Ranked matches are unfair :(

[Irion]

60+ combos makes me cry.


PS: All of you who fought me will pay some day when i get better >:(

[CarThief]

This game's utterly rediculous competetive scene is the sole reason why i havent bothered with multiplayer yet. (Rediculous in many ways, but especially the highly exploitable system...)
I heard there's some user groups around though focused on actually giving people an opponent of (near)equal skill, however.

I just cant remember the names of those few groups right now though... Maybe i should add an link later on if i can find any.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by CarThief:

This game's utterly rediculous competetive scene is the sole reason why i havent bothered with multiplayer yet. (Rediculous in many ways, but especially the highly exploitable system...)
I heard there's some user groups around though focused on actually giving people an opponent of (near)equal skill, however.

I just cant remember the names of those few groups right now though... Maybe i should add an link later on if i can find any.

I'm a moderator of one such group. We do lobbies on every Saturday.

http://steamcommunity.com/groups/uotsh

As long as I'm here, I'd also like to say that I'm still on the beginner side myself (though I'm reaching intermediate ), and that if you ask for training in our group chat (which does get used, just not as often as I'd like seen), that we ARE willing to help out!

[Chrono_Tata]

Well, it's exactly because of a significant number of beginners refusing to play ranked matches that there is an imbalance of beginner and experienced players on it, so you are more likely to get matched up with more experienced players. Oh well.

[CarThief]

A bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy as they call it, newbies dont want to waste their time getting curbstomped and learning nothing from it, and simply avoid online play completely or until they're reaching those kinds of skill levels themselves. The rather unforgiving, and exploitable situations in fighting games creates this persistent (and true) manner of thought about them.

Coincidentally TV Tropes' random page function sent me to the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy page, heh...

Ah well, i'd imagine this all boils down to initially having a rather horrible way of handling the ranked matches, where it carelessly throws them against the odds against a far superior opponent, even when there's less skilled people looking for a fight. And thus the general poor impression it gives of there being only high-level players.
Would have worked far better if they maybe simply started players off at a low level and matched em with similar levels. Not to mention it would probably be a godsend to have a checkbox you could tick that disallows you to be paired with people far better or worse then you (in terms of score in any case).

[avil]

Originally posted by CarThief:

Would have worked far better if they maybe simply started players off at a low level and matched em with similar levels. Not to mention it would probably be a godsend to have a checkbox you could tick that disallows you to be paired with people far better or worse then you (in terms of score in any case).

In my opinion, just started people shouldn't face high rated players from start, before they should face unranked and low ranked players, "from easy to hard". Also should be visible player's rank, kinda "F,E,D,B,A,S" and "N" as unknown. You don't feel unfair if you losing to N, or +1 rank higher than you, or you can prepare to "TRY HARD", or get easy on lowrated. Visible rank system is a good thing.

[CarThief]

Hm, dont really think there should be a unranked catagory (unless they absolutely never played rated games), and in that case unranked people should start off at newbie levels, if they're overly good at what they do it would be easy enough to boost their rank/score in larger amounts then usual, if they're losing alot it would simply try looking at lower ranks.
Ultimately, hopefully, keeping the newbies in the newbie section and tournament level players in their own section.

(And maybe instead of throwing you against a very strong/weak opponent, instead ask if you like to play against anonymous person with rank x (which of course stops being anonymous once you get in-game), displaying purely rank. Probably better then the previous idea i had.

Having seemingly random letters in a non-alphabetic manner to display a rank seems a bit... confusing, numbers would work better, like a rank 1 to 10 or something, for example. Or titles of some kind like 'Beginner' and 'Experienced', or whatnot. Maybe mixing that with numbers to have kind of sub-levels within the ranks, like 'Beginner (1)' (to 3) and 'Experienced (4)' (to 7) or something would work better then normal titles? There's only so many words to explain the various levels of skill one could have in a fighting game, after all... And a number would remove any confusion if a title meant better or worse skill.

