What about Renown change in sc?

[Mepharees]

Sounds like you're trying to play something that wasn't intended for solo queuers.
Discordant skirmish is your answer.

[Helwer]

Even the answers are literally every week the exact same. You can find threads almost every weekend because it is the very same every weekend. Crazy both sides complaining about the same issue. And also without offense: i understand every new or returning player leaving instant or after 1 week/weekend.

Without statistics we can't really talk about solutions. I just ask myself why you find teams for 2/2/2 but not match-make 2/2/2. Vice/versa why tryhard/hardcore don't do ranked to pew pew other hardcores. Probably they want easy wins.

Maybe match-making is that hard, that it is impossible to match prem. groups with prem. groups and pugs with pugs or a mix in kind of same numbers of each archetype. So my solution is: I don't longer play SC. Waste of time for renown-pot and few crests. Others can wait longer for Q and fight premades as they wish. Just asking myself why a group-based game doesn't want players.

Only discordant weekend-sc was 1 good thing. But even discordant is already kind of broke as you find groups inside.

[Akalukz]

Ranked doesn't work well, because it doesn't reward well. If you dislike scenarios, don't do them. Plenty of people don't do them. Although I do agree that the current state of the scenario and weekend event is a major turnoff for new players, and probably see some loss there over time.

[Sulorie]

...

Without statistics we can't really talk about solutions. I just ask myself why you find teams for 2/2/2 but not match-make 2/2/2. Vice/versa why tryhard/hardcore don't do ranked to pew pew other hardcores. Probably they want easy wins.

Maybe match-making is that hard, that it is impossible to match prem. groups with prem. groups and pugs with pugs or a mix in kind of same numbers of each archetype. So my solution is: I don't longer play SC. Waste of time for renown-pot and few crests. Others can wait longer for Q and fight premades as they wish. Just asking myself why a group-based game doesn't want players.

Only discordant weekend-sc was 1 good thing. But even discordant is already kind of broke as you find groups inside.

Ofc whenever the enemy team spawn camps your own team in discordant sc, it will be some sneaky grp.
The MM tries to form 2-2-2 but it won't wait too long before it starts a new sc, therefore you get odd match ups with too many healers, tanks or dd because the required archetypes for balanced grps are already in sc.

We had a group today and in 3 party sc we got 1 more healer for both other groups. It wasn't fun. You can only control this by forming groups beforehand. All other methods like forcing 2-2-2 will result in extremely long queue times, we already had this.

[georgehabadasher]

As far i know you get 1 warcrest for each 100 pts your team get.

Some scenarios don't even increase score count on kills, and you still have premade killing unorganised groups and win 500 - xxx, forcing losing side to .surrender fast.

This said, and without any offense, i recommand to players to make a group BEFORE going in scenarios.

This is not a solo game.

That's certainly the game design philosophy the developers have followed and how they've designed the game. Unfortunately, that's very short-sighted because it severely limits the number of players who can enjoy the game and we're seeing the results in the population.

Your average casual working dad isn't going to spend a significant portion of his one-hour nightly playtime to make a group. He doesn't have the time, energy or desire to get into a group, much less make one. He's going to log in, queue for scenarios, get stomped, and then log out. Most will eventually quit. Some percentage of your average casual working dads will come and post on the forums, get the exact same response you just wrote and decide this game isn't for them.

And they're right. It isn't for them. But it could be.

[thiefy]

Spoiler:

As far i know you get 1 warcrest for each 100 pts your team get.

Some scenarios don't even increase score count on kills, and you still have premade killing unorganised groups and win 500 - xxx, forcing losing side to .surrender fast.

This said, and without any offense, i recommand to players to make a group BEFORE going in scenarios.

This is not a solo game.

That's certainly the game design philosophy the developers have followed and how they've designed the game. Unfortunately, that's very short-sighted because it severely limits the number of players who can enjoy the game and we're seeing the results in the population.

Your average casual working dad isn't going to spend a significant portion of his one-hour nightly playtime to make a group. He doesn't have the time, energy or desire to get into a group, much less make one. He's going to log in, queue for scenarios, get stomped, and then log out. Most will eventually quit. Some percentage of your average casual working dads will come and post on the forums, get the exact same response you just wrote and decide this game isn't for them.

And they're right. It isn't for them. But it could be.

