PvP in Update 1.2: The Failure of Ranked WZs

[lollermittens]

I'm surprised that nobody has raised the alarms over this very telling paragraph from the "PvP in Game Update 1.2" community news update on 3/30/2012:

 

[...] The Ranked Warzone matchmaking system will match full groups of eight against one another, solo players against one another, players with similar ratings, etc. However, in order to ensure that players won’t have to wait too long for a match to occur, the system will become more ‘flexible’ over time. Solo and group queued players might be pulled together after a while if needed to launch a match. If a match cannot be made for extended periods of time, then Normal and Rank queued players (except those who queued as a group of five or more) might be pulled together to launch a ‘mixed’ match. Players will always be notified when a mixed match is made on the Warzone enter prompt. The rewards received in mixed matches will be based on how the player queued (type of commendations, rating adjustment if any, etc.). [...]

 

This paragraph cements the Ranked WZ system as a failure even before its implementation. If your design relies on pooling players from the non-rated WZ queue to participate in a Rated WZ match, we're not talking about a Rated WZ environment anymore. Instead, and using your owns words, it becomes a "mixed-cluster****" that is not adequately prepared to mitigate the consequences of pitting players who are actively trying to PvP seriously with those who are there to PvP casually. This will create a divide of lopsided matches as we are currently experiencing in almost every WZ -- the 5-minute penalty of leaving a Rated WZ will be considered negligible by people who are accustomed to leaving games at the first sign of non-guaranteed victory compared to a 15 to 30-minute penalty which would have been much more stringent and effective in curbing the "Quitting-WZ" epidemic.

 

Call your "Pre-Season" what it truly is: a stress test of your Rated WZ to check that the mathematical equations utilized to calculate player rankings will function correctly before the implementation of the cross-server Ranked WZs. Until we get what was promised to us, this is nothing but a diversion from the failure of the current PvP framework and system we are subjected to grind (and almost forced to, in a certain extent) obsessively.

[Theology]

Rated WZs are a joke anyways. Most servers are dead. PVP on each server will remain exactly the same as it is now. Does your guild have 8 competent players left in it? Most likely not, folks.

 

Server merges need to happen now if you plan on saving this game.

[Dayfax]

So now we're calling things a failure before they even go live? Cool.

 

It's not optimal, but given that you're warned it's a mixed match before entering, I don't see a huge problem. Hell, mixed teams might even help smaller guild recruit new players.

 

I also suspect, given, again, you're beefing about a system you haven't actively played, that you're the kind of player that would be SCREAMING on the forums about HUGE queue times if this kind of system weren't in place.

 

So either they try and mitigate the queue times, in which case you call ranked WZs a failure. Or they don't, and you'll most likely call ranked WZs a failure.

 

GG.

[nikthebeast]

I also suspect, given, again, you're beefing about a system you haven't actively played, that you're the kind of player that would be SCREAMING on the forums about HUGE queue times if this kind of system weren't in place.

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[NDiggy]

Rated WZs are a joke anyways. Most servers are dead. PVP on each server will remain exactly the same as it is now. Does your guild have 8 competent players left in it? Most likely not, folks.

 

Server merges need to happen now if you plan on saving this game.

 

This x 1000! I doubt there are even 8 Pubs on my server to even queue with for ranked. Most normal games we're forced to play 5v8, 6v8, or 7v8.

[jersyiii]

then ur the lucky one

 

the only matches i get is vs 6 sages and 2 troopers

have fun with that ... each match the 6 sages get +- 3mil healing

i'm lucky if i get my 10 kill medal

[thewalshinator]

Rated WZs are a joke anyways. Most servers are dead. PVP on each server will remain exactly the same as it is now. Does your guild have 8 competent players left in it? Most likely not, folks.

 

Server merges need to happen now if you plan on saving this game.

 

QFT. Im on one of the Biggest EU PVP servers and i think there are maybe 4/5 PvP active guilds, each with probably 1 team at most, so 1.2 is probably going to be those 4 vs each other all season.

[KiranK]

Until cross server PvP comes out, ranked warzones will always be a joke in this game. There's nothing "ranked" about them. The people you see will be the same. The people you play with will be the same. The people you fight will be the same. Whatever majority match results you have now will be the same. Only difference will be commendation type. Nothing else will change. "Ranked" warzones in this game are nothing more than a troll. There will be no point in playing non-ranked, because you'll still have a chance of being put into a ranked match.

