That could literally mean 10% of the points previously earned by high performance losers, transfer instead to the winning team. You simply don’t know enough to make the complaints/interpretations you are making on solid ground.
You do, however, have enough information to air valid concerns about these changes, and I’m sure they’re aware of/considering those concerns as they move towards implementing these things man.
If you are uncertain they are aware of or considering them, as you seem to be, can you not politely offer constructive criticism to them in order to counter that ?
The point is that you will gain rank still. You won’t NOT get points, your points just won’t be reflected by rounds with quitters. You will probably still get points for won matches dude, relax. You’re literally taking the worst possible interpretation and assuming it will happen. Pedantic.
They said no points will be awarded in rounds after someone quits. So just to be clear. In 2v2 someone quits round 1 the rest of the match is pointless. Which could be 13 more rounds. I mean that is worse case right? Guardian is best of 5 so someone quits round 1. The next two rounds are worth zero. Assuming noone is going to have a reason to try so they will just lose. Im sure the matches will go fast because they will be absolutely pointless. As you know its almost impossible to win down a guy. Now try winning down a guy with no incentive to win.
Exactly. You don’t seem to be able to understand what I’m saying dude.
That ROUND may be in the can, but the match WIN may still award you rank gain. It does NOT make the next 13 rounds pointless. This is the LEAST charitable interpretation you can POSSIBLY make of this statement.
Yes, and I’m sure that when they said directly after that - that these changes are still a work in progress and they will consider specifically instances like this before implementing them, that this is a sign they are not too stupid to consider the concerns you are currently.
Wrong. It means that one round was worth nothing, not the entire match, that would be borderline R worded dude. You know as well as I they aren’t going to alienate every single player in the game by making that change. Calm down with the pedantry.
Again, you are assuming absolutely moronic things here man. You have no ground to stand on for these interpretations.
Here is another scenario that comes out this. Your team is losing round 1 big time. You know your team is most likely going to drop points this match. So one person quits the match to cut their losses for the next round. The thing is with these changes you have to also think about the behavior you incentivize.
I’ve thought about that too. It’s another valid concern. People could abuse this to boost people, but we don’t know if they will have built in workarounds yet.
I can think of a few solutions that would be effective against this full-stop off the top of my head, aside from the community service feature for quitters which will likely present in the game alongside the changes. That alone will be a strong deterrent for this behavior.
Btw please don’t take my stance here the wrong way. I don’t want to prevent these kind of conversations, as they can be very productive.
I simply want to prevent the overwhelmingly negative framing they are taking place in which very much counters that productive nature, to the point of being counter-productive. IMO
If it fixes things like this, I might actually care about my rank again.
Round 1 : 3-1 i killed leader
Round 2: 1-1 i died as leader
Round 3: 2-3 i killed leader
Round 4: 1-0 i survived as leader
Round 5: 1-1 i killed leader
finished 8-2-0-6, we won, thought i did good, but i guess not.
LSD, I could make this code in game maker, today, in five minutes. Seeing kills and deaths as a variable and then running an equation at the end of a game isn’t hard. Add an if statement, and you’re golden.
K-D=X
If X < 1 DEDUCT
It’s impossible for me to say “I could go in there and do this for them” Because I’ve obviously go not idea how the system underneath is built (Try picking up a classmates code and adding on top o fit. Every coder will tell you there’s a million ways to complete one task) but yea… This would require nothing ‘sentient’ as you describe… A game is and should be easily capable to understand if you went negative and then act accordingly.
“Preventing point loss on a game win”…
I don’t know how you’re coming to this conclusion, at all… The update says, in very simple words, that they will prevent / STOP you from losing points if you win the game… Like… it’s pretty open and shut case here. If you win, you won’t lose points… Again, I’ve got no clue how you’re twisting this.
No. Just plain wrong. Absolutely, 100% wrong… They state in the podcast this was discovered “Late last year”. They broke it officially on or just a few days before Nov 19th, where you can see my comment and others in this thread.
So… if they discovered it “Late last year” then they knew roughly a month after the update hit that the Gnasher… Literally the most crucial weapon in the game, was broken, and would remain broken for all mouse users, for an additional month
I don’t care what else they were working on. I don’t care about other fixes that occured during TU4… Deciding not to hot-fix and simply pushing this fix to TU4 with all the rest of the fixes is complete and utter gargabe. It was the wrong call, 100%, no exceptions. Having the most important element of your game not working and putting an entire class of people at a significant disadvantage… That is an “all hands on deck, stop doing whatever the F**k your doing and fix this as soon as possible” moment… And it remained that way… for months
Not acceptable, under any circumstances. Here’s a timestamp to the developer update in case you missed it that backs up what I’m saying.
I will say this though. You did make me think about the fact that when there’s a quitter on the enemy team, losing points in a round is a very real possibility… In all honesty, I still usually gain because I do quite well in all my matches… but the gain is minuscule at best usually… So would I throw away those minuscule gains for a guarantee that I won’t lose points?.. I’d say yes, I would…
But everything else?.. Nah.
