Ranked PVP QQ

[nkarabats]

Here is a question that me and snave both have, what makes solo ranked any different than a reg arena? I'll give you some time to think about it because there is one difference

 

i have seen people care more about regs then ranked.

 

today i have a tank do nothing no guard no taunts nothing. a healer only heal once to get a medal then ran back to spawn point and waited. had 2 others not even in pvp gear...or for that matter good pve gear. they wore greens. same guild

 

i have given up on ranked this season. its not worth it.

[Tellenn]

Right now theres no point in doing ranked past the 9 matches to get a rating and the basic reward.

 

Rewards are ****.

Queue times are ridiculous.

Matchmaking is a joke.

Wz are more fun than Arena.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Tellenn

[t-darko]

I am referring to solo ranked as stated in the post, I am not even sure what the point you are trying to make is? I am stating specific changes that would improve an aspect of the game that I enjoy, changes that are pretty much universally agreed upon. Are you going to pose a counter argument or just make random incoherent conclusions? How would implementing these changes turn SWTOR into a turned based game? How did you connect the dots on that one?

 

Well you asked for it . . .

 

No 1) Ranked, as the name implies, sets some kind of RANKING order, preferably the good above the one not so good. Now Ranked implies competitive play, in other words 'only win counts', therefore when you lose, you lose, there is no losing less in any named competitive competition (now run and do a google search to prove me wrong), not even in the paralympics.

 

No 2) To be good and above, by its own definition, means practice, it means research, it means exploring the opportunities within the rules to become better than the one not so good, and that does mean that you have to put in hours of gameplay, research and practice to pull off a good or greater play with a hybrid. Why, my friend, why do you want to punish that kind of dedication, that kind of love for the game? Now, the option for you to do as others do is there, but, as you probably have realized, YOU aren't ready to put in the hours, the research, the practice, so your solution? Punish those who do!!???

 

From this I can only conclude that you want some kind of 'tactical' wz/arena, that you want an easy way to win, that you in a wz/arena want a banning button to punish those better than you. . .

Edited September 23, 2014 by t-darko

[Anyakaschala]

I know there are a lot of threads already about how sh*tty ranked PVP is. This is another one.

 

Dear Bioware,

 

For the love of 6 pound 5 ounces baby jesus please fix your solo ranked pvp. I really can't imagine it would be very difficult for you guys to sit down and implement some pretty basic changes.

 

 

1) 3 v 4s - I see this situation as inevitable, however; why the f do I have to lose 15 rating? You implemented a system to make a team gain LESS rating from 3 v 4 wins but you didn't implement the same thing in reverse? Please someone explain to me how that makes sense.

 

2) Match making- I really don't like going against a team of 4 juggernauts or 4 sorcs, there is no reason for it.

 

3) Hybrid healing specs. I mean seriously, all you have to do is tie the crucial abilities to a skill tree...am I missing something here? You nerfed dot smash so you have already shown that you have no issues doing exactly that, so why haven't you nerfed sorc hybrid heal spec?

 

CONCLUSION

 

Number 1 and 3 would take maybe a day to implement and would have huge quality of life changes in solo ranked, if you can find the time between recoloring crap for your next cartel market pack to have Bob in the basement write the code that would be greaaaaaaaaat. That is if you want my money of course.

 

in terms of 3v4, there really isn't much that can be done. Let's face it, when your queue pops, 4 people have been selected, thus it means that 4th didn't bother to take the queue, or rthey got in there and left. No, it's not fair, but it is what it is. However, in terms of detection of 3v4, or playing 3v4, there should be a lessened or no loss of points. However, that does bring in the complication of how many points, if there are points. If someone just quit, or disconned, how many points. And if you started 3v4, did someone join in as you were playing and thus died asap becasue they got in late, etc...

 

Thus, IMO, the problem isn't necessarily 3v4, it's the ranking system in solo ranked that is the primary issue. I mean the basics of your rank being tied to 3 other random strangers and their performance is just terrible logic.

