cool premades bro!

[AlrikFassbauer]

I have a logic problem with this reply :

 

The OP wrote (bold printing by me) :

 

i love having absolutely no chance to win a match

 

And you, General Aldo, reply to this with an :

 

You're not as good as you think sorry.

 

How can a person be "not good as he thinks" if he has "no chance" ?

 

I have a severe logic problem with this, because you are basically that he isn't good because he has no chance.

Edited August 3, 2013 by AlrikFassbauer

[Zunayson]

I have a logic problem with this reply :

 

The OP wrote (bold printing by me) :

 

 

 

And you, General Aldo, reply to this with an :

 

 

 

How can a person be "not good as he thinks" if he has "no chance" ?

 

I have a severe logic problem with this, because you are basically that he isn't good because he has no chance.

 

I think that when Aldo replied, he was saying "You're bad, you think you're good"; " You're bad," meaning you don't have a chance, "you think you're good," meaning you think you would normally have a chance if not for a premade group of players.

 

In other words, Aldo is saying that OP is contributing his "no chance" to premades, while Aldo is contributing it to l2p issue

 

After rereading your post again, I see that by "... you are saying that he isn't good because he has no chance." you have a problem with that assumption because it is illogical? The Dunning-Kruger effect (essentially dumbs are so dumb they don't know their dumb, can be applied to bads; it takes a good to know goods; how do people know if they're good? O.o), if applied to OP, would suggest that it is okay that his "no chance" is because he is bad, or, is at least on a bad team.

--------------

 

so it seems people are driving towards complaining about group composition, and how premade teams have it better since they can guarantee better composition? Composition is luck of the draw (until we get the matchmaking system that won't come), and premade groups take it into their own hands. I personally don't see group composition as some sort of unfair advantage by the other team. I mean, yeah, it sucks.... It also sucks when your team is at the top and then you lose AH at the last moment because your newbie didn't call out / no guard (Guess who that happened to last night? )

 

The reason I don't see composition as an unfair issue is because part of being in an MMO is knowing how to use your class to its fullest extent, and classes have something that help them with any task (for the most part), although not equally.

 

Like voice chat I see how you could argue this as an advantage, however this is easily fixed by a role system like they have in pve. If all else fails they could treat classes that can heal as healers and classes that can tank as tanks, balanced our them and pure DPS, and hope (probably won't happen ) that players field respec for themselves. On my op I respec heals if I feel that we're dying too fast.

Edited August 3, 2013 by Zunayson

[Xanas]

Funny thing is that even IF BW provided voice chat in pugs they would not be using it... Not even turning it on.... I for sure not going to turn it on.. Imagine some raging kid that is also bad at the game raging over the mic... No thx.

 

Only "fix" to the problem at hand that I can see is balance the premades out.. Like if 1 team has a premade of 4 the other team must have a premade of 4...

[General_Aldo]

I have a logic problem with this reply :

 

The OP wrote (bold printing by me) :

 

 

 

And you, General Aldo, reply to this with an :

 

 

 

How can a person be "not good as he thinks" if he has "no chance" ?

 

I have a severe logic problem with this, because you are basically that he isn't good because he has no chance.

 

Look, I PUG 100% as of right now. (Leveling a scoundrel healer hoping to get on a ranked team.)

 

But, do you agree with me that Good PUG players will beat a bad premade with voicechat every time?

 

Yes they will. So then it comes down to: Good players beat bad players.

 

I know people have a huge ego when they play the game, and think of themselves as good as everyone else, if not better. The truth is, most of these people are regstars that get 400k damage for a full warzone. I believe you are one of these regstars that like to think you are #1.

 

Let's face it, you are not as good as you like to think. Simple fact

[Envie_Koriena]

I just returned to swtor after a long absence (beta tester and founder) and decided to level up a new character only doing WZ to see how much has changed and to regain some skills. I've spent about a week doing nothing but solo queue and it's been really tough. I've been in some great PUG only matches and have also been beaten by some premades. I finally got tired of being only solo with a 50/50 chance of getting with people who actually communicate via ops chat and made some friends who invited me to be their 4th in a premade. Mind you we're only in mid twenties and grinding through the often frustrating randomness of the queue - but it certainly makes a big difference and we're winning more matches than losing.

