Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Premades are ruining non-ranked warzones

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > PvP
Premades are ruining non-ranked warzones

MiaRB's Avatar


MiaRB
11.29.2012 , 07:33 PM | #1391
Quote: Originally Posted by Pvtcarnage View Post
[/COLOR]
But I'm out of time for now, If you wish the long version let me know and I'll spend my lunch time tomorow just for U
lol.

common sense is a beautiful thing as well. i dont know about you, but when someone makes a thread about premades ruining WZs, the first thing that comes into my mind isnt... "oh, that guy must be talking about 4 friends in recruit gear queing together!! how dare he!!! time for me to school him that all premades are not equal".

whats the problem with splitting up the ques? complex match making systems are nice but they are never perfect and always seem to be exploitable. splitting ques into solo and groups is simple and harder to exploit and something BW could implemet next week. having seperate solo/group ques plus a match making system is even better.

why against solo only and group only WZs? because you are worried most people will solo que? personally, i would rather have a longer que when grouped and end up in more competetive WZs than have shorter ques where my side stomps the others side 4/5 times. same thing for the times i just que solo.
can't wait for this game to come out!

Doomsdaycomes's Avatar


Doomsdaycomes
11.29.2012 , 07:38 PM | #1392
Quote: Originally Posted by CommanderKeeva View Post
I'm not against common sense, but as long as you have a "queue solo" option it should be just as viable a means to win as the "queue group" one. Otherwise if it's pointless to queue anyway as solo because you inevitably end up losing horribly to premades, why even include it in the first place? To provide fresh meat for the premades to slaughter? No that doesn't make sense. Giving someone an option that turns out isn't really an option after all?
No, it's a viable option to -play.-

The solo function provides a vital service. Those who don't have friends on can still play. Those who don't have a spot in the guild at the moment can still play. Those that just want a quick match or are feeling anti-social today can play. That is all the solo queue option is designed to do... allow people to -play- when (or if they don't want a group) they have no group.

Solo also servers for filling and backfilling.

Your character has the option to get naked, does it not? Yet do you believe playing without armor should be as viable to win as someone wearing their gear?

The game allows you to choose how you apply your talent points, but if you choose a 11/20/10 (fyi, a build that is just terrible) should it be as viable to win as the standard 31//10 builds?


The problem I feel people have, is the false assumption solo-centric is a viable playstyle (for winning), or that it should be. It isn't, it's the complete opposite of a "multiplayer" game. The option exists to not exclude the player who doesn't have a group, not because it should be a viable winning strategy.

Doomsdaycomes's Avatar


Doomsdaycomes
11.29.2012 , 07:39 PM | #1393
Quote: Originally Posted by foxmob View Post
tried really hard not to post any replies in this thread anymore, but I made the first mistake of continuing to read and couldn't resist this OT comment: this also validates the argument for taking two teams into rated and just forfeiting if you don't get the team you want to face. you don't get brownie points for getting spawn camped. drop Q. eat a loss on your record. re-Q. move on. other team gets stuck in empty wz? yeah. that sucks. enjoy they still get their victory with the maximum speed (3-cap, 6 goals, fastest possible vstar). my undergeared team being there isn't going to change that outcome (or speed it up). why wouldn't I just forfeit and move on? there's no chance of victory or even a competitive match. there is no honor in pvp. you stick to your own codes, good for you. don't expect that others will too. they will not. hardest lesson I had to learn.
One is an abuse of the system,

One is working within the system.

Hopefully you can figure out which one.

(=P and if you didn't see it, I apologize for my rudeness in our last exchange.)

Doomsdaycomes's Avatar


Doomsdaycomes
11.29.2012 , 07:51 PM | #1394
Quote: Originally Posted by MiaRB View Post

whats the problem with splitting up the ques? complex match making systems are nice but they are never perfect and always seem to be exploitable. splitting ques into solo and groups is simple and harder to exploit and something BW could implemet next week. having seperate solo/group ques plus a match making system is even better.
^_^ Hi there. Lemme just put out a little list.

1. No filling for partial premades if there isn't a solo pool to draw from.
2. No backfilling for groups.
3. Highest potential for players unable to play. (If you need 16, then 15 solo and 15 (or 12 more likely) group players (total 30) can be sitting around indefinitely.
4. They do not target root problems:
>a. Gear gap
>b. Skill difference
>c. Faction Imbalance
>d. Class Imbalance/Composition.
5. Possibility to raise queue times.

The following portion of the list are more moral (for lack of a better word) issues:

6. Discourages Community building.
7. Discourages players from improving,
8. Rewards mediocrity.

Now, I'm not saying the last 3 points do not happen in the current system, but they would be better addressed in a matchmaking system (with cross server pools) than they would in split queue system (even with cross server.)

foxmob's Avatar


foxmob
11.29.2012 , 08:05 PM | #1395
Quote: Originally Posted by Doomsdaycomes View Post
One is an abuse of the system,

One is working within the system.

