Premades are ruining non-ranked warzones

[MotorCityMan]

1.) An incentive for single players to enter the regular queue, so that the regular queue has back fill and filling for incomplete groups. This would mean the PuG-only bracket receives less comms/credits for their exclusion from the tougher competition.

 

Oh well when it comes to protecting team play at the expense of pugs, you finally admit that premades are "tougher competition". Even to such an extent that pugs should have to pay in comms for the privilege of not having to face "tougher competition" and get ROFL stomped.

 

So firstly, players that want to play with their "friends" can't be counted on to fill a ranked queue, (since forming an 8 man team is somehow impossible for pvp but contradictorily extremely easy for pve;)). Now players that have been preaching that this is a mmo social game and playing with their "friends" is what makes it all worthwhile, can't be counted on to form even 4 man teams with players that actually stay till the end of a match? And because of this failure, people that prefer to queue solo must be penalized to ensure they can be used as cannon fodder to make up the difference?

 

I have a disclaimer also. I support both premade and solo queue. WoW has instituted a match making system recently that is supposed to match group vs group and fill in with solo players, leaving the rest of the solo players to fill other battlegrounds. Of course they have cross server queuing and many times more players. It sounds like a good idea.

The goal is not to eliminate premades or solo queuing, but to try and reduce the number of mismatches. Shouldn't be that big a deal to achieve if Bioware actually addressed the issue. There have been a number of good suggestions in this thread.

Edited June 24, 2013 by MotorCityMan

[MidichIorian]

145 000 views....

 

...and not a **** was given by BW.

[MotorCityMan]

Would be nice if Bioware at least acknowledged the thread, eh. Edited June 24, 2013 by MotorCityMan

[Doomsdaycomes]

 

Oh well when it comes to protecting team play at the expense of pugs, you finally admit that premades are "tougher competition". Even to such an extent that pugs should have to pay in comms for the privilege of not having to face "tougher competition" and get ROFL stomped.

 

Never denied that group vs group is tougher than PuG vs. PuG. Prolly should keep track of who's arguing what. Though grouping doesn't = higher skilled, you could say higher skilled people are more likely to group.

 

So firstly, players that want to play with their "friends" can't be counted on to fill a ranked queue, (since forming an 8 man team is somehow impossible for pvp but contradictorily extremely easy for pve;)). Now players that have been preaching that this is a mmo social game and playing with their "friends" is what makes it all worthwhile, can't be counted on to form even 4 man teams with players that actually stay till the end of a match? And because of this failure, people that prefer to queue solo must be penalized to ensure they can be used

as cannon fodder to make up the difference?

 

It's as difficult to field a ranked team as it is an 8 man raider team. I don't know anyone who says other wise, but I certainly don't think finding and managing 8 people is something that is "easy" in either PvE or PvP.

 

It's not cannon fodder. Solo-queue's serve a vital purpose in backfill and filling for partial groups/duos. Again, something I have never denied. On the same note, several solo-only people do not share the victim mentality either. If you feel you are only capable of being farmed, I suggest the issue lies in you ability.

 

I have a disclaimer also. I support both premade and solo queue. WoW has instituted a match making system recently that is supposed to match group vs group and fill in with solo players, leaving the rest of the solo players to fill other battlegrounds. Of course they have cross server queuing and many times more players. It sounds like a good idea.

The goal is not to eliminate premades or solo queuing, but to try and reduce the number of mismatches. Shouldn't be that big a deal to achieve if Bioware actually addressed the issue. There have been a number of good suggestions in this thread.

 

So you... agree that matchmaking is needed. Why are you arguing with me?

[maverickmatt]

It's a poor example for a simple reason:

 

Premade/Groups have no power over their opponents. So while in your example the it's like a Pro sports team showing up to a community center's pick up game, it could easily be said that it's like a rag tag pick up group entering a Sports competition, then wonder why the hell all these good teams are playing against them.

 

Regular warzones are not casual warzones, or PuG-only warzones. Until people recognize that, they will continue to blame the enemy for being "over-prepared." There is no reason 4 players wouldn't team up, coordinate, and play together. If their opponents don't do the same... It's not like those 4 players had any control over making sure their opponents are ready.

