EPTCounter-Strike: Global Offensive - Page 55
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
| ||
|
UniversalSnip
9871 Posts
| ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
People pubbing CS are more interested in big servers that run deathmatch, gungame, unlimited money, 24/7 dust2, 24/7 office, etc. These are much more fun for pubbing than 5v5 for various reasons that I probably don't need to point out. Not to mention server communities make it more enjoyable. If Teamliquid put up a good popular east coast server, I'd want to play on it because there will be admins present and there will be people I recognize on a daily basis. The CSGO beta seems small right now so there is sort of a community feel to it, I do see some of the same people again and again in my games. | ||
|
dronebabo
10866 Posts
| ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
CS is a team game, it doesn't really matter if you're paired up with nine others that have similar ELO. If the team doesn't cooperate or communicate than your team is at a disadvantage. Most of the maps are CT sided so there's simply no way of winning on T if everyone decides to bait one another or can't throw nades properly. Someone's going to eventually end up leaving because they're doing badly, their team sucks, or there's a bunch of campers and baiters. Someone else leaves because they don't want to play 4v5 and now you're left with a bunch of bots. There's not going to be a leaver system and even if there was, it simply won't work when there's a server list. And I'm not sure if it's not implemented yet or what for current beta. But the current beta matchmaking doesn't even wait for the entire team to be filled, it just starts. I don't see how it would be fun to join a scrim that's already in progress... I don't see how matchmaking for pubs is stupid. Just because a server list has worked for years, it doesn't mean it was actually good. You waste your time going through a bunch of servers that you don't want to play, are full, or have reserved slots. Some people don't have much time and just want to jump into a gungame or deathmatch instantly. As a developer, why would you not make matchmaking accommodate this if you are catering to casuals? | ||
|
UniversalSnip
9871 Posts
Someone's going to eventually end up leaving because they're doing badly, their team sucks, or there's a bunch of campers and baiters. Someone else leaves because they don't want to play 4v5 and now you're left with a bunch of bots. There's not going to be a leaver system and even if there was, it simply won't work when there's a server list. no idea what a server list has to do with leavers. Maybe I'm misunderstanding that. CS is a team game, it doesn't really matter if you're paired up with nine others that have similar ELO. If the team doesn't cooperate or communicate than your team is at a disadvantage. People who can't cooperate with anyone will end up at a lower elo, problem solved. | ||
|
Percutio
United States1672 Posts
| ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
On March 30 2012 08:31 UniversalSnip wrote: no idea what a server list has to do with leavers. Maybe I'm misunderstanding that. People who can't cooperate with anyone will end up at a lower elo, problem solved. How can you implement a leaver system that punishes leavers in matchmaking if there are just a bunch of servers you can select from and play? If you're going to implement a global leaver system than what constitutes as a leaver in deathmatch, gungame, or a 24/7 d2 server? I don't see how people not cooperating will end up with a lower ELO and how that actually solves anything? The entire team gets punished for one person not cooperating. Not everyone who doesn't cooperate is terrible. You're going to end up with non-cooperative higher-skilled players in a lower-skilled bracket where they're dominate the entire team simply due to the skill difference. People will just end up quitting. | ||
|
UniversalSnip
9871 Posts
On March 30 2012 09:25 skyR wrote: How can you implement a leaver system that punishes leavers in matchmaking if there are just a bunch of servers you can select from and play? If you're going to implement a global leaver system than what constitutes as a leaver in deathmatch, gungame, or a 24/7 d2 server? Uh what? Matchmaking would run on valve's servers obviously, if you were just browsing the server list there wouldn't be any matchmaking. The way matchmaking works is, you would invite 0-4 friends into a party, hit find match, there, you're done. I don't see how people not cooperating will end up with a lower ELO and how that actually solves anything? The entire team gets punished for one person not cooperating. Not everyone who doesn't cooperate is terrible. You're going to end up with non-cooperative higher-skilled players in a lower-skilled bracket where they're dominate the entire team simply due to the skill difference. People will just end up quitting. Everyone who doesn't cooperate is terrible at cooperating, how can you say that on the one hand it's a team game and on the other hand team play isn't an indication of skill? That doesn't make any sense. | ||
|
dronebabo
10866 Posts
| ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
What lol? It makes perfect sense. I said that when everyone is of equal skill level, the team that doesn't co-operate is at a disadvantage and obviously, the chances of winning goes down quite a bit. This is the same as in DotA and SC2 minus the hero / race imbalance. But when you punish the skilled player for not co-operating by putting them in a lower skilled bracket. The player can obviously win by themselves simply due to the individual skill difference. You can't seriously think any amount of co-operation is going to make up for the difference in individual skill? | ||
