1316 replies to this topic

[Xacius]

Nept, on October 28 2014 - 10:06 PM, said:

SS396, on October 28 2014 - 09:56 PM, said:

Nept, on October 28 2014 - 09:45 PM, said:

Your agreeing with that point doesn't invalidate my argument (which was that you had missed two important points in your reply to Dave), and so doesn't provide any additional context.  That particular statement was meant to indicate that that activity wasn't fun, yes, but it did double-duty by upholding your mistaken assertion that you hadn't missed the point in the previous post.  You should also note that I was not, in fact, stating that such situations were inherently unfun.  I merely suggested an alternate premise which would've provided you stronger ground for your argument.  However, I also weakened the strength of such an argument by indicating the assumptions one would have to make in its defense.  As such, you were not agreeing with my post.

Please dont' try to think you can get in my head and tell me what I was saying.  You have no clue.

I have every clue as to your wording intentions.  Although writing isn't your strong suite (or perhaps because writing isn't your strong suite), your posts are easily dissected.

Whatever do you mean, Nept_  Could you please clarify_

[Nept]

SS396, on October 28 2014 - 10:09 PM, said:

Nept, on October 28 2014 - 10:06 PM, said:

I have every clue as to your wording intentions.  Although writing isn't your strong suite (or perhaps because writing isn't your strong suite), your posts are easily dissected.

Oh, Ok, for some reason you think all you have to do is repeat yourself over and over.  Ok.  Here goes.

Oftentimes another poster has difficulty (or pretends that they're having difficulty) understanding an opposing point.  Just like some people like to believe in creation, I like to believe that if a well-constructed post is repeated several times, even the most obstinate and obtuse posters will come to understand its argument.  It's unlikely, of course, and all evidence points to the contrary, but it's sometimes reassuring to carry the belief.

Edited by Nept, October 28 2014 - 10:16 PM.

[Nept]

Xacius, on October 28 2014 - 10:11 PM, said:

Nept, on October 28 2014 - 10:06 PM, said:

SS396, on October 28 2014 - 09:56 PM, said:

Nept, on October 28 2014 - 09:45 PM, said:

Your agreeing with that point doesn't invalidate my argument (which was that you had missed two important points in your reply to Dave), and so doesn't provide any additional context.  That particular statement was meant to indicate that that activity wasn't fun, yes, but it did double-duty by upholding your mistaken assertion that you hadn't missed the point in the previous post.  You should also note that I was not, in fact, stating that such situations were inherently unfun.  I merely suggested an alternate premise which would've provided you stronger ground for your argument.  However, I also weakened the strength of such an argument by indicating the assumptions one would have to make in its defense.  As such, you were not agreeing with my post.

Please dont' try to think you can get in my head and tell me what I was saying.  You have no clue.

I have every clue as to your wording intentions.  Although writing isn't your strong suite (or perhaps because writing isn't your strong suite), your posts are easily dissected.

Whatever do you mean, Nept_  Could you please clarify_

In fact, I can!  My statement was as follows: "Although writing isn't your strong suite (or perhaps because writing isn't your strong suite), your posts are easily dissected".  If one were to read that statement aloud, they would find themselves hitching as they reached the phrase in parentheses - specifically as they reached the words "perhaps because writing".  The reason for this verbal hitch lies within the implied emphasis upon the word "because".

Now, I've indirectly placed emphasis on this particular word because (see what I did there_!) its associated phrase permits me to suggest a paradox: How can SS396's posts be easily deconstructed either in spite of or due to his less-than-stellar writing_

More on that in part 2.

[Xacius]

Nept, on October 28 2014 - 10:29 PM, said:

Xacius, on October 28 2014 - 10:11 PM, said:

Nept, on October 28 2014 - 10:06 PM, said:

SS396, on October 28 2014 - 09:56 PM, said:

Nept, on October 28 2014 - 09:45 PM, said:

Your agreeing with that point doesn't invalidate my argument (which was that you had missed two important points in your reply to Dave), and so doesn't provide any additional context.  That particular statement was meant to indicate that that activity wasn't fun, yes, but it did double-duty by upholding your mistaken assertion that you hadn't missed the point in the previous post.  You should also note that I was not, in fact, stating that such situations were inherently unfun.  I merely suggested an alternate premise which would've provided you stronger ground for your argument.  However, I also weakened the strength of such an argument by indicating the assumptions one would have to make in its defense.  As such, you were not agreeing with my post.

