Which requires more skill, Solo or Grouped

[AlrikFassbauer]

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.

 

That's basically what I'm thinking as well, and why I believe that Solo requires more skill.

 

In Group, you already know everyone, their skills (because you have played their classes alsoi), their weaknesses (same), and the communication channels.

 

You know them so well you sometimes don't even have to communicate anymore, just see what the others do.

And if you do communicate with each other, then the raw / sheer amount ofinformation enters your brain so quickly you don't have to analyse the situation anymore. "Inc" is basically totally taking away any field analysis.

In Solo, you have to do field analysis all of the time.

 

In Solo, you have nothing of all that. You don't know the people, people don't know strengths & weaknesses of other classes, people don't know each other, people don't know whether they are physically handicapped or not ... The list would be nearly endless.

 

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.

 

I can agree to that.

Edited November 27, 2013 by AlrikFassbauer

[AlrikFassbauer]

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

 

That's a very heavy stream of (an) argument.

Edited November 27, 2013 by AlrikFassbauer

[Rambeezy]

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

Did you seriously just try to use a 8v8 warzone analogy to try and debunk my argument? Come on, that's just pathetic in the sense of serious debate. You have missed the overall point of the argument (arena) by using 8v8 warzone as an analogy. I'll cite some major differences that make the analogy completely irrelevant. In arena you die and there's no respawn, in arena it's not 8v8 it's 4v4, in arena you must win 2/3 rounds and in arena there's no objectives (it's a death match.)

 

Saying that because I think solo is harder than grouped so therefore I must think regs are harder than ranked is a fallacious error.

 

Sorry, gonna have to work harder than that. Try again please.

[sithBracer]

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

 

Did you two used to date or something?

[Domatron]

Did you seriously just try to use a 8v8 warzone analogy to try and debunk my argument? Come on, that's just pathetic in the sense of serious debate. You have missed the overall point of the argument (arena) by using 8v8 warzone as an analogy. I'll cite some major differences that make the analogy completely irrelevant. In arena you die and there's no respawn, in arena it's not 8v8 it's 4v4, in arena you must win 2/3 rounds and in arena there's no objectives (it's a death match.)

 

Saying that because I think solo is harder than grouped so therefore I must think regs are harder than ranked is a fallacious error.

 

Sorry, gonna have to work harder than that. Try again please.

 

So your counter is arena is not 8v8, that take you all night to figure out?

 

Again reading comprehension is a skill you have proven to lack

 

Regular warzones and 8v8 share the same map type, same objectives, same goals.

The difference is a pre-composed group of your friends that you always play with, vs the random assignment of bads. How is this substantially different from solo vs group?

 

In both scenarios the game types are identical, the only difference is whether or not the teams are randomized.

 

 

 

Your argument boils down to - Adaptation to random teammates is the true skill (since you wont know your enemies in either queue)

 

Mine is - Execution at a higher level of play is the true measure of skill.

 

The comparison is more than fair for what you describe

[Rambeezy]

So your counter is arena is not 8v8, that take you all night to figure out?

 

Again reading comprehension is a skill you have proven to lack

 

Regular warzones and 8v8 share the same map type, same objectives, same goals.

The difference is a pre-composed group of your friends that you always play with, vs the random assignment of bads. How is this substantially different from solo vs group?

 

In both scenarios the game types are identical, the only difference is whether or not the teams are randomized.

 

 

 

Your argument boils down to - Adaptation to random teammates is the true skill (since you wont know your enemies in either queue)

 

Mine is - Execution at a higher level of play is the true measure of skill.

 

The comparison is more than fair for what you describe

 

I'm laughing so hard right now. I've never had my reading comprehension insulted before, only makes sense that someone on the internet was the first.

 

So now you say execution is the difference. Which is a great point to make, thank you for this. Certainly in group ranked, you are more likely to have 4 good people playing against 4 good people. This however does not mean solo will never have 4 good people against 4 good people. It's just not likely to happen as often as grouped. However, one could say that because of my guarantees argument, solo is more likely to have 4 good players vs 1 good player. If you're that one good player, all the skill in the world might not safe you. Where as in grouped, you don't have to be grouped with all bads if you queue with all good players. Which means the execution argument works both ways and in a sense can be worse in solo, because even execution may not help you.

 

Btw: being more competitive and requiring more skill doesn't always work hand in hand.

Edited November 27, 2013 by Rambeezy

[Domatron]

I'm laughing so hard right now. I've never had my reading comprehension insulted before, only makes sense that someone on the internet was the first.

 

So now you say execution is the difference. Which is a great point to make, thank you for this. Certainly in group ranked, you are more likely to have 4 good people playing against 4 good people. This however does not mean solo will never have 4 good people against 4 good people. It's just not likely to happen as often as grouped. However, one could say that because of my guarantees argument, solo is more likely to have 4 good players vs 1 good player. If you're that one good player, all the skill in the world might not safe you. Where as in grouped, you don't have to be grouped with all bads if you queue with all good players. Which means the execution argument works both ways and in a sense can be worse in solo, because even execution may not help you.

 

Btw: being more competitive and requiring more skill doesn't always work hand in hand.

 

Thank you for actually addressing at least part of what I said, I do respect your viewpoint even if I find it incorrect.

 

The question I would really like to have you address is this one

Regular warzones and 8v8 share the same map type, same objectives, same goals.

The difference is a pre-composed group of your friends that you always play with, vs the random assignment of bads. How is this substantially different from solo vs group?

In both scenarios the game types are identical, the only difference is whether or not the teams are randomized.

Edited November 27, 2013 by Domatron

[KamujinKravshera]

 

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.

 

I agree with this.

 

I also think groups can optimize their strategy to the small subset of compositions being run. They play kind of like a raid as the strategies are pre-planned.

 

Solo is about thinking in the moment.

 

Both are measure of skill, but I think solo is more "pure" pvp.

[JackNader]

Neither take more skill. They are different formats. Skill is entirely based on the "individual." Whether or not someone chooses to pug all day in warzones, kill NPC's or play tiddlywinks, their skill doesn't suddenly evaporate just because they changed format.

[Ottoattack]

Solo ranked you see a lot of under geared ppl. 2-3 players will be unaugged, unstimmed and/or below 1,800 expertise. You can impact the game, but if you have 1,400 expertise sorc healer, with below 1,000 to bonus healing, while the opposition has an ops healer in fully expertise and mostly obroan it is a loss. Class compositions also plays big role. TBH, solo ranked plays exactly like WZs, without the premades.

 

It is safe to say that in most group ranked games people will be in minimum conqueror, stimmed and above 1,900 expertise. Thus, the level of competition jumps big time. Of course they require a higher level of skill then solo ques.