Return of Reckoning

Genis said it pretty good, lock thread.

th3gatekeeper wrote:

Genisaurus wrote: [*]New and Future: Premade and PUG-only scenarios will reduce the occurances of pug vs. premade matchups[/list]

To continue a point made on my last post, I respectfully dont think this is an avenue you guys should pursue UNLESS the player base really gets massive. It has far too many variables involved.

For instance, PUG-only: Does this mean no Duo Que teams? Or trio-Ques?

If yes and its ALL solo players - my guess is this que wont pop much, if at all and it surely doesnt promote team play. Also, if yes, how do you enforce "odd group sizes". Say you actrually get enough people grouped for this and have a group of 6 + 4+3... Who gets split up? Or does the que not pop? Etc.

If no, and you put a limit on say "1-3 players max qued" then youll end up with a guild who ques 3-4 teams of 3 players JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN. and coordinate que pops... Then also you run into... "what if you get a 6+4+4 qued... who gets dropped.

...

Rather the game should drastically HINGE on the objective. So much so, that noone should want to leave a flag un-defended. Leaving ROOM for the behind team to zerg ONE of the areas and possibly stage a "stand" there and earn some points. Creating scenarios where they have opportunity to atleast put up a fight, rather than just rewarding 2 6 man PM zergs where even if by chance you got 4 pugs FF a target, I bet they wouldnt kill anything due to guard/heals/cc etc.

Solo queue only, because two people with teamspeak and classes that complement each other are every bit a "premade" as six. The current matchmaking system tries to accomodate both 2-6 player groups and solo-queuers at the same time, and this coupled with trying to keep balanced composition is what leads to longer queue times. The matchmaking system we have works better when it's allowed to pull from only solo-queuers.

If queue times are still bad because nobody queues for it, then that's Not Our Problem. We're at least giving the option to people who don't want to have a small chance of running into a premade. Furthermore, it absolves players of that pesky right to complain about running into premades in the non-restricted scenarios, because by queuing for those they expressly accept that risk. We haven't heard a single complaint yet about queue times being too slow because all the premades want to play CW, or that CW isn't popping because no premades are queuing for it.

The only way queue times would be reduced for other SCs is if solo-queuing players choose to only queue for the solo-queue-only scenario.

Genisaurus wrote: Here is how scenarios are balanced:

1. Both sides are within the same level range
2. Both sides are further bolstered to even out level imbalances
3. Both sides have access to the same gear
4. Both sides have the same number of players
5. Both sides start an equal distance from the objectives
6. New: Both sides are as likely as possible to have even compositions
7. New and Future: Premade and PUG-only scenarios will reduce the occurances of pug vs. premade matchups

Would have a question regarding the 3rd point: How is having the same gear calculated? Average item levels?

I think that point might actually be unneeded if the gap between different gear was way, way lower - might even make the last point unnecessary.

I agree objectives really don't matter that much in this game. Reikland is one different story as you can still win as 2-2-2 comps never leave each other's sides and get 50+ kills but you can "PVE them" as they say. Is it sad that when you win via an objective, most premades/guilds/old live players - will get upset and say you were pussies for back capping because you couldn't fight them? I find this kinda hilarious and wish more SC's were like this.

To reply to Gen - not all spawns are equal in distance from the objective. Maybe linearly but when you take into consideration terrain, order usually gets the Mourkain first, Destro gets to Tor Anroc 1st. It is a fact lol, and it can't be coincidence that 99% of all my games in those maps it happened that way.

I agree with the comments that objectives should hold more weight. There is currently no incentive to have more than 1 node after you have 200 points as long as you get kills. So usually one team gets a cap, contests mid and just zergs around destroying the other team.

I wonder if solo cap time was reduced this could force roles that can sneak by WE/WH to have more of a place in that back capping would be a very real thing, and not put you out for the 30 seconds or so it takes to cap now. Currently, if you are 2,2,2 premade and you fight pugs - you will win 99/100 times regardless of how you play as long as you get kills.

