Jump to content

why is the deserter lockout still present in regs?


abhaxus

Recommended Posts

Mmmm, not all answers. Dehumanizing him is not going to help. I don't like most of his answers, though.

 

Sadly in pc America you can't call folks he or she so I call folks IT. Amercia is backwards that's why Aussie life is the place to live!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The win requirement is a good thing. Makes people try and win instead of afking in a corner somewhere.

 

I'm heavily against map choice. That would just lead to certain maps never being played. A map voting prompted during the queue pop similar to something like CoD? Sure that could work. A straight up map selection though? No definitely not unless it comes with a stipulation that removing maps from the queue will remove your eligibility to complete the daily/weekly.

 

It is impossible tell if someone DC's intentionally or not, and as I've said countless times before, if you have DC problems then fix your internet first before queuing.

 

 

 

Which is great news for all the other players. Enjoy your afk, its at least 1 to 2 matches where 1 less ragequitter is in the pool of players until you inevitably rage quit again because your next match is also not a carry. Eventually you'll get the idea and either learn to contribute to the match or just stop queueing. Its a win/win for everyone else.

 

Class balancing will be a forever issue. The closest we got to perfect balance was 2.x-3.x and it still had problems.

 

Losses should not count. The original daily/weekly required wins and the worst thing they did was change it to losses counting. It lead to people just afking and not trying. If you want your daily you should have to earn it.

 

As I said earlier, its IMPOSSIBLE to detect if a DC is intentional or not. A one size fits all penalty is the best solution. If you get a random DC then well that sucks, it happens. Take a break and requeue later. If you continuously DC? Stop queuing and fix your internet because you're becoming a detriment to other players experiences.

 

Do pray tell how you would deal with the number farmers? I'm quite curious what your answer is considering the two things that exist currently to dissuade number farming you want changed back to encourage it. As toxic as those players are, there's little you can do to change it, unless you advocate removing the scoreboard which is a HORRIBLE idea.

 

I don’t totally disagree with the win requirement either, only how it’s been implemented. As I’ve stated in numerous threads now, they didn’t need to make it “win only”. They could have adjusted the points system to combat the afkers and made it a 3:1 or better yet, a 4:1 ratio instead on 2:1.

 

My own experience queuing solo or premade with my wife since this was implemented has averaged a 4:1 loss-win ratio when things are going badly for us. What I mean by that is at the moment with poor match making at the times I play, it feels like the queue often expects me to single handedly carry my teams against premades and non-premade teams. I win maybe 1 match to every 4 when that happens.

 

I’ve heard from other people and also read on the forums that 4:1 is usually about the average for worst case scenarios. So why not make the win loss ratio a 4:1 points system based on that. Then if someone really is having bad match making or bad luck with teams who don’t try, they are still getting something for their effort and they don’t feel trapped in an endless loop of getting nothing for their effort. The AfKers would still be mostly wasting their time trying to complete dailies and weeklies that way. But the ordinary player wouldn’t feel like they are completely wasting their time.

At the moment the lock out is actually making people AFK when they know it’s a lost cause or even purposely sabotaging their teams.

 

Wether you, I or BioWare agree on the methods, the one thing that can’t be disputed is many people left or stopped playing pvp over this change. BioWare (ChrisS) have stated their over all intention is to build up numbers and community so match making works, but that’s not going to happen with the constant big stick approach that makes people play less. I’ve made a thread with ways they can improve the whole situation and I know you’ve read it, so I won’t repeat it again. I will just say that the win only requirement and lockout in their current form is having as much a negative affect as good. They can do better and should tweak them to make them feel less arduous. They said they would if needed, but haven’t done anything in 10 months.

 

I also understand your point of view with map choice and don’t totally disagree. But the issue is BioWare want to use a lock out mechanism to stop people rate quitting. And while ever they have broken maps, maps people vehemently hate or maps people won’t play properly, then the only recourse is giving players choice so that the people in those maps actually want to be there. I honestly don’t know if map choice would work or not with such a small population (I have my reservations). It’s something they should have done 9 years ago.

 

Number farming is an issue. I’ve also offered ways in the other thread on how Bioware could combat that. An update to the medal system / reward system and also hiding some personal stats from public view would allow the scoreboard to stay, but would remove the epeen stage for those people. You’d still be able to see all your own stats, but only medals and objective points would remain visible to everyone. Of course that’s only for objective pvp. The Arena scoreboard should remain as is.

 

The game can already tell if you DC or have connection issues. The tech is already built in. Of course if someone wants to lag switch or pull out their network cable, the system can’t tell. But those people would be few and far between in regs. Probably no different to the amount of people who’d pay $15 a month to hack the game. And as you and others have pointed out to me over the years, it’s regs, so why do you care so much if a small handful of fools would purposely DC to avoid the lockout, the overall population isn’t going to do it. Especially when the lock out is making less people want to play or play properly. Ie people are afking instead of eating a 15 min lock out cause it’s quicker over all to afk.

