Here's an idea: Get rid of team ranked and focus on improving solo ranked.

[Lhancelot]

Semantics.

 

I hate when people use a different word that means the same thing as what I used just to create a new argument over how the word I used was wrong.

 

Example is telling someone that is clearly annoyed and angry not to worry over something, only to have them say, "I'm not worried about it! I'm not worried about anything!"

 

Oh, then why is your voice high pitched and why are you screaming red faced and veins popping?

 

"Because, I was just upset, but I was not worried!"

 

sigh.

[bUrself_]

he's playing word games because he's wrong with respect to the actual spirit of the debate Edited June 1, 2019 by bUrself_

[Zurules]

You're "policing" the que, you're "que sniping". It's all semantics. You are manipulating the que.

 

From my understanding, what you are saying is that who ever is the best team in the queue for team ranked at any given moment, that best team is manipulating the queue because they are the most likely to win their matches. I just do not comprehend how you can say that the best teams are manipulation the queue when they are trying to play the teams that are avoiding them so they don't lose any rating.

 

What kind of competitive player are you to support the kinds of players who manage to get top 3 titles by avoiding and never playing any games vs the best teams in group ranked?

[foxmob]

I'm not endorsing that person's opinion, but it's pretty clear that s/he considers q-dodging cheating. so picking and choosing when to queue based on who is in the queue is, in that person's opinion, queue dodging. whether you agree or not is fine, but the idea seems pretty straightforward.

 

I also feel that this kind of selective queuing is perfectly reasonable in solos. not so much in granked. but opinions and bu-tholes...

[Lhancelot]

I'm not endorsing that person's opinion, but it's pretty clear that s/he considers q-dodging cheating. so picking and choosing when to queue based on who is in the queue is, in that person's opinion, queue dodging. whether you agree or not is fine, but the idea seems pretty straightforward.

 

I actually see the person's viewpoint, and feel to a degree they are correct.

 

When you got to make a conscious effort to avoid people in the queue regardless of who or for what reasons, you are not participating in the contest as intended.

 

We can take it a step further and recognize that the system itself is mightily flawed and only encourages this bad behavior in the players.

 

This would mean it's BW's fault for not having a properly structured contest setting that can be properly managed with a ELO style rating system that actually encourages people to take their queues and that players don't find so simple to manipulate that even a child could easily do it.

[SlimeyDoom]

It’s wonderful to come into this thread and see all the group ranked analysts, who have never actually played any of the top tier teams. Apparently, making stuff up and posting it on the forums makes you an expert on the subject

[TrixxieTriss]

There is a partial fix for queue dodging. But I bet nobody is going to like it.

 

Just remove the ability to see who is in the relevant pvp maps. So when you search for some, it just shows they are online and not what map they are in.

 

Problem solved

[Lhancelot]

It’s wonderful to come into this thread and see all the group ranked analysts, who have never actually played any of the top tier teams. Apparently, making stuff up and posting it on the forums makes you an expert on the subject

 

That's me! If I read it somewhere, anywhere, it's true as long as it falls in line with my personal agenda. Obviously this makes me a sure expert on whatever topic it is I speak on! (I mean write on!)

[KendraP]

That's me! If I read it somewhere, anywhere, it's true as long as it falls in line with my personal agenda. Obviously this makes me a sure expert on whatever topic it is I speak on! (I mean write on!)

 

Oddly enough, I didn't read anywhere about having the ability to search in /who. Strangely enough I figured out it was possible all on my own.

 

Not directed at you in particular:

To clarify a few details:

I do not consider use of /who cheating. It is perfectly possible, and allowed. Unsportsmanlike and system defeating? Yes. But cheating? No.

 

There are people who have accomplished ratings and titles perfectly legitimately, fairly, and without any untoward behavior whatsoever. My tinfoil hat is not so tight that I believe everyone has an ulterior motive, just specific ones.

 

The simple point I was making was: so long as it is even possible to discover who is queuing, without actually queuing, it undermines the point of a rating system.

 

Couple that with low population, and an even lower population that does ranked, and a probably lower still population that does team ranked, and the problem would seem obvious.