 

I'm not even really that much of a social player but I have to look at it and ask myself if I want to keep losing a lot more than winning (which isn't a very efficient way of leveling via pvp) or do I want to maximize my effort and learn to play in a team? Obviously, not everyone feels the same way about this and would prefer to play on their own solo. The question begs to be asked at that point, why are you playing pvp warzones in the first place when it's a team oriented game? How can one expect to 'win' in randomly drawn matches if your only goal is to play solo and not communicate with the rest of the team? Even in opschat, team coordination can mean all the difference in winning or losing.

 

I am having a lot more fun playing in a premade and have three new friends as a result. It's a win win for all of us and I'm leveling much faster now too.

Edited August 3, 2013 by Envie_Koriena

[Heathenblood]

I wish they would and a pug question though I know a lot of players would want that. Premades don't bother me most of them are just average pug players that mic wih some of their other pug friends for a few games generally they still win but they so have a communication advantage and its generally not a roflstomp, and it's possible to beat them if you communicate in ops chat good ( the reason they mostly still win is because most people still won't call an in and they take it from someone, and no one knows til after the fact it's already being capped). The only time it bothers me is when a ranked team comes in just to roflstomp and fly through their weekly, so pretty much it becomes hell for us pugs since we'll be stuck at 0/9 or whatever for the next couple hrs when they leave. An it's mostly because they some how have super gear. I always see those premades and they have like 38k health as a dpsers. I don't even know how they archive that because I'm full conqueror( supposedly highest pvp tier) survivor set on my assassin in full tank spec and am about 33k health. I first I thought they must be stacking endurance but when fighting them they hit overly hard. I know sin tanks are squishy but normally I fight someone and kill them with above 75% health in a pug because of my gear us the self heals, but litteraly I could get 4s stunned by one of them and be under 50% health before its up combined with a 2nd stun and I would just be stun locked til death. Don't even feel remotely close to a tank against certain premades. Not even sure how they archived such overpowered gear.( dumb that conqueror is not better since its the highest pvp gear available but whatever) anyways that's when premades get annoying as dirt otherwise idc

[TridusSWTOR]

Composition is luck of the draw

 

....what?

 

I personally don't see group composition as some sort of unfair advantage by the other team.

 

....again, what?

 

I never thought someone could be so wrong as this.

[Zunayson]

....what?

 

 

 

....again, what?

 

I never thought someone could be so wrong as this.

 

Okay, listen to me. I am right 100% on the first one, and probably right on the second quote:

 

As for the first quote, there is no system that we know of where the game will take 16 players and, for PUGs, create two group compositions by looking at the player's spec/AC and/or gear to determine its role, and then group accordingly to make to "balanced" groups.

 

It can be said, then, that it is completely luck of the draw as getting on a team with a premade as it is getting on a team with two pug healers, two pug tanks, and two pug deeps.

 

 

 

As for the second quote you don't understand:

 

High school football players should NOT be pitted against professional football teams. This is clearly unfair, for football is a competition, yes, and some teams are better, but the age is so far off that no highschooler could possibly be expected to be as strong as a professional.

 

Now, the question is.... should the all-star champions be allowed to play a team of total bads, granted they are in the same league and all? New Orleans vs -bad team of your choosing-.... is it fair? I'd say its fair, and one team is better; the age and ability to practice is identical on both teams, the only difference is personal strength, skill, speed, strategy, and other skills that football tests

 

It can be said, then, that age, and ability to practice (a high schooler simply does not have the ability to practice like a professional) is an unfair advantage, while personal strength, skill, speed, strategy, are fair advantages to one team. Light, Medium, and heavyweight are seperated in MMA fighting because MMA tests strength, speed, etc. NOT weight. Anyone can put on weight. They don't say "Hey you're too fast we'll only put you up against people who are fast." No, they let the fast people win because they deserve to win.