I agree a well played 2,2,2 should win. But giving the solo guys or people who ended up with a bad comp no chance is kinda bad... Referencing other games which are a "domination" style, holding nodes should be important. Rather than, ah the node is green, lets kill 15 more people then zerg back and recap it. If it was 480-480 and solo cap time was shorter and a WH stealths up and has the chance to win the game, that is cool!

Order generally has less tanks. If you disagree I'm sorry you have not had to solo Q as much. It is well known they are generally not as fun, and the cool factor of being an awesome looking orc/chosen/bg is just not there. you get feathers, weird elf armor that anime lovers seem to sport even while they are at home, or pretty bland dwarf armor... Cool factor plays a lot more of a role than people think. If an ironbreaker or knight could hold a node for 10 seconds vs 3-5 people and change a game since his team could cap something else (and get points since capping should matter) - it adds a LOT more strategy into the game as currently strategy is like the matchmaker.

You get your 2-2-2 before the match, set up assists before the match, see who will guard who before the match, then once in... nothing magical really happends. BW's hit 3-4 buttons, WP hit 3-4 buttons, some tanks afk, not really "skill" just your team makeup was better and obviously 2-2-2 with guards/assists set up will win when objectives don't really matter lol... It's basically slayer.

So while live veterans who got stomped, found a guild and have never not had a guard/healer at their side while playing DPS don't get this. the vast majority of this game is solo/duo/trios and not 2-2-2 premades... If objectives mattered more, it'd give the unethical comps a chance. It wouldn't break the meta, but it'd definitely promote more "objective" based play in an objective based game style. Lord knows the premades wouldn't want that...

Idrinth wrote:

Genisaurus wrote: Here is how scenarios are balanced:

1. Both sides are within the same level range
2. Both sides are further bolstered to even out level imbalances
3. Both sides have access to the same gear
4. Both sides have the same number of players
5. Both sides start an equal distance from the objectives
6. New: Both sides are as likely as possible to have even compositions
7. New and Future: Premade and PUG-only scenarios will reduce the occurances of pug vs. premade matchups

Would have a question regarding the 3rd point: How is having the same gear calculated? Average item levels?

I think that point might actually be unneeded if the gap between different gear was way, way lower - might even make the last point unnecessary.

Both sides have access to the same gear. Which is to say, gear is purely a reflection of time and effort invested by the individual player. We're not going the GW2 route of forcing all players to equip from a small selection of PvP gear set just so we can use itemlevels as a coefficient to an MMR calculation; nor are we trying for some asymmetrical design where only Destro has access to some set that Order doesn't.

freshour wrote: the vast majority of this game is solo/duo/trios and not 2-2-2 premades...

source?

I think the vast majority goes solo. But i have nothing to prove it (just like you).

I'll add that playing a Grace WP I get a lot of ****. Most hybrid classes do. But people inevitably link a youtube video of a guy back when dominating open RvR and they say that his build was so good 1v1 or 2v1. If you made games more objective based it'd allow hybrids a place as well. I know for damn sure I can fight 1v1 with most people on my Grace WP. In RvR it doesn't really matter much, in SC's currently... it doesn't really matter much... In RvR or a duel where it is just 2 or so people, it is a beast.

If you made objectives matter more, and heaven forbid had tanks had to choose.... healer... or dps.... REAL TIME on the fly.... and not just guard bot... pocket healer... it adds a level of variability that only skill can fill the gap. Good tanks shine. Good healers shine. A hybrid generally can do well 1v1. Lets say they only send one guy to a back cap, a Grace WP or Engineer, hell even a RP on order side could break off and say "I got this" and WOW you have a place in the game now.... age old problem solved...

It won't fix the issue as a whole. But if objectives did matter. And people had to hold nodes, and teams were a little more spread out, you'd be surprised how much "good players" can really shine and how good tanks really shine, and how hybrid style builds can find their place... But most people hate DPS AM's/Grace WP's... so you probably won't understand this... But just thought I'd add it.

