Feedback: Escalation

[BlatMan 700]

23 hours ago, Darkzero3802 said:

If only we had about 100k players actively playing. Maby this could be an option. But alas we are but afew hundred in a game that has been dying for the better part of a decade

 

Thats not how it works. In escalation the only way backup is called is if both party leaders call for backup. If one side requests it and the other side doesnt nothing happens and neither side gets more ppl

I'm not talking about escalation, I'm talking about the one sided backup when the team threats are unbalanced. It calls in backup for both teams. It's broken.

[Heal 51]

2 hours ago, BlatMan said:

I'm not talking about escalation, I'm talking about the one sided backup when the team threats are unbalanced. It calls in backup for both teams. It's broken.

True

[Darkzero3802 588]

On 9/9/2024 at 11:58 PM, BlatMan said:

I'm not talking about escalation, I'm talking about the one sided backup when the team threats are unbalanced. It calls in backup for both teams. It's broken.

Yea. That part they changed to keep the number of players even on each team. Bad idea when theres an imbalance

[Y2Venom 215]

On 9/9/2024 at 5:16 AM, Darkzero3802 said:

If only we had about 100k players actively playing. Maby this could be an option. But alas we are but afew hundred in a game that has been dying for the better part of a decade

 

Thats not how it works. In escalation the only way backup is called is if both party leaders call for backup. If one side requests it and the other side doesnt nothing happens and neither side gets more ppl

We all know that if this were to happen, the PUG servers would be full.

 

 

 

 

[Darkzero3802 588]

Playing another hundred matches or so I can def say that games are more imbalanced now then they were before. You get any sort of 2v2 where one side has a player with a threat lower you cant call backup to even it out. You can only requesrt escalation and if the other side doesnt agree to it you remain at a disadvantage and pretty much have a guaranteed loss. A silver and gold vs 2 silvers. 2 silvers vs a silver and bronze. These are imbalanced matches that you cant call backup on to balance them out. If its mismatched like that there should be a 3rd silver or bronze on the imbalanced side to even it out.

[Berkshire 36]

Anyone else experiencing excessive waiting times for missions? Its really putting me and my mates off. 

[Hexerin 1132]

4 hours ago, Darkzero3802 said:

Playing another hundred matches or so I can def say that games are more imbalanced now then they were before. You get any sort of 2v2 where one side has a player with a threat lower you cant call backup to even it out. You can only requesrt escalation and if the other side doesnt agree to it you remain at a disadvantage and pretty much have a guaranteed loss. A silver and gold vs 2 silvers. 2 silvers vs a silver and bronze. These are imbalanced matches that you cant call backup on to balance them out. If its mismatched like that there should be a 3rd silver or bronze on the imbalanced side to even it out.

2v2 shouldn't even be possible to matchmake. 3v3 should be the absolute minimum, and only happen if the matchmaking is taking at least 5+ minutes to find a match. 4v4 should be the baseline. 5v5 should also only be possible if it can't find a suitable 3v3 after searching for a few minutes beyond the baseline. 6v6+ shouldn't be possible.

Edited Friday at 09:02 PM by Hexerin

[Darkzero3802 588]

18 hours ago, Hexerin said:

2v2 shouldn't even be possible to matchmake. 3v3 should be the absolute minimum, and only happen if the matchmaking is taking at least 5+ minutes to find a match. 4v4 should be the baseline. 5v5 should also only be possible if it can't find a suitable 3v3 after searching for a few minutes beyond the baseline. 6v6+ shouldn't be possible.

Well guess what. I get 2v2 roughly 80% of the time and that imbalance issue is still the same problem wether 2v2 or 3v3. MM doesnt seem to take threat into account as if it did the side with less threat should have an extra player (of same lower threat) to compensate for the lesser threat. Also remember when 1v1 wasnt possible yet routinely happened?

[BlatMan 700]

On 9/20/2024 at 4:56 PM, Berkshire said:

Anyone else experiencing excessive waiting times for missions? Its really putting me and my mates off. 

Unopposed missions are no longer created, and there needs to be an equal amount of players ready per side to start a match. They also dropped the district population from 50/50 to 40/40.

[Heal 51]

6 hours ago, BlatMan said:

Unopposed missions are no longer created, and there needs to be an equal amount of players ready per side to start a match. They also dropped the district population from 50/50 to 40/40.

That makes sense then, thought it was still a thing and I was just lucky to get opp that fast...

[Hexerin 1132]

On 9/21/2024 at 8:42 AM, Darkzero3802 said:

Well guess what. I get 2v2 roughly 80% of the time and that imbalance issue is still the same problem wether 2v2 or 3v3. MM doesnt seem to take threat into account as if it did the side with less threat should have an extra player (of same lower threat) to compensate for the lesser threat. Also remember when 1v1 wasnt possible yet routinely happened?

The problem with 2v2 is that it's effectively 1v1. If one of the two goes down, the other one will inevitably go down as well due to 1v2 being effectively impossible if all four players are of reasonably similar skill level. Compare this to 3v3, where if one goes down it's still 2v3 which is possible to stall out long enough for the downed player to return.