I'm not so sure, it's kind of in between. I mean, zombies is about getting into a good match. It is nice to have some chivalry, but not if you have 20 downs. The main focus of the game is to survive to the highest round, and it's not much survival if you're having to carry someone else's weight, otherwise you should just do solo. But, it's great to have someone who has a good personality. At the same time though, I still stand with the whole point is to survive. Not much of a team, when you're the only member in it! Lol
I know not everybody wants to play with weaker players, but we are talking about filtering the trolling aspect of the game. The only way to judge a potential team mate at the moment is rank which is irrelevant when it comes to style of play. My point was filtering out the weaker players has no influence on trolling, as a troll can be of any rank. A weak player isn't always the rage quitter, a stronger player might not take a down until round 20, but then quits and ruins the game for everybody. We need different criteria to judge players, and to differentiate between bad players in terms of ability and skilled players who are horrible to play with.
Yeah, that's a definite. Ranking system doesn't do much....Anyhow, yes we got way off topic with this one. And if you're online, would you like to play zombies? Lol
I doubt they'll ever implement a lobby filter.....from all indications, they seem to try and force weaker players on people, the exact opposite.
Isn't this where the lines get blurred though? I'm all for implementing a lobby filter, but it needs to be purely based on negative behaviour in game and not ability. I think it's a positive that they match weaker players with better ones and would much rather play with someone who takes 20 downs but is an honest player, than someoene with a good k/d who quits or doesn't help the team.. All rank tells you is that someone has a good k/d, not if they're a sellfish player, rage quiter, won't revive, etc. I'd much rather they filtered the lobbies based on how much of a team player you are. Weaker players are not the problem, selfish players and bad strategists are.
I'll play all day with a guy that won't quit....since I can still shoot for a high round. Thus....quitting would be a filter I could get with.
Like I said, some expanded review would be nice....maybe a team vote after the game ends, dumping votes unless they are unanimous and then not black marking anyone until a pattern emerges. The categories you mentioned would be fine, no need for a huge number of options. This would also allow for the "MVP" stat I think would be a great addition.
As most people know....I have little faith in rankings, being just a knife myself (long story + I don't care). Other than some of the shotguns I've met here....I've rarely met any (lobbies, FOF's) I'd consider drastically superior.
You're exactly right, I do agree with that. I never thought of the impact of what the daily troll does, how you were saying about the number of people he/she disrupts every day. Although I've got to say, what fun is that anyhow? Why would you purchase a game for $60 and then be ignorant? Agreeing also on the filter. I'm not sure if it would bring in revenue or take it away. Bringing it in because good people are more inclined to play, and taking it away because bad players won't want to play anymore because they get matched with there own medicine. Everyone knows there is far more bad players than good..