Hopefully you can figure out which one.

(=P and if you didn't see it, I apologize for my rudeness in our last exchange.)
they're both playing within the system. the system allows you to decline a queue and take a loss. just because you don't like something doesn't make it "illegal" or against the rules. you don't like it. that's nice. I do. that's nice too. talk all you want about how wrong it is and how it should be changed. it is what it is. and while it is within the rules, it will be...within the rules. that's why it's called "within the rules" deal with it.
A legacy of meh
Krackerjšck/Krackerjak (VG/PT) | Krackerjack/Deinon (Mando/Merc) | Dežnon (Jugg) | other stuffs
Quote: Originally Posted by Jadescythe View Post
TL;DR Bolster is meant to help entry level players, ranked PvP is not entry level PvP.

ovill's Avatar


ovill
11.29.2012 , 08:07 PM | #1396
Problem here and politics is that no one looks at the issue from the other's point of view. Why doesn't Bioware allow solo q's for ranked Warzones? They don't because they felt that pug groups would get steam rolled by good premades, which is exactly what is going on now in non-ranked warzones. However, it is not the premades fault per say:

1- A decent premade (pvp guild) will be composed of players that know how to play the game-they know the objectives and the strategies. Many pug players are just trying pvp for the first time as can be seen by the occasional sub lvl50 pve gear.

2- Members in a decent premade will be well geared, especially if they play ranked warzone- since gearing up to War Hero is actually faster in ranked games. ( I puged a ranked warzone once- the other team reached the final objective in the voistar with 3 minutes to spare and they stopped us at the first door- I ended up with ~50 ranked warzone comms) a similar loss in a regular warzone would net me around 50 regular warzone comms (with the 3:1 conversion I would rather get beat bad in a ranked than equally bad in a non-ranked).

3- Even if the decent premades did NOT have a voip (which in imo, violates biowares policy on using third party software for an edge in the game) , based on 1 and 2 above they will still steam roll a pug team made up of one or two War Hero's with a bunch of new/casual pvp players.

Not every premade is good, and not every pug is bad and needs to L2P. Late at night I happen to join a pug group that was made up entirely of war hero's and we beat a team made up of two 4 man premades from decent->good pvp guilds.

However, most of the time the good pugs are at a disadvantage because they are grouped with less skilled players. I have seen groups of two from pvp guild dropping because they did not land with their other group of 2 or 4. Some people like to stomp weaker people and pretending it doesn't happen is just naive (there is even a word for it "Bully"). I see teasing on the pvp chat all the time.

Solution: Allow the good pugs (based on gear or valor) to q- for ranked warzones. This way the new and casuals (with lvl 47 greens) know not to go into ranked unless they want a royal stomping, and the good pugs that for whatever reason don't want to join a pvp guild can play with equally skilled and geared players against premades or other equally geared pugs. Those that have premades will have shorter q-times and will actually get some competition. Then there would be no excuse for those that are really just Bully's preying on raw recruits to boost their egos.


Harbinger
Sharpshooter: Valor 77
Shield Tech Powertech: Valor 56

MiaRB's Avatar


MiaRB
11.29.2012 , 08:15 PM | #1397
Quote: Originally Posted by Doomsdaycomes View Post
^_^ Hi there. Lemme just put out a little list.

1. No filling for partial premades if there isn't a solo pool to draw from.
2. No backfilling for groups.
3. Highest potential for players unable to play. (If you need 16, then 15 solo and 15 (or 12 more likely) group players (total 30) can be sitting around indefinitely.
4. They do not target root problems:
>a. Gear gap
>b. Skill difference
>c. Faction Imbalance
>d. Class Imbalance/Composition.
5. Possibility to raise queue times.

The following portion of the list are more moral (for lack of a better word) issues:

6. Discourages Community building.
7. Discourages players from improving,
8. Rewards mediocrity.

Now, I'm not saying the last 3 points do not happen in the current system, but they would be better addressed in a matchmaking system (with cross server pools) than they would in split queue system (even with cross server.)
fair point about backfilling.

#4 has nothing to do with solo vs group ques. those are just the normal problems/issues that happen in pretty much every MMO that has PVP.

#5 yes, group ques would be a bit longer. but as i said, i would rather have a little longer wait if it means more competetive WZs.

#6 the current system isnt building much of a community. just look at this thread and threads like it. also, plenty of people who like to PVP but are not in PVP guilds.

#7 players dont improve when they get steamrolled over and over by "pro" premades in normals. they just die, respawn, die, respawn, die...

#8 kind of an elitist point of view. this is a game and dif people play for dif reasons. what is fun for me might not be whats fun for someone else. nothing wrong with people who may only want some casual none organized PVP that comes with pug vs pug. WZs shouldnt be reserved only for the super competetive players. and really shouldnt be about, "either become great and form a great team or get streamrolled constantly."

choice is better than no choice. if i want to play group vs group WZs i should have that option. if someone else wants to play pug vs pug WZs, they should have that option as well.
can't wait for this game to come out!

