Lots of Numbers: Twilight's Tide Event Scenarios

[Brizio]

Pugs getting mad. i love this.

Clearly the approach to "more groups" is failing. Is there a guild with 30 active players even? On NA time there are 2 guilds that get close to 10. Zerg play is boring as hell as well as premades stomping in scs.

Anyway, my suggestion:
-1 or 2 player groups scs (you have to be allowed to play with your wife or kid, even tho i dont have any).

-Inter faction, so players of a group dont solo queue and get on the same group. Put them to fight each other.

- Single sc for premades and small groups. I doubt it will have many player cause at current state premades just want to stomp/farm pugs

- some kind of handicap must be implemented, at some point. Based on mmr or item level (fixed at the begginig of scs so the player do change gear during it)

- a RP sc (pugs and premades), where the groups are filled with same faction players, independent, so we can have empire x dwarves. The reward should be unique cosmetic and dyes. They love that stuff.

- And ranked, with solo / premades all together rewarding something unique (sorry pugs, it has to happen) but not op. Sorry engies and magus

- and finaly, the 1st ranked destro and 1st ranked order guilds should have a scheduled 24 x 24 sc with a cool reward. Guild leader / realm captain picks players and the guild needs a minimun of 12 players in the warband.

Thats it.

[Aluviya]

The key to fun scenarios is randomness and some kind of auto comp building because:
- Only when you get different enemies and/or comps with every pop then the cards are mixed new again and you have a theoretical chance of winning. That was for me the major fun aspect when doing scenarios back on live. You just queued and never knew how the round would be. Some you won, some you lost. That's fun and balanced from my point of view.
- Only when you have some form of auto comp building with at least 1 tank, 1 healer and 1 dps per 6 man group a pop makes sense. Playing without at least one of each kind in every 6 man isn't fun and the chances of being stomped increase a lot. So, I wouldn't be too strict on the comps but would at least make sure that each 6 man group has 1 tank (max 3), 1 dps (max 3) and 1 healer (max 3).

Now how can this be done? In order to reach this goal something has to be sacrificed.
- Id say it would be best for the majority to just get rid of group queuing. Almost every aspect in the game is group based and therefore there is more than enough group content. The scenarios should be a place for everyone, not only premades, to go and have quick action and fun. It is of super high importance that scenarios are working for new players in order to keep them playing. They should have the priority. In order to reach that premades have to go.
- When group queuing is gone, you can put all players in the same pool for queueing which increases the pop rate. Which is another good aspect to get rid of the solo and group scenario splitting.
- Remove the barriers and add guards again. When one side is stronger and pushes the other side to the spawn then there should be a chance that they wipe there so that the weaker side can get momentum again. Being spawn camped is not fun.
- Revert the scenario objectives to how they were. Don't make scenarios just a stupid zerg fest from one BO to the next. Smart enemies should have the option to go behind their lines and capture back to break up their blob. For example praag or gromril crossing. Let people take back the already captured flags behind their front line again.
- Do something about against the queue abusing by queuing at the same time over discord. Either pop two scenarios at the same time to do mixing or give every queue player a random position in the queue. So if lets say 12 players are waiting and 6 queue up within short time then this 6 might end in position 1, 5, 9, 12, 15, 18. So yeah, some of them might instantly get a new pop while others have to wait. Overall it should be fair. Sometimes you get quick pops, sometimes you have to wait longer. Something like that.

When you stick to the group queuing you will not reach the goals specified here and it will most likely fail again. I wouldn't even allow 2 man groups. Imaging 2 coordinated sov players like for example Teefz and one of his healing buddies. They would create huge imbalances. When you prevent group queuing as a whole they might land in the same scenario sometimes but not always and the different round times and randomness in the queue will keep them apart.

Id rather get rid of the specific map queuing to have higher pops like for discordant or just ignore their map selection when pop rate slows down. It's better to get a random map than no map.

Cheers.

I respectfully disagree. Scenarios would be much fairer if they were primarily 6 vs. 6, instead of the current PuG festival we see now. The statistics showing that scenarios are often one-sided stomps point more to the impact solo players have rather than premades. In recent days, any 6 vs. 6 action we’ve had has been fairly balanced, with casualties on both sides. However, when scenarios are filled with 12 players, it becomes a coin toss over who gets the better additional group and what skill levels the players bring to the table. As a group player, I can tell you that I generally do not agree with groups farming PuGs—I never have, and I never will. However, I also don't support the idea that solo players, who choose not to group up in an MMO for various reasons, need special protection. We already have the Discordant mode for that purpose.

