On a side note, it's less a skill issue than you think.

Not really getting into the rest of your conversation with Jade, but I wanted to comment on this piece.

Whether we wanna call it skill, attitude, competitive level, etc... it really is a skill-based issue. With the exception of voice-chat, every advantage used by a Premade (using the highly-competitive group definition here) is (commonly) available to a PuG group. The advantages usually listed are: Gear, Coordination, Composition, Skilled, Voice Chat.

Gear: Everyone has equal access to gear, starting from level 40.

Coordination: Players who want to coordinate, will. This includes deciding which node to take, burning down healers, etc... There is no reason besides a lack of skill (or attitude) -not- to coordinate your efforts in a team environment.

Composition: 6 of 8 classes have two possible roles, and everyone should have access to the legacy respec. (I'm looking at it right now, it's Legacy Level 5 and 200k credits. Not unrealistic at all for people to have by 55). Let's not go into the probability of getting 8 marauders or 8 snipers. Chances are, of the 8 people on your team 2 should be able to respec to heals and 1-2 tank.

The only advantage left that isn't a reflection of skill/competitive level/effort/skittles is voice chat. Sadly, there is nothing that can be done about voice chat (except to add it in game) because it is out of Bioware's sphere of influence. You can't stop voice chat from being present in a community, can't control who has it, or what it's being used for unless you specifically control the program.

I'd like to make my own point now:

I see often that you make sure that people know you (and possibly others) don't have problems with groups, it's the highly competitive premades that are the issue. Why then is the solution a blanket solution that effects all groups, if it is a very -specific- kind of group that's the issue. Isn't that kind shooting the innocent to get the "guilty?"

That is not how to think about it doom. I know that sounds logical but it is flawed.

The issue is that premades CHOOSE 50% of their team. Pugs never get to do this. That is where your logic is flawed.

Yes anyone can have the gear/etc., but when you pug you can only choose 1/8th of your team.

If you believe what you have written then you should also believe that a solo pug ranked team should be equal (except for voice comms) to a premade ranked team. That is using the same logic as you have used in your post.

The issue of whether premades have an advantage should not be debated. This is obvious. You can argue that this advantage is fine and should stay as it is to which I will disagree but you should not argue whether there is an advantage.

Remember too that if it is truly a skill issue then you should be the biggest supporter of changing the current system so that skilled vs. skilled will be more likely to happen.

That is not how to think about it doom. I know that sounds logical but it is flawed.

 

The issue is that premades CHOOSE 50% of their team. Pugs never get to do this. That is where your logic is flawed.

 

Yes anyone can have the gear/etc., but when you pug you can only choose 1/8th of your team.

 

If you believe what you have written then you should also believe that a solo pug ranked team should be equal (except for voice comms) to a premade ranked team. That is using the same logic as you have used in your post.

 

The issue of whether premades have an advantage should not be debated. This is obvious. You can argue that this advantage is fine and should stay as it is to which I will disagree but you should not argue whether there is an advantage.

I believe that a PuG ranked team -can- be equal to a premade one. It is unlikely, but not impossible. Especially if both teams are playing at the maximum level of play.

That's not even relevant though. You can say all you like "Premades have an advantage, it's not disputable." I'm here, I'm disputing it.

Please point out the advantage in a group that is not based on individual skill, coordination, composition, or voice chat (the only thing that I don't dispute some groups have). Whether pre-picked or placed together randomly, 4 highly geared, high skilled, competitive players are equal.

Remember too that if it is truly a skill issue then you should be the biggest supporter of changing the current system so that skilled vs. skilled will be more likely to happen.

I had to read that twice to stop laughing.

:mad: For ****s sake, at least know my position before you try and talk to me. I am a -big- supporter of a change. I support matchmaking, skill based, win/loss rating, etc... based matchmaking that we do not have. That is a change, I am a big supporter of it, and it will pit Skilled vs. Skilled at a More likely to happen rate then any other option that has been laid out in this thread.