 

2) not really sure they can overhaul the matchmaking system to fix that, they are doing dps vs dps. As thus, how could they change that? They'd then have to catagorize all dps into their own private classes and then make sure none got grouped with each other. I mean really part of the issue in terms of juggs is the aoe stun, slow, guaranteed smash crit. thus should you base it on aoe stun capabilities? It's a mixed bag, that I'm not sure can be fixed, nor should be.

 

3) as others have said, finding hybrid isn't that difficult. Add that as another said, there are extremely few and far between that are actually good at it. Thus it really shouldn't be that difficult to drop them quickly.

 

However, and I'll play along here, if they were to do anything in terms of hybrid healing, what they need to do is make the top end of the tier to be really good defensive cooldowns or hardcore healing buffs and dps buffs, thus making it that much more difficult to choose between the trees. Thus gimping themselves heavily being in a hybrid spec while not nerfing the hell out of the class/tree for example: sorc/sage a talent that adds a stun effect to bubble. if someone attacks it while you are bubbled, then they are stunned for say 5 secs, or make their bubble mobile, so that they can move away instead of being a stump on a log, or a talent to make all their defensive cooldowns, self heals usable while stunned.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Anyakaschala

[t-darko]

 

Thus, IMO, the problem isn't necessarily 3v4, it's the ranking system in solo ranked that is the primary issue. I mean the basics of your rank being tied to 3 other random strangers and their performance is just terrible logic.

 

What!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?

 

"I mean the basics of your rank being tied to 3 other random strangers and their performance is just terrible logic"

 

In SOLO queue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?

 

"I mean the basics of your rank being tied to 3 other random strangers and their performance is just terrible logic"

 

Really?????????????????????????

 

"I mean the basics of your rank being tied to 3 other random strangers and their performance is just terrible logic"

 

In SOLO QUEUE?????????????

 

Hmmm - so what it the algorithm for detecting everyones perceived awesomeness . . . ?

[Adovir]

not sure if serious or trolling, but...

 

 

• matchmaking exists (by role: heal, tank, dps), and an offshoot of this is...
  
• it prevent individuals from dictating the composition of their team from match to match (fancy way of saying no premades)
  
• it's more accessible to weaker players (again, because of matchmaking)
  

 

 

those are things it does. I'm not saying it does them well.

 

Reasons 1 and 3 are complete bull **** and you know that, matchmaking? Everyone trashes on it in every single post so idk how you can say that with a straight face how often do you see 2dps a healer and a tank or 3dps 1 healer ect. The matchmaking is garbage I've gotten plenty of 3tank 1dps vs 4dps or double tank healer combos to know that it's not really what you make it up to be. Then throw in hybrids if you will, where is your match making now. And btw if you're talking about match making in regs that's a joke if I've ever heard one

 

Reason 3 is bull **** as well because again how often do you see people complaining about PVE geared noobs/bads/trolls in ranked. Ranked has no gear check and no adv class check so yeah the only thing players need to do to play ranked is reach 55, no need for valor rank 1. So it seems pretty accessible to me and by the way if you enter either with no gear/PVE gear the result is going to be the same.

 

Hell even the second point that you made was some what bull, because que syncing has been a thing since day one.

 

So in short try again bc I'm pretty sure the only difference is

getting a arbitrary ranking

 

[foxmob]

they're all the same reason. the system matches roles. regs don't care about that at all. ergo there is matchmaking. it's also not rocket science to figure out that it's easier, ergo more accessible. the fact that you don't like it or that it doesn't matchmake well doesn't change the fact that matchmaking exists to a greater extent than regs and it's more accessible than grp rated. but you're welcome for giving you the obligatory bite so that you could unleash your rant and get to the punchline.

