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

chaosmadness's Avatar


chaosmadness
07.22.2013 , 03:34 AM | #5211
Quote: Originally Posted by XyriusSES View Post
Is this thread serious? Lmao
yep, lol
you know, MMO's players need complaining about something.

but for the haters the problem gonna be minimized in 2.4 with the introduction of the 4VS4 Warzone Arenas.

Helig's Avatar


Helig
07.22.2013 , 06:37 AM | #5212
Quote: Originally Posted by chaosmadness View Post
yep, lol
you know, MMO's players need complaining about something.

but for the haters the problem gonna be minimized in 2.4 with the introduction of the 4VS4 Warzone Arenas.
"Dogs go woof, cows go moo, MMO players complain". Not the accurate quote, but that's how it goes.
"I'm not *giving* him cake, I'm *assaulting* him with cake!" - Pinkamena Diane Pie

AlrikFassbauer's Avatar


AlrikFassbauer
07.22.2013 , 07:06 AM | #5213
Quote: Originally Posted by XyriusSES View Post
Is this thread serious? Lmao
Sounds as if you were premading all of the time

"Profiteers of a certain system will always defend it or laugh at those who are against it."
I'm a bad player.
I have no good reputation.
I never will.
Only bad reputation.

Jadescythe's Avatar


Jadescythe
07.22.2013 , 07:58 AM | #5214
Quote: Originally Posted by otherworlder View Post
In fairness though, as I myself pointed out a bit earlier, he does have a point.

Matchmaking is better than no matchmaking, absolutely. I'll take it over nothing at all, but that's not the point.

Why is it flawed and basically still a retention of the status quo? Because if you match up 2 teams of equally skilled players where one team has 4 people with an optimal comp, experience playing together, voice chat, etc and the other team's comp is entirely random and they have no such edge... the advantage still lies with the premade for obvious reasons. Simple math. Equal skill across the board, but one team has additional advantages.

It's an argument for allowing premades to retain their inherent advantages over pugs, except that the inevitable losses will be less lop-sided.

I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm arguing because I don't want to see BW think matchmaking is the solution to premade vs. pug, put resources into it that could have been put into something MUCH easier and less resource intensive (solo only toggle) or something much more desired if long-term (X-server) only to have us end up right back in the same place with the same player complaints.

Matchmaking is a GREAT thing for MMO pvp to have, but it's not an answer to premade vs. pug.

Letting casual, solo pvpers queue the way they want will allow us to retain more casuals and attract many back. Then the population gets bigger, and other options become available for pvp balance management.
The issue with your solo queue (or toggle) is that it fails to help skilled solo queuers and casual groups. Basically, as a solo queuer, I'm still going to have the possibility of having absolutely horrible players on my team and we'll still get absolutely destroyed by better players. Teams are still random and you'll still have team comp issues. In fact, you'll probably have far more team comp issues since the tanks and healers will mostly be queued with groups. Any 1 tank or healer in solo queue could easily ruin games.

Casual groups have also not been helped. They will still have to face ranked caliber teams in group queue simply to play with friends. Top tier teams will also have the possibility of getting matched with casual teams that can't compete with their competition. Essentially, a solo queue doesn't help the more skilled players at all and hurts casual groups. The only group even moderately aided by this solution is low-moderate skilled PUGs that won't see as many of the better players who primarily group.

Most of those legitimately arguing for matchmaking aren't against solo queue entirely, but understand that the population is not high enough without cross server to support both solo queue and matchmaking at the same time. Matchmaking is just a solution that helps far more people than solo queue as I outlined above.
I have opinions and stuff

You could get free stuff with my referral link here

Doomsdaycomes's Avatar


Doomsdaycomes
07.22.2013 , 11:34 AM | #5215
Quote: Originally Posted by otherworlder View Post
In fairness though, as I myself pointed out a bit earlier, he does have a point.

Matchmaking is better than no matchmaking, absolutely. I'll take it over nothing at all, but that's not the point.

Why is it flawed and basically still a retention of the status quo? Because if you match up 2 teams of equally skilled players where one team has 4 people with an optimal comp, experience playing together, voice chat, etc and the other team's comp is entirely random and they have no such edge... the advantage still lies with the premade for obvious reasons. Simple math. Equal skill across the board, but one team has additional advantages.

