Premades are NOT ruining regular warzones

[Jadescythe]

Warning: This is going to be long, like really long. Like long enough to where the TL;DR will need a TL;DR.

 

Introduction

 

Hey I'm Jadescythe as known on the forums. I've been playing since open beta weekends and have been participating in PvP since the 10-50 queues back in the day. I have leveled every class to at least 50 with the exception of Assassin/Shadow and Sniper/Gunslinger, but have played both to 30 or so. I have toons in guilds, but I primarily solo queue and haven't been involved in ranked since shortly after it launched and I needed a PvP break. In case you care, I have cleared all PvE content up until NiM TFB released and I just couldn't stand raiding TFB again.

 

I played my sorc as a healer from launch in PvP, but preferred playing my jugg when I hit 50 shortly before 1.3 came out. I'm better than most, but certainly not a top player at any particular class. I'm not in a top guild, and I solo queue about 95% of the time and queue for at least a few hours every day on POT5. If not solo, it's generally duo with a friend that's on and rarely some bigger groups when we have a bunch of people on together. I think that's about all the background you'll need.

 

I keep seeing the same arguments made over and over again about the game not being fun for everyone and needing to find ways to make the game more enjoyable so we don’t lose more players. I’ll try and break this up into a format that is easy to read and hopefully that’ll make it easier to be flamed by half the people in this thread.

 

What's the Problem?

 

The problem as it’s described is that games are lopsided to the point that one side has no chance of winning from the very start. Many reasons are then given, such as a bad team composition, one side having better gear, one team focusing on a target more, or more organization. All (somewhat) valid reasons to lose a game, but the entirety of these issues is put on the shoulders of the premade.

 

Apparently all premades are created equal as well, so if you are grouped with any number of people for any reason, you are a PUG stomping, no good, low life, kankle loving loser. Of course, if you are gone from their warzones, all of these issues will magically disappear and no one can deny that to some degree, they would. If no one can choose to ensure they have good players on their team with better gear who plan on playing the objectives rather than running around mindlessly then the likelihood of lopsided games decreases.

 

I will put in a caveat here that I am not talking about groups of more than 4. Queue syncing is not supposed to happen and is NOT working as intended. Full groups should be where full groups belong.

 

Advantages of the group and why they don’t matter

 

The max group size currently to queue for regs is 4, half a team. It’s true that you can pick the players with correct roles and get in voice comms to try and gain an advantage. Heck, you can get the best 4 players alive together with the best gear. All of these advantages are only given to that group queuing though and not groups in general.

 

1) If grouping was the issue, then anyone that formed a group would be able to do what is complained about. Why is it not a surprise that it’s only the best guilds forming premades that are complained about? Maybe because they’re the best for a reason. Maybe because they spend their time competing, discussing, and gaining experience in what they want to do.

 

2) If grouping was the issue, groups would have a 100% win rate against PUGs. This is not the case if you were wondering.

 

3) Not all groups are the best players with the best gear with the best strats trying to find an easy way to get comms (losing in ranked would be faster and more beneficial to learning btw).

 

4) Groups are reliant on 4 other people matched with them. So their handpicked composition may not fit. They still have to utilize ops chat to talk to the team. They still have to have 4 other people focusing on the same objectives to focus fire or CC properly.

 

So if not all groups are being complained about and groups don’t always win, how will eliminating groups resolve the issue of lopsided matches?

 

Issues with a Solo-Queue

 

I have many issues with a solo only queue, so I’ll try and break them up into paragraphs from least important to most important to keep them separate.

 

1) Solo queue encourages poor play. We’re basically saying, “The point is to play as a team to complete objectives, but let’s get rid of any organization so that’s not possible.” It doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. Yes this is a game, but the game has an objective and the other 7 people on your team may want to win by playing the objectives. I’m not saying all people who solo queue are like this, but this is the mindset for most solo queue complainers. I have seen posts of players who prefer the “frenzied, chaotic” warzones better. Which is just another way of saying you want to do what you want in a warzone, not actually play as a team.

 

2) Solo queue causes issues for the group queue. Whether it be a toggle option or not, having a limited amount of individuals in the group queue makes matching teams harder. Teams of 3 require another team of 3 to be queued (a team of 2 as well) just to get a game started. Throw in that the factions can’t mix and it’s hard to get a game going. Backfill is another issue that could be brought up, but backfill will have issue no matter what.