Seriously, not trying to be a ***** so I'm sure you didn't deserve -all- that, but I'm getting really tired of people reading 1 or 2 posts, and thinking I think one way... when post after post after post I've said I think quite differently.

I think, in terms of fairness...

 

If Solo-players are entitled to play as they like (Solo-queue'd) with an expectation of the game trying to balance their fun, then a trio deserves the exact same feature. To me, the solution must be inclusive to everyone or it's just as bad as the current situation we have now.

I get the feeling you're just trolling me now. singling out a grp of 3? ok. I can't dignify this. we're done.

I get the feeling you're just trolling me now. singling out a grp of 3? ok. I can't dignify this. we're done.

I fail to see how this is a troll?

There is a situation in which one kind of play-style (while still capable of playing) is often disadvantaged, to the point that it isn't "fun" to most of them. I agree that (despite personal feelings about that play style) there needs to be a more level, fair situation for that play style.

That solution though, can not be one that imposes a different unfair situation on another play-style, or that solution is just as bad as the current one. In a Split queue/toggle solution, population is divided/reduced and match forming suffers logistical issues in the regular queue (a reduction in the number of 1's makes forming 8 out of a combination of 2's, 3's, and 4's more difficult, up to and including the lack of a match from impossible combinations).

The solution to bring a more "fair" situation in one play style causes "unfair" situations in another. You personally are the one who suggested if 3 people want to play, they could/should have to cycle 1 person into a group of 2 (leaving 1 player unable to play every match) or put forth extra effort to create a team of 4 (which if we're talking about a trio of friends, means stepping out of their play style).

How is that any less fair than expecting a preferred solo-player to change their own habits?

It's not a troll post... but I do suspect it's a post you don't want to respond to.

Doom, I know you support matchmaking but what I was pointing out was a flaw in your argument. Also, if your argument above was true then that would be less reason for matchmaking to exist. I know you gave other reasons but my point is why would you want to argue that.

What you are saying is wrong though imo. Also, btw, I like many of your opinions and I am not attacking you just arguing against one of your points.

When college teams go out recruiting they don't just grab random high school students. Sure these random kids might be great but many of them won't be. They CHOOSE based on a lot of criteria. That choice is the difference. Premades have this choice, pugs do not. Imagine if most football teams were assigned random graduating high school students while others stayed as is. That would be hilarious to watch for a few games but it would be a horrible experience for most of the schools.

Not really getting into the rest of your conversation with Jade, but I wanted to comment on this piece.

 

Whether we wanna call it skill, attitude, competitive level, etc... it really is a skill-based issue. With the exception of voice-chat, every advantage used by a Premade (using the highly-competitive group definition here) is (commonly) available to a PuG group. The advantages usually listed are: Gear, Coordination, Composition, Skilled, Voice Chat.

 

Gear: Everyone has equal access to gear, starting from level 40.

 

Coordination: Players who want to coordinate, will. This includes deciding which node to take, burning down healers, etc... There is no reason besides a lack of skill (or attitude) -not- to coordinate your efforts in a team environment.

 

Composition: 6 of 8 classes have two possible roles, and everyone should have access to the legacy respec. (I'm looking at it right now, it's Legacy Level 5 and 200k credits. Not unrealistic at all for people to have by 55). Let's not go into the probability of getting 8 marauders or 8 snipers. Chances are, of the 8 people on your team 2 should be able to respec to heals and 1-2 tank.

 

The only advantage left that isn't a reflection of skill/competitive level/effort/skittles is voice chat. Sadly, there is nothing that can be done about voice chat (except to add it in game) because it is out of Bioware's sphere of influence. You can't stop voice chat from being present in a community, can't control who has it, or what it's being used for unless you specifically control the program.

I see and acknowledge your point, though I disagree fundamentally.

Essentially what's being said is that Dedication > Fun. At the root of many posts I see, "MY DEDICATION IZ MUCHLY BETTERER DEN UR FUNZ. IF U DNT LIK LOOZING, L2P N B MOAR DEDICATED".

