Since 1.2 I have noticed that in a majority of matches I have played it has been 5 v 8 when wz start. How is this even fair, at least in the old system you got something for staying and fighting now you get basically jack. I am tired of being farmed for kills when I start with a group that is 3 short at the start. Before anyone jumps in and tells me to learn how to play my character, I know how just fine so don't even start. Why is starting wz this short handed allowed?

 

Not to mention as a casual pvper 1.2 has made pvp pretty worthless and pointless now if you don't win and are not geared in the best gear. Thanks BW I was really starting to enjoy pvp, you killed that.

Agree.

 

Dont see why games have to start if the teams are not even...

Allow each side to only have even teams is not difficult to code.

I'll even volunteer, for free, my pvp design decisions.

 

Having uneven teams fight it out is not fair, to both teams.

 

Dont be like blizzard.

You can do better, bioware.

We had several matches with either side only had 2-3 players and the damn game didn't end like it should pre 1.2.

 

The WZ "Update" sounds more like a "Downgrade" IMO. (System based)

This change is so biased towards high pop servers. I imagine they would never even notice this because their games fill up so quickly, but this change completely ruins low pop servers, as if they weren't bad enough already.

 

DON'T LET A WARZONE POP THAT ISN'T EVEN TO BEGIN WITH!

 

Why is this such a difficult concept? Can anyone explain why this would be a mechanic that makes sense?

This change is so biased towards high pop servers. I imagine they would never even notice this because their games fill up so quickly, but this change completely ruins low pop servers, as if they weren't bad enough already.

 

DON'T LET A WARZONE POP THAT ISN'T EVEN TO BEGIN WITH!

 

Why is this such a difficult concept? Can anyone explain why this would be a mechanic that makes sense?

 

The first minute is SOOO crucial in every WZ this type of stuff should never happen..bad juju.

Indeed. Several posts about this since patch 1.2.

 

Truth be told, it was a problem pre 1.2 as well.

 

The fact that it wasn't solved prior to initial release back in December of last year points to the quality of software engineering that has gone into this game.

This change is so biased towards high pop servers. I imagine they would never even notice this because their games fill up so quickly, but this change completely ruins low pop servers, as if they weren't bad enough already.

 

DON'T LET A WARZONE POP THAT ISN'T EVEN TO BEGIN WITH!

 

Why is this such a difficult concept? Can anyone explain why this would be a mechanic that makes sense?

its because the warzone pops when people queued it, not when they accepted entering it. unless you meant that they should just cancel the warzone instance immediately upon starting with uneven players.

 

for low pop servers, people could have just logged in an alt on the other side, and let the warzone queue expire when it pops up, so that the other side's team starts with less people, or even ends with it.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Wesgile

its because the warzone pops when people queued it, not when they accepted entering it. unless you meant that they should just cancel the warzone instance immediately upon starting with uneven players.

 

for low pop servers, people could have just logged in an alt on the other side, and let the warzone queue expire when it pops up, so that the other side's team starts with less people, or even ends with it.

 

There are many ways this could have been avoided. Implementing a pvp queue isn't that hard. Games have been doing it for more than a decade. There are many paradigms that would prevent an imbalanced game from starting.

 

Even the junior league abort timer pre 1.2 was better than what they have now.

 

Why Bioware failed to come up with any semblance of a decent model is beyond me. But that's part of why I cancelled my subscription.

 

They don't have the talent or know how to fix what was broken before 1.2. By induction I can show they can't afterwards either.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Subatomix

i know, i was actually agreeing with you. instances should not be made until after people confirmed to enter it evenly on both sides. Edited April 16, 2012 by Wesgile

The simple fix is to let one person from each team zone into the WZ as they accept the WZ.

It's not to let everyone from one team in, while waiting for people from the other team.

 

Even if one team is queued as a group, just let one person in from each team so that the WZ is always evenly matched.

 

Simple fix, simple concept.

Cant understand why Bioware cant code something like that.

 

If people want to queue as a premade, fine, wait for another premade group.

Dont whine about waiting for hours if there is no other premade.

You want to play as premade, take the consequences as a premade.

 

Seriously, Bioware, fix your game.

 

 

its because the warzone pops when people queued it, not when they accepted entering it. unless you meant that they should just cancel the warzone instance immediately upon starting with uneven players.

 

for low pop servers, people could have just logged in an alt on the other side, and let the warzone queue expire when it pops up, so that the other side's team starts with less people, or even ends with it.

No game mechanism will stop someone from joining and then quitting, which is what they'd be doing instead of hitting 'accept' if you just throw them inside a WZ.

Seriously, Bioware, fix your game.

 

They can't. They won't. They don't think it's broken enough to make fixing bugs and design flaws a priority. If there's one things patch 1.2 did was send that as a clear message.

 

The short handed warzone problem existed since launch and they MADE IT WORSE in patch 1.2.

 

A five year old could have told them that removing the abort timer would be a disaster.

