We are all just repeating ourselves so I guess I'll do my part and repeat myself.

 

NOT THE PROBLEM: premade vs solo

 

THE PROBLEM: too many one sided faceroll matches

 

SOLUTION: better match making.

We cant have better matchmaking on PVE / RP PVE servers, not until there is a cross server pvp que. my que times since most of the pvpers xfered off has nearly doubled in wait times.

BW we desperately need cross server pvp ques, then add a beter matchmaking system. and with all of this you can slate all of the premades directly to ranked matches.

there problem solved, everyone will be happy.

1. less que times

2. more balanced matches due to a larger pool of players for the que to pull from.

3. premades are separated from pugs and they wont be rolling anyone.

BW we desperately need cross server pvp ques

Never gonna happen dev's have already explained why

What makes me doubt the future of swtor pvp is how many premade posters I see that don't want a different q system. It feels like the "everyone gets a trophy" generation is really going strong in swtor.

The pvp guilds I have led in past games WANTED matchmaking first but would even settle for split q's if it meant we had more games that weren't complete runovers. Nothing is worse to a sober and skilled gamer who has a decent irl than constant easy matches. At least a few years ago this was the case.

I love pvp but I guess I started out in pve and with ff14 coming up soon maybe I'll get back to my roots and just look to fps's for pvp.

Almost every 55 match I get into is either an obvious win or loss within the first minute. Sure, since I have multiple weeklies I would like to complete, I just drop the losses but easy wins are even less fun than terrible losses imo.

In pre-55 though every 2nd or 3rd match is pretty close. Imo this is likely due to less premade vs pug matches. Of course gear matters less here too (in most situations as the premades often aren't min/max in pre-55).

Never gonna happen dev's have already explained why

yeah, their excuse is they cant figure out how, seems every other mmo dev has. mabie they should pay one of them to help out. the pvp ques are much longer now after the transfers off to pvp servers.

The idea is, you wouldn't use it most of the time.

 

It would just give you an option to use on those nights where you face premade after premade after premade, and your only options are either continue banging your head against a brick wall for the rest of the night or quit.

 

In that case, you can choose to get slower queue times in exchange for possibly getting a more balanced match that you actually have a chance to win.

 

You would still get slower queue times due to the population being split.

There is no split. There is only one queue. Those players who use the solo checkbox are those who would otherwise quit anyway. So implementing this wouldn't make the queues slower (compared to current system) for anyone but that one player who uses the checkbox.

There is no split. There is only one queue. Those players who use the solo checkbox are those who would otherwise quit anyway. So implementing this wouldn't make the queues slower (compared to current system) for anyone but that one player who uses the checkbox.

Sounds reasonable and easy to implement. We all know premades are not equal, nor are solo players. But the game doesn't know. It only knows "group" or "solo". This solution would work at the level the game is able to discriminate at.

matchmaking would not increase queue times by very much.

a good matchmaker will have a cut-off time of a reasonable amount that will just throw you into the next available WZ.

matchmaking does not break up the available PvP population; it just helps to sort it better.

and if you are seriously complaining about not having enough PvP on a PvE or RP server, you should think about transferring to a PvP server.

There is no split. There is only one queue. Those players who use the solo checkbox are those who would otherwise quit anyway. So implementing this wouldn't make the queues slower (compared to current system) for anyone but that one player who uses the checkbox.

If you introduce a "solo only toggle" then you have split the queues.

You have one set of players who will not be entered into a warzone with players who are queuing as part of a group.

Grouped players cannot be entered into a warzone with a single soloer with "solo-only toggle" on them.

Split queue. The whole "toggle" idea is just a stealth split queue.

Then there's where reality enters, and 90% of people who are soloing hit the "solo-only toggle" because humans are lazy, egocentric and like an easy life so would prefer to avoid opponents with teamwork, coordination and quite probably superior skill. That means the new "group queue" suffers from the difficulties of filling in spots in a full team (eg. 3-man team + 4-man team = not working, need a solo to complete the 8), and backfilling isn't going to happen until you're at least two men down, so lose one guy to dc or ragequit and you're 7 v 8 for the rest of the game.

A "2-to-4-man group" queue would be logistically broken, and as stated the "toggle" idea is just a stealth queue split.

