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

Doomsdaycomes's Avatar


Doomsdaycomes
06.26.2013 , 11:11 AM | #3981
Quote: Originally Posted by Catharian View Post
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.
Player Responsibility: Players have the responsibility to strive for improvement before asking for changes.
Player Accountability: Insufficient credits, lack of gear, poor reputation, and inability to compete is the price of laziness, incompetence, and/or unwillingness.

Doomsdaycomes's Avatar


Doomsdaycomes
06.26.2013 , 11:16 AM | #3982
Quote: Originally Posted by akabane_k View Post
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.
Player Responsibility: Players have the responsibility to strive for improvement before asking for changes.
Player Accountability: Insufficient credits, lack of gear, poor reputation, and inability to compete is the price of laziness, incompetence, and/or unwillingness.

TheNahash's Avatar


TheNahash
06.26.2013 , 01:08 PM | #3983
Quote: Originally Posted by Doomsdaycomes View Post
Exact same argument used by Creationists and other faux intellectualists.
I like you
Master Kalchas Captain SantÚ
Darth DÝrge Agent HÚretic

maverickmatt's Avatar


maverickmatt
06.26.2013 , 02:01 PM | #3984
Quote: Originally Posted by Doomsdaycomes View Post
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.
MavŰr´ck

"Power resides where men believe it resides. No more and no less."

Doomsdaycomes's Avatar


Doomsdaycomes
06.26.2013 , 02:13 PM | #3985
Quote: Originally Posted by maverickmatt View Post
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.
Player Responsibility: Players have the responsibility to strive for improvement before asking for changes.
Player Accountability: Insufficient credits, lack of gear, poor reputation, and inability to compete is the price of laziness, incompetence, and/or unwillingness.

Vasagi's Avatar


Vasagi
06.26.2013 , 02:37 PM | #3986
Quote: Originally Posted by Doomsdaycomes View Post
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.

Doomsdaycomes's Avatar


Doomsdaycomes
06.26.2013 , 02:47 PM | #3987
Quote: Originally Posted by Vasagi View Post
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?
Player Responsibility: Players have the responsibility to strive for improvement before asking for changes.
Player Accountability: Insufficient credits, lack of gear, poor reputation, and inability to compete is the price of laziness, incompetence, and/or unwillingness.

cashogy_reborn's Avatar


cashogy_reborn
06.26.2013 , 02:47 PM | #3988
1. make RWZ attractive/accessible to more players
2. introduce a passive matchmaking system to regs
3. ????????????
4. profit
Dany - Attomm - Dan'y - Fogel
The Original Stormborn Commando Representative
The King of Bads

Vasagi's Avatar


Vasagi
06.26.2013 , 03:06 PM | #3989
Quote: Originally Posted by Doomsdaycomes View Post
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.

Catharian's Avatar


Catharian
06.26.2013 , 03:08 PM | #3990
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?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by battlebug
can you make sword in box light sword so sword come out when opened? then if sword is back after sword, use light saber on box, and saber will be boxed after sword is out.