Please dont' try to think you can get in my head and tell me what I was saying.  You have no clue.

I have every clue as to your wording intentions.  Although writing isn't your strong suite (or perhaps because writing isn't your strong suite), your posts are easily dissected.

Whatever do you mean, Nept_  Could you please clarify_

How can SS396's posts be easily deconstructed either in spite of or due to his less-than-stellar writing_

How_!

[M1lkshake]

Xacius, on October 28 2014 - 10:30 PM, said:

Nept, on October 28 2014 - 10:29 PM, said:

Xacius, on October 28 2014 - 10:11 PM, said:

Nept, on October 28 2014 - 10:06 PM, said:

SS396, on October 28 2014 - 09:56 PM, said:

Nept, on October 28 2014 - 09:45 PM, said:

Your agreeing with that point doesn't invalidate my argument (which was that you had missed two important points in your reply to Dave), and so doesn't provide any additional context.  That particular statement was meant to indicate that that activity wasn't fun, yes, but it did double-duty by upholding your mistaken assertion that you hadn't missed the point in the previous post.  You should also note that I was not, in fact, stating that such situations were inherently unfun.  I merely suggested an alternate premise which would've provided you stronger ground for your argument.  However, I also weakened the strength of such an argument by indicating the assumptions one would have to make in its defense.  As such, you were not agreeing with my post.

Please dont' try to think you can get in my head and tell me what I was saying.  You have no clue.

I have every clue as to your wording intentions.  Although writing isn't your strong suite (or perhaps because writing isn't your strong suite), your posts are easily dissected.

Whatever do you mean, Nept_  Could you please clarify_

How can SS396's posts be easily deconstructed either in spite of or due to his less-than-stellar writing_

How_!

How indeed!

[SS396]

Nept, on October 28 2014 - 06:52 PM, said:

There are two issues you fail to recognize:

1) His MMR prevents him from accessing any matches.  He's forced to smurf if he wants to find games within a reasonable time frame.  For months now, every Omni member has had to either smurf or intentionally drive down their MMR.

2) There's nothing unfair about having superior skills in a video game (and using them).  Mollycoddling community members by preventing them from playing against stronger opponents has nothing to do with "fairness"; it's simply a means of maximizing community retention.

Ok, since you want to analyze peoples posts so much, lets start with the first one.

"His MMR prevents him from accessing any matches"  That statement is false, if he chooses a mode by quickmatch it will eventually find a match for him, just because a high tier match (2200+) isn't immediately available does not mean its IMPOSSIBLE to get stuffed into one automagically by the quick match feature of the game AS YOU ASSERTED.  Also, he could find scrims with several of his cohorts, or get onto private servers where the MMR restriction is turned off, or simply get into a party with a much lower player.  So your choice of word "ANY" is simply incorrect rendering the statement completely false.  See any means at least 1, so All I have to do is prove that he can infact get into one single game, which we all know is easily possible, Right_  

Secondly your use of the wording "reasonable time frame" is subjective, what is reasonable_  You didn't define it_  I'm going to state that reasonable is the quick match timeout as defined by the Devs.  I'm sure you would define reasonable time frame as a much shorter time and you feel that waiting that long for it to timeout is unreasonable.  And again he could easily use the other means I've listed to get into matches, therefore allowing him into at least 1 match during that timeout period.

So again, bypassing the specific limits imposed on him because of his high MMR isn't a valid reason to smurf or manually lower ones MMR, both of which are actions I disagree with.

Now for your 2nd statement about being unfair, I do think its unfair to the weaker player, and to the team that has to fight against the high MMR player.  Personally I want more segregation, a much tighter fitness level restriction, I want to be grouped with others in my skill bracket, not put up against juggernauts from the outliers in the statistical pool, same goes for the low MMR outliers.  Thats what I mean by unfair, when you compare one teams MMR to the other its not a 400 MMR difference, and there is not a high standard deviation in the lobby.

Edited by SS396, October 28 2014 - 11:38 PM.

[SS396]

BTW Nept, now don't change your position and swap out the word "any".  

