Info > Feedback and Suggestions

I haven't crazy king in ages

<< < (3/4) > >>

Arturo Sanchez:
casuals should play casual games.

this is a game you clear a good portion of your day's schedule for.

admiral.... the maps ARE labelled.

Admiral Ackbar RTDT:

--- Quote from: Ceresbane on December 17, 2014, 07:57:05 pm ---casuals should play casual games.

this is a game you clear a good portion of your day's schedule for.

admiral.... the maps ARE labelled.

--- End quote ---

They are labeled after you have decided which one to play but not when you are voting on which to play next.

Crafeksterty:
That was a big gripe with me. I know which levels are what but no one else does so they vote for labyrinth instead of paritian...

Indreams:

--- Quote from: Crafeksterty on December 18, 2014, 12:38:22 am ---That was a big gripe with me. I know which levels are what but no one else does so they vote for labyrinth instead of paritian...

--- End quote ---

I make that mistake all the time when I pick duel at dawn thinking that I picked the battle on the dunes.

Than I'm at dawn with a long-range mobula against a metamidion...


Btw, Crazy King is my favorite game mode. It's pretty much unique to GOIO, and it really sucks that I don't get to play much Crazy King. (Although, I haven't gotten to play GOIO at all recently. I need to finish up my college apps)

SnaG:
I do see crazy king 3v3s and 4v4s in the new system, just not more than once every day or few days; the crux of the issue being that they are often too filled with new players who either do not fully understand the concept of crazy king, or cannot sustain the effort though an often  >30min game when they start to lose, and just end up leaving. Since these matches are created by the mm, they all too often are filled with mostly new players, which is often less than fun for them, as it highlights the game as boring and drawn out. It also means that 3v3s and 4v4s are only created at times of high player population which (at 11:03am GMT) stands at 88 people.

This brings me to my issue with the mm in general: if there are 88 players online, then the matchmaker is governing over a very small pool of players, which leads me to believe that in order to fill matches effectively, the mm has little choice over which players go where, and hence the lobbies are very mixed, experience wise. So why is a lobby list inappropriate? Sure, in sale times when there are 1-2k people ig then it makes perfect sense, since the lobby list would be massive mess. But the ig population is not this. In the evenings I see maybe 200 people online - a list is still preferable by far imo. I shall explain.

The thing that made the match list system so great, was that a lobby may start with similar people as the mm generates, but it matures - the more experienced players tended to stick around, and the less-so would eventually filter out, leaving a lobby of high quality players. This meant there was usually one or two visible lobbies of very high quality players, where you could happily spend a few hours to a whole night. These lobbies would also often migrate to 3v3s and 4v4s. With the mm, the lobby is terminated after 3 matches, often just as it starts becoming mostly high-end players.

It there no way the match list can be used in tandem with the mm? I have seen explanations from the devs arguing that such things would further defeat the balance of the mm created lobbies, but experienced players do not want an unfair game, and will move around the lobby to achieve a balance - but here comes another thing. We are blocked from switching to the other team in the lobby except though spectator (which may be filled), therefore blocking us from achieving balance ourselves. Again I see how newer players may want to be on the winning side, therefore making it necessary, but for experienced long-time players? Please Muse, we do not need a baby gate. Trust the regulars to be able to manage ourselves, help the newer players.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page