Devil's Advocate: Havoc de-ranking is necessary

If everyone’s Havoc continuously increased without any threat of de-rank, then newer players who are starting to get into Havoc would have a large barrier of entry. Even inexperienced players would be in the higher brackets (more then there already are), way above a newer players pay grade.

If people didn’t get demoted there would also be a a larger influx of leavers. Considering that if someone leaves, the remaining 3 will likely wipe. Besides that lock out timer there’s no reason for somebody to stick it out and push for a win if there’s no threat of demote.

5 Likes

When you say deranking, do you refer to the havoc assignment rank or the rank displayed next to the player’s name?

Forgive me but I’m not entirely sure after reading.

1 Like

Demoting a rank after 3 losses

i’d go even further and abolish level 40 parachute

1 Like

Deranking sucks, not having deranking sucks, so ranking is the problem in the first place. Let’s get rid of ranking and just let people play havoc 40s whenever they damn please. If they can’t handle the heat then they should stay out of the kitchen.

14 Likes

But the wipe won’t matter because you won’t be demoted so you can just keep playing at the level of challenge you want.

Stockholm syndrome I suspect? Give us the freedom to play the difficulty we want whenever we want.

9 Likes

Because the de-rank system is super toxic af & super annoying for everybody (experienced sweat-lords alike). But besides that, you don’t need to gate in this particular way. Shtty players will get carried or leave regardless of the de-rank, right. I’ve seen plenty of those in higher Havoc’s. Somebody mentioned to have a lock-out timer, instead when they leave prematurely, apart from obvious disconnects beyond their control, crashes & stuff like that. Not just for Havoc, but every level of difficulty. The time increases incrementally, the more they ALT-F4 or willingly leave the game if downed or dead out of spite the time increases before they can find another match. Which I think is actually very clever & quite reasonable, & at the same time, not too punishing for them. It will at least make them think twice before leaving. If we are to keep the de-rank system in place, at the very least, let’s not have FS de-rank our Havoc levels artificially anymore once we reach 40. This is literally pointless in my mind. Also, why not just let us play at any level, it just makes sense. I get what you’re saying in theory, but in practice it doesn’t work like that honestly.

9 Likes

You should have to get a perfect score to stay at level 40. Make people rank up and down all the time. more interesting

I said it in another thread and I’ll say it again

Even weaves did quickplay better by allowing you to pick difficulty

I think a better take is to allow people to choose any difficulty, but still force the Party Finder to be a requirement because I don’t want everyone hopping on a 40 and ruining games like noobs used to in Auric

3 Likes

I think there needs to be a “build” lock in place so once you lock it in for the week, you cant change it. This will help people actually do min/max builds because no ones going to be able to swap to a min/max build and then quick swap to a troll build once the game begins and trick players into thinking you’re using a meta build.

the problem is once I hit 40, when im trying to help friends, or newbs or whatever… i dont care too much if we lose because it doesnt affect me at rank 40. There are rank 40’s like me who go into games to test builds and it’s not fair to the guys trying to rank up and take it serious, meanwhile you got an assail psycher trying out this theorycraft he had in his dream.

Make rank 40 losable

Make spec/talents/build weekly locked with the only flex being your curios.

1 Like

Interesting topic, but rank increase/decrease is much more interesting. And if after the start of the season all interested parties try to take 40th in the first week (and I really tried), then taking 40th I just play, and not often try to win in the match, and it would seem that this should be punished, but there are a couple of buts.
We played on Saturday, everything was perfect, just random 4 players who do their tasks perfectly, but at the end 2014 happens and when you press “reconnect” the game crashes, I don’t know if the others flew out or not, but when I came in alive there was only the zealot, we lost in one word (BoN + DH + Captain did not let us live). Losing for mistakes is not as offensive as losing for something you do not control, and this would have removed the attempt, which would have been even more offensive if I did not have 40th. And how many times were there crashes for everyone or 2+ players due to the fault of the game itself, and you lose.
In a good way, you can do it like this.
1-39 there remains a system with 3 attempts, at 40m you get immunity and cannot fall below. However, at 40m it does not stop and you can increase your level of havoc, for example, set a limit to level 100, and for each new lvl gets, say, + 1% to all stats (hp, damage, plus you can also the number of enemies, etc.), at each level starting from 41 (inclusive) the system of deranking and increasing returns according to the same principle as up to level 40. Upon reaching the maximum level, it would be nice to issue a unique frame and preferably animated, cosmetics and a title that will be valid until the new season, the reward is of course approximate but something had to be offered

upd: But sharks should be reworked so that the real level of the Havoc host is displayed next to the name, and not the maximum completed mission of the Havoc

I think de-ranking the havoc rank number next to your name is fine, maybe even good. De-ranking the havoc assignment difficulty you have access to is annoying.

1 Like

Weekly auto deranking has to go.
Deranking after 3 losses would be fine IF we could re roll maps without deranking using resources, or at least the modifiers.

1 Like

I’m a diehard advocate of Havoc QP but I would support a system of QP only starting lobbies/teams and letting us decide whether or not to proceed from there. Seems like a decent middle ground in theory.

But also sounds like more work on FS part to develop that system, and I’m rarely sold on solutions that require more than bare minimum of them. Maybe it’s easier than it sounds though.

3 Likes

naww derank is unironically awful, only h40 is fun silly awesome times

remove derank and let people play whatever rank they want, its that simple…. though you should only have the option to choose the rank as high as you’ve beaten

2 Likes

exactly this. but it means letting players decide what to play, how dare they.

4 Likes

Id suggest have it be a true endgame level grind, unlimited levels and prestige for those who fancy.

My time having been wasted on not winning / not gaining progress to ranking up is enough of a punishment for me, ngl.

I don’t think I need to explain why I don’t like that idea when I don’t want there to be deranking at all.

I really like @CobaltNinja ‘s idea and just make it a choseable difficulty slider.

2 Likes

This

At the end of the day a competitive ranking system in a co-op shooter for the purposes of player retention is still quite possibly the dumbest thing I’ve seen in the genre.

the idea of this system being here in the first place is intrinsically flawed.

3 Likes

This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.