 

And to those of you who have legitimately earned their rating (and for the purposes of this question, legitimate includes not checking /who and excludes those who are, though they are, technically if not in spirit, legitimate): would you not prefer that your earned rating reflect better than someone of the same rating who took advantage of a flaw in the system? Isn't sportsmanship part of the point of competition?

[Banderal]

Isn't sportsmanship part of the point of competition?

 

I've been pretty blatantly told, "no". In regs. In LOWBIE regs (well, I guess that's the only kind of lowbie there is). Had a 4v2 arena, so I sat out round 1, and after we lost the 3v2 got yelled at because "we are not here to make it fair, just play".

 

How many games are roll-fests? How many of those roll-fest do people hold back and NOT go in with glee and farm the other team? "Sportsmanship" is, in my experience, mostly a phenomena of the past. Or maybe just something applied only in not-on-line games? Either way, 'we' don't bother with that archaic concept here.

 

[Kaedusz]

Just get rid of ranked altogether, who even plays that ****? 20 people per server?

 

Make the ranked rewards take half a year(or w/e) of grinding warzones for some kind of currency that is not legacy bound and there you go.

Edited June 5, 2019 by Kaedusz

[TrixxieTriss]

Just get rid of ranked altogether, who even plays that ****? 20 people per server?

 

Make the ranked rewards take half a year(or w/e) of grinding warzones for some kind of currency that is not legacy bound and there you go.

 

Actually if you look at the scoreboard, you will see 5000+ names on it. That is a lot more than 20 per server

[Yeldah_]

Nah either get rid of ranked all together or make everything ranked. Go big or go home.

[Yeldah_]

Just get rid of ranked altogether, who even plays that ****? 20 people per server?

 

 

Agree.

Edited June 5, 2019 by Yeldah_

[TrixxieTriss]

Nah either get rid of ranked all together or make everything ranked. Go big or go home.

 

What a nonsensical idea. No one would play pvp if it was all made ranked.

[Lhancelot]

Oddly enough, I didn't read anywhere about having the ability to search in /who. Strangely enough I figured out it was possible all on my own.

 

Not directed at you in particular:

To clarify a few details:

I do not consider use of /who cheating. It is perfectly possible, and allowed. Unsportsmanlike and system defeating? Yes. But cheating? No.

 

There are people who have accomplished ratings and titles perfectly legitimately, fairly, and without any untoward behavior whatsoever. My tinfoil hat is not so tight that I believe everyone has an ulterior motive, just specific ones.

 

The simple point I was making was: so long as it is even possible to discover who is queuing, without actually queuing, it undermines the point of a rating system.

 

Couple that with low population, and an even lower population that does ranked, and a probably lower still population that does team ranked, and the problem would seem obvious.

 

And to those of you who have legitimately earned their rating (and for the purposes of this question, legitimate includes not checking /who and excludes those who are, though they are, technically if not in spirit, legitimate): would you not prefer that your earned rating reflect better than someone of the same rating who took advantage of a flaw in the system? Isn't sportsmanship part of the point of competition?

 

Yeah. I would say it's more unsportsmanlike.

 

It's still manipulating the game to improve ones chances in the contest though by avoiding potential winners who will kick your ***, if you are avoiding certain queues when you see someone in it that is superior.

 

It falls on BW, they have a deeply faulty scoring system that discourages honest gameplay and instead rewards cheaters due to how easy it is to cheat ranked.

 

Just so know one takes it as me speaking a fact, it's a fact to me meaning it's my opinion. Ranked has been a *****how for years now.

[Kaedusz]

Actually if you look at the scoreboard, you will see 5000+ names on it. That is a lot more than 20 per server

The ones that take it seriously and would mind if ranked is removed are around that number. Could be wrong, but i doubt the number is very big.

Edited June 5, 2019 by Kaedusz

[JediMasterAlex]

Oddly enough, I didn't read anywhere about having the ability to search in /who. Strangely enough I figured out it was possible all on my own.

 

Not directed at you in particular:

To clarify a few details:

I do not consider use of /who cheating. It is perfectly possible, and allowed. Unsportsmanlike and system defeating? Yes. But cheating? No.

 

There are people who have accomplished ratings and titles perfectly legitimately, fairly, and without any untoward behavior whatsoever. My tinfoil hat is not so tight that I believe everyone has an ulterior motive, just specific ones.

