How about a “Long Queue” Bonus?
My idea is this: after 2 minutes of searching for a match, your bloodpoints at the top of the screen tick up by 2 per second until you find a lobby. Same thing if you’re in a lobby that needs more players.
This is no game-breaking amount, but helps to alleviate the tedious wait a bit. Also, it might give you juuust enough to get that one last bloodweb node before a match!
Comments
-
imo this should rather be a multiplier for points earned that match once you get it. else i see people abusing it to get passive BP by messing with their internet connection to block connection to the server but allowing you to be logged in. that might cause more trouble than it is worth
2 -
Fair concern, but I don’t think it’d be a problem. After waiting the first 2 minutes, it would take you 1,000 seconds to earn 2,000 bloodpoints. This works out to nearly 17 minutes, and not even enough to buy a brown node in the bloodweb.
They would have to be realllly intent on exploiting this to get any real benefit.
1 -
So you would gain more BP by playing the role that's already saturated? Seems counterproductive.
You could just switch to the role in need, get a flat BP bonus and help ease queue times for everyone.
5 -
Hmmm, good point. However this also helps people who can’t find many players at their MMR.
Regardless, it’s not any great amount of bloodpoints - 25 minutes get 3,000 points for a brown node. This is more psychological than anything. When you see the number tick up second by second, it makes the wait seem a little more worth it.
0 -
what i was thinking they'd do is like:
- they play the game normally to get points
- they use their program to exploit the system as soon as they are done playing (going to work, sleeping, doing something else)
so i d rather have an active approach rather than a passive one just in case there is an oversight.
If the system works without any flaws and you cant exploit it (really bad track record of BHVR so i doubt) I d be fine with that as well
0 -
Even so, if there's a psychological incentive for sticking with a long queue, that goes against the purpose for the role incentive bonus, to even out queues.
1 -
Question is "why aren't the queues more balanced in participants?"
Perhaps if this was properly addressed in ways that could benefit the game's health then "incentives" wouldn't be necessary.
Preaching to the choir, I know. But the idea of rewarding people for easing a bloat problem caused by a collective understanding of the players feels like a bandaid solution for a massive gorge of an issue.
1 -
What's this 'collective understanding'?
Peak times are survivor saturated because that's when people are more likely to play with friends. Off-peak is killer saturated for the exact opposite reason. That's it. Everything else is circumstantial and/or personal opinion.
I'm assuming you're inferring something like "everyone knows the game is survivor sided so no one wants to play killer", or "solo survivor is unplayable so everyone just plays killer". But the fact that I couldn't say for certain which one you're inferring, just goes to show that this isn't some overarching 'collective understanding' that is responsible for a disparity in queue times. And indeed there are countless players like myself who still play an even amount of killer and solo survivor.
I play according to the dailies and challenges I have, to get the most BP out of my games, but if the role incentive does the same thing, then I'd be more inclined to factor that first and work my challenges around that.
Post edited by Seraphor on1 -
I hope matchmaking incentives will work killer queues are way too long during daytime and that's when I play generally, it gets better at peak hours but I think main issue is BP gain, they need to buff score events a bit for survivors farming BP is just way better for one side
0 -
"It's the go to statement of whiny players that want to claim the game is dying, because they aren't winning every match." How wonderful of you to lump me into a group of players without even knowing my experience, only going off of a statement. I know I'm not good, and that's that for me. Back when ranks were the "skill equivalent" (despite it not being very accurate) I never got past rank 10 and I didn't care. That's as good as I would be because I played the game as a game, not to show off my skills and how great of a player I was because it's just a game. So saying that someone is "being a whiny player who doesn't win" is just a childish insult that doesn't add anything to the discussion.
The collective understanding was meant more for what both sides have as a stigma. A good chunk of survivors don't want to face the same 3 killers or end up with a camper/tunneler so they either don't play or wait to play with their buddies and be a swf group. A good chunk of killers don't want to face a 3/4 swf group. The two points you mentioned could also be thrown in, even if they're not too strong of an argument. People always say that the game is survivor-sided and that solo-q is insufferable. If gameplay was more "balanced" (in whatever way that would be) then this argument wouldn't mean anything, but that's gonna be hard to do since it seems that no one knows how to do this since it'd have been done already. Solo-q being terrible is just something that will happen because of the lack on in-game communication. Being on a team of 4 while also being cut off from talking and planning with the other members of the team is gonna suck and leaves you to just fending for yourself. Not to mention the hacking/cheating issues. No one wants to face a cheater who makes the game unplayable (it's hard to say which side has more cheaters but it's an issue regardless).
But even with all this, looking back on the statement makes it seem that it made no sense due to me not explaining what I meant. Probably adding onto that would be if my reasons for this statement don't help my argument, but that'd be for you to decide.
0 -
I think my main point is that, regardless of all of these circumstantial reasons people have for refusing to play one side or the other, there's enough people with seemingly justifiable yet conflicting reasons out there that it pretty much balances out, and therefore doesn't constitute a significant issue towards inflated queue times.
The game will never be balanced, its an asymmetrical elimination game, imbalance is hardbaked into the design. But regardless, the game is imbalanced in both directions. The game teeters on a knife edge with entirely incompatible opposing sides, and what affects one side slightly might affect the other significantly and vice versa. The result is that any given game can go any number of ways due to any number of factors, basically pure chaos, and the lack of hard balance checks gives anyone with misgivings the justification to claim it's unfair. The game is ridiculously survivor sided, but it's also ridiculously killer sided, and both are seemingly true at the same time.
0