 

Maybe they should hire some.

No game mechanism will stop someone from joining and then quitting, which is what they'd be doing instead of hitting 'accept' if you just throw them inside a WZ.

 

Then you give them a 20 minute timeout for doing so.

 

There are many, many, many ways to fix this. In fact, there were more ways to fix it than there were to make it worse prior to 1.2.

 

It's simply amazing they managed to find one of the latter. Stunning in fact.

Server merges= Problem solved.

Server merges= Problem solved.

 

Wishful thinking = wishful thinking.

 

They don't have the database tech. to make it happen. Nor do they really care about pvp in this game.

 

They needed to merge servers before 1.2 and didn't.

 

They needed to fix a great many things prior to 1.2 and didn't.

 

It's also related to the reason they can't do cross server pvp. It's beyond their ability and gumption.

Then you give them a 20 minute timeout for doing so.

 

There are many, many, many ways to fix this. In fact, there were more ways to fix it than there were to make it worse prior to 1.2.

 

It's simply amazing they managed to find one of the latter. Stunning in fact.

 

Then those guys will just stand in the middle of nowhere doing nothing.

Agreed 100%. Starting matches down 5 or 6 v 8 is almost auto-loss. And of course with the pitiful rewards for losing there is no incentive to keep playing...which leads to people dropping. Then people backfill it after it starts and their time is wasted, creating a viscous cycle.

Then those guys will just stand in the middle of nowhere doing nothing.

 

And then you can votekick them.

 

Really, is there a need to defend the current botched system?

 

It's bad.

 

In fact it's now the reigning worst.

 

You'll see soon enough as pvp gamers continue to leave.

 

You can't pvp unless you have p's to v against.

And then you can votekick them.

 

Really, is there a need to defend the current botched system?

 

It's bad.

 

In fact it's now the reigning worst.

 

You'll see soon enough as pvp gamers continue to leave.

 

You can't pvp unless you have p's to v against.

 

Pretty sure any such system can be countered if the other guy just moves a little, because otherwise you can just votekick anyone.

 

People will go to considerable effort to avoid doing anything, even if that requires as much effort as actually playing the game. There's really no point to try to catch these things. As long as you can't have a system that distinguishes the difference between someone who is guarding your node the entire time or someone who is just AFK, you're not going to win.

The simple fix is to let one person from each team zone into the WZ as they accept the WZ.

It's not to let everyone from one team in, while waiting for people from the other team.

 

Even if one team is queued as a group, just let one person in from each team so that the WZ is always evenly matched.

 

Simple fix, simple concept.

Cant understand why Bioware cant code something like that.

 

If people want to queue as a premade, fine, wait for another premade group.

Dont whine about waiting for hours if there is no other premade.

You want to play as premade, take the consequences as a premade.

 

Seriously, Bioware, fix your game.

 

perfect post, this game has the worst matchmaking system, period, at a bare minimum there should be a matchmaker coded for premades so that you have to wait queued until another premade is slotted on the opposing team, I can hardly believe that this isn't a feature in a pvp game in 2012.

 

I also think that there shouldn't be a ranked system either and instead simply have a matchmaker that slots players of approximate gear lvl on the opposing team, it's so simple and yet completely effective and fair and games have been doing it for a decade already.

Pretty sure any such system can be countered if the other guy just moves a little, because otherwise you can just votekick anyone.

 

People will go to considerable effort to avoid doing anything, even if that requires as much effort as actually playing the game. There's really no point to try to catch these things. As long as you can't have a system that distinguishes the difference between someone who is guarding your node the entire time or someone who is just AFK, you're not going to win.

 

I believe this was taken from an internal memo sent around internally at Bioware amongst the members of the pvp development team.

I believe this was taken from an internal memo sent around internally at Bioware amongst the members of the pvp development team.

 

I've had games where 3 guys head to one turret in Alderran and stood there the entire time.

 

How is any votekick system supposed to tell the difference between 3 guys who are clearly doing nothing, compared to some scenario where you might actually need a defender? They got 3 guys too, so it's already close to a majority. They're not physically AFK (they respond to chat). They're just doing absolutely nothing that'd be considered useful to the game.

 

It's not like I'm in favor of people leaving, but right now I'd rather they leave instead of stand in a turret from the beginning to the end, because there's a slim chance they might get replaced by someone better. I certainly can't count on someone who stands by a turret the whole time to turn the game around, so I don't have much to lose.

/Signed

WE dont even get anything for staying and trying. SO the more populated side wins, gets geared up so they can win even easier ext time while the losing low pop side stays without any new gear at all so they lose next time too.

 

This isnt right how did it even make it to live?

My husband has control of our computer tonight and had a pvp match that he left, it was 3 v 8 !!! WTH BW, this is pathetic.

I just got done a PvP, Alderaan, where it was 9 v 8. One earlier today was 10 v 8. I know its better than 3-4 v 8, but over the cap is ridiculous too.