 

The simple point I was making was: so long as it is even possible to discover who is queuing, without actually queuing, it undermines the point of a rating system.

 

Couple that with low population, and an even lower population that does ranked, and a probably lower still population that does team ranked, and the problem would seem obvious.

 

And to those of you who have legitimately earned their rating (and for the purposes of this question, legitimate includes not checking /who and excludes those who are, though they are, technically if not in spirit, legitimate): would you not prefer that your earned rating reflect better than someone of the same rating who took advantage of a flaw in the system? Isn't sportsmanship part of the point of competition?

 

Since nobody has yet, I'd like to point out the major flaws in this post.

 

First, virtually every person that regularly queues ranked uses /who to see who is queueing. Why? Because we want to see if ranked is actually popping. The easy way to do that is to type in arena canyon square orbital 70. That will show you reg arenas too, but if you recognize some of the people, it's pretty easy to tell if it's a ranked game or not. You'll also be able to notice whether there are multiple games going or just one game, or potentially none. Again, using /who in that way is used by virtually every single person that queues ranked regularly, just for the information about whether the queue is active.

 

And the information you gain is imperfect. The Mandalorian Battle Ring arena doesn't show up in /who searches. And you cannot search the opposite faction.

 

Now, there is really only one way to actually abuse that knowledge in any way for solo ranked, and that's for tanks and healers. Tanks and healers can wait and see who is queueing, and only queue against other tanks and healers that they feel are worse than them. And as soon as a better tank/healer starts queueing, they can stop to avoid losing to that player. So yes, I would agree that queueing that way is unsportsmanlike, and players that only gain rating that way on their tanks and healers really don't deserve the ratings that they have.

 

But, it is pretty much impossible for dps players to gain anything from knowing who is queueing, because you cannot control who is on your team or the enemy team. The large majority of solo ranked games are 4 dps vs 4 dps. So if I do a /who search and see who is queueing, and they all appear to be dps, how would that help me? Maybe some people will choose which class to queue on based on if they see a lot of mercs in the queue or something, but I don't think that's unsportsmanlike at all. You still have to actually play the game. If you don't feel like queueing into mercs on your mara, so you get onto your own merc, that doesn't make any of your rating gain on either toon less legitimate (I don't queue on maras or mercs, just an example).

 

I only queue dps in solo ranked. Speaking for myself, I only ever actually stop queueing solos based on who I see in /who searches in one circumstance, and that is if there is a tank or healer in queue that is significantly worse than the other tanks/healers in the queue. When that happens, your chances of winning as a dps are essentially reduced to 50/50, and because my winrate is above 50%, it's stupid to subject myself to those odds. Frankly, that doesn't happen very often. I queue more than anyone else on Star Forge, to give you some idea.

 

To summarize, there is a way that using /who searches can be unsportsmanlike, and that's for tanks/healers to manipulate who they queue against. But dps cannot benefit from it in that way. And, as described above, there are legitimate uses for /who searches that I'd wager the vast, vast majority of solo ranked players use.

 

There are enough actual problems with solo ranked that spreading myths about /who searches making it illegitimate is really irresponsible, especially when you're someone that doesn't even play ranked.

[JediMasterAlex]

I've been pretty blatantly told, "no". In regs. In LOWBIE regs (well, I guess that's the only kind of lowbie there is). Had a 4v2 arena, so I sat out round 1, and after we lost the 3v2 got yelled at because "we are not here to make it fair, just play".

 

How many games are roll-fests? How many of those roll-fest do people hold back and NOT go in with glee and farm the other team? "Sportsmanship" is, in my experience, mostly a phenomena of the past. Or maybe just something applied only in not-on-line games? Either way, 'we' don't bother with that archaic concept here.

 

 

I'm going to strongly disagree with this post. I don't think what you described has anything to do with true sportsmanship. (btw, i don't play lowbies, but I have encountered similar things in ranked)

 

Let's start with the definition of sportsmanship: conduct (such as fairness, respect for one's opponent, and graciousness in winning or losing) becoming to one participating in a sport.

 

When you are put into a pvp match, Bioware has set the rules and the match up. The players are not creating the matches themselves. It is not up to players to decide what is fair and what isn't. In my opinion, respect for one's opponent demands that you try your hardest to beat them (by legitimate means only, obviously).