[Adovir]

they're all the same reason. the system matches roles. regs don't care about that at all. ergo there is matchmaking. it's also not rocket science to figure out that it's easier, ergo more accessible. the fact that you don't like it or that it doesn't matchmake well doesn't change the fact that matchmaking exists to a greater extent than regs and it's more accessible than grp rated. but you're welcome for giving you the obligatory bite so that you could unleash your rant and get to the punchline.

 

Maybe it's just me, maybe every single match I have had is just ****** but that seems highly unlikely. Match making is putting players of similar skill against one another and making it so that it is "balanced" on either side, having a healer on both sides or a tank or 4dps vs 4dps ect. I've seen plenty of times that I get put in groups with people who's ratings range from 1000-1700 both on the opposing team and on the same team or my 1100 rating in one season against cryyc's 2800 rating and drezmaster's 2700. Or how about players with ratings of 0 or 10 why don't the trolls get put with the trolls?

[emeraldon]

Had an amazingly awesome match not long ago. We were 3 assasins and a marauder vs 2 healers and 2 juggs.

 

Did not think it could happen.

[sanchito]

After Op dps sorcs are usually first target no matter their spec so them being hybrid is irrelevant.

 

it's not irrelevant it's one of the reasons why many sorcs play hybrid; if you know you'll get focused first you want the build that can stay alive the longest.

[milkandcereal]

Well you asked for it . . .

 

No 1) Ranked, as the name implies, sets some kind of RANKING order, preferably the good above the one not so good. Now Ranked implies competitive play, in other words 'only win counts', therefore when you lose, you lose, there is no losing less in any named competitive competition (now run and do a google search to prove me wrong), not even in the paralympics.

 

No 2) To be good and above, by its own definition, means practice, it means research, it means exploring the opportunities within the rules to become better than the one not so good, and that does mean that you have to put in hours of gameplay, research and practice to pull off a good or greater play with a hybrid. Why, my friend, why do you want to punish that kind of dedication, that kind of love for the game? Now, the option for you to do as others do is there, but, as you probably have realized, YOU aren't ready to put in the hours, the research, the practice, so your solution? Punish those who do!!???

 

From this I can only conclude that you want some kind of 'tactical' wz/arena, that you want an easy way to win, that you in a wz/arena want a banning button to punish those better than you. . .

 

My first point is about THREE versus FOUR player games and how you lose the same amount of rating even though your team with THREE players got screwed. My proposed fix is that you lose LESS rating when you are stuck with THREE players against a team of FOUR.

 

My second point is that there exists a match making system for a reason, try to follow me here. If you queue as dps you will be put up against another dps, if you queue as heals you will be put up against another healer, and tank etc. So when you introduce healing hybrids that queue you as dps you are blatantly manipulating the system that has no way of accounting for the hybrids as they exist currently. The only argument I have heard is that "It's not easy to play hybrid heals, you should just focus them and it's GG." Well that may be true but with the prevalence of dps juggernauts that simply switch to tank stance as full vengeance and throw a guard out means GG to the team going against a guarded hybrid healer, and that isn't even taking into the account the queue syncing pub guilds on POT5 that queue with hybrid tank juggs and hybrid healer. Most of these hybrid healers can easily accomplish 1600hps per round, that is just broken.

[foxmob]

My first point is about THREE versus FOUR player games and how you lose the same amount of rating even though your team with THREE players got screwed. My proposed fix is that you lose LESS rating when you are stuck with THREE players against a team of FOUR.

 

I don't have the link, but BW did respond to this. they said that they DO reduce the ELO hit to the team of 3, but only if their fourth player never took the pop into the match. so it's almost entirely useless, because most of the teams stuck with 3 have only 3 cuz the fourth d/c'd or had trouble logging in (but took the pop). I recently had a healer glitch so that we couldn't see him on our team and all his abils were blacked out yet somehow the other team could see and kill him just fine.

 

anyway, I kind of understand why BW is reluctant to reduce the hit to every team of 3 -- you could manipulate the system by having one person drop from a guaranteed loss, and the other 3 take a less hit to ELO. iunno how that's worse that the other stuff BW does nothing about, but it does seem like a legit concern.

