Not sure if this is the right forum for this, but anyways...
I would like to voice my opinions about the new match creation process whereby players names are hidden.
I have several issues with this system which I will explain in detail, and also explain my reasons for why the change is detrimental to gaming.
Obviously, there are good motives behind the decision. Players have begun to screen their games in terms of player ability, either choosing only to play against new players, and choosing to avoid the best players, in order to keep their chances of winning in the good to very good region. Whilst I disagree with the motives behind this bout of team-stacking (TS), the method of tackling this issue I believe has taken the wrong path.
One of the issue with name hiding is in the basic setting up and creation of games. Many players, myself included, like to use Ventrilo in the setting up of a game to make sure that every player has, for example, the latest version of a map before launch, or actually has Ventrilo, as playing and setting up a game without it is very difficult. Obviously, you can't see who to look for in Vent without names being visible.
Another issue is connectivity. I tried to play a game with Kotszak this morning, and in both games we launched with a player on the opposing team who has known connection issues to Kotszak. If we could see the names, we wouldn't have wasted 15-20 mins launching for a game that was never going to get played. Time wasted in setting up games is a big grievance of mine, as I don't get much time to play anyway, and this new system has compounded this somewhat.
Furthermore, I like to know which players I am coming up against from an early point, so I can consider the best methods to use against them, and also which company would be best suited to playing against their particular style of gameplay. I know many people don't configure their companies for a particular style of opponent, but that is how I have chosen to arrange my three companies. If this name blocking method is used in future, I will simply make copy companies in future. Variation may be the spice of life, but I'd rather have three average companies that are no fun to play with than take and army of Rangers and AT guns against Stormtroopers or KCH, or MGs and Mortars against a known Tiger player [I'm looking at you High velocity
].
And lastly for now, is the lack of community element. I mean, heck, if we are just starting a game against a list of blank names, where is the rivalry? Where is the chased vendetta? Where is the friendly jousting over that "You won't beat me this time Apex!" element? I like to play against people I know are fun to play against, even if they're better than me. I can't get good by noob bashing, only by playing against and beating the best of the best. If that means 14 straight defeats to Apex, Thbt and High Velocity, so be it. I may whine about losing all the time, but I will keep playing until I succeed and immortalise myself as the player that destroyed a Level 3 Tiger with a lone M10.
Now that all said, I cannot just sit here and complain about a solution to a problem, without suggesting an alternative. So here we go...
The solution thus far has been a prohibitive one. Prevent players from TS, enforce team balance in games, etc. My suggestion however is this. Rather than try to enforce something that is causing a problem, try to reward the opposite. Is it possible we can find a way to reward players for defeating or being defeated by better opponents?
I hate to use World of Warcraft as an example, but if you take on something that is more powerful than you, you get more experience, in this case however, you should be awarded something for trying also, even if you lose.
For example. For every game against a player with a Win/Loss ratio of 60% or higher, you gain 1 CP and 1 RB for trying, 2 CP and 2 RB for defeating, all in addition to the standard earnings from a game. I may not have thought through the numbers, ok, but it's a method that would encourage gaming against the better players. I would play them all the time if this were the case, I'd get to that T4 skill so much faster.
Or maybe an Experience bonus. You get +5xp per unit for losing to a player in the top 20, +10xp for defeating a player in top 20. Its just a suggestion, but I write this to provoke a discussion, so that perhaps we can find a better way of preventing TS against new players, or players with less skill, than using prohibitive measures. No-body likes policing, everybody like free sweets.
Your thoughts...?
Poll
