What do you think about it?
In my opinion it’d solve some existing issues with both arena and rated battlegrounds.
What do you think would be great objectives and maps that could work with it?
Regular 10v10 might cause issues.
I like Shado-Pan Showdown PvP Brawl.
I enjoyed the brawl even tho I ran into an insane amount of snowflakes who literally gave up (both sides) 10 sec into the game.
This could be an interesting bracket for rated soloq imo.
I honestly don’t remember that brawl, but as far as 6v6 RBG map formats that might work (and keeping it as RBG and not just a death match) would be something along the lines of a moba map, but without the creeps and without the currency. Just a map where you run around covering 3 “entry points” while trying to get past theirs, perhaps with a stackable buff for each kill you’re a part of that increases dmg/healing to speed it up, with the goal of killing their whatever in the base, with a ress in the base as well.
While it’d be pretty limited with a square map having only 3 main paths to run in, but by creating environmental details that you play with (like for example random buffs spawning here and there) that rewards “exploring” nooks and crannies, then it’d have a chance to be engaging in a different way to what the game has seen thus far, or for example a labyrinth and so on. Moba maps got their “forests” as well after all, which could be used as inspiration for something different on the map beyond just the 3 paths.
Could even create “trap rooms” as they’re called, or intentionally design places on the map suitable for ambush with vantage points where you can see them but they can’t see you until you start the fight, and so on.
Anyway, lots of ways to explore new map formats.
You couldn’t play every map, the maps and the objectives been slightly adjusted. Temple had only 2 orbs instead of 4, in warsong you couldn’t go on the roof and uhm… I don’t remember anymore but it actually felt like it made sense and nothing really felt unfair or disbalanced.
Riight… That one…
Yeah, no.
I remember those being way out of line with one side having a tank while the other doesn’t, or one having 2 healers while the other only had 1 where people had similar ilvls and so on.
It’s flawed as a concept and more suitable to stick figures with no differences between them. I even remember a healer being able to carry their team when the other side didn’t have any. Point is, it’s not suitable for a game with differences that you’re locked into when there’s rating. It’s more suitable for a lobby-game like a moba or FPS.
whatever they do, if they don’t normalize gear it will be absolute trash
Ye I mean that’s the nature of random bgs in general. Thinking of this bracket like RBG where you gotta have specific roles, while also limited (like healers rbg), sounds good to me.
That’s why it’d be more fitting for a lobby-game, where you adjust what you pick after you’ve been matched.
As for solo queue in general, he also talked about how because of the limitation in point nr. 1, you can’t apply the law of large numbers on individuals. While it evens out overall across the ladder itself, individuals can still get very bad luck in their matchups and be held down from that where the outcome of the match doesn’t feel like it represents the skill of the player in such cases. Others can also get very lucky in their matchups. Meaning one can have 80 out of 100 matches be very lucky for them, while someone else playing the same class might get 20 out of 100 matches where they’re lucky.
It basically corrupts the meaning of rating like that. (Not saying there isn’t any corruption in WoW’s ladders now, because boosting has been a thing since the dawn of arenas. But it’d become more corrupt, to a point where it has a large negative impact on the player experience.)
This is what they’ve been talking about all along when they’ve said how this is very centered around comps, and that it’s a genuine problem from their PoV as designers where they don’t have the ability to ensure only viable comps in the matchmaking. Because the player pool isn’t able to deliver such a thing for each player.
I mean it makes sense but then again, making the majority (which are not high rated) suffer because some individuals experience longer queues, idk. I’d see the bracket (with soloq) more as a chance for people to gear up (since there is no real change coming from what I understood?) who struggle to do so in arena or just can’t find mates.
I honestly enjoyed it, at least the idea. Of course roles should be set up like 1 tank/3dps/2 heals, this will probably lead to longer queues but I am sure it won’t be longer than what some people experience in lfg atm. Also, I don’t see at as a fix to anything, I think it’s just something nice to have.
Iirc, he said they would introduce it instead of 10vs10 if anything, that’s something idk if I wanted that tbh.
True, I agree on that but that’s the good thing about it, they are not forced to play it and can choose to play pre-made whenever they want.
Of course but I’d assume people are aware of that and they also got some backup options if they are not fine with this outcome. I just don’t like the mindset of “not doing anything” just because “doing something can lead to problems”.
I find the “rating” here is just more like an indicator for MMR, I personally wouldn’t need it as something fully competitive, just a bracket with more meaning to it and decent incentives.
The task is definitely not an easy one but I am pretty sure there are some smart brains who are able to create a working system. Could have “rng” comps (with their hidden algorithm) who fight each other and then an option where you can pick specific specs to play with, which are limited (let’s say you can pick only 2 healer specs to queue with, just as a very, very abstract example), and you’d fight the peole who also decided to pick this option.