 

3) Solo queue doesn’t resolve the issue on its own; it only helps reduce the frequency of lopsided games. You will still have games with better players on one side. You’ll still have games with better gear on one side. You will still have games with better composition on one side (in fact, with no groups, solo queue healers will be so infrequent that it will probably be about 1 per match and no, I don’t mean one per side). You still need other elements to make a solo queue a reliable solution, which leads to my next point:

 

4) The population can’t support a solo queue AND what it would take to bring games into balance. I’m not saying we couldn’t support a solo queue, just that solo queue would need matchmaking based on skill, role, gear, or something to be viable. We can’t split the population and be able to match on anything after that and still have it mean something. If we had 10 million people playing, then make whatever queues you want. As long as the queue is <1000 people, good luck.

 

5) Casual groups are hurt the most. They get no benefit out of a solo queue because they still have to face far better groups in a group queue (they would still see other casual groups too, but suffer from lopsided matches the same as now). “Well, they could just queue solo”, is a terribly self-serving argument, especially when most proponents complain that premades are forcing them to do something they don’t want to do in the first place.

 

Better Solution

 

Skill based matchmaking. Nothing too complicated, just do it based on win/loss. Sure, it’s reliant on 7 other people to help you win, but warzones are for 8 people, not 1. It will take a bit of time for rankings to even out, but it’s not like we have anything to help right now. I prefer this method for a number of reasons:

 

1) As I’ve already outlined, people don’t complain about groups, just groups that perform better for any number of reason. Those groups will have higher ratings and will be more likely to be matched with other groups with high ratings (or people from those groups that are queuing solo at the time). If they really do have such an advantage, you won’t have to worry about seeing them very often regardless. We just went ahead and split the queue for you!

 

2) Matchmaking keeps everyone in one queue, so there is never a chance of not getting a game if it’s possible to have one. As long as enough people are queuing, it will at least give you a game, even if it isn’t the best game. Solo queue could potentially have 32 people or more in queue and not have a game going if the right combination of solo and group doesn’t exist on the right factions.

 

3) This solution benefits not only the lower tier players, but the higher tier players as well. You don’t want to see them and now they don’t have to worry about seeing you.

 

4) Prevents top rated players from queue syncing in solo queue to try and put things in their favor. If I have a 4 man, it would be easy to all queue for solo at the same time and get at least 3 of us into the same match. If we queue 8, I bet we can get 5 or 6 in. You’ll have a worse group problem than you do allowing them to queue with 4. In matchmaking, we don’t care that they’re together because their opponents will be just as good/geared/organized.

 

5) Doesn’t hurt casual groups. They can still face more casual players both in groups and solo. This change actually benefits ALL groups, unlike solo queue which only benefits solo players. Groups and PUGs can coexist as long as the skill level of the group = the skill level of the PUG.

 

What can be done in the meantime?

 

Get better.

 

I don’t mean that in the L2Play sense, but seriously get better. What is that other team doing that you could work on? What mistakes did you make (even small mistakes can be corrected)? What did you do to try and organize your team (or did you even try)? Who did you see performing well on your team in the loss that you might be able to invite to group afterward or ask for tips?

 

This is a game, but it’s an MMO. It is one of the most involved, time consuming types of games out there and it requires you to dedicate time and energy to playing it. It’s built around the premise that you will develop your character, find like-minded individuals to group with, and enjoy what you’re doing. If you only have 30 minutes twice a week to play, this honestly is not the game for you because you will never be caught up on gear, you will never play enough games to see what works and what doesn’t, and you will never get better without practice.

 

This game requires time, if you aren’t able/willing to give it, then the PvP portion will never be fun for you.

 

Conclusion

 

So these are my basic points on the topic as a whole. I’m happy to debate, but would prefer to keep things as simple as possible. If you have a point to make, please keep your post directed at one topic (even if you disagree in more than one area). I’ll respond to you when I can. If I didn’t respond, you were trolling.

[cycao]

Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope.

 

 

 

 

I actually didn't even read it. This is just what I know what a ton of responses will be.

 

I am sure it was a good read though.

[Jadescythe]

I actually didn't even read it. This is just what I know what a ton of responses will be.

 

I am sure it was a good read though.

 

Cycao, I already know you don't have the attention span to read the introduction. It's all good

Edited July 11, 2013 by Jadescythe

[cycao]

Cycao, I already know you don't have the attention span to read the introduction. It's all good

 

I got a fresh pot brewing. After a few cups I'll give it a once over.

[Pyrinoos]

Good read is right, op put a lot of thought into that and I 100 % agree.

[ManiacDavis]

Good read.

