I think I will pass on addressing any of that or any future post you might make except to reiterate a request to Bioware for a solo only queue option.

I'm beginning to sense a pattern here. Back someone suggesting/demanding the solo-only queue into corner using their own words, and suddenly they don't want to talk to you any more.

Let's do a little roleplay:

MotorCityMan: Hi Bioware, I'd like to suggest there be a solo-only queue option for PvP.

Bioware: Okay... why?

MotorCityMan: Because <Please insert your answer>

(Suggestions need to have a reason, or else their bad suggestions.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd also like to see your empirical data on the following post: Premades in the Solo Queue, Post 148

Since we are discussing the "real reasons" for things, the real reason people don't think it's fair for premades to only get matched up against other premades is that they will miss out on their easymode pug farming and have to face a team of players who have the same advantages as they do and they might get beat. So maybe it's premades that have a distorted sense of entitlement and proficiency. Premades don't want to face 8 man teams because that is an unfair advantage, but it's fine for them to face pugs. And you think solo players are out of wack? eh

Please link me the pyschological studies you consulted when you informed us all of the "real" reason about premades behavior above.

Again, I am not the first one to draw these conclusions.

 

As most of this thread has revolved around these concepts, what's your point in claiming they're all irrelevant?

He has a point tho. As you increase player pool that queues for warzones, the queue times can only decrease so far - at some point, queues become instant and increasing player pool further has no impact on them - it will only cause more parallel warzones.

The reverse is also true. Reducing player pool may, or may not, cause significantly increased queue times. (Theoretically all you need for instant queues is 16 players queueing over and over). There probably is a minimum number of players you don't want to go below, but no one in this thread knows what that number is, or whether a solo-only queue would cause that number to be reached or not.

(again, i am not really in favor of a hard solo-only queue. Just pointing stuff out)

Then I submit this: Bioware already has drawn the line on this issue, obviously.

It took blizzard, what? Seven years before they took action against premades? I wouldn't assume that just because bioware didn't do anything yet, they are satisfied with the current situation. Maybe they just haven't found a good solution yet. That's what this thread is good for - a brainstorming session to describe the problem and offer potential solutions(and to criticize them, where appropriate)

He has a point tho. As you increase player pool that queues for warzones, the queue times can only decrease so far - at some point, queues become instant and increasing player pool further has no impact on them - it will only cause more parallel warzones.

 

The reverse is also true. Reducing player pool may, or may not, cause significantly increased queue times. (Theoretically all you need for instant queues is 16 players queueing over and over). There probably is a minimum number of players you don't want to go below, but no one in this thread knows what that number is, or whether a solo-only queue would cause that number to be reached or not.

Yes, that is a possibility.

For the purpose of debate (and specifically my debate with Motorcityman), the concept of Less PuG's = Longer Queue's was introduced by those on the side of PuG-only queue's. Though not put precisely as such, it's even as far back as the Opening Post. It's been used as a justification for needing Solo-only queue's over and over.

I personally believe that the current situation is unhealthy and that the population isn't enough to sustain more splits in the queue. As I'm sure someone would love to point out, yes this is conjecture based on anecdotal evidence. As none of us have hard data on any of this, all of the "evidence" in this thread has been conjecture, observation, and logical process/conclusion.

As always, my posts are not to say there isn't a problem. Looking at two solutions most proposed (solo-only option, matchmaking), one has a problem the other does not. If there's enough population to sustain multiple warzones, neither matchmaking nor solo-only options have queue time issues. If there isn't enough population, solo-option has negative effects, while matchmaking is adaptive enough to minimize those effects.

So maybe I'm wrong and the game has enough population to support split queue's. If I'm not though, the solo-option has an negative issue the matchmaking option does not.

It took blizzard, what? Seven years before they took action against premades? I wouldn't assume that just because bioware didn't do anything yet, they are satisfied with the current situation. Maybe they just haven't found a good solution yet. That's what this thread is good for - a brainstorming sesson to describe the problem and offer potential solutions(and to criticize them, where appropriate)

I don't disagree. Other than the occasional troll I've had several decent discussion and a handful more entertaining ones. I was not the one trying to throw out all the "evidence" others have debated back and forth and declare:

"This is between me and Bioware, butt out!"

