EPTreally, they should consider keeping both an open join/leave and a queued match competitive matchmaking, that way only people who actually want to play through an entire game regardless of the team would join the queue and all would be happy. sure, this will again split the playerbase, but there is not much sense in forcing people who like the option to quit fast, but prefer competitive over casual, in a queue system.
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive - Page 192
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
whoso
Germany523 Posts
really, they should consider keeping both an open join/leave and a queued match competitive matchmaking, that way only people who actually want to play through an entire game regardless of the team would join the queue and all would be happy. sure, this will again split the playerbase, but there is not much sense in forcing people who like the option to quit fast, but prefer competitive over casual, in a queue system. | ||
|
Sawamura
Malaysia7602 Posts
| ||
|
bonedriven
258 Posts
So, a wonderful system. | ||
|
thoradycus
Malaysia3262 Posts
| ||
|
rod-
Norway379 Posts
| ||
|
Kojak21
Canada1104 Posts
even if someone doesnt vote yes or no, it will end your game | ||
|
jaj22
United Kingdom1376 Posts
On October 04 2012 12:00 Kojak21 wrote: What the fuck are they doing???? now if one person quits, and then one person votes to end the match even though no ones else wants to, the games ends. fucking christ even if someone doesnt vote yes or no, it will end your game This is kinda devil's advocate, but it does make sense for a competitive match. A losing team with fewer humans has no chance of winning, so it's no longer competitive. Hell, a one-sided game isn't even good practice. This no-join/leave matchmaking is not going to work unless early quits are relatively rare. Currently they're almost universal, which is probably related to inadequate ability matching, but also to the money system. 0-3 can feel pretty bad when you're not used to it. CS accentuates disparities early. | ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
| ||
|
Penecks
United States600 Posts
Meanwhile those playing by themselves can use the old matchmaking, it wasn't perfect but it was good enough to hop in and play in at least a mildly competitive environment without 32 player dm no awp warcraft mod or whatever that is always on public servers. | ||
|
happyft
United States470 Posts
On October 04 2012 13:17 jaj22 wrote: This is kinda devil's advocate, but it does make sense for a competitive match. A losing team with fewer humans has no chance of winning, so it's no longer competitive. Hell, a one-sided game isn't even good practice. This no-join/leave matchmaking is not going to work unless early quits are relatively rare. Currently they're almost universal, which is probably related to inadequate ability matching, but also to the money system. 0-3 can feel pretty bad when you're not used to it. CS accentuates disparities early. Not true, I just won a 2v5 last night. There's actual strategy on playing with bots -- always rush, because if you die you can take over a bot, and if you can pull off a great flank/counter-rush then even better. It was insanely epic, it started out 5v4 and then slowly dwindled down to 5v2, and we won with the score as 16:14 in the end. The queue system in general sucks. The biggest problem is the inability for people to replace those who left. Then we wouldn't need this whole abandon or premature end-match. Also, I dislike that the wait times for getting a game are a few minutes now. I really didn't mind joining a game mid-way through, before the queue -- all I had to do was eco a couple rounds and I'd be good to go. | ||
|
bonedriven
258 Posts
On October 04 2012 15:46 happyft wrote: Not true, I just won a 2v5 last night. There's actual strategy on playing with bots -- always rush, because if you die you can take over a bot, and if you can pull off a great flank/counter-rush then even better. It was insanely epic, it started out 5v4 and then slowly dwindled down to 5v2, and we won with the score as 16:14 in the end. The queue system in general sucks. The biggest problem is the inability for people to replace those who left. Then we wouldn't need this whole abandon or premature end-match. Also, I dislike that the wait times for getting a game are a few minutes now. I really didn't mind joining a game mid-way through, before the queue -- all I had to do was eco a couple rounds and I'd be good to go. I played 1v5 too, lost the game but very close. But it doesn't mean the system is not broken. This is not a place to show off anyway. | ||
|
Xiron
Germany1233 Posts
| ||
|
LazinCajun
United States294 Posts
| ||
|
happyft
United States470 Posts
On October 04 2012 17:32 bonedriven wrote: I played 1v5 too, lost the game but very close. But it doesn't mean the system is not broken. This is not a place to show off anyway. You're missing my point -- having a bot on your team is not autolose. The game was definitely playable (and more enjoyable in my opinion) before the matchmaking patch, where there were plenty of games with uneven number of bots. Bots are NOT the problem. It's having the ability to have leaving players replaced by new incoming players (as Xiron and LazinCajin say above me) | ||
|
TheRabidDeer
United States3806 Posts
On October 04 2012 15:46 happyft wrote: Not true, I just won a 2v5 last night. There's actual strategy on playing with bots -- always rush, because if you die you can take over a bot, and if you can pull off a great flank/counter-rush then even better. It was insanely epic, it started out 5v4 and then slowly dwindled down to 5v2, and we won with the score as 16:14 in the end. The queue system in general sucks. The biggest problem is the inability for people to replace those who left. Then we wouldn't need this whole abandon or premature end-match. Also, I dislike that the wait times for getting a game are a few minutes now. I really didn't mind joining a game mid-way through, before the queue -- all I had to do was eco a couple rounds and I'd be good to go. And... what do you do when they camp and wait for your rush like an intelligent team would do? Suddenly you are back to it being 2v5... | ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