[OmniRoach]

Xacius, on October 28 2014 - 10:30 PM, said:

Nept, on October 28 2014 - 10:29 PM, said:

Xacius, on October 28 2014 - 10:11 PM, said:

Nept, on October 28 2014 - 10:06 PM, said:

SS396, on October 28 2014 - 09:56 PM, said:

Nept, on October 28 2014 - 09:45 PM, said:

Your agreeing with that point doesn't invalidate my argument (which was that you had missed two important points in your reply to Dave), and so doesn't provide any additional context.  That particular statement was meant to indicate that that activity wasn't fun, yes, but it did double-duty by upholding your mistaken assertion that you hadn't missed the point in the previous post.  You should also note that I was not, in fact, stating that such situations were inherently unfun.  I merely suggested an alternate premise which would've provided you stronger ground for your argument.  However, I also weakened the strength of such an argument by indicating the assumptions one would have to make in its defense.  As such, you were not agreeing with my post.

Please dont' try to think you can get in my head and tell me what I was saying.  You have no clue.

I have every clue as to your wording intentions.  Although writing isn't your strong suite (or perhaps because writing isn't your strong suite), your posts are easily dissected.

Whatever do you mean, Nept_  Could you please clarify_

How can SS396's posts be easily deconstructed either in spite of or due to his less-than-stellar writing_

How_!

I've taken the odd course in analysis, and thought I'd try my hand at addressing this question for Nept.

Let's recap!

Xacius asked Nept to clarify the following statement: “Although writing isn't your strong suite (or perhaps because writing isn't your strong suite), your posts are easily dissected”. This statement was made in response to SS396's suggestion that Nept shouldn't “try to think [sic] you can get in my head and tell me what I was saying,” – a suggestion which was expanded upon with the claim that Nept “[has] no clue”.

Nept explained that the sentence was constructed in a way which allowed the suggestion of a paradox: how can SS396's posts be easily deconstructed either in spite of or due to his less-than-stellar writing_ To understand this paradox, we must first examine those elements which make writing “good”. Although a myriad of “good” writing styles exist, most authors and educators agree that conciseness, clarity, and proper grammar comprise key components of effective writing. A quick glance at an SS396 post reveals numerous run-on sentences (often held together with an overabundance of commas) and frequent grammatical errors. By themselves, these characteristics wouldn't undermine the average reader's understanding of an SS396 composition; combine them with his penchant for ambiguity and emotional outbursts, however, and you have yourself a difficult read.

Or so one would think. Despite these apparent obstructions, SS396 posts are typically easy to understand – at least with some meta-knowledge. We know, for example, that SS396 is a “whiny fuzzy bunny baby”, and so will respond accordingly. We also know that SS396 cannot cease posting, and cannot take his own advice in ignoring certain community members. We know that SS396 has difficulty admitting fault, and so will twist words and phrasings to suit his current line of argument. We know that SS395 feigns nonchalance toward community opinion, yet apparently cares enough to antagonize, complain, derail, and cite rules at every opportunity. Finally, we know that SS396 feels slighted by both the community and the development team, and believes himself to be putting on a show.

This knowledge allows an informed reader to quickly deconstruct SS396 posts – hence the phrasing, “Although writing isn't your strong suite . . . your posts are easily dissected”. In essence, Nept is suggesting that the poor writing characteristics which would typically make post comprehension difficult are (at least in SS396's case) mitigated by the aforementioned meta-knowledge.

But what about the paradoxical phrasing, “or perhaps because writing isn't your strong suite” (emphasis added)_ Here, Nept is referencing the tendency for posters to obfuscate through post composition ulterior motives. Furthermore, the ease with which he/she deconstructs SS396 compositions (as seen here, for example) suggests that SS396's poor writing betrays any such motives. Where another writer might, through clever writing, surreptitiously shift their premises mid-debate, SS396 can only clumsily feign ignorance.

Nept's statement, then, meets paradox criterion: a seemingly contradictory statement may, in fact, be true.

Edited by OmniRoach, October 29 2014 - 01:20 AM.

[DerMax]

The thread has become even worse than in was before I went to bed.