Let me stress again that this is an MMO, where people play to socialize, build relationships, and be recognized by friends and foes alike and have some sort of responsibility for your gameplay and the group you play in. In the current scenario design, my experience is that solo players often do whatever they want and expect the best outcomes without aligning themselves to any responsibilities with the group they’re in. It’s rare to find someone with the mindset of, "Oh, let’s support the premade we’re paired with so they can snowball the scenario." As a result, as a group, you're often left playing alone, likely against other premades or, in the worst cases, against two premades.

Additionally, many solo players tend to choose classes or builds that are not well-suited for the scenario environment. You rarely find tanks, and even more rarely tanks that actually guard a DPS. Instead, the additional group is usually filled with classes that require a lot of support if they get caught—classes that, from the player's point of view, are often well-suited for solo play, such as Witch Hunters/Witch Elves, DPS Archmages/Shamans, Sorcerers/Bright Wizards, and Engineers/Magi (although these are becoming rarer) - these classes are sadly doomed to be squishies that barely survive half a rotation without a guard.

Even if we had a full PuG environment as you suggested and there was a system to prevent certain players from stacking, you need to set realistic expectations. We experience significant population drops, even during EU prime time. With a smaller population, a system that disallows stacking would likely end up either allowing it again or causing scenarios not to pop at all due to the lack of available players, especially during late EU to early NA times. That said, I see the issue here as being more player-sided than developer-sided. The solution could be as simple as locking scenarios to 6-man groups exclusively, while allowing the coexistence of Discordant mode (which is already exactly what you suggested, and still active).

And it's funny that you mention Teefz here. He is, in most cases, playing alone. If you had any names to point fingers at, it certainly wouldn't be him—he’s actually clear proof that the full PuG idea would not work well, as experience will always prevail vs. a well put together PuG setup and that certain veterans can snowball a game, especially in a PuG environment. Grouping up and learning is key in this game and always will be. Regardless of the queuing system in place, it's your only comfort zone against players like Teefz.

[tjalfe]

Suggestion, could players choose a number of characters they have and then sign up for a scenario on all at the same time? Then they could choose which character to enter with when the scenario pops. The final choice could then be limited to certain archetype based on the matchmaker ensuring 2-2-2 or at least 1-1-1?

[Hellforce]

I totally feel you my friend!! Scenarios became a total win or total farmed thing and that's making more and more players just not joining events or scenarios anymore!! I know that devs really trying to fix a lot of things regarding sc system so we will wait and see and hopefully scenarios will be fun for all the community in the future and not only for hardcore players!!!

[JohnnyWayne]

I don't get, how poeple still try to defend premade only scs. You have those. They are called ranked. They are dead. For a reason. Pugs are the backbone of this game, the farming stock for premades in the current implementation.

I have given an example how you could implement an infrastructure that enables devs to build good matches by their own design the match maker mega thread. In short, you create another service, that is solely built for taking in player stats and group contraints and then match people according to a forumula that values each player and their team composition by trying out multiple solutions. Then it matches the best fitting group compositions.
This is done every minute while throwing everyone that queues into the waiting bucket.

The scoring of how a match is good or bad can then be designed independently, by implementing a fitting function that scores according to the devs wishes. For fun reasons, wait time in queue and the w/l rations of the last 10 matches should be considered in that though. I wouldn't check for gear, but renown rank and group composition. Not by disallowing unbalanced teams but by disencouraging the match maker starting such matches through penalties to the matching score.

And before the obvious people jump in an claim "during off times matches won't pop" - they won't pop, if there are not enough players around. In any implementation. They will pop, but the results will be bad. Better than now, probably, but still bad. That is simply based on the environment the algorithm has (which is the amount of players available).

If matches are well matched and they are still one sided, the game just is designed in a way to snowball matches. I'd recommend also to add transparency to the queues (roles, group sizes as graphs for both sides) and restructure the rewards of scs, so that balanced SCs yield the same rewards as highly farmed ones (40+ kills).

You might notice, I'm oddly specific about these things. I have implemented something similar for business customers before. I know how it works.

A implementation along these lines should have been done 2 years ago. The game is suffering by the recent changes to the skill system and the lack of match making. The player count is dropping and that is not the summer hole we are talking about.

[Rapzel]

I don't get, how poeple still try to defend premade only scs. You have those. They are called ranked. They are dead. For a reason. Pugs are the backbone of this game, the farming stock for premades in the current implementation.

