The more I read the threads supporting SWTOR only having 8v8 rateds, rather than solo queue rateds, etc., the more I feel that Rated PvP is going to be more of a social contest than an actual skill-based contest. Sure, you might find some skilled players among the many Rated PvP squads, but I think the majority of us players know that the bulk of the teams won't be comprised of the most skilled players, simply because there are many of the top skilled players who choose to run solo queue, and don't have the opportunity to get together with 7 other people consistently to play together and hone their teamwork. The system is going to exclude too many of the good players for the Rated system to actually mean something special to those competing in it. At the very least, it's going to push the really good players into forming a mediocre group comprised of "whoever was available when I'm on", rather than putting together a good group of players that can be trusted and counted on for playing their part.

 

Is your team going to rate high? Maybe. Will it mean anything knowing that you've gone against terrible teams that were only put together so that players wouldn't be excluded from ranked PvP? Very likely it won't, because there will always be that asterisk by the top ranked teams name.

Edited May 31, 2012 by olagaton

I dunno what server you play on but the pugs get dominated by the premades on mine lol. So I dunno how running in a pug for rated would be good at all. Personally I think your off your rocker for impyling that.

Under most situations you aren't going to have your best 8 players on all the time. It's like raiding. People have lives, people get burned out, etc. You'll most likely have a core of 3-5 great players and the rest are just there to fill your gap.

 

It comes down to how they go about ranked war zones. If its just 8 man quing to earn your currency than it's not going to be anything fantastic. If it's like WoW arenas where you have to play x amount of games to earn your weekly currency + ranking than you can set up times for people to show up.

 

But then you have problems with not having enough 8 man groups on all the time to get actual games. If it's a 8 man premade vs pugs than we obviously know that's it going to be horrendously one sided and it's not really a test of skill.

 

Basically this is a mirror image of Vanilla WoW PvP, but you could have 10 and 15 man teams. Everyone would scramble on very early in the morning just to get into the "grinding" group.

Edited May 31, 2012 by ComeAndSee

If you're a good player you aren't going to have any difficulty getting on a team if you actually make an effort to get on a team. if you expect that you can just do nothing and have teams knocking on your door, that might happen here and there, but generally you need to put in some effort if you want results.

...

 

Good players will get scooped up by the good guilds. If you're playing good someone will notice and they will recruit you. You will accept because: Winning is addictive

 

Hence good players always flock together.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Orangerascal

They've already said they are going to use the Elo system so if you're rating is high you aren't going to be bad I promise.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

It is unreasonable and unfair to rate a players skill on factors he has no control upon. -> forced random team members.

 

I, myself, enjoy small scale pvp. Best you, me and others can hope for is smaller teams, ie: Arena.

 

They don't even need to make new maps , just remove the WZ objectives and let 4v4 Arena start. Replace health /expertise buffs with see invisible that appear after 5 minutes of the game, similar to wow.

 

(and i say remove objectives from WZ on small teams, because objective play class balance will break under small team constriction )

I actually feel like only having 8 man queues is going to help build better pvp communities. Pvp guilds will probably grow, people will tend to be more helpful, less screaming in chat at a person. If you are an ***, people won't want to pvp with you. Also if you are an idiot who won't play the objectives of the game or call for help when needed or you are just not playing with the team, people will not want to group with you.

 

I actually think it is a great test of skill. It is the ultimate test in pvp teamwork skill. It will be like doing an operation, but you are pvping instead of killing a raid boss. The teams with the most success are going to be those that develop solid strategies and have amazing communication.

 

I would actually rather queue for rated warzones with 8 people I can trust than get in a pug with a bunch of people who don't know what they are doing or who don't communicate.

I dunno what server you play on but the pugs get dominated by the premades on mine lol. So I dunno how running in a pug for rated would be good at all. Personally I think your off your rocker for impyling that.

 

it would look some what like league of legends solo rated que, although i hope it will not allow any duos, just 16 random ppl thrown together for a match, although i most servers as it stands it would just be the same 8 v 8 every match

2 Things:

 

1) I absolutely understand that PuG rated would be more based on how lucky you are in the random selection of groups, but in the end it should all even out. Everyone would have a chance to group with bads and goods, and the more you join Solo Queue Rated WZ's, the more accurate your personal rank will become. I understand it is entirely possible that a great player gets added on to a very poor team repeatedly, which might not give a completely accurate representation of his personal skill level, but that should be the nature of Solo Rateds going on -- a stat-keeping system that shows how good you are in a solo queue situation.

 

2) In regards to the premades -- the reason why it won't be a true test of skill is because there will, inevitably, be a lot of "thrown together" premades that simply join up because they are being forced to join up, pitted up against 8 man teams that have been practicing and playing and communicating together for the past 6 months. That is no different than Premade vs PuG rateds, to be honest. This type of scenario is going to inflate rankings, even in an Elo rating system.

 

In a sense, the rating system won't be asking: "Which team is better/Which players are better?" It will instead be asking: "Which team was more social and capable of running 8v8 rated, instead of something less?"

 

Not all players come into an MMO (or PvP, for that matter) with the intent to find a guild or regular group to run with. That said, every player comes into an MMO with the belief that they are not going to be excluded from areas of the game they are paying for, including end-game PvE and PvP.

So this is what people will do because we are terrible animals. Have your 8 man Q up for a rated. Have your buddy on the opposite faction Q up same time. Both get in match and all you do is stand at the goal line in Huttball while being sneaky as to not get kicked.

 

Rated should be 8 vs 8 no solo Q. Because like a dev put it, why would you want to rely on someone not being bad or doing something that hinders you match after match.