Penril wrote:

freshour wrote: the vast majority of this game is solo/duo/trios and not 2-2-2 premades...

source?

I think the vast majority goes solo. But i have nothing to prove it (just like you).

I q up with 2-3 people a LOT. You would have to be an idiot (not saying you since we sort of agree) to not notice how a 12 man group can have 3-4 teams quite often. Oh 4 healers got in the game, why are there 3 teams one with 2 healers, and 2 with 1 and some random SM named Chinesehero asking in /4 for a guard/heal mid game... IT HAPPENS A LOT.

One big benefit to ADHD is I notice a lot of things. Team comps being one of them. Want to see for yourself? Q up with 6 people, have them split up a little at the start, see how the groups of 1's 2's 3's pop in and have to pick where to go, swap ur teams up and see who goes where. It is not hard at all to see this but for no other reason than being "that guy" I can see you only asked that question because as a player and not a dev there isn't a way (to my knowledge) to see if people join in 1's 2's or 3's...

Genisaurus wrote:Solo queue only, because two people with teamspeak and classes that complement each other are every bit a "premade" as six. The current matchmaking system tries to accomodate both 2-6 player groups and solo-queuers at the same time, and this coupled with trying to keep balanced composition is what leads to longer queue times. The matchmaking system we have works better when it's allowed to pull from only solo-queuers.

If queue times are still bad because nobody queues for it, then that's Not Our Problem. We're at least giving the option to people who don't want to have a small chance of running into a premade. Furthermore, it absolves players of that pesky right to complain about running into premades in the non-restricted scenarios, because by queuing for those they expressly accept that risk. We haven't heard a single complaint yet about queue times being too slow because all the premades want to play CW, or that CW isn't popping because no premades are queuing for it.

The only way queue times would be reduced for other SCs is if solo-queuing players choose to only queue for the solo-queue-only scenario.

Thanks for the feedback on this. I guess I would encourage a slightly different approach. Just me though and we can agree to disagree and I am fine with that. But even duo/trio que against a full 6 man group is a DRASTIC difference.

You pointed out two people who can work together, talk etc etc is a drastic different compared to just a solo Quer. I would pose that its EVEN MORE of a difference jumping from 2-3 people to 6 people who can coordiate.

Lets assume you have a 1-1-1 qued together and get put up with an 0-2-1. You are now 1-3-2 against 2-2-2 that can communicate.

The 2-2-2 group is not only more balanced, but can focus and /assist better than two groups of 3 can. Hands down.

While sure, it eliminates the "right to complain" on the forums, you took no steps towards truly addressing the issue of the zerg mentality and balancing the games. I would wager, stacking up 3 2 man groups against a 6 man group, will probably all fair about the same.... Get demolished.

I just see one area on this game that I think could be improved, and increase the QoL and competitive games by simply just adding more weight to defense on points. Thats just for flag games.

Putting less on the actual kills, more on the objective, makes the game less about zerg kills and more about strategy on who/how to capture and THEN defend the node.

I mean reflect on RvR for a second. You capture a node, and have a window to defend. You rarely see players just zerg to every BO in RvR. Why? Because they are rewarded to defend it AND it locks meaning there is a finite window of time where you can focus on that node. Then everyone rushes to the other one, rinse repeat. It involves both offense (capping the BO) then defense (hold it for 3:00) to ensure victory.

I reflect in the same way, SCs dont necessarily involve this since you can zerg around, zerg node to node, get points for the initial cap, then kill farm for more points, and there is no penalty for leaving a node un-defended.


My proposal was just one option to provide defensive "purpose" to SCs. I dont think RvR way would work as it would only create a BIGGER "zerg" - where nodes are capped, then must be defended for X seconds, then locked for X seconds. Although that would be a FUN game!

I rather think if just more weight were put on HOLDING the cap, rather than just capping it and leaving. You would see less QQ about premades and more unique "Rolls" emerge in "METAs" and even create a place for Hybrid builds to shine!

is there a time-frame for when the solo-que-only scenario will be implemented?