[Anyakaschala]

What!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?

 

"I mean the basics of your rank being tied to 3 other random strangers and their performance is just terrible logic"

 

In SOLO queue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?

 

"I mean the basics of your rank being tied to 3 other random strangers and their performance is just terrible logic"

 

Really?????????????????????????

 

"I mean the basics of your rank being tied to 3 other random strangers and their performance is just terrible logic"

 

In SOLO QUEUE?????????????

 

Hmmm - so what it the algorithm for detecting everyones perceived awesomeness . . . ?

 

basically meaning yeah, 3v4 is bad, but to me, the bigger issue is the way ranking works in solo queue.

 

however, and this seems an appropriate quote from page 1:

 

what you've just wrote... is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul...

[t-darko]

basically meaning yeah, 3v4 is bad, but to me, the bigger issue is the way ranking works in solo queue.

 

however, and this seems an appropriate quote from page 1:

 

So you think being paired up with 3 complete strangers in SOLO QUEUE is a terrible logic. One would think that was the IDEA with SOLO QUEUE would you . . . 'cos otherwise we would call it group queue, wouldn't we . . .

[t-darko]

My first point is about THREE versus FOUR player games and how you lose the same amount of rating even though your team with THREE players got screwed. My proposed fix is that you lose LESS rating when you are stuck with THREE players against a team of FOUR.

 

The fairness of competition, and to be called a competition, by its own dictates there's a winner and a loser, otherwise it isn't a competition, but rather a social event, and the fairness is in place in this system, since the team winning against a team with fewer participants win less. And the fairness also applies in the fact that anyone entering Solo Queue know about this, everyone knows about the risk upon entering, which leads us to your other reasoning;

 

My second point is that there exists a match making system for a reason, try to follow me here. If you queue as dps you will be put up against another dps, if you queue as heals you will be put up against another healer, and tank etc. So when you introduce healing hybrids that queue you as dps you are blatantly manipulating the system that has no way of accounting for the hybrids as they exist currently. The only argument I have heard is that "It's not easy to play hybrid heals, you should just focus them and it's GG." Well that may be true but with the prevalence of dps juggernauts that simply switch to tank stance as full vengeance and throw a guard out means GG to the team going against a guarded hybrid healer, and that isn't even taking into the account the queue syncing pub guilds on POT5 that queue with hybrid tank juggs and hybrid healer. Most of these hybrid healers can easily accomplish 1600hps per round, that is just broken.

 

My friend, you could write an essay on the matter and my answer would still be the same; enter group ranked and the problem is solved. "But there's no pops" you might argue or "I wanna play on my lonesome". And my answer here will still be as follows; The reason there's few pops in group ranked is the same reason we no longer have 8 vs 8 ranked. No one or a very few dare to face up to be on the losing end and face the fact that it might be your own lack of skill that might get you to lose. Solo queue always provides you with the option to blame a loss on someone else or as you do; on the game. But don't worry you along with a disturbing majority reason in this way, some would even argue that it's simply is human nature.

 

And the hybrid discussion, well since it is my opinion is that BW bends over backward to please every senseless suggestion entered on these forums, I'd say that you probably would get your wish, and then the few dedicated that are left will leave as well, and ranked will be as casual as you apparently wish.

 

And I'll grant you this, you're consistent in your arguing. You got an option to play a system that in your opinion is flaw(Solo) and a system that, in my opinion, are less flaw(Group), and you still chose to play the one considered more flaw.

 

You're upset because there are players willing to dedicate themselves more than you to the game and that are willing to put in more hours to strive for excellence and there by making you to try harder to beat them. That, my friend, is the nature of competition. Plain and simple.

 

The final of League of Legend is set before a crowd of 100.000 spectators, E-sport is a serious game, players earns their livelihood on it. Ranked is suppose to be the best of the best in SWToR, maybe, just maybe, Ranked isn't the place to be for you.