 

Furthermore, willingly choosing not to play does not necessarily make the match up more fair due to disparities in player skill. For example, let's say there's a 4v3, and the best player on the team with 4 decides to sit out. Now it's a 3v3, but the team that started with 3 still has their best player, and overall are much more skilled. So the team that started with 3 will easily win the 3v3. The person that sat out has thrown the game. He didn't make it more fair, he just decided to play god and completely doomed his team's chances in doing so. What about that action is sportsmanlike? It seems positively unsportsmanlike to me. If 4 random people had to play basketball against LeBron James and Kevin Durant, do you think that one of the 4 sitting out would actually make it more fair?

 

Here's another example. Let's say two NBA teams are playing each other in a playoff series and one team has several of its best players injured. Should the other team sit out several of its best players as well to make it "fair"? Of course not. In a tennis match, if your opponent twists their ankle and can't run for balls as well as they could before, do you all of the sudden take it easy on them to make it more "fair"? No, that would be absurd. The most respectful and sporting thing to do for an opponent in those circumstances is to keep playing hard and to beat them. And that is what they always do in professional sports.

 

You brought up another situation: continuing to stomp a team that you're already beating. That is even more clear cut. You always have to keep your foot down. Have you never seen a team come back from almost certain defeat? There are innumerable instances, both in online games and real sports, where the winning team took their foot off the gas with huge leads, only to eventually lose. Again, if you really respect your opponent, you treat them as a worthy foe and do your best to beat them.

 

It is not up to players to even the odds themselves. If there is something fundamentally unfair about a certain match up, that is up to whoever is in charge of setting the match up to fix. I totally agree with suggestions that Trixxie and others have made that uneven matches in arenas shouldn't even start. But as long as they do start, I believe players have an obligation to do their best to win in all circumstances. I don't think throwing a match by sitting out or not trying hard is ever the right thing to do even if you think it will make the match more fair.

Edited June 5, 2019 by JediMasterAlex

[KendraP]

This discussion was originally about team ranked, in which matchmaking arguments are pretty dumb, because you queue as a group of 4.

 

Just because you personally do not do something, doesn't mean it doesn't happen

 

I have literally been sitting at my computer listening to someone else say "oh person xxxx is queuing so I guess I can't today or it could hurt my rating."

 

Because person yyyy chose not to queue that day because person xxxx could beat him, which theoretically would lower person yyyy's rating, person yyyy has an artificially higher rating than if it was truly random. Person yyyy literally decided he was going to do something else that entire afternoon so as not to have a chance at playing person xxxx.

 

The entire point of the earlier paragraph was to clarify that a small minority of players are quite possibly ruining it for everyone because it is possible to decide to queue or not to queue because you can see who is queuing. I was never denying it can be used for perfectly legitimate purposes too, but that also means it can be used for "nefarious" purposes also.

 

And all of this would be less of an issue if the population were not so small that basically everyone who queues ranked knows everyone else. As with everything else in the game, practically every problem comes back to low population.

[JediMasterAlex]

Because person yyyy chose not to queue that day because person xxxx could beat him, which theoretically would lower person yyyy's rating, person yyyy has an artificially higher rating than if it was truly random. Person yyyy literally decided he was going to do something else that entire afternoon so as not to have a chance at playing person xxxx.

 

So for tanks and healers, that thinking makes sense, and certainly does happen, because if you are a tank or healer, you can only face other tanks/healers and you will never be paired them. But what about for dps players? The only thing I can think of is for the two highest rated dps players that will get matched up against each other most of the time, but that still is unlikely to determine the outcome, because either could end up with 3 teammates way worse than the other, and one dps player does not have as big an impact as a tank/healer.

 

I guess my point is that if someone is queue dodging as a dps, they're just playing themselves. I don't think it really benefits them unless they are doing it in a way that I'm not aware of. Also, if a dps is that afraid of another dps beating them, I highly doubt they'd be able to maintain a high rating in the first place.

 

As with everything else in the game, practically every problem comes back to low population.

 

I certainly agree with that.

Edited June 5, 2019 by JediMasterAlex

[Banderal]

Let's start with the definition of sportsmanship: conduct (such as fairness, respect for one's opponent, and graciousness in winning or losing) becoming to one participating in a sport.

