Please Make Casual Like Ranked | Forums

[nmswidan]

Casual is SO bad and boring at the moment.
1. Random objectives that nobody chooses in ranked.
2. Can't even see where the objective is before you choose an operator, so you can't choose the right one, which prevents players from trying out new tactics (or getting used to old ones).
3. The round timer is so much longer than ranked so it takes forever for the round to finish when you die early.
etc

Please just make casual exactly like ranked when it comes to the round timer, choosing objectives, etc. Let players train, prepare, and experiment properly.
Can somebody tell me what are the arguments against it? Because I don't really see one.

[Celron_Miles]

Im all up for those changes. Or at least make it that defenders know what theyre protecting.

[vgrimr_J]

the random aspect of sites is annoying sometimes. i just played skyscraper and i defended the same site 2 times in a row and attacked the same site 2 times

[UbiNoty]

The purpose of casual is to be casual - so ideally fun and more about accessibility for all kinds of players and with nothing on the line. So there should still be a line between casual and ranked in order to make that distinction.

That being said, even though casual should be more laid-back, I do still think it would be good if it mirrors ranked in more close fashion since it should be a stepping stone to ranked. So I'll pass along what you've suggested about being able to choose objectives and round-timers for casual, and if you have anything further to add, I'm more than happy to listen.

[nmswidan]

the random aspect of sites is annoying sometimes. i just played skyscraper and i defended the same site 2 times in a row and attacked the same site 2 times

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. From I can remember, you can still defend the same objective even after a successful defense, which is another thing I hate about casual.

Im all up for those changes. Or at least make it that defenders know what theyre protecting.

Glad you agree. : )

[nmswidan]

The purpose of casual is to be casual - so ideally fun and more about accessibility for all kinds of players and with nothing on the line. So there should still be a line between casual and ranked in order to make that distinction.

That being said, even though casual should be more laid-back, I do still think it would be good if it mirrors ranked in more close fashion since it should be a stepping stone to ranked. So I'll pass along what you've suggested about being able to choose objectives and round-timers for casual, and if you have anything further to add, I'm more than happy to listen.

In my opinion, as long as casual doesn't effect your stats, it will always be laid back.

And being able to execute new (or old) tactics is what makes this game so much fun to begin with.

Making casual exactly like ranked will highly improve new players and make them get used to the tactics and the operators, such as bandit tricking, and also at the same time be fun and laid back since it doesn't effect your stats.

[MIA-051]

I love casual but my main issue is the lack of matchmaking on skill means platinums, smurfs etc join and troll or crap all over those seeking to just have fun. I mean im average at best and wind up high silver to mid gold at times but when I play with folks who dont play ranked, goof around instead of play the game objective, trolls who team kill, constant quiters when they come in late or losing.

Basically its so toxic or ends up favoring others so heavily that losing is almost expected. Or the constant abuse of the kicking system. Crap, it feels like im only one willing to play after a losing streak in rank and casual due to the smurfs and random plats. I wish there was a casual with no parties allowed, or a casual ranked where it plays you against people of your rank and skill set but no rank loss, all maps, and more casual aspects.

[Morfanos]

The purpose of casual is to be casual - so ideally fun and more about accessibility for all kinds of players and with nothing on the line. So there should still be a line between casual and ranked in order to make that distinction.

That being said, even though casual should be more laid-back, I do still think it would be good if it mirrors ranked in more close fashion since it should be a stepping stone to ranked. So I'll pass along what you've suggested about being able to choose objectives and round-timers for casual, and if you have anything further to add, I'm more than happy to listen.

The only real issue I have with casual is the random nature of the defense objective. One team can get the easiest obj on defense while the other can get unlucky and get the worst one. That alone, even if the teams are evenly matched, make it unfair.

It doesn't need to be that we can chose the obj, but at least make it so both teams defend the same one so it's fair.

[nmswidan]

The only real issue I have with casual is the random nature of the defense objective. One team can get the easiest obj on defense while the other can get unlucky and get the worst one. That alone, even if the teams are evenly matched, make it unfair.

It doesn't need to be that we can chose the obj, but at least make it so both teams defend the same one so it's fair.

Agreed.
It's really annoying to get the worst objective in the map.

[Morfanos]

I forgot to add, knowing which objective you're going to defend in advance would also be a big improvement. Some operators can be either amazing or completely useless, at least for their gadgets, depending on the objective.

The "best" map to illustrate that point would be Consulate with Secure. Mute is amazing to have for Archives or Garage but is completely useless when it's in the Visa lobby.