That was MotorCityMan. If he doesn't wish others to discuss his "suggestion" and thinks it's Bioware's place to decide, I pointed out that Bioware already decided when they installed 1-4 in regular and 8 in ranked. I'm curious to see if he can provide a reason they should change it without relying on anecdotal evidence, since no one else is allowed to.

There doesn't have to be a split of the current regular WZ queue to deliver what the solo players want. the solution could be as simple as leave the current queue as is but just add a toggle button that when toggled only puts the player into a totally random solo only WZ.

the advantage of this would be that if there was any negative effect on queue times then people have the OPTION not to toggle the button and so effectively the WZ queue would be exactly as it is today.

the reason I am in favour of a solo toggle rather than match making is that match making would segregate the players into different groups. this may sound strange since I support a solo only queue but I think that match making may make the WZ queues to "regimented" so you always play against groups that are of equal level to your current group which has a potential for stalemate?

I would prefer the totally random option of solo only since two games should never be the same and players will get to experience wining/losing and stomping/getting stomped in equal measures. The problem with the current system (at least on Red Eqlipse) is that on some nights particularly on the Rep side a number of pvp guilds queue 4 man teams at the same time so on these nights its likely that if you solo you will face at least one 4 man premade in every match, and in quite a few you will face two 4 man premades who have been put into the same WZ on the same side

What happens when you, in real life sports, put a team of professional players against a team of amateur players? The pros win. It would not be a match, just a beating. That's why you don't put pros against amateurs in real life sports. And thats why pros should not face amateurs in SWTOR warzones either.

So. You want matchmaking then ?

From some posters in this thread husband and a wife playing tank and healer together is already an evil premade, ruining poor soloers fun and should be forced to play rateds or vs 4man premades in special queue? Seriously?

It took blizzard, what? Seven years before they took action against premades? I wouldn't assume that just because bioware didn't do anything yet, they are satisfied with the current situation. Maybe they just haven't found a good solution yet. That's what this thread is good for - a brainstorming session to describe the problem and offer potential solutions(and to criticize them, where appropriate)

Bioware would have to invent a PvP schooling for those which don't understand principles of a warzone but rather qq on a forum about how utterly overpowered "organzied" teamplay is vs. their own headless chicken run each and every time the window pops. If your group has a problem facing a 4 person premade... the problem is in your organzisation, communication and at last... each individual skill.

We faced a premade with 2 operatives and 2 assassin the other day and we won by 20 points (civil war) while having 2-3 people standing on our cannon "defending" the entire game. There was little to no communication required because people plainly understood what is required to win, people were get stunned, only one person was capping and so on but that's already too much requirement for the chicken faction.

Ps: I'm a random player

There doesn't have to be a split of the current regular WZ queue to deliver what the solo players want. the solution could be as simple as leave the current queue as is but just add a toggle button that when toggled only puts the player into a totally random solo only WZ.

 

the advantage of this would be that if there was any negative effect on queue times then people have the OPTION not to toggle the button and so effectively the WZ queue would be exactly as it is today.(

While I first suggested this might work when (Sharee?) first mentioned it, I've come to realize it's the exact same thing as suggested earlier (Solo-only and a Solo+Group Queue).

The issue I have is assume (solo-centric players, not me have claimed) there are more PuG's than Grouped players.

The one's the Solo-only option serves the most are also the one's who decide to use it, yet if (as others besides myself also said first) the population is not enough to sustain both queue's, it's the group queue that will suffer. There is no incentive for a PuG to enter the solo+group queue if there are more PuG's than grouped players, and solo-only queue's are more favorable to their playstyle/winrate/Ego/etc...

So those suffering the queue-time penalities won't be the people using it, but the people who have no say in the matter (aside from not grouping. If PuG's having to group to be competitive is unfair, people having to not group is just as unfair.)

the reason I am in favour of a solo toggle rather than match making is that match making would segregate the players into different groups. this may sound strange since I support a solo only queue but I think that match making may make the WZ queues to "regimented" so you always play against groups that are of equal level to your current group which has a potential for stalemate?

