6 replies to this topic

[Derantol]

What do you think about having the option of a "best two out of three" match? Obviously that wouldn't be the regular style, but having the option there at the end of the first game could be pretty cool. You'd need to have unanimous support for it, so that no one is dragged into a game they don't want to play. But if two teams are pretty closely matched in skill, having the option to play for longer (possibly for bigger reward) could be a very positive thing.

[IanD967]

I like the idea if all people agree to it.
Similar to L4D2's? where at the end of the game you can agree to play a new game with the same people.

[Derantol]

Yeah, something like that. It gives the losing team a chance to adjust strategy and put something together that could defeat the other team. I suppose it would make sense to also give the option to simply play with the same team again, even if it were against a different set of people. Well, it could make sense - but there could be ramifications I'm not thinking about.

[Astro]

Sounds really cool but the only people that would do it are probably clan battles or perhaps tournaments if the game gets enough support etc.

[Thanatological]

Im going too say no.

One, you either choose pregame, in which case you might end up with a bad or uneven skill of the two teams or even balance. Either way this will cause players too leave games a lot more and even outright quit the game if they get punished for not wanting too play another losing game.

Second if its done after game, you have tons of people who don't have time or feel like another game will be very common. Thats also not to mention any other issues that might make discourage someone from playing two games back to back.

Third, no system could be implemented that would not either punish a player one way or another without doing pre-made groups which will always lead too a either one side winning an overwhelming on one side, or the second game just turning into a rather uneventful game..and people getting bored of it.

So, again no, its not worth it, we could have better things added, and we could not a address the issues that would come with it.

[Sayan]

It could work but there would have to be an unanimous vote by both your team and the opposing team if they still want to go ahead with this rematch mode per se.

On the other hand we could always just have premades in match making.

[Derantol]

Thanatological, on 06 March 2012 - 04:26 PM, said:

Im going too say no.

One, you either choose pregame, in which case you might end up with a bad or uneven skill of the two teams or even balance. Either way this will cause players too leave games a lot more and even outright quit the game if they get punished for not wanting too play another losing game.

Second if its done after game, you have tons of people who don't have time or feel like another game will be very common. Thats also not to mention any other issues that might make discourage someone from playing two games back to back.

Third, no system could be implemented that would not either punish a player one way or another without doing pre-made groups which will always lead too a either one side winning an overwhelming on one side, or the second game just turning into a rather uneventful game..and people getting bored of it.

So, again no, its not worth it, we could have better things added, and we could not a address the issues that would come with it.

Well, to address the concerns:

1) I did mention that you would decide after the game. Nobody wants to play a second losing game; the option would be presented to those who think that, given another chance, they could turn it around.

2) There definitely are tons of people who don't have enough time. That's why it would require a unanimous vote - both sides, not just one. If you don't want to play with the same group again, you don't have to. And when it actually happens, it's probably because the first game was the type of game that you would tell other people about because of how close it was. When I play a close game, even if I lose, I always get really pumped throughout the game. In LoL, for instance, you have the base-race. That could go either way, and it's quite possible that the players would like to try it again.

3) There is no way to implement a system that makes playing with randoms better than playing with a group, that's true. You can implement systems so that you aren't punished for it, though; in LoL, a group of five never plays against anything but another group of five, or so I'm told. Regardless, I'm not sure how that is relevant to the discussion at hand.

I recognize that it's potentially an unnecessary addition, but I can't imagine it would terribly hard to implement; there would just be an extra option at the end-game screen. If every player actively selects the "Play with same group" option, the program would simply return to the beginning of the "Play game" process. Any stats to be collected could simply be compiled from the stats they would run on regular games. Any other issues that would come up would be very similar to the other issues with the game - some of it would emerge during the beta, and other parts would emerge later and slowly. If the community were to be suffering from such an addition, then you could remove it. I just don't think that you can predict something like that, nor do I think the addition of a "best two out of three" button would impact the community in a negative manner.

Sorry for the wall of text.