Edit: Had dates wrong and linked to the wrong post… Broke Gnash on or a few days before NOV 19th. Meaning it took roughly a month to discover. Then they consciously decided to delay fix an additional month rather than hot-fix
Except k/d equations have been done before, and they are subpar.
Dude, I know it’s an exaggeration, but this is a hilariously absurd claim.
Making a truly reflective ranking system for a game like gears is no small task.
You essentially just called the coders on their team r-words…
SMH
I am fully aware of this reality, and the nuances involved. I’m speaking from less ignorance than you might think bro.
No, it would, because where someone “should be” is a value judgement that an equation cannot make, an equation can only function as programmed, and it will take a complex interplay assembled by a sentient party (the coder) to approximate an accurate reflection of that value judgement, resulting in a system that puts you where you “should be”. Equations cannot figure that out, only the coders behind them can.
They are attempting to model a system of equations that more accurately approximates that value judgement, and that takes time, new code, error, and a period of worsening before getting better, as we are seeing now.
Listen, you are unable to read into this properly because you are taking the least charitable interpretation of it.
I’m going to go through this in depth.
“Preventing point loss on a winning game” Does not equate to “Every player on the winning team will not lose points”
It is not open and shut, it is open and ambiguous, by the nature of the words used, and further you must consider human error in word usage related to their meaning. People do not always say what they mean, and that can result in misunderstandings such as this.
I can easily extrapolate that statement to “Preventing point loss on a winning game for players who perform to a certain threshold which should have resulted in their gain of points, while players who under perform, or “get carried” will not meet this threshold and still lose points. The purpose of this is to solve scenarios where previously certain players who perform well on a team would lose points even though they won, while simultaneously allowing for the under performing players to receive a reciprocal loss”
A better way for them to word this would have been “preventing point loss for players on a winning team whom deserved to gain points for their performance, in order to counter cases of high performance still resulting in point losses, even on the winning team”
Are you getting it yet?
Another way it could have been meant/said " In order to address the issue of players losing points on a winning team wherein they should have gained points for their performance, we are working to prevent losing points on the winning team for these players."
It’s not an absolute statement, unless you remove it from all context, and even then it isn’t because of the point of human error.
I submit to you that this specific string of words is directly targeted in a contextual setting towards the complaints of obvious examples of good performance point losses on winning teams which have been a common thing since launch in these forums. and elsewhere. To deny this as a possibility in relation to the statement, given the commonness of this issue/topic, is dishonest at the least, and down-right insane at the worst.
No. Not plain wrong. If it was discovered on or days before Dec 19th, they had NO TIME to address it before holiday break dude. What, you want them to not have a holiday, or lives, or families? They got to work on it as soon as they got back, and we got the fix a week ago. Consider also that they sent it to cert days before that, perhaps even a week. It’s 1/28/2020 today- so that means they likely had a fix around the 15th of this month, after returning to work around the week of the 1st.
That means they fixed it within 2 weeks, and sent it to go live.
It was a month of downtime at the most, half of which was a holiday dude.
You are being absolutely ridiculous about this. To say they simply don’t give a crap, that they are content, happy basically, to let that happen - is simply ridiculous.
Months? no. 1 month, if not slightly less.
Yea and you apparently don’t care about them having home lives, or holiday breaks.
How old are you? Do you have a family?
If you aren’t an adult I can understand this mentality, but if you’re an adult, or worse if you have a family, this is an absolutely shameful attitude to have.
They did what they could, when they could, when they got back to the office. They’re human beings dude.
Why? they took their time and made sure the fix, was a fix. They can’t hotfix as simply as you think. There is something called the microsoft certification process, and it almost single-handedly prevents things like this. They could have, but it would have pushed TU4 back, and they pushed it back anyways, highlighting the fact that while this may be the only problem YOU PERSONALLY cared about- it was not the only problem they were dealing with that THE COMMUNITY cared about.
It remained that way for months when they didn’t know about it. when they discovered it, it was fixed within a month, despite a holiday break, where other issues piled up as well, and they managed to address a large slew of them all things considered- in a relatively quick manner.
It is acceptable given all of the context above. You are making an extremely uninformed & immature take, and quite honestly I’m disgusted by your inhumane disregard for their personal lives, and dishonesty regarding the fact that there were other important issues happening that other people besides you cared about which they fixed as well.
I recall the stream, I watched it. I recall seeing the stress of the situation they were in on their faces, and hearing it in their tones when they discussed this, as well as the relief of nearing a solution.
The fact that you came away from that stream, and the context surrounding the change, with the take that “They were content to let the problem persist for months” shows either your immaturity, or your disregard for the personal lives of the developers as well as the concerns other players in the community had at the time.
