Congratulations on the dumbest post of this topic! You must be so proud.
Step 1: Add Map vetos
Step 2: Get shabby queue times
Step 3: Complain about shabby queue times
Step 4: ???
Step 5: Profit (or donât)
Queue times shouldnât be bad if map veto is restricted to one map limit. Iâd like for it to be more, but the more vetos, the more potential for longer queue times. Perhaps up to 3 veto choices per player wouldnât exacerbate delays too severely.
Maybe they could set it up like this:
First map veto is free
Second map veto is 15% xp penalty
Third map veto is another 15% xp penalty (reaching a total of 30% xp penalty)
Players cannot use the map veto function in conjunction with commanders they have not purchased.
Players who are leveling a purchased (or free) commander (leveling the commander, not leveling mastery or ascension), will receive another 10% xp reduction for vetos #2 and #3, respectively; totalling up to a 50% reduction in xp while leveling a purchased or free commander while utilizing the map veto feature.
I honestly donât really like the xp reduction for players who are in the mastery or ascension phase, but there does seem to be the need for some sort of tradeoff to limiting your map pool. Then again⌠if we can all select a single, specific map of our choice⌠why canât we select a range of maps to queue into? Maybe there doesnât really need to be any penalties for that. The popular maps that most people like will be played more, and the unpopular maps get avoided, letting players have more fun and making people happier. Right?
It is ârandomâ for a reason.
1 Like
Better donât play any games that involved with RnG because clearly you canât take the result you donât like it.
Want the 25% exp bonus but refuse to finish it.
1 Like
Having played L&L with Daegoth earlier today, I can attest to it being easy for him.
By the time I had my 3rd outlaw and one upgrade to Nikara, (and before I even finished fully setting up my economy) his Stukov Infested had overrun literally half the map. I tried my best to be on the Locks using Medivacs and I got some shooting in, but yeah.
Some maps are easier than others. Or more annoying than others. I do think for whatever reason, a single-map veto would be a good addition. Probably for varying reasons depending on your skill level.
1 Like
I think one concrete problem with this is the randomizer option should never penalize below 25%, and probably not below 20%.
This is because at anything equal or exceeding 25%, it no longer makes any sense to use the randomizer because you get a penalty exceeding manual choice of a commander. If the person wants to narrow his or her choice to the point where the 25% bonus is totally gone, then thatâs good. But if it ever exceeds 25%, you might as well just choose one instead of taking such a penalty.
1 Like
I no longer play random maps because most of them are actully pretty bad. Blizzard should allow players to make their own co-op maps.
Scythe of Amon is hard and fun, yeah. Now, if I could only figure out how to keep that suicidal refugee ship alive, that would be gravy.
I explained the way to do it in the thread that you made about it a while ago. It requires some practice but it can be done quite comfortably once you are used to going expo first. Someone also mentioned the safer approach there as well so just gotta keep practicing once you execute it perfectly youâll appreciate Scythe even more.
More on topic though for everyone mentioning the XP bonus being honest I wouldnât mind at all if they remove it completely if you veto a map. I donât think they should remove it completely just for one veto but if thatâs the price for not playing CoD ever again I am ok with that. XP doesnât do anything for me anyways.
Hereâs another thing to considerâŚ
People take up to half an hour to get a match of LoL going. I donât play that myself, but my nephew does, and Iâve been around enough while he was playing to know that it takes between 15 and 20 minutes on average just to get a LoL game started, with all the different things that occur before the match itself actually begins.
So, when I consider that, I wonder about two things:
Just how long would queue times be increased if a multiple map veto feature was implemented? From one veto, up to five vetoes. I seriously doubt they would ever do as many as five or more vetoes, even though I think most of us who play co-op regularly could name at least 5 maps we donât particularly enjoy. But, again, I have to wonder about just how much a multiple map veto system would impact queue times. Iâm sure there would be some difference, but would it be enough to make a map veto system unwanted by the community (having map vetoes vs longer matchmaking times)? I seriously doubt it.
The other thing I wonder is if thereâs any way for Blizzard to improve its co-op matchmaking algorithm. Could it be refined and made more robust? Or is it not something Blizzard can make changes and improvements to?
