Which requires more skill, Solo or Grouped

[Domatron]

So I had a discussion with another person on my server about which queue took more skill to win in.

I argued group, he argued solo.

 

I argued that solo queue likely had less skilled players in any given match, and the randomness of compositions, specs, and skill levels basically made it a lottery queue. The leaderboards also show several different comps having success in grouped.

 

He argued that group composition mattered too much (specifically AP cleave teams) and carrying the bads was a better measure of skill.

 

So what do you guys think

Edited November 26, 2013 by Domatron

[anwg]

He's right.

[Rilok_Singz]

Grouped requires more skill. Knowing how to effectively play your class, combat your opponents class, and how to take advantage of situations that arise all while communicating it to 3 other bodies so everyone is in sync on when to do things(aoe taunts, grenades, stuns, etc) is more of a challenge then solo-staring your way through a few ranked games.

[Technohic]

Assuming you, yourself are not bad, that leaves only a possibility of 3 bads being on your team, while having 4 available slots to face bads. Therefore; odds are you face more bads than you are teamed with..

 

It statistical fact. Just like warzone rotations. You cannot argue with statistics.

[anwg]

Grouped requires more skill. Knowing how to effectively play your class, combat your opponents class, and how to take advantage of situations that arise all while communicating it to 3 other bodies so everyone is in sync on when to do things(aoe taunts, grenades, stuns, etc) is more of a challenge then solo-staring your way through a few ranked games.

Just the opposite, soloing means you need to anticipate not just what your opponents will do, but your teammates as well.

[JP_Legatus]

Idk. In group ranked all the players are usually good so it's more competitive.

 

On the other hand, it's unlikely you'll ever really get to push your limits in ranked because there won't be games where you're just totally 1v4 trying to carry *******. Then there's the easy games so...

 

I don't think one takes more skill I think they're just different environments.

Edited November 26, 2013 by JP_Legatus

[AlrikFassbauer]

I firmly believe that Solo requires far more skill - because you just cannot depend on anyone. You must be self-contained.

[sithBracer]

Solo is a coin toss. Whoever gets a better team composition and a better team will win, end of story. If I get a sorc healer on my team with 1400 expertise (yes this happens in ranked) and the other team gets an op healer with 1850 expertise, my chances of winning drop to almost undoable levels. If I get a sorc and a merc on my team while the enemy has 2 mauraders or PTs same thing. People might think they "carry" their team, but one person can't carry 3, chances are the other team was just as bad as your team or was just as under-geared as your team. Anyone who takes solo ranked seriously and not as a quick way to make ranked comms needs a reality check by going into group ranked with the same team he "carried" and see how well he does against a well formed, well coordinated group.

[Arcadius-Fett]

Group Ranked = running OP comps

 

Solo Ranked = lottery queue

 

Group requires constant communication and choreographed synchronization with your group.

 

Solo requires the ability to strategize on the fly, communication and execution of said plans with complete strangers and no VoIP.

 

 

Both require knowledge of your class, and your enemy's strength and weaknesses. Both have a bit of randomness in them. In the end, they both take skill, just like Warzones. The only difference is now we have a rank that helps people stroke their egos.

[Rambeezy]

Some people just are in such denial that they refuse to open their eyes and see it from the other side. So let me elaborate a little more clearly.

 

In group ranked, over the course of your queues, you will continue to be with the same people unless y'all switch comps/swap people out. Whether or not you go up against more skilled players is irrelevant when comparing the skill required for grouped queue and solo queue. Why is that irrelevant? Because there's also skilled players in solo queue, which means the "more skilled players" argument works both ways.

 

In solo queue, unless you get lucky, you will be with 3 new people who you may have never grouped with before. On top of that, if you are unlucky, you may have all the bads on your team and the the other team may have all the skill. (That's how the skilled player argument affects solo queue.)

 

So let's look at the two queues.

Grouped - always with people you know, can always communicate with VoIP,pre-determined comp, and the choice to only ever group with skilled players.

