ruski boy, you got destroyed here
2 Likes
You either don’t participate in PvP at all, or you intentionally distort information in your favor. Everyone knows that there are only 2 synchronizations, one on the Horde side, the second on the Alliance side. All the rest are either solo leaders or players who play in the same group. Or are you one of those who justify every loss by the fact that you played against 2,456,888 people?
Oh, my bad…
Is it fair to say, every game you joined, you were with really strong groups (some of which are known for Qsyncing)?
Is it fair to say, these really strong groups (some of which are known for Qsyncing) won 100% of the games you played with them?
I’m not entirely sure where the ‘information distortion’ is happening.
Regardless, you won 100% of these games (gratz).
You also agreed (correct me if I’m wrong), that it doesn’t make sense to queue into games with 99% chance of losing.
…so can you fathom why the players you guys beat (100% of the time) might stop queuing/playing?
1 Like
Tell me honestly, gnome, for you the problem is not synchronization, but the fact that people can unite to participate in MMORPG, right? For you, any game in a group, whether it’s 5 people or 444556, is an unfair advantage?
You consider it an unfair advantage if I play in one group of 5 people, and you don’t?
“…can you fathom why the players you guys beat (100% of the time) might stop queuing/playing?”
I’m not going to entertain your questions if you keep ignoring mine.
1 Like
I didn’t think this was a question that needed an answer because it’s more than obvious.
I can’t make some people stop playing in groups, and I can’t make people play in groups either. The only thing I can do to help these poor guys is to get across the idea that the WoW world is cruel and “I want” doesn’t work here. If someone wants to play solo, ok, who’s against it… But you have to understand that there may be consequences.
2 Likes
No one expects you to.
I just wanted you to acknowledge the detrimental effect of strong groups / Qsync win-streaks will have on the player base.
Not at all.
As I’ve said before, I consider it an unfair advantage if you stack multiple groups to achieve a 95-99% win rate.
But not only is it causing an unfair advantage in the short-term, it will have a long-term negative effect of the player base & a positive effect on *churn.
*A 2024 large-scale study of ~6 million competitive matches (262k players) found that being matched against much stronger opponents and suffering consecutive losses increased the chance players churned (stopped playing).
ttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/articles/PMC10839887/
Matches in which players are equally skilled increase the frequency and duration of play and are favored by players [[43]]
Therefore, typical matchmaking methods focus on fair matches, so the players can have the same chance of victory.
The authors found that players feel competent (competence (feeling capable) is a core need that fuels enjoyment and persistence in games; repeated failure undermines it. Work in Self-Determination Theory and flow shows that when challenge greatly exceeds skill, motivation and persistence drop) if they succeed in the given challenges of video games, which induces greater flow.
Their study involved a case study regarding a popular massive multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG), World of Warcraft, where users playing in player-versus-player servers (mainly focused on players’ confrontations) were more motivated by competition than users playing in player-versus-environment servers (mainly focused on challenges against non-player characters). Therefore, player’s recent match results, such as win, lose, and draw, have become a significant factor in churn prediction in a competitive game [[11]]
1 Like
If synchronization and playing in the same group give almost the same results for random players, I mean losing, then what is the difference between them? After all, a random player will still lose.
1 Like
Fighting an epic 40 vs 40 battle in the middle of the map at 2 fps should be amazing.
2 Likes
The difference is scale and probability.
A 5-man premade can swing a fight or hold an objective, but they don’t always dictate the entire match. Plenty of random teams beat a single premade. I’ve seen it, I’ve done it, and it’s part of the design Blizzard has explicitly allowed.
Sync-premading, on the other hand, isn’t “just another group.” It’s a method of stacking multiple groups in the same match, deliberately bypassing the 5-man cap. That takes the outcome from uncertain but winnable -to- predetermined.
For a solo player, that’s the whole distinction: losing because the other side played better (within the rules) feels normal; losing because the other side engineered the match to bypass the rules feels like exploitation. Both are losses, but one is part of the intended game, the other is not.
1 Like
In 90% of cases they do. Two 5-man in 99% of cases.
When a random player loses 20 times in a row to the same group (out of sync), trust me, he doesn’t think it’s just “part of the game”
1 Like
Depends on the 5-man pre-made, but even if they do, it’s within the limits set by Blizz.
…if it results in a 99% chance of losing?
Yeh, I’d say that’s a problem for people.
Do you know anyone this has happened to?
In my experience, players will suffer 1-3 losses (to the same group) before not bothering anymore.
1 Like
I see these indescribable emotions almost every day, wishes for long life for me and my family, in my personal messages.
And it doesn’t matter whether I play solo or in a group.
Well that’s obviously disgusting behaviour.
Whilst I empathise with player’s’ frustration, I think anyone still queuing up after the first ~3 losses against the same group becomes glutton for punishment.
No, it is not a problem for people. At least not a problem to complain about. Since everybody can just queue with a group themselves/play meta classes/ use consumables etc. If you make the conscious decision to queue solo and do none of these things you should be prepared to live with the consequences instead of complaining in the forums about your own decisions. 99% win for premades does also not translate to 99% lose for solo players. Since not every game is a premade game. Not by a long shot. Premades also exist on both sides. So sometimes you play with them, sometimes against.
This wasn’t said in relation to ‘a group’ -but multiple groups.
Whilst many players can circumvent Blizz restrictions, few players are prepared to / want to.
…so judging by the daily complaints about syncers (on both sides of the pond),
Let’s, in the interest of accuracy, call them syncers/Qsyncers -quite distinct from premades.
Conflating these terms muddies the water & has people crying about ‘premades’ -when their beef is actually with Qsyncs.
Which is why, when talking about a 99% lose scenario, it’s specifically in relation to vs Qsyncers:
And complaints have been made against both playing with & against them.
…is this the part where we just tell each other things we already know?
Same rules apply. Most solo players can’t even make a distinction between the two.
Trying to seperate the two is actually muddying the waters, since a 5-man groups has as big an avantage over solo players as a 10-man group over non-syncers. Arguably a bigger one, tbh.
If you want to “fix” any of these so called “problems” you would have to disable RW+raidchat, only allow solo queue, add a pvp gear requirement and enforce a balance in heal, dps, tank compositions. No, thanks!
There lies the issue. People want to play a single player game and get mad when people want to play the game as an MMORPG. Like what it was designed for…
Don’t be ridiculous.
There’s multiple proposed ‘fixes’.
Okay, enlighten me! What are your fixes for the underlying issues which created premades in the first place(wildly unbalanced games and with it no player agency/snowballing/sabotage/etc.)?
With premades we take player agency back by grouping up. As it should be in an MMO. If anything Blizzard should encourage players to form more premades, become leaders etc. The more, the better.