[CrunkShizzle]

i think people already gave up on the pvp in this game

 

90 percent of warzones i join say there gonna close due to not enough players joining

Edited April 1, 2012 by CrunkShizzle

[-Alma-]

Maybe they should be called Wanked Warzones lol

 

But yeah, cross-server warzones, IF implemented correctly, are worth waiting for. Having said that, we will be playing the same maps over and over, just with fresh faces (kinda exciting), but the same old unbalanced crappiness will remain (ie. a team of 6 sages and 2 troopers will continue to provide the most boring pvp experiences ever lol)

[lollermittens]

Until cross server PvP comes out, ranked warzones will always be a joke in this game. There's nothing "ranked" about them. The people you see will be the same. The people you play with will be the same. The people you fight will be the same. Whatever majority match results you have now will be the same. Only difference will be commendation type. Nothing else will change. "Ranked" warzones in this game are nothing more than a troll. There will be no point in playing non-ranked, because you'll still have a chance of being put into a ranked match.

 

Exactly my thoughts.

 

Ranked WZs are a sham.

[rolotomasi]

they should implement cross server for 8man ranked wz.

[Varicite]

Call your "Pre-Season" what it truly is: a stress test of your Rated WZ to check that the mathematical equations utilized to calculate player rankings will function correctly before the implementation of the cross-server Ranked WZs. Until we get what was promised to us, this is nothing but a diversion from the failure of the current PvP framework and system we are subjected to grind (and almost forced to, in a certain extent) obsessively.

 

I'm not really sure what you were expecting from the Pre-Season, other than exactly this...

 

Did you think that Rated WZs were going to be ready to go right out the door? They said very plainly that they weren't. They didn't "promise" you anything.

 

While I agree that throwing non-ranked in w/ ranked queues is a really bad idea, and that they should enable cross-server queues for WZs in general, this last paragraph of yours is dripping w/ self-entitlement.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Varicite

[heikaze]

I'm not really sure what you were expecting from the Pre-Season, other than exactly this...

 

Did you think that Rated WZs were going to be ready to go right out the door? They said very plainly that they weren't. They didn't "promise" you anything.

 

While I agree that throwing non-ranked in w/ ranked queues is a really bad idea, and that they should enable cross-server queues for WZs in general, this last paragraph of yours is dripping w/ self-entitlement.

 

I agree with you about Rated Warzone was not expect to be ready when they push it out, but this is not about being "promised" or not. It's about Ranked Warzone are suppose to be another form of play, more competitive among players that achieved full battlemaster or close to it already. It is suppose to be fun and competitive for players that are sick of owning pugs with their pre-mades and ready for the next step.

 

What's so fun and competitive about owning pugs in green gear? Nothing. If we have an interest of owning a pug game then we will queue up for a Non-Ranked Warzone, which is why they have both "Ranked" and "Non-Ranked" for a reason. It is not fun nor competitive beating disorganized teams that are sitting with sub-par gear.

 

You can't blame the players for wanting exactly what Bioware said they were putting out, "laddered" gameplay.

 

The Ranked Warzone system is rushed out, just like everything else in the game, just so players will take upon an interest to keep playing the game. Right now, with the changes they are putting in, it is no where near competitive nor fun for players that are ready for "competitive gameplay". It's just another carrot on the stick to keep the mule going. They should not have even implemented "Ranked WZs" without some kind of cross-server system. It's not ready. But then again, I wonder if there are even enough players left when it is ready.

[Shlamorel]

I'm surprised that nobody has raised the alarms over this very telling paragraph from the "PvP in Game Update 1.2" community news update on 3/30/2012:

 

 

 

This paragraph cements the Ranked WZ system as a failure even before its implementation. If your design relies on pooling players from the non-rated WZ queue to participate in a Rated WZ match, we're not talking about a Rated WZ environment anymore. Instead, and using your owns words, it becomes a "mixed-cluster****" that is not adequately prepared to mitigate the consequences of pitting players who are actively trying to PvP seriously with those who are there to PvP casually. This will create a divide of lopsided matches as we are currently experiencing in almost every WZ -- the 5-minute penalty of leaving a Rated WZ will be considered negligible by people who are accustomed to leaving games at the first sign of non-guaranteed victory compared to a 15 to 30-minute penalty which would have been much more stringent and effective in curbing the "Quitting-WZ" epidemic.

 

Call your "Pre-Season" what it truly is: a stress test of your Rated WZ to check that the mathematical equations utilized to calculate player rankings will function correctly before the implementation of the cross-server Ranked WZs. Until we get what was promised to us, this is nothing but a diversion from the failure of the current PvP framework and system we are subjected to grind (and almost forced to, in a certain extent) obsessively.

 

Well, I agree that the whole idea does suck. At least they give you a warning before you enter the warzone though so you can choose not to enter if you want.

 

Seems like it would aid in keeping queue times minimal if one is willing to concede he type of matc, while also allowing the player to not join if they don't want to.

[Astarica]

If you lose to a premade group of 4 that's actually good they'd have a high rating and thus the loss should count very little point loss.

