non-competitive, solo-only bracket, with no rewards.

 

i would consider that ok.

WoW had a rewardless Arena practice bracket. Maybe teams should have the opportunity to stop practising on PuGs and start going at eachother, without the fear of losing rank?

non-competitive, solo-only bracket, with no rewards.

 

i would consider that ok.

Who would play that?

I'd be okay if solo-queue rewards were the same as the rewards now.

Mixed queue rewards should get an increase (50% or so)

Ranked rewards are fine.

Everyone wins.

EDIT: Throw in practice WZ for good measure. It might boost the confidence of some teams and enable them to play Ranked.

non-competitive, solo-only bracket, with no rewards.

 

i would consider that ok.

why no rewards? pvp gear is essentially free anyway. you don't have to actually win...even to obtain the top of the line gear. how about keeping the rewards system as is:

• 1/3rd for solo only (not sure why you define this as easier in the first place. it's simply random teams, i.e., egalitarian)
  
• 1/3rd for regs of mixed grps (more lopsided matches, but still no skill barrier/rating system)
  
• 3/3 for rated (rating matters in matchmaking, brutally unforgiving matches, highly competitive)
  

.

it sounds to me like you want to punish players for taking the solo route? no. just...no. that would make infinitely more sense if you were talking about two separate queues sorted by skill/rating, but solo-only does no such thing.

WoW had a rewardless Arena practice bracket. Maybe teams should have the opportunity to stop practising on PuGs and start going at eachother, without the fear of losing rank?

^ Awesome.

i *am* a casual player. i think casual and hardcore arent good defining terms anymore; competitive and non-competitive would be better imo.

 

im all for making a non-competitive bracket. but reduce the rewards/remove rewards entirely. (that whole risk/reward thing). i honestly cant see many people going for that tho.

 

the problem is, based on what ive seen/heard, is that the non-competitive players are also the ones that most want the rewards from PvP in order to get better/newer gear. which raises the question in my mind, why do you need those rewards if you dont want to compete on a higher level? (assuming that there WAS a non-competitive bracket).

 

especially now w/ bolster, where you can just get crafted gear and be very well off from a stat standpoint.

 

for those that arent interested in playing in a competitive environment, i think that would be the ideal situation.

^ i posted that and it seems nobody read it.

if you dont want to be competitive, you dont need the gear required to play in the more competitive brackets.

ps Solo RWZ queue is coming in 2.4 i believe; the devs have been hinting at it pretty heavily. so you all get your wish.

 

if you dont want to be competitive, you dont need the gear required to play in the more competitive brackets.

 

ps Solo RWZ queue is coming in 2.4 i believe; the devs have been hinting at it pretty heavily. so you all get your wish.

As long as they don't mean backfilling, which they REALLY need to enunciate before everyone expecting something good is really pissed off if it is backfilling.

I agree with Helig though, they should definitely give premades a zero-comms zero-progression regs WZ where they can, as they claim, "just practice" for ranked. Win/Win.

please don't feed trolls.

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.

Sorry Maverick, gonna have to call you on this one.

 

A highly competitive 4-man (the main issue of this thread) is not akin to a bully. They literally have no where else to play and are just as entitled to be in the general population as average joe who doesn't like them. There is no inherent malice in their queue'ing, and as stated before they have no control over the ability of their opponents.

 

 

I personally object to these "examples" (yours, Sharee's, etc...) that are highly inflammatory by using children in them. A PuG or Casual is not a child, they are adults (presumably) fully capable of defending themselves or retreating to a safe place when in a stressful situation. A child doesn't have the same mental ability, maturity, or wisdom and the effects of such trauma is long lasting, devastating, and in some cases lethal. To compare anything a Premade can do within the scope of the game to an the effects of bullying is disrespectful to the actual victims of bullying.

 

 

Finally, and this isn't directed at you though it is something you just stated:

 

People need to stop propagating this false argument:

 

 

 

Not only is the "probability" of either matchmaking or split queue's unknown, it is irrelevant. The argument boils essentially down to:

 

Split queue's are easy to implement and should be considered based on this.

 

Simple solutions that lead to complex problems are still not good solutions. I linked a few threads from the rift forum which highlighted and shows real effects of split queue's. A short highlight:

 

Long/Non-existent group queue.

Extremely long queue's for groups of 3.