It should NEVER be that.... ever. It's a game, and people want to have fun. You could argue that it's fun for some to premade in regs and steamroll to easy wins, but to that point I would say that you cannot indulge those people. By your (impersonal) own admission, Premades are the minority... not to mention that taking the easy path at the expense of others is at the very least morally reprehensible.

I'd like to make my own point now:

 

I see often that you make sure that people know you (and possibly others) don't have problems with groups, it's the highly competitive premades that are the issue. Why then is the solution a blanket solution that effects all groups, if it is a very -specific- kind of group that's the issue. Isn't that kind shooting the innocent to get the "guilty?"

I have no answer for this. You are correct... I wish I could elaborate, or make a counterpoint... but there is none.

I see and acknowledge your point, though I disagree fundamentally.

 

Essentially what's being said is that Dedication > Fun. At the root of many posts I see, "MY DEDICATION IZ MUCHLY BETTERER DEN UR FUNZ. IF U DNT LIK LOOZING, L2P N B MOAR DEDICATED".

 

It should NEVER be that.... ever. It's a game, and people want to have fun. You could argue that it's fun for some to premade in regs and steamroll to easy wins, but to that point I would say that you cannot indulge those people. By your (impersonal) own admission, Premades are the minority... not to mention that taking the easy path at the expense of others is at the very least morally reprehensible.

 

I also see your point. I am coming to understand that although to me, Dedication/Investment and Fun are the same thing, the same does not hold true across the entire player base. (Though I never have that terrible of spelling, I'm insulted! Just kidding...). I can only hope a solution can be found that suits both "camps." I believe traditionally MMO's are more suited towards Invested players by design but... as this is a business, times change.

Those changes need to target the heart of the problem though.

I see and acknowledge your point, though I disagree fundamentally.

Essentially what's being said is that Dedication > Fun. At the root of many posts I see, "MY DEDICATION IZ MUCHLY BETTERER DEN UR FUNZ. IF U DNT LIK LOOZING, L2P N B MOAR DEDICATED".

 

It should NEVER be that.... ever. It's a game, and people want to have fun. You could argue that it's fun for some to premade in regs and steamroll to easy wins, but to that point I would say that you cannot indulge those people. By your (impersonal) own admission, Premades are the minority... not to mention that taking the easy path at the expense of others is at the very least morally reprehensible.

 

[i'd like to make my own point now:

 

I see often that you make sure that people know you (and possibly others) don't have problems with groups, it's the highly competitive premades that are the issue. Why then is the solution a blanket solution that effects all groups, if it is a very -specific- kind of group that's the issue. Isn't that kind shooting the innocent to get the "guilty?"

 

I have no answer for this. You are correct... I wish I could elaborate, or make a counterpoint... but there is none.

Well, the fix that a lot of people have suggested is the match making system which would insure that those highly competitive groups would only be facing players of near equal ranking. It would also insure that those players that are new to 55 PvP would only be facing players at their rank level as well.

Yes, players of all ranks might still run into premades but you would not have those highly competitive premades stomping a group of fresh 55s.

So you admit pugs are bad and looking for an easy way out.

What you fail to realize is that not fighting premades is not an "easy way out" for the pugs. There is nothing easy about a match where both sides are equally skilled. Regardless of whether they are equally good or equally bad, the match will be a close one, far from easy.

The only truly easymode fighting is the premades farming the PUGs. So i find it highly ironic when a premade supporter claims preventing his premade from farming pugs is dumbing the game down. Because it's the exact opposite, as it ensures all PVP participants fight in difficult (for them) fights.

Well, the fix that a lot of people have suggested is the match making system which would insure that those highly competitive groups would only be facing players of near equal ranking. It would also insure that those players that are new to 55 PvP would only be facing players at their rank level as well.

 

Yes, players of all ranks might still run into premades but you would not have those highly competitive premades stomping a group of fresh 55s.

I also agree with the matchmaking, and have said as much. However, the time delay is a serious issue, and something has to be adjusted in the interim. You'd need at least a month to get initial data, and maybe 3 months to gather sufficient data on a majority of the population to install an effective system.