[Kovaos]

Such an exhausted topic and the arguments just go in circles. Good points by the OP, but they are not new. The pro-solo queue, which I'm against, supporters will just jump in here and make the same arguments they've made in the other thread.

 

For every argument there's a counter argument.

[cycao]

Such an exhausted topic and the arguments just go in circles. Good points by the OP, but they are not new. The pro-solo queue, which I'm against, supporters will just jump in here and make the same arguments they've made in the other thread.

 

For every argument there's a counter argument.

 

Yeah but these kinds of threads get me through the slow season in the office.

[Doomsdaycomes]

Yeah but these kinds of threads get me through the slow season in the office.

 

Kinda why I love watching Creationist on youtube.

 

Edit: Ever see the one guy who says Ice stops radiation?

Edited July 11, 2013 by Doomsdaycomes

[frankiejo]

Kinda why I love watching Creationist on youtube.

 

Edit: Ever see the one guy who says Ice stops radiation?

 

woah woah woah, are you saying it doesn't? I gotta call my real-estate agent.

[frankiejo]

I read about 10% of this and I'd say I agree, a skilled based match-making system is the way to go (assuming our queue times can handle it) because really when people complain about solo-queuing and running into a really good pre-made; it's not that they want to opposing team to be worse, it's that they want their team mates to be just as good. It'd be fantastic if you could solo queue into all close/exciting matches.

[cycao]

Kinda why I love watching Creationist on youtube.

 

Edit: Ever see the one guy who says Ice stops radiation?

 

Ill see if I can find that one as I am currently on youtube meow.

[Jadescythe]

Ill see if I can find that one as I am currently on youtube meow.

 

Right meow?

[maverickmatt]

 

 

 

1) If grouping was the issue, then anyone that formed a group would be able to do what is complained about. Why is it not a surprise that it’s only the best guilds forming premades that are complained about? Maybe because they’re the best for a reason. Maybe because they spend their time competing, discussing, and gaining experience in what they want to do.

 

2) If grouping was the issue, groups would have a 100% win rate against PUGs. This is not the case if you were wondering.

 

3) Not all groups are the best players with the best gear with the best strats trying to find an easy way to get comms (losing in ranked would be faster and more beneficial to learning btw).

 

4) Groups are reliant on 4 other people matched with them. So their handpicked composition may not fit. They still have to utilize ops chat to talk to the team. They still have to have 4 other people focusing on the same objectives to focus fire or CC properly.

 

So if not all groups are being complained about and groups don’t always win, how will eliminating groups resolve the issue of lopsided matches?

 

 

You know I'm not a proponent of the solo-only option as a final solution, but I will take that stance for this argument.

Explain to me, please, how what you described is any different from grouping 3 players from the Olympic Basketball team with 2 random white guys and matching them against a full random from the rec. courts?

 

It isn't.

No, the Olympians won't win 100%, but their win rate will be laughably higher than their opponents.

 

 

 

 

1) Solo queue encourages poor play. We’re basically saying, “The point is to play as a team to complete objectives, but let’s get rid of any organization so that’s not possible.” It doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. Yes this is a game, but the game has an objective and the other 7 people on your team may want to win by playing the objectives. I’m not saying all people who solo queue are like this, but this is the mindset for most solo queue complainers. I have seen posts of players who prefer the “frenzied, chaotic” warzones better. Which is just another way of saying you want to do what you want in a warzone, not actually play as a team.

 

 

 

3) Solo queue doesn’t resolve the issue on its own; it only helps reduce the frequency of lopsided games. You will still have games with better players on one side. You’ll still have games with better gear on one side. You will still have games with better composition on one side (in fact, with no groups, solo queue healers will be so infrequent that it will probably be about 1 per match and no, I don’t mean one per side). You still need other elements to make a solo queue a reliable solution, which leads to my next point:

 

4) The population can’t support a solo queue AND what it would take to bring games into balance. I’m not saying we couldn’t support a solo queue, just that solo queue would need matchmaking based on skill, role, gear, or something to be viable. We can’t split the population and be able to match on anything after that and still have it mean something. If we had 10 million people playing, then make whatever queues you want. As long as the queue is <1000 people, good luck.

 

 

I would argue that it doesn't encourage poor play. If anything it should increase the skill level across the board.

Why?

Those players who don't play objectives but still win are often riding the tails (giggidy) of the premade with whom they are playing. Take that away from them and suddenly they either lose alot or they learn the situation awareness to at least give their team a fair shot.

 

 

 

What can be done in the meantime?

 

Get better.

