Zero132132 wrote...
Computron2000 wrote...
Although i don't care about extracts either, i want to point out one problem with your statement.
i) You needed the random
ii) The random did not need you
If i) was not true, you would not even bother waiting to get a 4th. ii) is true as you did not invite him/her and also because he obviously selected to find a game rather than host. If he/she did not drop in your lobby, he/she would have dropped into another lobby. Hence you are not necessary for the random
No. Most of the time, randoms join up, they get last place, and their primary purpose is to serve as a tool for keeping some of the aggro divided. It's possible that the match would have failed without SOMEONE in that position, but a decent 3-man team can succeed without the 4th being good. A GOOD 3 man team can succeed without a fourth, and I guess I've been part of that too, but it's nice to have the enemy shooting at a mobile decoy.
Conversely, the same random joining another group of randoms has a lower chance of success.
Not saying that what you're saying is always false, but it definitely isn't always true.
In which case, the respondent would not have had any problems with a private 3 man game. However, said respondent either purposely waited in the lobby for a 4th or kept the game public, in which case, the respondent needed the 4th.
If a group of 3 can farm well by themselves, the entire point of this post is then nullified since you would never encounter a random that did not kill themselves as no randoms would be in the game.
As i already noted, the need lies with the respondent, not the random. The random would simply find him/herself in another game. Due to this, the entire "majority wins" does not hold true as the random did not need to be in the respondent's group
On the "lower chance of success", that will be dependent on what the random actually defines as success. The game experience of the random cannot be predicted, especially without knowing what the random wishes to get out of the game.
Modifié par Computron2000, 22 juillet 2012 - 05:48 .