 

In addition, the tasks one should do to be "competitive" in regular matches are easy. They are no where near the level or commitment of a "Pro Sports team," and they are not unreasonable to expect others to do the same.

 

Disclaimer: 1) No, I don't think the current situation is healthy. 2) No I am not referring to 8-man premades, I've already expressed these are both rare and breaking/exploiting the mechanics to get into regular matches together. 3) I think the best solution is some kind of matchmaking.

 

The point is subjective, and it can be skewed to either side of the argument. You say that the things you could do to be more competitive do not require the commitment for a Professional Team. However, I personally have been a part of a guild that treated PvP as a sport and required the appropriate level of commitment. I have to point out that in doing so we were guaranteed to be more prepared/skilled than others around us, except for those who did the same. Other guilds were forced to do the same to remain competitive, and the solo-queuers were left out of the loop. They were completely outmatched and no amount of solo preparation was going to bridge the gap in the slightest.

 

What would you expect happened when the guild at large took the night off, or a few people were logged in early or late? They took their over-preparedness, grouped up and ROTFLSTOMPED in regs.

 

This is the current issue. I have no doubt that it was, at least in part, caused by the lack of support for higher-level PvP. Now we have a situation where differentiating between casually grouped friends and premade teams from a ranked guild seems impossible.

 

Optimally you'd want some form of matchmaking like the one referenced earlier in this thread. If you matched groups with groups of similar rank and/or collective skill, and filled in the rest with solo-queuers, you may get more even matches. Though somehow I suspect that the thread following a move like that would be BEGGING for a different kind of matchmaking system because, "BADZ R RUINING WZ 4 ME DUMB SOLO Q'RZ". Undoubtedly premades would then blame their losses on the solo-queuers, and we would be heckled and demeaned in warzones for solo-queueing.

 

The simplest, fastest, and easiest solution is to add a toggle to allow solos to ONLY QUEUE with solos, and groups with groups.

Edited June 24, 2013 by maverickmatt

[cashogy_reborn]

145 000 views....

 

...and not a **** was given by BW.

 

and they wont ever... you know why?

 

because even remotely suggesting that grouping in an MMO should be even a tiny bit against the rules, is insane

 

we need skill based matchmaking. not separate queues.

Edited June 24, 2013 by cashogy_reborn

[Doomsdaycomes]

The simplest, fastest, and easiest solution is to add a toggle to allow solos to ONLY QUEUE with solos, and groups with groups.

 

Simplest, fastest, and easiest doesn't equal best or effective.

 

The solo-only split runs the risk of lowering the population of the regular queue. As I've said to other, Solo-queue'ing players fill a vital role in filling and backfilling in the regular queue. As evidence by this thread, several solo-only players do not see themselves as being farmed. I myself have never felt "farmed" as a solo-queue'er. This is not an issue of "needing cannon fodder." It is a simple, logistical truth of how the queue works.

 

Any -hard- split of the queue's is going to have the risk and possibility of damaging the regular queue. The worse part is that this solution doesn't address the primary problem: High Skill players vs. Low Skill players.

 

That's why I continue to advocate matchmaking. Maybe it's not the simplest or easiest solution, but it's going to be more effective than a simple hard split and remain adaptive enough to keep queue's time as short as possible.

[Comfterbilly]

The solo-only split runs the risk of lowering the population of the regular queue.

 

Premades have been our problem since launch. Your queue is your own problem at this point.

Edited June 24, 2013 by Comfterbilly

[cashogy_reborn]

Premades have been our problem since launch. Your queue is your own problem at this point.

 

you have some issues

[Doomsdaycomes]

Sucking at this game has been our problem since launch. Your queue is your own problem at this point.

 

Fixed that for you.

 

Come back when you have the conviction to defend your argument and truly care about "PvP" in this game. Until then, you're just trollin'.

Edited June 24, 2013 by Doomsdaycomes

[MotorCityMan]

. On the same note, several solo-only people do not share the victim mentality either. If you feel you are only capable of being farmed, I suggest the issue lies in you ability.

 

 

 

So you... agree that matchmaking is needed. Why are you arguing with me?

 

Since you brought up the issue of victim mentality. Many premade players do not share your concerns about queue times or ability to form a 4 man team that can finish a warzone. If you imagine you are going to be victimized by longer queue times, inability to form a 4 person team, or have enough players around to finish a warzone, or suffer some other precipitous fate, just because some solo players wish to pvp in an environs devoid of teams, I suggest the issue lay in your exaggerated sense of self importance.

