Switch Sides Option?

2»

Comments

  • LWOF_BrOkenArrowLWOF_BrOkenArrow Posts: 378Player
    doogle! wrote: »
    IMO, The simple solution Hollywood, is to swap the newest player that is not in a party. Parties being swapped should be all or nothing.

    In no circumstance should a team have to play 8v4. Who cares if we upset one of the 30k PS4 players and they ragequit the server. Repeatedly playing 8v4 rounds is enough to make a player ragequit the game completely due to poor (non-existent) auto-balance mechanics.

    If some of a team's guys decide to leave and the match ends up 8v4 then tough luck, they'll simply have to play it out and wait for some guys to join. Typically this doesn't happen till the match is almost over anyway, when the score is 4-0, 5-2, 5-3, ect.

    To answer your question, obviously the PS4 players and the Devs care if PS4 guys are getting upset b/c the game is placing them on the otherside every time someone leaves. Repeatedly being put through that is more than enough to make a person quit the game.

    Doogle is exactly right.

    Taking a team that is already losing and making them play short is much worse than moving some non-party players off of the winning side to even things out.

    Your claims are ridiculous.

    Taking a team that is already losing and making them play short is much better than moving players from the winning side. Especially when you don't know who it is you could be moving.

    Though some feel differently, I'm glad the devs see the flaws with forcing players to move - and agree that a better solution exists, and should be implemented to solve the uneven side problem

    It was the lack of this consideration and empathy for the players who were truly being affected which led to PC's downfall. Glad to see they committed themselves to not making the same mistake with PS4 (more or less).

    Army SROTC Cadet



    P0asKE2.jpg
  • Hey.I.Have.A.GunHey.I.Have.A.Gun Posts: 645Player
    doogle! wrote: »
    IMO, The simple solution Hollywood, is to swap the newest player that is not in a party. Parties being swapped should be all or nothing.

    In no circumstance should a team have to play 8v4. Who cares if we upset one of the 30k PS4 players and they ragequit the server. Repeatedly playing 8v4 rounds is enough to make a player ragequit the game completely due to poor (non-existent) auto-balance mechanics.

    If some of a team's guys decide to leave and the match ends up 8v4 then tough luck, they'll simply have to play it out and wait for some guys to join. Typically this doesn't happen till the match is almost over anyway, when the score is 4-0, 5-2, 5-3, ect.

    To answer your question, obviously the PS4 players and the Devs care if PS4 guys are getting upset b/c the game is placing them on the otherside every time someone leaves. Repeatedly being put through that is more than enough to make a person quit the game.

    Doogle is exactly right.

    Taking a team that is already losing and making them play short is much worse than moving some non-party players off of the winning side to even things out.

    Your claims are ridiculous.

    Taking a team that is already losing and making them play short is much better than moving players from the winning side. Especially when you don't know who it is you could be moving.

    Though some feel differently, I'm glad the devs see the flaws with forcing players to move - and agree that a better solution exists, and should be implemented to solve the uneven side problem

    It was the lack of this consideration and empathy for the players who were truly being affected which led to PC's downfall. Glad to see they committed themselves to not making the same mistake with PS4 (more or less).

    Wow. You're delusional.
  • aaHollywoodaaHollywood Posts: 372Player
    doogle! wrote: »
    IMO, The simple solution Hollywood, is to swap the newest player that is not in a party. Parties being swapped should be all or nothing.

    In no circumstance should a team have to play 8v4. Who cares if we upset one of the 30k PS4 players and they ragequit the server. Repeatedly playing 8v4 rounds is enough to make a player ragequit the game completely due to poor (non-existent) auto-balance mechanics.

    I feel you.
  • Hey.I.Have.A.GunHey.I.Have.A.Gun Posts: 645Player
    doogle! wrote: »
    IMO, The simple solution Hollywood, is to swap the newest player that is not in a party. Parties being swapped should be all or nothing.

    In no circumstance should a team have to play 8v4. Who cares if we upset one of the 30k PS4 players and they ragequit the server. Repeatedly playing 8v4 rounds is enough to make a player ragequit the game completely due to poor (non-existent) auto-balance mechanics.

    I feel you.

    This is what I'm saying.

    I think we all agree that in a best-case scenario, the game's matchmaking would fill those spots. In the absence of that, I believe those spots have to be filled somehow even if the players come from the opposing team.

