not that I’m disagreeing with you about rage quitters being a problem, but why should people waste their time when people don’t even try to win?

Give more experience or “elite” players a ranked 8v8 format and I can guarantee I will personally never play another reg match at lvl 70, unless so many people leave the game that only regs pop.

By all means put a lock out on Ranked 8v8 (if they ever add it back) or 4v4. But putting one on regs will kill pvp. I can’t understand how people can’t see this. It’s like a neon sign saying don’t pvp,

Allowing you to choose which warzone you wanted to queue for would increase queue times. And we all know how impatient people are. You know the, erm, uninformed would blame it on server population.

This is in fact a probably undesired outcome of letting players choose rather then take the roll of the dice.

Allowing you to choose which warzone you wanted to queue for would increase queue times. And we all know how impatient people are. You know the, erm, uninformed would blame it on server population.

I'm sure you are correct on this, however if a lockout is added, then a system should be put in place where if you leave before the match started, or in the 1st 30 seconds if your a backfill you don't get a lockout. This would allow people to have a choice if they want to play a certain map or not. I know I would still leave huttball matches, and arena's regardless of lockout, but it would mean I would queu even less then I do now.

Care to share your character names? I'd love to watch you play.

no thanks I got nothing to prove to you. I know i'm good. I get top dps a majority of the time in every warzone been that way since launch even after I take long breaks and don't even have 236 augs yet, this is on multiple characters. I beat the eternal championship by myself with a sorc in less than 208 gear the first day it came out, the first time I played it. I beat nim SOA the first week it came out, I lead the OP at that time, because I was the leader of a guild. I've beat the kotet and kotfe on mastermode with lvl 1 companions. I went through class stories without equipping a single piece of armor and my lvl 1 companion on dps. I love a challenge, Please tell me again how much I suck.

Update: Here are some old school pvp pics back in 2011-2012 when the max lvl was 50. I've been doing this a long time brother. I just don't care to gloat or take pics anymore, its so common. Mara 59 kills -0 deaths, top dps by a mile. and another old pic i found Mara 60 kills- 0 Deaths Top dps, Immortal

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

 

-eric

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.

Edit, on a side note. Any chance you can get the guys to look at the one time password system. It’s been bugging out for 9 hours for a bunch of us and we can’t get back into the game,

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.

That might split the pvp crowd up. Why not pick by game modes?

(Turrets, Voidstar, Arenas, Huttballs, Odessen)

That might split the pvp crowd up. Why not pick by game modes?

 

(Turrets, Voidstar, Arenas, Huttballs, Odessen)

I prefer being able to pick specific maps because Quesh Ball is too buggy at the moment, but I can sort of still play normal HB. I also don’t like some arena maps, but don’t mind others. I’d prefer to be able to choose. I think a minimum choice of 3 would be enough. But that doesn’t stop people from choosing more or all.

They could even add a daily or weekly that had something to do with playing x amount of random pvp that you can’t choose. Then it keeps all maps alive in the queue,

I prefer being able to pick specific maps because Quesh Ball is too buggy at the moment, but I can sort of still play normal HB. I also don’t like some arena maps, but don’t mind others. I’d prefer to be able to choose. I think a minimum choice of 3 would be enough. But that doesn’t stop people from choosing more or all.

They could even add a daily or weekly that had something to do with playing x amount of random pvp that you can’t choose. Then it keeps all maps alive in the queue,

Maybe a better approach, to avoid players too narrowly aggregating, would be to let players exclude a limited number of encounters from the LFG. That would avoid the negatives effects of total and complete cherry picking by players, yet still offers some flexibility to avoid buggy encounters.

A totally open cherry picking ability will likely result in the usual negative outcomes overall from players looking to game the system or find any little personal advantage they can (including familiarity of an encounter by a given player giving them an advantage).

Or, maybe let a player decline a choice from random LFG (before they join) as that would allow players to avoid a certain segment of encounters they do not enjoy (such as Arena if a player does not like playing the arena format, they could opt out without penalty, or modest time lock) yet does not protect quitters from a penalty if they leave after entering.

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.

Nah there needs to be a time out. Always has needed to be one.

 

WoW has timeouts & they've worked fine for years.

 

But SWTOR does need to allow you to either A. Choose from a list of what you want to Q for. Or B. Show you what match you're going into before you go into it. That way you can say yes or no to it.