(

That's not... matchmaking.

Though I'm not entirely sure the criteria, matchmaking is adaptive. So if you have 10 sucky games in a row, you don't stay at a "expert" rating. You drop down.

Likewise, say a Player begins to win over and over and over. They'll move up the brackets from "average" into the "expert" rating. If they hit expert and begin to lose again, eventually they'll drop into "average" once more. Etc, etc, etc...

It doesn't stagnate, except for anyone who wins all their matches (the top) and someone who loses all their matches (bottom). The middle continues to change and adapt every match.

Its funny people don't complain when they have premades on their team.

Its funny people don't complain when they are vs a terribad premade of clickers/keyboard turning baddies.

Bad players will always lose and find something to blame it on,right now its premades,I wonder what it will be when/if they bring a solo queue...

There could be a form you have to fill after every weekly reset.

'what you do when you see a person coming to the node you defend'

a.'call inc 1 <location>'

b.'do nothing, I'm a pro and will kill him'

c.'start doing crew skills, he won't be here any short and may run away'

d.'shout : omg INC snow alot come now!!!!!!!!'

e:'I run so I won't die'

based on results of 5 random questions (can't be to long) people will be matched.

muppets will have their muppet death match, players who like team play will have team play.

and all horrors will be gone.

While I first suggested this might work when (Sharee?) first mentioned it, I've come to realize it's the exact same thing as suggested earlier (Solo-only and a Solo+Group Queue).

 

The issue I have is assume (solo-centric players, not me have claimed) there are more PuG's than Grouped players.

 

The one's the Solo-only option serves the most are also the one's who decide to use it, yet if (as others besides myself also said first) the population is not enough to sustain both queue's, it's the group queue that will suffer. There is no incentive for a PuG to enter the solo+group queue if there are more PuG's than grouped players, and solo-only queue's are more favorable to their playstyle/winrate/Ego/etc...

 

So those suffering the queue-time penalities won't be the people using it, but the people who have no say in the matter (aside from not grouping. If PuG's having to group to be competitive is unfair, people having to not group is just as unfair.)

Whilst I can't disagree with you that groups may suffer, my hope would be that more players in general would start queuing for WZ's and ultimately more groups would form and even more premade's. I can only give my own solo experience as an example, where on red eqlipse on certain nights the regular warzone may just as well be the Ranked warzone queue since premades are the norm rather than the exception but only on the republic side, since there doesn't seem to be as many imp premades or they just don't queue on the same nights.

That's not... matchmaking.

 

Though I'm not entirely sure the criteria, matchmaking is adaptive. So if you have 10 sucky games in a row, you don't stay at a "expert" rating. You drop down.

 

Likewise, say a Player begins to win over and over and over. They'll move up the brackets from "average" into the "expert" rating. If they hit expert and begin to lose again, eventually they'll drop into "average" once more. Etc, etc, etc...

 

It doesn't stagnate, except for anyone who wins all their matches (the top) and someone who loses all their matches (bottom). The middle continues to change and adapt every match.

again I if it were a choice between NOTHING and Match making then I would be in favour of match making however I would prefer a solo only toggle button since I have very fond memories of games that were totally random and were very enjoyable for me even though some of them we lost. There have been a number of totally Random matches that I have been in where the teams were not well matched but turned into a real battle all the same, maybe because some of the less geared players on one team were more skillfull than those with gear on the other team, who knows!!

I played in a hutball match, (which we lost) which was back and forth across the map for the whole time, and had a real mismatch of player skills and gear. At the end of the game, and even though we lost with the score 1-1 but they managed to keep the ball at the end, every player on the team said in general chat how enjoyable a match it was.

my laboured point is that whatever system change were to be implemented should stop the regular WZ's from "transforming" into a Ranked queue on some nights.

There could be a form you have to fill after every weekly reset.

 

'what you do when you see a person coming to the node you defend'

a.'call inc 1 <location>'

b.'do nothing, I'm a pro and will kill him'

c.'start doing crew skills, he won't be here any short and may run away'

d.'shout : omg INC snow alot come now!!!!!!!!'

e:'I run so I won't die'

 

based on results of 5 random questions (can't be to long) people will be matched.

muppets will have their muppet death match, players who like team play will have team play.

and all horrors will be gone.

way too long.....

