All 55 PvP should be Ranked.

[Heal-To-Full]

The system as we currently have it - especially in 2.4 - has several issues:

* 3 separate 55 queues: solo+team regular, solo ranked, team ranked

* Team vs solo hitting a regular Arena turns into a gankfest due to coordination

* Teams of wildly different skill keep being pitched against one another in regulars.

 

It may sound like a good compromise, but it's not.

Let's first see - what is even the point of non-ranked PvP?

Now that there is a solo rank, you don't need 8 people for ranked.

The only purpose separate ranked and non-ranked queues serve is as two artificial, purely honor system tiers that players deeming themselves weaker or stronger may assign themselves to.

 

A lot of the times these players will be wrong, and even when they aren't, weaker players might join solo ranked matches for whatever rewards, stronger players might go to regulars to knock out dailies.

More to the point, with the advent of a ranked matchmaker, this honor system is obsolete. The matchmaker is already meant to pitch teams of comparable skill against one another, and, however simple it may be, it's still better than everyone going wherever they please.

 

The solution is simple: remove the now-atavism that is the non-ranked queue.

Leave two queues at 55: Solo and Team.

The Solo queue will assign you per demand, the Team queue will pair either team vs team in Arenas or 2xTeam vs 2xTeam in Warzones.

 

Ideally, all 55 PvP would be ranked, adjusting Solo or Team rating per queue.

Following the decision that only Arenas may be ranked, only Arena matches would affect the public rating. A hidden internal rating for warzones would be kept for matchmaking purposes only. The Team queue may have an "Arenas only" ticker box if they want to ensure a rated (=Arena) match.

 

With this mechanic, all current 2.4 queue functionality will be preserved, only instead of picking regular vs ranked yourself, the matchmaker will itself avoid significant skill mismatch based on performance history, i.e. player Elo rating, public or hidden.

 

What is your opinion - should we try and convince Bioware to eventually implement such a change, or would you be opposed to it and why?

 

 

As for the times where teams can't be matched, the Elo system works such that e.g. a player rated 1,200 will only lose one point of rating to a player rated 1,600 (http://ratings.fide.com/calculator_rtd.phtml), no worries there.

There's time to learn the ropes between 10 and 54. Once you're top level, if you participate in organized scenario matches against other players, you deserve to be rated for it, whether it's in 2,500+ or 250+ bracket.

As Ranked commendations, bonus RWZ comms per match can be awarded based on a player's rating.

Edited August 29, 2013 by B-Dick

[ChaoticDynamite]

I think I see where you're coming from. Would this work? Maybe.. Do I think people will agree with it? No not really. I mean I think it's a good idea and would accept the change but can't speak for everyone...

[Evolixe]

Lol what?

 

No thank you I like doing regs, no pressure, lots of foolery and awesomeness.

 

Also, matchmaking on what are essentially the new "regs" is imposseble with this games playerbase per server. Unless you like to wait out queues of 1 hour+

Edited August 29, 2013 by Evolixe

[Triserpent]

All in all not a bad idea.

 

/Triserpent

[Dathilbor]

I lol'd when I read that stronger players go to regs for easy wins. They aren't strong players at all. They are a team of weakness that can only function against non teamed up and communicating pug squads. Lmao... Strong teams.... Strong players feel a need to test themselves, the weak team up and roll the weak. It saves their precious epeen from being hurt lol. Edited August 29, 2013 by Dathilbor

[Heal-To-Full]

I lol'd when I read that stronger players go to regs for easy wins. They aren't strong players at all.

"Stronger". Not "strong", just stronger than an average pug team. It's going to happen a lot.

People want to get their dailies and weeklies, they'll go to where weaker players are. And vice versa, "tourists" in the solo ranked queue. Self-assigning yourself to your bracket isn't working on the PTS, and it won't work live.

 

Also, matchmaking on what are essentially the new "regs" is imposseble with this games playerbase per server. Unless you like to wait out queues of 1 hour+

The matchmaking system actually has a lot of tools at its disposal.

For instance, if you have 16 players rated 1.1k, 1.2k, ... 2.5k, you can make each team a mix of stronger and weaker players for roughly equal total rating. This allows for reasonable fights despite wildly varying skill. OK, it's not fun when your good team is dragged down by a few bads, but the other team is too, and it beats roflstomping.

 

When matching teams, it first tries to find teams within close rating of one another, and as time passes expands the allowed rating gap up to unlimited.

I'm sure there are going to be bugs, mismatches, and "lol matchmaker" QQs, but it's better than what we have now. Ranked players (despite the much smaller skill gap) are getting a better system than regs, and it's going in anyway.

