[Suggestion] Rank 2 Competitive.

(Adam) #1

K, I am going to say it. Maybe it’s just me, but getting to level 5 took 1 hour…

When I got to level 5, I knew jack.

Level 5 is too low to be on a server ment to build the BEST team. So what’s my suggestion?
Boost the level for Competitive? No…

This would cause an issue where Competitive would be even harder to get into, and kill the whole thing.

We need Rank 2 Competitive.

Starting at level 10, you can join.
Also, the stupid “first, destroy random wall built on what appears to be a main road.” “then plant c4 on what we call a “carrage” even though it looks like a cut in half tuppa wear.” “Finally, call you mom, and say your sorry for failing her.”

We are level 10… We know what to do… It’s like telling a man who is 97 to be home by 6.

But realy… competitive is just pubs for level 5 players… We need a second layer for players who put the work into the game.

(XavienX) #2

Or maybe just increase competitive requirement to like level 7 or 10 simply for any competitive matches.

(watsyurdeal) #3

The level requirement should be 10, imo

(Backuplight) #4

Don’t agree that a second system is really necessary or a good idea. This would just devolve into having some watered down competitive mode before what would inevitably be considered actual comp. I think the bigger issue is just not enough people actually playing in comp, so matchmaking isn’t able to pair up appropriate teams. Not exactly an easy thing to fix, since half of the issue is having an adequate player pool to pull from.

(libidoknievel) #5

That and the huge influx of new players from open beta means the system is doing the best it can

(Ctrix) #6

Competitive is pug. That’s why there’s a matchmaking. That’s why LoL and related have solo queue and 5v5 team queues.

(Ghosthree3) #7

This is all that needs to be done.

(CCP115) #8

This is all that needs to be done.[/quote]

Hmm, 10 seems a bit high. I would go 8 at lowest, with 5 being way too low, and 10 being a while. I only just got to 10 and I have been playing since closed beta (true I don’t rack up a lot of time). Competitive is bad enough as it is, so I feel as though level 8 would be nice.

(Jurmabones) #9

This is all that needs to be done.[/quote]
Agreed.

(Adam) #10

This is all that needs to be done.[/quote]

Hmm, 10 seems a bit high. I would go 8 at lowest, with 5 being way too low, and 10 being a while. I only just got to 10 and I have been playing since closed beta (true I don’t rack up a lot of time). Competitive is bad enough as it is, so I feel as though level 8 would be nice.[/quote]

Close beta whiped every week… How does that matter?

Also, exactly. Level 8 is maybe a week of playing. Level 10 though is like a good 3 or 4 weeks of play.

(Gi.Am) #11

There are several problems, XP hacks and more important double XP weekends also the overall XP gains have been increased since the beginning of the game. Because of this leveling is now easier than it used to be, warping the correlation between knowledge/skill and level.
That corelation is weak to begin with someone who is utterly clueless of basic gamemechanics can still rank up fairly fast by simply maintaining very good K/Ds (general good FPS proficiency). Likewise someone very knowledgable about gamemodes, merc abilities etc… when otherwise a bad shoot might level relatively slow beyond a certain point.

Because of that I once suggested a different method of gating competive play. Instead of using the XP level.

My idea was/is to have one time only missions, that after completed unlock competive mode.

Play X Spotwatch matches - This would ensure people have a understanding of the gamemode.
Achieve X amount of Game/Combat/Support XP - This ensures everyone has spend some time doing objectives/fighting/supporting before they enter competive.

THe X should be relative high (compared to regular missions).

So 4 missions in total, upon completition you get a nice credit bonus (to promote doing the missions) and after all 4 missions are done you are allowed to play competive.

(Ghosthree3) #12

If you wanted to put a threshold for stopwatch games played before playing competitive I’d make it something like 15 games or 3 on each map.

(Black_Bob) #13

The major problem here is new level 5 players solo queuing, its fine to take friends who are already part of a team into this game if they are used to competitive games the experienced dirty bomb players can just lead them through the game and its not so bad.

But the solo level 5 player with no guidance really is a liability, when I turned level 5 I started to play comp games and stopped playing objective mode I was lost and still making very serious error until level 6/7 ish, but I am a fan of the school of tough knocks and that’s how I play sorry to the poor folks I played with whilst I was learning!

But I then brought around 10 other people to this game who all started comp at level 5 and they took to it like a in water. With some guidance and voice coms this game is very similar to plenty of other games and the barriers are not as vast as some people make out.

Part of a team level 5 is fine, someone learning on their own level 6/7 by then you have at least played all the maps. Higher than 7th and it may put some comp teams off having to grind pub games before really getting to play the game they want to play.