Edited by TrixxieTriss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t totally disagree with the win requirement either, only how it’s been implemented. As I’ve stated in numerous threads now, they didn’t need to make it “win only”. They could have adjusted the points system to combat the afkers and made it a 3:1 or better yet, a 4:1 ratio instead on 2:1.

 

My own experience queuing solo or premade with my wife since this was implemented has averaged a 4:1 loss-win ratio when things are going badly for us. What I mean by that is at the moment with poor match making at the times I play, it feels like the queue often expects me to single handedly carry my teams against premades and non-premade teams. I win maybe 1 match to every 4 when that happens.

 

I’ve heard from other people and also read on the forums that 4:1 is usually about the average for worst case scenarios. So why not make the win loss ratio a 4:1 points system based on that. Then if someone really is having bad match making or bad luck with teams who don’t try, they are still getting something for their effort and they don’t feel trapped in an endless loop of getting nothing for their effort. The AfKers would still be mostly wasting their time trying to complete dailies and weeklies that way. But the ordinary player wouldn’t feel like they are completely wasting their time.

At the moment the lock out is actually making people AFK when they know it’s a lost cause or even purposely sabotaging their teams.

 

Wether you, I or BioWare agree on the methods, the one thing that can’t be disputed is many people left or stopped playing pvp over this change. BioWare (ChrisS) have stated their over all intention is to build up numbers and community so match making works, but that’s not going to happen with the constant big stick approach that makes people play less. I’ve made a thread with ways they can improve the whole situation and I know you’ve read it, so I won’t repeat it again. I will just say that the win only requirement and lockout in their current form is having as much a negative affect as good. They can do better and should tweak them to make them feel less arduous. They said they would if needed, but haven’t done anything in 10 months.

 

I also understand your point of view with map choice and don’t totally disagree. But the issue is BioWare want to use a lock out mechanism to stop people rate quitting. And while ever they have broken maps, maps people vehemently hate or maps people won’t play properly, then the only recourse is giving players choice so that the people in those maps actually want to be there. I honestly don’t know if map choice would work or not with such a small population (I have my reservations). It’s something they should have done 9 years ago.

 

Number farming is an issue. I’ve also offered ways in the other thread on how Bioware could combat that. An update to the medal system / reward system and also hiding some personal stats from public view would allow the scoreboard to stay, but would remove the epeen stage for those people. You’d still be able to see all your own stats, but only medals and objective points would remain visible to everyone. Of course that’s only for objective pvp. The Arena scoreboard should remain as is.

 

The game can already tell if you DC or have connection issues. The tech is already built in. Of course if someone wants to lag switch or pull out their network cable, the system can’t tell. But those people would be few and far between in regs. Probably no different to the amount of people who’d pay $15 a month to hack the game. And as you and others have pointed out to me over the years, it’s regs, so why do you care so much if a small handful of fools would purposely DC to avoid the lockout, the overall population isn’t going to do it. Especially when the lock out is making less people want to play or play properly. Ie people are afking instead of eating a 15 min lock out cause it’s quicker over all to afk.

 

If bioware is going to live and die by this new weekly of wins only then they need to add more incentive for folks to actually participate in a losing pvp match.

 

If the whole bad change on Bioware's part is to deter afkers and folks leaving matches - hence the lock out and wins only. Maybe scrap that and go to something that accounts for medals earned - as afk players won't have medals or enough of them to qualify for receiving credit toward the weekly and pvp rewards. It def could be implemented it would take some work but with other input from pvpers I think it would work way better than having a lock out and winning only for actually receiving something from pvping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If bioware is going to live and die by this new weekly of wins only then they need to add more incentive for folks to actually participate in a losing pvp match.

 

If the whole bad change on Bioware's part is to deter afkers and folks leaving matches - hence the lock out and wins only. Maybe scrap that and go to something that accounts for medals earned - as afk players won't have medals or enough of them to qualify for receiving credit toward the weekly and pvp rewards. It def could be implemented it would take some work but with other input from pvpers I think it would work way better than having a lock out and winning only for actually receiving something from pvping.

 

I did suggest something like that in my other thread.

 

13. Revamp the medal system and then reward people who play to win. That would mean even if they lose, they may get better rewards, like more tech frags or gear vs people who don’t play to win.

 

14. Incentivise players to get better through rewards. This could be done by adding new pvp legacy achievements (examples only) :

* interrupting an enemy player healing a team mate

* mitigating damage

* target swapping

* stopping a team scoring with the Hutt ball

* catching a Hutt ball pass in the end zone

* intercepting a Hutt ball pass

* cleansing abilities from a team mate or yourself

* preventing an enemy from capping

* stealing an enemy node

etc, etc, etc

Edited by TrixxieTriss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

those are all good things that along with the deserter lockout will ensure we keep on improving the warzone quality for all players, disincentivizing rage quitters and afk:ers are great things that needs to be still in the game Edited by RikuvonDrake
Link to comment
Share on other sites

those are all good things that along with the deserter lockout will ensure we keep on improving the warzone quality for all players, disincentivizing rage quitters and afk:ers are great things that needs to be still in the game

 

For ranked arenas I fully agree, for normal ranked I do not agree. There are much better ways to deter afk'ers, and rage quitters than having a lock out that only infuriates most of the pvpers and does nothing to prevent folks from afk'ing in matches that are losses, maps they don't like, ext.

