Curbstomping people is not fun on both ends. If it was competitive sure, but thats not competitive. At the end of the day some people just want the style and I can understand that cuz I think the gotham knight set is REALLY good. Why do the bad players have to suffer just because a small handful of serious pvpers want justification? Btw, I take pvp seriously and even I find this to be a joke. So no. When people quit doing pvp and it becomes even more scarce just remember you handful that encouraged this was to blame. Don't complain later on. And I'm done with this joke of a thread.
Any real feedback from people who actually bothered testing it? When exactly a match is considered "thrown"? Or someone is judged "not participating"? It may be a good addition if the system is implemented well enough.
So, ran into a situation last night that got me thinking about these heuristics. Queued into 2v2 Batcave, and the match was almost over. Was a premade, and it was clear they had dominated. I went ahead and gave it a go, despite the fact that there was no way of winning. Now, that's a situation I could see someone just standing around. I think what we need, rather than this round and round, is some transparency about how the heuristics work. Without knowing that, we can't say what things will actually trigger penalties.
Not sure something like this is testable. Heuristics like this usually run in the background, like the matchmaking. You don't see it in action. You only feel the consequences. It's on the Devs to let us in on it. Of course, they may not want to, as I'm sure some would use that information to skirt around the system.
Yes, but you can't do end game content after lvl 30, you can however do PvP content after lvl 30. Of all the lvl 30 players that can PvP only 1.24% have decided to carry on grinding. That should say something for the state of PvP in this game. Using your logic of "every one can PvP, there is no gear needed" should have changed those numbers significantly, also I would not be seeing players begging in LFG for players to Q for PvP maps. All that means is that the gap will stay the same if not get even smaller. And this infallible system the devs thought up is not going to help one bit to improve those numbers And thanks to the 1.24% this is what will determine whether or not you lose your account. Could just as easily have used a ouija board.
it is something that can be tested. Steps: 1. Que up 2. Someone just stand there and let the other person beat you up. 3. See if you get any rewards. 4. Re-Que 5. Both ppl just stand there and let the timer go to zero. 6. Repeat Step 3
Some people are going to a whole lot of effort to making sure their punching bags come out and get pummeled. Players already get kicked if they don't leave the safe area, what more do you want?
This initiative in it's entirety is a waste of labor. The real question is: What other tasks could the team have worked on instead of this?
how about matchmaking??? so that I cr96 won't constantly face the cr99 players that has already used the system of farming to get there gear.
I wonder how much longer those pvp que times will be when people just stop pvping because it is not worth the hassle for the sp. I do not like pvp and if I am out classed and just get destroyed I do not both. I see no point in getting my butt kicked repeatedly for the other persons enjoyment. Glad I got all the styles I wanted from it. i will not pvp after this hits.
Yeah, I'll be staying FAR FAR away from PvP if I ever do decide to start playing this game again. I don't trust these "heuristic methods" one bit. Like the Deserter Penalty, I'm more than confident that I'll be unfairly penalized due to poor coding. I don't mind getting banned from this game one bit, but if it's a PSN ban, I won't risk that. No way I gamble my PSN account on these guys. I'm sorry if I hurt any feelings but almost everything is poorly coded and broken out of the box.
We won't be sharing the details on how the logic works here, as doing so would just make it easier for motivated non-participators to get around them. I do want to note we will be monitoring how well the system is working very carefully, and account sanctions will be a last resort for obvious repeat offenders.
LOL - even less of a reason to run PvP now. My favorite part: A number of heuristic methods have been deployed in PvP matches to detect when individual players are not participating as well as when matches are being "thrown", meaning one team is handing the other team a win. When an individual fails to participate, that individual will not receive rewards. When a match is thrown, nobody on either team will receive rewards. Repeatedly failing to participate or throwing matches may result in account sanctions...
Mepps, as much as I want to say otherwise, these kinds of reassurances are vague and empty. What kind of "close monitoring" are we talking about? A dedicated GM online to discuss problem issues with players who report bugs and problems? Some kind of "if then" software to let you know in real-time when someone triggers the secret criteria for not contributing? Why are the criteria of contribution and activity themselves not publicly announced? We could understand not wanting to give away the operating parameters of you software triggers, but behavioral criteria can and should be made public. What sparked this specific portion of GU43 anyhow? Was it internal monitoring? Do you have actual proof that this is a widespread and documented problem? Or is this a knee-jerk reaction to loud and contentious complaining from a VERY small niche of the playerbase? Without explanation and some level of transparency, all that is essentially realized here is a Court of Star Chamber that can and will likely be abused and exploited. It's a hidden speed limit that tells you "Don't go too fast, but we are not gonna tell you what 'too-fast' actually means, because then we wouldn't catch anyone with our awesome radar software." For that matter, why not define what 'account sanctions' actually means? It's all so very hush-hush and vague, to the point of being a completely meaningless tactic of plausible-deniability. This is potentially the biggest loss of credibility and trust to wedge itself between the consumer-base and the development staff since the announcement of all player character data being open for third-party data-mining -an episode which is still raw and sore for many players. I strongly urge you to recover the positive relationship and bring forth transparency on both how the decision for this policy was made, and how it will be implemented on a procedural level. Keep the technical details to yourself, if you feel that it's such a threat for players to know where they stand on a mechanical level; but for any credibility to remain there has to be transparency of the procedural documentation and decision making process.
Totally understandable but we need you to be clear on one thing please. If say me and a league mate are quing 2's and run into the same pugs or a really bad premade multiple times and say on the 3rd time they decide, "Screw this we can't win." So they refuse to fight are they going to be able to keep us from gaining rewards because it will seem to the system that the opposing team is "throwing" the match? If so that part of the new system has got to go. Because we encounter quite a few matches where the opposing players just stop after dying once or they don't try at all.
That's how I read it....of course, at some point those guys would likely have their 'account sanctioned' (suspended?) but who knows how long that would take or to what extreme you have to go to for that to happen. Suspending paying customers time and time again likely will not end well...
If a person is not contributing to a match, then kick them right then and there. Why can't the system be used to do that ?
They won't give it to us. Because then people will no exactly the minimal amount of "participation" they have to do. And the Devs wanna punish as many people as they can so giving us the data would be counter-productive. Sorry mate