So, matchmaking is the answer. Again. That's matchmaking on the basis of your record in warzones. Then everyone getss to win about 50% of their games (bar the very best/worst).

If you introduce a "solo only toggle" then you have split the queues.

 

You have one set of players who will not be entered into a warzone with players who are queuing as part of a group.

 

Grouped players cannot be entered into a warzone with a single soloer with "solo-only toggle" on them.

 

Split queue. The whole "toggle" idea is just a stealth split queue.

Its different from a hard split queue, in several ways.

FIrst, in a hardcoded split queue, players who queue solo do not get a choice, they ALWAYS are put in different matches than groups(even if they don't want to). With the toggle, only those solo-queuers who use the toggle will be put in different matches than groups, and they are not forced to use the toggle all the time(they can only use it as last resort).

Second, even with the toggle, solo-queuers who used it can still play in matches with solo-queuers who did not use it. They are all still in the same queue. The toggle does not split the queue.

Its different from a hard split queue, in several ways.

 

FIrst, in a hardcoded split queue, players who queue solo do not get a choice, they ALWAYS are put in different matches than groups(even if they don't want to). With the toggle, only those solo-queuers who use the toggle will be put in different matches than groups, and they are not forced to use the toggle all the time(they can only use it as last resort).

 

Second, even with the toggle, solo-queuers who used it can still play in matches with solo-queuers who did not use it. They are all still in the same queue. The toggle does not split the queue.

What you wind up doing, without having better matchmaking; is you wind up putting those who solo queue with the option of facing premades in a higher chance of facing premades. Unless of course; they implemented better matchmaking that doesn't put premades with premades like it seems to favor now. But if you do that matchmaking; then there really is no need for a solo only option. Without matchmaking, you would start to get people who wouldn't have clicked the solo only checkbox to start doing it, and effectively then splitting the queues.

Trust me. Its fun to be teamed up with a group of 4 that knows what they are doing. Its fun to be teamed up with people that know what they are doing, period. I need to start premading myself after having a taste of it. So refreshing to play this game and not having the "try to temper my frustration from people doing stupid crap" as the main challenge.

That means the new "group queue" suffers from the difficulties of filling in spots

Even if true, and the 'group queue' would suffer from difficulties because a solo-only toggle was introduced, it would not suffer because of the toggle, but because the players who used it do not enjoy playing against groups

It is their free time they are spending with the game. Their fun should come first, It should not be sacrificed just so that someone else's queues do not suffer. Suggesting that some players should be put into matches they do not enjoy (and be prevented from avoiding such matches) just to preserve queue times for other players is preposterous.

What you wind up doing, without having better matchmaking; is you wind up putting those who solo queue with the option of facing premades in a higher chance of facing premades.

That is true, however the people who solo queue without using the toggle are those who do not mind facing premades. Thus the higher chance of facing them is not a problem.

That is true, however the people who solo queue without using the toggle are those who do not mind facing premades. Thus the higher chance of facing them is not a problem.

I would be one of those people, ordinarily. Its what I am getting at by saying it is equally as fun to be teamed up with the premades as the ones that cause the solo queuers the real issues, are the ones that know what they are doing. The problem is that the real issue would still not be addressed by the solo only check box in that it seems (just from experience) that the sytem puts 2 4-man premades together rather than spilt them up and add the solo-q people to them.

Its not that big of a problem now as there is one large pool for everyone. You make it to where you can check to solo only; then you magnify that issue to where maybe I wouldn't want the option to face premades any more. (or maybe I would, if the talent of PUGs that gets in that grouping proved to actually be higher)

It's a matter of addressing the symptom vs curing the real issue and I feel the real issue is matchmaking. Skill based and even just plain out number based (groups of 4 not being paired together with another group of 4)

Even if true, and the 'group queue' would suffer from difficulties because a solo-only toggle was introduced, it would not suffer because of the toggle, but because the players who used it do not enjoy playing against groups

 

It is their free time they are spending with the game. Their fun should come first, It should not be sacrificed just so that someone else's queues do not suffer. Suggesting that some players should be put into matches they do not enjoy (and be prevented from avoiding such matches) just to preserve queue times for other players is preposterous.

The issue, is that players don't know what they want because 90% of them don't understand how PvP works. It's not that the players who would use a solo toggle don't want to play against groups, they actually just want to feel like they had a chance in the warzone. Understandably, PvP is more fun when you feel like you had the chance to win even if you didn't.