 

All I'm calling for is to include regs in this system, because they need it, and to make the transition seamless.

Of course, matches below 1,000 are just going to be today's regs, they are not going to change. Just put into an organized matchmaking system that beats total randomness as used today.

Edited August 29, 2013 by B-Dick

[ManiacDavis]

Until there is a practice mode, I enjoy doing regulars where there is less pressure and I can experiment with new strategies/builds/tactics.

[supermouthcml]

Until there is a practice mode, I enjoy doing regulars where there is less pressure and I can experiment with new strategies/builds/tactics.

 

Agreed, and besides that, if there was only ranked warzones there would be no barrier from fresh 55's and ranked veterans, thus making it that much harder for a fresh 55 to grind for new gear. You do make some good points though B-Dick, but i doubt bioware would think the idea over simply because it would come with problems that they are probably not prepared for or don't want to deal with.

[FrogSkin]

Until there is a practice mode, I enjoy doing regulars where there is less pressure and I can experiment with new strategies/builds/tactics.

 

There is a practise mode, what do you think levels 10 to 54 are?

[darthruff]

*if* they do 2 ratings then I'm ok with it. 1 for team & 1 for solo queue.

 

I'm not a fan of relying on the bads that I get grouped with on a daily basis to keep my rating up.

[ManiacDavis]

There is a practise mode, what do you think levels 10 to 54 are?

 

When I say practice mode, I mean an environment where you can pull in 16 players (8 for arenas), select your own teams and practice situations like hold a node 1v2 as an assassin or other scenarios so ranked teams could actually practice or even set up tournaments against other teams.

[Heal-To-Full]

Practice is definitely a useful idea. A bit different and separate, though.

 

Agreed, and besides that, if there was only ranked warzones there would be no barrier from fresh 55's and ranked veterans, thus making it that much harder for a fresh 55 to grind for new gear.

The matchmaker. I know, I'm putting some faith into it here. But it's pretty hard to screw up completely.

 

It's going to be better than what we'll have otherwise - with ranked teams who got tired of waiting for the ranked Q to pop or decided to do their dailies/weeklies popping into the unranked Q for a 1-minute match.

Right now the only barrier is the idea that ranked players would for some reason not touch the unranked Q, even though the weekly on PTS explicitly requires them to play unranked to earn gear.

 

A joint matchmaker queue isn't throwing everyone together, it's sorting everyone on a soft ladder based on their actual performance record rather than based on one of the two Qs they picked.

 

Right now my server has 79 Imps and 46 pubs across five Warzones. That's 125 people or 16 teams or 8 matches going on, of them 0 ranked. So how does the game pick who fights who? Completely at random.

Now match them based on their past performance (via Elo rating), and you get a good boost to match quality.

Edited August 29, 2013 by B-Dick

[Drudenfusz]

No, non-ranked should stay!

 

Not everybody is hardcore into PvP and some of those people would not play PvP if they automatically have to deal with ranking. This turns people away, and I rather have queues pop often so that daily and weekly are easily done, instead of having to wait for eternity until only people are ready to play some serious matches! Also, some players level completely with PvE and only try some PvP when hitting level cap or when waiting that the next raids gets implemented, those players need a practice mode, which is provided by the non-ranked warzones currently.

[Heal-To-Full]

Not everybody is hardcore into PvP and some of those people would not play PvP if they automatically have to deal with ranking. ... instead of having to wait for eternity until only people are ready to play some serious matches!

No, no, you're misunderstanding how it works.

 

"Ranked" doesn't automatically mean "Hardcore". Right now it does, but not in the 2.4 system where everyone can join, and especially not in the proposed change.

"Ranked" in this sense simply means that your performance is recorded and in the future you will be matched against players with similar performance history.

 

An initial provisional rating would probably be assigned based on Valor. If you keep losing games, the game will start matching you against weaker players, until you settle into a range where you win about half the games.

 

The same applies to practice: if you never done PvP, your initial rating will be very low, and you'll be matched against the lowest-rated players. Once you start beating them, your rating increases and you get moved to higher brackets, until you win about half the matches.

 

Your regs and outright casuals fooling around will still be there, only instead of "unranked" matches they will be in sub-1000 or sub-500 rating ones. This will also, at high population times, keep top premades that wipe butts with weak ranked teams separate from first-timers. Rating ranges will sort players apart, to an extent, but at least better than today's random system.

Edited August 30, 2013 by B-Dick

[foxmob]

I wouldn't mind swapping out solo rated for reg ratings and call the arenas something like elite rated or w/e

[funkiestj]

No, non-ranked should stay!

