Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

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

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > PvP
What exactly is a "quality match" in your mind?

Lhancelot's Avatar


Lhancelot
05.17.2019 , 01:10 PM | #1
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.

Quote: Originally Posted by JediMasterAlex View Post
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.
The Revival of SWTOR: Petition for More Funding and Resources
(Click link Below For More Information)

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=959696

JediMasterAlex's Avatar


JediMasterAlex
05.17.2019 , 01:16 PM | #2
Quote: Originally Posted by Lhancelot View Post
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.

Lhancelot's Avatar


Lhancelot
05.17.2019 , 01:19 PM | #3
Quote: Originally Posted by JediMasterAlex View Post
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.
The Revival of SWTOR: Petition for More Funding and Resources
(Click link Below For More Information)

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=959696

JediMasterAlex's Avatar


JediMasterAlex
05.17.2019 , 01:28 PM | #4
Quote: Originally Posted by Lhancelot View Post
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.

Banderal's Avatar


Banderal
05.17.2019 , 03:20 PM | #5
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.

Slippery When'wet, FistFullOfCandy - SF

omeru's Avatar


omeru
05.17.2019 , 04:12 PM | #6
It's been a long time i didnt have a quality match so i even stopped thinking about it. As long as no bots and both teams have healers or tanks with similar level of skills i am ok.

foxmob's Avatar


foxmob
05.17.2019 , 05:32 PM | #7
Quote: Originally Posted by JediMasterAlex View Post
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.
Krack

Zurules's Avatar


Zurules
05.17.2019 , 05:58 PM | #8
Quote: Originally Posted by Zurules View Post
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(C) 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,
Quote: Originally Posted by JediMasterAlex View Post
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.
Quote: Originally Posted by Zurules View Post
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.
All Galaxy Hybrid-Clicker Shadow

Seterade's Avatar


Seterade
05.17.2019 , 06:13 PM | #9
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)

Loki_'s Avatar


Loki_
05.17.2019 , 07:50 PM | #10
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.