[Nept]

SS396, on October 28 2014 - 11:17 PM, said:

"His MMR prevents him from accessing any matches"  That statement is false, if he chooses a mode by quickmatch it will eventually find a match for him, just because a high tier match (2200+) isn't immediately available does not mean its IMPOSSIBLE to get stuffed into one automagically by the quick match feature of the game AS YOU ASSERTED.  Also, he could find scrims with several of his cohorts, or get onto private servers where the MMR restriction is turned off, or simply get into a party with a much lower player.  So your choice of word "ANY" is simply incorrect rendering the statement completely false.  See any means at least 1, so All I have to do is prove that he can infact get into one single game, which we all know is easily possible, Right_  

You're correct in that I've used too sweeping a term re: “any”. You're less correct than you think, though. When your MMR climbs past the 2600 mark, quickmatch frequently fails to find matches. It simply times out. You quickmatch again, and it times out. You quickmatch a third time, and it times out. Forget searching for a specific gametype, you won't find games across gametypes or across regions. These timeouts happen regardless of open, low-MMR matches. I have personally sat through quickmatch requeues for 30+ minutes.

As for scrims, Omni plays infrequently and typically shows only for matches (or for the occasional scrim request from friendly teams). Even when we were highly active, scrims weren't exactly abundant. If you think that finding scrims with your statistical outlier cohorts is simple, then you've never been a statistical outlier. Not in the good sense, anyway.

As for joining on friends, well, friends list. Also, joining on friends doesn't evade MMR restrictions. As for the private servers, people don't use them as frequently as you apparently think. In fact, people typically use them only for practice, scrims, or matches (which is their purpose).

So you see, even though it is technically possible for Dave to find games, it's far from frequently feasible. Also note that your demands upon Dave re: public servers – that he stick with the matchmaker or join through parties ( the latter rendered more difficult without a functional friends list) – result in much the same end: Dave will find himself on servers with lower-ranking players.

The only difference between your demands and Dave's “smurfing,” then, is that the former requires that Dave sit twiddling his thumbs while matchmaking continuously denies him games. And that's a ridiculous sentiment coming from someone whose patience couldn't withstand even a single match against Dave.


Now, I've humoured your attempt at playing semantics, but it's important that you realize that hedging a term (or failing to, in my case) is very different from equivocation (which is what you did). I'll explain that again here, since you seem intent on ignoring it:

Nept, on October 28 2014 - 09:00 PM, said:

What I said: There's nothing unfair about having superior skills in a video game (and using them).  Mollycoddling community members by preventing them from playing against stronger opponents has nothing to do with "fairness"; it's simply a means of maximizing community retention . . . Now if you were attempting to argue that it wasn't "fun" for the weaker players, then you might find yourself with some footing.  Even then, though, you're casting an overly-wide net by painting all players with the same negative nancy, woe is me attitude that you've assumed as of late.

What you had said: So yeah, someone with the in game skills to get 2797.2271728515625 MMR has to play smurf accounts and blame the matchmaker for not letting them into matches where his skill out weights everyone in the rest of the match.  You think your piloting skills get lower if you start a new account_  Can't you see how completely fuzzy bunny unfair that is_

What you changed your position to:  "it is not fun to be on the receiving end of that.  And since you can't seem to understand that, it must mean that you've never experienced that before, but just think about how you would feel"

The moment you understand that little fact, we can move onto another discussion.

Edited by Nept, October 29 2014 - 02:08 AM.

[Veritasnous]

Nept: "Any" was followed by comments about the amount of time it takes to find matches. I took you as quantifying over matches that could be found in a reasonable amount of time.

So there was really no need to abandon "any" as too sweeping a term, since your follow up comments restricted the domain nicely.

Dave's smurfing sometimes frustrates me, but even at the 2100-2200 level it can often be hard to find a 2-3 star match, so I don't hold it against him. At least Dave's not an arse about it, whereas a decent section of the 2600+ gang come into lower level matches and spread the arrogance and superiority on thick.

[IareDave]

SS396, on October 28 2014 - 11:17 PM, said:

"His MMR prevents him from accessing any matches"  That statement is false, if he chooses a mode by quickmatch it will eventually find a match for him, just because a high tier match (2200+) isn't immediately available does not mean its IMPOSSIBLE to get stuffed into one automagically by the quick match feature of the game AS YOU ASSERTED.  Also, he could find scrims with several of his cohorts, or get onto private servers where the MMR restriction is turned off, or simply get into a party with a much lower player.  So your choice of word "ANY" is simply incorrect rendering the statement completely false.  See any means at least 1, so All I have to do is prove that he can infact get into one single game, which we all know is easily possible, Right_  

Thank you. You have just unknowingly brought up the biggest complaint high mmr players have with the current matchmaking. Since you seem to base your arguments and their respected points of evidence based on personal opinion, and fail to empathize with any living being, I will switch the tempo a bit and show you some facts.