|
UniversalSnip
9871 Posts
On March 30 2012 09:54 skyR wrote: I know what matchmaking is... the question was how do you implement a system that punishes leavers if you can just join a non-valve server? Ok let me explain this to you Johnny Idiot doesn't know how to play the game, which is whatever, neither do I, but he also rages and leaves. He plays 100 games and leaves lots of them. He does this by opening up CS: GO, clicking 'find match', and waiting until valve's system puts him in a game on a valve server that only runs this kind of game, with 9 other people who also clicked find match, and are at his skill level. When he's bored of that he joins games through the server browser, they're like 12 vs 12 with quake sounds and shit. Then when he tries to play his 101st matchmade game, he gets a message instead that says "you have left lots of games you are banned for 3000 years from matchmade games." He is free to join servers through the server browser but none of them will have matchmade games on them. On March 30 2012 09:54 skyR wrote:What lol? It makes perfect sense. I said that when everyone is of equal skill level, the team that doesn't co-operate is at a disadvantage and obviously, the chances of winning goes down quite a bit. This is the same as in DotA and SC2 minus the hero / race imbalance. So... what is the problem?! Matchmaking works perfectly well for those games and reflects both individual skill and team play. | ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
On March 30 2012 09:50 dronebabo wrote:+ Show Spoiler + On March 30 2012 06:55 skyR wrote: If you can't field a team of five than what's the point of playing 5v5? You're going to queue with a group of two or three and have two pugs who won't communicate, cooperate, or understand. You would just be wasting your time. You can't be practicing strategies and it would be an inefficient way of practicing your aim, you would just be owning noobs at a very slow pace. CS is a team game, it doesn't really matter if you're paired up with nine others that have similar ELO. If the team doesn't cooperate or communicate than your team is at a disadvantage. Most of the maps are CT sided so there's simply no way of winning on T if everyone decides to bait one another or can't throw nades properly. Someone's going to eventually end up leaving because they're doing badly, their team sucks, or there's a bunch of campers and baiters. Someone else leaves because they don't want to play 4v5 and now you're left with a bunch of bots. There's not going to be a leaver system and even if there was, it simply won't work when there's a server list. And I'm not sure if it's not implemented yet or what for current beta. But the current beta matchmaking doesn't even wait for the entire team to be filled, it just starts. I don't see how it would be fun to join a scrim that's already in progress... I don't see how matchmaking for pubs is stupid. Just because a server list has worked for years, it doesn't mean it was actually good. You waste your time going through a bunch of servers that you don't want to play, are full, or have reserved slots. Some people don't have much time and just want to jump into a gungame or deathmatch instantly. As a developer, why would you not make matchmaking accommodate this if you are catering to casuals? what's the point of 5v5 if you can't field 5? to play 5v5 without needing a full team, obviously. what's the point in pugging on esea when you don't have a team of 5? same thing, to play 5v5 without needing 5 ready to go. i would personally play 5v5 over 12v12+ any day, regardless of whether or not 4 players on my team are teammates, and i'm sure that's not limited to just me as evidenced by people pugging on esea. why would this be owning noobs? like i said, there will be an elo system is place. elo systems match you against players of your own skill level, so you will not be facing other noobs unless you're a noob yourself. yeah, no shit cs is a team game. i don't get why youre automatically assuming that if you're paired up using matchmaking that no one is going to work together. just because it's not a team doesn't mean people aren't going to communicate and try to work as a team. are they going to be worse than a team? absolutely, but that doesn't automatically mean everyone will be uncooperative. come on. even if you were somehow correct that 5v5 is shit without actual teams versing each other, why wouldn't you want 5man group matchmaking? why would that be useless lol. in-game 5v5 support would be amazing and extend game life. what if 1.6 still had that? do you not think esea being pay-to-play deters a lot of people from playing? no need for a thirdparty program like irc and no hassle in pming others. just hit play and wait with 4 others. yeah, there will be griefers and leavers, but if valve implements a report function then that can be dealt with swiftly either by banning them from matchmaking or some other sort of penalizing. there can be hackers in pubs, but does that automatically make you say that pubbing is terrible? no obviously not the current beta matchmaking is called quick play, so it's obviously going to be a jump in and play thing. they won't have elo matchmaking depend on something like that matchmaking for pubs is stupid, because there's no point in adjusting for elo when it's a 24man server. you even give a great example of why it's stupid: if there was a teamliquid server you would play it on that. most pubbers don't care about elo, they care about the community they play in (or the map/gamemode, like 24/7 d2 or deathmatch). at that point, matchmaking is just an inefficient way of getting them