It's an argument for allowing premades to retain their inherent advantages over pugs, except that the inevitable losses will be less lop-sided.
Two things here:

Voice chat is the only advantage a Group can have but a PuG can not (reasonably). It also happens to be the one thing Bioware has no control over, except to provide in-game voice chat. -Every- other group "advantage" has been de-mystified as not only present in PuG's, but also not inherent in grouping. The only "advantage" is a argument about probabilities. Groups have a higher -probability- of being 2-4 people of like mind, skilled, geared, and be of proper composition.

Secondly, you are using the weakest form of matchmaking in an attempt to discredit it. Lemme purple this cause it's the most important bit of this post:

Matchmaking is a generalized term. Players here have suggested a skill based matchmaking, some have said a win/lose ratio, others have complex formulas and some (myself) have even suggested that queue type be part of the criteria. There has also been discussion of a "group" rating buff given to groups that form, that artificially inflates it's spot on the hierarchy to reflect the higher probability of advantages (such as composition). Matchmaking can be based on all of these things, and will also "decay" in criteria as the queue time takes longer.

In your described example, you are only using a pure skill-based criteria it seems. I personally think only one criteria is a mistake. If there was either a win/loss ratio added or a group rating buff mechanic the 4 pugs that are evening out the 4-premade would actually be of "higher skill" to counter act the "group advantage."

Unfortunately, this conversation is slowed down because some won't let go of the flawed, inflexible split queue. They should instead argue that queue type needs to be included as part of the match makings top tier criteria. In a sense, matchmaking could be a "queue split" while still remaining flexible enough not to completely **** over causal and non-casual groups.



Quote: Originally Posted by otherworlder View Post
I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm arguing because I don't want to see BW think matchmaking is the solution to premade vs. pug, put resources into it that could have been put into something MUCH easier and less resource intensive (solo only toggle) or something much more desired if long-term (X-server) only to have us end up right back in the same place with the same player complaints.

Matchmaking is a GREAT thing for MMO pvp to have, but it's not an answer to premade vs. pug.
This argument does not hold water. Simple doesn't mean better, and Bioware's execution of a good idea (as shown by bolster which is a good idea, but badly executed) isn't enough to say we should do a simplier, BAD idea instead. A bad idea is a bad idea.

Quote: Originally Posted by otherworlder View Post
Letting casual, solo pvpers queue the way they want will allow us to retain more casuals and attract many back. Then the population gets bigger, and other options become available for pvp balance management.
Why is it in the Red part, you make sure to state casual, solo but in the Yellow part you only say " retain more casuals?"

There is a difference between casual, non-casual, solo, grouped, and even non-competitive and competitive players. From your distinction in the first part, me thinks you understand and acknowledge the split queue's only helps casual solo'ers (and perhaps even more specifically casual, competitive solo'ers).

I only stop to wonder if the last part where you leave out this distinction is ignorance, poorly thought out, or intentional deception.

Either way, split queue's only helps a certain part of the population, at the expense (and possible subs) of multiple other parts. Jade summed it up nicely.

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

Edit: adding a response to this second post.

Quote: Originally Posted by otherworlder View Post
Also, as I pointed out earlier in rebuttal, your links about Rift complaints come mostly from Premades stung by their increased queue times and the usual Pugger complaints that will happen no matter what steps are taken in any direction (lopsided matches and bad comps will happen even in the best of cases).
You missed that it is -exactly- my point. No matter what, there are players who will blame everything under the sun for why they lose (or lose badly). The split queue solution (as implemented by Rift) didn't make these people stop losing, it only made them complain about something else.

The worse part is -every single- negative thing predicted for the group queue in this thread is being complained about over there. From my understanding Rift is not a publicly traded company, so they don't have to publish their subscriber numbers meaning we can't really see if they've suffered population wise from this (though I did find indication most of their servers sit at medium population constantly). As they haven't trumpeted their wonderful success, I'm going to guess this idea wasn't Sky Daddy's gift to PvP.

Matchmaking on the other hand, has a multi-genre history of success.
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.

otherworlder's Avatar


otherworlder
07.22.2013 , 12:07 PM | #5216
Quote: Originally Posted by Doomsdaycomes View Post
Two things here:

Voice chat is the only advantage a Group can have but a PuG can not (reasonably). It also happens to be the one thing Bioware has no control over, except to provide in-game voice chat. -Every- other group "advantage" has been de-mystified as not only present in PuG's, but also not inherent in grouping. The only "advantage" is a argument about probabilities. Groups have a higher -probability- of being 2-4 people of like mind, skilled, geared, and be of proper composition.