 

Certain skills that a competition tests must be different (FAIR), but all other aspects of the teams that are not supposed to affect the outcome must be kept the same (These are the UNFAIR advantages).

 

 

 

It is my belief that the luck-of-the-draw composition of pugs is a fair advantage. That is, a composition of a group is a skill to be tested. However, I agree that testing composition when it cannot be controlled by pugs is dumb. A role system - at the cost of queue times - really should be implemented, since pvp is just a competition between two pve ops groups.

 

Don't want an MMO where composition matters? GW2 without dedicated healers and tanks (everyone can heal, tank, and deeps a little) is right around the corner. The system is much more logical, in my opinion, unless someone makes a role system.

Edited August 3, 2013 by Zunayson

[TridusSWTOR]

Nice response but you are only looking at it from one perspective, which is why you have a big hole in what you are trying to say.

 

Right now, you are looking at it from a pugs point of view. To the first point- Yea group composition is luck of the draw, since they are going in alone and we'll team with/fight against an unknown variable.

 

To the second point, you are wrong because you are still trying to apply it based on the solo pug. 4 man groups? They remove the entire luck factor all together, since they can pick and choose roles/class. Hence forth, you only see certain group make-ups in ranked pvp.

 

Not sure how you can claim it's fair as far as a balanced PVP match goes. Is what you are saying is fair based on because it's allowed in PVP right now? Basically this current setup isn't working for both groups. You have new players that aren't interested in being stomped and you have premades who want to face higher tier challenges.

 

This is why I have a problem with you throwing around the word fair, since the current state of PVP is anything but. Players don't need to go to GW2 to run away from the role/class problem. Just add matchmaking with a group rating buff and a voice command like BF3.

 

Like I said though, you make good points and I enjoy the read. I still believe the solution is there and we don't need to go to another game to find some hopeful promised land.

[cashogy_reborn]

Look, this is an MMO. It involves lots of players, and grouping is highly encouraged.

 

I think that people are looking at this somewhat backwards. There are a "Queue Solo" and "Queue Group" option for regs. The common assumption I see is that the "Queue Group" option is the addendum; "Queue Solo" is assumed to be the intended primary matching mechanism for regs. I think that may be an incorrect way to look at it.

 

The "Queue Group" could be the primary matching mechanism, thus encouraging players to group, be social, join guilds, etc (ya know, MMO-type activities). The "Queue Solo" is the addendum, designed to allow regs to be more accessible to players with alternate play-styles (ie the solo MMO player, someone who's friends/guildies arent readily available, etc).

 

Just throwing that out there.

[LanceCorporalDan]

cool story bro!

[Sharee]

Look, this is an MMO. It involves lots of players, and grouping is highly encouraged.

 

This is a game where you can get from level 1 to max level without ever being part of a group. I think suggesting that the game isn't designed to support solo playstyle is a bit of a stretch.

 

Second, suggesting that the 'queue solo' is just some sort of afterthought when in fact the majority of players queueing for regs are solos* is not reasonable.

 

 

---------------------------

* Blizzard publicly spoke against premades and spent money to implement changes that limited the ability of premades to farm pugs. If the pug-gers were just a minority, blizzard wouldn't lift a finger. And while SWTOR isn't WOW, both draw their players from the same pool.

Edited August 4, 2013 by Sharee

[Vladnar]

Yesterday I played in pugs only, as usually suits me due to being on and off over a period of time, and I found myself in huttball loads and played about 12 matches...........gr8..............anyway won 3 lost 8 or 9 but each match was a 6-0 complete thrashing either way....real boring both sides of the coin.

 

This is peoples idea of fun and how they want their warzones then, cos that's what you are saying if you think premades are right but at least the introduction of arena may well see the end of groups in wz etc etc.

 

Imagine they bring a new planet out and make all the enemies level 35..............what would people say?

 

A new operation where the boss was level 40?

 

premade vs premades and pugs only vs pugs only.............