 

PvP in general has no real incentives for folks to participate in it, since galactic command and rng gear boxes entered the gearing system of swtor 5.0 and beyond. Pre 5.0 folks received pvp comms and could buy actual pvp gear from a pvp vendor, just like pve folks could from a pve vendor. Folks could buy the pieces of gear they wanted, the armors, mods, enhancements, barrels, hilts that they wanted - gearing was way better than. Also pre 5.0 you had way less rage quitters, and afkers than you do currently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For ranked arenas I fully agree, for normal ranked I do not agree. There are much better ways to deter afk'ers, and rage quitters than having a lock out that only infuriates most of the pvpers and does nothing to prevent folks from afk'ing in matches that are losses, maps they don't like, ext.

 

PvP in general has no real incentives for folks to participate in it, since galactic command and rng gear boxes entered the gearing system of swtor 5.0 and beyond. Pre 5.0 folks received pvp comms and could buy actual pvp gear from a pvp vendor, just like pve folks could from a pve vendor. Folks could buy the pieces of gear they wanted, the armors, mods, enhancements, barrels, hilts that they wanted - gearing was way better than. Also pre 5.0 you had way less rage quitters, and afkers than you do currently.

 

i think you are looking at it from the wrong perspective, from a single-player point of view the deserter lockout is bad cause it prevents them from queueing again, but from Bioware point of view, the deserter lockout prevents the warzone quality for the OTHER 15 players from declining. Naturally, more incentives and features are good, there has been a handful of good suggestions posted in this thread so far, but to ensure that the match quality for all the players in the warzone, the deserter lockout needs to stay as is

Edited by RikuvonDrake
Link to comment
Share on other sites

iOTHER 15 players from declining.

 

just gonna throw this out there: you're assuming all 15 "other" players in the WZ want to sit through that **** show as well. while I'm certain many do, I'm also certain many don't. it's far from "15 other players" who want to sit through a predetermined outcome, deal with the frustration of players who get keyboard stunned, are getting number farmed, or are on a team with a large number of teammates ignoring objectives. I guarantee you that's more than one person per WZ. this "15 other players" jingle is a load of ****.

 

furthermore i couldn't give 2 ***** if zerkington's "quality of game" experience is lessened by my early departure just as he isn't the least bit concerned about my quality of game experience by his ignoring of objectives.

 

this 15 other players line is what we call "hyperbole."

Edited by CheesyEZ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

furthermore i couldn't give 2 ***** if zerkington's "quality of game" experience is lessened by my early departure just as he isn't the least bit concerned about my quality of game experience by his ignoring of objectives.

 

not exactly, i dont care about useless players leaving the warzone. i do however think it is funny that deserters now have to sit through a fifteen minute lockout now though, likely ending up in the same exact queue they were running from before they left. you are however correct, about me not giving a **** about your game experience.

Edited by zerkington
Link to comment
Share on other sites

not exactly, i dont care about useless players leaving the warzone. i do however think it is funny that deserters now have to sit through a fifteen minute lockout now though, likely ending up in the same exact queue they were running from before they left. you are however correct, about me not giving a **** about your game experience.

when your opinion is warranted, it will be given to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

furthermore i couldn't give 2 ***** if zerkington's "quality of game" experience is lessened by my early departure just as he isn't the least bit concerned about my quality of game experience by his ignoring of objectives.

 

honestly, that's the kicker, most likely Bioware doesn't care about your opinion, nor do they of mine, individual posts/opinions are, and should be, largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. data and number illustrates game health a lot better than what 3-4 ppl in a largely inactive forum does, looking at how they have readjusted pvp over the last year(s) have their comments about future features it seems unlikely that deserter lockout goes away as it only impacts ragequitters and that's not a concern of Bioware

 

the gameplay experiance/warzone quality of 15 players triumphs the rage of 1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

the gameplay experiance/warzone quality of 15 players triumphs the rage of 1

 

oh. you can make a case for the debuff. it doesn't much affect me one way or the other. but the idea that 15 others would stay is a line of ****. and 1) there's no magic metric for that. however, 2) if there were, it would show that a hell of a lot more than ONE person left WZs either at the beginning, middle or end. so that idea that 1 person is ruining 15 other persons' experience is quite a load of ****.

 

that they aren't leaving nearly as frequently can be objectively observed (in the metrics not personal exp). it would also support my (patently obvious) argument that well more than 1 in 16 players wants to leave. ;)

Edited by CheesyEZ
Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...