 

You're the one entering the 100 m sprint final in the olympics, demanding that Usain Bolt should put on some ski boots while running, so it'll be fair for the rest of you ....

[Darth__Reaver]

a simple move will be nerf juggs survaibility because well 2 lives in ranked, make trhe difference, especially now we have a lot of dots, same with sins madness and sorcs, lowering the damage output from pyrotech and HEAVY nerf to operative healers, and than ranked will be funny to play ( and to lose)

 

Lmao I love that part in billy Madison

[Anyakaschala]

So you think being paired up with 3 complete strangers in SOLO QUEUE is a terrible logic. One would think that was the IDEA with SOLO QUEUE would you . . . 'cos otherwise we would call it group queue, wouldn't we . . .

 

no, the issue with being put with 3 random strangers is that your ranking is determined by those 3 random strangers and not on your own performance or lack thereof.

 

Simple basic example, when Michael Jordan came out of UNC he was pretty much one of the best, if not the best player in the league, led the league in scoring, but his team sucked. He lost a ton more than he won. And as thus, if he was getting paid in a salary system akin to ELO, he'd essentially not be getting paid for what he was worth.

 

And also realistically, in terms of 3v4, I don't think there is a way to fix it. What I mean by this is that when a queue pops, 4 people are queued against 4 people. It is not BW's fault that one guy was taking a dump when the queue popped and missed it due to said bowel movement. And that when the next guy got queued, he was in the middle of doing dailies and waited until the last second to hit okay, thus missing the 1st round.

 

If there is a fix for this, let's hear it.

[milkandcereal]

The fairness of competition, and to be called a competition, by its own dictates there's a winner and a loser, otherwise it isn't a competition, but rather a social event, and the fairness is in place in this system, since the team winning against a team with fewer participants win less. And the fairness also applies in the fact that anyone entering Solo Queue know about this, everyone knows about the risk upon entering, which leads us to your other reasoning;

 

 

 

My friend, you could write an essay on the matter and my answer would still be the same; enter group ranked and the problem is solved. "But there's no pops" you might argue or "I wanna play on my lonesome". And my answer here will still be as follows; The reason there's few pops in group ranked is the same reason we no longer have 8 vs 8 ranked. No one or a very few dare to face up to be on the losing end and face the fact that it might be your own lack of skill that might get you to lose. Solo queue always provides you with the option to blame a loss on someone else or as you do; on the game. But don't worry you along with a disturbing majority reason in this way, some would even argue that it's simply is human nature.

 

And the hybrid discussion, well since it is my opinion is that BW bends over backward to please every senseless suggestion entered on these forums, I'd say that you probably would get your wish, and then the few dedicated that are left will leave as well, and ranked will be as casual as you apparently wish.

 

And I'll grant you this, you're consistent in your arguing. You got an option to play a system that in your opinion is flaw(Solo) and a system that, in my opinion, are less flaw(Group), and you still chose to play the one considered more flaw.

 

You're upset because there are players willing to dedicate themselves more than you to the game and that are willing to put in more hours to strive for excellence and there by making you to try harder to beat them. That, my friend, is the nature of competition. Plain and simple.

 

The final of League of Legend is set before a crowd of 100.000 spectators, E-sport is a serious game, players earns their livelihood on it. Ranked is suppose to be the best of the best in SWToR, maybe, just maybe, Ranked isn't the place to be for you.

 

You're the one entering the 100 m sprint final in the olympics, demanding that Usain Bolt should put on some ski boots while running, so it'll be fair for the rest of you ....