 

I don’t mean that in the L2Play sense, but seriously get better. What is that other team doing that you could work on? What mistakes did you make (even small mistakes can be corrected)? What did you do to try and organize your team (or did you even try)? Who did you see performing well on your team in the loss that you might be able to invite to group afterward or ask for tips?

 

This is a game, but it’s an MMO. It is one of the most involved, time consuming types of games out there and it requires you to dedicate time and energy to playing it. It’s built around the premise that you will develop your character, find like-minded individuals to group with, and enjoy what you’re doing. If you only have 30 minutes twice a week to play, this honestly is not the game for you because you will never be caught up on gear, you will never play enough games to see what works and what doesn’t, and you will never get better without practice.

 

This game requires time, if you aren’t able/willing to give it, then the PvP portion will never be fun for you.

 

 

It's awfully elitist to say, "If you're not dedicated to this, you shouldn't play".

 

Telling the casual player that it's all on him and he needs to "get better" is a wildly inaccurate statement that serves to both alienate the majority AND make you sound douchey in the process.

 

Remember that without those Casual players, you and I wouldn't have anywhere to PvP. They make up the majority, and as such their interests are of more value to Bioware than ours (see Bolster). It's why PvE is prioritized over PvP. It's good business, and it's good for PvP. If the Casual stops playing, queue times go up anyways AND PvP dies. Pick your poison, really.

 

 

Again, I'm not a proponent of solo-only. It was necessary to assume that stance to effectively present counterpoints.

[Skylancewalker]

Did not get past the introduction. No way that many people will finish this unless they are taking a dump and looking at it on their phone.

[Seengularity]

Such an exhausted topic and the arguments just go in circles. Good points by the OP, but they are not new.

 

This ^

 

Intelligent Match Making for all!

 

 

Now:

There may be a counter argument to every argument but that doesn't mean the counter argument really countered the argument. In a sense, there's not a counter argument to every argument.

Edited July 11, 2013 by Seengularity

[Doomsdaycomes]

Ill see if I can find that one as I am currently on youtube meow.

 

I wanna say it's Kent Hoven, but I could be wrong.

 

Meh, off topic, better get back on.

 

Agreed Jade, like me you're prolly sick of repeating yourself over and over and over to people arguing semantics and specific points.

 

<.< Like seriously Maverick, you agree that matchmaking it a great solution, why get into whether "specifically" 3 Olympic hot dog eaters + 2 really fat people is a fair match to 5 semi-fat people or what not.

[Jadescythe]

 

 

You know I'm not a proponent of the solo-only option as a final solution, but I will take that stance for this argument.

Explain to me, please, how what you described is any different from grouping 3 players from the Olympic Basketball team with 2 random white guys and matching them against a full random from the rec. courts?

 

It isn't.

No, the Olympians won't win 100%, but their win rate will be laughably higher than their opponents.

 

 

My point is essentially that those 3 olympic basketball players can still queue solo. They're all imps, so they are still put on the same team against granny style shooting nobodies on the pub side. Solo queue doesn't stop this from happening. Which is why you and I agree matchmaking is better.

 

 

 

I would argue that it doesn't encourage poor play. If anything it should increase the skill level across the board.

Why?

Those players who don't play objectives but still win are often riding the tails (giggidy) of the premade with whom they are playing. Take that away from them and suddenly they either lose alot or they learn the situation awareness to at least give their team a fair shot.

 

 

It does encourage poor play because you are essentially taking out the most organized players from the solo queue. I've seen the argument made many times that premades are too organized and cause the games to be lopsided, when that is exactly what everyone needs to learn to do. I think matching them with similarly skilled players will be both a blessing and a curse. Not having the better players to learn from will hurt, but I'm hoping by playing equally skilled players they will get better if they try from experience and move up in rating to see those better players.

 

 

It's awfully elitist to say, "If you're not dedicated to this, you shouldn't play".

 

Telling the casual player that it's all on him and he needs to "get better" is a wildly inaccurate statement that serves to both alienate the majority AND make you sound douchey in the process.

 

Remember that without those Casual players, you and I wouldn't have anywhere to PvP. They make up the majority, and as such their interests are of more value to Bioware than ours (see Bolster). It's why PvE is prioritized over PvP. It's good business, and it's good for PvP. If the Casual stops playing, queue times go up anyways AND PvP dies. Pick your poison, really.

 

 

Again, I'm not a proponent of solo-only. It was necessary to assume that stance to effectively present counterpoints.

