Yeah but you know with a visible rating indicative of your skill? That goes up with wins and down with losses and has rewards at certain milestones for you to feel accomplished when getting better at the game instead of stuff like BGs where there is literally nothing at stake and winning and losing yield the same results.
So all you need is a Skirmish scene that offers the same exact rewards - just also happens to have a visual rating? Sounds fine tbh!
Genuine question: should the rewards in SoloQ be the same as those in 2s/3s?
Pretty much. The rewards for solo queue would be the same as for 2s and RBGs.
All rewards are available except Glad titles and Glad mounts wich stay exclusive to premade 3s.
âŠso why bother with 2s if the rewards are the same as in SoloQ? Isnât that giving the wrong impression about the importance of grouping up?
By all means, have a soloQ for people to experiment with, to gauge their progress, have some rating, but the moment the incentives/rewards are the same as the dedicated 2s ladder is when you see the demise of said 2s ladder [I allude yet again to âthose other WoW serversâ where this has been seen].
There has to be some give and take; you canât have all the cake and eat it.
Well the obvious difference would be that in premade 2s you get to make your group ahead of time and face other premades, meaning you get to have the advantage of voice, or playing with a friend.
But besides that 2s according to most people has always been a joke bracket, but if solo queue became a thing then 2s could even become more serious like 3s since all the casual no voice randoms would move to LFG, wich could actually be a big improvement for 2s gameplaywise.
True, but why bother grouping up in the first place? Good players can singlehandedly make a mockery out of a SoloQ scene when pitted against newcomers/less experienced players [who we are intending the SoloQ system to be for, right?]; theyâd see no point in doing 2v2 vs tryhard teams, and would instead flock to the SoloQ scene, if the rewards/incentives were the same.
It would be pretty bad and easily exploitative.
I didnât suggest it was easy, I suggested that solo queue wouldnât solve the problem anyway. It might give you quick queues, but the teams would be either bad comp or bad fits or uncoordinated or just bad in some other way and youâll lose all your CR.
Separate rating, then? Well, that separate rating will just give worse rewards because it doesnât require coordination so the bar is lower, and Blizzard will know it. Oh wait, thatâs just like Skirmishes!
WoW takes 3 kinds of skill:
- Mechanical
- Preparational
- Social
Solo queue wonât work because of the 2nd thing. You have no guarantee that the person you will play with will be in any way at all prepared to play with someone thatâs prepared the way you have, and you certainly wonât have any social connection or coordination or will succeed as a group.
Itâs gonna suck.
WoW is not League. Get over it.
Might as well have - the point was clear: He was on during off-hours and couldnât find anyone to play with because of that.
Sure it can. Itâs quite alive. If you wanna see a dead game, try playing some Armies of Exigo - a great RTS game from 2004.
Canât find games? Well, what a shocker.
Iâll definitely agree on the gear disparity issues you highlight, but that doesnât need to and wonât be solved by solo queues anyway.
Exactly thats why im asking for wod gearing first in every soloQ topic.
Yeah im arguing with antisoloQ people a lot but its not my priority at all.
1.wod gearing
2. Fix skirmish
3. Then we can try ranked skirmish 3v3 with forced 1heal1melee1ranged and see how it goes.
I still think that its possible to have soloQ and premade in nice coexistence tho.
Yeah, they can co-exist just fine, but solo queue will be a trap for beginners.
Solo queue is bad for exactly the same reason that LFD M+ 15 is bad.
It will only lead to frustration. People in here think itâll solve their problem in finding partners - but it wonât. Itâll make it much more difficult because itâll lead people down the wrong road and itâll frustrate them once it has managed to do that.
Im def not frustrated now siting hours in lfg doing laps in Oribos, yep, not at all.