    As Doogle said, the negative impact of forcing players who are already losing to then play down players is clearly worse for the game than taking a player or two from the winning side to balance the teams. PC has done it that way forever, and it certainly didn't "lead to PC's downfall."
  • doogle!doogle! Posts: 733Player
    Sorry Arrow, your logic is completely backwards.

  • LWOF_BrOkenArrowLWOF_BrOkenArrow Posts: 378Player
    doogle! wrote: »
    IMO, The simple solution Hollywood, is to swap the newest player that is not in a party. Parties being swapped should be all or nothing.

    In no circumstance should a team have to play 8v4. Who cares if we upset one of the 30k PS4 players and they ragequit the server. Repeatedly playing 8v4 rounds is enough to make a player ragequit the game completely due to poor (non-existent) auto-balance mechanics.

    I feel you.

    This is what I'm saying.

    I think we all agree that in a best-case scenario, the game's matchmaking would fill those spots. In the absence of that, I believe those spots have to be filled somehow even if the players come from the opposing team.

    As Doogle said, the negative impact of forcing players who are already losing to then play down players is clearly worse for the game than taking a player or two from the winning side to balance the teams. PC has done it that way forever, and it certainly didn't "lead to PC's downfall."

    PC has done it that way forever and PCs numbers have never reached 30k. There is no AAA title I've ever heard of which resorts to swaping people mid-round, during matches when players quit.

    Players are not "forced" to play with less players b/c they're not being forced to continue playing the match at all. The typical reason why many of the losing side's guys leave is b/c they're losing, and losing badly.

    With that said, punishing players of the winning side -- regardless of whoever they may be (whether in a party, joined late, solo, ect) -- for displaying their cunning and prowess in battle is absurd. Your reasoning is that since they played well enough to make some of the other team RQ, they should then fill in their spots b/c the other team is in need of players. Now if those moved want to win, they need to put forth even more effort then they did before.

    What you fell to realize is that its not the winning side's problem if the match becomes uneven cause some people decided to leave on the other side. So I fail to see the exact reasoning behind acquiring players from the other side, the side which is generally doing more work, the side which is fighting harder to win. The least this game (or any) can do is reward effort -- but it seems you're suggesting that it do the opposite.



    Army SROTC Cadet



    P0asKE2.jpg
  • Hey.I.Have.A.GunHey.I.Have.A.Gun Posts: 645Player
    doogle! wrote: »
    IMO, The simple solution Hollywood, is to swap the newest player that is not in a party. Parties being swapped should be all or nothing.

    In no circumstance should a team have to play 8v4. Who cares if we upset one of the 30k PS4 players and they ragequit the server. Repeatedly playing 8v4 rounds is enough to make a player ragequit the game completely due to poor (non-existent) auto-balance mechanics.

    I feel you.

    This is what I'm saying.

    I think we all agree that in a best-case scenario, the game's matchmaking would fill those spots. In the absence of that, I believe those spots have to be filled somehow even if the players come from the opposing team.

    As Doogle said, the negative impact of forcing players who are already losing to then play down players is clearly worse for the game than taking a player or two from the winning side to balance the teams. PC has done it that way forever, and it certainly didn't "lead to PC's downfall."

    PC has done it that way forever and PCs numbers have never reached 30k. There is no AAA title I've ever heard of which resorts to swaping people mid-round, during matches when players quit.

    Players are not "forced" to play with less players b/c they're not being forced to continue playing the match at all. The typical reason why many of the losing side's guys leave is b/c they're losing, and losing badly.

    With that said, punishing players of the winning side -- regardless of whoever they may be (whether in a party, joined late, solo, ect) -- for displaying their cunning and prowess in battle is absurd. Your reasoning is that since they played well enough to make some of the other team RQ, they should then fill in their spots b/c the other team is in need of players. Now if those moved want to win, they need to put forth even more effort then they did before.

    What you fell to realize is that its not the winning side's problem if the match becomes uneven cause some people decided to leave on the other side. So I fail to see the exact reasoning behind acquiring players from the other side, the side which is generally doing more work, the side which is fighting harder to win. The least this game (or any) can do is reward effort -- but it seems you're suggesting that it do the opposite.



    You point out the problem in your own post by suggesting players who are just losing simply leave. The players who end up playing these imbalanced matches are certainly more likely to leave the game entirely than a player who gets switched to the losing side to even out teams.

    I haven't failed to realize anything. The game continuing on with uneven teams is the worst possible scenario.

