Ranked Mode needs changes

[AlaskasJade]

This is good, but I'd also like something like this for ranked:

Player 1 has done something stupid, "noobish" if you will. Say he was a vigilante, and random shot night two.

He is unable to join ranked again, and must play a few games of ranked practice.

So pretty much what the Classic noobs have to do to get into ranked.

[randomguyhavingfun]

This is good, but I'd also like something like this for ranked:

Player 1 has done something stupid, "noobish" if you will. Say he was a vigilante, and random shot night two.

He is unable to join ranked again, and must play a few games of ranked practice.

So pretty much what the Classic noobs have to do to get into ranked.

It can be hard for people to distinguish something noobish. What if the vigilantes random shot was actually based on whispers he has received or sent?

[awesome5000]

This is good, but I'd also like something like this for ranked:

Player 1 has done something stupid, "noobish" if you will. Say he was a vigilante, and random shot night two.

He is unable to join ranked again, and must play a few games of ranked practice.

So pretty much what the Classic noobs have to do to get into ranked.

It can be hard for people to distinguish something noobish. What if the vigilantes random shot was actually based on whispers he has received or sent?

How about:
In Ranked, you can report people for "Bad Play." Then it goes on the Trial system and everything and if there are 3 guilty offenses of this, then they have to go back to Ranked Practice for 30 games.

[HereThereEverywhere]

This is good, but I'd also like something like this for ranked:

Player 1 has done something stupid, "noobish" if you will. Say he was a vigilante, and random shot night two.

He is unable to join ranked again, and must play a few games of ranked practice.

So pretty much what the Classic noobs have to do to get into ranked.

It can be hard for people to distinguish something noobish. What if the vigilantes random shot was actually based on whispers he has received or sent?

How about:
In Ranked, you can report people for "Bad Play." Then it goes on the Trial system and everything and if there are 3 guilty offenses of this, then they have to go back to Ranked Practice for 30 games.

That wont help much.
Might as well make them play the additional 30 games beforehand.

[JamesD28]

This is good, but I'd also like something like this for ranked:

Player 1 has done something stupid, "noobish" if you will. Say he was a vigilante, and random shot night two.

He is unable to join ranked again, and must play a few games of ranked practice.

So pretty much what the Classic noobs have to do to get into ranked.

It can be hard for people to distinguish something noobish. What if the vigilantes random shot was actually based on whispers he has received or sent?

How about:
In Ranked, you can report people for "Bad Play." Then it goes on the Trial system and everything and if there are 3 guilty offenses of this, then they have to go back to Ranked Practice for 30 games.

That wont help much.
Might as well make them play the additional 30 games beforehand.

Really? Only 30?

[awesome5000]

This is good, but I'd also like something like this for ranked:

Player 1 has done something stupid, "noobish" if you will. Say he was a vigilante, and random shot night two.

He is unable to join ranked again, and must play a few games of ranked practice.

So pretty much what the Classic noobs have to do to get into ranked.

It can be hard for people to distinguish something noobish. What if the vigilantes random shot was actually based on whispers he has received or sent?

How about:
In Ranked, you can report people for "Bad Play." Then it goes on the Trial system and everything and if there are 3 guilty offenses of this, then they have to go back to Ranked Practice for 30 games.

That wont help much.
Might as well make them play the additional 30 games beforehand.

Really? Only 30?

Considering BMG made only 10 RP games required for ranked, whatever.
I'd prefer 100 though.

[jUnion44]

I like your idea, but I have a follow-up idea.

Make it so at least 25 games must be played to take attempt one, 5 of which in ranked practice.

Then, if the user fails, make them do only 5 games, but in RANKED PRACTICE mode only to take it again.

Also, I see how people can post the answers on facebook or something and people would be able to cheat on the test, so a moderator-watched ranked practice game would be better.

[HereThereEverywhere]

I like your idea, but I have a follow-up idea.

Make it so at least 25 games must be played to take attempt one, 5 of which in ranked practice.

Then, if the user fails, make them do only 5 games, but in RANKED PRACTICE mode only to take it again.

Also, I see how people can post the answers on facebook or something and people would be able to cheat on the test, so a moderator-watched ranked practice game would be better.

I don't think the mods would have time for that.

[AlaskasJade]

This is good, but I'd also like something like this for ranked:

Player 1 has done something stupid, "noobish" if you will. Say he was a vigilante, and random shot night two.

He is unable to join ranked again, and must play a few games of ranked practice.

So pretty much what the Classic noobs have to do to get into ranked.

It can be hard for people to distinguish something noobish. What if the vigilantes random shot was actually based on whispers he has received or sent?

How about:
In Ranked, you can report people for "Bad Play." Then it goes on the Trial system and everything and if there are 3 guilty offenses of this, then they have to go back to Ranked Practice for 30 games.

Agreed.

[alex1234321]

I like your idea, but I have a follow-up idea.

Make it so at least 25 games must be played to take attempt one, 5 of which in ranked practice.

Then, if the user fails, make them do only 5 games, but in RANKED PRACTICE mode only to take it again.

Also, I see how people can post the answers on facebook or something and people would be able to cheat on the test, so a moderator-watched ranked practice game would be better.