 

I can't believe players are so desperate to just run over unorganised and unbalanced teams with their organised balanced unit (shrug)............theres certainly nowt as strange (changed to protect the innocent) as folk.

[Doomsdaycomes]

---------------------------

* Blizzard publicly spoke against premades and spent money to implement changes that limited the ability of premades to farm pugs. If the pug-gers were just a minority, blizzard wouldn't lift a finger.

 

Blizzard spoke against the exploiting of the system allowed by oQueue, a WoW add on, which allowed groups larger than their standard, acceptable party size to queue together. In essence they spoke out against the super queue, not groups or grouping in general.

[Sharee]

Blizzard spoke against the exploiting of the system allowed by oQueue, a WoW add on, which allowed groups larger than their standard, acceptable party size to queue together. In essence they spoke out against the super queue, not groups or grouping in general.

 

My point was: Blizzard made a public statement about the premades vs solo queuers condemning PUG farming, and implemented changes to protect the solo queuers.

 

They would not have done that if solo queuers were an insignificant minority, or if blizzard intended the 'queue solo' option to be just an afterthought that wasn't intended to be used much, like Cash suggested in the post i was replying to.

[Doomsdaycomes]

My point was: Blizzard made a public statement about the premades vs solo queuers condemning PUG farming, and implemented changes to protect the solo queuers.

 

They would not have done that if solo queuers were an insignificant minority, or if blizzard intended the 'queue solo' option to be just an afterthought that wasn't intended to be used much, like Cash suggested in the post i was replying to.

 

No, they made a statement about an exploit and about full battlegroup premades (15-30 people in some cases) abusing a system. Even if exploiters are a majority, no company as big as Blizzard is going to risk their image and integrity by not fixing exploits.

[Sharee]

No, they made a statement about an exploit and about full battlegroup premades (15-30 people in some cases) abusing a system. Even if exploiters are a majority, no company as big as Blizzard is going to risk their image and integrity by not fixing exploits.

 

No?

http://wow.joystiq.com/2012/12/05/blizzard-takes-a-stand-against-pre-mades-battleground-groups/

 

"a full, organized Battleground group to queue against a randomly assembled group is creating a scenario where that coordinated group has a huge advantage. That is not in the spirit of the experience we want to provide in the normal Battleground queue."

 

"The normal Battleground queue is for players to jump in and play against other players in a similar situation."

 

"it's not meant for organized groups to "pug stomp" and get quick Honor."

 

"The ultimate effect that this kind of queuing has had is to drive players away from PvP."

 

If that is not condemning PUG farming then i don't know what is.

Edited August 4, 2013 by Sharee

[Doomsdaycomes]

No?

 

"a full, organized Battleground group to queue against a randomly assembled group is creating a scenario where that coordinated group has a huge advantage. That is not in the spirit of the experience we want to provide in the normal Battleground queue."

 

"The normal Battleground queue is for players to jump in and play against other players in a similar situation."

 

"it's not meant for organized groups to "pug stomp" and get quick Honor."

 

If that is not condemning PUG farming then i don't know what is.

 

Distinction there that most people are failing to see.

 

Full, organized battleground group: This could mean 10+ people depending on the battleground. This was only possible to organize in the normal queue by using oQueue. It was an exploit.

 

Normal Group: In WoW's case this is a group of 5, which is allowed, acceptable, and was never spoken against.

 

WoW condemned the use of an add-on that abused/exploited the queue system and allowed full battleground groups to queue together and "farm" the normal queue. They condemned an exploit, an abuse, etc...

 

They did not condemn players grouping in the normal queue, just those who cheated to get larger than accepted groups.

 

 

Edit: Fyi, this means they also condemned full battleground groups "farming" normal groups too, not just PuG's.

Edited August 4, 2013 by Doomsdaycomes

[Sharee]

WoW condemned the use of an add-on that abused/exploited the queue system and allowed full battleground groups to queue together and "farm" the normal queue. They condemned an exploit, an abuse, etc...

 

They did not condemn players grouping in the normal queue, just those who cheated to get larger than accepted groups.

