Displaying the player’s current rank, rather than the highest rank they have achieved in the season
Cancel the resetting of the number of attempts at the beginning of the week. If at the end of the previous week a player failed two attempts, then when the new week starts they should have one attempt, not three (as is currently the case)
The game should be possible only and exclusively at one’s actual rank. This way, weak players won’t get buffed by strong ones
An optional, but in my opinion highly desirable option: complete random matchmaking with quick play (but without the ability for players to join in place of those who have left the game). And it should be so complete that players only see their teammates in the mission’s opening cutscene and have no idea what the map or modifiers will be before that cutscene. Teammates with the same rank are matched randomly
An optional, but in my opinion highly desirable option: an infinite number of ranks with smoothly increasing difficulty, as I have described before
The weakest player who has ever entered an H40 mission lobby this season (without being in a party with anyone) is incredibly strong compared to the median player. So the filter works, but its effectiveness needs to be increased
In my most recent attempt to date, an H40 player was in my team. When he—completely predictably for an H21 mission—was left as the last one standing, I, ashamed to admit it, was actively rooting against him, and fortunately he failed to pull off the clutch. (For the record, I went down third, after two others had already fallen.) Just imagine: he clutches it and I reach level 21 for the first time this season without deserving it in the slightest. But I also couldn’t refuse to let him into the lobby (I could have, but not without consequences). Once I kicked an H40 player from my lobby, and the two players already in it twirled their fingers at their temples and bailed from my lobby. I’m tormented by pangs of conscience whenever higher-level players knock on my lobby. This could lead to me climbing undeservedly high and then letting down teammates in future games who expect better performance from me based on that unearned rank
also people need to learn that ranks and titles don’t mean sh*t, some of the worst (and best to be fair) players I have met were so called “true survivors” (and almost all “havoc forged” are mediocre at best) I met a bubble psyker in auric who couldn’t beat a poxwalker in melee and while levelling hive scum I met a “true survivor” who went down several times in grutting malice!
Maybe Fatshark will make it so players of different Havoc ranks can’t even approach each other so they stay safe. If a H20 tries to approach a H40, a force fields turns on and pushes them away. The reverse would also be true.
Also segregate chat between ranks, even if in the same team. No pings, no text, nothing. Lmao.
Havoc 30+ needs at least 2 great players on the team for the run to be on the easier side. If there are none such players on the team, all 4 people need to be above average.
I’ve had matches on 40 where I stayed alive the longest, kited the enemies around, revived 2 people, they still died and we lost. And I think most solo players know my pain where the team just doesn’t click together, and you can’t do anything about it. It’s not because they are BAD PLAYERS, but their playstyles simply don’t synergize with each other.
Don’t you realize that your suggested system doesn’t only punish bad players, but also decent ones who don’t play in a premade of equally high skilled players? It’s basically a gatekeeping system for every solo climbing player.
I’ve achieved Havoc 40 personal assignment while joining Havoc 40 lobbies made by other people even during infamous Rotten Armor season (season 3, 4?) where every assignment had Rotten Armor in it, and I imagine how “great” it would be to rank up during that season with your suggested changes when most people had incredibly low winrate.
Also it sounds like you lack experience playing Damnation, Havoc 21 should not be this unobtainable. You WILL climb with more experience, even if you make stupid mistakes. I don’t think polishing your skills on a gamemode where 2 shooters spawning from the back can instantly down you is a great idea.
So, in my system, players will end up with players of a similar skill level. Not exactly identical, but in a typical match, the gap between the strongest and weakest player will be much smaller than in a typical match today
I love this post because it’s completely reversed version of what malice redditors post every day. ‘Elitist’ is a made up offence, but this post makes it real for a second <3
You’re thinking in the realm of PVP games. Systems like that exist there to make team’s equally strong for a balanced match. Which, in most cases, doesn’t even work, because these said games also tend to have forced 50% winrates and people also smurf or get boosted by lucky win streaks, or abusing meta characters who are at least 30% stronger than the rest.
That’s the whole point of co-op games, people of varying skill levels overcoming hardships together.
Yeah, something like that. Make the Havoc rank the counterpart to ranked systems in PvP games. A player with a higher rank is statistically stronger. It basically works that way already, but we need to amplify this effect
Whether someone agrees or disagrees with your suggestions, we need more voices like this.
I notice the following pattern more and more these days;
Whenever someone asks for a challenging game mode that will expose player weaknesses and push them hone their skills → “omg, this is cringe. you must HATE yourself”
Whenever someone asks for nerfs that will make the game dull and generic but allow everyone to complete end-game content with little to no effort → “YOU ARE A CHAMPION OF THE COMMUNITY! ALL HAIL!”
Can we please stop attacking or trying to cancel people whose feedback is actually good-intended, just because we happen to disagree with their approach?
Idk what causes so much hurt that someone has to say “you suck” “you idiot” “you are cringe” etc, when instead we could simply come with a counter-argument or a different approach
Personally, I believe every co-op game should have a challenging end-game mode that feels a bit restrictive because it eventually creates the following positive loop:
Some players figure out strategies → They make impressive content → Current players watch the content and then spend time in-game trying to apply the lessons learned (resulting in better game health metrics) → Content becomes popular so algo pushes it to more people who might be interested in playing this game (resulting in more new players coming to the game)
tl;dr
While I don’t agree 100% with all the points the OP made, I’m happy to see that there are still people who don’t ask for game-difficulty nerfs all the time.
Plus, I think having a game-mode that challenges players eventually brings attention to the game (free and indirect advertisement through the loop explained above)