Warzones are about:

a) killing other players and farm medals any way possible

b) playing as a team to win the match without looking at medals at all

I'd like to be queued with b) though due to the low amount of people playing like this Bioware should open a new bracket 10-54 where people take it as a challenge to beat a higher level rather than qq'ing about it on the forum.

Bioware would have to invent a PvP schooling for those which don't understand principles of a warzone but rather qq on a forum about how utterly overpowered "organzied" teamplay is vs. their own headless chicken run each and every time the window pops.

Or maybe bioware could just ensure the headless chicken fight each other. That would work as well. Because the primary goal of the game is to have fun, not to be good at it.

Any competitive human activity is only fun for all participants when all participants are of roughly equal skill.

Whether that 'equal skill' is 'equally good' or 'equally bad' is irrelevant. A soccer match played by six year olds can be just as fun for the kids as a pro championship league match can be for the pro teams(heck, the kids would probably get *more* fun out of it!)

So let the kids play together. Throwing insults and belittling them for playing like 'headless chicken' really is just bad form.

Or maybe bioware could just ensure the headless chicken fight each other. That would work as well. Because the primary goal of the game is to have fun, not to be good at it.

 

Any competitive human activity is only fun for all participants when all participants are of roughly equal skill.

Whether that 'equal skill' is 'equally good' or 'equally bad' is irrelevant. A soccer match played by six year olds can be just as fun for the kids as a pro championship league match can be for the pro teams(heck, the kids would probably get *more* fun out of it!)

 

So let the kids play together. Throwing insults and belittling them for playing like 'headless chicken' really is just bad form.

Playing warzones is entirely optional, you don't have to, nobody is forcing you. However upon pressing the button and joining it is not only anymore about yourself. It's the same as joining a flashpoint/ operation with similar principles and the only reason why people are keep on being bad is because there is no penalty. Nobody can kick you as long as you make a step every now and then.

Yes, maybe Bioware has to implement a "dummy" warzone where people can just join... there is no start, no end but player can teach other player as to how they can improve themselves and I'd be happy to participate in trying to teach new player how they can play a warzone effectively. (btw. one of the reason I created this thread was that I believe people would welcome a pure training warzone with no goals but getting better and increasing the fun factor for everyone.)

The bottom line is.... do "bad" player really have fun being bad or do they just don't know any better? Wouldn't it be more fun with just some effort to create together with the other team an interesting game which you win or lose but is not based on which has the worst player not understanding the "basics" and defend their node the entire tie with 3-4 people farming medals?

I don't believe that people like to play bad, being called out and not improving themselves because it takes little to no more time investment to make huge improvements with ease.

and they wont ever... you know why?

 

because even remotely suggesting that grouping in an MMO should be even a tiny bit against the rules, is insane

 

we need skill based matchmaking. not separate queues.

because separate queue's are totally making grouping illegal when they are asking for it.

Oh no, victim cry.

The bottom line is.... do "bad" player really have fun being bad or do they just don't know any better?.

See my example with the kids playing soccer. Have you ever seen kids playing? Do you seriously believe they are NOT enjoying themselves?

See my example with the kids playing soccer. Have you ever seen kids playing? Do you seriously believe they are NOT enjoying themselves?

sometimes I think that atleast 5 of my team are those six year olds... they sure are having fun... in the PIT chasing tank and a healer (with not much success) while other team scores 3 times in a minute, and they scream in ops 'u so nub, I quit'.

Like i said many times b4 i'll say it again. It is a learn to play issue. If you lose the problem aren't premades the problem is you. All players start on equal foot. If you lose to someone he is better than you. As simple as that. And also people form premades because they will be sure that there will be 3 less bads on their team.

And if you are so fed up with the current state of PVP, why dont you form your own premade and roflstomp pugs? Please don't come up with any excuse such as gear or casual player or any other.