Then the order of the questions and answers should be randomized. That way, the only way to cheat would be to read the actual answers, thus learning the information.

[HereThereEverywhere]

I like your idea, but I have a follow-up idea.

Make it so at least 25 games must be played to take attempt one, 5 of which in ranked practice.

Then, if the user fails, make them do only 5 games, but in RANKED PRACTICE mode only to take it again.

Also, I see how people can post the answers on facebook or something and people would be able to cheat on the test, so a moderator-watched ranked practice game would be better.

Then the order of the questions and answers should be randomized. That way, the only way to cheat would be to read the actual answers, thus learning the information.

Yeah, the questions should be in a random order, and maybe you wont get all of the questions, but a randomized selection of them.
As for that last part, to quote an "Expert"(That's me calling Kirize an expert, because if not then he's the closest thing we got to one)

Even if you look up the answers, you still gain the information.

[TheMajesticSammie]

I like your idea, but I have a follow-up idea.

Make it so at least 25 games must be played to take attempt one, 5 of which in ranked practice.

Then, if the user fails, make them do only 5 games, but in RANKED PRACTICE mode only to take it again.

Also, I see how people can post the answers on facebook or something and people would be able to cheat on the test, so a moderator-watched ranked practice game would be better.

Then the order of the questions and answers should be randomized. That way, the only way to cheat would be to read the actual answers, thus learning the information.

Yeah, the questions should be in a random order, and maybe you wont get all of the questions, but a randomized selection of them.
As for that last part, to quote an "Expert"(That's me calling Kirize an expert, because if not then he's the closest thing we got to one)

Even if you look up the answers, you still gain the information.

I'm pretty sure I already covered this in the original post, but... whatever floats your boat

[HereThereEverywhere]

I like your idea, but I have a follow-up idea.

Make it so at least 25 games must be played to take attempt one, 5 of which in ranked practice.

Then, if the user fails, make them do only 5 games, but in RANKED PRACTICE mode only to take it again.

Also, I see how people can post the answers on facebook or something and people would be able to cheat on the test, so a moderator-watched ranked practice game would be better.

Then the order of the questions and answers should be randomized. That way, the only way to cheat would be to read the actual answers, thus learning the information.

Yeah, the questions should be in a random order, and maybe you wont get all of the questions, but a randomized selection of them.
As for that last part, to quote an "Expert"(That's me calling Kirize an expert, because if not then he's the closest thing we got to one)

Even if you look up the answers, you still gain the information.

I'm pretty sure I already covered this in the original post, but... whatever floats your boat

Pffff, who even reads the OP more than once, if they even read it.
Sheesh, your expectations of us are way too high.

[sylwia212]

/support

I gave up on playing ranked. I am not getting what I wanted out of it. It's no better than Ranked Practice, but I don't have to wait to start the play. I would absolutely love for Ranked to be fixed so I could enjoy it.

[AlexKathanial]

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.

[HereThereEverywhere]

Spoiler:

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.

[AlexKathanial]

Spoiler:

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.

[HereThereEverywhere]

Spoiler:

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.

[AlexKathanial]

Spoiler:

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.

[HereThereEverywhere]

Spoiler:

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.

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]

Spoiler:

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.

Perhaps if this were ever added there could be a suggestion thread for questions to add, and the Developers would have the final say.

How often do the developers actually implement suggestions?

[xUltiix]

Spoiler:

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.

Perhaps if this were ever added there could be a suggestion thread for questions to add, and the Developers would have the final say.

How often do the developers actually implement suggestions?

When it brings them more money

[AlexKathanial]

Spoiler:

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.

Perhaps if this were ever added there could be a suggestion thread for questions to add, and the Developers would have the final say.

How often do the developers actually implement suggestions?

When it brings them more money

Ooh...well considering this game is mainly free...
Yikes D :

[HereThereEverywhere]

Spoiler:

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.

Perhaps if this were ever added there could be a suggestion thread for questions to add, and the Developers would have the final say.

How often do the developers actually implement suggestions?

When it brings them more money

Ooh...well considering this game is mainly free...
Yikes D :

I wouldn't say it like that.
They're a company, and one recent change, Merit Points, shows that they do what most other companies do, make a profit. Just because they need to make a living that doesn't mean they don't care about the game. All they did was make it so that getting cosmetic items is harder.
Though, I don't know how often they actually implement suggestions.

[AlexKathanial]

I wouldn't say it like that.
They're a company, and one recent change, Merit Points, shows that they do what most other companies do, make a profit. Just because they need to make a living that doesn't mean they don't care about the game. All they did was make it so that getting cosmetic items is harder.
Though, I don't know how often they actually implement suggestions.

I agree with you.

I totally understand making profit is needed for an online game. As a teacher, I know how valueable money is. And I can guarentee you that online video game servers have to cost thousands and thousands of dollars to maintain. And that's only considering the servers. That's not saying anything about errors or server clutter...

I feel bad for game developers that want to make an online game all the time because I don't think most young folks know just how much it can cost...I make a little over 20k a year. That's NOTHING to something like this.

I actually sorta hope they do end up making their own app. The App Store would surely feature it considering its popularity, and that would be an instant source of sudden income.