 

And just because there are 4 people together, doesn't mean they're actually good. The only advantage having 4 people premade is that you can be pretty sure one of them is a healer, but if you got good DPS on your side it's not hard to just take out the healer. Since current SWTOR seems to be a dominated by strong offensive classes, having healers is not likely to have a significant effect just because good DPS can kill anybody.

 

At worst it'd just look like current WZs and I win a good share of the fights even against 4 man premades in PUGs, as long as they're not the top premades. Presumably the rating system shouldn't match PUGs against top 4 man premades very often. Maybe it won't work but then it's not worse than right now where the game certainly has no qualms about matching up a PUG against a top premade.

[me_unknown]

So now we're calling things a failure before they even go live? Cool.

 

actually yes. there is no server with enough players to have any kind of ranked pvp. if they grp servers to a cluster it might work a bit. but considering the low population they need to put all us servers in one grp, all europen in another etc.

 

this game is dead.

 

i am still around and probalby will stay another month as i stilll have some things with my current char i want to try out. but that's it.

[Arkerus]

Hm. I never have a problems getting 8v8 on my server. Yes, occasionally it starts 7v8 but it fills up quickly.

 

Anchorhead.

[kiwoo]

You do know that 1,2 will be pre-season and that they are adding cross server for WZa with season 1. All rankings will reset with season 1.

 

Think of pre season as a time for everyone to gear up, so season 1 will be about teamplay more than who got the gear first.

[Nemonia]

they should implement cross server for 8man ranked wz.

 

That they should really do.

[mishcleo]

This is a thread for trolls. The only thing I saw worth mentioning is the deserter time out does need to be longer than 5 minutes.

[Sholagar]

I'm surprised that nobody has raised the alarms over this very telling paragraph from the "PvP in Game Update 1.2" community news update on 3/30/2012:

 

 

 

This paragraph cements the Ranked WZ system as a failure even before its implementation. If your design relies on pooling players from the non-rated WZ queue to participate in a Rated WZ match, we're not talking about a Rated WZ environment anymore. Instead, and using your owns words, it becomes a "mixed-cluster****" that is not adequately prepared to mitigate the consequences of pitting players who are actively trying to PvP seriously with those who are there to PvP casually. This will create a divide of lopsided matches as we are currently experiencing in almost every WZ -- the 5-minute penalty of leaving a Rated WZ will be considered negligible by people who are accustomed to leaving games at the first sign of non-guaranteed victory compared to a 15 to 30-minute penalty which would have been much more stringent and effective in curbing the "Quitting-WZ" epidemic.

 

Call your "Pre-Season" what it truly is: a stress test of your Rated WZ to check that the mathematical equations utilized to calculate player rankings will function correctly before the implementation of the cross-server Ranked WZs. Until we get what was promised to us, this is nothing but a diversion from the failure of the current PvP framework and system we are subjected to grind (and almost forced to, in a certain extent) obsessively.

 

They REALLY should have implemented cross-server WZs before they tried this stuff....

[Foenixz]

we're doomed i tell you Edited April 3, 2012 by Foenixz

[EternityDre]

While I find PVP fun and continue to play, it seems I'm always playing with the same 20 or so people (both sides included). Wait times are long and for huge chunks of the day, there is no chance of getting a warzone. Hence I'm forced to agree with most points in this thread. I won't have anyone to play rated warzones with anyway as I'm the last active player in my guild.

 

I wonder if the devs read threads like this one and and just ignore them, or whether they actually step back and take in how the players feel and admit there is a problem.

Edited April 3, 2012 by EternityDre

[AstralProjection]

OP, I'm just as surprised you managed to find something to complain about in that paragraph.

 

BioWare is trying to make everyone happy, and came up with a half decent solution for a change, and you still have to find a reason to cry doom on it.

 

That mechanic is only going to happen on very low pop servers, or at times of day where there are very few people queuing up PVP. If you've ever been in that situation, you'd realize that getting a match isn't so bad at all, especially if you're being treated like you're in your own "personal" match, queued for the type of match you wanted.

 

Who cares if 6 people queued for rated and 10 queued for unrated? If not enough people are on to find a real match, in most cases those people would rather play *something* than wait around all night to start in an undermanned warzone.

 

The rated system is fine, especially for a pre-season.

 

If you don't like Warzones, don't do them. If you do like Warzones, enjoy, now you'll get your stats tracked. If people are scared of facing the people on their servers maybe they've been losing to them a lot? Not sure, but there's no reason why this system will suck just because they haven't implemented cross server queuing yet. I'll give you a hint- cross server is going to make it more competitive. If you're sick of losing to the same teams over and over, you're going to be chum for a whole bunch of new teams once all the big fish enter the bigger pond and need something to cut their teeth on.