 

Well, we have seemingly the same definition, but I guess I just interpret it differently. You seem to equate "respect for one's opponent" as always expecting them to be just as good as you are, and that they are never clearly inferior.

 

I dunno, I was taught the idea of "don't run up the score" type of thing. Your examples were mostly of the NBA team vs. NBA team type - but what I'm talking about is when the NBA team arrives to play the grade school team. You may not think the disparity is that large between teams (in regs I'm talking here - ranked should have a different standard I agree), and if so, then I guess we can stop right there. Because that's the kind of disparity I'm talking about, and I think it happens plenty.

 

Should the NBA team be playing all it's starters, and going full steam in that situation? Should they be playing their hardest, and lets be real, racking up hundreds of points while the grade school team really can't score at all? And it's all okay, because the NBA team is showing respect for their opponents by not letting up on the gas, because those grade schoolers could come back at any minute and win the game?

 

I don't think, when I see my team camp the enemy spawn and farm them, there is ANYTHING in that or in any of the behavior of the people doing it, that shows respect for the enemy. You'll never convince me that they are doing that because, oh we have to, or they might regroup and be able to take a node back from us. That behavior is all about humiliating the other team. "We PWN THEM!" <-- that's the thought I believe almost all players have. Not, "we have to keep them disorganized or they have a chance of coming back".

 

I'm all for the better team should decisively win and be done with it. But that doesn't mean humiliating the other team into the ground.

 

Ranked arenas - no, I'm never going to sit one of those out (if I still played them). But a lowbie arena, where people are in theory learning their class, and potentially learning pvp period... and you are telling me that, to make it extreme, given 1 v 4 situation, it shows sportsmanship for the 4 to just trash that one enemy? If you think so then I guess we just disagree. The 2 or 3 vs 4, I'd say that's get a bit murky. I usually look at the class levels in lowbie. I just disagree with your disagree for those... if I can try to make it more fair in lowbie, I'll continue to do so for the week or so I have left here. Sorry if I ruin one of your lowbie games.

[JediMasterAlex]

Well, we have seemingly the same definition, but I guess I just interpret it differently. You seem to equate "respect for one's opponent" as always expecting them to be just as good as you are, and that they are never clearly inferior.

 

That's not exactly what I meant. Respecting your opponent doesn't mean expecting them to be just as good as you, but it does mean treating them like an equal, and taking them seriously as a threat, even if you know that you're better. Underestimating opponents too much is not only disrespectful, but dangerous to your own chances to win as well, because your assessment may be wrong, or your attitude might affect how you play.

 

I dunno, I was taught the idea of "don't run up the score" type of thing. Your examples were mostly of the NBA team vs. NBA team type - but what I'm talking about is when the NBA team arrives to play the grade school team. You may not think the disparity is that large between teams (in regs I'm talking here - ranked should have a different standard I agree), and if so, then I guess we can stop right there. Because that's the kind of disparity I'm talking about, and I think it happens plenty.

 

Should the NBA team be playing all it's starters, and going full steam in that situation? Should they be playing their hardest, and lets be real, racking up hundreds of points while the grade school team really can't score at all? And it's all okay, because the NBA team is showing respect for their opponents by not letting up on the gas, because those grade schoolers could come back at any minute and win the game?

 

I don't think that's a very good example to be honest, because when you're playing in regs, you have no reason to assume that the other team is that much worse than you. But let's say you do start dominating them, how can you so readily and confidently assume that your team is the NBA team vs their grade school team? What if your assessment is wrong, and they do come back to win. I guess I can grant to you that there could be just absurdly mismatched teams to the point that it's so noncompetitive that it's pointless. But if that's the case, wouldn't finishing it faster simply be better for everyone involved? What can an NBA team even do to make it fair vs a grade school team? Intentionally miss? What would be the point of that?

 

I don't think, when I see my team camp the enemy spawn and farm them, there is ANYTHING in that or in any of the behavior of the people doing it, that shows respect for the enemy. You'll never convince me that they are doing that because, oh we have to, or they might regroup and be able to take a node back from us. That behavior is all about humiliating the other team. "We PWN THEM!" <-- that's the thought I believe almost all players have. Not, "we have to keep them disorganized or they have a chance of coming back".