My fear of matchmaking is that Bioware will be unable to implement it properly (Bolster, anyone?).

I also agree with the matchmaking, and have said as much. However, the time delay is a serious issue, and something has to be adjusted in the interim. You'd need at least a month to get initial data, and maybe 3 months to gather sufficient data on a majority of the population to install an effective system.

 

My fear of matchmaking is that Bioware will be unable to implement it properly (Bolster, anyone?).

An interim, and by no means perfect solution, would be to first group people by valor ranking until a better match making system is put into place.

Yes, I know that all valor represents is time spent in WZs, but until an accurate ranking system was implemented it should work.

There is a situation in which one kind of play-style (while still capable of playing) is often disadvantaged, to the point that it isn't "fun" to most of them. I agree that (despite personal feelings about that play style) there needs to be a more level, fair situation for that play style.

 

That solution though, can not be one that imposes a different unfair situation on another play-style, or that solution is just as bad as the current one. In a Split queue/toggle solution, population is divided/reduced and match forming suffers logistical issues in the regular queue (a reduction in the number of 1's makes forming 8 out of a combination of 2's, 3's, and 4's more difficult, up to and including the lack of a match from impossible combinations).

Is it just as bad tho? Let's see:

First situation: Players are put into matches that they do not wish to participate in, just so that other players can have their fun.

Second situation: Players who want to play certain way can't because there are not enough opponents.

Which one of them is worse? I'd say the first one, without doubt. Why? because in the second one, no players are being held hostage for the fun of others.

Example: You have 8 kids on the beach. 7 want to play volleyball together, but they need an 8th player for that. One just wants to be alone and build a sand castle. Is it right to force the one who wanted to make a castle to instead join the 7 so they can have their fun? No its not.

The "wrongness" of someone being forced to do something he does not want or enjoy doing just so that others can have their fun is much worse than the "wrongness" of 7 players not being able to play because they dont have enough players.

I believe that a PuG ranked team -can- be equal to a premade one. It is unlikely, but not impossible. Especially if both teams are playing at the maximum level of play.

Come on, are you playing on an alien server? PUG and "maximum level of play" are an oxymoron.

Also, this is not Guild Wars, gear here has a tremendous impact on outcome, 8 WZs out of 10 I end up "matched" with 25k people who die in 3 hits vs normal PUGgers and die in 1 global cool down vs a 4 men.

Maybe Bastion & POT5 are super servers, on mine the "PUG equal premade" does not happen but once per 100 WZs.

It's a permanent, every day, every SINGLE day queueing up, waiting 10 minutes to 40 minutes, end in the same AH with the same faces against people who ALL deal 3 times as much damage, kills and so on.

Yesterday it was JAPAN premade + another premade, 2 days ago it was another, tomorrow will be IRS + White Noise / whatever, it's still heavy perma-farm of the same 25k noobs.

Those who don't have 25k and maybe have some more experience, get disheartened and quit playing. I have unsubbed 2 months ago and I am going to unsub again, because I want to FIGHT 8v8, not be FARMED 1v8.

What's good topping the reps score when still getting farmed like a pig and winning nothing?

Is it just as bad tho? Let's see:

 

First situation: Players are put into matches that they do not wish to participate in, just so that other players can have their fun.

 

Second situation: Players who want to play certain way can't because there are not enough opponents.

 

Which one of them is worse? I'd say the first one, without doubt. Why? because in the second one, no players are being held hostage for the fun of others.

 

Example: You have 8 kids on the beach. 7 want to play volleyball together, but they need an 8th player for that. One just wants to be alone and build a sand castle. Is it right to force the one who wanted to make a castle to instead join the 7 so they can have their fun? No its not.

 

The "wrongness" of someone being forced to do something he does not want or enjoy doing just so that others can have their fun is much worse than the "wrongness" of 7 players not being able to play because they dont have enough players.

Uh... No.

Not even gonna touch that example, it's a piss poor one.

