Jump to content

Premades are NOT ruining regular warzones


Jadescythe

Recommended Posts

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.

 

When I first started pvp'ing when the game came out, I thought that's how Huttball would work: imps and pubs mixed together on each team.

 

PvP needs matchmaking as the OP stated. The win/loss ratio is just one suggestion, but I don't think there's anything in the scoreboard that can be used to determine a player's true skill. The only possibility would be if BW updated objective points to reflect actually playing objectives. It's generally a decent indicator, but I've seen matches where players have bossed the game yet end up with low objective points. Again, we can let the geniuses at BW figure this one out. Great points laid out by OP. Succinct while countering any points a premade-hater could make, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I first started pvp'ing when the game came out, I thought that's how Huttball would work: imps and pubs mixed together on each team.

 

PvP needs matchmaking as the OP stated. The win/loss ratio is just one suggestion, but I don't think there's anything in the scoreboard that can be used to determine a player's true skill. The only possibility would be if BW updated objective points to reflect actually playing objectives. It's generally a decent indicator, but I've seen matches where players have bossed the game yet end up with low objective points. Again, we can let the geniuses at BW figure this one out. Great points laid out by OP. Succinct while countering any points a premade-hater could make, IMO.

 

The reason I chose win/loss is that it's the only subjective way to do it. There are too many opportunities to game the system with valid objective point measures. For instance, if you kill somone right before they score in Huttball, that was infinitely important. But you also get about 10,000 objective points. If someone who was TDMing the whole game happened to come out of spawn and kill the ball carrier, they are going to get a much higher rating then they should from that game. Whereas the sin that places themselves perfectly to pull them back into the fire right before they score really does deserve all those points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a system I've suggested in the past, it resolves around the win being a multiplier to individual performances.

 

The individual performances will be based on how you perform in relation to the rest of the players in the game. So 100K damage will be considered good if it puts you in the number 1 spot. It will however be worth twice as much if you actually win the game too. This is to ensure that people arent going out of their way to farm individual stats. So if you decide to farm damage all game in Huttball, resulting in that your team has no support where it matters and you lose the game you'll get get a fair amount of skill points added to your overal rating but not nearly as much as you would have recieved if you had won. The trick is to balance such a system and it's not something that can be done in ten minutes but I'm convinced that it can be done and will be way superior to having no skill ratings/levels at all.

Edited by MidichIorian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

 

 

I'm loving this spoiler stuff!

 

How do you disprove this? Just because a counter argument didn't disprove the original argument doesn't mean it's still not a counter argument.

 

This topic is WILDLY SUBJECTIVE. There is no right or wrong. <<<<hence, this subject is exhausted and quite frankly....boring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I'm loving this spoiler stuff!

 

How do you disprove this? Just because a counter argument didn't disprove the original argument doesn't mean it's still not a counter argument.

 

This topic is WILDLY SUBJECTIVE. There is no right or wrong. <<<<hence, this subject is exhausted and quite frankly....boring.

 

actually because you didn't actually dispute the content of his argument, rather you attempted to illustrate a hypothetical exception, this is not a counter-argument, and will therefore not be included when you make your final statement to the jury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For every argument there's a counter argument.

 

Not actually true. A counter argument to a statement has to negate the original. They may exist, but don't necessarily exist. A random, badly constructed response isn't a valid counter argument.

 

That's all digression though.

 

The reason I chose win/loss is that it's the only subjective way to do it.

I'd call that truth. Cashogy made a valiant attempt at an algorithm that covered the variables to describe how well you played. I admire the effort, but it's misguided, because the further you get away from a simple system the easier it becomes to game and the harder it is to weight the various components.

 

Forgive me for one of those awful analogies we've seen in the main premade thread, but it's like a tax code. Simple is best. Someone is bound to come up with plausible reasons why this industry or that sector of the electorate deserve this rebate or that tax holiday - and before you know it you end up with an unbalanced, inefficient mess and an industry of lawyers and accountants feeding off it. Though I hope SWTOR can stick to whiners and baddies. Unless I get to shiv the corporate tax lawyers.

 

And in the end what matters in warzones is whether you win or lose. If you won, you probably did something right. If you lost, you need to do something different. All the other factors are subsumed and represented within it, from personal skill to whether you get advantages from playing as a group. Only modifier is the standard of the opposition, as represented by their respective rating. You'd need a start point for the rating, so maybe give everyone 10 games worth of 80% average rating to begin with.

 

Last thing. Some people seem to have a problem understanding that PvP is about competition - you are trying to see who is better, and it's up to you to do your best. In SWTOR you both start with the same opportunities, and if the other guy beat you then he was better than you, and that's fair. Deal with it.