 

Ok, let's try this. You seem to like analogies so how about I use your own example here. In the Olympics basketball game do you think it would be fair if one team had 4 players and the other had a full 5 man group? No right? Would the other teams victory count at all or mean anything? No. That is my point. I am not sitting here crying about the skill levels of other players, i'm simply saying that 3 v 4s happen all to often, and that when they do happen I shouldn't lose the same amount of rating that I do when I lose a fair 4 v 4 match. I am trying to improve this game by offering suggestions to fix very basic problems, while you are sitting here spouting non sense and passing judgements when you have probably never earned a 1500 rating in solo or group.

[Anyakaschala]

Ok, let's try this. You seem to like analogies so how about I use your own example here. In the Olympics basketball game do you think it would be fair if one team had 4 players and the other had a full 5 man group? No right? Would the other teams victory count at all or mean anything? No. That is my point. I am not sitting here crying about the skill levels of other players, i'm simply saying that 3 v 4s happen all to often, and that when they do happen I shouldn't lose the same amount of rating that I do when I lose a fair 4 v 4 match. I am trying to improve this game by offering suggestions to fix very basic problems, while you are sitting here spouting non sense and passing judgements when you have probably never earned a 1500 rating in solo or group.

 

While I'm not the guy you responded to, and I don't really disagree with you in terms of fairness. What's your point? The game queues actively queues 4 people against 4 people. Thus, the whole point abut 3v4 is, what is a good solution? If it's no points, it's going to be exploited. queue sync'ers will come in one at a time to spy the other team to determine if they have a chance. voice chat that it's not good, and then no points. And even if the match starts, how do you award points for the person that comes in late?

 

It's not just as simple as no points. There are ramifications to it.

[t-darko]

Ok, let's try this. You seem to like analogies so how about I use your own example here. In the Olympics basketball game do you think it would be fair if one team had 4 players and the other had a full 5 man group? No right? Would the other teams victory count at all or mean anything? No. That is my point. I am not sitting here crying about the skill levels of other players, i'm simply saying that 3 v 4s happen all to often, and that when they do happen I shouldn't lose the same amount of rating that I do when I lose a fair 4 v 4 match. I am trying to improve this game by offering suggestions to fix very basic problems, while you are sitting here spouting non sense and passing judgements when you have probably never earned a 1500 rating in solo or group.

 

Sorry mate, but your basketball analogy would only work if we're talking Group Ranked . . . 'cos that game would never been played were it basketball. Again your problem with number of teammates would be none if you(and that counts for everybody with this complaint) been playing Group Ranked.

 

What your asking for is a Golf handicap system, how many top 'Ranked' competitions you know with that in effect? So what you're asking for is a PUG option with a Ranking Score Card, just for fun!? IF not, just demand a 4 vs 4 play or no play at all, demand that every ranked game consist of full teams before they start, we all know that would hurt the pop rate . . . but pursuing your argument only counts as a major Whine ...

 

The thing is, it's my firm conviction that, were there only Group Ranked to enter, there would be no Ranked Game at all . . . so either you sit with what you got OR make Group Ranked work . . .

 

Edit; on a sidenote, you seem to dodge the whole hybrid discussion ...

Edited September 26, 2014 by t-darko

[Lanzend]

Sorry mate, but your basketball analogy would only work if we're talking Group Ranked . . . 'cos that game would never been played were it basketball. Again your problem with number of teammates would be none if you(and that counts for everybody with this complaint) been playing Group Ranked.

 

Went about 8 matches last night against Oprah.

 

Can confirm. In addition to running her OWN tv network, magazine and show, Oprah also does Team Ranked. Lipo suction and all.

[Anyakaschala]

Sorry mate, but your basketball analogy would only work if we're talking Group Ranked . . . 'cos that game would never been played were it basketball. Again your problem with number of teammates would be none if you(and that counts for everybody with this complaint) been playing Group Ranked.

 

What your asking for is a Golf handicap system, how many top 'Ranked' competitions you know with that in effect? So what you're asking for is a PUG option with a Ranking Score Card, just for fun!? IF not, just demand a 4 vs 4 play or no play at all, demand that every ranked game consist of full teams before they start, we all know that would hurt the pop rate . . . but pursuing your argument only counts as a major Whine ...