We have 1 common space (regular warzones).

Everyone wants to use it.

Some people don't want specific others to use it (against them).

That's the situation we have. Not some poor kid wanting to play Sand Castle.

No one is forced to play in a Warzone, they choose to hit the queue button. They just don't like what happens when they do. I think steps should be taken to make it more enjoyable for these people. Those steps can't come at the cost of the common space, or anyone who is currently happily using the common space with others.

If you wanna use an example involving kids... they teach that **** in Kindergarten. The kid not sharing isn't the one that get's his own separate slide.

*Snip*

Just gonna nip that one in the bud.

The arguments quoted/presented is that Premade's have some advantage unobtainable by a PuG, and therefor it is not something that can be measured, weighed, or balanced out (in a matchmaking system presumably). As explained, this "Group" advantage is nothing more than the higher/certain chance of having the required elements (Gear, Coordination, Skill/Effort, and even Composition based on Respec to fit the group need). Thus, a group's ability can be measure in a matchmaking statistic and be fairly matched against either group or solo of equal level of play.

My argument was not that PuG's often match a competitive Premade, only that their "advantage" is just a reflection of some form of competitive level/attitude/skill/gear formula.

Please don't misunderstand the argument or it's context.

We have 1 common space (regular warzones).

My example also has 1 common space. The beach.

No one is forced to play in a Warzone, they choose to hit the queue button.

No one is forced to come to the beach, all 8 kids chose to come there.

They just don't like what happens when they do.

If i was that kid who wanted to make a castle and i was prevented from building it and instead forced to play volleyball, you bet i would not like what happens.

I think steps should be taken to make it more enjoyable for these people.

Sure. But not at the expense of the one kid who just wanted to be left alone. You cannot solve the problem of the 7 missing a player by just taking someone who does not want to play and force him to join them, with the reasoning "Well if you dont like it you should not have come to the beach in the firstplace! it was your choice coming here!"(nevermind that he came to the beach wanting to do something else)

My example also has 1 common space. The beach.

 

 

 

No one is forced to come to the beach, all 8 kids chose to come there.

 

 

 

If i was that kid who wanted to make a castle and i was prevented from building it and instead forced to play volleyball, you bet i would not like what happens.

 

 

 

Sure. But not at the expense of the one kid who just wanted to be left alone. You cannot solve the problem of the 7 missing a player by just taking someone who does not want to play and force him to join them, with the reasoning "Well if you dont like it you should not have come to the beach in the firstplace! it was your choice coming here!"(nevermind that he came to the beach wanting to do something else)

No...

Your example is flawed. The Common Space is the Volleyball court.

The kid who wants to build a sand castle is a PvE player. He is not forced to join the game (or the warzone).

Don't try to push this example, it's not going to work. It's a terrible example.

No...

 

Your example is flawed. The Common Space is the Volleyball court.

I was the one who constructed the example. therefore, I am the one who decides what is the common space.

In this case, it is the beach(warzone). It has differen kids(players) on it, with different interests. Some want to play volleyball(play warzones against groups) others want to just build sand castles(play warzones against other solos)

It is not right solve the problems of one group by forcing the other to do something they don't want to. Beach or warzone.

Don't try to push this example, it's not going to work. It's a terrible example

It exposes how ridiculous it is to expect someone do something in his free time he does not want to just so that others are satisfied. I understand you don't like it, that does not make it terrible tho.

I was the one who constructed the example. therefore, I am the one who decides what is the common space.

 

In this case, it is the beach(warzone). It has differen kids(players) on it, with different interests. Some want to play volleyball(play warzones against groups) others want to just build sand castles(play warzones against other solos)

 

It is not right solve the problems of one group by forcing the other to do something they don't want to. Beach or warzone.

It baffles me that you continue to pursue this example. It is a terrible, terrible example. It's pieces and parts have no correlation with the situation being discussed, and you refuse to understand like terms.

Beach = MMO

Sand Castle = PvE

Volley Ball = PvP

Kids = Players

These kind of things make sense and actually fit the "terms" you want to use.