in their preferred games and server lists end up being much better. also, new blog post and update Well the way I interpreted it was that if you can't field a group of five than clearly you have another person or two that you would queue with. Not everyone will be uncooperative but there's going to be those individuals that are just assholes, just like in every other team game. You have the person that farms all game or won't initiate and those that don't talk at all. Is CSGO going to be any different? Probably not. I don't expect people to rush into B first, tell me how many are going B, guard the objective, or watch my back either. ESEA isn't even expensive so no I don't think it deters people from playing the competitive format. I really don't see the point in playing competitive 5v5 if you're too cheap to afford $7 per month or too lazy to find a team. I don't think matchmaking would help extend the life of a game since the popularity of CS isn't all thanks to the competitive scene. I'm pretty sure ESEA is a tight community where you would eventually end up knowing the majority of players and since it's p2p, there's less likely going to be assholes so I can see how pugging in ESEA can be enjoyable. Fair enough. On March 30 2012 10:00 UniversalSnip wrote:+ Show Spoiler + On March 30 2012 09:54 skyR wrote: I know what matchmaking is... the question was how do you implement a system that punishes leavers if you can just join a non-valve server? Ok let me explain this to you Johnny Idiot doesn't know how to play the game, which is whatever, neither do I, but he also rages and leaves. He plays 100 games and leaves lots of them. He does this by opening up CS: GO, clicking 'find match', and waiting until valve's system puts him in a game on a valve server that only runs this kind of game, with 9 other people who also clicked find match, and are at his skill level. When he's bored of that he joins games through the server browser, they're like 12 vs 12 with quake sounds and shit. Then when he tries to play his 101st matchmade game, he gets a message instead that says "you have left lots of games you are banned for 3000 years from matchmade games." He is free to join servers through the server browser but none of them will have matchmade games on them. On March 30 2012 09:54 skyR wrote:What lol? It makes perfect sense. I said that when everyone is of equal skill level, the team that doesn't co-operate is at a disadvantage and obviously, the chances of winning goes down quite a bit. This is the same as in DotA and SC2 minus the hero / race imbalance. So... what is the problem?! Matchmaking works perfectly well for those games and reflects both individual skill and team play. That's the problem. I don't see that as a punishing enough system. What? Matchmaking doesn't reflect both individual skill and teamplay at all in either game. Two players in silver will have an extremely hard time beating a master player regardless of how well they communicate because they simply don't have good enough mechanics or understanding of the game. The same is true for DotA to a lesser extent, you can co-operate all you want but it's not going to help if the others are just individually better. Not to mention, AT vs RT is not what I consider a matchmaking system that works perfectly. | ||
|
UniversalSnip
9871 Posts
On March 30 2012 12:41 skyR wrote: That's the problem. I don't see that as a punishing enough system. You not seeing it as punishing enough is not a problem. If leavers don't get to use the system anymore the system won't have leavers, I really don't care if that doesn't satisfy your sense of retributive justice and neither does anyone else. How is it a system problem that you don't get to come to these people's houses and crucify them? What more do you want, their copy of the game completely disabled? What? Matchmaking doesn't reflect both individual skill and teamplay at all in either game. Two players in silver will have an extremely hard time beating a master player regardless of how well they communicate because they simply don't have good enough mechanics or understanding of the game. The same is true for DotA to a lesser extent, you can co-operate all you want but it's not going to help if the others are just individually better. Not to mention, AT vs RT is not what I consider a matchmaking system that works perfectly. What makes you think arranged teams are even going to be matched vs random teams? You could very easily have 5 man groups only matched against other 5 man groups or 4 + 1 groups matched only against other 4 + 1 groups or you could give a ranking handicap for groups or handle it any other number of ways. And you were talking about coordination being relevant when teams are evenly matched, what is this about one team being better? If you keep getting matched against players better than you you'll lose until that stops happening. | ||
|
dronebabo
10866 Posts
| ||
|
ghosthunter
United States414 Posts
The name of the game is progressive gains now, and ELO is a great way to implement this. Being able to pop into a controlled team game environment and play to get better or worse would be fun for me. While there isn't any microtransaction / LoL IP stuff going on, the premise is still exciting for me. I would not pay 7$ to do it however. I am not that avid a CS fan. That's why CS:GO seems like a great prospect for me. Especially while I wait for Planetside 2, it will help me get my shooter fix. | ||
|
Serejai
6007 Posts
I coulda swore I had four keys but they're all missing from my Steam account now. Will try to get some more if I can. | ||
|
LoLAdriankat
United States4307 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
PassiveAce
United States18076 Posts
| ||
| ||