    That obviously has nothing to do with PC's player counts. PS4 does better player-wise simply because there are fewer options on PS4.
  • LWOF_BrOkenArrowLWOF_BrOkenArrow Posts: 378Player
    doogle! wrote: »
    IMO, The simple solution Hollywood, is to swap the newest player that is not in a party. Parties being swapped should be all or nothing.

    In no circumstance should a team have to play 8v4. Who cares if we upset one of the 30k PS4 players and they ragequit the server. Repeatedly playing 8v4 rounds is enough to make a player ragequit the game completely due to poor (non-existent) auto-balance mechanics.

    I feel you.

    This is what I'm saying.

    I think we all agree that in a best-case scenario, the game's matchmaking would fill those spots. In the absence of that, I believe those spots have to be filled somehow even if the players come from the opposing team.

    As Doogle said, the negative impact of forcing players who are already losing to then play down players is clearly worse for the game than taking a player or two from the winning side to balance the teams. PC has done it that way forever, and it certainly didn't "lead to PC's downfall."

    PC has done it that way forever and PCs numbers have never reached 30k. There is no AAA title I've ever heard of which resorts to swaping people mid-round, during matches when players quit.

    Players are not "forced" to play with less players b/c they're not being forced to continue playing the match at all. The typical reason why many of the losing side's guys leave is b/c they're losing, and losing badly.

    With that said, punishing players of the winning side -- regardless of whoever they may be (whether in a party, joined late, solo, ect) -- for displaying their cunning and prowess in battle is absurd. Your reasoning is that since they played well enough to make some of the other team RQ, they should then fill in their spots b/c the other team is in need of players. Now if those moved want to win, they need to put forth even more effort then they did before.

    What you fell to realize is that its not the winning side's problem if the match becomes uneven cause some people decided to leave on the other side. So I fail to see the exact reasoning behind acquiring players from the other side, the side which is generally doing more work, the side which is fighting harder to win. The least this game (or any) can do is reward effort -- but it seems you're suggesting that it do the opposite.



    You point out the problem in your own post by suggesting players who are just losing simply leave. The players who end up playing these imbalanced matches are certainly more likely to leave the game entirely than a player who gets switched to the losing side to even out teams.

    I haven't failed to realize anything. The game continuing on with uneven teams is the worst possible scenario.

    That obviously has nothing to do with PC's player counts. PS4 does better player-wise simply because there are fewer options on PS4.

    So you're saying that a player who was losing the game prior to the match even becoming unbalanced is more likely to quit the game than a player who was winning and then deprived of his potential win and put on the losing side?
    Army SROTC Cadet



    P0asKE2.jpg
  • Hey.I.Have.A.GunHey.I.Have.A.Gun Posts: 645Player
    doogle! wrote: »
    IMO, The simple solution Hollywood, is to swap the newest player that is not in a party. Parties being swapped should be all or nothing.

    In no circumstance should a team have to play 8v4. Who cares if we upset one of the 30k PS4 players and they ragequit the server. Repeatedly playing 8v4 rounds is enough to make a player ragequit the game completely due to poor (non-existent) auto-balance mechanics.

    I feel you.

    This is what I'm saying.

    I think we all agree that in a best-case scenario, the game's matchmaking would fill those spots. In the absence of that, I believe those spots have to be filled somehow even if the players come from the opposing team.

    As Doogle said, the negative impact of forcing players who are already losing to then play down players is clearly worse for the game than taking a player or two from the winning side to balance the teams. PC has done it that way forever, and it certainly didn't "lead to PC's downfall."

    PC has done it that way forever and PCs numbers have never reached 30k. There is no AAA title I've ever heard of which resorts to swaping people mid-round, during matches when players quit.

    Players are not "forced" to play with less players b/c they're not being forced to continue playing the match at all. The typical reason why many of the losing side's guys leave is b/c they're losing, and losing badly.

    With that said, punishing players of the winning side -- regardless of whoever they may be (whether in a party, joined late, solo, ect) -- for displaying their cunning and prowess in battle is absurd. Your reasoning is that since they played well enough to make some of the other team RQ, they should then fill in their spots b/c the other team is in need of players. Now if those moved want to win, they need to put forth even more effort then they did before.

    What you fell to realize is that its not the winning side's problem if the match becomes uneven cause some people decided to leave on the other side. So I fail to see the exact reasoning behind acquiring players from the other side, the side which is generally doing more work, the side which is fighting harder to win. The least this game (or any) can do is reward effort -- but it seems you're suggesting that it do the opposite.