[avil]

Originally posted by CarThief:

Having seemingly random letters in a non-alphabetic manner to display a rank seems a bit... confusing, numbers would work better

Haha, is not really random:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grading_(education)
Sorry if it confusing you. Also S used in many games as something better then A (like AA and higher).

[CarThief]

Ah, well countries grade things in different ways, so a universal system of sorts (like numbers) would probably be a bit more clear for this purpose.

Hm, actually seems i kind of overlooked the way you presented yours, somehow my brain didnt notice its basically the start of the alphabet in reverse (minus the S)... Perhaps it would work decently if i'm the only one having these brain-farts about the matter. :P

[stars]

Originally posted by CarThief:

Hm, dont really think there should be a unranked catagory (unless they absolutely never played rated games), and in that case unranked people should start off at newbie levels, if they're overly good at what they do it would be easy enough to boost their rank/score in larger amounts then usual, if they're losing alot it would simply try looking at lower ranks.

This is a TERRIBLE idea because bad players are already complaining about opponents being too good in ranked. You're now recommending that the game throw everybody in at the bottom, including players who only fight offline, came from other games, or only played the console version. The result of this is that, if you're bad, you'll keep randomly fighting good people (which is actually a good thing for you but most of these type of people complain about losing sooo).

Currently, if you're incredibly bad at the game, you'll usually end up fighting other incredibly bad people so long as you fight enough for the game to actually realize how bad you are. Most of the time, the game gives you the benefit of the doubt, like, "You're worse than him? Well, maybe you're on this guy's level! Wait, you're worse than HIM?! Try this next guy" and so on before it settles on your actual skill level.

[JasonS]

How about just making a Lobby? The ranking ladder is mostly useless anyway.

If you're a new player, don't bother with Quick Match.

[CarThief]

Hm, i dont know, wont either system eventually pit you against players of higher skill eventually, if not straight off the bat? The idea behind it all is that the good players go up to the higher skill groups if they do well, i'd imagine if they do VERY well they only go up faster, and thus, hopefully, keep the population of high-level people low to none at the newbie ranks.

Now ultimately there isnt much difference between this and the current system as from what i hear ranks you appropiately after several fights? Now, those first few fights could be, from what i know, against utter newbies up to freakin' tournament players (depending on how much experience they had from offline/other games). The idea of starting at low rank would atleast lower the chances of such unfortunate matches largely.
And would certainly not even allow a newbie to be paired with an player already known as far higher level by the system.

Heck, people without a ranking yet probably havent been practicing THAT much anyway, so if anything it should be an improvement, no? This idea essentially boils down to less aggravating matches, though, so its hardly the highest priority... Not that i think i'll ever bother with rated myself, given its awful reputation.

[123 Casual Player]

All I know is that I sometimes I end up in matches where I can't even move in nonstop block chain, or I end up fighting guys who clearly can't even block low.

It's like the ranking system doesn't exist.

[Poltergeist]

You must defeat the duck to stand a chance. Git gud

[SinglePoorIan]

You have to be aggressive Skullgirls but once you lose the iniative you're kind of screwed unless they make a mistake. The defender doesn't have too many options and the longer you block the further behind you'll be in meter and the more likely you'll miss a block and get killed.
Playing defensively is not a good idea at all.

[Ruro]

Originally posted by Emperor's Finest (Sergeant):

You have to be aggressive Skullgirls but once you lose the iniative you're kind of screwed unless they make a mistake. The defender doesn't have too many options and the longer you block the further behind you'll be in meter and the more likely you'll miss a block and get killed.
Playing defensively is not a good idea at all.

No defensive options, because Alpha Countering(named Stunt Double in SG) is totally an offensive option /sarcasm

So yea you have some form of a reversal on your character (for example Updo) or an assist to help with your defense or you can try to alpha counter out of it which is basically an assist and a character change in one.

Though corner pressure can still get you destroyed even with these tools but thats how corners work in every fighting game ever :P