1 Like
Imagine beginner atm trying to get into pvp. Its not a trap its way worse then that nowâŠ
Atm people are so tryhard that they will ussually do not bother with newcomer in the first placeâŠand these upgrades and weekly vault is making it way worse. I can feel it every new expansion people became more and more tryhard âŠsad its game.
im working in a bank i have to push rating every fday. I want to just play some chill arenas or bgs dude thats all i want âŠnot all people want to push rating so for me its fine to have just wod gearing and skirmish bit it doesnt mean i cant see the issue with lfg tool. Its not working well i actually like stoopz tinder idea from his video or atleast let the finder check all the stuff you have to do manuallyâŠ
Any change is welcome at this point and people here acting like everything is fine.(not you)
At any random time I look in the finder thereâs at least 10 groups for low geared play where people just wanna bonk around and get some conquest.
One time one of those groups is gonna contain the alt of a more component and patient player.
You try to befriend him and grow.
Itâs easier if the town effect works and itâs a server, like the game used to have, which is another topic.
I hate the Tinder idea. I also hate Tinder. 
Iâve explained why somewhere else but I canât recall it. Basically it makes you never commit so you never get out of the endless loop of swiping. Sure, you find someone to hang out with for a bit, but more times than not these people are in the same loop you are, and it all turns into nothing.
I agree not everything is fine here. The gameâs definitely broken - but solo queue wonât fix it. In fact itâll get us further from the system that does fix it.
1 Like
Itâs gonna be interesting to see if they bring back the TBC rating system and teams etc., and how thatâll differ from retail now.
Meanwhile:
^ The effect of that would basically increase the implicit trust levels if it shows a strong effect of matching ability.
Which might help people grow more inclined to play more with the people theyâve been matched up with.
It can even be integrated into:
^ That suggestion as well, to increase the likelihood of sticking with players after having been matched up and played together for a bit.
(Oops, posted the same link twice.)
Well it dont have to be like that exactly⊠idea is that this system will find players even when not in lfg tool. And then you can contact themâŠ
So you will open lfg 2.0 and choose specs you want to be paired with, 2v2 or 3v3, then system will automaticly show you players that meet your requirements.(ofc these players have to agree with that by adding their chars to this system) with all achieves, rating, gear etc showed without need to check all of these manually. You can say it will be slower on lower rating because you have to wait for people to finish what they are doing.
Thats when instant play comes in. If you check instant play you are locked from other content like now and ready to play instantly. So if you check instant play while searching system will show you only these players.
This way you can found mates for arenas while doing bgs or whatever conent you like and do not need waste your time waiting in lfg
Its just an idea i hope multibilion company can bring something even better. 
I think theyâll keep the current system, as well they should. Itâs much, much better than tBCâs arena system.
I do kindda hope we can have team names though, those were fun. :3
idk, sounds pretty toxic to me.
âHi!â
âHi!â
âSorry, your rating is too low I cbaâ
leaves
âOkâŠâ
No thanks!
A rating penalty for leaving? All that does is just make it easier to dump rating so even more can be playing against toxic gladiator level players at 1600 which, incidentally, would make the matchmaker mentioned earlier even more toxic.
The rating bonus for sticking together can cause run-away inflation. That is, by just having 2 players win 50% and having letâs say 30 other teams doing the same, they will all slowly climb up and up.
As far as the MMR goes, thereâs already a 5 match âtrial periodâ in the game today, and itâs having rather disastrous effects in some cases. Please donât add more of it - itâs not necessary.
WoWâs rating system is based on that in StarCraft 2. Itâs very, very solid, and there is no need to mess with it. The only problem itâs got is that people are dropping rating which is causing a rating deflation. Blizzard worked in a rating inflation over the season to move the average up as an alternative to rating decay - but right now itâs only counteracting what the rating droppers are doing.
So like a guild advertiser, basically.
Since I like the game being all about that open world, I think there should be a couple of boards outside major cities near the duelling areas and the new PvP vendors that weâd put there. You go there and you see the listings board or note yourself down on it.
I am fine with that. Itâs a good idea, actually, but thatâs not solo queueing. Itâs not solo queueing at all.
1 Like
Uhm no, Iâve explicitly mentioned ways it deals with such things. Short term itâs prevented via punitive measures for doing so before queuing up, long term itâs prevented by raising the implicit trust levels in the system itself, so people wonât even feel the need to do so any longer since theyâll trust in the ability of the people theyâve been matched up with more often.