I'm just wondering on what grounds should the server alter its ways in order to satisfy players that spend one hour per day and have a good chance of leaving for another game after a couple of months instead of satisfying the grp of players that spend more time either per day or over the years. It sounds like british tourists ask the country they are visiting to start driving on the left simply because that's what they like it.

I don't support the "go away casual plebs" ideology but you must balance between attracting casual players and keeping the core players. And imo, having a stable core is healthier than having passers by.

p.s. that one hour per day the casual dad plays is more than enough time to socialise a bit and start making grps if he wants

[Sulorie]

Would you ever learn and progress enough with 1 hour per day game time to compete and win against players playing longer?
Without scheduled dungeon runs you most likely don't even have time to find pve groups.
Will those players ever have a chance and should you alter the game in order to bring those players up to competition? Only one team can win.

Personally I wouldn't play progression based MMO where I am forced to compete with others when time limited. If I played multiplayer then some game with instant progression or no progression at all.

[Stimpz]

Why do people complain about an issue that the devs already acknowledged and written about?

I copied this from Developer Update 25. August.

Spoiler:

We are working on a complete rewrite of the Scenario Queue system.

The current state of the scenario queue system has its problems as I am sure everyone is aware.

Scenarios being created with weird archetype combinations and people being able to join games in unfair ways.

The main problem we have is that testing the scenario queue system is really not possible.

Without going into too much technical detail the small scenario system which we had written years and years ago had been continuously built upon and it has become a very complicated bit of code with many moving parts.

One change could cause problems but we didn’t really have a way of tracing it down without doing all the calculations in your head.

The new system will allow us to apply fixes and changes without needing to restart the game server, meaning we can implement new features throughout the week.

The primary focus of this redesigned system will be on optimizing team formation.

We want to ensure that teams aren't repeatedly matched against opponents that are repeatedly winning without them standing a chance.

To achieve this, we're implementing a diverse set of metrics to prevent any attempts to exploit the system.

We are also hoping to improve the scenario grouping if for any reason a premade is put against a pick up group. Although we want to mainly not mix pugs and premades.

Our approach is dynamic, with the match criteria adapting to balance games and expanding the player pool for those who've been in the queue for an extended duration

It's really unfair to yell about something that is already a work in progress. It just conveys a feeling of ungratefulness.
They hear you, they're listening to you, they communicate with you, and still people get angry and make mean posts about how the devs don't care for their players.

[Everdin]

Don't know the issue with discordant...

There were over 30 discordant pops just in eu prime time yesterday, i qued frequently as dps but not back to back due to open action and got in 12of them.

Somethimes win, sometimes lose, it changes depending on who is online on both sides.

[georgehabadasher]

Spoiler:

As far i know you get 1 warcrest for each 100 pts your team get.

Some scenarios don't even increase score count on kills, and you still have premade killing unorganised groups and win 500 - xxx, forcing losing side to .surrender fast.

This said, and without any offense, i recommand to players to make a group BEFORE going in scenarios.

This is not a solo game.

That's certainly the game design philosophy the developers have followed and how they've designed the game. Unfortunately, that's very short-sighted because it severely limits the number of players who can enjoy the game and we're seeing the results in the population.

Your average casual working dad isn't going to spend a significant portion of his one-hour nightly playtime to make a group. He doesn't have the time, energy or desire to get into a group, much less make one. He's going to log in, queue for scenarios, get stomped, and then log out. Most will eventually quit. Some percentage of your average casual working dads will come and post on the forums, get the exact same response you just wrote and decide this game isn't for them.

And they're right. It isn't for them. But it could be.

I'm just wondering on what grounds should the server alter its ways in order to satisfy players that spend one hour per day and have a good chance of leaving for another game after a couple of months instead of satisfying the grp of players that spend more time either per day or over the years. It sounds like british tourists ask the country they are visiting to start driving on the left simply because that's what they like it.

I don't support the "go away casual plebs" ideology but you must balance between attracting casual players and keeping the core players. And imo, having a stable core is healthier than having passers by.

p.s. that one hour per day the casual dad plays is more than enough time to socialise a bit and start making grps if he wants

I think a lot of people have this false dichotomy in mind when they argue about this. It'd be like saying we can't have PvE because we need to focus on PvP. There's no reason the game can't cater to both playstyles.

Increasing the amount of 'participation' rewards gives your casual working dad a reason to log in and play the game. It doesn't take anything away from your elite sweaty hardcore gamer. In fact, it makes the game better for your elite sweaty hardcore gamer because he has more people to fight.