Uneven multiplayer teams
Has anyone else had a problem with lopsided multiplayer matches? I understand that sometimes a group just keeps on winning, and fair play....but do they not reorganize when one team is just ABSOLUTEL...
Forum Discussion
The worst part is that i have been through this. GW2 also had a rough start, from which it actually never really recovered. Back when it released i had the feeling that the game is awful but i still kept going to see how it develops. Maybe maybe maybe. But the more i played the more i just learned what i have to avoid. Always thinking that maybe GW3 will bring the needed fixes.
Knowing that some things in GW2 addressed issues that the original GW still has. And now look at where we are. But in this game i can't even flick shot a Weed. And sometimes my projectile even just passes through.
I find it actually depressing that i had a better shooter experience in GW2 than this one here. And in GW2 walls can shoot at me.
@Screion wrote:The worst part is that i have been through this. GW2 also had a rough start, from which it actually never really recovered. Back when it released i had the feeling that the game is awful but i still kept going to see how it develops. Maybe maybe maybe. But the more i played the more i just learned what i have to avoid. Always thinking that maybe GW3 will bring the needed fixes.
Knowing that some things in GW2 addressed issues that the original GW still has. And now look at where we are. But in this game i can't even flick shot a Weed. And sometimes my projectile even just passes through.
I find it actually depressing that i had a better shooter experience in GW2 than this one here. And in GW2 walls can shoot at me.
I wish I could upvote this more than once. GW2's launch was riddled with problems and I've stated that before on the forums as well, mentioned the fact that the population fell off and never fully recovered. I also brought this up in an older post on this exact forums, yet BfN, while it has massive potential, has core problems that are making PvP in particular an unpleasant experience.
I said it before and it bears repeating, the game should have been held back and tested more before even Founders was released. Based on current issues, at least another 3 months and probably longer. If people that hung on for the previous games to get fixed leave this one, it's in big trouble and that's a true shame.
GW2 never did get all it's problems fixed, and the PC hacker problem grew to be very bad indeed, but it was a great game after they fixed all the most glaring issues barring the hacking. One thing they've fixed here as far as I can tell is dealing with the hackers, but there are so many other problems. This all should have been nailed down before anything else. I'd rather have no customizations at launch at all, but have a better core game and have them added later. There is fun to be had in BfN and there's a lot of love in some of the details but until the most important parts of the game, mainly shooting, moving, aiming, and having balanced PvP matches are all in better shape that fun can be difficult to find.
I've noticed myself that just about every 8v8 I've been in for the last couple of days one team almost always wound up having at least two players more than the other, which would indicate that someone swapped teams, In the worst example it was the weekly challenge of Collision Course where a full team of 8 Zombies severely punished a team of 2 Plants- that imbalance evened out as an influx of new players joined but the fact that team swapping allowed it to happen is a flaw which causes a high level of frustration and discouragement for the side which winds up with fewer players.
GW2 of course had that same problem and I remember many of us suggesting that team swapping be disabled if the team you are trying to swap to already has an equal or greater number of players. It seems to be the obvious solution- to only allow people to move to a team which has fewer players then your own and not to one which was already given a player advantage by the automated team assignment when the round starts- and I can't imagine that would be super difficult to code. Might the trade off for such a restriction be people quitting and seeking a new lobby? Maybe, maybe not if the effort of doing it possibly repeatedly until you randomly wind up on your preferred team causes enough of a delay in your ability to actually play.
After doing my daily challenges this morning I tried to hop into a game of Turf takeover to earn enough XP to get another prize Bulb before quitting to go to work and I wound up, after a longish wait, in a lobby with one other Zombie player and nobody on the Plant team. It seemed odd that the game would randomly assign the two of us to the same team and I like to image that there were probably at least a couple of games already in progress to which I wasn't added because the team sizes are smaller than they were last week because I've never encountered a lobby this empty at my normal playing time previously. Yes, I had been in lobbies which were only about half full but they always filled up to the full 12v12 (or close to it) pretty rapidly once play started.
My general policy is to never buy an EA published game at launch because those titles almost always feature bugs, balance issues and server problems for the first couple of months but I made an exception to that rule because this was a PvZ game.
I don't even see the reason switch teams is in this game. It didn't work for the first two, it's not working for this one either. Just take it out and if you want to be a certain team do the Overwatch system and que up for a zombies or plants role. This has absolutely ruined the game for me, I literally watched the top guy from my loosing team switch to the other team and steamroll us even harder than before. It's not fun.