    You point out the problem in your own post by suggesting players who are just losing simply leave. The players who end up playing these imbalanced matches are certainly more likely to leave the game entirely than a player who gets switched to the losing side to even out teams.

    I haven't failed to realize anything. The game continuing on with uneven teams is the worst possible scenario.

    That obviously has nothing to do with PC's player counts. PS4 does better player-wise simply because there are fewer options on PS4.

    So you're saying that a player who was losing the game prior to the match even becoming unbalanced is more likely to quit the game than a player who was winning and then deprived of his potential win and put on the losing side?

    Absolutely. They're already losing, and now the game sets them up to play short? Terrible decision.

    I think we all agree that matchmaking filling in those spots would be the best case scenario. In the absence of that, having non-partied players (or parties small enough to move entirely) on the side that's short switched over is the next best option.

    You're arguing for the match to continue on unbalanced (8v4, 8v5, 7v5, etc), which is mind-boggling.
  • doogle!doogle! Posts: 733Player
    PC has done it that way forever and PCs numbers have never reached 30k.
    You think the lack of auto-balance is what attracts PS4 players to AAPG? Or is it possible that the fact that the PS4 has very few decent free games? Idk, that's a difficult one.
    There is no AAA title I've ever heard of which resorts to swaping people mid-round, during matches when players quit.

    PC doesn't swap mid round. Only after round. But TF2 comes to mind anyhow.
    PC has done it that way forever and PCs numbers have never reached 30k.
    Players are not "forced" to play with less players b/c they're not being forced to continue playing the match at all. The typical reason why many of the losing side's guys leave is b/c they're losing, and losing badly.

    Alternatively to auto balancing the newest player, you'd rather them just leave and completely kill the server? If I join a server on PC with auto balance off, and it's 2v7 versus a clan like pR..why would I want to sit there and get my face stomped in? Is that an enjoyable experience for me? Is it an enjoyable experience for pR?

    This type of experience will drive off inexperienced players. They wont stick around to play the game, because the bro's and bra's of the PS4 world are in a party steamrolling through private lobbies 8v2.
    punishing players of the winning side -- regardless of whoever they may be (whether in a party, joined late, solo, ect) -- for displaying their cunning and prowess in battle is absurd.
    We call that team stacking, and it doesn't encourage community growth.

    I prefer to play AGAINST most of the people on my Steam list. It's more competitive that way for me, for them, and for the lobby itself. Makes no sense if I team up with 5-6 of them in your average server...the odds will not favor the other team in the slightest.
    Your reasoning is that since they played well enough to make some of the other team RQ, they should then fill in their spots b/c the other team is in need of players. Now if those moved want to win, they need to put forth even more effort then they did before.

    What if I join the winning team and have been in the server for 2 minutes? Your reasoning earlier in the thread says I've contributed enough to warrant not being moved, right? More often than not, the players that are "sticking around" will move up the ladder of the "player-swap-priority-list" and remain right where they are at anyway. If they don't have the fortitude to switch teams and make it a little more fair, then they can at least expect new players to be automatically placed on the opposing team to resemble fair (although probably still unfair skill-wise) odds.
    What you fell to realize is that its not the winning side's problem if the match becomes uneven cause some people decided to leave on the other side. So I fail to see the exact reasoning behind acquiring players from the other side, the side which is generally doing more work, the side which is fighting harder to win. The least this game (or any) can do is reward effort -- but it seems you're suggesting that it do the opposite.
    It's easy to have that stance with a 2.5 KDR on PS4, while sporting clan tags and rolling with a party of similar KDR. It seems as if you FAIL to understand how this smashes the casual players spirits and thus shortens their playtime, consequently removing eyes from these beloved Army Game marketing videos.

    Throw away all of this retort if there's a matchmade queue. But there's not. We're talking public, casual lobbies in a game meant to attract potential recruits. If you want to run around destroying people in an unbalanced server, then beat your drum and hope they put bots into AA5 for your turkey shoot. Otherwise settle into the spirit of the game and fight fair.

    One thing you did not mention but I think it's important to highlight: what about the players of the losing team that are trying to "fight" and win? They're getting kicked in the balls twice. They're being good sports and sticking around to play, but the team stackers wont even balance out the teams. You're practically giving them the middle finger and punishing them for the "rage quitters" who left t them high and dry.
  • LWOF_BrOkenArrowLWOF_BrOkenArrow Posts: 378Player
    edited November 2018
    doogle! wrote: »
    IMO, The simple solution Hollywood, is to swap the newest player that is not in a party. Parties being swapped should be all or nothing.