Secondly, you are using the weakest form of matchmaking in an attempt to discredit it. Lemme purple this cause it's the most important bit of this post:

Matchmaking is a generalized term. Players here have suggested a skill based matchmaking, some have said a win/lose ratio, others have complex formulas and some (myself) have even suggested that queue type be part of the criteria. There has also been discussion of a "group" rating buff given to groups that form, that artificially inflates it's spot on the hierarchy to reflect the higher probability of advantages (such as composition). Matchmaking can be based on all of these things, and will also "decay" in criteria as the queue time takes longer.

In your described example, you are only using a pure skill-based criteria it seems. I personally think only one criteria is a mistake. If there was either a win/loss ratio added or a group rating buff mechanic the 4 pugs that are evening out the 4-premade would actually be of "higher skill" to counter act the "group advantage."

Unfortunately, this conversation is slowed down because some won't let go of the flawed, inflexible split queue. They should instead argue that queue type needs to be included as part of the match makings top tier criteria. In a sense, matchmaking could be a "queue split" while still remaining flexible enough not to completely **** over causal and non-casual groups.





This argument does not hold water. Simple doesn't mean better, and Bioware's execution of a good idea (as shown by bolster which is a good idea, but badly executed) isn't enough to say we should do a simplier, BAD idea instead. A bad idea is a bad idea.



Why is it in the Red part, you make sure to state casual, solo but in the Yellow part you only say " retain more casuals?"

There is a difference between casual, non-casual, solo, grouped, and even non-competitive and competitive players. From your distinction in the first part, me thinks you understand and acknowledge the split queue's only helps casual solo'ers (and perhaps even more specifically casual, competitive solo'ers).

I only stop to wonder if the last part where you leave out this distinction is ignorance, poorly thought out, or intentional deception.

Either way, split queue's only helps a certain part of the population, at the expense (and possible subs) of multiple other parts. Jade summed it up nicely.
Despite my politeness you're starting to get a bit snarky and accusatory again, so this might be my last post in here for awhile. Some folks are okay with it in an intelligent debate, but to me it's wearying. I apologize if this observation offends. In any case:

The probable complexity you describe in your purple section is... let's just say it, BW would not be able to handle that. We're in eternal preseason and there still hasn't even been mention of any kind of ELO system, ranked matchmaking, etc; BW manages to constantly introduce new bolster bugs while failing to fix the concept; age-old issues like the backfill bug continue to pop up with sad regularity; and in the WZ queue 3 healers are put on one team while none are put on the other.

What you're describing is as likely to be within BW's capabilities as a preschooler doing calculus.

Simple in this case may not be perfect, but it's better than another monstrously complex undertaking likely to fall on its face by the time it hit live. And in this case, the simple solution might yield immediate dividends (good word of mouth, upsurge in the number of casuals / soloers pvping and subbing again) while the far more complex matchmaking may yield no results at all unless a premade team is not around.

Also, you only attempted to address one of my arguments against the lopsided matchmaking example. Voice chat is an advantage, but so is experience working with your teammates, and most importantly: the ability to set up an optimal comp in advance, which most competitive premades will do. Unless you're suggesting that this theoretical matchmaker should also sort puggers by roles, but I'd submit that would hurt queue times far more than any other option so far put forth.

Your later passage about the distinction you think I'm implying between casuals/solo vs casuals honestly just confuses me. I figured it was common sense that I was talking about casual and solo pvpers in general: the majority who generally queue alone, generally don't enjoy playing against a stacked deck, and are the most likely not to continue playing if they aren't having fun. Those most likely to profit from a solo queue, and those most likely to be hurt by the lack of one.

Your tone is obviously hostile and trying to paint me as mincing my words, but the point you're trying to make beyond that isn't at all clear to me. Apologies.

otherworlder's Avatar


otherworlder
07.22.2013 , 12:16 PM | #5217
Quote: Originally Posted by Jadescythe View Post
The issue with your solo queue (or toggle) is that it fails to help skilled solo queuers and casual groups. Basically, as a solo queuer, I'm still going to have the possibility of having absolutely horrible players on my team and we'll still get absolutely destroyed by better players. Teams are still random and you'll still have team comp issues. In fact, you'll probably have far more team comp issues since the tanks and healers will mostly be queued with groups. Any 1 tank or healer in solo queue could easily ruin games.

Casual groups have also not been helped. They will still have to face ranked caliber teams in group queue simply to play with friends. Top tier teams will also have the possibility of getting matched with casual teams that can't compete with their competition. Essentially, a solo queue doesn't help the more skilled players at all and hurts casual groups. The only group even moderately aided by this solution is low-moderate skilled PUGs that won't see as many of the better players who primarily group.