I have given an example how you could implement an infrastructure that enables devs to build good matches by their own design the match maker mega thread. In short, you create another service, that is solely built for taking in player stats and group contraints and then match people according to a forumula that values each player and their team composition by trying out multiple solutions. Then it matches the best fitting group compositions.
This is done every minute while throwing everyone that queues into the waiting bucket.

The scoring of how a match is good or bad can then be designed independently, by implementing a fitting function that scores according to the devs wishes. For fun reasons, wait time in queue and the w/l rations of the last 10 matches should be considered in that though. I wouldn't check for gear, but renown rank and group composition. Not by disallowing unbalanced teams but by disencouraging the match maker starting such matches through penalties to the matching score.

And before the obvious people jump in an claim "during off times matches won't pop" - they won't pop, if there are not enough players around. In any implementation. They will pop, but the results will be bad. Better than now, probably, but still bad. That is simply based on the environment the algorithm has (which is the amount of players available).

A implementation along these lines should have been done 2 years ago. The game is suffering by the recent changes to the skill system and the lack of match making. The player count is dropping and that is not the summer hole we are talking about.

So you are in solo ranked queue then? Since you are defending "PUG" play. There is no way to play against a premade if you queue ranked solo.

Problem solved.

[Brizio]

I don't get, how poeple still try to defend premade only scs. You have those. They are called ranked. They are dead. For a reason. Pugs are the backbone of this game, the farming stock for premades in the current implementation.

I have given an example how you could implement an infrastructure that enables devs to build good matches by their own design the match maker mega thread. In short, you create another service, that is solely built for taking in player stats and group contraints and then match people according to a forumula that values each player and their team composition by trying out multiple solutions. Then it matches the best fitting group compositions.
This is done every minute while throwing everyone that queues into the waiting bucket.

The scoring of how a match is good or bad can then be designed independently, by implementing a fitting function that scores according to the devs wishes. For fun reasons, wait time in queue and the w/l rations of the last 10 matches should be considered in that though. I wouldn't check for gear, but renown rank and group composition. Not by disallowing unbalanced teams but by disencouraging the match maker starting such matches through penalties to the matching score.

And before the obvious people jump in an claim "during off times matches won't pop" - they won't pop, if there are not enough players around. In any implementation. They will pop, but the results will be bad. Better than now, probably, but still bad. That is simply based on the environment the algorithm has (which is the amount of players available).

A implementation along these lines should have been done 2 years ago. The game is suffering by the recent changes to the skill system and the lack of match making. The player count is dropping and that is not the summer hole we are talking about.

So you are in solo ranked queue then? Since you are defending "PUG" play. There is no way to play against a premade if you queue ranked solo.

Problem solved.

Pugs just dont want to play premades, have a healer and be able to complete a sc event.

Its well known that there will be other issues, but that alone solve the main issue.

Also make sure there is a (solo player) after the sc queue list.

[Rydiak]

I don't get, how poeple still try to defend premade only scs. You have those. They are called ranked. They are dead. For a reason. Pugs are the backbone of this game, the farming stock for premades in the current implementation.

I have given an example how you could implement an infrastructure that enables devs to build good matches by their own design the match maker mega thread. In short, you create another service, that is solely built for taking in player stats and group contraints and then match people according to a forumula that values each player and their team composition by trying out multiple solutions. Then it matches the best fitting group compositions.
This is done every minute while throwing everyone that queues into the waiting bucket.

The scoring of how a match is good or bad can then be designed independently, by implementing a fitting function that scores according to the devs wishes. For fun reasons, wait time in queue and the w/l rations of the last 10 matches should be considered in that though. I wouldn't check for gear, but renown rank and group composition. Not by disallowing unbalanced teams but by disencouraging the match maker starting such matches through penalties to the matching score.

And before the obvious people jump in an claim "during off times matches won't pop" - they won't pop, if there are not enough players around. In any implementation. They will pop, but the results will be bad. Better than now, probably, but still bad. That is simply based on the environment the algorithm has (which is the amount of players available).

If matches are well matched and they are still one sided, the game just is designed in a way to snowball matches. I'd recommend also to add transparency to the queues (roles, group sizes as graphs for both sides) and restructure the rewards of scs, so that balanced SCs yield the same rewards as highly farmed ones (40+ kills).

You might notice, I'm oddly specific about these things. I have implemented something similar for business customers before. I know how it works.

A implementation along these lines should have been done 2 years ago. The game is suffering by the recent changes to the skill system and the lack of match making. The player count is dropping and that is not the summer hole we are talking about.