 

As I have suggested before, there is no argument. Several players wish to be able to queue solo in a warzone with other solo players. It's a request, not an argument. It has been premade players that have jumped in with self serving arguments and dire predictions of catastrophic consequences should this request be granted. And added countless denigrating comments about the persons making the request for good measure.

Edited June 24, 2013 by MotorCityMan

[cashogy_reborn]

if you cant handle regs, you are bad. this game is easy.

 

a solo only queue will not protect you from being beaten by players that are just flat out better. and "super queuing" a 4-man group would most definitely happen..... the lack of forethought with these suggestions is a bit mind bottling.

 

you want fairer, more balanced regs? skill based matchmaking. if youre bad, you will face other bad players. if youre good, you will face other good players.

 

voip, team cohesion, and any other advantage you want to allocate to a premade is vastly outweighed by individual skill. i would take 8 highly skilled, random pugs w/out voip and having never played before over 2 4-man groups of mediocre at best players all in the same voip and having played together constantly.

 

there is no substitute for skill.

[Doomsdaycomes]

Since you brought up the issue of victim mentality. Many premade players do not share your concerns about queue times or ability to form a 4 man team that can finish a warzone. If you imagine you are going to be victimized by longer queue times, inability to form a 4 person team, or have enough players around to finish a warzone, or suffer some other precipitous fate, just because some solo players wish to pvp in an environs devoid of teams, I suggest the issue lay in your exaggerated sense of self importance.

 

Show me one person from this thread who primarily premades and doesnt think the hard separation won't cause population and/or logistic problems in the regular queue.

 

Now show look at the number of PuG-only players predicting that without PuG's, the entire game will die.

 

Check yourself before you say something you can't back up.

 

As I have suggested before, there is no argument. Several players wish to be able to queue solo in a warzone with other solo players. It's a request, not an argument. It has been premade players that have jumped in with self serving arguments and dire predictions of catastrophic consequences should this request be granted. And added countless denigrating comments about the persons making the request for good measure.

 

Once again, check yourself. PuG-centric players have done a great job hurling insults too. (Forgot the one that called Premaders akin to Rapists? He's also the same one that said the only reason people take me in a premade is cause I'm a woman.) PuG's also continue to offer dire predictions of gloom and doom for the entire game if the solo-only bracket isn't implemented.

 

Don't try and pretend the Premaders are the only one's being nasty here.

[maverickmatt]

Show me one person from this thread who primarily premades and doesnt think the hard separation won't cause population and/or logistic problems in the regular queue.

 

Now show look at the number of PuG-only players predicting that without PuG's, the entire game will die.

 

I chose to only quote this section of your post because the rest is quite irrelevant to the subject.

 

Let's be clear: When I say premade, I am not referring to the casual PvP'er grouping with a few friends to have fun. I am referring to the highly skilled, highly geared, and highly advantageous groups taking time off from Ranked (what ranked WZ's exist at the moment).

 

I don't know hard statistics, but I would venture to guess that the number of solo players vastly outweighs the number of premade players.

 

I am also aware that not all solo players have an issue with premades as I have defined them. However, I can vouch for a good portion of the players having an issue with them.

 

In the same way that devs lend more attention to PvE because it is the lifeblood of the game as a whole, they should lend more attention to the solo player because they are the lifeblood of PvP. If you believe otherwise, then you will have no problem with Premade Vs. Premade and Solo Vs. Solo because it will have no effect on premades whatsoever.

 

They DO ask questions, and they DO invite players to testing and Q&A in Austin. Hopefully they can sort it out, as they have access to data that we do not.

Edited June 24, 2013 by maverickmatt

[rlamela]

I chose to only quote this section of your post because the rest is quite irrelevant to the subject.

 

Let's be clear: When I say premade, I am not referring to the casual PvP'er grouping with a few friends to have fun. I am referring to the highly skilled, highly geared, and highly advantageous groups taking time off from Ranked (what ranked WZ's exist at the moment).

 

I don't know hard statistics, but I would venture to guess that the number of solo players vastly outweighs the number of premade players.