 

A timeout would discourage the whole "team is losing let's bail" leaves group & queues up again. It would encourage those to work a bit harder. Not every time are those losses when these ppl who have recently started to leave group as soon as it looks like it's going south, leave.

One other thing that WoW has and swtor doesn’t is a better reporting system of abusers, trolls and hackers. They also put mods into matches sometimes if things start getting bad (lots of reports). And they have severe penalties for cheaters and they follow up and enforce them.

Their system also recognises if you DC and not just leave. It used to happen to me a fair bit at my old place and I would DC in matches. WoW always knew it was a DC and never locked me out.

As far as choosing maps, Blizzard have mechanisms in place to get keep the queue active even while allowing people to choose. Ie, they have maps of the week or day. These are tied to dailies and weekly quests. They also have random queue quests, where you also get bonuses for playing that way instead of choosing.

I’m not saying I’m 100% against penalties, but not in this meta. They need to do a fair bit to make it work and not drive people away from pvp or brake the queue system. I would rather they leave it as it is (even though it’s not great), then playing around with it and making things worse.

The number one problem that makes people leave matches is we have no match making. Put in amatch making system and you will see less people leave matches.

The second problem that makes a lot of people leave is premades vs full pugs. Wether you’re a fan or premades or not, this is still a major reason people leave.

Maybe a better approach, to avoid players too narrowly aggregating, would be to let players exclude a limited number of encounters from the LFG. That would avoid the negatives effects of total and complete cherry picking by players, yet still offers some flexibility to avoid buggy encounters.

 

A totally open cherry picking ability will likely result in the usual negative outcomes overall from players looking to game the system or find any little personal advantage they can (including familiarity of an encounter by a given player giving them an advantage).

 

Or, maybe let a player decline a choice from random LFG (before they join) as that would allow players to avoid a certain segment of encounters they do not enjoy (such as Arena if a player does not like playing the arena format, they could opt out without penalty, or modest time lock) yet does not protect quitters from a penalty if they leave after entering.

 

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.

That could work too. Either approach is better than no choice at all.

With offering dailies and weekly bonuses for playing x maps or random ones, it does actually work in WoW. People play maps they wouldn’t normally just to get the extra reward.

You only have to look at what Bioware have done with conquest to see they can carrot and whip people into doing things they dislike (at least if the rewards are good). Even I did some flashpoints to see if I could get my personal goals done (didn’t help so I won’t be doing it again). My point is, if you make the reward enticing enough or intriguing enough, people will play stuff they don’t like or wouldn’t normally play,

Bioware have used that approach for years, ie, getting companions by doing pvp.

Actually, I think a lock-out is a bad idea for one and only one reason. It won't work. People, especially in this game, have demonstrated repeatedly that they will abuse the mechanics or find a way around them to their advantage over and over. I fully believe that almost all of the people who think they have a valid reason for quitting, whatever that reason is, will think it's just as valid a reason for going AFK instead. So they will just do that... go AFK.

Personally, I think most of the quitters do it because they are convinced "this is a lost cause". So if anything about quitting is done, I think it should be based on that. Give a debuff if they were wrong. Something like, "if you quit a match, you can't queue again until that match is over". And then add "at the end of the match you quit, if your team WON it, then you get a lockout". That way, if the quitter was correct, and it was a lost cause... no harm done (well, not much). But if they were wrong, and were just not willing to suck-it-up and play to win, then penalize them. But even that... I still believe what I typed in paragraph #1. It will just encourage more AFK'ing, and we have too much of that already.

As far as choosing maps, I think that's a great idea, and there are ways to do it without it slowing down pops. Do it something like (another game) does... once you get the PvP pop, you then vote for which map you WANT. Then it builds a weighted random table from everyone's choice, and picks one. (So, if 4 people pick AHG, 2 pick classic HB, and 2 pick ACW - there's a 50% chance for AHG, and a 25% chance each for the other two.) You still might not get exactly the map you want, but at least you have a very slim chance of getting the really unpopular maps (I mean, who would ever vote for Quesh HB, right? ).

There are other things that would need to be addressed to do something like that, of course. Arena vs 8-man warzones having a different count of players. Cross-faction vs. not cross faction (personally, I think it's yet another reason to make everything cross faction). I'm sure other things I havn't thought of, but I still think it's a great system.

