3 Likes
Yes, i did that too.
And i want to show you, now i look at the details, how the ‘play your own key’ works.
https://raider.io/mythic-plus-runs/season-bfa-4/28227720-6-temple-of-sethraliss
Guess who the keyowner was.
Great ! … but this not a PvP game mode : is it a PvE game mode where knowledge about the challenge matters a lot.
So from my experience of WoW pve queue, it is bound to fail past the point where mecanics cannot be bruteforced.
Moreover if someone refuses to be desirable in a pug environement he is excluding himself. Nobody has any rights to enter someone else group without at least meeting basic requirements.
Plus the fact that someone discarded means that the place was taken by another. So while he is excluded, another is included.
What would really increase the amount of group created is a greater tank/heal playerbase compared to dps.
Okay so what you’re saying is that RIO is disproportionate to the amount of effort put in. That’s untrue. Below +15, a timed key gives you around 10x difficulty level + bonus points for time, above +15, timed keys give you far more. So in your analogy, the guy who’s read the book 20 times gets 60 points when the other guy gets 3. Again, you don’t know how the RIO system works, you’re not dealing in facts.
That’s literally factually untrue, but even accepting your premise, there’s such a thing called diminishing returns? If that passing mark is 4 it doesn’t matter how little you’ve studied in order to get 3 marks, you still failed the test. What?
Repeat victimisation is a thing. The first person declining you does not have any direct causal affect on the second person declining you, and the third, etc. At some point you’ll have to accept that the problem is innate and sociological, and not that there’s a massive conspiracy stacked to blacklist your name.
This is once again completely out of context and not backed up by any evidence. The singular piece of “evidence” shown by Praetorian disproves his entire argument. The pug leader declined him because he’s never timed a +16 WM, and he does not have a good record elsewhere either, that’s plenty reflective of player skill regardless of score.
Probably not since people at that level look more towards ilvl than score and 435 is barely above regular mythic item level. Most players at about +5 either don’t know about rio or don’t use it becuase they don’t need to.
I literally got instant invites 
https://raider.io/characters/eu/argent-dawn/tsjelvivy
I didnt had a score for KR yet. And temple only a +2.
Dear, I explained it once again in the text from the same post that you quoted below. You didn’t object to the explanation either. Please just stop this constant pretending that what I write “doesn’t make sense” without spelling what exactly doesn’t make sense.
There’s a lot of people not interested in RIO, correct, but because they are constantly being removed, they do not look for groups, tend to just stop M+. Or accept RIO and do one run per week. There is no community of no-RIO players, there is just a community of RIO players because the process is structured that way.
Because that’s a big topic for a different thread. But the key parts of rating could still be completion of keys of different levels, just with adjustments for ilvl / competion time and things like decay.
This myth about boosting is getting so stupid now. Even if someone has bought a boost for every +15 they wont have done many keys on the summary. I’ve already listed all that.
Every time someone claims it’s discrimination that they weren’t invited to instead of accepting that they just weren’t what the leader was looking for and every time they want some auto queue system and all the other things seen through out this discussion. You may not personally feel this way but that’s not what others keep saying.
However nothing will change, those that want to blame an addon will continue to do so. Banning raider io will not improve anything for anyone but people would need to come up with new excuses.
It will be people are discriminating against me for my ilvl, my covenant, my achievements.
1 Like
Yes, I should have guessed it’s another gotcha. I am not sure what you are trying to achieve by this. The case you are bringing as an illustration is outside of the discussion, it’s not a typical one.
It does not matter whether something is PVE or PVP, the challenge can be arbitrarily low or high in both cases. Simiarly, ratings work in both cases.
I am showing real experience of how it is right now at your pyramid bottom. I am 100% pugging on it.
Cool, QED. But I already know the question was a gotcha, Psjohly explained.
The keyowner was the 426 hunter. He just runned his own key. Invited some players and did his +6. he doesnt even has 1 essence 
There’s a trickle down effect to those on the top of the “pyramid”. 2k RIO players don’t strive to stay at 2k RIO, and so on and so forth, so more reasonably you’re looking at a relatively similar amount of 2-4k RIO players removed to gain an equal amount of unranked or lower rated RIO players. The problem, then, is that higher rated players are more prone to repeat keys, and so the actual effect, in theory, is that less keys will be run when everyone does 1-2 keys per week.
M+ is also not mandatory. If there is 15% of the playerbase interested in pushing keys I think that’s a large enough portion of the playerbase to actively appeal to. I guarantee that less than 15% of players are into pet battling and achievement hunting, yet they’re still actively appealed to, and rightfully so.
The problem you have is that you want a piece of gear that’s exclusive to M+, and not that RIO is innately destroying a playerbase who never had the intention to push keys anyway. That’s not the fault of RIO, and you can always get a +10 or +8 version of the same item if it’s that good. We’ve always needed to do multiple forms of content for BiS, it’s just that M+ is actually gated by skill, that’s like demanding to be invited into mythic runs with grey parses on heroic.
