+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 13 of 13
Like Tree7Likes
  • 4 Post By somerandomnamee
  • 1 Post By Bannj
  • 1 Post By somerandomnamee
  • 1 Post By Genri

Thread: Devs : allow us to opt out of joining active warfronts.

  1. #1
    Ascendant
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,485

    Default Devs : allow us to opt out of joining active warfronts.

    The other thread is mostly complaining about the issue with some vague bits of solution offered, so this one is specifically about the common-sense obvious solution.

    Made this thread in light of yet another thrilling warfront joined 5 seconds before the loss (Library, 200-some to 976), sadly not topping the one I talked about in the main thread, a x-998 codex join.

    It's clear at this point that the system fails to figure out what is a lost cause/late loss warfront with no possible comeback.

    Joining a warfront 5 seconds before a loss isn't fun, and joining it 5 seconds before a win is barely better, unless you're a fresh 65 and can use the gear box.

    There is an easy fix, so easy that it's ridiculous that after all these complaints for weeks, months, it's still not up.

    Put in a checkbox/setting/wtv so people can decide if they want, or not, their queue to include active warfronts if there's a spot.

    If they opt in : They will go to any spot available, whether or not it's close, late, early, winning, losing, i.e. exactly as it is now, plus whatever fix you might or might not do at some point to the system to improve the active warfront joining.

    If they opt out : They will never join a warfront if the "spawn setup phase" is over. They'll play for 100% of the warfront and will be part of it all, in victory or in defeat.


    Will the queue be longer?
    I assume they will. They'll go from 12 seconds on average to a whopping 14 seconds on average.

    I expect just about everyone will choose to wait 2 more seconds to get a real game going, but hey, if some disagree, they'll have the choice to opt in for active warfronts.


    This should have been done so long ago. It's a very frustrating thing in warfronts, and it's an incredibly easy fix.
    Even if it was 50-50 it'd be frustrating, but most of the time when you join an active warfront it's a loss, because people rarely leave a winning team. Free spots are on losing teams, so instead of having 10 winners and 10 losers, some losers leave, are replaced by poor players with no choices to get the loss, so there's 10 winners and 11, 12, 15, 20 losers, half of those who didn,t deserve it/had no opportunity to turn it around because it was way too late.

    Now, a question that is sometime mentioned is...
    "Will it not make it impossible to come back then if people leave and no one replace them?"
    Well as I said, it'd be a choice, so people might still replace them.

    But when the score is 976 to 200, it doesn't matter if a player replace them or not. They'll lose anyway.
    The game could bug out and shove 50 PLAYERS in the losing team and they'd still lose, no time to prevent the loss. So what is one player to do?

    When people leave the game... Yeah, sometime it's just a butthurt guy or something... but usually, it's because it's lost. People don't leave winning games or rarely even contested close games.

    By adding another player to the team, you don't give them an opportunity to come back. You just give the loss to one more player.

    By giving the choice of opting in/out, you'll see what the community feel. The forum is quite vocal about this, but if the gaming community isn't on the same level, fine by me, they can keep opting in for active warfronts, while most of us, presumably, will opt out.

    That's all I'm asking for. The choice.
    The option to stop joining these lost games over and over and over again without being able to do anything about it.

    If some people don't mind joining these late losses (or the rare late win) because they're casuals, or 'free favors!' or faster queues or whatever other reason, they'll still be able to do so.

    But please, let us decide. The PVP experience would be greatly improved if we could only get real games from the start.

    No one would like to take over a chess game 3 moves away from their inevitable checkmate after the loser left. It's just a waste of time and not fun at all, and whatever you do won't matter.

    Same applies here.

  2. #2
    Rift Chaser Bannj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    362

    Default

    As a compromise the system could simply tell you if the random warfront you are about to join is already in progress. Then, you can at least decide. Joining in progress warfronts pays some multiplier to rewards.
    Bajn | Levent | Pajn
    Warlock Life

  3. #3
    Ascendant
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bannj View Post
    As a compromise the system could simply tell you if the random warfront you are about to join is already in progress. Then, you can at least decide. Joining in progress warfronts pays some multiplier to rewards.
    I'd be fine with this.
    Anything that allows you to decide, really.

  4. #4
    Telaran Genri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    66

    Default

    Mixed feelings about this one. On the surface i like the idea, i don't like joining a wf that is already in progress and you are on the side with a point deficit.

    But, sometimes a wf cannot fill right away at the start of the game and you need more players to join. And it's a good feeling to join and turn around a wf. A few experienced pvprs can really make an impact, as long as they come in early enough in the game to have time to overcome the point spread.

    Joining when the score is 850 to 100 in a domination map is probably not going to happen no matter how good the "2nd string" crew is though.
    Genrii@Deepwood
    I will keep smiling, be positive and never give up! I will give 100 percent each time I play. These are always my goals and my attitude. Yani Tseng
    Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts. Winston Churchill

  5. #5
    Ascendant
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,485

    Default

    trion pls.

    Another lost cause, 100-850 join...
    The 'system' (IF there even is a system) doesn't do anything to stop people from joining lost warfronts.

    Give us the means to avoid active warfronts entirely.

    Just in the past few days :
    100-850
    x-998 (literally 2 seconds away, we still have a cha- wait it's over).
    x-976

    plus one where I joined just in time to hear the "end of the warfront" sound, after I got shoved into a team that already got 0-3'ed in Whitefall Steppes, but I guess a LOST WARFRONT isn't 'late/loss' enough and we could still come back somehow?