Solo - high chance you will not know anybody, high probability y'all cannot get in the same VoIP before the match starts, never guaranteed to get a comp that compliments each other, and never guaranteed to be with all skilled players.

 

You could certainly make the argument that none of what I have pointed out signifies skill. But you can't deny that solo queues come with no guarantees and therefore they are going to be more difficult. How do you overcome a difficult challenge, by using your knowledge of skills within the game to win.

 

Thank you

Edited November 26, 2013 by Rambeezy

[mulzii]

I'd say solo, as solo requires more intelligence (in general), the ability to adapt quickly and efficiently and more quick thinking on your own. When playing solo, if you want to win, you have to know the ins-n-outs of your own class, along with all the other classes, in addition to anticipating what your teammates skill level is, and what they may or may not do. Your pretty much on your own in terms how how you play, mistakes/strengths/etc. The good ones are better at adapting to random situations like no healers, no tanks, on teams that play like chickens with their heads cut off, etc.

 

Grouping on the other hand, allows for a player to be carried by stronger teammates. It allows (assuming out of game comm) being told what to do, how to do it, who to focus, etc on the fly. If you need to adjust a strategy, or make a mistake or need to adjust quickly, its easier in a group. Also, with many groups, they play together alot, so they know each other well, and become dependent on the team to succeed. These folks, in general, have a hard time adapting to random WZs setups when they don't have their 'normal team setups' to rely on.

 

This is in general terms of course. But too many times i see these elite folks kicking butt in premades, looking like unkillable forces of nature. Then when you pluck them into the solo queue, they are suddenly normal/slightly above average. Now they cannot be assured of a pocket healer, or a pocket tank. focus of the group might not be on the same enemy healer, etc They cannot adapt to changing/random WZ teams/. Many of these folks get frustrated, their ego bruised, leave the solo match and/or go to the forums and say how everyone is bad, how pugs stink, how pvp is dying, etc.

[Xeraz]

Group Ranked = running OP comps

 

Solo Ranked = lottery queue

 

Group requires constant communication and choreographed synchronization with your group.

 

Solo requires the ability to strategize on the fly, communication and execution of said plans with complete strangers and no VoIP.

 

Agreed. Both require skill and really good players should be able to perform in both settings.

 

The hard truth? People who don't get invited to Groups often try to claim Solo is the most "skilled" since it's all they can do.(PS: they aren't invited for a reason usually) On the other hand, people getting carried in Group that suffer in Solo also make excuses such as "only group matters."

Edited November 26, 2013 by Xeraz

[Derivative]

..... Edited April 16, 2015 by Derivative

[Domatron]

Some people just are in such denial that they refuse to open their eyes and see it from the other side.

 

pot meet kettle

 

To elaborate I'm basically saying that a good player can get a high solo ranking by just playing a ton of games, and this is not nearly as easy in group. I'm also saying beating a good team in 4s requires more skill (in most cases) then winning any solo match.

[Kerensk]

I'd say grouped is where you see more skill and thus more difficult opponents, but you also have more skill on your team and know how to synergize with your team. If you make a mistake your teammates can carry you better.

 

Solo requires much more skill to get a win. You have just minutes or seconds to learn to work with complete strangers, and if you or them make a mistake it's much harder for the rest to carry you through that.

 

TL;DR - Solo requires more skill to win. Even if you're amazing you may still not be able to carry the team. Grouped yo know what your team weakness is before hand and it's easier to be carried.

[Evolixe]

Neither. The best representation of skill is someone's live choices of action.

[Rambeezy]

pot meet kettle

 

To elaborate I'm basically saying that a good player can get a high solo ranking by just playing a ton of games, and this is not nearly as easy in group. I'm also saying beating a good team in 4s requires more skill (in most cases) then winning any solo match.

 

Thank you for only quoting what you did, it just further shows your ignorance.

 

Id greatly appreciate it if you would introduce some premises in your argument to support your conclusions. I can't see how your claims don't work both ways and arent worse in solo. So please, help yourself and support your claims instead of leaving them baseless.

[Sippix]

I think both queue types require a different kind of skill. On the one hand, you have a skillset which is really only viable in solo queue. Then on the other hand, you have a skillset which is really only viable for coordinate premade groups. The way you approach solo and premade queues should be with different tactics. Solo queue is much more about self-reliance, while premade queue is much more about group-reliance. However, it's not to say that the fundamental concepts are not the same in both queues; Know your class, time your abilities, understand your opponent.

[Praiden]

group que take more skill I believe but you have to be smarter for solo que. because in solo que you need to not only know cooldowns but how to develop a plan based on yours and there team comp which is completely random. where in group you already have a plan that may need minor tweaks from team to team

[Domatron]

Thank you for only quoting what you did, it just further shows your ignorance.

 

Id greatly appreciate it if you would introduce some premises in your argument to support your conclusions. I can't see how your claims don't work both ways and arent worse in solo. So please, help yourself and support your claims instead of leaving them baseless.

 

It's like you just read one or two lines out of everything I post. Maybe go back and review my previous posts.

This thread was to gather input from the larger community.

 

I never made an absolute claim that one was the undeniable measurement, that was your bud.

 

He claimed OP comps, I argue class/spec matters more in solo than in 4s.

evidence leaderboards

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=700052

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=700224

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=698713

 

compared to the top teams playing 4s, which have a wide range of comps with almost every AC represented.

 

But you can't deny that solo queues come with no guarantees and therefore they are going to be more difficult.

Yes I can, beating an organized team of skilled players is harder. I've done both.

 

In my experience, players are less geared in solo, players are less skilled in solo, hybrids tip the scales in a very noticeable way, and queue syncing runs rampant (so it's not really solo) Solo queues are facerolls one way or the other far more often then group queues in my experience.

 

I'm in full agreement that a good player can carry the day in solo, and will move his ranking up eventually.

 

I'm saying for the intensity of one mistake or miscalculation costs you the game level of play solo can rarely compare. To me this defines high level pvp, less variables, less rng, one mistake and its over.

 

I'm also saying it's easier to farm solo rating then to farm group rating.

 

(note: the irony of a PvE player arguing that group synchronization is not a measure of skill)

 

In the end this is the best answer

Agreed. Both require skill and really good players should be able to perform in both settings.

 

The hard truth? People who don't get invited to Groups often try to claim Solo is the most "skilled" since it's all they can do.(PS: they aren't invited for a reason usually) On the other hand, people getting carried in Group that suffer in Solo also make excuses such as "only group matters."

[Rambeezy]

It's like you just read one or two lines out of everything I post. Maybe go back and review my previous posts.

This thread was to gather input from the larger community.

 

I never made an absolute claim that one was the undeniable measurement, that was your bud.

 

He claimed OP comps, I argue class/spec matters more in solo than in 4s.

evidence leaderboards

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=700052

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=700224

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=698713

 

compared to the top teams playing 4s, which have a wide range of comps with almost every AC represented.

 

 

Yes I can, beating an organized team of skilled players is harder. I've done both.

 

In my experience, players are less geared in solo, players are less skilled in solo, hybrids tip the scales in a very noticeable way, and queue syncing runs rampant (so it's not really solo) Solo queues are facerolls one way or the other far more often then group queues in my experience.

 

I'm in full agreement that a good player can carry the day in solo, and will move his ranking up eventually.

 

I'm saying for the intensity of one mistake or miscalculation costs you the game level of play solo can rarely compare. To me this defines high level pvp, less variables, less rng, one mistake and its over.

 

I'm also saying it's easier to farm solo rating then to farm group rating.

 

(note: the irony of a PvE player arguing that group synchronization is not a measure of skill)

 

In the end this is the best answer

 

There's no changing your opinion, I understood this from the beginning.

