Welcome to Crestfall Gaming

Register now to Crestfall Gaming. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Ciar

Member
  • Content count

    124
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

95 Excellent

About Ciar

  • Rank
    Sergeant Major
  1. If your previous handle isn't a finnish nickname for Potato we're good.
  2. Mechanic: 12 (MECHANIC_STUN) for kidney shot and Mechanic: 14 (MECHANIC_KNOCKOUT) for sap. but yeah you're right. The aura effect is (SPELL_AURA_MOD_STUN)
  3. Sap is an incapacitate effect mate.
  4. It's a private channel, just happens to be named world. A lot of servers choose to moderate it though, which is not "blizzlike" so to speak.
  5. Absolutely amazing.
  6. why would you care its refurbished remove kebab copypasta
  7. The interview is interesting, I've read it before too. I'd say the main issue is premade teams not wanting to face each other since effectively it is a waste of CP(contribution points) per hour - referred by most as honor since it's easier to understand - honor = CP. (It's referenced a few times in this http://wowwiki.wikia.com/wiki/Honor_system_(pre-2.0) article, albeit its wowwiki it can give you a pretty good overview of how the system works, no misinformation there that I could find.) And yes, the basics of the system haven't changed, your biggest opponent are the people on your faction since you compete against them for the top standings but there are a few things done differently now than back then (organized CP stacking at the end of the week is much more precise and controlled - as opposed to what it used to be.) Where as out of game tricks such as VOIP/DM sometimes come into play, it's also simply a matter of the queue system flaws (multi queue) and using multiple accounts (a lot of people didn't have these back in vanilla due to subscription) to spy the enemy team - when the enemy team gets into a game and you get a new game opened too; you can determine with fair certainty it's them and if you don't want to/can't face them you drop the queue, this is where the problems start. And you are right in your assumption that it's hard to propose in-game measures that work well to try to fix scummy behaviour. If you read the first page, mine and Nuar's post you'll get a really good but brief overview of the situation - proposals to fix it. Main ways the cross-faction premades abuse I'd say is using multiple accounts/streams/out of game communication to spy for the enemy team and dropping queues so you can fight PUGs instead of an actual match, resulting in PUGs getting slaughtered and the scummy premades (!This is not all of them, just the ones I'm basing the example on!) never facing each other. Same faction premades cannot do much to game the system in itself, unless they are win trading/or dodging with the opposing faction to get ahead of their same faction competitors. Reason being for that is the most efficient premade will come out on top in the end for the standings - aka who can stay on the longest with highest efficiency (ideally this would mean they are the dominant group, being able to beat all the opposing premades). The only thing that determines the standings are the amount of contribution points you have before the server reset and the amount of players who have acquired 25HKs or more aka the pvp pool, this is what the standings calculations are based on and how many bracket spots there is etc. If you're talking game theory you could sort of think of it as a prisoner's dilemma where the choice is either to play fair and square "A", face all opponents etc or be a scumbag and dodge games/abuse the queue system's flaws "B" - BUT the actual 'prisoners' making the decision to be scumbags (as in making the decision to defect - in game theory terms) don't suffer, it's everyone else involved aka the PUGs, the third party so to speak. And since we're talking efficiency, if group 1 decides to go for B, group 2 also has to go for B to keep up as per the rules of the game even if there is a more ideal end result available - result A where no-one dodges and mostly everyone is happy. ^ I know it's bit of a flawed example but since you brought game theory up at least I had to try
  8. 1. When I talk about subtle jabs, I mean the last part of your post where you're talking about your view of 'balance' and how pvpers (nice way to generalize the whole community, buddy) won't like it. When you say "we ALL know they are", it's mostly just you in this case since no-one else has stepped up to create a semi-cohesive argument on the matter. As for group queues being exploitable, I've agreed with it from the very first post - that's why there are changes proposed, good changes - non-drastic changes that don't change the whole game. And the only reason I've brought up the PvE comparison is to show how ridiculous the argument of forcing everyone to solo queue in a COMPETITIVE environment is. 2. Not pretending to know what you like or dislike, just interpreting the opinion based on the few arguments you've presented here. 3. I don't think anyone's in this thread is since the server isn't up yet and there is no gain to be had - personally I've specified that I will not be ranking here so there's that. so I've no more reasons to reply to this thread (unless I get personal attacks). - There's no personal attacks here so far, just me refuting your points - no need to get heated over that. Have a good day!
