Welcome to The Forum

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads and etc.


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by JenkinMeyer

  1. This is an interesting one, Ace, something my brother and I have contemplated. Unfortunately there is nothing the devs can really do about "partying up" as it were. He and I love to play together, and we're damn sure not in cahoots trying to cheat or anything. We get the pleasure of bitching at each other on PS party while rivering each other. It could just be a case of 2 assholes at the table "seemingly" teaming up against you in your case, but maybe they're aggressive players. Sometimes it may appear people are playing together but unfortunately you have to have faith in humanity that they're not. The great thing about poker is your cards can beat anyone on the table. As your rank goes up you're going to notice that you're playing with the same people more frequently as well due to less people queuing. You can't just assume they're cheating.
  2. You listened to the players. The new system for finding ranked games is exactly as I had wanted. It is now fast, smooth, and easy to get into a game and into the tier you want. Great job and thanks. P.s. It's exactly as I lined out back in the "finding any" thread. I rule. I mean you rule. now about that river..... Thank again, love the update. JenkinMeyer
  3. Hi Mike, I love that this thread has taken off, there are a lot of ideas being thrown around, some good some bad but you are on the right track in my opinion. Personally I'm not really sure again why a silver wouldn't want to play a diamond as there's nothing but gain to be had, but I am sure there are some players out there who might have their reasons. At least you are taking all players into account. As you say in the bottom of the quote, I think that simply having more information at a players screen will certainly help resolve a lot of the queuing as maybe there'll be less bouncing around from queue to queue because you feel like nothing is happening. I say go with your gut, if a new system you decide on doesn't work out, why you just continue listening to feedback and change it again in the future. Thanks for listening to everyone. JenkinMeyer
  4. That screenshot is exactly what the post topic was about. You just want to play tournament style betting, you're 1340 and can't find a game but you /want/ to play. They'll figure it out, I understand they're trying to protect people's rating with like tiers, but to me, as you said, playing a silver on occasion does better your game, you have react to their play style.
  5. Eh it's called the golden Stogey. I suppose it would be nice if say, the top 3-X get something unique at seasons end, but then once they grant that, that won't be enough either. The joy is in winning tournaments and your ranking reflects that. Initial post topic is about not being able to play a game. If they add rewards for top X players and said players can't find a game to play, you'll have more posts like my original. still pondering this bronze/diamond thing, why would a low rating NOT want to play with a diamond or plat, in the current format all they can do is gain, rating, or money. Who cares about max rank when buy in is the same?
  6. The thought of a bronze not wanting to play with a higher tier never occurred to me, so I see where you are coming from regarding No max Range. Tables could have a set range, I bet with 10 or less tables you could fit everyone in. Maybe a table or two are simply "Any" rating and can result in quick table fills. Make a few broad range, e.g. (1100-1300) a few mid range ( 1150-1250) tight range (1200-1250) etc. Wouldn't want to set them too tight as I am sure finding 6 people within 50 rating with the current population will probably result in some empty unused tables. Definitely hide names so opponents cannot be chosen. The display for each table would be simply "3/6" if there were 3 people at a table. You wouldn't even need to necessarily show people sitting down's tier to anyone either, it shouldn't matter because the table is for people within said range. Short of that I definitely would be on board with your idea of queuing within an acceptable set range. That also would work better than the current system. You wouldn't need to make it too terribly complicated as far as displaying the number of people queued - perhaps just show a list that shows "X diamond are queued, X platinum are queued, X gold", etc. and people can expand their range with that knowledge. Say I am 1250 rating - if I see in the list that 0 diamond, 0 platinum, 3 gold, and 20 silver are currently queued for games - if I want to play really bad, I can simply expand my range to incorporate silver so that a game will start quickly. If I only want to play like rating people, as you said, I can simply sit there queuing as long as I wish to wait. The reverse would also apply - if I am 850 rating and I see in the list there are 4 gold, 10 silver, 0 bronze, I would just raise my "max" range up to encompass how high of an opponent I'd like to play with.
  7. Thanks for the reply and explanation Mike, that all makes sense to me. I think most of the frustration stems from never seeing what's going on in the queue background. If I have say, a 3 hour window of time to play, it's not fun to not be able to and spend half the time in a queue. I do have some ideas I'll throw out for improvement, how viable they are I don't know but I think they could help: #1 - Scrap the queuing system altogether and have a lobby with tables. Let's say there's X number of tables separated by rating range : 1300+ only, 1200+ only, 1100+ Only, 1000+ Only, etc. Each table would simply have display showing how many seats are open at each. In this example, a Diamond can play at any table they want - if they want to risk rating let them go for it, or if they want to sit and wait in a high ranking table until it's filled it's their option as opposed to blindly queuing for god knows how long. This same thing applies to platinums, golds etc. #2 - If the above is too complicated to implement - do something similar to what Rockguy24 mentions above - similar to Casual Tournaments, instead of separating a queue by buy-in amount you just separate by tier. At least then you can bounce around and see what tables are filling. This shouldn't be too hard as you pretty much have that queuing style in place,so you'd just tweak it and apply it to ranking or rating range or whatever. I feel option #1 would also make Casual Tournaments start being played more often, as you'd just have tables separated by buy-in, ranking would be irrelevant as it is now, but people could quickly see which tables had people as opposed to bouncing around in queues and tables never filling. Other than the queuing process, I get a ton of enjoyment out of the game (other than those damnable rivers hah). Thoughts?
  8. PS4, 1374 rating if relevant. I've, as of this reply and my post prior, been in an Any Match queue for over 2 hours. I understand they're trying to keep like rankings together, but I really just want to play and I can't. Casual tournament play is dead and I want to play ranked so I have no alternative. I feel if you drop to a queuing "any" games should start fast, if not, what's the point of using the word "any."
  9. Can I get a clarification on the definition of the word "Any?" Example : "Finding Any Match Matched 0/13" Please explain. It's getting pretty irritating to try to play this game if high ranked. Stop jerking us around, at least change the wording to "no match for you, fella." I don't see the difference between "ideal" "good" or "any." I've got scads of time to pull out of the queue between "ideal" and "good" if I'm worried about losing rating due to being matched with silvers or whatever, when it drops to "Any match" I still can't get a game and I just want to play ranked. Any should mean Any. Thanks for any answer.