I’m glad you see the benefit there. There is more too, you may now gain more points than before, as well as having a much harder time losing points in that situation. I would suspect that if you merely afk while your team wins, you won’t be gaining points, and that this scenario would fall outside of the realm of instances they are attempting to “prevent the loss of points on the winning team” in. This results in players who under perform still receiving an apt consequence, while players who do perform well receive an apt benefit. This will result in an overall more accurate ranking system.
They discovered it, and rushed a fix through asap, despite the holiday season, and several other fires happening within the game. You need to relax, take a step back, and re-assess the situation.
I’m not even trying to insult you here btw, but what you are saying is severely insulting in my opinion, and I’m sharing that opinion honestly with you.
LMAO that isn’t even kind of what this statement says, LSD. You are reaching, and I mean FAR reaching.
“We are going to prevent point loss during game wins”
There is NOTHING open about that, period. You can hope they typed this quickly and used wrong wording… Think, hope, pray all you want for that… But that statement, is not open, at all. It’s clear as day. Minimal words are used… Nothing open there.
The coding thing… You completely go off the rails and you’re trying way too hard to sound intelligent… I criticized one very specific element. I said in my example, the system should compare kills to deaths, and if result is negative, there should be point loss… You then come at me saying this code is complex and ‘sentient’. No. It isn’t. That is a simple implementation if they chose to do it, and they should.
And your take on the Gnasher fix?.. If you think discovering the biggest core element of your game has been broken for a month and then them taking another month to fix it is acceptable… I mean that’s just a difference of opinion and there’s nothing more to say on that. I don’t think it is. I think that’s laughable but if you wanna’ believe that’s them giving 100%, be my guest. I know plenty that’ll disagree with you though.
Wow. You didn’t take a single moment to consider anything I said.
No. No I’m not. The statement was not “we are going to prevent”
It was “preventing point loss., etc”… This means it’s specifically in response to the context of a persistent issue that is well known in the community, and that context changes the nature of that statement.
It’s open, you just can’t see it through your anger mate. They used minimal words, yes, and that’s why it is ambiguous, but it is clearly a reply in specific context, and again, that changes the nature of the statement. It’s open to interpretation. To deny that is absolutely dishonest, as I have given you several interpretations already relative to the context of the issue it regards specifically.
I did not go off the rails. I specifically pointed out what they are trying to do. If you did not understand it, then maybe the comment about intelligence should be applied back at you.
Yes, precisely, and I told you that K/D equations have been done before, and that they are a subpar reflection of the effort and role people play in the win in a match. They are attempting to construct a better equation than that. That isn’t off the rails, bud.
If it was as simple as offering a 1:1 go positive get points, go negative lose points, then they would do that. It has been done before, and it often results in negative behaviors such as camping for k/d ratios. It’s not that simple, there is a known history of how these equations effect the playstyles of ranked play in the gaming industry, and they are attempting to make a more comprehensive formula than one based on something as simple as K/D.
I did not say the code is sentient. I said it is a complex representation of a value judgement made by a sentient party which is the coder. It is complex, and that is evident by their continued adjustments as well as the vast array of issues with it. They are not instituting the well known simplistic equation of K/D ratio = lose or gain of points, because thats a ridiculous sentiment in the era of gaming we are in.
They most certainly should not scrap their code in order to put something so simple and regressive in place of it.
It is absolutely acceptable when you consider the context. It was the holidays, everyone went home for family time. You don’t seem to care about that, so I’m going to assume you have no family, but you will understand when you do. Additional context is presentable in the fact that there were OTHER MAJOR ISSUES THAT THE COMMUNITY CARED ABOUT BEING FIXED at the time, and they decided to make a sweeping package addressing many of the issues in a timely manner, that timely manner being a few weeks of being back at work. That’s pretty decent all things considered.
Are you trying to win this argument, or are you trying to be honest and reasonable? Hmmm I wonder.
… It doesn’t get any simpler than that, and the fact that you’re trying to twist this and make it mean something else or “They could have just worded this poorly” is like arguing with a brick wall.
And the code? I never said throw everything out and reduce it to this. I said, in TDM for example, if you have more deaths and kills, you should go down… Add that on top, and that’s that.
I don’t need to know the rank of the player. The rank of the player is irrelevant. If you’re high enough to get paired with me and you fail miserably… Whatever rank you are… You need to go down till you pairing with me is no longer an option.
Yes, the brick wall of TRUTH & REASON, amazin! Embrace the wall my friend, EMBRACE IT!!! -
“All along, we’re just another BRICK IN THE WALL!!!”
Yeah, well, that isn’t what they want to do. They have more ambition with it. I think call of duty works like that, though, maybe this game here is more up your alley? -https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/home
The sheer arrogance and entitlement of this statement. Incredible. Nobody ever has bad games right?
lmao… And when you have a bad game?.. Guess what happens?.. You go down… SMH… I know I said I was done responding, but I couldn’t help pointing out that glaring hole