  9. 1. You'll have a few per faction, while they fight each other pugs get to play each other; you should read my posts before replying. And by premades the opposite argument is usually referring to people who grind honor for ranks, if you're grinding honor for ranks you can't keep taking deserters, especially if the duration is longer. I doubt a lot of 2h fights will occur since AB has a time limit, WSG is the only battleground that could potentially last 2 hours (you don't play AV for honor) but if both premades are trying to get maximum honor/hour at some point one of the sides will concede if it truly is a stalemate. Based on this you cannot really extrapolate the situation into it becoming "premade vs PUG all over again". 2. If you're counting in everyone that gains a standing each week, you might be right and thats including the world pvpers - but to say that the majority who play BG:s goal-oriented (which is the blue set or past it) are PUGs is absurd since surely anyone who is familiar with how the honor system works (a lot are not, to be quite honest) would maximize their efforts by making at least a small group of people who can sway games in their favor. As for the guys that like to hop on for a few games, they are in a bit of shit situation in the 'meta' present since everyone has figured out how the game works by now and quite often the pvp rewards on PServers are out/more powerful (the weapons were buffed in BWL patch, armor 1.11) than they were back in 2005/2006 which incentivizes people to gain rank to get the gear. However, changing the whole system to appease the lowest common denominator in this case is not the answer. I'll make a PvE comparison here to bring some depth to the argument, say for example I'm a PvP player, I hate pve since its boring, menial and the fights are always the same - I don't bother to tryhard in a guild to improve my dps numbers/efficiency BUT at the same time I start demanding that NO-ONE should have the chance to do PVE in the way they prefer, improving raid after raid and pushing their class to the max. I'd get cussed out fairly fast if I made a suggestion like this - demanding that since I don't like pve, no-one should like pve and only do it in PUGs and with minimal effort. SIDE NOTE: "and if you try to balance out groups (with PUGs only) they rage like Chromaggus does" - It's not balanced since there's no guarantee that the opposing team will have the same amount of AFKers/clueless players as your own team. You also failed to address the point I made about the faction with faster queues dropping queues until they get enough of a stack of people in the same game. If you're going for the 'subtle jabs' approach, I'll give you a not so subtle one: Your first post was decent but the ones after have been echo-chamber regurgitation with nothing new brought to the table yet I keep replying to humor you, but it's fairly obvious you won't change your mind on the matter.
  10. 1. Yeah, the default way of doing things will get exploited like I said earlier (which is why there has been multiple suggestions made to fix it). 2. I suppose I don't need to remind you that I didn't have to play with Timmy and Donny on "retail blizzlike" if I didn't want to? I'll draw the comparison to PvE, it's like making up a rule 'you're not allowed to make a guild and organize it so you clear content fast, you're forced to do it with random PUGs every week', how many people would play on a server such as this? - I know I wouldn't (Having to PUG in any PvE in fear of ban). You're arguing you don't want to play against premades since it feels to you it makes your experience worse; well I'm sure you'll find plenty of people who have the same opinion of being forced to play with complete clueless randoms, at worst AFKing leechers makes their experience worse too. GM's would have to be really on-point (since most of these 'AFK offenses' happen fairly quickly) and doing that on a big server isn't easy - remains to be seen however. 3. To prevent abuse of the "solo-queue only system" you'd have to mask the game ID's anyway since the faction with faster queues could just drop queues until enough people from your team to make a meaningful impact (not more than 3-4 depending on class) would get in the same game and continue to roll through it; arguing that just disabling group queue would be no work at all is shortsighted and inherently wrong if you wished to balance this proposed system. Since it's a serious issue that affects game balance and the over all experience, hiding behind the "argument" of it 'taking too long' to do a proper fix (since the dev team has tackled way harder issues than masking game ID's or prolonging deserter etc) isn't really eligible since it will literally shape how the whole pvp community on the server will form. 3.5. You know what would really hurt the 'elitist-premaders'? - Forming a team of your own to beat them.. I guess we can only hope. Also, solo queue players definitely don't like losing games (who does right), if multi queue was left enabled, the losing team, regardless of solo queue or premade would hastily ditch the game they're about to lose if a new fresh game opened up, leading to empty games or games heavily tilted in favor of whichever side was winning, if even slightly. Conclusion: Multiqueue is just bad in this implementation of the pvp reward system, it might work better in TBC onwards when the best pvp gear is EARNED in arenas. (Or should we make those skirmish only too so the best team(s) can't get highest ratings?) 