    In no circumstance should a team have to play 8v4. Who cares if we upset one of the 30k PS4 players and they ragequit the server. Repeatedly playing 8v4 rounds is enough to make a player ragequit the game completely due to poor (non-existent) auto-balance mechanics.

    I feel you.

    This is what I'm saying.

    I think we all agree that in a best-case scenario, the game's matchmaking would fill those spots. In the absence of that, I believe those spots have to be filled somehow even if the players come from the opposing team.

    As Doogle said, the negative impact of forcing players who are already losing to then play down players is clearly worse for the game than taking a player or two from the winning side to balance the teams. PC has done it that way forever, and it certainly didn't "lead to PC's downfall."

    PC has done it that way forever and PCs numbers have never reached 30k. There is no AAA title I've ever heard of which resorts to swaping people mid-round, during matches when players quit.

    Players are not "forced" to play with less players b/c they're not being forced to continue playing the match at all. The typical reason why many of the losing side's guys leave is b/c they're losing, and losing badly.

    With that said, punishing players of the winning side -- regardless of whoever they may be (whether in a party, joined late, solo, ect) -- for displaying their cunning and prowess in battle is absurd. Your reasoning is that since they played well enough to make some of the other team RQ, they should then fill in their spots b/c the other team is in need of players. Now if those moved want to win, they need to put forth even more effort then they did before.

    What you fell to realize is that its not the winning side's problem if the match becomes uneven cause some people decided to leave on the other side. So I fail to see the exact reasoning behind acquiring players from the other side, the side which is generally doing more work, the side which is fighting harder to win. The least this game (or any) can do is reward effort -- but it seems you're suggesting that it do the opposite.



    You point out the problem in your own post by suggesting players who are just losing simply leave. The players who end up playing these imbalanced matches are certainly more likely to leave the game entirely than a player who gets switched to the losing side to even out teams.

    I haven't failed to realize anything. The game continuing on with uneven teams is the worst possible scenario.

    That obviously has nothing to do with PC's player counts. PS4 does better player-wise simply because there are fewer options on PS4.

    So you're saying that a player who was losing the game prior to the match even becoming unbalanced is more likely to quit the game than a player who was winning and then deprived of his potential win and put on the losing side?

    Absolutely. They're already losing, and now the game sets them up to play short? Terrible decision.

    I think we all agree that matchmaking filling in those spots would be the best case scenario. In the absence of that, having non-partied players (or parties small enough to move entirely) on the side that's short switched over is the next best option.

    You're arguing for the match to continue on unbalanced (8v4, 8v5, 7v5, etc), which is mind-boggling.

    The game doesn't set them up to play short per se, its their cowardly team-mates. If Its quite obvious my team is going to lose and several of my team-mates RQ, I don't see how my view on the outcome of the match would change much. What you fail to consider is this typically doesn't occur until the match is all but lost anyway, and the winning team only needs to win 1-2 more rounds. Its funny that you think players should be swapped during late games they've all but won.

    I'm arguing for the match to continue on unbalanced until the game finds some players to balance it. That or some players choose to help balance it.

    The only time I feel there should be auto-balance is during the start of the match. The problem is that there's a glitch which is preventing this from happening properly.
    Army SROTC Cadet



    P0asKE2.jpg
  • doogle!doogle! Posts: 733Player
    Sorry, didn't see the other few replies prior to my post. It's hard to split quote like that. I'm not trying to flame you, but it sure comes off as me piling on.

    If no one cares to balance out the team (you, your teammates), I'd rather the match just completely end once the teams are unbalanced for more than one round. 2v5? Fine, match is over..even if the score is only 2-0.

    But wouldn't that be ridiculous? That's the only way you end the suffering for the poor dudes stuck on Bravo team playing against 5 players.
  • Hey.I.Have.A.GunHey.I.Have.A.Gun Posts: 645Player
    doogle! wrote: »
    IMO, The simple solution Hollywood, is to swap the newest player that is not in a party. Parties being swapped should be all or nothing.

    In no circumstance should a team have to play 8v4. Who cares if we upset one of the 30k PS4 players and they ragequit the server. Repeatedly playing 8v4 rounds is enough to make a player ragequit the game completely due to poor (non-existent) auto-balance mechanics.

    I feel you.

    This is what I'm saying.

    I think we all agree that in a best-case scenario, the game's matchmaking would fill those spots. In the absence of that, I believe those spots have to be filled somehow even if the players come from the opposing team.