Yea, we already have a MMer SC system exactly as you described. It's called solo ranked. Oh, it's dead all the time? Gee I guess people don't like waiting in queue all day for the perfect match. Better scrap that system and reimplement it in normal SCs. Surely the problem won't repeat itself like it has every time before. Better to keep this MMer idea alive than having group SCs only be queueable by groups.

[Brizio]

I don't get, how poeple still try to defend premade only scs. You have those. They are called ranked. They are dead. For a reason. Pugs are the backbone of this game, the farming stock for premades in the current implementation.

I have given an example how you could implement an infrastructure that enables devs to build good matches by their own design the match maker mega thread. In short, you create another service, that is solely built for taking in player stats and group contraints and then match people according to a forumula that values each player and their team composition by trying out multiple solutions. Then it matches the best fitting group compositions.
This is done every minute while throwing everyone that queues into the waiting bucket.

The scoring of how a match is good or bad can then be designed independently, by implementing a fitting function that scores according to the devs wishes. For fun reasons, wait time in queue and the w/l rations of the last 10 matches should be considered in that though. I wouldn't check for gear, but renown rank and group composition. Not by disallowing unbalanced teams but by disencouraging the match maker starting such matches through penalties to the matching score.

And before the obvious people jump in an claim "during off times matches won't pop" - they won't pop, if there are not enough players around. In any implementation. They will pop, but the results will be bad. Better than now, probably, but still bad. That is simply based on the environment the algorithm has (which is the amount of players available).

If matches are well matched and they are still one sided, the game just is designed in a way to snowball matches. I'd recommend also to add transparency to the queues (roles, group sizes as graphs for both sides) and restructure the rewards of scs, so that balanced SCs yield the same rewards as highly farmed ones (40+ kills).

You might notice, I'm oddly specific about these things. I have implemented something similar for business customers before. I know how it works.

A implementation along these lines should have been done 2 years ago. The game is suffering by the recent changes to the skill system and the lack of match making. The player count is dropping and that is not the summer hole we are talking about.

Yea, we already have a MMer SC system exactly as you described. It's called solo ranked. Oh, it's dead all the time? Gee I guess people don't like waiting in queue all day for the perfect match. Better scrap that system and reimplement it in normal SCs. Surely the problem won't repeat itself like it has every time before. Better to keep this MMer idea alive than having group SCs only be queueable by groups.

What are the restriction on joining the pug ranked?

[Rydiak]

I don't get, how poeple still try to defend premade only scs. You have those. They are called ranked. They are dead. For a reason. Pugs are the backbone of this game, the farming stock for premades in the current implementation.

I have given an example how you could implement an infrastructure that enables devs to build good matches by their own design the match maker mega thread. In short, you create another service, that is solely built for taking in player stats and group contraints and then match people according to a forumula that values each player and their team composition by trying out multiple solutions. Then it matches the best fitting group compositions.
This is done every minute while throwing everyone that queues into the waiting bucket.

The scoring of how a match is good or bad can then be designed independently, by implementing a fitting function that scores according to the devs wishes. For fun reasons, wait time in queue and the w/l rations of the last 10 matches should be considered in that though. I wouldn't check for gear, but renown rank and group composition. Not by disallowing unbalanced teams but by disencouraging the match maker starting such matches through penalties to the matching score.

And before the obvious people jump in an claim "during off times matches won't pop" - they won't pop, if there are not enough players around. In any implementation. They will pop, but the results will be bad. Better than now, probably, but still bad. That is simply based on the environment the algorithm has (which is the amount of players available).

If matches are well matched and they are still one sided, the game just is designed in a way to snowball matches. I'd recommend also to add transparency to the queues (roles, group sizes as graphs for both sides) and restructure the rewards of scs, so that balanced SCs yield the same rewards as highly farmed ones (40+ kills).

You might notice, I'm oddly specific about these things. I have implemented something similar for business customers before. I know how it works.

A implementation along these lines should have been done 2 years ago. The game is suffering by the recent changes to the skill system and the lack of match making. The player count is dropping and that is not the summer hole we are talking about.

Yea, we already have a MMer SC system exactly as you described. It's called solo ranked. Oh, it's dead all the time? Gee I guess people don't like waiting in queue all day for the perfect match. Better scrap that system and reimplement it in normal SCs. Surely the problem won't repeat itself like it has every time before. Better to keep this MMer idea alive than having group SCs only be queueable by groups.

What are the restriction on joining the pug ranked?

IIRC it is gear at or above Conqueror level.