 

I don't think you can ever fault people in a competitive environment for wanting to win the game. It doesn't matter what their reasons are. We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this point.

 

I'm all for the better team should decisively win and be done with it. But that doesn't mean humiliating the other team into the ground.

 

I don't think dominating another team is necessarily humiliating. I'd feel much more humiliated if I was getting dominated so hard that they felt they had to take pity on me and take their foot off the gas. That's far more disrespectful in my opinion.

 

But a lowbie arena, where people are in theory learning their class, and potentially learning pvp period... and you are telling me that, to make it extreme, given 1 v 4 situation, it shows sportsmanship for the 4 to just trash that one enemy? If you think so then I guess we just disagree. The 2 or 3 vs 4, I'd say that's get a bit murky.

 

Here's the problem with the 1v4, and I touched on this before, how do you even decide what's fair? Do you just 1v1 one at a time? I guess, you could if everyone agrees. But what if one of the people doesn't want to be part of another player's learning experience? What if they are there to win games, because after all, that is the goal of playing in pvp matches. It's not fair to them to take matters into your own hands and essentially modify the game mode that they are playing just because you personally think it would be more fair. That seems quite selfish to me. I also don't think people will be apt to learn very much if you baby them too much (granted, they won't learn much from a complete beat down either, but still).

 

I don't think it would be wrong to just quickly win the 2 rounds in like 1 minute, and move on to the next game that's an actual 4v4. Again, I think it's on Bioware to prevent that kind of thing from happening, not the players. And I'm not a hypocrite either. I was in a 2.4 ranked game last week, and I was perfectly happy to lose quickly to the four people. It wasn't their fault that they got put into that match up, and there was no reason for them to not dispatch us quickly. I've been in plenty of 3v4s too, some of which I've won. Everyone is going to get unfair games like that every once in a while. You just have to accept it and move on to the next one.

 

Sorry if I ruin one of your lowbie games.

 

Truly, I don't play lowbies, so no worries there at least

Edited June 5, 2019 by JediMasterAlex

[KendraP]

Geez I created quite the philosophical debate. All I really meant was that: I think the overwhelming majority of people desire fair matches against similarly skilled opponents, and guys like the guy i overheard ruin the meaningfulness for everyone, 100% "legitimately".

 

Stuff like the 2v4 in lowbies is a population issue. If there are 8 people in queue and only 6 take the pop, but the 2 that didn't were on the same team, and no one is avaliable to backfill, what is BW supposed to do? And yes, I've been on both sides of this equation (i.e. I've had lowbies where my side had 4 v 2 and matches where it was 2 on my side vs 4).

Edited June 5, 2019 by KendraP

[Banderal]

Geez I created quite the philosophical debate. All I really meant was that: I think the overwhelming majority of people desire fair matches against similarly skilled opponents, and guys like the guy i overheard ruin the meaningfulness for everyone, 100% "legitimately".

 

Stuff like the 2v4 in lowbies is a population issue. If there are 8 people in queue and only 6 take the pop, but the 2 that didn't were on the same team, and no one is avaliable to backfill, what is BW supposed to do? And yes, I've been on both sides of this equation (i.e. I've had lowbies where my side had 4 v 2 and matches where it was 2 on my side vs 4).

 

Hey, I was just about to start the name calling part, and you go and throw water on the fire!

 

Actually, I agree with a lot of JMA's points. I agree that a decisive win vs. drawing it out is better. And the arena thing, I kinda go back and forth on. I can see the same point there; "better to get it over with and move on to the next one". But I've also been the single person on my team vs. 4 - and for those times I appreciated it when they gave me 1v1 matches. I mean, I still lost, but it was a lot more fun for me.

 

I don't see how farming the other team leads to a quicker win (except AHG) though, except, as I mentioned, if the point is to not allow them a chance to sort of catch their breath and regroup. I just don't think that's the point for 99.99999999999999% of the cases where it happens.

 

I think our differences mostly come down to how much credit we are giving to our fellow players. I expect the worst, and so just assume that everyone behind their keyboards are being jerks about winning, and are actively rubbing it in basically. Where I guess JMA has a better opinion of humanity, and allows that they are winning out of respect.