Most of those legitimately arguing for matchmaking aren't against solo queue entirely, but understand that the population is not high enough without cross server to support both solo queue and matchmaking at the same time. Matchmaking is just a solution that helps far more people than solo queue as I outlined above.
I don't disagree that separate queues will still end up with lopsided matches, that's common sense. But your odds of a lopsided match when all players (good and bad and average) are shuffled randomly is a lot lower than if the pugs are queueing against premades for hours at a time.

Ideally, via good word of mouth about the addition of a solo queue/toggle, more casual pvpers would stick around, come back or try TOR out and the population would grow enough for a matchmaker to be of use in all brackets/ formats.

Matchmaking helps servers with already healthy populations find more balanced pug v pug and premade v premade matches, but does nothing to eliminate the advantages of premade vs pug unless you successfully build a fabulously complex and clockwork-perfect set of criterion-----which simply will not happen.

Come on guys, this is BW. Theorycrafting is one thing, but we need a simple solution so they won't bungle it.

A solo queue is something casual pvpers and solo pvpers really, really want. They are a large population. Give a large population what they're asking for, and the game gets healthier. More PvP for everyone.

Jadescythe's Avatar


Jadescythe
07.22.2013 , 12:21 PM | #5218
Quote: Originally Posted by otherworlder View Post
Also, you only attempted to address one of my arguments against the lopsided matchmaking example. Voice chat is an advantage, but so is experience working with your teammates, and most importantly: the ability to set up an optimal comp in advance, which most competitive premades will do. Unless you're suggesting that this theoretical matchmaker should also sort puggers by roles, but I'd submit that would hurt queue times far more than any other option so far put forth.

Your later passage about the distinction you think I'm implying between casuals/solo vs casuals honestly just confuses me. I figured it was common sense that I was talking about casual and solo pvpers in general: the majority who generally queue alone, generally don't enjoy playing against a stacked deck, and are the most likely not to continue playing if they aren't having fun. Those most likely to profit from a solo queue, and those most likely to be hurt by the lack of one.
Your points were addressed. Team comp will continue being a problem in solo queue. All you've done is make it less likely. It also hasn't solved the team comp in group queue as casual premades aren't focused on what classes they are bringing, just that they have friends. So I fail to see how solo queue resolves this issue. Outside of a role toggle, this will never be fixed and that would decimate queue times and suffer all the shortcomings of group finder.

The distinction in who benefits from a solution is key. There are multiple types of people who both group and queue solo. Solo queue only benefits the casual solo queuer to some extent and no one else. Competitive groups still play with/against casual groups. Casual groups still play with/against competitive groups. Competitive solo queuers still play with/against casual solo queuers. Casual solo queuers still play with/against competitive solo queuers.

The only benefit is that casual solo queuers don't see competitive premades. They won't see casual premades either, but that isn't really a problem right now anyway and only prolongs their queue time.

If your only argument is that you don't think BW can implement a successful matchmaking system, then you may consider moving on to a different game. If you don't trust the devs to improve your experience, then the game will never get better for you.
I have opinions and stuff

You could get free stuff with my referral link here

Vaerah's Avatar


Vaerah
07.22.2013 , 12:34 PM | #5219
Quote: Originally Posted by Doomsdaycomes View Post
Two things here:

Voice chat is the only advantage a Group can have but a PuG can not (reasonably). It also happens to be the one thing Bioware has no control over, except to provide in-game voice chat. -Every- other group "advantage" has been de-mystified as not only present in PuG's, but also not inherent in grouping. The only "advantage" is a argument about probabilities. Groups have a higher -probability- of being 2-4 people of like mind, skilled, geared, and be of proper composition.
While I am not against match making (in fact some pages ago I posted my own implementation idea) I don't agree with your constant minimizing of premades advantages.
Before SWTOR I have played in top PvE and PvP guilds for many years, always steamrolling PUGs with absolutely no chance for them and most of the time we did not even need voice chat.
What matters is that as premaders you quickly:

- learn the game and all the tricks
- get the best gear (PUGs indeed have access to these too but months later, they get rolled over for months before they get those perks).
- tested group composition
- most of all, you play with guys whose actions and reactions you know like your own. I WILL know that the tank tends to do this and not that, that the healer is a proactive one or a reactive one and so on. This is something that premaders get in weeks of heavy play time together and it may easily determine even the outcome of premade vs premade: the team whose members know each other best will probably win, even if they are less good than the opponent.