 

Not everybody is hardcore into PvP and some of those people would not play PvP if they automatically have to deal with ranking. This turns people away, and I rather have queues pop often so that daily and weekly are easily done, instead of having to wait for eternity until only people are ready to play some serious matches!

 

You do realize that 2.4 has a solo rated queue and a 4-man rated queue right?

 

Also,

 

A joint matchmaker queue isn't throwing everyone together, it's sorting everyone on a soft ladder based on their actual performance record rather than based on one of the two Qs they picked.

 

You stand a much better chance of not being facerolled queuing solo rated than you do queuing regulars. I run into the top bastion rated teams in regulars all the time. When they're on my side we crush and when I'm on the other side we get crushed. Both scenarios are mind numbingly boring. Ocassionally (1 in 20?) I'll get an interesting match where the result is still in doubt after the first 60 seconds.

 

Even with small populations on PTS I've had far more interesting matches there.

 

I like 8v8 objective based WZs but I'd rather get fewer of them (and more arenas) if it means decent 8v8 match making.

[Drudenfusz]

No, no, you're misunderstanding how it works.

Ranked/rated means there is a score attached to the character, and that is what some casuals just don't want to have, so that is for them a sign of hardcore PvP which they want to avoid. That's why I said we need to keep a non-ranked PvP around, and I am all for that, don't want to exclude anyone, with a system that would feel to hardcore for them. Let the players who want rating play rating, but don't force it on everyone!

[MahneWarrior]

I like the idea, but once again taking into account the average player attaching a ranking may turn them off, I mean I know for a fact I am a douche and I will make fun of people sub 500, I do it in jest, but some would take it personal.

 

Should I learn not to be a douche? Yeah I should. Though should bioware provide more tools for people to belittle causal players, I do not think so.

[Heal-To-Full]

Ranked/rated means there is a score attached to the character, and that is what some casuals just don't want to have, so that is for them a sign of hardcore PvP which they want to avoid.

There is an easy fix, as described: Only display a PvP rating is someone has played at least N games and reached at least X rating. For instance, a minimum of 100 games at 55 and a rating of 1,000+ to have it show up.

 

This way, if you don't do a whole lot of PvP or aren't a competitive player, nothing changes for you - you won't have a visible PvP rating. Maybe you can check your rating (and other details) by typing "/rating", but no one else.

So don't worry and play as you have been playing. If one day you get good, the game will tell you.

Edited August 30, 2013 by B-Dick

[Draqsko]

What about 8v8 matches that won't exist anymore for ranked, yet will for regulars? Honestly the only reason I PvP in warzones is.. for warzones, not arenas. If I wanted to run around killing random people, I can just as easily do that on a planet (and occassionally I do that). I enjoy the strategy element to warzones, killing is just a means to an end. If they seriously made 55 PVP all ranked, without 8v8, I would just roll alts up to 54, then delete and reroll them, just to keep going on 8v8.

[Drudenfusz]

There is an easy fix, as described: Only display a PvP rating is someone has played at least N games and reached at least X rating. For instance, a minimum of 100 games at 55 and a rating of 1,000+ to have it show up.

Your requirements is pretty low, I know casuals who have played more games and have a higher rating than 1000 right now in SWTOR. But having a higher requirement to make it open visible could be annoying for some hardcore PvP players who want almost instand recoqnition.

 

This way, if you don't do a whole lot of PvP or aren't a competitive player, nothing changes for you - you won't have a visible PvP rating. Maybe you can check your rating (and other details) by typing "/rating", but no one else.

So don't worry and play as you have been playing. If one day you get good, the game will tell you.

Except that I can already tell from the valour rang how much PvP one has played, so I could judge everyone with a high valour rang but no visible rating as a bad player.

 

Anyway, I like to compare PvP with real sports. Not every football team plays in a ranking system, sometimes it is just a few friends who play together. I don't want to worry about my rating or tell all my friends who are not hardcore into PvP that I cannot play with them, because it would hurt my rating. I want that separation! This is an MMO after all, I want to play with my friends! But making all games rated would mean I start judging everyone and cannot just play games for fun. So, even if your system would prevent all the drawbacks for the not so hardcore players, it still would hurt friendships between hardcore players and not so hardcore ones.

[DaShuk]

Ranked/rated means there is a score attached to the character, and that is what some casuals just don't want to have, so that is for them a sign of hardcore PvP which they want to avoid. That's why I said we need to keep a non-ranked PvP around, and I am all for that, don't want to exclude anyone, with a system that would feel to hardcore for them. Let the players who want rating play rating, but don't force it on everyone!