What you are really asking for is SMALLER ranked teams. There is no scenario where PuG rateds will produce better players than premade rateds. There may be a scenario where smaller teams produce more uniformly good players per team. In the end though you just need more friends or be good enough to get recruited to a good premade.

8 man rated WZ's are going to be just like arenas in WoW. A measure on who has the best geared cookie cutter group.

8 man rated WZ's are going to be just like arenas in WoW. A measure on who has the best geared cookie cutter group.

 

Pretty much.

8 man rated WZ's are going to be just like arenas in WoW. A measure on who has the best geared cookie cutter group.

 

That might be 1 factor in objective based WZ / BG,

 

But as far as wow arena went, skill was immensely more important than team makeup.

 

Not to mention, having a good team setup will not guarantee a good ranking.

 

For example, if say 1 class /team setup is op... why did 99.9% of players using said setup FAILED vs weaker team setups to get Gladiator title /rank 1 w/e in WoW.

 

For gods sake, STOP FINDING EXCUSES FOR YOUR POOR PVP SKILL. For every situation imaginable you can come up with at least 10 reasons of why you failed and i bet none of them is YOUR FAULT.

 

This is the fundamental difference between a good player and a bad one. A good player when confronted with lack of success, tries to improve his performance WHILE a bad player tries to find reasons of why it is not his fault.

 

----------> and that is why good players get better and bad players whine more each day.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Dmasterr

Not a true test of individual skill? Care = 0.

Warzones are a team effort.

 

Find a group or a dedicated pvp guild. Should not be hard if you are a skilled player.

 

I'll be glad to get rid of the randoms with 400 expertise that don't shout incomings/stun cappers etc while the other 4 man group from our guild is standing on fleet doing nothing.

..., simply because there are many of the top skilled players who choose to run solo queue, and don't have the opportunity to get together with 7 other people consistently to play together and hone their teamwork...

 

If you're not using voice comms and focusing on teamwork over medals then you're not "top skilled" at PVP. PVP is about teamwork. On my server I've been trying to hammer into the sentinel pugs how good transcendance is for instance, because things like group speed buffs *WIN GAMES* a lot more than AOE spam. Things like peeling for your healer to keep him alive. Things like peeling off a voidstar door so an operative can stealth over and cap it.

 

That's the stuff that wins games and that's what skill is about. Not mashing your PVE AOE rotation over and over again.

 

The game doesn't track medals for doing an AOE mez on a group following the ball carrier in huttball. Or popping inspiration during a key zerg to secure mid in Civil War. Or doing an offspec heal on a healer to hold him up until someone can stun/pull his attacker. But stuff like that is what wins games and makes you a valuable team member.

Edited May 31, 2012 by dcgregorya

That might be 1 factor in objective based WZ / BG,

 

But as far as wow arena went, skill was immensely more important than team makeup.

 

Not to mention, having a good team setup will not guarantee a good ranking.

 

For example, if say 1 class /team setup is op... why did 99.9% of players using said setup FAILED vs weaker team setups to get Gladiator title /rank 1 w/e in WoW.

 

For gods sake, STOP FINDING EXCUSES FOR YOUR POOR PVP SKILL. For every situation imaginable you can come up with at least 10 reasons of why you failed and i bet none of them is YOUR FAULT.

 

This is the fundamental difference between a good player and a bad one. A good player when confronted with lack of success, tries to improve his performance WHILE a bad player tries to find reasons of why it is not his fault.

 

----------> and that is why good players get better and bad players whine more each day.

 

No it wasn't. Every top arena team had the same cookie cutter group's, and it boiled down to which group wasnbetter geared, or who could outlast the other cookie cutter group. The only skill it took was who timed their cool downs better.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Phlem

No it wasn't. Every top arena team had the same cookie cutter group's, and it boiled down to which group wasnbetter geared, or who could outlast the other cookie cutter group. The only skill it took was who timed their cool downs better.

 

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

but in the end it should all even out

 

Solo ranked needs to not be based on wins. It should be based on roles and how well you play that role. It should be leaderboard like where you can excel in a number of areas and it should have a separate gear set that is leaderboard based rather than based on a single ELO rating. Having it based on your team means just about everyone who played long enough would be at 50% if Bioware's matchmaking system was working and population issues got corrected.

When two evenly skilled teams meet is when the real fun starts

 

Doesn't matter which level of skill. Be it level 10 or over 9000 as long as it's matched.

You can still pug it if that's your thing. Just have to spam general to find a group. No different than finding a pug for an fp or ops. I think they should include rated wz's in the new lfg tool for ppl who liked to solo que b4.

When two evenly skilled teams meet is when the real fun starts

 

Doesn't matter which level of skill. Be it level 10 or over 9000 as long as it's matched.

 

exactly. Losing a close fought match (as long as I you win one now and then) is far more fun that winning (and losing) facerolls.

 

I PUG a lot so I'm looking forward to ranked WZ for PUGs. Obviously this is down the road quite a bit as we have not even seen preseason.

I miss these threads, this takes me back to another game, go on Mr. H.W. take a guess

It is unreasonable and unfair to rate a players skill on factors he has no control upon. -> forced random team members.

 

I, myself, enjoy small scale pvp. Best you, me and others can hope for is smaller teams, ie: Arena.

 

They don't even need to make new maps , just remove the WZ objectives and let 4v4 Arena start. Replace health /expertise buffs with see invisible that appear after 5 minutes of the game, similar to wow.

 

(and i say remove objectives from WZ on small teams, because objective play class balance will break under small team constriction )

 

I love you!

 

ARENAs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!