Akalukz wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:24 am
Maybe if the scenario match maker wasn't so slow, people wouldn't complain as much as when one scenario ends thru domination another one starts promptly. Maybe with Domination working it's time to get rid of the match making requirements.
The situation you mention here is the core problem.
With MM so slow for everyone without a full 6man, SC ending too fast due to domination result in 2 effects. You barely get a pop and when you get one, the sc is ending in a few minutes. The idle time between sc is increased while the active playtime is reduced in sc.
And even in a full grp, the sc pops might be faster but it is even more likely to trigger domination.
If only the new matchmaking improved the class setups in sc but it only brought extended queue times with the same imbalanced groups are before.
I agree that the pops were slowed down in order to facilitate better matchmaking, however it seems like that goal isn't being reached.
tbh I understand both sides and i also think that the problem is bigger than the domination.
I mean i totally understand when people have to wait for 15-20 mins or longer for a single sc an the domination cames and they even dont get the full reward... If it would be like that they have direct a new sc pop with different people most people would not complain but normally you have to wait a long time.
So what is the problem the domination, or is maybe the population to low to garant a healthy sc pop most of the day or is just the reward to low or not interessting enough for a lot of people to play sc? Or maybe they just dont want to get stomped from a 6 men grp and thats why they dont que?
What you do in the meantime while you wait for sc with your grp? Go in rvr an get stomped from 2 wbs because they even chase you to africa when they were able to dismount one because they know they will get you since there are not exit tools anymore if you dont play the perfect kite setup for rvr?Or even better when somebody of your grp get a 100feat stagger from rp / zealot out of the blob and is a easy kill even with the perfect kite setup? Or Beside the problem that you have only with praag one zone that is a bit small scale friendly?
So do i think domination is a problem? No i think it is a good tool because nobody want to sit 15 minutes in their spawn and do nothing. Do I think domination is the solution to make players (include 2+ men grps of all skill levels) more "happy"? no because i think RoR (and i mean ror because ror is not warhammer online anymore) has some deeper problems that leads to the current situation.
PeonAtWork wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 1:24 pm
What is your stance on player agency (e.g.: concession vs domination)?
what's player agency?
What is a 'noob' for you? A new player, a bad player or both? Is there a development (to be expected/hoped for), and if so, what are the requirements for such development?
noobs are bad players who don't know priority, don't know role, don't read map, blind to flow of battle, ,
don't know when, where, what.
some of them think they're good cuz sc score board. can't expect develop from them.
at least new players are open to learn.
Do you consider it to be intended and/or reasonable to end a scenario based on the actions of a minority within (regardless of 'pugs' or 'pro')?
minority can't trigger domination.
do you know how wikipedia work? majority correct minor's error.
if domination kick in that means majority of losing team has failed, not by 1 or 2 bad apple.
Who is the arbiter and where are the lines in regards to 'pugstomping' and 'premades'? What metric do you use personally?
i don't understand question. probably wc camping and kill farm.
Do you actually suspect malicious intent from other players?
i assume you're talking about intended suicide to deny enemy.
can u tell difference between intended suicide and intended playing but abandoned by team?
when team already gave up. ( it's failure of majority )
you think minority can trigger domination?
try suicide when your team is winning.
when someone keep dying in balanced battle,
that's too bad your team have noob.
or that maybe intended troll.
if you can make formula to find this or have evidence, report it to help fix.
---
In regards to this:
Spoiler:
anarchypark wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:22 am
either i was on noob side or winning side,
I want that SC end asap.
and find another SC hoping for better one.
why prolong misery?
unless you wanna keep farming noobs.
Players have the option to leave a scenario, and I'd argue:
If you queue and repeatedly throw matches (due to lack of experience, skill or what-have-you), there's no point for you to clog up the queue to begin with.
Furthermore, I don't unterstand what you'd expect to find in the next SC, considering how very small the playerbase actually is at the moment.
Players don't magically become better players, they are ought to practice and - by nature of this game in particular - group up (read: coordinate, even if only through /sc)... to group you have to (have reason to) communicate (more than just blame), and for that to happen a scenario has to last longer than 2min (i.e.: some scenarios could easily be salvaged, with a tiny bit of coordination).
If it's an issue related to experience... well, I've hinted at it in an earlier post:
You could use the instances of domination as a tutorial for new players (e.g.: mandated mark -> assist, yadyada), there are plenty of options to explore.
Edit: The domination mechanic can accurately spot clear-cut snoozefest, however it is objectively impossible to tune it for the odd cases in which every accessible metric - but the player perspective - is all over the place.
Given the current trends in playerbase (quantity [timezone coverage] and quality [experience]) the odd cases are far, far more numerous and will eventually result in more and more-tangible false positives ~ meaning: bad starting conditions + 'blind' algorithm => tangible false positives => worse conditions + 'blind' algorithm => (...) => 0.
