Jump to content

Feature Idea - Choose Warzones for Queue


Asvarduil

Recommended Posts

This is an idea I've been thinking about posting for a very long time, now. However, until a recent string of Alderaan Civil Wars (again), I've been putting it off, and seeing things BioWare's way.

 

Sure, dictated warzone selection has upsides (ensured warzone population, among them), but let's face it - given the (broken) matchmaking system and the situation with leavers, it's just not working out. We need a better solution to A) competitively PvP, and B) have fun. Warzone selection does that.

 

Why?

A) With selected warzones, players are able to reliably practice strategies under different rulesets. Sure, all classes have abilities that expend resources, but if we really wanted to practice that, we'd just solo PvE. No, what makes the warzone PvP interesting is the rulesets; those are what influence our decision-making process.

 

Right now, we're at the mercy of the RNG behind Warzone selection. If you would really like to work on some new Huttball strategies with your guildies, or try a different ACW metagame, you might, but you might not; there's no way to tell what warzones you will get!

 

B) With selected warzones, players can choose warzones they find fun. Don't like Voidstar, Huttball, or Denova Coast? That's cool, you've got some choices. If a player dosen't like any warzone, well, that's what Open World PvP is for (or PvE). You don't have to worry about rolling the same warzone over and over and over again.

 

Caveats? Of course there are.

A) Players must choose at least 3. I don't foresee BioWare throwing away the RNG, and thus the need to adapt. There's sufficient variety in rulesets that, with 3 choices, you should still have to adapt as a player.

 

B) Matchmaking will be a challenge. Given the vast number of PvPers in this game, though, I don't think it'll pose much of a problem in the long run, though. I do think role-specific lockouts on a warzone are a good idea to ensure that competitive team makeups are in the running though (e.g. if a warzone has X healers, stop allowing classes capable of healing, but if a warzone has less than Y healers queued, redirect available healers to that queue.) These are ideas that BioWare should decide, though; this is mere conjecture.

 

C) Leaving still has to be addressed. While it is entirely possible that 'back-queued' players will be able to immediately fill a leaver's role, it still poses a problem as that player spawns and has to get to where the action is. However, unless there are leavers around every freaking corner, chances are the PvP community will encounter fewer leavers in general (as, they're less likely to have even queued up for the same warzones you have.)

 

While not a perfect solution to all of our problems, I advocate warzone queue selection as a remedy to some of the problems our community faces. Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its a nice idea, and i have more than oen occasion suggested it via ingame manners or through direct email and always got the same automated crap response wich basically says it went straight to the trash with all the rest of bioware's emplyees
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What scares me is that people will setup premades for that specific warzone and just dominate it. On top of this what scares me is that Warhammer did this. As the result of choosing which wz to queue, everyone chose the same one because it was the fastest one to earn valor rank in.

 

Do I dislike certain warzones, that I prefer not to play them as much? Yes, but this queue for certain warzones will create a snowball affect of forcing people to only play the warzone that people like the most. By having 1 person out of 16 choose, let's say huttball, everyone is now forced to play huttball, even though the other 15 out of 16 choose queue for any warzone.

 

Yes, my example uses only 1 warzone choice and you use 3, but the issue is the fact that the people who choose any warzone are now forced to play the warzones that the one person who choose 3 different ones.

Edited by Zorash
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What scares me is that people will setup premades for that specific warzone and just dominate it. On top of this what scares me is that Warhammer did this. As the result of choosing which wz to queue, everyone chose the same one because it was the fastest one to earn valor rank in.

 

Do I dislike certain warzones, that I prefer not to play them as much? Yes, but this queue for certain warzones will create a snowball affect of forcing people to only play the warzone that people like the most. By having 1 person out of 16 choose, let's say huttball, everyone is now forced to play huttball, even though the other 15 out of 16 choose queue for any warzone.

 

Yes, my example uses only 1 warzone choice and you use 3, but the issue is the fact that the people who choose any warzone are now forced to play the warzones that the one person who choose 3 different ones.

 

This is a good point. Choosing the map works for shooters like halo because everyone essentially starts on equal footing with minor exceptions. Stacking a team for huttball and using your 4 votes to get it virtually every time would be problematic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a good point. Choosing the map works for shooters like halo because everyone essentially starts on equal footing with minor exceptions. Stacking a team for huttball and using your 4 votes to get it virtually every time would be problematic.

 

Presumeably you would queue against other like-minded people for huttball which would make it fine. I can say with confidence I will not be found in that wz. Other wzs are not as vulnurable to stacked groups (maybe a bunch of stealthers in AH but that's it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Presumeably you would queue against other like-minded people for huttball which would make it fine. I can say with confidence I will not be found in that wz. Other wzs are not as vulnurable to stacked groups (maybe a bunch of stealthers in AH but that's it).

 

I doubt that would be the case. The pvp population is only so large that it is highly doubtful that there are tons and tons of people out there for them to get matched with the same like minded people every time. On top of this, all this assumes it's during peak hours where a ton of people are pvping. The people can skew the queue in their favor during offpeak times because the lack of pvp population during those time periods. Let's not forget in the lowbie brackets the amount of players pvping is a lot smaller then the 55 bracket. A few days ago I went on a pvp binge and did 10 matches in the 30-54 bracket, I went up against the same premade 4 times, another premade 2 times. This just shows how small the pvp population is in lower brackets and how easily it can be skewed to certain warzones just by a few individuals queueing up for certain warzones.

 

Let's take another example, if 50% of the population dislike huttball, 25% of the population likes huttball and 25% of the population choose any warzone, that means the people who choose any warzone have a 50% chance of not getting huttball. This right there indirectly forces the rest of the population to be queued in warzones that the pvp population likes overall. Any time someone makes a choice for certain warzones it skews the queue in their favor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.