 

The thing is, it's my firm conviction that, were there only Group Ranked to enter, there would be no Ranked Game at all . . . so either you sit with what you got OR make Group Ranked work . . .

 

Edit; on a sidenote, you seem to dodge the whole hybrid discussion ...

 

I highlighted an important point. because that is essentially what solo ranked is. same ranking system as ranked but realistically,because of it's pug nature is completely random.

 

which, while I know it's not what you're talking about, but IMO, it's a more important issue that 3v4 because the very nature of a pug 4v4 ranked, using the same system as group ranked is just bad form, just due to the nature of it's randomness.

[masih_ad_dajjal]

-Add some type of built in voice chat to solo ranked that automatically synchs the 4 players into a room, and give players 3 min to talk strat, then start 30sec countdown... I would love this... As long as everyone knows they gonna be playing with a mic they will get ready pre que (I would hope)

 

-If one team only has three players, force the other team to vote one to sit out or get picked at random when start... That would be a nice fix to the 3v4 situation.

 

And they already did something to the matchmaking because i have seen 4 dps vs 3dps and a heal and even 2 healers on 1 team... So hybrid sorc argument is even more pointless dribble than before.

 

-make a 1936~ or so expertice limit need to que... And a 60 valor? Make valor worth something and "ranked" just a little more "elite".

Edited September 26, 2014 by masih_ad_dajjal

[foxmob]

Ok, let's try this. You seem to like analogies so how about I use your own example here. In the Olympics basketball game do you think it would be fair if one team had 4 players and the other had a full 5 man group? No right? Would the other teams victory count at all or mean anything? No. That is my point. I am not sitting here crying about the skill levels of other players, i'm simply saying that 3 v 4s happen all to often, and that when they do happen I shouldn't lose the same amount of rating that I do when I lose a fair 4 v 4 match. I am trying to improve this game by offering suggestions to fix very basic problems, while you are sitting here spouting non sense and passing judgements when you have probably never earned a 1500 rating in solo or group.

 

best to just leave it alone. he wants to rail against solo rated. the rules are the rules for solo. nothing you suggest to make the solo system better is going to impact what he says.

[t-darko]

I highlighted an important point. because that is essentially what solo ranked is. same ranking system as ranked but realistically,because of it's pug nature is completely random.

 

which, while I know it's not what you're talking about, but IMO, it's a more important issue that 3v4 because the very nature of a pug 4v4 ranked, using the same system as group ranked is just bad form, just due to the nature of it's randomness.

 

So we've found some common ground here, then say, for the sake of argument, that Solo Ranked is unfair in the current system, would it be entirely correct to have a Leaderboard over 'The Best Players' in a 'competition' which, as you say, a majority thinks is 'unfair'? Would it even be justified to have Rewards in a 'competition' that is considered to be 'unfair'?

 

best to just leave it alone. he wants to rail against solo rated. .. ....

 

Greetings to you Foxmob, I don't have anything against Solo Ranked persee, but, however, one gets extremely curious when, and you've been along just as long as I, if not even longer, when the eagerness to group up to play in regular PUG doesn't reflect the activity in Group Ranked? It's like the "this is an MMO, you should Group up and Do this Together with Friends" argument all of a sudden have lost it's merit!?

 

Add to that a constant whine of a 'matching problem' and 'unfair' premisses, when all of that is so easily resolved by playing Grouped Ranked!? I notice a slight inconsistency in argument here, not always in what being said, but foremost, in player behavior, and player behavior is what matters here. Player behavior, as in customer behavior, molds the shape of our pvp, and it is the main guide for our, and any dev or business manager in any game.

 

So what am I saying? Make Group Ranked work or it will be the final nail in the coffin that is our PvP, because as it is now, Player Behaviour tell the devs that we don't want the possibility or even the option to Play Together with Friends in a Ranked system . . .