Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Choose warzone


Monoth's Avatar


Monoth
02.11.2013 , 01:31 AM | #21
Quote: Originally Posted by lucotas View Post
this is nto counter strike. this is a mmo
The example of Counter-Strike applies here also, anytime you allow the player base to choose the maps to play you always end up with just 1 or 2 and in the end it will drive off other players from boredom..... Players will choose the fastest and easiest maps so they can grind com's quickly and those wanting some variety will end up waiting hours to get a pop...

I would guess Bioware took this into consideration and this why we can't choose the map to play... If you really hate a map it's easy enough to quit right away and usually a replacement person pops in within a few seconds... and you can just re-que again..
F2P is like driving on a long stretch of highway with toll booths every 1/2 mile

Spartanik's Avatar


Spartanik
02.11.2013 , 01:52 AM | #22
Quote: Originally Posted by Stenrik View Post
I used to hate Huttball, now its probably my favorite. And this seems to be common for many people.
I like variety more than I like any single warzone.

In all honesty, I can see them introducing some kinda of "choose warzone ability" pass in the Cartel market: "Choose your warzone for one week - only 200 Cartel Coins!" (Sorry for giving them ideas...)
Indeed huttball is my favorite by far. But at the early days i didnt like it much, mainly because i didnt know how to play it.
Had a match yesterday, my team was losing 1-0 for the whole game, in the last minute we scored 2 points and won the game lol.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Also
Quote:
HK47: Statement: You are like a delightful random cruelty generator, master, poisoning all you touch with your presence. You are a testament to all organic meatbags everywhere.

Darth-Rammstein's Avatar


Darth-Rammstein
02.11.2013 , 02:02 AM | #23
I would prefer to make sure I never get queued for huttball when I solo queue, that wz is designed for premades.
Belgoth's Beacon ----> The Fatman ----> Prophecy of the Five

Weaksauce's Avatar


Weaksauce
02.11.2013 , 03:16 AM | #24
I vote no.

choosing WZ would just open up to premades custom tailored with classes that are more successful in certain WZ.

To be on the losing end of that would be very, very frustrating.

Belacose's Avatar


Belacose
02.11.2013 , 03:48 AM | #25
I'd rather there be a system where it's more likely for pugs to get matched Vs pugs and premades get matched with premades, whenever possible.

For example: If you queue up with 3 friends then the system tries to put you up against a group which also has about 4 people who were already grouped up before joining the queue. If you go in with 8 guildies you get placed against another 8 man premade.

It seemed to me that in DCUO whenever I joined arenas with guildies we were more likely to be put up Vs another premade. Most the time I pugged it seemed i was pitted against another pug group.

lucotas's Avatar


lucotas
02.11.2013 , 04:26 AM | #26
Quote: Originally Posted by Weaksauce View Post
I vote no.

choosing WZ would just open up to premades custom tailored with classes that are more successful in certain WZ.

To be on the losing end of that would be very, very frustrating.
people would choose wz for have fun (i would choose hutball because i love it)
Working on my english.
PLEASE SUPORT THIS THREAD ABOUT ANIMAL MOUNTS!
Animal Mounts in the cartel market

KepavEgi's Avatar


KepavEgi
02.12.2013 , 07:36 PM | #27
While I thought this is a good idea, the concerns of those arguing against it are legitimate. After considering what everyone has said, I propose a compromise. Instead of a system that allows players to choose which WZs they do and don't play altogether, have a system that allows players to select their preferred WZ(s). While this sounds pretty much the same, let me explain the difference. Instead of making it so that players only get queued for the WZ(s) of their choice, make it so that they are just more likely to be queued for them. If the WZ que is putting a team together for a player's preferred WZ(s), they will be given priority for being put on that team over players who don't prefer it. If all the slots are full, then the que acts as normal, putting them in random WZs when they get to the front of the que. It could be even better if it included a ranking system that allows players to choose more specifically what they prefer over others.

For example: Player X ranks The Civil War as #1 on his list, so he will be put in that whenever possible. He ties Huttball, Void Star, and Novare Coast as #2 on his list, so if his #1 pick isn't available, he will be put into one of those if possible. He ranks Ancient Hypergate dead last, meaning that the game will never put him in a AH match unless all of his higher ranked choices are unavailable.
Main: Rishaz - lvl 50 Vanguard
Alts: Britala - lvl 50 Marauder, Yolama - lvl 50 Sage, Jek'rolo - lvl 50 Operative,
Nastatia - lvl 14 Gunslinger, Jyrth - lvl 24 Mercenary, Zarron - lvl 17 Assassin

AesirUesugi's Avatar


AesirUesugi
02.12.2013 , 07:39 PM | #28
Quote: Originally Posted by Lojdkvist View Post
no.

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 5 characters.
I agree with this guy.

While I sincerely hope they remove the failmap that is CIvil War ASAP I think this is a bad idea.

KepavEgi's Avatar


KepavEgi
02.13.2013 , 12:17 PM | #29
Quote: Originally Posted by lucotas View Post
_________________________________________________
Quote: Originally Posted by Weaksauce View Post
I vote no.

choosing WZ would just open up to premades custom tailored with classes that are more successful in certain WZ.

To be on the losing end of that would be very, very frustrating.
_________________________________________________

people would choose wz for have fun (i would choose hutball because i love it)
I admire the innocence of that post, but unfortunately that's not always how it works. While many have fun regardless of the outcome of a game, some people only consider winning fun. Weaksauce has a point. There are people that would form teams tailored to a specific WZ, and anyone that went up against them and didn't do the same would likely be annihilated.
Main: Rishaz - lvl 50 Vanguard
Alts: Britala - lvl 50 Marauder, Yolama - lvl 50 Sage, Jek'rolo - lvl 50 Operative,
Nastatia - lvl 14 Gunslinger, Jyrth - lvl 24 Mercenary, Zarron - lvl 17 Assassin

Kubernetic's Avatar


Kubernetic
02.13.2013 , 01:00 PM | #30
Choosing warzones would destroy the queue responsiveness we have currently.

Even though it does lead to a rash of saboteurs quitting warzones and leaving the team behind with a deficit when some precious snowflake stumbles across a warzone they "don't like" and then leave, I'd still rather have a good number of players in all queues for all warzones.

If you let people choose, they will only choose the ones they like, and instead of all of us being able to PVP with the high frequencies we have today, we'll all be stuck in much longer queues, waiting for the few warzones that will pop (as no one is playing the others).

Additionally, I'd like to take all of the players who think they can narrow one warzone down into some unstoppable strategy, and toss them into the other 4 warzones so they have to compete.

What we need is a warzone quitter debuff that starts to cut you down as you quit and keep stranding teams behind without a member. The rest, personally disagree... no choice is necessary.
Tekay —— En-ki —— Tékay —— Hassle —— Jaksen
Explorer (80%) • Killer (53%) • Socializer (47%) • Achiever (20%)
Excited Star Citizen — But ready to resubscribe when and if...