Based on Shadeness's hawken browser app, I have deducted that the game will only let you manually join rooms with an avg. mmr that is 500+/- your own. Let's say I'm at 2700 mmr and a server is available with an avg. of 2100. This server is the highest at this specific moment in the game, so it would be logical to place me into this server, correct_ Let's say their are 10 people in the room. I don't have exact figures for this but it will typically take 4-6 minutes to auto-join me into the match IF everything goes smoothly, i.e, no one joins the room. Chances of this happening_ I'll let you be the judge.

So other than timingout of matchmaking for failure to join the match, what else happens_ The game places you into a server with extremely low ranked players, typically a new server with only 1-3 other players in it with mmr's ranging from 1200-1300. Does this sound fair to both parties_

Now I hope you realize why the top players even smurf to begin with. It's not to beat on the less skilled, it's to play the damn game. Whether you think that's right or not is your own personal opinion, it is not against the rules and nor is it a foreign concept in the world of fps's competetive shooters, especially arena shooters such as this.

[Nept]

Veritasnous, on October 29 2014 - 02:25 AM, said:

Nept: "Any" was followed by comments about the amount of time it takes to find matches. I took you as quantifying over matches that could be found in a reasonable amount of time.

So there was really no need to abandon "any" as too sweeping a term, since your follow up comments restricted the domain nicely.

Dave's smurfing sometimes frustrates me, but even at the 2100-2200 level it can often be hard to find a 2-3 star match, so I don't hold it against him. At least Dave's not an arse about it, whereas a decent section of the 2600+ gang come into lower level matches and spread the arrogance and superiority on thick.

Haha, while I appreciate the assessment and would like to agree, I do think that I misworded things.  It was in response to the following blurb:

SS396, on October 28 2014 - 06:05 PM, said:

So yeah, someone with the in game skills to get 2797.2271728515625 MMR has to play smurf accounts and blame the matchmaker for not letting them into matches where his skill out weights everyone in the rest of the match.  You think your piloting skills get lower if you start a new account_  Can't you see how completely fuzzy bunny unfair that is_

"Any" was meant to address SS's apparent oversight in thinking that Dave had (realistic) options outside of smurfing.  During certain (read: most) times of the day, none of my members can find games.  While that doesn't bother most of us at this point, both Dave and hestoned love playing Hawken, and want to continue playing.

Anyway, I certainly could've phrased things more meticulously.

[comic_sans]

These are some great arguments and I have popcorn out, but as long as we're being pedantic, it's strong suit, not suite.

[Veritasnous]

I'll let you determine the meaning of your words! It's always good to be more precise.

[SS396]

Nept, on October 29 2014 - 02:06 AM, said:

You're correct in that I've used too sweeping a term re: “any”. You're less correct than you think, though. When your MMR climbs past the 2600 mark, quickmatch frequently fails to find matches. It simply times out. You quickmatch again, and it times out. You quickmatch a third time, and it times out. Forget searching for a specific gametype, you won't find games across gametypes or across regions. These timeouts happen regardless of open, low-MMR matches. I have personally sat through quickmatch requeues for 30+ minutes.

Thats funny, Evolwar has a higher MMR than that and he doesn't find it all that difficult to get into matches.  Shrug.  Nice try though.  It is still very possible.  Next.

Nept, on October 29 2014 - 02:06 AM, said:

As for scrims, Omni plays infrequently and typically shows only for matches (or for the occasional scrim request from friendly teams). Even when we were highly active, scrims weren't exactly abundant. If you think that finding scrims with your statistical outlier cohorts is simple, then you've never been a statistical outlier. Not in the good sense, anyway.

Doesn't matter, one can easily gather friends from various clans through various means such as teamspeak or IRC.  But ok, nice try again.

Nept, on October 29 2014 - 02:06 AM, said:

As for joining on friends, well, friends list. Also, joining on friends doesn't evade MMR restrictions. As for the private servers, people don't use them as frequently as you apparently think. In fact, people typically use them only for practice, scrims, or matches (which is their purpose).