1. Bolster somewhat fixed the gear issue, but didn't fix being bad.

2. Many casual players are very good and also play with a premade (yes, i've heard that b4).

And i will be honest. I like to play in a premade group because I have more chance to win. Do i enjoy stomping pugs... It is fun from time to time. But then again when i started pvping i only solo queued knowing that i will get stomped until i learn to play... And now... i still get stomped because i am a noob :D:D:D

Higher end: Low number of players with low rating does not really matter. Its the sum of players' ratings on teams that is being balanced, not individual players. Only difference between lower and higher ends will be lower end will have more scrub vs scrub matches(with a few pros) and higher end more pro vs pro matches(with a few scrubs).

Yes, you would have more scrub vs scrub matches and, technically, more pro vs pro matches but the actual number of pro matches would be small in comparison because of the rating needed to be considered "pro". So, in other words, the queue times for the pros would be longer because of the smaller "pro" player selection pool.

The system would have the same amount of heal-capable classes available for matchmaking as it does now. I don't see how they would become more rare.

 

There are no rating requirements. The rating is simply used to be added up for both teams, and the system tries to make the two numbers as close as possible.(for instance it will make team A as 70+40+40+30+20+10+10+10 and team B as 90+40+30+30+20+10+5+5) It does not have to be equal, just as close as possible.

The amount of healers PvPing will remain relatively constant but the matches that they participate in will likely change due to their rating. Using your example, it is quite possible for a healer to be skipped over for a WZ because their rating would no longer make the WZ fair.

Once again, the queue time would suffer because of the system needed to fill certain criteria for a match instead of just grouping the first 8.

Not legacy wide. If i make a new BH and have no idea how to play it, i don't want to be considered a pro player. The exploitation with new toons would be very limited, as your new arsenal merc would rapidly gain rating from his high performance.

Until his rating increased to the point that he was considered "pro" he could still be used to farm beginning players in order to send equipment to their higher rated alt. It happens now anyway with players earning comms on alts and using those comms to purchase WZ med packs and sending them to their main. Difference being, it would be easier because they would be certain to be facing players of lower skill than what they could be facing now.

Besides, being new to a class does not really make you a noob to that class. I recently made an assassin and while I am new to the class, still haven't gotten a good rotation down, I know certain ways how they operate because I have fought them in WZs.

As an example, I was in a VS recently and I used him to sneak past and plant a bomb on the first door right behind a guard, when the door blew I used Force Speed to make it to the bridge controls to extend them. A team mate planted a bomb on the second door and once it exploded used Force Speed again to make it to the shield controls before the defenders to drop them.

I would think that some rating would transfer to a new toon simply because of the experience gained on your main from WZs.

As I said in my previous post, a matchmaking system is a good idea and I would support it but all of the possibilities need to be considered and refined before one could actually be put into place.

I was not to first to bring this up. Though Comfter was not the first either, it is by his reasoning that PuG's leaving the queue = Longer queue times.

You can't even keep your own argument straight, don't try representing mine.

I think I will pass on addressing any of that or any future post you might make except to reiterate a request to Bioware for a solo only queue option.

I'm beginning to sense a pattern here. Back someone suggesting/demanding the solo-only queue into corner using their own words, and suddenly they don't want to talk to you any more.

Here's the pattern: at best, you're talking out of your butt. People who like debate don't like conversing with you because of the strong probability that someone who talks exclusively out of their butt, is probably doing it because they're not capable of contributing something more to the conversation. Like I've said before, the strategic thing to do is just give your argument enough rope to hang itself, but you're like a clumsy cat caught in a dozen nooses, but thinks it's caught a mouse. The real cruelty is to keep giving you the opportunity.

An error I've made for the last time, too. Bye Doomsday.

Yes, you would have more scrub vs scrub matches and, technically, more pro vs pro matches but the actual number of pro matches would be small in comparison because of the rating needed to be considered "pro". So, in other words, the queue times for the pros would be longer because of the smaller "pro" player selection pool.

You did not understand the system i proposed.

There is no 'pro player selection pool'. There is only one pool, of all the players who queued. All of them are allowed to be selected for the same match. The only thing that happens is that when you get selected, another high rating player will also be selected to be your opponent.