If you'd add as little as a NPC or w/e to allow for a cancelation of the mechanic (read: player input as failsafe), you could avoid most of the terrible nonsense that comes with those false positives (technical maintenance/optimisation and communal tension/moderation) ~ meaning: cultivation of player agency and incentive to communicate ('Aye/nay/why concede?' -> rally call + logistics [e.g.: comp, assist, buffs]) => transfer of knowledge, socialization/community development; less work => more time/more fun => more creative, genuine solutions.
This might actually be better than an entirely player controlled (and ultimately 'driven') concession system...
Edit: Words.
does wc farming give more chance to learn?
domination is meant to stop it. to end waste of time for both.
i do leave SC. and i hope to find 1 or 2 more objective players.
cuz i can carry SC with them or die trying.
either way it's playing. better than camping at wc without domination.
you don't know the fun of pug duo trio battles for objective against odd.
if all 12 plays objective, no domination.
i search for those SC.
At least, that's what we've been told by new players in our community, and veteran elite 6v6 key players alike. If you have a better idea to solve the same problem, feel free to let it rip. If you want to complain about the specific thing that we're intending to do, I'm not sure how else to illustrate to you that it is very much intended.
Something to think about. A lot of times a side will get domination going simply with numbers. The disparity in numbers of players is not enough to shut the SC down, but enough so that one side can not effectively play.
IDEA
How about every time a player enters the sc (after it has started) Domination reverts to zero?
Maybe it has been mentioned as an idea already. Instead of ending the timer faster, shortening the sc, etc when the kill ratio goes way in favor of one side can the ratio have an adverse effect on exp/renown gain for kills? Say your team hits the threshold to trigger domination and you exp/renown gain goes to 0 for kills till domination is broken.
This seems to solve the kill farming problem since there is no reason then to farm kills but to be a jerk and the sc won't end early if you are playing the objectives as intended but the other team is just dying repeatedly for whatever reason: running in solo, no heals.... etc
anarchypark wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 6:08 pm
do you know how wikipedia work? majority correct minor's error.
This is not how Wikipedia works in any political topics. It's a minority controlling what appears in Wikipedia. But well, this is off-topic, so excuse me.
Easy solution if you're on the winning side. Watch the clock - if it starts ticking fast suicide a couple of your guys to stop it. Throw the enemy a bone so you can get your precious emblems.
Detangler and alts - 84 Chosen, other 40s - DoK, Zealot, SH, WE, BG, BO
Destro - Mostly Harmless
Tangler and alts - 8X IB, other 40s - RP, SM
Order - Most dishonorable
PeonAtWork wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 1:24 pm
What is your stance on player agency (e.g.: concession vs domination)?
what's player agency?
What is a 'noob' for you? A new player, a bad player or both? Is there a development (to be expected/hoped for), and if so, what are the requirements for such development?
noobs are bad players who don't know priority, don't know role, don't read map, blind to flow of battle, ,
don't know when, where, what.
some of them think they're good cuz sc score board. can't expect develop from them.
at least new players are open to learn.
Do you consider it to be intended and/or reasonable to end a scenario based on the actions of a minority within (regardless of 'pugs' or 'pro')?
minority can't trigger domination.
do you know how wikipedia work? majority correct minor's error.
if domination kick in that means majority of losing team has failed, not by 1 or 2 bad apple.
Who is the arbiter and where are the lines in regards to 'pugstomping' and 'premades'? What metric do you use personally?
i don't understand question. probably wc camping and kill farm.
Do you actually suspect malicious intent from other players?
i assume you're talking about intended suicide to deny enemy.
can u tell difference between intended suicide and intended playing but abandoned by team?
when team already gave up. ( it's failure of majority )
you think minority can trigger domination?
try suicide when your team is winning.
when someone keep dying in balanced battle,
that's too bad your team have noob.
or that maybe intended troll.
if you can make formula to find this or have evidence, report it to help fix.
---
In regards to this:
Spoiler:
Players have the option to leave a scenario, and I'd argue:
If you queue and repeatedly throw matches (due to lack of experience, skill or what-have-you), there's no point for you to clog up the queue to begin with.
Furthermore, I don't unterstand what you'd expect to find in the next SC, considering how very small the playerbase actually is at the moment.
Players don't magically become better players, they are ought to practice and - by nature of this game in particular - group up (read: coordinate, even if only through /sc)... to group you have to (have reason to) communicate (more than just blame), and for that to happen a scenario has to last longer than 2min (i.e.: some scenarios could easily be salvaged, with a tiny bit of coordination).
If it's an issue related to experience... well, I've hinted at it in an earlier post:
You could use the instances of domination as a tutorial for new players (e.g.: mandated mark -> assist, yadyada), there are plenty of options to explore.
Edit: The domination mechanic can accurately spot clear-cut snoozefest, however it is objectively impossible to tune it for the odd cases in which every accessible metric - but the player perspective - is all over the place.
Given the current trends in playerbase (quantity [timezone coverage] and quality [experience]) the odd cases are far, far more numerous and will eventually result in more and more-tangible false positives ~ meaning: bad starting conditions + 'blind' algorithm => tangible false positives => worse conditions + 'blind' algorithm => (...) => 0.