There are a few solutions to this that have been offered:

1) Improve their play both individually and in terms of teamwork and objectives in the current system

- Non premade players can have success against premades, so it's not impossible as some would claim

- By facing better competition, players see what it takes to be really successful and boost the competitive community (aka ranked)

- Is hard on the more casual player that is not at all interested in being the best, just wants to escape everyday life

- Based on forum feedback, I don't see players liking this option because they lose too often while getting better

2) Skill based matchmaking

- Has them face opponents of equal skill, regardless of grouping (group rating buff could be added if necessary)

- Only allows unbalanced matches when it's the only option available

- Takes time to sort out rankings, so there will be growing pains

- System won't be perfect, so your rating will be determined by other's play as well

- I'm yet to see anyone against matchmaking, the only argument has been that matches will still be unbalanced when the population is low, but hey, at least you can get some comms still

-Offers the most even match that can be made at the time given the population queuing

3) Solo Queue

- Ensures PUGs will never see a group

- Ensures groups will never see a PUG

- Logistical nightmare with different sized groups queuing (3 man groups being the biggest issue) from 2 factions

- Split queue lowers the population in both queues and at extremely low populations could cause games not to pop when enough people are actually queued, just not the right amounts in the right queues to make a game

- Those who group typically have a higher skill level, so it will be the hardest on more casual groups of friends in the group queue

- No guarantee either queue will have even matches, so the solo queue will still suffer the same issues that plague reg queues as it is.

4) Solo Toggle

- Ensure PUGs will never see a group if they don't choose to

- Groups will still see PUGs if they choose to toggle on

- Helps with some of the logistics of the group queue as compared to true solo queue

- Still splits much of the population to higher queue times for all and most solo queuers will still have to toggle on regardless of what they want to get pops regularly on lower population servers

- No guarantee any game has even matches, so there will still be numerous unbalanced games.

I think this is a pretty good summary of what I've seen in this thread. Honestly, I had an all PUG team that destroyed a premade in ACW last night. Three capped most of the match. We had good players and they didn't, so I don't know why people still want a solo queue of any kind knowing that this will still happen without matchmaking. I'm still a fan of option 1, but understand not everyone is out to be the best, so number 2 seems to work well. Let those who just want to have fun play their matches and if you get better you'll be matched with better opponents.

In a perfect world, every individual player would have a rating, much like ranked. Put teams together that would be fairly balanced for warzones, grouped or not. Make quitting in the middle of a match (or disconnecting, yes) count as a loss. It'd be challenging to do right though, these coders and this Frankenstein of a code base likely make it an impossibility.

They've screwed up bolster for now three months now, can you imagine how bad this would go?

Individual rating systems would be awful. Playing against ranked WZ teams in regular queues. because my 4 person premade could get assigned a team where the other 4 people are 5/10 players who win a lot of WZs, would not be fun. That would be a case where my team. at say 2200 rating, gets assigned an 1800 rating team to fight say Hey I'm MVP or Casual's alts that the system assigned a double premade of, at say 2000 rating (since they are alts). The result would be that the 1800 rating premade that my premade was assigned on our team would cause my premade to lose. The matchmaking system doesn't work outside of ranked, where all 8 players are specifically chosen by the team captain.

The WZ queue system works fine as is. Now that a lot of PVPers are on Pot5 or The Bastion, superqueueing ranked WZ teams in regular queues isn't as prevalent as pre server transfers (superqueues were very common on Jedi Covenant, due to how easy the queue system was to manipulate since there weren't a lot of people queueing).

It is their free time they are spending with the game. Their fun should come first, It should not be sacrificed just so that someone else's queues do not suffer. Suggesting that some players should be put into matches they do not enjoy (and be prevented from avoiding such matches) just to preserve queue times for other players is preposterous.

To be honest, this is a very, very, very unrealistic ( and a bit selfish) statement. This isn't a jab at you.

Your "fun" in Player vs. Player is entirely at the mercy of other players, or your definition of "Fun." To enter into Player vs. Player, it is always a competition and your opponent always has control over how much of a challenge you face. Why? ...Because they are the one's who control how challenging they are. So no matter how "even," "fair," "etc..." the system is, there will always be players placed into matches they do not enjoy. The only true way for a player to enjoy all their matches is... for their attitude/view to change. (This of course, is asking too much of the standard Player).