Now find me how a casual / pugger can do this. At best they can play fairly often (in a casual player sense: 1 hour a day possibly not all days) with some friends, but it's not the same thing.
Vaerah Shadow | Aykis Sentinel | Vaerah Vahrokha Sage | Arayah Vanguard | Kainessa Gunslinger | TRE server.
Vaerahn Sorceress | Vaerahm | Anthotyl Marauders | TRE server.

Doomsdaycomes's Avatar


Doomsdaycomes
07.22.2013 , 12:46 PM | #5220
Quote: Originally Posted by otherworlder View Post
Despite my politeness you're starting to get a bit snarky and accusatory again, so this might be my last post in here for awhile. Some folks are okay with it in an intelligent debate, but to me it's wearying. I apologize if this observation offends.
No offense taken. The way I write is often seen as snarky. Generally it's either poor word choice on my end or poor reading on the other end. If you are confident in your reading ability, please assume it's my poor choice of words. Either way, let us continue.

Quote: Originally Posted by otherworlder View Post
In any case:

The probable complexity you describe in your purple section is... let's just say it, BW would not be able to handle that. We're in eternal preseason and there still hasn't even been mention of any kind of ELO system, ranked matchmaking, etc; BW manages to constantly introduce new bolster bugs while failing to fix the concept; age-old issues like the backfill bug continue to pop up with sad regularity; and in the WZ queue 3 healers are put on one team while none are put on the other.
I unfortunately find this irrelevant simply because we can not determine what the Dev's are or aren't capable of. It is just as likely their attempt at the solo-only toggle (or split queues) to wind up with bugs and fatal errors. For awhile there Ranked warzones bugged and wouldn't pop even when I know there were 2 8-man's trying to fight each other.. I think we can both agree though that much of Bioware's previous work has been lacking. We can't however, predict what is/isn't possible for them, or the bugs that may arise. We can only debate what is the best idea.

Quote: Originally Posted by otherworlder View Post
Simple in this case may not be perfect, but it's better than another monstrously complex undertaking likely to fall on its face by the time it hit live. And in this case, the simple solution might yield immediate dividends (good word of mouth, upsurge in the number of casuals / soloers pvping and subbing again) while the far more complex matchmaking may yield no results at all unless a premade team is not around.
I honestly do not think bioware can afford any half measures.

While a "simple solution" -might- bring some more players back, it could just as easily lose a number of players (at a much faster rate). While groups may technically be a minority (still waiting for the actual evidence on that) I don't think we're talking less than 20% of the population base. Placing in a very biased solution isn't going to keep them around, and the negative "word of mouth" is just as likely as the "good word of mouth." Other than "simply not working" Matchmaking has no negatives that aren't already present in the current situation, while the simple fix has several negatives.

We'd be gambling really, and the stakes are not in our favor.

Quote: Originally Posted by otherworlder View Post
Also, you only attempted to address one of my arguments against the lopsided matchmaking example. Voice chat is an advantage, but so is experience working with your teammates, and most importantly: the ability to set up an optimal comp in advance, which most competitive premades will do. Unless you're suggesting that this theoretical matchmaker should also sort puggers by roles, but I'd submit that would hurt queue times far more than any other option so far put forth.
I stated that every advantage other than voice chat has been debated and revealed to be:

a. Not excluded from a PuG
b. Not guaranteed in a Group.

The "advantage" most claim a Group to have is a "Higher probability to have X" rather than an inherent advantage.

I have highlighted in Orange your use of the words "Competitive Premade" for a reason though. I agree, a competitive premade is most likely to have all of these traits. This does not account for the rest of the 2-4 man groups who will be effected by the split queue and have a much lower chance to have the "group advantage."

Finally, even if the "group advantage" exists, it can be addressed in the form of weighting, rating buffs, etc... Essentially putting Randoms of higher "true skill rating" vs a Group of "skill rating+group buff" to a point they even out.

Quote: Originally Posted by otherworlder View Post
Your later passage about the distinction you think I'm implying between casuals/solo vs casuals honestly just confuses me. I figured it was common sense that I was talking about casual and solo pvpers in general: the majority who generally queue alone, generally don't enjoy playing against a stacked deck, and are the most likely not to continue playing if they aren't having fun. Those most likely to profit from a solo queue, and those most likely to be hurt by the lack of one.

Your tone is obviously hostile and trying to paint me as mincing my words, but the point you're trying to make beyond that isn't at all clear to me. Apologies.
I suppose "intentional deception" was probably a poor word choice. I wondered why you made the distinction that split queue's would allow the casual PuG to play as they like, but later said this would bring more casuals (general term). Casuals include groups and PuGs, and split queue's actually hurt 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.