PDA

View Full Version : Whats up with people switching to the winning team in the last few moments of a round



dannymrtnz
5th Mar 2005, 16:25
I can't tell you how many times people are switching teams in the last few moments of a round so they earn a win instead of a loss. WHat is the point of of ranking systems thats only purpose is cosmetic?

I don't know why they made it so you can swtich teams in the middle of a game. Many times people switch teams of just drop out because of people switchig over to the winning teams.

I have seen game were lets say red is winning so like 4 players from blue swtich over to red leaving like one or two guys on blue. Its pretty retarded. I know some people hate it, but modern online games should use a system closer to Halo 2s. Its not perfect but you don't see people switching teams last moment.I believe if you leave prematurely you are penalized against your rank. Once you pick a team, thats your team win or lose unless you are playing custom which doesn't matter becuase they aren't ranked. If a game is going to make it possible to switch teams lst momnet then whats the point of ranking a persons wins/losses?

Of course it sucks in Halo that you can't pick your map or gametype unless its a custom game but at least you have the option of playing ranked or custom games.

Additionally, I'd like to know why there is no indication of rank before you enter the game? It's frustrating when yo join a game and eveyone is a top 50 player and you just starting playing the game. You can barely survive 20 seconds if you have top players, especially if they are using the rail gun. I don't think Halo 2 live wouldn't have been as succesful if you had a bunch of level 22s playing against a level 2. Its more fun to progress and learn with people on your own level.

There as also people who are casual gamers, who just play after a long days work to have some fun. These peope can't learn the maps/weapons inside out so of course they won't have much of a chance with the more skilled player. Are they just s#*t out of luck cause thy have a life to attend to? Is it that hard to group similar levels together or just have and indication of what level the group is?

I guess this is the problem with games designed across platforms. You have to build for the lowest common denomenator in this case the PS2 which, not to sound like a fanboy is primitaive, in its approach to online, compared to Xbox live.

PostalP
5th Mar 2005, 20:48
I agree they should match players of the same rank. I just started playing and it's very frustrating to get killed by the top players while I am still "adjusting" to the game. Maybe they should have made it so people can't switch teams when one team reaches a certain score or something like that.

khabz
5th Mar 2005, 23:22
yeah. the switching to the 'winning' team is very stupid. they should have somekind of auto-leveling of player when they join or die.

Cathedral
6th Mar 2005, 21:43
Hey, ps2 is great online buddy.

While Snowblind isnt a prime example of doing the small things right..

is sure as hell did the big things right...

now i dont know if you care about rankings....or winning or w/e but check this out...

ratceht and clank 3.....socom 2...and killzone boast very very solid and usable ranking systems..

and ratceht and clank 3, probabnly has the best clan/rank system in any videogame...

to give you can example?
yesterday i had 12 clan amtches in 3 hours.....its that easy..challegne anoher clan...and face them...if they accept..they get 4 members to play against you..

the interface is perfect...while this game needs patching...ratchet and clank 4 is the shyt..and a prime example of why ps2 is great online...

and guess what?

timesplitters 3, and AREA 51 is coming out within the next month..
not to mention, mike g...developer of this game..."claims he is going to fix the problems in this game...and allow us to have clan matches and ladders"

so hold tight buddy, hmm the videogame industry is tough...if i ever make a videogame....atleast i think ill know what to do..

you cant ever please anybody, you give them the best...and they ask for more..

peace

dannymrtnz
7th Mar 2005, 14:34
"you cant ever please anybody, you give them the best...and they ask for more.."

If the online portion of this game is the best they could do, then they shouldn't bother. It's not like they are treading new ground here. There are lots of examples of how to do it right. They are the innovators of online match setups.

Rachet and Clank may do match making as best as it can for the PS2 setup
(I know, I play the game) but thats no excuse for Crystal Dynamis to deliver this online mess.

It seems as if they are giving more love to the PS2 version because they know this isn't going to be anything better than a possible average shooter among great shooters on the Xbox. On PS2 there's Killzone which half of the PS2 owners think is a mess.

If we give companies our money just becuase they tried their best, then hell, I'll try my best and make a crappy game using the rudimentary code that I know. I'll make choppy, badly animated, clunky targeting, "hope you hit em" cause the might disappear and then reappear behind you type of game and then charge you all $50 and laugh all the way to the bank. It's going to be called Project: Epileptic Crackhead Moneys on Speed or PECMOS for short. Whne you are talking about my $50 I don't "try" I want "did". I want a good game. Not a game that sounds good on paper then plays like crap online.

Before you slam me for beiong a sucky player, I am in the top one hundred and with other players being in the upper thousands. And I don't even play that much

krisaim
8th Mar 2005, 22:51
All we need is an update patch.
Kick player-for host.
Password-for host.
Comms-in deathmatch.
Auto assign-when joining team games and you can't swap over to the winning team at the end of the game.
Loose points if you leave at the end if your loosing.
Please sort out a patch. :)