 

 

I suppose this is where we differ philosophically. I don't care if people are bad and I don't care if they never want to get better. But to complain that games are lopsided when you spend no time trying to get better and choose to ignore the basic premise of the warzone is ludicrous at best.

 

I don't expect everyone to be the best player out there, but I think you have to be trying to improve and putting effort into the game if you are going to complain about the setup. Merely saying that the game should be changed for you because other people are playing it correctly and I don't have time/the desire to get better is entirely self driven. It's the, "I pay a sub so I'm entitled to X" argument. Where everyone else is paying a sub and playing the game the way it was designed.

[gabrielluigi]

 

You know I'm not a proponent of the solo-only option as a final solution, but I will take that stance for this argument.

Explain to me, please, how what you described is any different from grouping 3 players from the Olympic Basketball team with 2 random white guys and matching them against a full random from the rec. courts?

 

It isn't.

No, the Olympians won't win 100%, but their win rate will be laughably higher than their opponents.

 

Alright, well. Let's take 3 white guys from your local rec center and match them against 2 random Olympians. I betting on the Olympians even though your rec league was a premade. What might work however is if the 3 man Olympic group from your example was matched against the 2 random Olympians from my example, and the 3 man rec league from my example was matched against the 2 randoms dudes from yours. That would make for closer matches based on SKILL rather than arbitrarily dividing by group or solo. (Let's see what happens when 2 random Olympians end up on the same team against 2 random white guys.... skill based is different and better)

 

I would argue that it doesn't encourage poor play. If anything it should increase the skill level across the board.

Why?

Those players who don't play objectives but still win are often riding the tails (giggidy) of the premade with whom they are playing. Take that away from them and suddenly they either lose alot or they learn the situation awareness to at least give their team a fair shot.

 

That's true, however; I remember floundering in warzones early on (back in 1-50 queues also) and it was getting matched AGAINST well organized premades that made me question my own competence, but getting matched WITH well organized premades that taught me how to be better and play objectives. An individual players skill is LARGELY dependent on his or her ability to pay attention, be humble, and be willing to learn (or rather relearn what they thought they already knew.) Which brings me to the next point...

 

It's awfully elitist to say, "If you're not dedicated to this, you shouldn't play".

 

Telling the casual player that it's all on him and he needs to "get better" is a wildly inaccurate statement that serves to both alienate the majority AND make you sound douchey in the process.

 

Not really, a bad player will remain a bad player until he or she decides to get better. There are plenty of tools online (on these very forums, in fact) to improve one's knowledge and ability in game, however, the best way to learn is by doing. If you lose, ask yourself "What could I have done better? Could I have done something to pull out a win? At what point in the match did my team lose control, what were our opponents doing at that point, what were we doing?" If you win, ask yourself "What could I have done better? Could I have contributed more to our win? At what point during the match did we take control? If I was on the opposing team what could I have done to get it back, how could I counter someone doing that?"

 

Good players are always trying to get better, bad players are always blaming something, anything, else. It takes a good bit of dedication and time to get really good at an MMO with all the moving parts and number crunching, even more difficult to get good at PVP in an MMO because you now have to be knowledgeable about ALL of the capabilities and weaknesses of EVERY class. A casual player by definition isn't putting in the time needed to get better, and that's fine. But it's not "douchey" to say "You're losing because you're not very good not because half of the other team queued as a group."

 

Remember that without those Casual players, you and I wouldn't have anywhere to PvP. They make up the majority, and as such their interests are of more value to Bioware than ours (see Bolster). It's why PvE is prioritized over PvP. It's good business, and it's good for PvP. If the Casual stops playing, queue times go up anyways AND PvP dies. Pick your poison, really.

 

Don't get me wrong I'm not bashing casuals (in fact, I've been playing as a casual the last 6 months or so) It's the players who simply refuse to better themselves (whether they consider themselves casual or hardcore) but will come to the forums (or general chat) complaining that some super group is ruining their fun (fun here is winning I guess.) To those players: It's not the fact that you were playing against a premade that made you lose. It's that you were playing against a GOOD premade. And some bad news for you: If you were playing against a GOOD pug, you would still have lost, just not as badly.

 

Again, I'm not a proponent of solo-only. It was necessary to assume that stance to effectively present counterpoints.

 

I know. I just wanted to put out the fires before they all jumped on your hypothetical bandwagon.

[maverickmatt]

 

 

<.< Like seriously Maverick, you agree that matchmaking it a great solution, why get into whether "specifically" 3 Olympic hot dog eaters + 2 really fat people is a fair match to 5 semi-fat people or what not.