TL:DR

If splash damage could implement a system that allows you to solo que from 7th level, but still allowed you to que at level 5 if you are part of a group I would be all for it (make forming a lobby for friends a level 6/7 feature)

(Adam) #14

I like the idea of 15 on each map, on each mode. OH! AND THEY HAVE TO BE WINS! YES! :smiley:

[quote=“Black_Bob;66799”]The major problem here is new level 5 players solo queuing, its fine to take friends who are already part of a team into this game if they are used to competitive games the experienced dirty bomb players can just lead them through the game and its not so bad.

But the solo level 5 player with no guidance really is a liability, when I turned level 5 I started to play comp games and stopped playing objective mode I was lost and still making very serious error until level 6/7 ish, but I am a fan of the school of tough knocks and that’s how I play sorry to the poor folks I played with whilst I was learning!

But I then brought around 10 other people to this game who all started comp at level 5 and they took to it like a in water. With some guidance and voice coms this game is very similar to plenty of other games and the barriers are not as vast as some people make out.

Part of a team level 5 is fine, someone learning on their own level 6/7 by then you have at least played all the maps. Higher than 7th and it may put some comp teams off having to grind pub games before really getting to play the game they want to play.

TL:DR

If splash damage could implement a system that allows you to solo que from 7th level, but still allowed you to que at level 5 if you are part of a group I would be all for it (make forming a lobby for friends a level 6/7 feature)[/quote]

I don’t even think that. Sure, maybe they could be an exception if you’re level 5, and have a team… But I still think, if like this, level 10 should be able to solo. Again, level 10 is a good 3-4 weeks of playing.

(Ctrix) #15

Give them 500 Credits for each 3 wins on the different maps and they’ll even enjoy it.
“Progression system”

Alternatively they can pay 1000 credits to skip it,
And they don’t get the competitive quests until they unlock competitive.

(prettyStake) #16

i remember when open beta started and the whiners whined lvl 7 is too much to be let in competitive boo hoo hoo. So they changed it to 5 : / If only they would stop listening so much to people and make their game

(Badger_Commander) #17

The main problem (of which this is a symptom) is that people don’t know how to play the game, which has to be at least partially because the game tells you very little in that regard. There’s a tutorial which a lot of people likely skip and there’s the announcer, both of which are quite broad even if you listen them.

These days telling people how to play the game is considered ‘handholding’ and accessibility is absurdly seen as a bad thing. Those that are willing to jump in at the deep end and learn the hard way have trouble accepting that there is another way. “If I can do it, so can everyone else” - yeah because everyone is the same right?

At least it’s better than Brink in this regard :slight_smile:

(Adam) #18

Exactly. Take Phantom for example. He was fine in Closed Beta 2.
This was before he got a freaking SMG, before his cloak took damage, back when to uncloak him took 1 shot, back when he was perfectly fine, but no, he was just too OP for the 12 year olds.

[quote=“Badger_Commander;71572”]The main problem (of which this is a symptom) is that people don’t know how to play the game, which has to be at least partially because the game tells you very little in that regard. There’s a tutorial which a lot of people likely skip and there’s the announcer, both of which are quite broad even if you listen them.

These days telling people how to play the game is considered ‘handholding’ and accessibility is absurdly seen as a bad thing. Those that are willing to jump in at the deep end and learn the hard way have trouble accepting that there is another way. “If I can do it, so can everyone else” - yeah because everyone is the same right?

At least it’s better than Brink in this regard :)[/quote]

I actaully agree. It’s the same with team maits. Me: “Bro, I’m proxie, I am repairing.” No reply “Bro, fuck off, and defend me.” dies.

Guy is spamming his gun into an open area, where he could help the team out EASILY, but instead want’s to chase after the 1 Kira who is running away. “Bro, repair that EV, it’s 99% repaired.” No reply…

I see where people not wanting to listen is an issue. What we need, is a non-team player flag, and if SD approves of it, would join a game with people just as dumb as them.

(CCP115) #19

[quote=“Badger_Commander;71572”]
These days telling people how to play the game is considered ‘handholding’ and accessibility is absurdly seen as a bad thing. Those that are willing to jump in at the deep end and learn the hard way have trouble accepting that there is another way. “If I can do it, so can everyone else” - yeah because everyone is the same right?

At least it’s better than Brink in this regard :)[/quote]

Accessibility seen as a bad thing?

Hearthstone and league of Legends are prime anti examples of that statement. Hearthstone made the TCG genre accessible and “fun” for new players, and as such has attracted a lot of new players. League of legends is still complicated, but definitely a lot more streamlined than say DOTA 2, and as such, the playerbase for LoL is much larger. It’s also a lot more casual, from my knowledge the League tournaments are far smaller than DOTA tournaments.

(Ghosthree3) #20

Hearthstone is fucking dreadful for new players though. You either have to be extremely dedicated or drop a load of cash to do well/have fun in that game now.