 

I am also aware that not all solo players have an issue with premades as I have defined them. However, I can vouch for a good portion of the players having an issue with them.

 

In the same way that devs lend more attention to PvE because it is the lifeblood of the game as a whole, they should lend more attention to the solo player because they are the lifeblood of PvP. If you believe otherwise, then you will have no problem with Premade Vs. Premade and Solo Vs. Solo because it will have no effect on premades whatsoever.

 

They DO ask questions, and they DO invite players to testing and Q&A in Austin. Hopefully they can sort it out, as they have access to data that we do not.

 

I'm only responding to the bolded part. people don't have a problem with premades, they have a problem with losing. premades are just their excuse for why they lose.. what they really need to be upset with is the fact that there is no matchmaking system at all. But if they admit to this then they admit that they are bad. Its why they would rather try and ban premades.

I actually hope all of you get what you want. That way when you still lose 90% of the warzones you play in your solo queue I can come back here and laugh at all your new excuses why you lose

 

Rellik

[Doomsdaycomes]

I chose to only quote this section of your post because the rest is quite irrelevant to the subject.

 

Let's be clear: When I say premade, I am not referring to the casual PvP'er grouping with a few friends to have fun. I am referring to the highly skilled, highly geared, and highly advantageous groups taking time off from Ranked (what ranked WZ's exist at the moment).

 

I don't know hard statistics, but I would venture to guess that the number of solo players vastly outweighs the number of premade players.

 

I am also aware that not all solo players have an issue with premades as I have defined them. However, I can vouch for a good portion of the players having an issue with them.

 

In the same way that devs lend more attention to PvE because it is the lifeblood of the game as a whole, they should lend more attention to the solo player because they are the lifeblood of PvP. If you believe otherwise, then you will have no problem with Premade Vs. Premade and Solo Vs. Solo because it will have no effect on premades whatsoever.

 

They DO ask questions, and they DO invite players to testing and Q&A in Austin. Hopefully they can sort it out, as they have access to data that we do not.

 

I do not contest these points except to say: No matter the definition being used of premade, groups will be effected negatively by a hard-bracket split.

 

My post is only in reference to Motorcityman's attempt to turn the "faux victim mentality" I've called several PuG-centric players out on back unto Group-Players pointing out the problems of a hard split. There is a difference between pointing out an issue in a solution and the "Woe is me, I'm farmed all day by 8-man premades using telepathy" that some PuG-centric players proclaim.

 

 

As long as you agree there is a problem and some form of matchmaking presents the best solution for all parties, then I don't really care how you define premades, casuals, play styles, etc... I have no argument with you.

[MotorCityMan]

I do not contest these points except to say: No matter the definition being used of premade, groups will be effected negatively by a hard-bracket split.

 

 

This is the red herring let loose when solo only queuing has been brought up.

Without empirical data, there is no way to support this proposition. It is pure conjecture.

 

Queue times are not the issue. The issue is, many players wish to have the option to pvp in warzones devoid of premades. The impact of that on issues of ranked, queue times, skill levels, arena play, cross server queuing, back filling, team play, etc, albeit related, are speculative. What isn't speculation, but a fact, is the request as I have stated it.

 

Now it's up to Bioware.

Edited June 24, 2013 by MotorCityMan

[Sharee]

One possible solution would be to give every player who participates in warzones (even regular ones) an individual rating. This rating would be invisible to the player or anyone else, and would only be used internally by the server matchmaking service.

 

When composing teams for a match, the service would then do it's best to ensure the sum of individual players' ratings on both teams is roughly the same.

 

This would naturally deal with pro-level premades, as players playing in them would have very high ratings, so the system would tend to throw premades against other premades. This would also make PUG vs PUG games more fair, as scrubs would not be put against veterans. And all this without having to even consider whether a player joined solo or in a group(so it would not separate those two).

[Doomsdaycomes]

This is the red herring let loose when solo only queuing has been brought up.

Without empirical data, there is no way to support this proposition. It is pure conjecture.

 

Queue times are not the issue. The issue is, many players wish to have the option to pvp in warzones devoid of premades. The impact of that on issues of ranked, queue times, skill levels, arena play, cross server queuing, back filling, team play, etc, albeit related, are speculative. What isn't speculation, but a fact, is the request as I have stated it.

