Premades are ruining non-ranked warzones

[Jadescythe]

No.... it's an inference.

You have a dog, let's say it's an old coonhound. Every time you walk on the porch, you kick your coonhound. He's going to run and hide when you come outside.

 

It's the same with premades. You lose, and lose again, and again. At some point you begin to see the same names over and over, and you notice they are all in the same couple of guilds. You say, "Oh, those are premades", and you begin to make the connection. Maybe it's your skill level, maybe it's your team, or MAYBE it's the advantage given to premades with better communication and, by extension, coordination in an objective-based game.

 

It isn't unreasonable at all to associate losses with playing against premades. You mention PuGs beating premades, however.. rarely does a PuG beat a competitive premade. It happens, but not often. Not nearly enough to say it isn't an issue.

 

 

 

You obviously skimmed right over my posts, as well as several other reasonable voices here. Casual Premades aren't the issue. They never have been, and they never will be. It is Competitive Premades that ruin it for everyone. You know who they are. They DO have a perfect composition (because experience in Rated has taught them better), and they DO have better gear (again, Rated anyone?). They don't have more skill, but they DO have better coordination, which is of far more value than individual skill.

I agree with the rest.

 

 

 

This trend of calling players "bad" is ridiculous. There are skilled players, and less skilled players. It would benefit the community as whole if players would stop dismissing other players as "bads". It's silly, childish, and does NOTHING to further develop their gameplay.

 

On a side note, it's less a skill issue than you think.

 

Without making another one of my long posts, the parts I highlighted in red are where the solo queue argument falls apart. Casual premades are premades, so if they aren't a problem, how will a solo queue fix the issue? It's the point I've been making for 8 months, but no one in favor of solo queue will listen. If all groups aren't the problem, then your original analogy falls apart, because you don't get destroyed every time you face a group, just like you can get destroyed without a group being on the other side.

 

99% of the problem is a combination of skill and what I'll call the tank/healer problem. Tank healer combos are tough, grouped or not. It takes some sense of knowing how to play this game to get through it. All you see in ops chat is "GET ON THE HEALER", while anyone with half a brain is thinking, "GET HIM AWAY FROM THE TANK OR CC HIM". So yes, groups who run with a tank and healer make it harder on those who don't know how to play properly and good premades are far more likely to run with this type of setup.

 

The issue isn't fixed by taking that out, just mitigated to happening less often with a solo queue. Nothing will ever fix this unless we get the population to be able to support queuing up for a role. It's the same problem with MOST teams that don't have a healer. The DPS just isn't high enough to live through the other team being healed unless the teams are severely mismatched.

 

I realize solo queue isn't necessarily your solution to the PvP problems, but it is the argument being made in this thread that my posts are directed at.

 

As to bads and perfect composition, those are still factors and correct terminology. Perfect composition is never going to be a thing outside of ranked because, to be honest, you don't know the composition of half your team going in. So what is a perfect 4 man rotation? Healer, tank, dps, dps? Do you have to bring classes that can respec in case you end up with 4 healers, 4 dps, or 4 tanks as your other teammates that can't play anything else? Do you have issues when there is no rDPS on your team at all if you don't bring one?

 

Bads refers to players who are bad and have no intention of getting better. If you keep playing a game and losing it won't be fun. If you don't plan to get better at it, why play at all? Instead, they come here to complain about people who are playing well. Imprimis made a good post a few pages back that I saw about how many views this thread gets compared to guides in class forums. If you expect to be able to just log into the game and have a chance at winning matches without any type of preparation or learning at all, then you're delusional. It takes 5 minutes to join a guild with at least 1 decent player of your class to give you tips or read an article about your class on here or elsewhere. They should try it or go back to single player games.

 

TL;DR I made a really long post again that I didn't mean to

[cycao]

TL;DR I made a really long post again that I didn't mean to

 

Did you though...Did you really?

[Jadescythe]

You need *me* to construct an example? And you need an answer to a completely off-topic question to do so?

 

I picked one of your random posts. Your beach example is poor for many reasons. But let's say you want to play volleyball on the beach. It requires a team, so you find people around to play. Are you going to stop 2 people from playing just because they came to the beach together and one is great at spiking and one is great at setting them up?

 

Apparently no, you're going to go build a sand castle instead.

