AlexKathanial wrote:HereThereEverywhere wrote: Spoiler:Perhaps if this were ever added there could be a suggestion thread for questions to add, and the Developers would have the final say.AlexKathanial wrote:HereThereEverywhere wrote:AlexKathanial wrote:HereThereEverywhere wrote:AlexKathanial wrote:I like the idea of giving a test.
But I don't think it's going to help all that much.
In my opinion, I don't believe people going into Ranked are inexperienced.
They are simply trolls/gamethrowers. That's the annoying part.
If there is a troll/gamethrower, they are going to pass the quiz easily and still make Ranked a bad experience just because they can.
People who play ranked right now are definitely not new.
They are players who are experienced, but may be trying some clever strategy of acting new or again, just being a bad player on purpose.
Personally I find it extremely hard to believe that players who willingly enter ranked after playing 50 games still have no clue about the game's mechanics. It's absurd.
It may work on a very few amount of people who actually haven't payed attention, and managed to work their way up to that position. But that's not going to solve the main problem of gamethrowers/trolls attacking ranked.
Also, I don't agree with the types of questions asked. There are extremely varying degrees of scenarios that can happen in this game.
Being judged to enter a ranked mode based on the most logical questions of gameplay scenarios, despite the fact that any of them could actually end up happenening, is counter intuitive.
Any of those scenarios could happen. Therefore, it would not be right to judge someone's skills and entrance to competitive gameplay based on the "correct" assumption. Every player thinks differently. There is no "correct" way to assume something when the realm of possibility is wide open.
If players want to play competitively, they should be free to do so. And not get forced to take a test based off of logical responses to gameplay. As far as I'm aware of, no other online video games do this.
The only real "test" I could imagine giving was something about role interactions and basic slot spawning. Nothing further. Strategy is up to the players in-game.
But in reality, I think increasing the limit of needed games to 100/125 is the only real thing we can do. It requires a bit more effort, will pretty much not let someone new join, and slightly deters trolls/gamethrowers because if they get banned, they have to play 100/125 more games to troll ranked, which is a much bigger hassle now.
Questions like "What does it mean when a Veteran dies to a Veteran" are the kinds of question I think should be asked. There's only one correct answer, a Disguiser visited the Veteran while the Veteran alerted. It's the same as a Vampire dying to a Vampire, the dead one is actually a Disguiser. Actual gameplay questions about strategies and such I'm more against. I think the number of games should be increased as well, but the test should be there as well. With things like this in mind, I think the punishments for clear gamethrowing and cheating could be harsher, because you know what you'd be getting into. Completely losing that account along with a test and a higher number of games could help deter more trolls and gamethrowers. BMG already tries to make sure the players going into Ranked have some knowledge already, it's just not enough sometimes. The number of games isn't all that hard to achieve, especially if you do want to play competitive.
Yeah see. That actually makes sense.
It could also be used to keep devoted players updated with the newest tweaks and fixes to the roles.
I would be fine with a test as long as it's not a test that involves "correctly" assuming something.
Yeah, Sammie did say those were example questions though.
I know. I saw that part popping off the screen in bold red.
But they still want questions similar to those. Which they shouldn't be.
How often do the developers actually implement suggestions?
When it brings them more money