 

I guess that I just wanted to see if you could reasonably make a claim, which isn't shared on both sides, that would truly make group ranked appear to require more skill. Besides the "not being geared enough" claim, which is situational (it may hurt you it may be to your favor; friend or enemy), you can't, so I guess we are done here.

 

IMO solo queue requires more skill because there's no guarantees.

[Domatron]

There's no changing your opinion, I understood this from the beginning.

 

I guess that I just wanted to see if you could reasonably make a claim, which isn't shared on both sides, that would truly make group ranked appear to require more skill. Besides the "not being geared enough" claim, which is situational (it may hurt you it may be to your favor; friend or enemy), you can't, so I guess we are done here.

 

IMO solo queue requires more skill because there's no guarantees.

 

I guess we are since you still don't actually read what I write.

 

Hybrids queuing as DPS, Queue syncing, are two I wrote in the previous post that are impossible in 4s and give an outsized advantage to that player.

Not to mention the ton of stuff about class representation and high rankings with links.

 

You are right though I'll never see how the queue that cant match people properly http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=699743

and is used primarily for comm farming is more competitive.

 

You never queue 4s so I guess you will never really know.

[Rambeezy]

I guess we are since you still don't actually read what I write.

 

Hybrids queuing as DPS, Queue syncing, are two I wrote in the previous post that are impossible in 4s and give an outsized advantage to that player.

Not to mention the ton of stuff about class representation and high rankings with links.

 

You are right though I'll never see how the queue that cant match people properly http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=699743

and is used primarily for comm farming is more competitive.

 

You never queue 4s so I guess you will never really know.

 

Your fallacious argument is typical of someone who can't logically explain themselves.

[JP_Legatus]

Whatever evolixe said in this thread he's wrong and the other argument is right

[Domatron]

Your fallacious argument is typical of someone who can't logically explain themselves.

 

Such a thorough debunking of all my points, including the ones you ask for, bravo.

Since you are down to just trying to insult me instead of debating I'm guessing you are out of ideas.

 

I think this is an interesting topic with lots of room for perspective, so I'll do what you apparently won't and take what you say seriously.

 

Lets look at your water tight reasoning again

I'm going to illustrate my point by making an analogy to 8v8s and regular warzones.

 

Your argument is adaptation to random circumstance is the true measure of skill, specifically to your own teammates.

So this would suggest your reasoning would be that regular wazones are a better measure of skill then ranked 8v8s

 

Below I've quoted you and only changed 2 things, where it said solo I made it say regs, where you said group I said 8v8s. I've highlighted where I've made changes.

 

In 8v8 ranked, over the course of your queues, you will continue to be with the same people unless y'all switch comps/swap people out. Whether or not you go up against more skilled players is irrelevant when comparing the skill required for 8v8 queue and regular queue. Why is that irrelevant? Because there's also skilled players in regular queue, which means the "more skilled players" argument works both ways.

 

In regular queue, unless you get lucky, you will be with 4-7 new people who you may have never grouped with before. On top of that, if you are unlucky, you may have all the bads on your team and the the other team may have all the skill. (That's how the skilled player argument affects regular queue.)

 

So let's look at the two queues.

8v8 - always with people you know, can always communicate with VoIP,pre-determined comp, and the choice to only ever group with skilled players.

Regular - high chance you will not know anybody, high probability y'all cannot get in the same VoIP before the match starts, never guaranteed to get a comp that compliments each other, and never guaranteed to be with all skilled players.

 

You could certainly make the argument that none of what I have pointed out signifies skill. But you can't deny that regular queues come with no guarantees and therefore they are going to be more difficult. How do you overcome a difficult challenge, by using your knowledge of skills within the game to win.

 

I am wrong with this extension of your logic?

Do you believe that regular warzones are more indicative of skill than ranked 8v8s?

If this is not a correct extension of your reasoning why?

 

Larger community please chime in, whether I'm right or wrong I'm interested in what you have to say.

Edited November 27, 2013 by Domatron