That'd be good!What next, an anti-fodder mod?
If all 'top' players agree certain maps are unbalanced, they should just disable that map in their CP.
Posted 29 December 2011 - 11:20 AM
That'd be good!What next, an anti-fodder mod?
Posted 29 December 2011 - 11:33 AM
Posted 29 December 2011 - 11:51 AM
In that case, both players apparently don't agree.@ Olaf. Disabling them doesn't really switch them off as preferred. How about a proper Quota system that let's players totally dis-include maps from their QM map pool?
Posted 29 December 2011 - 12:05 PM
>_<That'd be good!
Precisely.If all 'top' players agree certain maps are unbalanced, they should just disable that map in their CP.
Posted 29 December 2011 - 12:54 PM
In that case, both players apparently don't agree.
Edited by FReQuEnZy, 29 December 2011 - 01:00 PM.
Posted 29 December 2011 - 01:00 PM
The original QM picked a map at random without any preferences. The current QM allows you to disable/enable maps if both parties agree. You're requesting one step further: veto power.Why should the player that has disabled a map be forced to play on that map even after a preference has been made?
What do you mean by agrees? If only one of the two players wants to disable a map, there's no agreement (in my view).Your system makes no sense.
If a player picks some maps to disable then he shouldn't get matched on them and the server would just use the rest of the map pool to replace the disabled ones.
Wrong! One of the players agrees
What false pretence?Instead of going into QM under the false pretence that those maps have been disabled.
Posted 29 December 2011 - 01:16 PM
What do you mean by agrees? If only one of the two players wants to disable a map, there's no agreement (in my view).
What false pretence?
That page is quite clear: "When both players disable a standard map, the map gets excluded. When both players enable a non-standard map, the map gets included."
Posted 29 December 2011 - 02:03 PM
Posted 29 December 2011 - 04:10 PM
Posted 29 December 2011 - 06:48 PM
The Berlin wall was very well built too
Edited by FReQuEnZy, 29 December 2011 - 06:54 PM.
Posted 29 December 2011 - 09:41 PM
Posted 30 December 2011 - 12:18 AM
Posted 30 December 2011 - 02:22 PM
This has been over thought to much imo. all qm needed was the addition of new maps and maybe 1/2 removed/made mirror matches.
Edited by Yellowwish, 30 December 2011 - 02:25 PM.
Posted 30 December 2011 - 05:05 PM
Presumably a whole heap of 'yes' votes (no detailed reasoning required for those of course) would have been more useful.Poll was useless. I will make a serious poll at the end of the week, once more discussion has been done.
1. Because you're dividing an already small playerbase into smaller pieces.Now tell me. Why is the veto system bad?
This has never been one of those games. Nor is Call of Duty MW... nor are many other games.Blizzard uses a similar system in many of it's games. You can pick like 3-5 maps to remove from the QM pool, by your preference.
I appreciate it is what some people want. If it was what everyone wanted, you'd be surfing a tidal wave of support for it right now, instead of closing polls.This is the best approach IMO, everyone gets what they want.
I would still prefer a lot more comments, explanations and reasons for peoples preferences and suggestions. That's why I closed the current poll. People are just voting without reading the discussion and the changes. If this get's finished at the end of this week or the next and they start crying after that they have themselves to blame for not 'keeping it real'.
You are proposing changes to a game without really consulting even a significant minority of the players.If this get's finished at the end of this week or the next and they start crying after that they have themselves to blame for not 'keeping it real'.
Edited by playertwo, 30 December 2011 - 05:06 PM.
Posted 30 December 2011 - 05:10 PM
Posted 30 December 2011 - 05:39 PM
Posted 30 December 2011 - 05:53 PM
And to be honest, if you wanted to attract new players you'd be better off removing shroud from all games.
Posted 30 December 2011 - 05:59 PM
Edited by DrVanNostrand, 30 December 2011 - 05:59 PM.
Posted 30 December 2011 - 06:11 PM
Posted 30 December 2011 - 06:14 PM
Posted 30 December 2011 - 06:54 PM
Veto essentially imo is a bad idea. Initially I thought it was a good plan, but it wouldn't work too well with our current situation with ra2. It would increase the amount of time to get a game because players would end up favouring maps, and veto'ing the ones they don't like.
Instead why don't you ask players to "veto" a map they don't like (one choice only) in the CP. Tally them up, remove most veto'd map next month. Add a new map, repeat.
Posted 30 December 2011 - 07:02 PM
Presumably a whole heap of 'yes' votes (no detailed reasoning required for those of course) would have been more useful.
I appreciate it is what some people want. If it was what everyone wanted, you'd be surfing a tidal wave of support for it right now, instead of closing polls.
You are proposing changes to a game without really consulting even a significant minority of the players.
There is, presumably, no announcement on the game server about the potential rewrite of this and that, balancing of the other, oh by-the-way it's supers always on for these maps because a few people get all upset about camping.. with a view to letting people go through the hoops of forum registration just to tell you to leave their game alone.
Just think forcing supers/mirror matches is a step away from what RA2 is, and perhaps I'm wrong about that too. I dunno for sure, and there are many many others who make massive use of QM whose wants and needs could and should outweigh mine anyway.
In the end, my only concrete assertion is that the biggest inbalance in the game is the shroud. Always has been and always will be. If you've played all these maps for all these years and fogged - then yes, you do know the maps extremely well by now.
And to be honest, if you wanted to attract new players you'd be better off removing shroud from all games. Of course, that would offend me as a player hugely.
But if the aim is to regenerate activity on the server - which I can see here that it isn't - you have to deal with the shroud once and for all.
Second best is to enforce the shroud for all players by making the autoss feature compulsory.
Veto essentially imo is a bad idea. Initially I thought it was a good plan, but it wouldn't work too well with our current situation with ra2. It would increase the amount of time to get a game because players would end up favouring maps, and veto'ing the ones they don't like.
Posted 30 December 2011 - 07:04 PM
That's a great idea. It would be very interesting as well. Obviously you could make the vote result public on xwis each month. How will you choose a map to add? With the right server messages you could perhaps stimulate some extra forum activity tooInstead why don't you ask players to "veto" a map they don't like (one choice only) in the CP. Tally them up, remove most veto'd map next month. Add a new map, repeat.
Edited by playertwo, 30 December 2011 - 07:07 PM.
Posted 30 December 2011 - 07:07 PM
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users