[Boch]

I like to build sand castles with my friends who are equally skilled at building sand castles. I also like to kick down sand castles built by little kids who are bad at building sand castles.

 

We should change the thread name too Premades are ruining my sand castles.

Edited July 11, 2013 by Boch

[Doomsdaycomes]

Ah....

 

Finally figured out a way to explain why the beach example is a terrible one. <.< Took me a bit cause it was obvious, and thus I'd assumed others would see why. It baffled me the original poster of the example (Sharee) didn't see it.

 

Our current situation:

 

There is a Population of Players.

They all have a common interest, PvP.

They have a common space, Regular Warzones.

They have different interests (Playing with all, Playing with only PuG's) within that common interest, which takes place in that common space.

 

Over to the bad beach example:

 

You have a population of kids.

They have a common interest, the beach.

They have a common space, the beach.

They have different interests (Volley ball, Sand Castles) within that common interest, which takes place in that common space.

 

The bad beach example has "The Beach" representing two things: The common interest -and- the common space. It doesn't match our situation then, because "The Beach" can only either be: The Common Interest -or- The Common Space.

 

So if the common interest is going to the beach, then the 1 kid wanting to make Sand Castles must be wanting to do so in the common space (undefined in the example) that 7 others want to play Volley Ball, thus causing the problem.

 

-or-

 

If the common space is the beach, then the 1 kid wanting to make a Sand Castle is irrelevant, because the population of kids do not have a common interest (now undefined in the example.)

 

Took me a bit, but it's not easy spotting the obvious sometimes, especially when you know you're talking to an intelligent person. The beach example is a terrible one for our current situation because "The Beach" variable is being used to represent two distinct, different things in the same formula.

[Boch]

The ridiculousness of this thread has finally reached the level of... I don't think there is a word in the English language to describe.

[cycao]

The ridiculousness of this thread has finally reached the level of... I don't think there is a word in the English language to describe.

 

Shenanigans?

[Jadescythe]

Shenanigans?

 

?

[Doomsdaycomes]

Shenanigans?

 

"I'm gonna pistol whip the next person to say Shenanigans."

 

?

 

Edit: What he said ^

Edited July 11, 2013 by Doomsdaycomes

[Atramar]

"I'm gonna pistol whip the next person to say Shenanigans."

 

Shenanigans,Shenanigans,Shenanigans

 

I'm a bad, bad boy.

[foxmob]

Well, the fix that a lot of people have suggested is the match making system which would insure that those highly competitive groups would only be facing players of near equal ranking. It would also insure that those players that are new to 55 PvP would only be facing players at their rank level as well.

 

Yes, players of all ranks might still run into premades but you would not have those highly competitive premades stomping a group of fresh 55s.

 

a matchmaking system that holds out for balanced skill rating on both sides would have FAR fewer pops than separate solo and 4 or less queues. why? because ppl who grp together are predominately similar in skill or the best option available of the players who are online at that time.

 

examples:

 

 

• a grp composed of players from an elite guild will have 4 very highly rated players. the only way to balance this would be to find another 4 hopelessly bad players to pair them with or to find another 4 elite players to place on the opposing team.
   
  
• invert that: a grp of 4 bad players hops in the queue. now you have 4 slots that need to fill with very highly rated players. exactly 4. well let's say you have a grp of 2 and a solo who fit that bill. now you need to grab another 1. the only other 1 available requires overlooking 10 other players who were in queue before him but are in grps of 2 or more.
   
  
• split queues are going to pop considerably faster for both queues.
  

 

queue algorithms pretty much HAVE TO make time in queue as the primary factor in building matches. however, something they can do (albeit only for same faction matches) is take the first 16 in the queue and balance those teams, either according to (legacy?) rating or split off so that one team isn't comprised of two 4m grps.

 

ironically, a balanced skill algorithm would work extremely well in a solo-only queue, because you would always grab the first 16 available players and could move any/all pieces to whichever team needs them. of course, faction imbalance would still affect team comp...unless you went one step further and ignored faction in WZs. I wouldn't have a problem with that, personally, but I could understand not considering it so long as the server populations remain high. and, of course, that would really alienate grps and friends playing with friends.