I believe there are ways (matchmaking, getting better, changing attitude) to minimize the amount of control another player can have on you, but PvP by definition prohibits a player from having a lot of control over their experience. If players did have control over their opponents difficulty it would be called... PvE.

On a side note: I'd also like to note a player is not prevented from avoiding a Premade vs. PuG situation now. It's called "Leave Warzone" and it can be located by clicking the glowing icon down by your mini-map. I think we can do better, but please don't tell me PuG's have no options to avoid a "stomp." They have at least 1 (2 if you count grouping up/getting better)... they just don't like it. It doesn't favor them.

To be honest, this is a very, very, very unrealistic ( and a bit selfish) statement. This isn't a jab at you.

I disagree.

It is selfish when you demand other players to do something just so you can have fun, even if they do not want to do it.

It is not selfish to request more options for control over how you, personally, spend your own time.

- The premades do the former(we can't allow solos to avoid us because...!!! They should not have a way to avoid facing us! We demand that they continue to be put into matches they do not wish to participate in!).

- The solos do the latter (we just want to be left alone, go away premades, we want nothing to do with you, give us an option to fight each other instead)

 

On a side note: I'd also like to note a player is not prevented from avoiding a Premade vs. PuG situation now. It's called "Leave Warzone" and it can be located by clicking the glowing icon down by your mini-map. I think we can do better, but please don't tell me PuG's have no options to avoid a "stomp."

This is also extremely selfish.

"If you do not wish to face my premade, you should not play at all!"

Why the heck would you care what the solos do if they aren't going to face your premade anyway?

What's so wrong with allowing them to face each other instead of just quitting?

Either way, they aren't going to play against you. So why tell them to quit? Just out of spite?

(all uses of 'you' above is meant generally, not personally)

To be honest, this is a very, very, very unrealistic ( and a bit selfish) statement. This isn't a jab at you.

 

Your "fun" in Player vs. Player is entirely at the mercy of other players, or your definition of "Fun." To enter into Player vs. Player, it is always a competition and your opponent always has control over how much of a challenge you face. Why? ...Because they are the one's who control how challenging they are. So no matter how "even," "fair," "etc..." the system is, there will always be players placed into matches they do not enjoy. The only true way for a player to enjoy all their matches is... for their attitude/view to change. (This of course, is asking too much of the standard Player).

 

I believe there are ways (matchmaking, getting better, changing attitude) to minimize the amount of control another player can have on you, but PvP by definition prohibits a player from having a lot of control over their experience. If players did have control over their opponents difficulty it would be called... PvE.

 

 

 

On a side note: I'd also like to note a player is not prevented from avoiding a Premade vs. PuG situation now. It's called "Leave Warzone" and it can be located by clicking the glowing icon down by your mini-map. I think we can do better, but please don't tell me PuG's have no options to avoid a "stomp." They have at least 1 (2 if you count grouping up/getting better)... they just don't like it. It doesn't favor them.

Sigh. The inevitable devolvement begins.

It's a very self-absorbed stance you've taken. What happened to being a reasonable voice here? You've made it personal, and in the process lost a bit of credibility.

You point out that casuals can just click "leave warzone" and all is well. This is not the case at all. It only furthers the issue at hand, which is the population at large has grown tired of premades in warzones. They don't like it, and they often quit (like you so eloquently suggested). The ones who remain in the match are then subject to the classic steamroll (especially since backfills are broken at the moment), and that only serves to fuel their hatred for your premade.

Why didn't you just tell them to stop playing the game? It would have the same effect. Less casuals in warzones will equal longer queue times and the overall death of PvP. I could have sworn you said solo-only options would do the same, and here you are suggesting that someone should just quit. It's a bit absurd.

Just because premades are the status quo does NOT mean the status quo is correct. Perhaps you might think of hitting the "leave warzone" if you don't believe that, or that a change is coming.

Some good ideas here. It seems hypocritical some of the arguments against trying to fix WZs so that solo queue players are not forced into the premade farming that dominates right now.

-"It's not fair to exclude premade players from a solo bracket." It's also not fair to lock solo players out of ranked WZs, and yet here we are. How about we allow solo queue players into ranked? Then there would be more ranked games, and less premades in regular queue.