 

You owe me new peripherals, seeing as I happened to spit coffee all over them when I read that.

 

The opposition has to be presented in any argument, even if I disagree with it. It was necessary to present a specific example in retort, because we are discussing a specific issue, which is "Ranked Teams don't REALLY belong in Regs". They outmatch, outskill, outgear, and outwit their opponents on a more than consistent basis. Apparently they aren't as competitive as I thought they might be, because most seem content to carry on with the status quo. When called out about it, all that is given in response is "L2P" or "Go F*** yourself nub" or "Umad? Ujelly?".

 

I suppose you can't force people to play others on their level.

 

The argument was made that this is an MMO, and as such requires time. I say to that... This is an MMO, and as such is founded on a community. To alienate the majority would be the equivalent of suicide.

 

Lose a hand? You can live. Lose your lungs? Well....

 

Also, I think matchmaking is a better solution overall.. but it wouldn't change the mindset of "Hey!! They have a premade with all the accesories. this isn't a fair match". At the end of the day, people still want others to be on equal footing.

 

In Texas, a school is classfied anywhere from 1A - 6A.

6A schools can't play 1A schools.. the advantage they hold is too great (larger school = more money, more students, better coaches, better gear, etc..)

 

For the matchamking to work it would need to be fundamentally preferential to premades, matching premade v. premade and filling in with PuGs.

 

I agree with matchmaking, just making counterpoints..

[NadirPalo]

Great post, OP. Agree 100% that this game needs intelligent matchmaking.

[Doomsdaycomes]

You owe me new peripherals, seeing as I happened to spit coffee all over them when I read that.

 

...

 

I agree with matchmaking, just making counterpoints..

 

I am to please!

 

Oh I get that, but making counter points when there are plenty of others to do so kinda makes it difficult for actual proponents on either side to figure out what the heck is going on.

 

Not to mentioned I'd love to see a discussion of points and counter points for different criteria of matchmaking, rather than waste time on something you already agree with.

 

But... to each their own.

[MidichIorian]

You're right, premades arent the problem. The problem is the complete lack of skill levels. Premades are, in a solo/premade mixed enviroment, adding to the problem though by shifting the average skill of the team. Solo queue games would statistically be more balanced because the risk/chance of four top players ending up on the same team would be significally less.

By having mixed teams, pubs and imps, we'd further improve the system. I mean, PvP is totally different from PvE so would it really matter if you were placed on the same team as someone from the other faction? Ever since adaptive gear was introduced you've had to look at the class tag of the enemy anyway. I guess sorc AOE could cause some confusion but there's still a red ring on the ground below it, right? Mixing factions would prevent that one faction got rolled every game at times when one faction happens to have all their good players on.

 

Here's an example:

 

Mornings on Tofn. Every morning I keep seeing the same pub players. We have atleast four people from coral, perhaps one or two from status ok or mvp and a couple of other experienced players. On the imp side I'll occassionally see some IRS people but usually it's just a bunch of random pugs. We, the pubs, win every time. The only games that are somewhat interesting are those where we managed to get pubs vs pubs. A skill system and mixed faction teams would have solved this. The games would also start faster since we wouldnt have to wait for new imps to come online, after that the previous ones got fed up with getting steamrolled and went to do something els, or we had enough people to get a same faction game going.

Edited July 11, 2013 by MidichIorian

[frankiejo]

You're right, premades arent the problem. The problem is the complete lack of skill levels. Premades are, in a solo/premade mixed enviroment, adding to the problem though by shifting the average skill of the team. Solo queue games would statistically be more balanced because the risk/chance of four top players ending up on the same team would be significally less.

By having mixed teams, pubs and imps, we'd further improve the system. I mean, PvP is totally different from PvE so would it really matter if you were placed on the same team as someone from the other faction? Ever since adaptive gear was introduced you've had to look at the class tag of the enemy anyway. I guess sorc AOE could cause some confusion but there's still a red ring on the ground below it, right? Mixing factions would prevent that one faction got rolled every game at times when one faction happens to have all their good players on.

 

what a cool idea, they should implement mixed pvp mondays or something to see if it works out, i would love to spend some time partying with the people I'm fighting against, I could see a cross-alliance pvp community forming.

[DimeStax]

Apparently all premades are created equal as well, so if you are grouped with any number of people for any reason, you are a PUG stomping, no good, low life, kankle loving loser.

 

::Han Solo Impersonation::

 

Who you calling kankle loving?!

Edited July 11, 2013 by DimeStax