I definitely feel like at least a single map veto system could and should be implemented, and Iâd make a case that a multiple map veto system would be even better than a single map veto system, since Blizzard would be giving their players more control over how they play the content they enjoy and prefer. That is a good thing. The only âissueâ for Blizzard would be attempting to mitigate any queue times, IF the queue times are even increased that much. I honestly wouldnât mind a bit longer of a matchmaking queue if it meant I could randomly play any of the maps I like, and none of the maps I donât like. Iâd probably be happy with waiting 2 to 10 times as long as I do on average (which really isnât long at all).
As far as xp penalties for using a veto system, the more I think about that, the more I dislike it, at least for people who are in the mastery and ascension phase. I could be okay with xp penalties for the commander-leveling phase, while using a multiple map veto. Outside of that though, an xp penalty feels like it just doesnât make much sense. I donât really think there needs to be deterrents for using a map veto system when youâve played co-op enough to reach mastery and ascension levels, and when you continue to play the game during those levels, where there is very little progression remaining, or none at all.
TL; DR:
Map veto / multiple map veto makes sense, especially after almost four years of co-op. Enable your players to play co-op the way we will most enjoy it.
Donât kill me for this, but the second I read âLoLâ I skimmed your post. Donât think I want to read anything with comparisons to that toxic vile existence of a game.
Yeah I have a quick fix for it as well. Youâre actually supposed to kill top shard after the first[which is right outside your base]. This way the shuttle will fly top before bottom. Of course you can only attempt this if your ally is doing his part and manages to either assist you along or clear bottom shard for your expos. Then you just clear the top encampment for the Shuttle because that is exactly where it will fly next if the shard is down[and not fly straight down the map to its death]. From there just go down the little path on the left side of the Voidshade hybrid, bottom left encampment, and youâre set for the rest of the game worry free.
Maybe you shouldnât have skipped the post⌠or âskimmedâ it, as you said⌠because I wasnât making a direct comparison from LoL to SC2⌠I was making a point about how players arenât automatically turned off by longer queue times if the content they are waiting for is the content they want to play.
And guess what⌠I donât like League, either. At all. But that wasnât an important or relevant part of the point I was illustrating, which you completely overlooked simply because you saw the mention of a game you donât like so you reacted as though there was nothing relevant to be had from the remainder (which was the majority) of the post. Ha. So goofy.
1 Like
You donât need your ally to help you clear the first bonus area directly north of the first / closest void sliver on Scythe of Amon, even on Brutal. That area can be solo cleared by any commander during that point in time right after destroying the aforementioned void sliver. Does it help to have your ally there? Obviously. Is it necessary? No.
What you do need a competent ally for, however, is clearing the first sliver, the first bonus area, the second sliver at expos, and the 2 or 3 small camps before the bonus activates (one camp south, one camp center, and one camp north of that, that the bonus will eventually fly through; I prefer clearing that camp during this opening offensive sequence rather than coming back to clear it as the bonus is departing and an attack wave is spawning from the north or the southwest). Why does that matter? It doesnât, really. Itâs just a pace thing. In order to have that much of the map cleared by that point, you do need a competent ally (in actual, traditional 2 player co-op scenario, not a solo scenario with dual commanders)
Not against having veto per se but I do wonder what happens to the rest of us who just play them all on random.
As much as I enjoy each map, I envision the boringness of following:
-
Randomized CoD, oh well itâs not a fun map but itâs going to happen.
-
Randomized matched CoD, because someone vetoed a bunch of others.
-
Randomized matched CoD, because that one guy who chose it during a quieter hour.
Itâs just an example, map can be swapped to any one you donât enjoy. I think there is a valid concern for when this situation does happen.
My own solution is life gave me 3 lemons, Iâll just make lemonade I guess. I can see others leaving the game or worse turn to further vetoes. Itâs not the end of the world but yeah⌠kind of a pleasing some kind of change. Wouldnât this suggestion ultimately just change the population of sufferers (from current state to a new population)?
I donât see anything wrong with the scenarios you laid out unless I am misunderstanding, either you like CoD and donât mind the rather small chance that youâll get it more often for not vetoing it or you dislike it and veto it as well.
As for the last part if your point is that not everyone will be happy with this change then yeah thatâs true but that applies to every possible change they could make. Thereâs no way of making everyone happy and in this case Iâd think people that purposefully want to play CoD already have to deal with people leaving so itâs not like map veto would make their experience that much worse.
Itâs similar to how people think one or two map vetos would significantly increase the queue time which I doubt itâs true and I know no one knows for sure unless it gets implemented but I donât see any reason to believe it would considering how many maps we have.
1 Like