-"It will make premade queues too long." Nothing would prevent players from moving outside of their premade comfort zone and queueing solo if they didn't like the group queue times. This is the same argument you throw at solo queue players: "Nothing is stopping you from making your own premade." If you can tell me how to play, why I can't I return the favor?

I do think any solution would have to start with cross server WZs, because in reality the queues are long enough as it is, and on some servers there is not a large enough pvp pool to support separate queues at all.

...and one last idea- BW should focus on making pvp fun for EVERYONE, not just the hardcore players. If they did that, or even made an effort, maybe the pvp pool would grow instead of shrink, which would be good for everyone.

I disagree.

 

It is selfish when you demand other players to do something just so you can have fun, even if they do not want to do it.

It is not selfish to request more options for control over how you, personally, spend your own time.

 

- The premades do the former(we can't allow solos to avoid us because...!!! They should not have a way to avoid facing us! We demand that they continue to be put into matches they do not wish to participate in!).

- The solos do the latter (we just want to be left alone, go away premades, we want nothing to do with you, give us an option to fight each other instead)

I note you ignored the unrealistic comment and went straight for the selfish part. To be honest, I hesitated adding that for fear of a knee-jerk reaction... which I received.

As I said before, it is unrealistic to think a player can/should have control over how much "fun" they have via an in-game mechanic, since this is contrary to the very nature of the beast (PvP). No matter how you design the system, your "fun" will always be at the mercy of your opponents or your own attitude, but never determined by how many check boxes you can click.

As for premades demanding PuG's be "forced" to play against them, this is once more a thing of realism not ego. I'd like to use term group here though, as premade for the most part in this thread refers to the 4-man super-duper team. Groups in general require a certain amount of solo-queue'd players for vital filling and back filling. The regular queue will suffer without them. I think steps need to be taken to improve the quality of life for -all- players in Regular warzones, but it can't be one where power is given to certain players.

This is also extremely selfish.

 

"If you do not wish to face my premade, you should not play at all!"

 

Why the heck would you care what the solos do if they aren't going to face your premade anyway?

What's so wrong with allowing them to face each other instead of just quitting?

Either way, they aren't going to play against you. So why tell them to quit? Just out of spite?

 

(all uses of 'you' above is meant generally, not personally)

I remember distinctly writing: "I think we can do better but..." I'll find the quote if you like.

Do I think solo-players shouldn't get to play? No.

Do I think group players shouldn't get to play? No.

I think everyone should be able to play, but in the sense that there is one common area for PvP. The rules/system of that common area need to be designed to serve as many types of player as possible, yet retain it's full size to keep as many players playing at least something as much as possible.

If a player wishes to avoid certain elements in the regular warzone that is their choice of course. The price of that choice must fall squarely on the player making it though, not on the regular queue as a whole. "Leave Warzone" is one example of how a solo-player wishing to avoid a -small- subset of groups they don't like playing with (premades) yet taking the responsibility for their own refusal to face them. As said before:

I think we can do better (in giving players tools to have "fun") but the options do exist now. PuG's just don't like it, it doesn't favor them.

Sigh. The inevitable devolvement begins.

 

It's a very self-absorbed stance you've taken. What happened to being a reasonable voice here? You've made it personal, and in the process lost a bit of credibility.

 

*snip*

I think we can do better, but please don't tell me PuG's have no options to avoid a "stomp."

This is the very heart of my small foot-note of a comment. I think we can do better than just telling PuG's to leave to avoid an "unfun" match. The option -does- exist however, and I'm a little tired of some PuG's making it sound like someone is strapping them to a chair and poking their feet with a hot iron for the lolz, rather than taking responsibility to realize their own attitude is part of the problem and that tools exist for them to "Control their fun." Better tools needed... yes.

So to repeat myself again;

I think there should be a change as the current situation is unhealthy.

I think that change must target the specific issue.

That specific issue is Casuals vs. Invested (Hardcore, Competitive, etc... whatever you wanna call it.)

The solution must "serve" as many types of players as possible.

Solo-only option does not do this.

I disagree.

 

It is selfish when you demand other players to do something just so you can have fun, even if they do not want to do it.

It is not selfish to request more options for control over how you, personally, spend your own time.

 

- The premades do the former(we can't allow solos to avoid us because...!!! They should not have a way to avoid facing us! We demand that they continue to be put into matches they do not wish to participate in!).