    As Doogle said, the negative impact of forcing players who are already losing to then play down players is clearly worse for the game than taking a player or two from the winning side to balance the teams. PC has done it that way forever, and it certainly didn't "lead to PC's downfall."

    PC has done it that way forever and PCs numbers have never reached 30k. There is no AAA title I've ever heard of which resorts to swaping people mid-round, during matches when players quit.

    Players are not "forced" to play with less players b/c they're not being forced to continue playing the match at all. The typical reason why many of the losing side's guys leave is b/c they're losing, and losing badly.

    With that said, punishing players of the winning side -- regardless of whoever they may be (whether in a party, joined late, solo, ect) -- for displaying their cunning and prowess in battle is absurd. Your reasoning is that since they played well enough to make some of the other team RQ, they should then fill in their spots b/c the other team is in need of players. Now if those moved want to win, they need to put forth even more effort then they did before.

    What you fell to realize is that its not the winning side's problem if the match becomes uneven cause some people decided to leave on the other side. So I fail to see the exact reasoning behind acquiring players from the other side, the side which is generally doing more work, the side which is fighting harder to win. The least this game (or any) can do is reward effort -- but it seems you're suggesting that it do the opposite.



    You point out the problem in your own post by suggesting players who are just losing simply leave. The players who end up playing these imbalanced matches are certainly more likely to leave the game entirely than a player who gets switched to the losing side to even out teams.

    I haven't failed to realize anything. The game continuing on with uneven teams is the worst possible scenario.

    That obviously has nothing to do with PC's player counts. PS4 does better player-wise simply because there are fewer options on PS4.

    So you're saying that a player who was losing the game prior to the match even becoming unbalanced is more likely to quit the game than a player who was winning and then deprived of his potential win and put on the losing side?

    Absolutely. They're already losing, and now the game sets them up to play short? Terrible decision.

    I think we all agree that matchmaking filling in those spots would be the best case scenario. In the absence of that, having non-partied players (or parties small enough to move entirely) on the side that's short switched over is the next best option.

    You're arguing for the match to continue on unbalanced (8v4, 8v5, 7v5, etc), which is mind-boggling.

    The game doesn't set them up to play short per se, its their cowardly team-mates. If Its quite obvious my team is going to lose and several of my team-mates RQ, I don't see how my view on the outcome of the match would change much. What you fail to consider is this typically doesn't occur until the match is all but lost anyway, and the winning team only needs to win 1-2 more rounds. Its funny that you think players should be swapped during late games they've all but won.

    I'm arguing for the match to continue on unbalanced until the game finds some players to balance it. That or some players choose to help balance it.

    The only time I feel there should be auto-balance is during the start of the match. The problem is that there's a glitch which is preventing this from happening properly.

    I'm not failing to consider anything. People drop for various reasons all the time. It would be easy for a match that started out 8v7 to go down to 8v6, at which point a player should be moved to make it 7v7. I'd hazard a guess (I don't play PS4, so I don't know) that the party system increases the odds of multiple players leaving at the same time. Regardless, the teams should be even prior to each round. The game not auto-balancing is forcing one team to play short. It's the game's failure to account for players leaving.
  • aaHollywoodaaHollywood Posts: 372Player
    It's the game's failure to account for players leaving.

    Yes, it is
  • Hey.I.Have.A.GunHey.I.Have.A.Gun Posts: 645Player
    It's the game's failure to account for players leaving.

    Yes, it is

    Do you guys have a solution in mind?

    I would hope that leaving the teams unbalanced, as it seems to now, is off the table.
  • aaHollywoodaaHollywood Posts: 372Player
    Do you guys have a solution in mind?

    I would hope that leaving the teams unbalanced, as it seems to now, is off the table.

    No, it depends on what Kartigan can get done. My preferred solution is to prioritize ongoing games when matchmaking such that teams are filled from the outside. I don't like the idea of moving existing players mid-game.
  • Hey.I.Have.A.GunHey.I.Have.A.Gun Posts: 645Player
    Do you guys have a solution in mind?

    I would hope that leaving the teams unbalanced, as it seems to now, is off the table.

    No, it depends on what Kartigan can get done. My preferred solution is to prioritize ongoing games when matchmaking such that teams are filled from the outside. I don't like the idea of moving existing players mid-game.

    Understandable, but I still think that's a better option than having the teams remain uneven.
Sign In or Register to comment.