Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
It's impossible to design a system that's going to be able to detect between "these 4 people kicked you because you're miserable to play with" and "these 4 people kicked you because they're awful jerks".
And so you want a button that will basically cut out any soloQ from matching up with any 4-stack and that's just a... weird line to draw there. It sucks to get kicked by a group who just wants to troll but they already will get put on a competitive cooldown if they kick too many people.
If they don't already know that it's only 4 premades queing and not 5 how are they able to only add 1 more and not accidentally 2 or 3.
And again, saying that you have to be more than one to even que is just an ignorant thing to say.
the reality is "solo" Q is the middle child in a pyramid scheme that is the rank structure.
You cheat, get carried or smurf boost out of silver/nova etc.
Thats how a pyramid operation works. Like the first few people to get LMG do a fraction of the work that everyone after has to do. Much like Avon, the first few sell a few things and before you know it the people after are stuck having to ship tens of thousands of the same products for the same "Result."
Keeping a certain demographic "frozen" at silver/nova levels ensures the artificial scarcity of "rank" when in reality most people hover at the same spot in a bell curve with a few outliers/offshoots.
Solo Q is one of those groups that's tossed in there with it, it's quite simple to match team's to teams. Or insulate the lone solo from being vote kicked after second half/requesting to not be a part of it.
It being a team game is fine, but when someone offer's you "Solo" experience then fails to deliver the promised form of game that is just simply incompetence or someone reinforcing the pyramid of "rank" so many player's "covet" despite never noticing how similar everyone does regardless of rank. It just boils down to a predatory business practice.
Like Valve's "Lootbox gambling" there "skin tradeup gambling" removing spray paint/model options for t's/c'ts. No flashlights NV etc..Then asking you to pay for them to get them back.
Predatory business practice is what most companies confuse for "Good business" simply because they are not yet accountable to the people they are cheating. There isn't a reason that you or anyone deserves to be ousted from a lobby you worked in because 3-4 angry pre-teens/teens have low T and mum didn't de-crust their sandwhiches that day.
It isn't a universal bad or good thing. I just share similar concerns to the OP. If I have the option to get people together and have a team advantage over randoms. Then people ought be able to opt out if they choose from playing with people with such a massive advantage.
If anyone cared about legit gaming anyways. Naturally with cs_go being "HvH" in many instances that clearly isn't the case. More so the Op seems to want the option to wait a little longer and not be at the mercy of pre-pubescent dweebs who seem to let their ego's do the talking online instead of their brains.
I think your point is valid, it's simply only one point. Teams are comprised of various members. Even in military service there is outliers, people not in the "norm" of the group..and despite being loners/oddballs they are valued because money positions and jobs in a military organization requires people who can operate alone and off their own initiative.
That isn't granted here, where people are herded into a few types of modes and told they have to "behave" a certain way according to whatever "this" random group of 4 people as far as "they" go believes it to be.
If I end up with a group of people who abuse comms and mute them, then abuse me because I stood up for myself. What then? You seem to not grasp that he isn't saying anything more then he'd like to "opt" out.
If your system is true and good, letting people opt out of it isn't a threat to it. Forcing people into roles unfit for them is a poor thing, which this system currently, sadly employs.
The 2 of you are saying the same thing as Doc was, that i'm not allowed to have an enjoyable experience if i choose to play solo. I will tell you the same thing, that is an ignorant thing to say. I'm ranked higher than most of my friends that play cs. When i play with friends i play for fun and i play to rank up when i play solo. Why am i not allowed to do that and enjoy it?