![]() |
|
|
| Poll Results: Do you think quick spars are slow? | |||
| 33.33% |
I wouldn't mind if quick spars were quicker.
|
||
| 66.67% |
YES! Quick spars need to be way faster! NOW!!!
|
||
| Voters: 15. You may not vote on this poll | |||
|
|
|
Topic Tools |
|
04-29-2016
|
1 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,027
|
What do you think about quick spars?
If you feel like you have a better way to make quick spar rooms quicker, share below. Mine is just a theory, of what I see somewhat possible. Let me know if there is something you don't like, besides me. How many of you feel like the quick rooms are too slow? Sometimes, I just want to get into a match as quickly as possible. I don't like to wait 5-10 minutes between spars. What do you guys think? I think this could be a good example as to how devs can implement a quick spar, but it's just a theory. So for crab chance, when there are a certain number of players in the building, the player limit is reached, and the next person to enter the building, enters a different room with no people. Each arena would have a limit of 2 people, and the next person to join, enters the next room. Wondering if this could somehow be used to make quick spars. So, you have your room. You can see how many players are inside. ![]() Once inside, you will be in the waiting room. Here you can get ready for your spar. You can just jump right in if you want to. You have an exit to the right. ![]() Once you enter the arena, you will be automatically queued, and you can't leave the queue, since it will be locked. This makes people not be able to avoid matches, and selective spar. ![]() The streak room will still remain, for those who like to chat with friends and what not, while waiting for their match. |
|
04-29-2016
|
2 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,255
|
fair idea, over exaggeration on the amount of people who would use this room and you forgot the no option once again.
|
|
04-29-2016
|
3 |
|
Deus Vult
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Le Canada
Posts: 3,811
|
if you don't have much time but want to entertain urself you shouldn't be on graal. You should be ****posting on graalians and checking the time. |
|
04-29-2016
|
4 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,027
|
1st option is "I wouldn't mind", doesn't hurt for quick spars to actually be quick. 2nd option "Yes!", you really want to be able to quick spar, since you definitely see quick spars as slow. |
|
|
04-29-2016
|
5 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: stranger danger ://
Posts: 320
|
This isn't a bad idea but this won't stop selective sparrers from selective sparring. I mean they still have the option to queue or not and they can easily view people's profiles and see there records to make a judgement, also people would just log off and back on to Evad the "locked" queue all together. I don't like the idea of having a new room every 2 people join a queue though I think the max should be 6 at least. I don't think people will want to get lost in a maze of spar rooms. But I do like the idea of having rooms with maybe 6 people queued in it max.
|
|
04-29-2016
|
6 | |
|
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,255
|
|
|
|
04-29-2016
|
7 | |||
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,027
|
You can't evade a spar. If you log off, then your opponent wins. If you leave before anyone enters the room with you, then you aren't really avoiding any match.
What maze? If a room isn't being used, then it just resets. Crab chance. The point is to not see your opponents, and getting a match as quickly as possible. |
|||
|
04-29-2016
|
8 |
|
all for victory
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Townsville
Posts: 4,222
|
Its not a bad idea, I just dont know how it would be like. I do want to do quicker spars rather than waiting all damn day if the mixed room is empty.
|
|
04-29-2016
|
9 |
|
Python
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,894
|
The fact that there's not a "no" option is stupid, regardless of what I think of the idea.
|
|
04-29-2016
|
10 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,027
|
Just a theory, since I've seen crab chance work like this.
|
|
04-29-2016
|
11 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: I live in a place on a place
Posts: 1,464
|
Hey I have a better idea why not just remove the spar rooms all together and add a button in the menu to queue you with people with similar stats
|
|
04-29-2016
|
12 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,027
|
|
|
04-30-2016
|
13 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 732
|
I think 1vs1 spar is fine the way it is... i just think they need to add more statistics for it. What would be cool is if you can't spar in quick rooms if your in the top 50 leaderboard... but then again that would lead to amateur sparrers being upset that they can never win again. Idk
|
|
04-30-2016
|
14 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,027
|
That's really the only reason why I would like a blind queue. I don't have to wait 5 minutes in-between my wins, and people won't leave. |
|
|
04-30-2016
|
15 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 732
|
Blind que is dumb, theres like 2-10 good sparrers sparring at one time and 10 amateurs and 20 noobs. Pro sparrers in a blind que would walk away with 10-1 ratio's and legendary sparrers would walk away with 20-1. To be honest it sounds dumb, streak room is good because all good sparrers know to spar there and no-where else
|