    Outside of the BT bug that can steal a win away from you, I don't think there's anything more frustrating than that in PVP.

    And it's such an easy fix.

  6. #6
    Ascendant
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,485

    Default

    Another 3...
    KR : Joined literally 5 seconds before the loss.
    Library : Joined 800 to 100 and they're carrying 2, we aren't carrying anything, lost maybe a minute later.
    Port Scion : Joined to see the victory window. I'll take the free favors, but still, it's not fun.


    And if it was a rare occurence I could deal with this, if it happened one out of 100 games I would just shrug it off, wouldn't mind really... but no, it's all the freaking time.
    These 3 games happened tonight. I played 7 games so far I think*
    That's almost half the games.

    *Well technically I should say I only played 4 games, because the other 3 were just "join in and have the time to do basically nothing until the game ends".

  7. #7
    Plane Walker
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    458

    Default

    I cannot imagine it would be hard for them to implement code to notify us if the wf is 'in progress' before we click the accept button.
    Why not try a trial trion.
    Try trial trion.
    Trytrion.
    Sklub Captainblood Opezmode Dpsclericlol Coad

  8. #8
    Ascendant Linolea's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Perth, WA, Oz
    Posts
    1,992

    Default

    I was trying to push this idea in the other thread but it kept getting buried - thanks for posting a new thread.

    It is a no brainer. As for WFs that need more people, simply don't start them unless at least xx have joined per team, where xx is the minimum determined for that WF. Might be as low as 5 for library and as high as 10-15 for Scion ... just examples.

    Some WFs are imbalanced by teams getting added late - biggest case in point is Bronze tomb where being an attacker with a small team at the start and then getting doubled in size for defender is a gross imbalance in favour of the first attackers.

    Also, having the check box doesn't mean people will use it - some people will prefer faster queueing in any case.
    De techniek staat voor niets
    **Rift Video Compendium**<---this be old and dates back to alpha

  9. #9
    Rift Disciple
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    195

    Default

    Yesterday I was in a warfront that ended in 10 secs. Free 800 favor (zero favor boosts), elo reduction and one step closer to getting into a winning team. I don't see what's so bad about it.

    Say if I can turn around a lost warfront match in 30 secs, 1.6k favor per min, I could technically do 96k favor per hour joining all these losing games. I could get all 3 PVP weapons in 37+ hrs of continuous losses.

  10. #10
    Ascendant
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Observers View Post
    Yesterday I was in a warfront that ended in 10 secs. Free 800 favor (zero favor boosts), elo reduction and one step closer to getting into a winning team. I don't see what's so bad about it.

    Say if I can turn around a lost warfront match in 30 secs, 1.6k favor per min, I could technically do 96k favor per hour joining all these losing games. I could get all 3 PVP weapons in 37+ hrs of continuous losses.
    I'd quit the game way before my 37th consecutive hour of losses. So I don't know what use that pvp weapon would be. People who don't play the game anymore don't need weapons.

    Rewarding =/= fun.

  11. #11
    Plane Walker
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    465

    Default

    Devs : allow us to opt out of joining active warfronts.-untitled.jpg

    Really tired of these matches.
    Wonskee@Deepwood - Dark Malice PvP Guide - Griefer PvP Guide
    Quote Originally Posted by paragonfury View Post
    wtf??? I simply asked for the ultimate one button tempest macro without both torrents, not a fricken story book u nerds.
    \_(ツ)_/

  12. #12
    Ascendant SprawlnBrawl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    4,349

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Genri View Post
    Mixed feelings about this one. On the surface i like the idea, i don't like joining a wf that is already in progress and you are on the side with a point deficit.

    But, sometimes a wf cannot fill right away at the start of the game and you need more players to join. And it's a good feeling to join and turn around a wf. A few experienced pvprs can really make an impact, as long as they come in early enough in the game to have time to overcome the point spread.

    Joining when the score is 850 to 100 in a domination map is probably not going to happen no matter how good the "2nd string" crew is though.
    Easy fixes there, don't start matches until they have a certain number. However I find most maps playable with 5-7 players, although skill is magnified with smaller matches so one good player can carry a lot easier which you may consider good or bad. I would love 5v5 bg and bg dom since it's a smaller map. I'd like 10v10 max too on some of the larger maps. Leave 15 to scion

  13. #13
    Ascendant
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SprawlnBrawl View Post
    Easy fixes there, don't start matches until they have a certain number. However I find most maps playable with 5-7 players, although skill is magnified with smaller matches so one good player can carry a lot easier which you may consider good or bad. I would love 5v5 bg and bg dom since it's a smaller map. I'd like 10v10 max too on some of the larger maps. Leave 15 to scion
    Agreed. games with small playercounts are always fun. No boring stalemate fights because every team has like 6 crossheals or wtv.

    --

    This **** seems to often happen on my first few games on whatever character I'm playing...
    600-988 port scion
    whitefall steppes 30 seconds before timer ends

    first 2 games. This **** makes me want to just log for the night so badly.
    Sometime I wonder how the hell I manage to keep a winrate >50% given the amount of unavoidable losses the game throws my way. Makes me wonder how high it'd be without these games.

    Anyway, back to thread : As someone pointed out in the 'patron changes' thread, that could be an option, put that 'opting out' option on patron.

    It'd still be kinda annoying, to put the "stop getting frustrating games dues to bad game design" behind a paywall, but at this point **** it, anything would be better than just letting it happen.

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts