We're done.

 

If you really wanted a debate, you'd lay your evidence on the table.

 

Every time you post anything that contributes nothing, has a hint of an insult, or is baiting, you will be reported. Thanks for playing.

You lost, It was a simple request, even when I already stated why solo queue was the better option.

I guess you can't really prove matchmaking is a decent choice after all.

Concession accepted. That was a easy win for me

yes, b/c it is a low-pop server. with a solo-toggle or a separate solo queue, on a low pop server you are going to seem extremely long queue times; that is not a reflection of the queuing/matchmaking mechanics but on the population. and sadly there is no way to increase the population, so the argument is moot. but why would we be using a low-pop server as the measuring stick with this? especially with transfers now available; if you dont like the server you are on you now have a viable option to move to another one.

 

if there is to be a solution to this issue that will benefit all parties involved, more civil discussion needs to take place. which means more ideas/suggestions, less name-calling and sarcastic remarks.

The bolded part is rich. Since randle, doom and yourself offer nothing but insults with every post. Then you want to randomly actually talk about things?

I agree talking about a low pop server is silly, tons of people stated (mostly pro-premade) that their queue times weren't long at all. Which means plenty of people were doing PVP, kinda ruins the whole "separate queue's will kill PVP thing". Furthermore though, the problem still remains that matchmaking still offers a chance for lopsided matches.

My example has been stated many times before- 3 good premades 4 good pugs all join the queue. The pugs will get cycled into a never ending losing streak. This can happen in a low pop community and a high pop community. Since a premade offers the advantages of group comp and voice chat.

And then there are the pugs who spend all game whining in gen chat about how horrible their team is, when they are the ones not doing anything. Neither side has a monopoly on idiots.

Because solo pugs > ranked teams

Nice logic.

Keep posting, you amuse me, child.

Except this makes the value judgment that premades are a higher priority than solo. You could just as well offer players more rewards to choose the solo option so that their regular warzones get filled. 7 solos need an 8th just as badly as a team of 4 + 3 premades do.

 

Premades already have a queue where they can earn more comms. Ranked.

 

Shift the responsibility for making an even numbered team where it should be, with the premades. Because some jokers decide to form a 3 man team the entire solo queuing population of SWTOR has to get less comms to make up for them not bothering to get a 4th? or have a person sit out so they are a 2? Seriously? Wouldn't it be fairer and simpler just to have the queue not accept a 3 ?

When you say premades, do you mean the highly competitive groups or simply groups in general? It's a term that get's used interchangeably a lot around here, and generally when I respond one way I get told the person meant the other way.

Now you probably won't agree, but I'll put out my reason why giving the PuG-only bracket less reward is fair. By selecting the "only face solo" the player is doing the exact opposite of taking responsibility to be competitive. They aren't taking steps to be on the same level of grouped players, they're opting not to play against them.

Now it's not 100% true that Group vs. Group (or even group+pug vs group+pug) is always more competitive/difficult then PuG vs PuG, but it's pretty darn likely. If that wasn't the case, there would be less complaint about vs. Groups, Group Advantage, etc... So just as Ranked > Regular, Regular > PuG-only. Hence, lower rewards. It also works as an incentive to keep players striving to be more competitive, something we should all be doing.

I would rather just eliminate the choice. Install Blizzard's system of matching group vs group, solos with solos, and filling in group with solos if need be. Yes on occasion a person that preferred solo play would play in the group warzone, but I think that if the net result was more group on group and solo on solo play, people wouldn't complain too much. Not as much as they might getting jipped some comms.

This is a form of matchmaking. Not the best in my opinion, but I have no complaints.

I support a solo que option/toggle. The reason is simple. Fairness.

You want to group up? cool.

You want to solo que? cool too.

Splitting the ques makes it so you play against like-minded people who want to do the same thing you do.

 

Would matchmaking not do the same thing, without many of the cons inherent in splitting the population?

Matchmaking will:

Match people based on some criteria. So extremely good players will face extremely good players, lower skill vs lower skill. Since it's adaptive, players winning a lot will continue to be placed against tougher opponents, while those losing a lot will be bumped down into easier skill levels.

If the population is high enough, queue times won't matter. If it's too low, queue limiters will reduce queue times at the expense of some matching (not all unless the population is that low). In the case of a split/solo-option, low population causes indefinite longer queues (and if too low, split queue/solo-option causes the highest amount of players simply not playing at all).

Matchmaking also targets the root problem. We can agree that not all players are equal (whether solo or grouped), and the unhealthy situation arises when over and over, Higher Competition (for whatever reason) is placed against Lower Competition. Matchmaking is designed to target that specifically, while solo-queues does nothing (except lower probability of) to stop Hardcore PuG's vs Casuals PuG's, or Hardcore Premade vs Casual groups.

And ignored, no point dealing with someone who doesn't understand logic and simply insults people rather than making a point.

On an unrelated note: Ya, they do that.

They try the reverse proof trick on you yet? Goes something like:

Makes claim.

You say prove it.

They say, No, you have to prove the claim is wrong.

Exact same argument used by Creationists and other faux intellectualists. God Exists! Prove it? I don't have to, you have to prove He doesn't!

Back on topic: Do you favor matchmaking based on some kind of skill/win-ratio, or based on queue type (Solo vs. Group)? If at all.

Exact same argument used by Creationists and other faux intellectualists.

I like you

On an unrelated note: Ya, they do that.

 

They try the reverse proof trick on you yet? Goes something like:

 

Makes claim.

You say prove it.

They say, No, you have to prove the claim is wrong.

 

Exact same argument used by Creationists and other faux intellectualists. God Exists! Prove it? I don't have to, you have to prove He doesn't!

 

Back on topic: Do you favor matchmaking based on some kind of skill/win-ratio, or based on queue type (Solo vs. Group)? If at all.

I think that an either/or scenario would be trouble similar to what we have now. It needs to be a dynamic mixture of both, plus a few other criteria.

I think that an either/or scenario would be trouble similar to what we have now. It needs to be a dynamic mixture of both, plus a few other criteria.

Interesting. Perhaps a Group vs Group or PuG+Group vs Pu+Group, or Full PuG preference. (So if first team is 1 of those three, it tries for the second group to be exactly the same). Then matches by skill/win rate.

What other criteria do you mean?

And of course this has to be high/medium server. Low servers will have their own issues.

On an unrelated note: Ya, they do that.

 

They try the reverse proof trick on you yet? Goes something like:

 

Makes claim.

You say prove it.

They say, No, you have to prove the claim is wrong.

 

Exact same argument used by Creationists and other faux intellectualists. God Exists! Prove it? I don't have to, you have to prove He doesn't!

 

Back on topic: Do you favor matchmaking based on some kind of skill/win-ratio, or based on queue type (Solo vs. Group)? If at all.

I notice you excel at bogging the conversation down with semantics. Page after page, I see clear, well thought out posts defining the problem and offering solutions. In response, all I see from you is obfuscation and derailing, with an occasional "prove it" thrown in for good measure.

I notice you excel at bogging the conversation down with semantics. Page after page, I see clear, well thought out posts defining the problem and offering solutions. In response, all I see from you is obfuscation and derailing, with an occasional "prove it" thrown in for good measure.

And the above post does what exactly?

We can argue that, or we can continue on. I asked the above posters which kind of matchmaking they would prefer. One that filters based on queue type (solo vs. group), or some kind of skill based one.

It was suggested both, which I kind of like the idea. Someone mentioned Wow has implemented a Group vs Group match, that fills in PuG's as needed but then tries to make PuG only Matches too. Thoughts?

1. make RWZ attractive/accessible to more players

2. introduce a passive matchmaking system to regs

3. ????????????

4. profit

And the above post does what exactly?

 

We can argue that, or we can continue on. I asked the above posters which kind of matchmaking they would prefer. One that filters based on queue type (solo vs. group), or some kind of skill based one.

 

It was suggested both, which I kind of like the idea. Someone mentioned Wow has implemented a Group vs Group match, that fills in PuG's as needed but then tries to make PuG only Matches too. Thoughts?

I think any real solution would have to start with cross server queues. The pvp pool on most servers would not support a matchmaking system, or even a solo queue option.

If I had to choose between matchmaking and the solo queue option, I would go with the solo queue option. Matchmaking will be exploited, just like it has in every other game it has been implemented in. Solo queue lets the players decide. If a solo player has a longer queue time than a group because of bracket population, at least they have the option to sit in a longer queue with a chance to win and have fun in a WZ, rather than get farmed and lose each game with no hope of winning.

I do not believe that skill is this huge factor that causes pug teams to lose so often and premades to win so often. In this game heals, tanks, and communication win games for you. It would take an exceptional pug group without tanks, heals, or voicechat to beat a mediocre premade with these advantages.

1. make RWZ attractive/accessible to more players

2. introduce a passive matchmaking system to regs

3. ????????????

4. profit

3. Fix all bugs from implementing the match making system.

I dont trust bioware's developers to be able to code a proper matchmaking system. The simplest, and therefore best solution, is to just add a checkbox for solo que. Anytime bioware attempts to get complex it backfires.... (55 bolster anyone?)

A good point I overlooked.

I think any real solution would have to start with cross server queues. The pvp pool on most servers would not support a matchmaking system, or even a solo queue option.

I agree here, though it seems cross server queues have been ruled out by Bioware. I could be wrong on that, though at least we have transfers now.

If I had to choose between matchmaking and the solo queue option, I would go with the solo queue option. Matchmaking will be exploited, just like it has in every other game it has been implemented in. Solo queue lets the players decide. If a solo player has a longer queue time than a group because of bracket population, at least they have the option to sit in a longer queue with a chance to win and have fun in a WZ, rather than get farmed and lose each game with no hope of winning.

This is an honest question: How is matchmaking exploited? Other than perhaps losing on purpose for X matches, I can't think of a way a Premade (High Competitive Group)is going to manipulate their ratings to get into the "easy" matches.

My issue with the solo-queue option (besides possibility of high queue's, etc...) Is it's actually giving power to one part of the population, with little cost to them. It seems that it is assume those taking the Solo-only option, it will be them stuck with longer queue's. Quite frankly, I feel it could be the polar opposite. Groups (Both casual and premade) could be the ones to suffer longer queue's, filling issues, and back fill issues for something they have little control over, save to disband and queue as solo in the hopes of a match. I hope you are not one of those who would condone the exact opposite of encouraging being social in an MMO.

For example, a player using group finder for a PvE option does have the choice to only queue for certain flashpoints. By opting out of flashpoints they don't want though, the player is denied the daily group finder reward. (I would also note, the only player effected by another player choosing -not- to queue for specific flashpoints are those that queue specifically for that flashpoint).

It's another issue of fairness to me, who has the most power over another player's ability to play. Of course in the current situation one could argue Premades (distinct from groups here) have power over a PuG's play, but I find switching the ability to deny other players from a community area (regular queue) to be a step in wrong direction.

I do not believe that skill is this huge factor that causes pug teams to lose so often and premades to win so often. In this game heals, tanks, and communication win games for you. It would take an exceptional pug group without tanks, heals, or voicechat to beat a mediocre premade with these advantages.

I'm going to have to disagree here. I've seen 2 good dps tear apart a guarded healer like butter before. I think people grossly overstate the "Group Advantage" in these situations. A good PuG vs A good group, I'd agree that the Group Advantage is going to play a part. In the case of a good PuG vs. a Mediocre group... give the PuG's a little credit.

Edit: Fixed some Typo's. My spelling is terrible today.

the root of the whining in this thread is that bad players dont want to face good players. 99% of the people in this thread cant/dont/refuse to see that, but it is what it is. matchmaking is the only thing that is going to put players of similar skill together.

Whoooaa. Hang on there, cowboy. Let's roll back the clock a little. The root of this problem is not the bads.

Competitive players have a queue. Ranked. Regular was for everyone else. But once the pecking order was established in ranked, the competitive players quit. They quit because they lost. The good, competitive, skilled, game pad playing, voice chat enabled, premades quit. One more time. The better players on the server, QUIT, because they didn't have match making. So now the ranked queue never pops.

So let's not define this as a "bads" problem. It is inaccurate to suggest we wouldn't have this problem if it wasn't for the vets missing fingers who are playing this game, or the older folks with arthritis, or the younger kids with parental controls, or the people playing casually just because their significant other does, or those with disabilities who find this game helps relieve the boredom and lonliness, and the rest of the "bads".

First, the skilled players, the ones that improve, the ones everyone think this game is for, quit. And they quit because they didn't like losing, and there was no match making. So let's not shift this all onto those with lessor skill or who simply want to play in a warzone devoid of premades. The need for match making existed before so called "bads" started asking for it. And all the skilled players quit for lack of it.

What happened next was that all these good players, all these premades, all these skilled players, all these quitters, moved down into the regular queue and now the system is unbalanced because ranked was for competitive, and regular was for casual, but the ranked people quit because THEY couldn't get match making and now regular has become the playground for the competitive skilled quitters. And now other players want match making too.

(PS to Cashogy, this is not to you personally, I am grandstanding to make a point.. forgive the use of your quote.)

I dont trust bioware's developers to be able to code a proper matchmaking system. The simplest, and therefore best solution, is to just add a checkbox for solo que. Anytime bioware attempts to get complex it backfires.... (55 bolster anyone?)

Simplest doesn't equal best. As Cash has shown, it's a matter of an hour or so to make a decent matchmaking algorithm.

It would be the simplest solution would be remove either the Solo or Group queue button, but please don't tell me you'd argue that's the best.

Whoooaa. Hang on there, cowboy.

... because ranked was for competitive, and regular was for casual...

Say this once, I'll say it again every time.

Ranked is for 8-player Premades.

Regular is for 1-4 players, any skill level, attitude, preparation, etc...

