Mother1
Member
|
quote:
Is there a reason why you're not playing 2v2 anymore? Surely there must be some reason other than quicker grinding (free wins) on Juggernaut. Another question I must ask is, what is "right"? Like I said, most of this discussion is based around anecdotal statements and opinions. Is that an issue? Not really, but it's something we should keep in mind. Opinions change, peoples minds change, and as stated in my previous post -- in the end it's what the development team deem good and plausible that matters. Of course we might influence their decision by presenting our dissents against and for this idea.
I couldn't care less about the free wins of Jug. I grind it because as it stands now it
A) the most rewarding battle mode for credits
and
B) I don't have to wait 5 - 10 minutes at times for one match like I do at times with two vs two.
like most I like high rating and that was something I used to compete with delta players with, and seeing as the cheevo's (credit sinks) are so expensive and the fastest way to get them (outside of gifting) was Jug due to the reasons I stated above, I choose to play the battle mode. But to be honest if the wait times weren't so bad for 2 vs 2 and the rewards were greater for 2 vs 2 I would play it link I used to back in delta and early omega.
Heck Personally I would settle for 2 vs 2 just giving me faster matches and I would choose it over jug, but whenever I tried to do the 2 vs 2 daily missions (which pop up every so often) and tried to get a match due to the extremely low population at the time (this was before the staff was updating once again) the time for matches as I pointed out was 5 - 10 minutes at times which was insane in my eyes. This is how it was originally with Jug before they added the NPC and like I mentioned in a previous point prior I don't like waiting too long for a fight to start (which was why I was understanding of your wait time point)
quote:
NPCs in PvP? Sorry, I genuinely had to read that a few times to really grasp that it was real. I don't think I need to explain myself as to why I'm saying no. This laughable suggestion will ruin the game completely to its very roots by adding NPCs to PvP. Is Juggernaut any good at the moment? I heard NPCs are your opponents these days.
It's been said time and time again that the supposed "advantage" offered by this linked feature, is overestimated. Who is to say a bad linked team is going to win against an averagely good unlinked team? Linked teams will have complimentary builds and strategies, that's about it. A slight tactical advantage, not a statistical one. The advantage doesn't absolutely guarantee a win as some are implying in this discussion.
Players have to formulate strategies regardless of being linked or unlinked. They cannot insist there is a serious concern with this suggestion when there are players that have countered actual teams before. If a particular team is constantly killing you, then there is a problem with your build or strategy regardless of whether you're linked or unlinked.
Now that the supposed "disadvantage" is out of the way and addressed in the sense that it doesn't provide an absolute advantage, but rather an arbitrary one. It can be argued as to why someone would even want walk in solo in a team mode? It must be emphasised that 2v2 is actually a team game mode. As mentioned in previous posts, people have all the available channels and resources to pair up with others. The community will have groups, teams, chats, factions, through many channels such as Twitter, Discord, etc. All in all this suggestion will bring more players together in many forms. Are there any restrictions or divisions caused by this? Not that I can think of.
With all that being said, I sincerely hope that all the posts from everyone so far has given people an understanding of the false "disadvantage" presented to unlinked players. I do highly encourage people to actually read each others post thoroughly, because a lot seems to have been missed out. Most of us have been repeating ourselves as people haven't been putting in the little effort of reading the responses.
They aren't listening to the responses because
A) They know unlinked players not matter how hard you try to convince them will almost always be at a disadvantage against linked players
B) They have seen the results of similar situations where they were at a disadvantage and seen the outcome AKA the history that has gone on.
How many "Juggernaut is not fair" Thread have come up in the past due to players who pressed the 2 vs 2 button wanting to fight another set of players instead got forced to fight a juggernaut instead? Lord knows when I was coming up and fighting them (Back when you always got human partners) my partners 5/10 would run due to knowing/feeling "I am going to lose anyways" due to losing so many times to them.
Then there is "the matchmaking system" threads I have constantly seen back when the thread were active as well with players complaining about how unfair it was for them to be forced to fight players of higher levels due to them losing so much to them.
My point being is that players while some might like the challenge (which we saw in the form of Nowras's post) others want (or at least want to feel like) they are getting a fair fight stat wise and level wise and your suggestion while as I even admitted is an intriguing idea doesn't at least give that illusion.
The people going against you see this as yet another Juggernaut or mismatched battle theme where you are in a uphill battle from the start with 0 fairness. Sure I will agree with you that there are some players who can win despite this issue (seeing as I myself have done this quite a few times so I will give you that point) however, sadly it doesn't have enough for the majority of people which is the problem.
As for you laughing at my suggestion can I ask you this. Has anyone else even come up with an alternative idea or some sort of compromise on their end of the argument?
Cause to be honest the only posters I have seen who even tried to come up with that sort of thing was me (the NPC idea, as well as the one time pay item for unlinked players who wanted to actually try and fight linked ones due to the challenge and bragging rights) and Nowras (with his idea of making rewards greater for the unlinked team while in contrast making the rewards smaller for the linked team)
Also Have actually read every single post in this thread even yours, and Satafou's long essay posts with your idea's for the new battle mode, and to be honest I like I mentioned earlier find them intriguing and would love to see some of them in the mode and I even had a few suggestions for some of them as well. However, just like you and Satafou hate the fact or idea of adding NPC's to be the opponents of the linked teams so that unlinked players don't have to be forced into situations where they aren't in a disadvantage I hate the idea of throwing unlinked players to linked players that don't want to be in said situation and just like I know I won't be able to change your mind about your point the same goes for me and mine. So for the sake of this thread lets just agree to disagree. But of the sake of giving my thoughts on the suggestions for the battle mode idea here are my thoughts on what Satafou had mentioned that I was going to originally post assuming a fair compromise could have been reached between us.
quote:
Are players limited to a single duo, a selected amount such as 3 or 5, or 100? In order to make it much easier to program i'm presuming a single duo would be ideal, however being limited to a single duo would have a negative effect on the mode itself and personally I view 3/5 possible partners being ideal.
100 or even 5 in my opinion would be too much. While I can understand the reasoning for wanting to have more than one set partner (real life causing one partner to leave, internet issues etc) having too many pairings would be not only counterproductive but also in some cases give the illusion to some that they can just leave one person and go for another which would also be negative for the mode. While one pairing would be harsh for the reasons i mentioned 100 or 5 is too many. so if anything 3 would be the best in my opinion. gives some flexability but also at the same time makes the person think critically before choosing a partner which is something that is needed in both RL and 2 vs 2.
quote:
However what would this mean for the leader boards?
For the sake of argument I would say just let the highest win ratio between either one or both partners appear seeing as anything else on the LB would be pointless. As for the All time LB due to there only being 20 spaces I say only the highest win ratio involving a specific person should be allowed, and when they partner up with another person and pass that one it vanishes from the LB until the older one becomes higher. This way the LB isn't totally dominated by one person who has several different buddies which wouldn't be fair for others trying to shoot for the LB.
I won't address the next quote seeing as that is what is causing all the flash fires between your side of the argument and my side, and I don't want to go back into that again seeing as both our minds are made up on where we stand.
Hope this helps you and if you have some other points you like the bring up (like Satafou did) I will be glad to read them and give my thoughts.
< Message edited by Mother1 -- 8/22/2018 18:21:12 >
|
Printable Version
Icon Legend
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread
