I'm sure there are many other players with high ratings that would thoroughly enjoy a teams lobby with high elo requirements. Normal team games aren't much fun anymore, at least for me. This is because high ranking players are expected to carry almost the entire team every time you play a match. It's not fun when you have to put in 150% of the effort to make up for the players that either don't know how to play or are of much lesser skill. This post isn't to beat up on newer players or those that aren't high elo. It's to make the game actually fun again.
+7 / -0
|
I agree 100%. Feeling forced to play with people that are either smurfs or do not contribute is unfair for anyone of higher rating. Balance is generally screwy too often which is also an unenjoyable experience. An auto host with an elo requirement should have been made a long time ago. At the very least a level requirement of perhaps level 5 to even begin playing Public Auto-Hosted multiplayer would likely be beneficial. Passworded/Custom games though I believe should not need any such requisette however. This way it would be much more difficult for smurfs/new account trolls to ruin matches as well as allow players to atleast know something before playing multiplayer and frustrating half of the lobby. Being higher rated feels more like a punishment then anything. I can see why many higher rated players tend to not play as often or just quit altogether.
+3 / -0
|
Good, I will be excluded because of my skills not match High ELO though my behaviour isn't bad. I need access XD.
+0 / -0
|
quote:
At the very least a level requirement of perhaps level 5 to even begin playing Public Auto-Hosted multiplayer would likely be beneficial. Passworded/Custom games though I believe should not need any such requisette however. This way it would be much more difficult for smurfs/new account trolls to ruin matches as well as allow players to atleast know something before playing multiplayer and frustrating half of the lobby. |
This penalises legitimate new players far more than "smurfs/new account trolls", who will find it far easier to game the system and reach level 5 quickly. Furthermore, I am fairly sure that most of the people who piss you off are in fact legitimate new players. While your personal game experience might be improved in the short term by kicking out legitimate new players, the long-term cost is one that ZK admins are not anywhere close to being persuaded to pay. "Piss off you cant join the cool kids" is just unconditionally not a message I want to send to a new player.
+2 / -0
|
I don't even have high elo, but this experience comes from other games. When you have a bad team, it's just overall not fun because 1/2 of the time you have to tell them what to do. In their case, they have lost multiple games just because some of their team was either inactive or was playing like against an IA (or worse). Even I am surprised that isn't in yet, although there might be some reasons we aren't aware of why this hasn't happened yet? Maybe one reason is that rank does not necessarily tell how good you are, because there are players that aren't shit but don't have the required rank either. It's something to think about anyway. Either way, it'd be cool to have something like this.
+1 / -0
|
quote:
I don't even have high elo, but this experience comes from other games. When you have a bad team, it's just overall not fun because 1/2 of the time you have to tell them what to do. In their case, they have lost multiple games just because some of their team was either inactive or was playing like against an IA (or worse). |
There is no possible change that is going to result in no bad games. I doubt that the proportion of bad games will even be substantially reduced by almost any change in the long run. quote:
Even I am surprised that isn't in yet, although there might be some reasons we aren't aware of why this hasn't happened yet? |
This conversation has been had many times before. Some people weren't around for the previous times; those who were often choose to forget the points which were inconvenient for the wagons they are pushing.
+0 / -0
|
quote:
Good, I will be excluded because of my skills not match High ELO though my behaviour isn't bad.
I need access XD. |
You wouldn't be excluded from playing. You and all the other players who play ZK would still have access to the normal team lobbies that don't have elo requirements. Having a high elo team lobby would simply make the game more enjoyable for those of higher skill.
+1 / -0
|
quote:
You wouldn't be excluded from playing. You and all the other players who play ZK would still have access to the normal team lobbies that don't have elo requirements.
Having a high elo team lobby would simply make the game more enjoyable for those of higher skill. |
...Except actually, in practice at most times of the day, only one room will have enough people to function and so either (a) no change will occur or (b) weaker players just don't get to play.
+2 / -0
|
quote: You wouldn't be excluded from playing. You and all the other players who play ZK would still have access to the normal team lobbies that don't have elo requirements. Having a high elo team lobby would simply make the game more enjoyable for those of higher skill. Aquanim: ...Except actually, in practice at most times of the day, only one room will have enough people to function and so either (a) no change will occur or (b) weaker players just don't get to play. I do not see how you can say in actual practice because it hasn't even been properly tested, if it was tested for 1-2 weeks and actually data was gathered to support this claim then perhaps we would be more understanding. Currently as far as I know when hi elo lobbies were present there were still A'l Welcome games being played at the same time. THis however was only once every other weekend for a short period so it is not a proper test I just want to be able to actually play the game without being expected to be a one man army, at that point it is 100% better to just make a new account or purposefully derank in order to not feel pressured into exerting so much effort/being expected to contribute so heavily. Some players I have seen occasionally even admit to keeping rank lower then it should be just to get a less frustrating team game experience. I do not recall the names at this time and I would feel bad for pointing fingers but im sure we have all seenit here n there
+4 / -0
|
For what its worth I find that most players are good enough to handle things - not on an UGZ level, obviously - so that they can contribute to a team win. The guys that are a problem are the two-grey-stripers plopping spider facs on water maps and building 5 storage and six caretakers without capping the mex next to them. I have noticed time and again that these players have a direct effect on their team losing. the side where they are invariably buckles and collapses. I call these players anchors, because they almost guarantee defeat and drag you down to the bottom. Sometimes the balancer, in its wisdom, puts two of these gems onto the same team. It's deeply unfun to know you've lost before the first shot is fired. In this case I agree with UGZ that there should be a level / rank restriction. Three stripes minimum is my recommendation.
+2 / -0
|
quote:
"Piss off you cant join the cool kids" is just unconditionally not a message I want to send to a new player. |
Why should a new player have doubts that he is a noob?
+0 / -0
|
Being a "noob" is one thing. Being not welcome to play the game is quite another.
+0 / -0
|
quote:
In this case I agree with UGZ that there should be a level / rank restriction. Three stripes minimum is my recommendation. |
Or better idea: add a sort of prescreening quiz or aptitude test before joining MP games. This way total cobbles get lower weight.
+1 / -0
|
If (not discussing if it is smart idea) there is a "high elo" host, it might help if it is completely hidden from anybody that can't join, to alleviate the feeling of being excluded and encourage lower ranked people to seed a host. I personally would join whatever host can start sooner, don't think noobs are such a huge issue if you play 4-5 games. Yes, occasionally you get "most" of very bad ones and you loose fast, but statistically it happens to everyone. I also see a challenge the ability to convince people to play better, which I feel is part of the team game.
+0 / -0
|
high elo room has been tried and usually fail, everyone prefers lobster pot and the game player pool is not big enough to be segregated
+3 / -0
|
Like Astran said. Big battles are also mostly retarded. Doesnt really matter what you do if your team has the most com morph-caretaker-storage-detri turds. You lose. How many games have been resigned a moment after the losing team(=the anchor) has completed that useless detri? Many. 8v8 should be max. Or less down to 4v4 even better. But that still needs a balanced fight and even there the above mentioned turds can mess things up fast. I dont know why, but for the last month or so Im playing 90% of small battles on the team which !predict gives the lower chances, and my rating has gone down a lot fast because its almost impossible to win(because less useful team mates). And then when !predict gives my team the bigger %, its mostly an easy one-sided battle. Good balanced fights are rare. 1 out of 6 or 7 for me recently. High(or even decent) elo battles would be nice. First try limiting to 8v8 max?
+3 / -0
|
quote:
First try limiting to 8v8 max? |
historically that resulted in 16/16 filled with players who just happened to get in the room first and 23 specs waiting to snipe the play button as soon as a player leaves
+0 / -0
|
High Elo games are interesting to watch, please have more! :D
+2 / -0
|
the fact is most people prefer the big lobster pot. but since this is the current system they don't say anything, only those who prefer otherwise would make complaints and so seem like most complaints prefer smaller team to test, those who prefer smaller teams can call "!split" vote in a lobster pot and you can see that almost no one would agree to split into 2 smaller teams.
+0 / -0
|
I've played a few "High ELO" team games in the last few weeks. At the moment they've mostly been arranged in post game lobbies of 1v1 MM games when someone has suggested it upon realising there are a few high ranked players around that have been spectating. They've tended to be mostly 2v2, rarely 3v3 and I've not seen any larger so far. In years gone I played quite a few competitive team games thanks to PlanetWars (RIP). The "Teams" MM queue is rarely used as the vast majority of the time, joining it won't result in a game so people tend to just disregard it and not even check it anymore, and instead join a team games battle room. A high ELO room may be an answer to seeing more of these high ranked team games occur, which I would find great as they're fun and it would provide a bit of variety from 1v1. Due to the generally small size of these games, I don't buy Aquanim's worry that this will result in the lobster pot game being short of players, and if a 16v16 became a 14v14, I doubt any of those players would notice or care. I've been seeing online numbers passing 200 in recent evenings (in a large part probably due to people being stuck in their homes), but with these numbers I'm sure the game should surely be able to support more than 1 team game being open (the lobster pot was running during my recent team games). I also miss clan matches!
+9 / -0
|