 

Now I'll tone that down and admit that getting beaten isn't fun, a game is meant to be about fun, and some people won't persevere long enough to improve when they start off by getting humped. So do the results-based matchmaking that all sensible people are begging for to give newbies a shallower learning curve, and ignore those who claim that their exaggerated losing streaks are none of their responsiblity, a hideous plot against them personally by snakes in human form, and must be fixed immediately by some hair-cocked pet scheme that will trash PvP.

 

And good post, OP.

Edited by Wainamoinen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd call that truth. Cashogy made a valiant attempt at an algorithm that covered the variables to describe how well you played. I admire the effort, but it's misguided, because the further you get away from a simple system the easier it becomes to game and the harder it is to weight the various components.

 

Forgive me for one of those awful analogies we've seen in the main premade thread, but it's like a tax code. Simple is best. Someone is bound to come up with plausible reasons why this industry or that sector of the electorate deserve this rebate or that tax holiday - and before you know it you end up with an unbalanced, inefficient mess and an industry of lawyers and accountants feeding off it. Though I hope SWTOR can stick to whiners and baddies. Unless I get to shiv the corporate tax lawyers.

 

And in the end what matters in warzones is whether you win or lose. If you won, you probably did something right. If you lost, you need to do something different. All the other factors are subsumed and represented within it, from personal skill to whether you get advantages from playing as a group. Only modifier is the standard of the opposition, as represented by their respective rating. You'd need a start point for the rating, so maybe give everyone 10 games worth of 80% average rating to begin with.

 

Last thing. Some people seem to have a problem understanding that PvP is about competition - you are trying to see who is better, and it's up to you to do your best. In SWTOR you both start with the same opportunities, and if the other guy beat you then he was better than you, and that's fair. Deal with it.

 

Now I'll tone that down and admit that getting beaten isn't fun, a game is meant to be about fun, and some people won't persevere long enough to improve when they start off by getting humped. So do the results-based matchmaking that all sensible people are begging for to give newbies a shallower learning curve, and ignore those who claim that their exaggerated losing streaks are none of their responsiblity, a hideous plot against them personally by snakes in human form, and must be fixed immediately by some hair-cocked pet scheme that will trash PvP.

 

And good post, OP.

 

The problem with win/loss though is this: how many times have you carried baddies on your team to victory? Or on the flipside, losing a match because someone (or maybe even multiple people) failed to stop a node cap. Perhaps this will all average out, but I really think it's too noisy and not an indicative measure of a player's skill.

 

This measure will work for 4v4 arenas though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with win/loss though is this: how many times have you carried baddies on your team to victory? Or on the flipside, losing a match because someone (or maybe even multiple people) failed to stop a node cap. Perhaps this will all average out, but I really think it's too noisy and not an indicative measure of a player's skill.

 

This measure will work for 4v4 arenas though.

 

No, it's not perfect. But it's better than trying to fiddle with it (for the reasons given above), and like you say it will - roughly - average out over time. Like democracy, it's a terrible way to run things, that's only better than all the alternatives.

 

Oh, and make quitting a warzone an auto-loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

 

 

 

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...

 

 

 

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."

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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

 

Try think about game future in terms "paying customer" and "happy player", not "good" or "bad" player.

 

Cuz happy customer pay money, unhappy customer dont pay money. Its simply dude. Its just business, nothing personal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try think about game future in terms "paying customer" and "happy player", not "good" or "bad" player.

 

Cuz happy customer pay money, unhappy customer dont pay money. Its simply dude. Its just business, nothing personal.

 

Then you've got those customers who will never be happy no matter what you do. :rolleyes: I usually call them Bads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, all pvp'ers are never happy :D

 

I think you can replace word 'pvp'ers' with 'people'

look at LI HM.

at first, people complained it was to hard.

then they complained it was to easy

now its super easy and at same time, ones are complaining it's stupid easy, while other that it's to hard as they wipe.

 

on topic.

win/lose is great idea. unfortunatly, all good arguments are dying with flame of flame...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with win/loss though is this: how many times have you carried baddies on your team to victory? Or on the flipside, losing a match because someone (or maybe even multiple people) failed to stop a node cap. Perhaps this will all average out, but I really think it's too noisy and not an indicative measure of a player's skill.

 

This measure will work for 4v4 arenas though.

 

The thing with win/loss is for every time you are carried by better players, you will also be dragged down by worse players or face better players on the other team. Over the long haul, your rating will equal out in this case. The only real issue are people who think they are better than they are and complain that they "always" get worse people or trolls on their team. But if you try and add in a skill variable, people will focus on what's needed to improve their rating, not what's needed to win the match.

 

People will almost always take the easy road, you just have to make sure the easiest road is the one you want them to take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...