 

another aside, I'm currently on a server that was absolutely gutted (from a pvp population standpoint) by server transfers. the queue times are not significantly different. the matches are marginally closer (on average), but they're far -- FAR -- more agonizing to take part in. it's just painful to be a part of many of these things. 55s who don't know how to pass the hb yet. nodes turning the second I'm not -- personally -- there to guard. as soon as we turn a node, the WHOLE TEAM abandons it. door caps with 2-3 ppl 15m away. I know you'll say regs have always been like this, but believe me, regs were NEVER like this to the extent that they are now. I don't bring this up to QQ about my server. I just think it's worth pointing out the DOWNSIDE to balanced team composition. if elite 4m gets perpetually paired with retarded 4m...I don't think anyone's going to be happy.

[Doomsdaycomes]

a matchmaking system that holds out for balanced skill rating on both sides would have FAR fewer pops than separate solo and 4 or less queues. why? because ppl who grp together are predominately similar in skill or the best option available of the players who are online at that time.

 

Well that's a new approach.

 

It's also not correct. Matchmaking searches for the best match out of a population and as time goes on, slowly degrades "equality" in favor of getting a match going in a reasonable amount of time. Then once it's determined it has a good match, it balances (depending on faction balance and/or match type) it's participants.

 

As an example:

 

Matchmaking has a population of 32 players, with a variety of queue types 20 PuG's, 12 Grouped.

 

It wants to match 2 games of 16 players of equal rating. (Best) This could mean 3 groups + 4 Pugs and 16 Pugs, or 1 group+4 Pugs vs 1 group+4 Pugs and 1 group+ 4 Pugs vs 8 Pugs, but all of equal rating.

 

Failing that in X time, It wants 2 games of 16 players of near rating and balances the teams so that both teams have higher players and lower players.

 

Failing that in Y time, it wants 2 games of 16 players of any rating and balances the teams so that both teams have higher and lower players.

 

As long as there is population, Matchmaking will make as even a match as possible in X+Y time or less.

 

Split Queue's:

 

Again, Population 32 players. Queue variety of 20 Pugs, 12 groups.

 

16 PuG's get to play. 4 Pugs sit out (queue time 15 minutes for the first match to end). 0 group players get to play, 12 sit out (not enough players).

 

 

Let's get even crazier. Split Queue of 32 players with queue variety of 15 Pugs, 17 groups (Meaning 3 groups of 4, 1 group of 3, 1 group of 2).

 

0 PuG's get to play, 15 sit out (not enough PuGs).

 

0 group players get to play, 17 sit out. No combination of 3 Fours, 1 three and 1 two is going to make 16.

 

-If- 15 is possible to play, PuG's end up playing 8 vs 7, while groups get 8 vs 7, and the 2-man sitting in queue indefinitely still.

[Jadescythe]

I'm pretty tired of typing the same arguments over and over again. I created a thread with my points for matchmaking and against solo queue. If you have anything to legitimately debate, feel free to post there, but I just can't keep responding to the same stuff all the time in this thread.

[TonyDragonflame]

First of all, there is no issue to be fixed. You just suck.

 

Second, the people who premade pay just as much as you do. They have rights.

 

Last, stop finding excuses because you have no skill. (I PUG 100%, i know where you're coming from)

 

Welcome to my ignore list.

[cycao]

Welcome to my ignore list.

 

I'm not on that list am I?

Edited July 11, 2013 by cycao

[TonyDragonflame]

It took blizzard what? 7 years before they realized they are bleeding pvp population and started giving a single **** and admitted premades vs solo-queuers is a problem? This thread still has a long way to go That BW doesn't answer here might mean "we don't care" just as much as "we don't know what to do about this yet".

 

There are no answer and no solution of problem from Bioware, there are only solutions of issue for solo pvp' players which are simply:

 

1. Stop play endgame 55 level warzones, go play lowbies 10-29 and 30-54 warzones whats about fair solos vs solos most time

2. Stop play warzones

3. Stop play

 

Thats all. Lets premaders on 55 lvl eats their own sh*t with long queue time for it. Solo players will bojcott them. GG.

 

Lowbies however still pug vs pug and its lot of fun and challenge when 1 good solo player can solo turn tides and bring win for all team.

[Doomsdaycomes]

Lowbies however still pug vs pug and its lot of fun and challenge when 1 good solo player can solo turn tides and bring win for all team.

 

And there it is...

 

The only reason "One good Solo player" turns the tides is because the rest of the enemy team is either uncoordinated, or bad.