 

Not necessarily, in the Halo games for example you are assigned a CSR or Competitive Skill Rank after each match and you are rated on whether it's an individual performance based match or team performance. The system then ranks people of similar CSRs against one another when you are doing random match-making. CSRs range from 1(noob) to 50(hardcore) with most falling in the mid 20s-30s. I think the OP is suggesting a system like this.

[Drudenfusz]

Not necessarily, in the Halo games for example you are assigned a CSR or Competitive Skill Rank after each match and you are rated on whether it's an individual performance based match or team performance. The system then ranks people of similar CSRs against one another when you are doing random match-making. CSRs range from 1(noob) to 50(hardcore) with most falling in the mid 20s-30s. I think the OP is suggesting a system like this.

I think even that wouldn't really work, because SWTOR is an MMO, so there are plenty of people with differenty playstyles and interests here. Some want a obvious rating system for their bragging rights and still have a separate system where they also can just play for fun with their friends. I wouldn't mind if the non-ranked would get a better system behind the scene on who should be put against eachother or toegether in a team (but without cross server warzones, it would be pretty much be useless, since it is already mostly the same players over and over again you play against each other for most of the time).

[Heal-To-Full]

I think the OP is suggesting a system like this.

In a nutshell.

But, more precisely, this system is already there - the solo Ranked Arenas matchmaker and the Elo based PvP rating. All that needs to be done is extend and merge it with the unranked queue.

 

 

Except that I can already tell from the valour rang how much PvP one has played, so I could judge everyone with a high valour rang but no visible rating as a bad player.

I already know most 55's who play warzones on my server, and I already know who is a bad player and who is a good one.

 

Yeah, I see how a rating of 150 could be a hit to one's ego. But someone maybe looking at your valor and lack of rating and making conclusions... grow a skin. People are already able to inspect your achievements, check your number of player kills and matches played, your kills and solo kills achievements, and get a far better estimate of your performance or lack thereof.

 

 

Anyway, I like to compare PvP with real sports. Not every football team plays in a ranking system, sometimes it is just a few friends who play together. I don't want to worry about my rating or tell all my friends who are not hardcore into PvP that I cannot play with them, because it would hurt my rating. I want that separation!

School friends playing soccer don't get queued in a common system with pro teams either.

SWTOR PvP players do.

The rating matchmaker is there to provide just that - separation.

 

Your concern about ratings comes from being unfamiliar (at least it looks this way) with how they are calculated. If you're playing with zero-rated friends, your combined team rating will be extremely low and that rating gap will predict that you lose. The Elo rating system works off surprising it: if you do what the rating predicts, it might not change at all, but if you do the opposite, it changes significantly.

 

Essentially, a top player will only be punished for pugging and losing if the average team rating of his PuG pegged them as a winner, but they (and specifically he) failed to deliver on the expectations. Low rated players in your team will lower the team rating and thus amplify the rating gain for winning and reduce, down to zero, the rating reduction for losing.

 

TL;DR version: You don't lose rating for playing on a bad team.

You lose rating for losing to an evenly matched or inferior team.

Edited August 30, 2013 by B-Dick

[Drudenfusz]

School friends playing soccer don't get queued in a common system with pro teams either.

SWTOR PvP players do.

The rating matchmaker is there to provide just that - separation.

If separation is your goal, then let it as it is, separated!

 

Look a chess grandmaster can play a game with a friend without every worrying about his ranking, because that game don't get into any calculation. And that is what normal warzones should be, totally separated from ranked.

 

Your concern about ratings comes from being unfamiliar (at least it looks this way) with how they are calculated. If you're playing with zero-rated friends, your combined team rating will be extremely low and that rating gap will predict that you lose. The Elo rating system works off surprising it: if you do what the rating predicts, it might not change at all, but if you do the opposite, it changes significantly.

 

Essentially, a top player will only be punished for pugging and losing if the average team rating of his PuG pegged them as a winner, but they (and specifically he) failed to deliver on the expectations. Low rated players in your team will lower the team rating and thus amplify the rating gain for winning and reduce, down to zero, the rating reduction for losing.

 

TL;DR version: You don't lose rating for playing on a bad team.

You lose rating for losing to an evenly matched or inferior team.

I don't care how minimal the chance is you think it might impact anyone. It is a psychological difference to know a game counts and to know a game doesn't matter whatsoever. In a normal warzone a can pick up a phone or open the door, because it doesn't matter, but if every game can have impact I cannot play with the same attitude. I want those separated, to know when games are important end when they are not.

 

Even in profissional sports there are friendly matches which don't matter at all, so not every game should matter, I want from time to time just a relaxed game with friends without to worry about my rating.

 

So, I don't mind a better matchmaking system, but I don't want everything merged into just one ranking system.