 

Regardless, they made a very clear statement that the normal queue was meant for casuals, and not for organized groups:

 

"The normal Battleground queue is for players to jump in and play against other players in a similar situation."

 

"We have built in outlets for players that want to organize--if a competitive, social experience was really the goal, then there are clear ways to achieve that."

 

I'm not saying that Blizzard didn't want ANY groups in normal queue.

I am saying that Cash's claim "Normals are meant for groups, solo button is just an afterthought" is wrong. Regs are in fact meant for the solo queuers.

[Doomsdaycomes]

Regardless, they made a very clear statement that the normal queue was meant for casuals, and not for organized groups:

 

"The normal Battleground queue is for players to jump in and play against other players in a similar situation."

 

"We have built in outlets for players that want to organize--if a competitive, social experience was really the goal, then there are clear ways to achieve that."

 

I'm not saying that Blizzard didn't want ANY groups in normal queue.

I am saying that Cash's claim "Normals are meant for groups, solo button is just an afterthought" is wrong. Regs are in fact meant for the solo queuers.

 

I personally don't agree with Cash's claim, but your still misrepresenting/misinterpreting the Blizzard article. Their complaint was still about the full premades (ie 6+ people (though typically 10+) and their comment about "outlets for organized, competitive etc..." was referring to their rated warzones that require a full premade (much like our ranked).

 

As for Regs being for solo... Regs were meant for 1-4 players, neither one was an after thought, neither one was the "intended" queue type. Other than that, we can probably agree we disagree with Cash's assertion.

 

It's just my pet peeve when people misquote an article to support their opinions.

[SajPl]

Are you the guy that does 50k damage per warzone and then blames everything and everyone else?

[General_Aldo]

Are you the guy that does 50k damage per warzone and then blames everything and everyone else?

 

Everyone who complains about premades is that person. OR worse

[Raazmir]

So, its true that blizzard did a thing against premades.

 

This was the immediate response to the blue post

 

Dear Daxxarri,

 

My experience to not have to deal with bots and afk'ers over and over and over and over in random battlegrounds is more important than some random Alliance's experience to not lose a game against a team that is present and coordinated.

 

Fix the bot problem and you'll see the premade "problem" fix itself.

 

Since you all aren't willing or able to do what needs to be done quickly enough, we as a community have been forced to take matters into our own hands in order to be able to enjoy the PvP experience. Is there collateral damage? Yes. But if we don't, there's still collateral damage, but it's us. I'd rather the side that has to be sad be the other team and not mine.

 

Three months later they had lost 1.3 million subscribers.

[Carter_Mathis]

Regardless, they made a very clear statement that the normal queue was meant for casuals, and not for organized groups:

 

"The normal Battleground queue is for players to jump in and play against other players in a similar situation."

 

"We have built in outlets for players that want to organize--if a competitive, social experience was really the goal, then there are clear ways to achieve that."

 

I'm not saying that Blizzard didn't want ANY groups in normal queue.

I am saying that Cash's claim "Normals are meant for groups, solo button is just an afterthought" is wrong. Regs are in fact meant for the solo queuers.

 

You seem to misunderstand what "players in a similar situation" means. Blizzard is referring to players who are playing within the intentional parameters of the game. Whether a person is solo queued or grouped, they are not exploiting and therefore categorically the same.

[freedomajax]

Honestly when it comes to premades you are expected to do well you tend to work together, something called teamwork. Teamwork = Wins/successes = everytime. I have had premades where we went 11-12 games winning streaks and you wanna know why? not because we were the best, not because we had awesome gear or access to a teamspeak or vent channel, but because we worked together, we coordinated, we talked, AND responded to call outs. Even a newbie to PvP, if he did those 4 things I would consider him a good player. He might not have great abilities or get so many kills/points in a game but he contributes. This is a simple concept that applies, even in life in general. Apply it to your WZ's and you will find yourself winning games more often then when you don't group up. this is just from my observations and experience in PvP, so please take it as the advice that I have it intended for. thanks, and good luck in your future Warzones

 

"Shoot straight, Die Hard" - Mandalorian saying