If you'd add as little as a NPC or w/e to allow for a cancelation of the mechanic (read: player input as failsafe), you could avoid most of the terrible nonsense that comes with those false positives (technical maintenance/optimisation and communal tension/moderation) ~ meaning: cultivation of player agency and incentive to communicate ('Aye/nay/why concede?' -> rally call + logistics [e.g.: comp, assist, buffs]) => transfer of knowledge, socialization/community development; less work => more time/more fun => more creative, genuine solutions.
This might actually be better than an entirely player controlled (and ultimately 'driven') concession system...
Edit: Words.
does wc farming give more chance to learn?
domination is meant to stop it. to end waste of time for both.
i do leave SC. and i hope to find 1 or 2 more objective players.
cuz i can carry SC with them or die trying.
either way it's playing. better than camping at wc without domination.
you don't know the fun of pug duo trio battles for objective against odd.
if all 12 plays objective, no domination.
i search for those SC.
ps. i skipped your Edit:~ , not sorry
I think the edit was one of my more coherent bits of gibberish, more so than the gibberish above it.
But back on track, an odd and reverse case:
What would you call a duo on comms that snowballs in a scenario (24 players) within, say, the first couple of engagements? (X)
Furthermore, what would that snowball result in if any of the good ol' trickle-in, archetype-stack, backpaddle, WC guarding, deftard hugging, scoreboard padding, alt-tab joins, (...) shenanigans rear their ugly heads in the immediate aftermath? (Y)
I'd say that, the X causing Y to kick in within that trivial timeframe is no indication of actual Y ~ a scenario lasts 15 minutes, there's plenty of time to try and atleast exhaust all possibilites (i.e.: speak up about the shenanigans mentioned above and fix them, try alternate routes to the objective [especially on the big maps] or, well, leave the scenario to free up a spot) == player agency.
In these cases, it's like being thrown out of the cinema, after watching the first couple of frames.
Say, do you differentiate between losses and wins, or just loss and win?
I for one differentiate between losses and wins:
A loss is bad if it's caused by a stomp.
A loss isn't bad at all, if the loss was close (competition), simply engaging (complete mayhem) or indicating a learning process.
A win isn't good at all, if it's caused by a stomp (if not only because it translates to potential loss of future competition).
A win is good, if the win was close, engaging or indicating a learning process (seeing player [opposition or group members] pick up knowledge and put it to good use is satisfying, too, if not only because it translates to future competition).
I don't care win or lose.
just play for best outcome.
aim 200+ if score was 150. aim 400+ if team had 300. 100 if 0.
emblems drop from points.
2 SC with 300 points are equal to 1 SC 500.
if domination kicked, so what.
i keep playing until end. or leave when nobody plays.
duo trio key players can carry noob SC.
they can draw noob premade out of camp and drag them around map. creating opportunity to fight back.
I looking for those players.
if domi pop by noobs dying, so be it.
carry harder.
no matter which side you are, play objective. fights occur around it and less chance of domination. better chance of high score.
that's worthy SC for noobs to learn. you can see attack/defense flow. flanking, decoying, breaking lines, positions etc.
practice skill rotation button clicks at the city dummy.
still, domi can be triggered, means 1 side is far better.
ok, u win, u're in child league, the end, next.
maybe rarely, domi pop inside balanced SC.
you're sure but probably missing something.
I think devs want evidence of it. not theory.
ps. send me tell for more question. seems your forum ban evasion account got caught.
At least, that's what we've been told by new players in our community, and veteran elite 6v6 key players alike. If you have a better idea to solve the same problem, feel free to let it rip. If you want to complain about the specific thing that we're intending to do, I'm not sure how else to illustrate to you that it is very much intended.
Something to think about. A lot of times a side will get domination going simply with numbers. The disparity in numbers of players is not enough to shut the SC down, but enough so that one side can not effectively play.
IDEA
How about every time a player enters the sc (after it has started) Domination reverts to zero?
Domination is not a point sort of thing but a set of criteria and if met will trigger domination until not all criteria are met anymore...
Akalukz wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:24 am
Maybe if the scenario match maker wasn't so slow, people wouldn't complain as much as when one scenario ends thru domination another one starts promptly. Maybe with Domination working it's time to get rid of the match making requirements.
The situation you mention here is the core problem.
With MM so slow for everyone without a full 6man, SC ending too fast due to domination result in 2 effects. You barely get a pop and when you get one, the sc is ending in a few minutes. The idle time between sc is increased while the active playtime is reduced in sc.
And even in a full grp, the sc pops might be faster but it is even more likely to trigger domination.
If only the new matchmaking improved the class setups in sc but it only brought extended queue times with the same imbalanced groups are before.
I agree that the pops were slowed down in order to facilitate better matchmaking, however it seems like that goal isn't being reached.
I still get tons of SCs like this:
Time for each check was increased to give the system a chance to make balanced groups. If the time hits and it cant make a balanced group but a group nonetheless it will make it and you get the result you had. Lessening the check time again means more of those matches as players wont queue up before it checks again.