Once again, your rating would in no way affect your ability to be selected for any particular match. It would only be considered when selecting what opponents to pit against you.

You did not understand the system i proposed.

 

There is no 'pro player selection pool'. There is only one pool, of all the players who queued. All of them are allowed to be selected for the same match. The only thing that happens is that when you get selected, another high rating player will also be selected to be your opponent.

 

Once again, your rating would in no way affect your ability to be selected for any particular match. It would only be considered when selecting what opponents to pit against you.

ie, skill based matchmaking. sounds good to me

So. You want matchmaking then ?

 

From some posters in this thread husband and a wife playing tank and healer together is already an evil premade, ruining poor soloers fun and should be forced to play rateds or vs 4man premades in special queue? Seriously?

Not at all. Of course all premades are not equal, nor are solo players. But there is no simple way outside of ranked for the game to discriminate between a team organized to be competitive and a random group of friends just looking to share the experience. The game only distinguishes between "group" and "solo".

But even in your rather innocent example, pre-selection has occured, matching tank with healer. A definite advantage. (Although communication between husband and wife is a huge variable and might be an advantage....... or not. :D:D:D)

You did not understand the system i proposed.

 

There is no 'pro player selection pool'. There is only one pool, of all the players who queued. All of them are allowed to be selected for the same match. The only thing that happens is that when you get selected, another high rating player will also be selected to be your opponent.

Once again, your rating would in no way affect your ability to be selected for any particular match. It would only be considered when selecting what opponents to pit against you.

The part I bolded is the selection pool. If my ranking was 70, then the system would try to match me against another 70. All others, at that point in time, are rejected unless another 70 can not be found at which point it starts to search through all the other players for a rating that is close to mine to create the fairest match.

If I am rating 100, it will have to find another player that is, or close to being, 100. The higher you go in your ratings, the fewer players that there are going to be. So the selection pool of fair opponents is smaller.

If the system is looking for an opponent to a rated 100 player and I am only 70, then my rating does effect my ability to be selected because the system will be looking for someone closer to that 100 rated player. If it doesn't find one, and I am next closest rated player on the list, then yes, I would be selected.

This also leads to the possibility of being in queue for an undermined amount of time because while you may have queued for a WZ first, and been in the queue for "x" number of minutes, the player that just queued up could be selected first because their rating would give a fairer match that yours might have.

I think BW considered all of this and it is why they went with a "first come, first served" type of matching system. It is also why a number of people say that a rated system would not work with out cross server queues because the population on one server may not have the selection depth necessary to create fair matches.

Like i said many times b4 i'll say it again. It is a learn to play issue. If you lose the problem aren't premades the problem is you. All players start on equal foot. If you lose to someone he is better than you. As simple as that. And also people form premades because they will be sure that there will be 3 less bads on their team.

 

And if you are so fed up with the current state of PVP, why dont you form your own premade and roflstomp pugs? Please don't come up with any excuse such as gear or casual player or any other.

1. Bolster somewhat fixed the gear issue, but didn't fix being bad.

2. Many casual players are very good and also play with a premade (yes, i've heard that b4).

 

And i will be honest. I like to play in a premade group because I have more chance to win. Do i enjoy stomping pugs... It is fun from time to time. But then again when i started pvping i only solo queued knowing that i will get stomped until i learn to play... And now... i still get stomped because i am a noob :D:D:D

You might be correct in assuming that many of those advocating a solo only queue are "bads" looking for a less competitive warzone. But some might be wanting a place to gear up their alts without the pressures and obligations of team play. Some might be wanting practice on a character they haven't played in awhile. Some just simply enjoy the complete randomness of pug play. ( I have to say I never laughed so hard playing a vid game as I did lowbie wow pug pvp. Completely random teams of half dressed characters running in all directions spamming 1 or 2 abilities over and over.) Some might be new players, looking for a place to test the waters and see what pvp is like.

Some might be players with a sense of fairness and inclusiveness who want to see the game grow. And some might even be pug stompers, here to excise the guilt from their consciences.

But who the advocates are shouldn't matter. What should matter to Bioware is whether or not there are enough of them to warrant their attention and make changes.