Regular is not the casual queue. It was never intended for casual play. It's intended for regular play, of 1-4 players.

The issue is it's hard for players of such varied skill level, attitude, and preparation to share a space. Those with the most casual attitude, lower skill, and/or lowest preparation will always be walked over by those with more investment, skill, and/or preparation.

So now we need a solution. How to share the space. It's not even an issue of PuG vs. Group, it's that of Casual vs. Invested.

This is an honest question: How is matchmaking exploited? Other than perhaps losing on purpose for X matches, I can't think of a way a Premade (High Competitive Group)is going to manipulate their ratings to get into the "easy" matches.

 

My issue with the solo-queue option (besides possibility of high queue's, etc...) Is it's actually giving power to one part of the population, with little cost to them.

 

I hope you are not one of those who would condone the exact opposite of encouraging being social in an MMO.

 

I find switching the ability to deny other players from a community area (regular queue) to be a step in wrong direction.

 

... give the PuG's a little credit.

-What comes to mind for me, from first hand experience, was WoW when players first would queue up naked so their gear score was skewed. When that was fixed, players would have a whole set of greens they queued with, and would then switch out to their real gear. There are always loopholes, and BW/EA doesn't have a great track record of fixing these holes before releasing content.

-Just like the puggers could put together a group, a group player could disband his group and solo queue. No one is eliminated from content, there are just rules they must follow to enter the bracket.

-I have close to a decade of mmo pvp experience, hardcore and casual. In my experience, most hardcore pvpers are borderline sociopaths. I play this game for fun, and I'm not going to tolerate idiocy in a game that I would not tolerate in person. Having friends and doing WZs is one thing. Most of my friends have quit, however.

-Again, no one is denied anything. A player can queue up solo anytime he wants. Just because he can't do it "his way" doesn't mean he is denied access. And this argument is sort of flawed unless you think solo players should be allowed to queue up for rateds, right?

-We will agree to disagree on skill vs. class comp and communication.

-What comes to mind for me, from first hand experience, was WoW when players first would queue up naked so their gear score was skewed. When that was fixed, players would have a whole set of greens they queued with, and would then switch out to their real gear. There are always loopholes, and BW/EA doesn't have a great track record of fixing these holes before releasing content.

 

-Just like the puggers could put together a group, a group player could disband his group and solo queue. No one is eliminated from content, there are just rules they must follow to enter the bracket.

 

-I have close to a decade of mmo pvp experience, hardcore and casual. In my experience, most hardcore pvpers are borderline sociopaths. I play this game for fun, and I'm not going to tolerate idiocy in a game that I would not tolerate in person. Having friends and doing WZs is one thing. Most of my friends have quit, however.

 

-Again, no one is denied anything. A player can queue up solo anytime he wants. Just because he can't do it "his way" doesn't mean he is denied access. And this argument is sort of flawed unless you think solo players should be allowed to queue up for rateds, right?

 

-We will agree to disagree on skill vs. class comp and communication.

-Heh, I suppose if Matchmaking was based on gear. So far I think people have thrown around based off win/loss, some skill measurement, or queue type. Not saying any system is perfect, but I think you'll find solo-queue options just as exploitable. What comes to mind immediately is queue syncing. It's the same was 8-man's get into regulars on occasion, the same could be done with 4 or 5 players queuing for solo at the same time, and waiting for a sync'ed queue pop. Then you have a 4-5 man group, on voice, against true PuG's this time. My point is, any systems gonna be exploited by those that want to exploit it, just what's the cost of that system?

-I think, considering the moral indignation and um... appeal that PuG-players make to not be forced to group, the same should be fair play here. Two wrongs don't make a right, and the solution needs to cater to a broad range of play styles or it's no better than the current one.

-We'll agree on (slightly) on hardcore PvP'ers. I use the term Invested for a reason. Perhaps not the best term, but I'll say personally I like to be invested in my games. Not a time investment, but the need to prepare, build gear, build connections, and give more thought to my game then log in, hit play. This is fun for me, and as fun is subjective it can't be contested. This ties into my point above, that the solution needs to serve both casuals and invested players, or it's no better than the current one we have, other then to transfer the "oppressive" power over to those whom do the least.

- Not to get into semantics, but this is the same argument as the current system (again). Currently, Group players tell PuG's "Hey, no one's stopping you from playing, but if you want to win more, you need to group up. If that is not a valid solution, then the reverse (and worse situation imo) of "Hey, no one's stopping you from disbanding and playing, but if you wanna group you'll have to take your longer queue." Fair is Fair. If it's unfair for PuG's to feel they need to group, then it's unfair for groups to feel they need to PuG (to even play).

-Agreeing to disagree.