- The solos do the latter (we just want to be left alone, go away premades, we want nothing to do with you, give us an option to fight each other instead)

 

 

 

This is also extremely selfish.

 

"If you do not wish to face my premade, you should not play at all!"

 

Why the heck would you care what the solos do if they aren't going to face your premade anyway?

What's so wrong with allowing them to face each other instead of just quitting?

Either way, they aren't going to play against you. So why tell them to quit? Just out of spite?

 

(all uses of 'you' above is meant generally, not personally)

This isn't about YOU personally.

When the game is about objectives and 2 or more people do DM while everyone else is trying to win who is going to suffer the most?

If people do "whatever" they want they end up doing stupid stuff and costing games including tight ones. That isn't the idea of WZ to do whatever they want.

If you guys want to fight each other, don't do it at other people's expenses who want to win.

The reason why solo want to face solo is that because it ends up being a DM, they can call me out if they wish but it DOES end up being a DM match in EVERY WZ. Proof of this, go to lowbies, there is more people killing each other rather than capping or defending. Every Lowbie including double XP ended up being a DM fest, rarely if not barely there is a few trying to make calls and try to win (solo vs solo lowbies).

At the end solo want to DM, and Bioware is giving it to them in 2.4 in spades, if solo gets their butt kicked they'll stop playing because they think individually their skill is higher than the other guy. But they never wanted to play team or objectives do they?

If you PuGs wanted to play: play to win, NOT play to see that you can do 300k (which is a joke in a 10 minute wz).

If you want to test your DPS go hit a dummy.

Some good ideas here. It seems hypocritical some of the arguments against trying to fix WZs so that solo queue players are not forced into the premade farming that dominates right now.

 

-"It's not fair to exclude premade players from a solo bracket." It's also not fair to lock solo players out of ranked WZs, and yet here we are. How about we allow solo queue players into ranked? Then there would be more ranked games, and less premades in regular queue.

Not a bad idea. Of course the only issue is for the last part of your statement to be true (less premades in regular) it would mean that those Solo-queue'ed ranked players would be facing Premades (of 8!). Can't wait to see the QQ on that one.

That being said, I totally think ranked should have more accessibility than just the 8-man. If players wanna go into ranked with a subpar strategy, let it reflect in their rating but don't bar them from it at all.

-"It will make premade queues too long." Nothing would prevent players from moving outside of their premade comfort zone and queueing solo if they didn't like the group queue times. This is the same argument you throw at solo queue players: "Nothing is stopping you from making your own premade." If you can tell me how to play, why I can't I return the favor?

Oh for the love of all things not Jar-Jar...

I'm gonna stop being (eh... nice?) for a moment here while I slap you. No was is *********** telling PuG's how to play, they're telling them how to win.

That is the single biggest *********** difference between PuG's being allowed in regulars and Groups being excluded from. A PuG can -play- in regulars as much as they like, for as long as they like, however they like. The may not win, and by not winning they may decide this isn't fun, but no one is *********** stopping them from hitting the queue button, finishing the match, and collecting their rewards. They do not have to change their "playstyle" to "Play."

On the other hand, if Group queue's become super longer, the groups can't -play-. Period. They can't enter a match, finish it, or collect their rewards if it never pops. In order to "Play" reasonably, you are suggesting they change their "Play-style" to even get on the board.

PuG's can *********** -play- as much as they like, however they like, in the current situation... they just lose a lot and don't like it. Groups can't play -at all- in a situation you "suggest." That's the god damn difference.

Okay... going back to (being nice?).

The above a side, the argument for solo-only options is "fairness," yes? Then the solution must also be fair. It can't switch the "unfair" from one group to another. I agree the situation is unfair, there needs to be something to prevent/discourage casual vs. invested. That solution needs to serve both casual vs. invested equally, allowing both to play as much as possible. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Just played a Random WZ (hypergate) with my rep. THe other team had 1 Premade of the guild "Utini" made by 3 players. All called "Jawa" with variations (Jawâ, Jâwa, and ****).

They were the whole WZ in our pylon, healing themselves preventing us to cap (not kiilling us, only healing and doing AOE when we were trying to cap). The rest of their team never moved of their pylon. Longest Hypergate I've ever played. That ruined the whole WZ...