 

Now it's up to Bioware.

 

I was not to first to bring this up. Though Comfter was not the first either, it is by his reasoning that PuG's leaving the queue = Longer queue times.

 

However, I do not think it's unreasonable to state this as a logical conclusion. Any time you lessen or have a low population it will impact queue times. If this were not true, then why did some servers report horrendous queue times pre-server merge?

 

I am not the only one (on either side) of the debate to use such logical conclusions or terms.

 

As for the continued attempt at holier than thou... why is the thread not called "Request for PuG only warzones?"

 

This thread started as a complaint against premades, citing longer queue times and blaming premades (of 4). At the end of the opening post there is no suggestion. It is a demand. "Bioware, you need to X... or Y will happen."

 

As this thread has gone along, insults, conjecture, logical conclusion, etc... have been tossed by both sides of the issue. You may attempt to make this a "All we're asking is this and the opponents of it are throwing fallacies, insults, and red herrings," but it holds no water. Both sides are just as guilty.

 

I'll also add, that I could also make a suggestion that I be given an option to queue as only Dps vs. Dps. Dps vs Heals or Tanking is a valid play style. Would my suggestion to have a bracket excluding other players I don't want to play with a) have zero negative effect on the excluded and b) be any less valid then your wish to not be placed against players who choose to use the group option? If you're using a moral argument such as "People shouldn't have to play something they don't want to play" who gets to draw the line, You?

[Doomsdaycomes]

One possible solution would be to give every player who participates in warzones (even regular ones) an individual rating. This rating would be invisible to the player or anyone else, and would only be used internally by the server matchmaking service.

 

When composing teams for a match, the service would then do it's best to ensure the sum of individual players' ratings on both teams is roughly the same.

 

This would naturally deal with pro-level premades, as players playing in them would have very high ratings, so the system would tend to throw premades against other premades. This would also make PUG vs PUG games more fair, as scrubs would not be put against veterans. And all this without having to even consider whether a player joined solo or in a group(so it would not separate those two).

 

I have refrained from stating which criteria but...

 

Matchmaking. As both a Group player and a Solo'er on occasion, I support some form of matching (such as you have described) that facilitates as even as possible matches and keeps queue times down (by trying for best match, then doing best match possible after a certian amount of minutes).

 

So I am in agreement. If other wish to debate the merits of X criteria vs. Y criteria, I'll leave them to it.

[DariusCalera]

One possible solution would be to give every player who participates in warzones (even regular ones) an individual rating. This rating would be invisible to the player or anyone else, and would only be used internally by the server matchmaking service.

 

When composing teams for a match, the service would then do it's best to ensure the sum of individual players' ratings on both teams is roughly the same.

 

This would naturally deal with pro-level premades, as players playing in them would have very high ratings, so the system would tend to throw premades against other premades. This would also make PUG vs PUG games more fair, as scrubs would not be put against veterans. And all this without having to even consider whether a player joined solo or in a group(so it would not separate those two).

 

I think something similar to this was suggested earlier in this thread. There are a few issues that I see with it that would need to be ironed out.

 

1: Queue times: How would implementing this effect them? For one, it would slow them down because the system is no longer just picking any 8 players but selecting certain ones based on a criteria. I would guess that at the lower end of the bracket the queue times would be relatively short because of a larger number of players with a lower rating but what about at the higher end? Also, how long should the system wait to fill an open position if it can not can not find a suitable player?

 

2: Group Make up: Even now, there are players that complain about the lack of healers in the WZs. This will, honestly, limit the pool even more because, once again, the system would be trying to find a healer, or whatever, that has the necessary rating to fit that group. So you would probably see more teams with fewer healers.

 

3: Group Factors: What would the system use to determine the rating requirement for a particular WZ?

 

For example, would it use a set system where if you have a rating between 60 and 70 you fall into that pool or would it use a system where the rating requirement is determined off of the first person that queued and everyone has to be with +/- 5 ratings?

 

4: Ratings: Would they be legacy wide? In other words, if I have a rating of 70 on my gunny commando and I make an arsenal merc is the rating going to carry over? I ask because or the exploitation possibilities with new toons and legacy gear.