I didn't say a thing about joining on friends now did I.  Welp no need to bother with that one.

It doesn't matter how often its used, it COULD still be used had he WANTED to use it to avoid his apparent problems with timely access.  All I had to prove you wrong was provide one INSTANCE he COULD USE.  lol

Nept, on October 29 2014 - 02:06 AM, said:

So you see, even though it is technically possible for Dave to find games, it's far from frequently feasible. Also note that your demands upon Dave re: public servers – that he stick with the matchmaker or join through parties ( the latter rendered more difficult without a functional friends list) – result in much the same end: Dave will find himself on servers with lower-ranking players.

Oh but you said it wasn't possible, now which is it_ feasible or impossible_  Wait a second, are you changing your position like I said you couldn't_  lol

Nept, on October 29 2014 - 02:06 AM, said:

The only difference between your demands and Dave's “smurfing,” then, is that the former requires that Dave sit twiddling his thumbs while matchmaking continuously denies him games. And that's a ridiculous sentiment coming from someone whose patience couldn't withstand even a single match against Dave.

What do you mean_  I was there in a few matches against him, he even remembered one certain occasion, specifically I remember a few more.  I've seen him in other matches using at least 2 accounts.  Again, you should really speak only to what you know about and quit assuming things, cause you are just grasping at straws.  Explain to me how someone "couldn't withstand even a single match against Dave" can be true, when I was pitted against him in a siege match, and the team I was on lost, and then I stuck around for the next few matches.  Get real dude, quit making fuzzy bunny up trying to discredit me, you weren't even fuzzy bunny there acting like you were.  lol.

To quote the great AJK, Can you try to strawman any harder_

Nept, on October 29 2014 - 02:06 AM, said:

Now, I've humoured your attempt at playing semantics, but it's important that you realize that hedging a term (or failing to, in my case) is very different from equivocation (which is what you did). I'll explain that again here, since you seem intent on ignoring it:

Not humored enough, lol.

Nept, on October 28 2014 - 09:00 PM, said:

What I said: There's nothing unfair about having superior skills in a video game (and using them).  Mollycoddling community members by preventing them from playing against stronger opponents has nothing to do with "fairness"; it's simply a means of maximizing community retention . . . Now if you were attempting to argue that it wasn't "fun" for the weaker players, then you might find yourself with some footing.  Even then, though, you're casting an overly-wide net by painting all players with the same negative nancy, woe is me attitude that you've assumed as of late.

What you had said: So yeah, someone with the in game skills to get 2797.2271728515625 MMR has to play smurf accounts and blame the matchmaker for not letting them into matches where his skill out weights everyone in the rest of the match.  You think your piloting skills get lower if you start a new account_  Can't you see how completely fuzzy bunny unfair that is_

What you changed your position to:  "it is not fun to be on the receiving end of that.  And since you can't seem to understand that, it must mean that you've never experienced that before, but just think about how you would feel"


The moment you understand that little fact, we can move onto another discussion.

Welp, great, then we both agree that our discussions can't move forward from here, cause really all its doing is getting all your buddies involved.

So yeah, all of you gang up, too bad though Nept, I really enjoyed proving you wrong once you forced me to RECOGNIZE your statements.  I hope you found it worthy enough.

Edited by SS396, October 29 2014 - 04:34 AM.

[Silverfire]

SS396, do you believe your statements are infallible_ I'm curious.

[SS396]

Silverfire, on October 29 2014 - 03:19 AM, said:

SS396, do you believe your statements are infallible_ I'm curious.

No, I don't, and what does it matter_  I'm sure Nept and his gang of thugs will pick apart every mistake I made and flaunt it to the world.  Just like they have always done.

[SS396]

Only here to respond to Dave since I missed his post.

IareDave, on October 29 2014 - 02:39 AM, said:

Thank you. You have just unknowingly brought up the biggest complaint high mmr players have with the current matchmaking. Since you seem to base your arguments and their respected points of evidence based on personal opinion, and fail to empathize with any living being, I will switch the tempo a bit and show you some facts.

Just because I'm not a high MMR player doesn't mean I don't associate with players that fit those requirements, discuss things and listen to their frustrations.  Can you lay off of the personal attacks please, I empathize with whoever I feel like empathizing with, most of the time is only with people I consider friends, I see little reason to waste it on some random.