Unfortunately, there's not going to be a middle ground. You can't have two separate queue systems because that is just stupid. Having bots on your team is actually auto lose against players around the same skill level as you. Bots suck, you can't tell them where to go, they don't throw useful nades if any at all, and so on. Being one player down in any team game is a fucking huge disadvantage. | ||
|
ParanoiaDHerO
United States183 Posts
| ||
|
helokity
Canada47 Posts
On October 05 2012 02:49 skyR wrote: Everybody cried about the old matchmaking where you get placed into random games. Now they change it, everybody crys about how players that left can't be replaced or that the match shouldn't end if a vote is passed. Unfortunately, there's not going to be a middle ground. You can't have two separate queue systems because that is just stupid. Having bots on your team is actually auto lose against players around the same skill level as you. Bots suck, you can't tell them where to go, they don't throw useful nades if any at all, and so on. Being one player down in any team game is a fucking huge disadvantage. while there was a general consensus that the last system wasn't working although I personally thought it was fine, the new one is a bit over the top on how games are abruptly ended continuously. Played 4 in a row that didn't finish because one person would leave. in one of them we got 8 yes votes to continue and the last guy didn't vote so the game still just closes on everyone as the match was coming down to its last few rounds in a close match. Come on... At the very minimum they should do a 2 votes necessary to end game when someone leaves -- if 2 people cant agree that the game should end now, then it continues with bots. Having one bot in game, although putting you at a slight disadvantage isnt a huge deal versus having to requeue with long wait times. It's more damaging to their new competitive system where my friends dont even want to play comp anymore because we cant get a single game finished. It's hard to justify one of the game modes where you achieve no results after hours of gameplay versus casual you would have seen a finish to 5-6 games in the same span. Competitive player base will suffer more if this system continues imo. then again there are other huge issues to be fixed with comp where there is constant d/c'ing for many users and I personally would be stuck on pistol round throughout the whole span of the game because of it. I eventually found an apparent fix to it last night after reading through forums, which has made the game more playable now. | ||
|
happyft
United States470 Posts
On October 05 2012 02:49 skyR wrote: Everybody cried about the old matchmaking where you get placed into random games. Now they change it, everybody crys about how players that left can't be replaced or that the match shouldn't end if a vote is passed. Unfortunately, there's not going to be a middle ground. You can't have two separate queue systems because that is just stupid. Having bots on your team is actually auto lose against players around the same skill level as you. Bots suck, you can't tell them where to go, they don't throw useful nades if any at all, and so on. Being one player down in any team game is a fucking huge disadvantage. But how often do you get a match that has 9 equally high skilled players? From what I've seen before and even stil after matchmaking, you usually get 4 good players, 4 averages, and 2 noobs. Balance-wise, the only important thing is that the 4 good players remain. If the noob gets replaced by a bot, that could actually be beneficial. If one average player leaves, it could either be neutral or slightly negative depending on how coordinated the opposing team is. I hate to say it, but the match really is more a 2v2, because a good player will very rarely die to an average or noob. But yes, in your case if you have a match of 9 high skilled players, that one bot will completely ruin the game. But most games I play aren't completely ruined by someone leaving -- in fact, it's usually the bad player who leaves, and if he's bad enough, having a bot replacement can actually be good. As I said, most games are acutally 2v2s... Also to Hellokitty above, I agree with all points of your post... I played 4 games in a row last night at peak time, and they all ended before round 7. Really really discouraging having to keep requeuing like that, since it's nigh impossible to get the game to keep going after someone leaves. Also, there seems to be some connection problems at the start of a game, sometimes I need to immediately disconnect and reconnect to get in. Further, text graphics get garbled up half the time while map loads, and I have to reset my graphics settings to get it working again. | ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
The competitive maps are designed around 5v5 so you lost all credibility when you mentioned that balance wise, its about 2v2. Once a player leaves, the game is ruined because the defending team has to sacrifice an individual to cover the vacant position. Nearly every map needs four positions covered: Dust 2 has long, cat, mid, and B; Train has ivy, mid, B upper, B lower, ladder; Nuke has ramp, outside, squeaky, hut; and so on. A single player will rarely hold a position when they're outnumbered, given that the skill discrepancy is not enormous. Even if it's all about four good players and it becomes a 2v2. Why would you want to continue a game where half the positions are uncovered and it just comes down to psychology / luck of where the other two may or may not go? | ||
| ||