Again, more people are deterred by the initial difficulty and timed atmosphere of M+ than they are by the need to bump up their RIO scores, and the few complaining about RIO are those pushing above their skill level and blaming the system.
Solo queues can be dangerous in that your metric then will have to gate low ranked players from doing high keys, or risk an insanely high depletion rate. I think any reasonable person can agree that someone with the equivalent of 300 RIO score shouldn’t be “solo queuing” for +15s, but then you narrow it down to what the threshold is for a +8 and a +12 and suddenly you’ll find the same demographic of people complaining about a low rating.
There’s thing like idée fixe. They suffer from it. No matter what people tell here they ignore what is said or go into personal attacks.
Wiser is just to move on and save time.
Wow can’t even compete in pure numbers with other games where solo queue is a thing, they only increased their player base again because of the introduction of Classic. Also those other games with solo queues do far more balancing in a shorter period of time then Blizzard does across the whole of a 2 year expansion.
I used to be against a solo queue Idea for M+ but the more RIO becomes the norm the more that players will feel the side effects of its introduction to the game.
Just thinking about it, the ever so popular “punish this person for leaving” thing that comes up now and again could be easily implemented through that queuing system.
Success mostly involves good teamwork which often doesn’t happen with M+ as it is.
No RIO doesn’t because its just an addon/website but the exclusion is decided upon by the players based on a small bit of information which cannot elaborate any further on what the player is really like. Players can still be excluded even if their RIO stats are desirable.
This is true, nothing will change because the player base gets closer and closer to having WoW as a second job.
Players will continue to get more and more judgemental because of a little bit of information that they see as absolute facts when the truth is there is no guarantee no matter how high an RIO score someone has.
1 Like
Yes it does matters.
In PvP games, you are directly confronted to other players, so the challenges difficulty depends on enemy player skill. Therefore being matched with players of equivalent skill is relevant.
On PvE you are confronted to a non stopping set of ever changing deadly abilities. But some mechanic that might be barely noticable in low key will definitevly kill you in a high key. Those are countered by intelligent choices of class combo, synergies & smartplay, thing you dont have in a random queue by definition. Besides, queue allows people to enter a dungeon with 0 knowledge of it, which is a recipe to catastrophy.
A queue will work out for the first level, but bevome horrible at higher key. And failed dungeon takes drastically more time than successful ones, leading to a leave early mentality
My best example would be SC2 coop. Nobody is prevented from tagging mutation & brutal mode even with non upgraded commanders. But trying to solo a brutal game is very hard and mutations are close to impossible alone. however easy mode solo is a breeze
1 Like
I didn’t object because you’ve said nothing new. People would be kept from content they have no experience in regardless. It’s harder for PvPers to get into +14-15 dungeon groups because of rio, same as it is harder for PvEers to get into rated PvP groups with no exp rating. People will always find a way to find out what kind of experience the player that has signed up to their group has.
Who’s removing them if all the ones who care about score at the narrow top of the pyramid?
Nothing is stopping your from giving a brief summary. Unless you’re stopping yourself because know that such system would have to be unreasonably complicated and probably still wouldn’t work well.
There is a trickle down effect, sure. But there is a trickle up effect as well in that people who got past the first couple of hurdles can fall of the wagon and quit mid-way. We are comparing the volume of several levels of the pyramid from the bottom vs the top. It seems much more likely that the bottom outweighs the top, the negative effect just applies to way more people, the positive effect would have to be much stronger than the negative one on a per-case basis to get even, I just don’t see it happening with the number of players who even bother to do more than one run per week being so small.
One other thing that could help gauge numbers here is to observe that the current system is a team queue and what I propose is a solo queue. In all games, everywhere, every time, a solo queue is 10x+ larger than a team queue. So, the effect or turning what we have now - a team queue with a bogus rating that quite likely plays a net negative role - into a solo queue, is going to be big, a lot of players coming.
I agree this would solve the problem for PVPers forced to PVE. That would be a good thing (that is, if you didn’t have to PVE in order to PVP). But this wouldn’t make RIO a net positive. It remains a net negative, there are other cases where a player is not accepted because of RIO and falls out.
Yes, absolutely, low-rated players will not have access to high keys, that’s what rating should do. What is the problem? The difference with RIO is that the declines would be done by the automatic system that would be (1) way more fair by looking at multiple factors, (2) get you to the right rating much faster than RIO does, and (3) dramatically reduce the time to compose a group because it would need no interaction from your side. It’s a win-win-win. The only con is that it actually has to be created, that takes effort. That’s why Blizzard won’t do it and we’ll remain stuck with this monkey BS that is RIO. :- )
You can spam QED all you want if it makes you feel smarter, but all that proves is that rio isn’t an issues at those levels and mostly not an issue until you go past 15, which is where pushing for score begins.
1 Like