There is a fundamental difference between the activities you describe in your example, and there is a fundamental difference in the "different interests" you describe. A kid wanting to play Sand Castle does not compare to a Player wanting to face only certain opponents in the same kind of game.

Difference:

Kid wants to play by himself. His activity requires no other human interaction.

Player wants to participate in PvP. His activities require human interaction.

I see the point you're trying to get to, but you're simply not going to get there with this example because of the -vast- difference of underlying mechanics between our situation, and your "beach" situation.

It baffles me that you continue to pursue this example. It is a terrible, terrible example. It's pieces and parts have no correlation with the situation being discussed, and you refuse to understand like terms.

 

Beach = MMO

Sand Castle = PvE

Volley Ball = PvP

Kids = Players

 

No. you are trying to reconstruct the example so that it fits your purpose. But it's my example. I decide what is the equivalent of what.

Beach = warzone

Sand castle = one playstyle(playing against solos)

Volleyball = different playstyle (playing against groups)

Kids = players.

A kid wanting to play Sand Castle does not compare to a Player wanting to face only certain opponents in the same kind of game.

How so?

- Building a sand castle and playing volleyball are both done on the beach, but they are different enough so that a person can like one but not the other.

- Playing against groups and playing against solos are both done inside a warzone, but they are different enough so that a person can like one but not the other.

it's a perfect analogy, no matter how many times you use the word 'terrible' in your posts.

Difference:

 

Kid wants to play by himself. His activity requires no other human interaction.

Irrelevant. The example could have two kids building the castle and it would work just as well.

Just give me one GOOD reason why we cant devide up the queue's with

Premades vs Premades

PUGs vs PUGs

?

There is NOTHING that would prevent that premades gets to play with thier friends in this, they just go up agianst others who does the same.

Theres so few servers now that you could easily have cross server queues for WZ's, so the time in queues would not be long.

Afterall, most ppl would accept waiting longer if they get the PvP they were actually looking for.

*Snip*

Come back when you can be as reasonable as you usually are.

How can you compare PuG's who want to play in the regular queue but don't want to play against Groups to kids wanting to do two fundamentally different activities. I really should have just ignored this example the first time you brought it up instead of let you talk about nonsense.

PuG's want to play in warzones.

Groups want to play in warzones.

PuG's don't want to play against Groups.

That's the situation. Try any beach example you want, it won't compare to the situation until you have 1 population that wanting to do 1 activity, 1 play space, and 2 different views of who should be allowed to use it.

Untill then, we're done.

Just give me one GOOD reason why we cant devide up the queue's with

 

Premades vs Premades

 

PUGs vs PUGs

 

?

 

There is NOTHING that would prevent that premades gets to play with thier friends in this, they just go up agianst others who does the same.

 

Theres so few servers now that you could easily have cross server queues for WZ's, so the time in queues would not be long.

 

Afterall, most ppl would accept waiting longer if they get the PvP they were actually looking for.

The issue is population, queue times, logistic problems (3+4 doesn't make 8), backfilling etc...

Nothing wrong with wanting even matches, but PuG vs PuG doesn't equal an even match, and it comes at the cost of causing multiple issues in the regular queue. It's better solved by a match making system that actually works.

The issue is population, queue times, logistic problems (3+4 doesn't make 8), backfilling etc...

 

Nothing wrong with wanting even matches, but PuG vs PuG doesn't equal an even match, and it comes at the cost of causing multiple issues in the regular queue. It's better solved by a match making system that actually works.

You premade runners have tried every argument so far. And failed and so does this logistics argument aswell. Back int time you tried to the "I wanna run with my friends"-arguemnt, Now when that failed you try the Logistics argument.

You know what? the logistics work today. We have not to worry about that u say. If we remove all premades from the solo queus they would easily fill up in blocks of 2, 4 ,6 or 8 on the premades queues.

The solo players queues would fill up in single numbers.

Seems your out of arguments. I rest my case, your honor.