IareDave, on October 29 2014 - 02:39 AM, said:

Based on Shadeness's hawken browser app, I have deducted that the game will only let you manually join rooms with an avg. mmr that is 500+/- your own. Let's say I'm at 2700 mmr and a server is available with an avg. of 2100. This server is the highest at this specific moment in the game, so it would be logical to place me into this server, correct_ Let's say their are 10 people in the room. I don't have exact figures for this but it will typically take 4-6 minutes to auto-join me into the match IF everything goes smoothly, i.e, no one joins the room. Chances of this happening_ I'll let you be the judge.

Dude, If I had it my way, a 2700 player would only be allowed to join a server with a deviation of 50 MMR.  Yeah, crazy I know, but my thinking is keeping the EVERYONE playing in their brackets.  So instead of 3 buckets (low, med, high) like the Devs used to do, I wanted 15 or 20 and the higher or lower you got the tighter the restrictions to the buckets.

I realize it sucks man, I really do, but again, the problem is compounded right this second by the low playerbase, and most of your "time" complaint is purely from that alone and not the way the system was designed or worked previously.  If there were hundreds of 2100 lobbies with 10 players in them, the system should dump you into one of them before a suitable room fills up and times out accordingly.  So again, the problem is really just low player counts.  When there were 2500 MMR players and that was the highest MMR that existed at that time, they didn't experience the issues joining games everyone above 2400 does now.

IareDave, on October 29 2014 - 02:39 AM, said:

So other than timingout of matchmaking for failure to join the match, what else happens_ The game places you into a server with extremely low ranked players, typically a new server with only 1-3 other players in it with mmr's ranging from 1200-1300. Does this sound fair to both parties_

Fair_ fuzzy bunny No.  I hate that.  That is my biggest complaint to the Devs about how the system currently works, and I'm not even affected by it in the slightest, so really why do I care so much_  Because those 1200-1300 players that get whooped up on don't stick around and keep this game alive, thats why.

You want to talk about what I think is unfair_  How about you pummeling me 9 to zero in that match you referenced.  Granted I almost had you a few times, I had your health in double digits, but I wasn't giving up like Nept trying to tell the word, when he wasn't even there.  I can specifically remember telling you in chat, that I'd get you sooner or later and I was trying desperately.  I failed to finish you off, but I did battle against you on a number of occasions, most of which were not 1 vs 1s either.  I sure as hell didn't ragequit the second I saw you in game and run away cowering as iNept wants everyone to believe.  So lets compare skills, a 2000 ranked player against one thats 2700, is that a fair fight_  Can't you empathize and see the obvious difference in skills just based off of numbers alone_  Throw in you laughing, taunting, and rubbing my nose in your fuzzy bunny after you killed me and maybe you can realize why I had such a distaste for you.

IareDave, on October 29 2014 - 02:39 AM, said:

Now I hope you realize why the top players even smurf to begin with. It's not to beat on the less skilled, it's to play the damn game. Whether you think that's right or not is your own personal opinion, it is not against the rules and nor is it a foreign concept in the world of fps's competetive shooters, especially arena shooters such as this.

There are various reasons why high ranked players smurf.  Some to enjoy the game like you said, but some do it to just prey on weaker players because fighting players in their own skill bracket is too much work.  You can't deny both of those situations exist, and when one player sees a high ranked player using a smurf account and farming 49 kills in a siege match, do you really think its "just to play the game"_ or was that just blatant boosting of KDR.  Sorry dude, but I'm calling boosting stats on that one, I think the rest of the community would come to the same conclusion too, even if they won't agree with me publicly.

And yes, I did mean to put an i in front of that.  lol.

Edited by SS396, October 29 2014 - 04:35 AM.

[Silverfire]

I smurf because it's difficult to find games sometimes, even at a rough MMR of 2100. Mostly 1 star servers, really. I sometimes get a score 6x of the next highest score. I play smurf in order to play the game sometimes and I'm not even at an exorbitantly high MMR.

Do both situations exist_ They certainly do, but you can't take this situation you describe of siege farming and then apply it to Dave, or everyone else for that matter. Case by case basis and don't call BS on other people because you are unaware and unbelieving of their situation. One person's experience will be different than the other's.

Edited by Silverfire, October 29 2014 - 04:30 AM.