Uhm no, that isnât really true at all. None of it is.
Not even the â5 match trial periodâ, that isnât true either. Itâs just the effect of the system stabilizing, which it continues to do infinitely. It has no limit of 5 games, it just increases the accuracy of the rating the more you play together. Thereâs no increased volatility just from queuing with new people, itâs just a case of people destabilizing their rating when you happen to be playing with people who you all together donât belong where youâre at, from causing a win streak/losing streak.
Check out the Glicko RD system, and his improvement being the Glicko-2 system. It breaks it down for you, and is basically what itâs all inspired by.
Which that suggestion doesnât even mess with. It just adds a âslowâ period into the rating systemâs original functionality of trying to match you âwhere you belongâ, which it eventually does in the same way regardless.
The purpose of those âpenalty gamesâ is only to create a path for more emotional investment and to discourage hopping teams left and right.
And for the record, that whole âinflationâ and âdeflationâ, itâs related to the way the system has always worked, and is continuously tuned by Blizzard.
Basically, the only time deflation occurs is when people essentially stop queuing, period. And when they lose more than the opponents win.
Inflation occurs when people win more than the opponents win, which is inflated on purpose during the initial placement games when starting from 0 rating.
This is just because people start on 0 rating, so if thereâd be no such points of inflation then people would forever be stuck on 0 rating, and the rest is added to more rapidly adjust the rating to changes in performance. Basically when youâre at 50% win/loss then youâre considered âstabilizedâ, but you can destabilize it by turning the win rate above 50%, or below 50%, which basically causes the system to recalibrate your rating to where you belong in accordance to the change in performance.
Itâs all explained in the Glicko system, which I strongly suspect Blizzardâs system ever since the change from the Elo system which the TBC system is based off of, to the separate MMR which was implemented when wotlk came and people started on 0 rating instead of 1500 rating like they did in TBC.
The separate MMR is basically tuned differently than the CR based on a pretty obvious deviation number, which the Glicko system is all about. Itâs essentially the Elo system, but with integrating a deviation number to faster change the rating while also increasing the accuracy of the theoretical âtrue ratingâ.
Yeah i know thats obvious im againts waiting in lfg tool doing nothing i dont care how it will be implemented
Yeah, I get to those solutions later and theyâre all bad.
It is. I know it is, I see it whenever I start with a new arena team. And even if I didnât feel it directly, Iâd know itâs there because I spoke to the guy who implemented it in the StarCraft 2 matchmaking system, and he told me theyâd copied the MMR system wholesale and basically divided all the displayed MMRâs in half to match what people were used to in WoW.
And then they add 10 âghost MMRâ per week of the season to add as a sort of rating decay as well - except it decays the value of rating, not the rating itself.
You can see the 5 placement games easily - you will notice the first 5 games your MMR can jump by easily over 200 or more. The first few of those games are an almost completely random guess and you can meet people with ±700 rating of yourself. Over those 5 games it stabilises a bit, but at the 6th game is stabilises A LOT more and locks you down into something much more normal.
I know the system very well - a system you seem to think is a completely different system.
They are not. They invented their own. Sure, they took inspiration from TrueSkill, but they were not happy with TrueSkill or its derivatives.
I tried to Google it and it was basically pages up and down with you saying that they use it on the search results lmao
Please consider that the matchmaking and the rating changes you make when you do this actually filter out into the ladder itself.
The amount of wins and losses in arena are exactly the same for a completely bloody obvious reason.
Also, the MMR system will NEVER assume any player to have 0 rating. Thatâs just current rating which basically follows your MMR around by being the old ELO system with a cap of 98 gained or lost.
http://www.glicko.net/
And itâs not ELO, itâs Elo.
Yes, I know the system exists. The claim I am questioning is that Blizzard are using it.
I happen to know theyâre not, but Iâm always open to details, maybe people who should know saying otherwise or noting specific places where theyâve been inspired.