Groups queue syncing as solo to get a match.

PuG's still complaining about lopsided matches

PuG's still complaining about gear/level/abilities/heals/team comp.

Given the disasters that are Bolster and RWZs, your faith in BW to design a working matchmaking system is... highly optimistic.

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).

That sucks for them, for certain, but given premades are in the minority and more happy casuals = more people pvping, I think it's a better sacrifice than continuing to allow casuals to get farmed by premades.

End goal here is more people pvping and enjoying it.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

one caveat: every solo Qer benefits -- but I think it's safe to say that solos are of a more casual nature in general (not to say there aren't a ton of casual premades, just speaking for solo pool).

I think you're operating under the assumption that if a good player does not grp, it hurts him. however, if he's a good player who Qs solo, then the fact that he could be grp'd is irrelevant. by definition, a solo Qer is solo. a solos-only-Q levels the odds for everyone in the Q. not just the "casuals."

it's a minor point because the very good players tend to run in grps anyway, but I would change your statement to "the major benefit is that solo queueres never see competitive premades."

once again, I'd like to state that, first and foremost, as a solo Qer, I want the ability to DECLINE IN-PROGRESS WZs. that's what kills me about solo Qing. I get pulled into roflstomps all the time. and it's only the solos who suffer this. if you cannot give me this option, then I'd like the option to Q on the same basis as EVERYONE ELSE in the Q (i.e., when I Q solo, I'm only up against others who also are Qing solo).

it's a minor point because the very good players tend to run in grps anyway, but I would change your statement to "the major benefit is that solo queueres never see competitive premades."

This is another statement that is not necessarily true. I used to be very good (some years ago), played 8+ hours a day and always in top premades from log in to log off.

Then life happened, now I have 1.5-2h a day tops and at random, not scheduled times. It's still the same person (well I am older so not as quick as once) but now I can't be in a top guild or even in a medium guild, because they require both longer played time and regular hours. I am sure that many other now 40-ers are in my same situation. If I could I'd indeed immediately join a group happy guild and return to the old premade glory days but I can't. I could be the best player in the world but if I have random play times it does not help me getting a group, hence the "very good players tend to run in grps anyway" statement is shallow at best.

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.

 

Now find me how a casual / pugger can do this.

 

This is a matter of skill and preparation, and is not limited by queue type.

(On a side note: If this was true, I'd be Goddess of PvP. but I actually kind of suck so... yeah.)

This is a time/effort based thing. Time/effort is not based on queue type.

This is again, a higher probability of: Not an actual inherent advantage in grouping. Considering there are 4 other random players on your team even in a full 4-man, you can still end up with a sucky comp. Again, not limited by queue type.

Alright, this one's a bit of a grey area because you mentioned personal quirks. I myself tend to hug the middle of the 2nd door on voidstar as a healer, and some of my tanks/dps know that. <.< However, some of my common opponents also know that, and it -hurts.- In theory PuG's who have played together or simply know common quirks could have the same kind of relationship. I did tell a story about me and another Operative kicking *** and taking names. Never met before, but just moved in such perfect unison you would have sworn we had. Either way, it's not something really exclusive to pre-grouping, but it is something learned from grouped play.

Purple is generally my most important point:

You said casual/solo and that's the problem. A casual is not equal to a solo player. I "minimalize" the group advantage for this reason. The problem isn't in groups vs. PuGs, it's in non-casual and/or competitive vs casual and/or non-competitive.

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 bolded one of your comments above because both you and Doom used a similar statement in attempt at rebuttal of this point.

It's sort of... conveniently naive for two people arguing hard for the most pragmatic, practical solution to suddenly rely on the notion that BW could deliver on a complex matchmaking system when all evidence points firmly to the contrary. There's nothing practical about blind, unsupported faith.

I love TOR, but you'll never catch me relying on the idea that the BW devs will figure out the Hero engine they cobbled together or that EA will decide to start putting resources into complicated ideas that don't immediately yield a bottom line.

We all know that's not likely to happen (though I'd be giddy to be proven wrong on this point), and being a realist doesn't make me less of a TOR supporter than anyone else.

Simple changes are (somewhat) within BW's ability to implement without many resources spent or possibility for game breaking bugs. Mathematically complex systems demanding a lot of resources and tons of variables are a train wreck waiting to happen.

Let people play the way they want to.