 

More importantly, this is why you oppose anything but the Solo-only queue, isn't it? You're hoping that will give you a play ground of uncoordinated players so you can feel special being a PvP-hero. What's the matter, your ninja-cap get stopped too many times by teams communicating? Solo'ed a node guard only to die seconds later to his team mate responding? Can't run the huttball in yourself with the other team always grabbing it and passing?

 

I still stand by there are some good, honest solo-centric players who are worth trying to change the current system to disadvantage them less (by trying to get similar skilled players on their team and against them). You are not one of those PuG's. You are only looking out for yourself and hoping you'll get to feel like a special snowflake.

[Sharee]

The bad beach example has "The Beach" representing two things: The common interest -and- the common space. It doesn't match our situation then, because "The Beach" can only either be: The Common Interest -or- The Common Space.

 

The beach is a location, not an interest The interest is playing on the beach.

 

beach=warzone

playing on the beach=pvp-ing

volleyball=playing against groups

building sand castle=playing against solos.

 

As simple an analogy as it gets. How you managed to write a thesis around it i'll never understand.

[Boch]

No one cares about some stupid made up beach with some ***** kid who won't play volleyball.

And yes its a dumb analogy.

Edited July 11, 2013 by Boch

[Sharee]

No one cares about some stupid made up beach with some ***** kid who won't play volleyball.

 

It's okay. The example wasn't meant for you. I understand it may have been too complicated to comprehend for some.

[Doomsdaycomes]

The beach is a location, not an interest The interest is playing on the beach.

 

beach=warzone

playing on the beach=pvp-ing

volleyball=playing against groups

building sand castle=playing against solos.

 

As simple an analogy as it gets. How you managed to write a thesis around it i'll never understand.

 

Alright, I had some faith in you. I no longer do.

 

If you can't see the difference in comparing a group of players who want to do something everyone is doing but without certain players, to a kid who wants to play sand castles by himself you're either blind, stupid, or stubborn. I'm going to guess stubborn.

 

Good day sir.

[Jadescythe]

The beach is a location, not an interest The interest is playing on the beach.

 

beach=warzone

playing on the beach=pvp-ing

volleyball=playing against groups

building sand castle=playing against solos.

 

As simple an analogy as it gets. How you managed to write a thesis around it i'll never understand.

 

Building sand castles is not a group activity. How can you compare it to solo queuing for warzones, which requires 8 people? The only way this works is if volleyball is PvP and you either allow or deny people the opportunity to play volleyball based on whether they are playing with people they know. Based on your posts in this thread, only people who went to the beach alone can play. Building a sand castle would be like leveling an alt, which the groups will then have to do instead if they can't get another game going.

[Vaerah]

Wow this thread has so many pages? Really? It's clear that people who lose will be mad at the state of affairds, the people who win will be mocking them and Bioware doesn't give a single ****. We should have just get over it long ago.

 

No, because those about to quit want to tell why they are quitting.

 

It's so obvious why they do, this thread should be 3 pages long not 400+. But of course for every concern there are 3 trolls and 2 who find it perfectly fun to perma farm noobs, so the thread got big.

[frankiejo]

Alright, I had some faith in you. I no longer do.

 

If you can't see the difference in comparing a group of players who want to do something everyone is doing but without certain players, to a kid who wants to play sand castles by himself you're either blind, stupid, or stubborn. I'm going to guess stubborn.

 

Good day sir.

I think what he's saying is when you get 4 able players together and they blunder into a match against a bunch of bads, their is no skill level involved. That's true, and it can make things boring (because 2 minute hutt ball matches are so fun) but it will only be fixed my skill based matchmaking, and not removing the group queue.

[Sharee]

Alright, I had some faith in you. I no longer do.

 

If you can't see the difference in comparing a group of players who want to do something everyone is doing but without certain players, to a kid who wants to play sand castles by himself you're either blind, stupid, or stubborn. I'm going to guess stubborn.

 

Good day sir.

 

Why by himself? As i pointed out earlier, you can instead put in multiple kids building that castle, it does not change the point of the example.

 

If you cannot see the similarity in comparing a group of premades demanding that solo-queuers play with them in a warzone to a group of volleyball players demanding that the castle builders play with them on the beach you're either blind, stupid, or stubborn. And i only wrote that because you used the same words. No offense.

Edited July 11, 2013 by Sharee