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

 

-eric

Eric,

Since you asked for my thoughts, here they are.

Let's put all the technical issues aside, like if you queue as a group sometimes you get split up (you queue while someone is still in a match, someone goes afk and misses the pop etc.), or dc, or the roll bug that causes you to be unable to move, etc.

Let's also put the fact aside that not everyone likes all maps, or some maps popping multiple times in a row, and they will leave them regardless, because you neither provide the option to queue for anything specific (or at least not queue for something), nor you at least tell people what they get when it pops.

Here's the big thing about unranked: it's not fair. Premades are a big source of unfairness (I'm not going to bash them, as I'm often seen queuing with one myself), but one has to understand the other team needs both the skill and the matchup to counter them effectively. Technically forcing people to sit there being farmed for an entire match is not going to make PvP a better experience for anyone. (That is not to say games without premades are fair and close, more often than not they are not.)

You will not force me to sit there for an entire 10-20 minutes doing nothing but being farmed, or, if I get lucky, afk in a corner. I will either leave and do something else (like cursing at the devs who thought this lockout would be a good idea), or simply alt+f4 for the day and do something else, while still cursing at the devs who thought this would be a good idea. Neither are going to help with your game.

You want more toxicity in warzones because people you've forced to participate can't let the steam out otherwise? Go lockouts. You want more people to abandon PvP, temporarily, or even forever? Go lockouts. You want to further punish those already shafted by your random non-matchmaking? Go lockouts.

There's simply nothing in this idea I would consider good. You keep seeing the same faces over and over in PvP every night. Want to decrease that even further? Sure, kick some out of the queue, that will help.

This is just a petty revenge attempt of bads who don't see themselves in the mirror (prime example of one a few posts below in this thread) and understand why people leave, and they're blinded by their imagined righteousness and moral superiority.

Besides, out of all issues plaguing unranked, being undermanned because of leavers is pretty low on the list. Backfills are quick, and often better than the people you lose.

Do you even play your own game?

Actually, I think a lock-out is a bad idea for one and only one reason. It won't work. People, especially in this game, have demonstrated repeatedly that they will abuse the mechanics or find a way around them to their advantage over and over. I fully believe that almost all of the people who think they have a valid reason for quitting, whatever that reason is, will think it's just as valid a reason for going AFK instead. So they will just do that... go AFK.

 

Personally, I think most of the quitters do it because they are convinced "this is a lost cause". So if anything about quitting is done, I think it should be based on that. Give a debuff if they were wrong. Something like, "if you quit a match, you can't queue again until that match is over". And then add "at the end of the match you quit, if your team WON it, then you get a lockout". That way, if the quitter was correct, and it was a lost cause... no harm done (well, not much). But if they were wrong, and were just not willing to suck-it-up and play to win, then penalize them. But even that... I still believe what I typed in paragraph #1. It will just encourage more AFK'ing, and we have too much of that already.

 

As far as choosing maps, I think that's a great idea, and there are ways to do it without it slowing down pops. Do it something like (another game) does... once you get the PvP pop, you then vote for which map you WANT. Then it builds a weighted random table from everyone's choice, and picks one. (So, if 4 people pick AHG, 2 pick classic HB, and 2 pick ACW - there's a 50% chance for AHG, and a 25% chance each for the other two.) You still might not get exactly the map you want, but at least you have a very slim chance of getting the really unpopular maps (I mean, who would ever vote for Quesh HB, right? ).

 

There are other things that would need to be addressed to do something like that, of course. Arena vs 8-man warzones having a different count of players. Cross-faction vs. not cross faction (personally, I think it's yet another reason to make everything cross faction). I'm sure other things I havn't thought of, but I still think it's a great system.

+10000000 for cross faction in all pvp.

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

 

-eric

Really?

You've gone out of your way to ignore over TWO HUNDRED pages of Feedback on Conquest!

Why would anyone in their right mind actually believe Bioware give a single damn about Customer Feedback.

In fact the ONLY time I recall that happening is when so many players unsubbed all at once EA sent out an emergency questionnaire asking what was wrong - and 3 months later Ben was reassigned.

All The Best

Please tell me again how much I suck.

You suck *hard* at modesty.