Doomsdaycomes's Avatar


Doomsdaycomes
11.29.2012 , 08:22 PM | #1398
Quote: Originally Posted by foxmob View Post
they're both playing within the system. the system allows you to decline a queue and take a loss. just because you don't like something doesn't make it "illegal" or against the rules. you don't like it. that's nice. I do. that's nice too. talk all you want about how wrong it is and how it should be changed. it is what it is. and while it is within the rules, it will be...within the rules. that's why it's called "within the rules" deal with it.
System is designed:

8 people on queue up.
The next 8 people queue.
The warzone begins, team 1 fighting team 2.

Exploit:

8 people queue up.
Next 8 people queue up with a third 8 man.
Team 2 asks Team 3 if they got a pop.
Team 3 says no.
Team 2 ignores the pop and requeue's.
Team 2 asks if Team 3 got a pop.
Team 3 says yes.
Both teams take it.

It is the intent that makes it an exploit. There are legitmate reasons to decline a pop (team actually wasn't ready, team decided it wants to do an Op instead... team forgot it was queue'd for ranked.) Declining the pop not to fight against Team 1 is an exploit then.

Foxy, you can try to excuse the behavior any way you like, but it is an abuse of the system. It is just as much an abuse as trying to get 8 players in a normal wz... and do you not find that distasteful?

DarthRaika's Avatar


DarthRaika
11.29.2012 , 08:25 PM | #1399
Uglymrj,

You have made several comments about why not stack the odds in your favor.

I am going to assume that you are a good player who would do well in higher skillcap mmos on any class.

Assuming this is the case then the answer to those responses would be fun! It is boring as hell to easily roll weaker opponents when you know you can have a challenge with stronger opponents. That is why I want premade matching or even solo q if they do cross server.

This is not real life. In real life I have taken whatever route necessary to get ahead. I didn't go to a great school and get great grades and do great research and get a great job and change when my position felt stagnant/etc. because it was fun. I did it because that is what you need to do to be comfortable in life.

However, this is a game. This is for fun. Getting a few more comms isn't fun. You don't need a few more comms to retire early (you shouldn't want to retire from a game early anyway lol). Good players usually play whatever they do for challenge and fun. The current system provides zero challenge most of the time to good premaders. That is the main reason I mainly pug and will continue to do so until they add premade matching. That is the main reason I want a solo q option or premade matching. Also, a secondary, and obvious reason is that I want the game to thrive because I want to keep playing it and for it to have a lot of development money.

Doomsdaycomes's Avatar


Doomsdaycomes
11.29.2012 , 09:12 PM | #1400
Quote: Originally Posted by MiaRB View Post
fair point about backfilling.

#4 has nothing to do with solo vs group ques. those are just the normal problems/issues that happen in pretty much every MMO that has PVP.

#5 yes, group ques would be a bit longer. but as i said, i would rather have a little longer wait if it means more competetive WZs.

#6 the current system isnt building much of a community. just look at this thread and threads like it. also, plenty of people who like to PVP but are not in PVP guilds.

#7 players dont improve when they get steamrolled over and over by "pro" premades in normals. they just die, respawn, die, respawn, die...

#8 kind of an elitist point of view. this is a game and dif people play for dif reasons. what is fun for me might not be whats fun for someone else. nothing wrong with people who may only want some casual none organized PVP that comes with pug vs pug. WZs shouldnt be reserved only for the super competetive players. and really shouldnt be about, "either become great and form a great team or get streamrolled constantly."

choice is better than no choice. if i want to play group vs group WZs i should have that option. if someone else wants to play pug vs pug WZs, they should have that option as well.
Allow me to clarify:

4. I meant that split queue doesn't address root issues, where as matchmaking on a criteria would, or would better address them. If matchmaking is based on gear or highest gear average, it eliminates gear issues, if it's off some personal win/lose ratio, then it should help match skill levels, etc...

5. I'm not sure how many would agree, but I respect your opinion.

For points 6-8, I believe I mentioned that the current system doesn't offer those either. My argument isn't for the continuation of the current system, it's against the split queue idea in favor of the matchmaking idea.

6: Agreed, current system doesn't help this much, though it does prompt people to group in hopes of not being stomped.

7. They will not improve then, if getting stomped by a PuG on the "better geared" side. Matchmaking would balance this as much as possible, putting gradually more challenging opponents based on a criteria, while solo-only bracket has no safeguards against this.

8. I do tend to come off as elitist, but we are talking about competition and rewards. A PuG only bracket is by default, less competitive than a Premade only bracket (and yes, in the current system when it's a double premade vs. a full pug, it's even less competitive than PuG vs. PuG.) If the goal is to make a casual "option" than that option shouldn't have a reward, because all they really want (imo) is a pick up game. No one advocating split queue's has agreed to a no reward (or less reward) bracket that I'm aware of.