4. Once again since this is your personal sentiment on the issue, it doesn't really hold much validity in the grand scale of things unless you manage to poll the entire population, you don't like grouping up to achieve things, fair enough; other people do. Also out of a concurrent population of 5.5k the people engaging in weekly pvp aka earning standings which is over 25 HKs a week is way less than 99% - a lot of people don't engage in pvp at all. Keep in mind that if there are no teams dodging each other which is ideal and what to strive for, they'll also meet each other intermittently, resulting in long-ish games where all the PUG players get to fight each other in the games that open - premade free. This is also highly dependent on the amount of players queuing up for battlegrounds - if the pvp scene is healthy the PUGs won't suffer. Which is the reason heavy penalization (long deserter) for dropping queue is a way to either force the teams to get good and play each other or not be able to stomp pugs at least. If there is only teams dodging, it's literally PUG-players being funneled into against premades every game, which was the case on Kronos at the latest (and during Nost when they broke the queue system).
  11. The only thing you can test is how exploitable the system is, true. How it will be in action with a few thousand in the pool is something you can only make educated guesses on. 1. The reason why removing group-queue completely will not work is the fact that the game is based on building groups/friendships/guilds, it's the MMO part of the game. Yes, blizzlike group queue "sucks"(less so if the pvp population is healthy(unlike Kronos), but it still sucks when most of the players' mindset is to get as much honor as possible, they'll dodge etc. No-one should be forced to play with Timmy dickhead and Donny the clueless, both of which are AFK in the graveyard since they don't feel like trying to win. (This is when you invite your friends to a group so you can start winning games and don't have to worry if timmy dickhead doesn't play. In no group-queue you'd either be stuck with the same guys afking and being useless until you decide to stop playing or they do - of course you might miss each other every now and then but they would still be in a good amount of matches you played, ruining the experience. - On Nost and Kronos you had loads of these kinds of people if you ever solo queued; not even all of them were of the east asian origin.) - Before the counter-argument of "reporting the afk players to a GM" is presented, you could say the same about premade dodging etc; no private server I've played on so far has done anything substantial even after reports were made (Nost banned and unbanned the china wintraders for example, mostly gave warnings for being AFK leechers). 2+3. Yes, if by group queue you mean multi queue(where you can hop battlegrounds), it's very exploitable and there's the fixes I've presented (long deserter on dropping queue, masking game numbers, GM's actually caring about malicious activity that reduces everyone's experience(dodging) to name three.) 4. The sentence I highlighted in red for you is purely a personal opinion from your side and it's not a consensus reached among everyone, so better not make claims where you speak for everyone. Also as an extra disclaimer, you won't get the same experience in PServers that you had in original vanilla; most players that queue up battlegrounds nowadays have a certain goal in mind (whether its the blue pvp set or something further, varies) - This is part in fact that a lot of people have figured out what they like and don't like, some of the players will only do pve etc, there's not so much random people hopping into battlegrounds "to have some fun" - of course this happens intermittently but it's not a constant. And before you excuse me of being a "premader - ranker", yes I like playing premade v premade games since it's pretty much vanilla pvp at its finest (but it's also fun to hop into a WSG with maybe a group of 2-3 friends or even solo to try and do our best to win) and I will not rank on this server, probably any server - ever again.
  12. Of course you can test the queue system during (open)beta if the staff allows it, you'd only need 30~ people for it tops to make a few demonstrations. Whether this will happen is totally up to the CF team. It's already been pointed out how removing group-queue completely will not work, if you can provide a proper written, substantial argument weighing pros and cons for your suggestion, I'd be more inclined to give you a real response as to why it won't work, refuting the points you made.