 

There are probably more but I can't think of any right now. Not saying it is a bad idea but it needs to be fleshed out a bit more to cover as many possibilities as possible.

[Sharee]

I think something similar to this was suggested earlier in this thread. There are a few issues that I see with it that would need to be ironed out.

 

1: Queue times: How would implementing this effect them? For one, it would slow them down because the system is no longer just picking any 8 players but selecting certain ones based on a criteria. I would guess that at the lower end of the bracket the queue times would be relatively short because of a larger number of players with a lower rating but what about at the higher end? Also, how long should the system wait to fill an open position if it can not can not find a suitable player?

 

Higher end: Low number of players with low rating does not really matter. Its the sum of players' ratings on teams that is being balanced, not individual players. Only difference between lower and higher ends will be lower end will have more scrub vs scrub matches(with a few pros) and higher end more pro vs pro matches(with a few scrubs).

 

2: Group Make up: Even now, there are players that complain about the lack of healers in the WZs. This will, honestly, limit the pool even more because, once again, the system would be trying to find a healer, or whatever, that has the necessary rating to fit that group. So you would probably see more teams with fewer healers.

 

The system would have the same amount of heal-capable classes available for matchmaking as it does now. I don't see how they would become more rare.

 

3: Group Factors: What would the system use to determine the rating requirement for a particular WZ?

 

For example, would it use a set system where if you have a rating between 60 and 70 you fall into that pool or would it use a system where the rating requirement is determined off of the first person that queued and everyone has to be with +/- 5 ratings?

 

There are no rating requirements. The rating is simply used to be added up for both teams, and the system tries to make the two numbers as close as possible.(for instance it will make team A as 70+40+40+30+20+10+10+10 and team B as 90+40+30+30+20+10+5+5) It does not have to be equal, just as close as possible.

 

4: Ratings: Would they be legacy wide? In other words, if I have a rating of 70 on my gunny commando and I make an arsenal merc is the rating going to carry over? I ask because or the exploitation possibilities with new toons and legacy gear.

 

Not legacy wide. If i make a new BH and have no idea how to play it, i don't want to be considered a pro player. The exploitation with new toons would be very limited, as your new arsenal merc would rapidly gain rating from his high performance.

Edited June 24, 2013 by Sharee

[MotorCityMan]

Any time you lessen or have a low population it will impact queue times. ......... who gets to draw the line, You?

 

You continue to offer this as a fait accompli should there be a solo only queue, which it is not. Queue times do not increase if a population is decreased unless it falls below a critical number. As an example, reducing a population of 50,000 queuing for 8 man warzones in half to 25,000 will not result in any increase in queue times, only a fewer number of instanced warzones. Without empirical data, we do not know what this thresh hold might be and whether there would be any resultant intolerable increase in queue times. It is complete conjecture and is not a pertinent argument. Even so, it is still not a veto, as there are other possible remedies to queue times, such as cross server queuing.

 

 

Bioware gets to draw the line, obviously.

Edited June 24, 2013 by MotorCityMan

[Doomsdaycomes]

You continue to offer this as a fait accompli, which it is not. Queue times do not increase if a population is decreased...

 

Again, I am not the first one to draw these conclusions.

 

As most of this thread has revolved around these concepts, what's your point in claiming they're all irrelevant?

 

Bioware gets to draw the line, obviously.

 

Then I submit this: Bioware already has drawn the line on this issue, obviously.

 

They designated 1-4 people for regular, 8 people for ranked. There is the divide between warzone brackets, as set by the almighty decider Bioware (hence why this debate is over, right?). What right do you have to "suggest" they change it unless:

 

You have some empirical data to support it's broken?

Edited June 24, 2013 by Doomsdaycomes

[MotorCityMan]

Again, I am not the first one to draw these conclusions.

 

As most of this thread has revolved around these concepts, what's your point in claiming they're all irrelevant?

 

 

 

Then I submit this: Bioware already has drawn the line on this issue, obviously.

 

They designated 1-4 people for regular, 8 people for ranked. There is the divide between warzone brackets, as set by the almighty decider Bioware (hence why this debate is over, right?). What right do you have to "suggest" they change it unless:

 

You have some empirical data to support it's broken?

 

I think I will pass on addressing any of that or any future post you might make except to reiterate a request to Bioware for a solo only queue option.