I think people come up with this even more now, is just because of the fact how frustrating lfg can be sometimes and how insanely outdated it is. If people didn’t have such a hard time finding mates, nobody would really asking for soloq too much.
You seem to be misunderstanding something. You’d see this problem emerging more and more already at 1600+ if the matchmaking would enforce setups.
No, it would. Roles can’t be enforced, it can’t even be enforced in unrated queues entirely. They have never been able to enforce it entirely, only roughly.
The repercussive effect would be massive. Not to mention the entitlement, and complaints. How do you think it’d look like if everyone would quit who doesn’t get a good matchup the majority of the time as they keep trying to climb?
It’s not feasible, from the overall perspective. Not as long as people are locked into what they play in this comp-centric game mode.
Not to mention, Holinka also expressed concerns about splitting up the rated player base, which he’s got the data to back up that claim.
They’re doing a lot. There’s a ton of money spent on R&D at Blizzard every year, and as he explained they also keep developing the game and have plans in the work, but nothing is certain.
… What? MMR is rating just the same, just more volatile than the cr.
And Holinka said what they had come up with. Which is that it’s not possible for WoW until those problems are overcome.
Wouldn’t work for aforementioned reasons. Which was what Holinka confirmed.
That’s 100% true. But that doesn’t mean the masses are right. It’s just them gathering around the most common denominator, and that it’s very simplistic in nature on top of how they’ve been indoctrinated to it via other popular games. It’s like the vaccination explanations and how they keep trying to dumb it down for everyone in the world, because it’s an established fact that people are stupid while a person can be smart.
Hm… I mean I had some long time waiting in LFG, especially on alts with no gear.
Do you mean roles or specs tho? Because if you queue skirmish as a healer, you will pretty much always get queued with two dps (barely with a tank). In the strict sense it would still be “roughly” but I think we could still call that “enforced roles entirely” here, kinda? I mean you can’t get queued with 2 heals 
I’d honestly like to see some data, if we had some kind of an on-going event for this or anything like that.
I meant it definitely is annoying, that’s why I was mentioning you need two separate systems. One is “fully” rng (even tho it isn’t in reality) and the other with options to choose specific specs (which is limited). This way nobody should complain about bad rng since he is not forced to join soloq with this option. I also think it won’t appear too often then and when it does, these people will get punished with a debuff of course and you could implement a hidden score to this kind of behavior which would result in even longer queue times. (the score would reset at some point of course) I feel like that’s nothing that can’t be handled “easily”.
This is probably the only argument I’d never take as valid. I remember these concern with introduction of rbg. Every single time I was playing arena in WoW, my queues always been popping within seconds, pre and post rbg. (speaking of 2s here since that’s what I mainly play)
They definitely need to be more transparent. They lost way too much credibility in order to trust them just like that.
Ye I am not sure how to explain my thought here tbh. Like hm… rbg (and 2s?) is rated as well and you get “same” rewards but it’s still kinda irrelevant to the competitive scene… if that makes sense?
You mean because you can’t enforce roles and queue times were too long?
I honestly don’t buy it idk. I mean the roles are already enforced anyway, even in a more strict way just by a different system. Regarding the queue time I’d like to see some data first, since it could also be claimed that more people will play just because of this new system which will even it out.
I understand the importance of the queue time for both, which is why I’d like to see some data first (which is probably impossible).
Of course not (hello flat earthers o/). The masses been pointing out lfg issues for years tho and ye… it just became a hot topic again.
The problem emerges in the matchup. 1 healer + 2 dps vs. 3 dps for example, which can happen when there are too many dpsers queuing in comparison to the amount of healers, and the queue times becomes too long so the matchmaking then shifts the priority to cutting the queue time down by matching what otherwise might’ve become 2x 2v2 skirmishes instead.
Reward scheme integrity is a thing. While Holinka didn’t say it out loud, it’s why he said there wouldn’t be any “Sinister High Warlord” in RBGs, and such titles.
Difference is, was it Blizzard who said so back then, or was it the players? Because now, Holinka is the one who said it. And he’s on the side with the data to back up such claims. -
Which is why that isn’t a valid argument, on top of the reward scheme integrity thing.
I see. But that is related to the gameplay design itself, and how competitive people perceive the game mode. Reason why people don’t think the same of 2v2 as they think of 3v3 is because the gameplay itself is different, less hectic, and less challenging in a sense.
That’s where RBGs for example also suffers from the same problem, since I’m sure you can think of examples yourself where people don’t have to lift their own weight yet still climb rating there. Even though it’s more hectic, it’s also less possible to control it as much as in 3s, and the possibility to get carried unintentionally is a real thing, where it wasn’t really your “skill” that led to your rating.
Basically it’s the difficulty of the game mode itself that determines the prestige, which Blizzard reacted to and altered the reward scheme to mirror that, which amplified the meaning of those rewards in turn compared to before then.
Data is the rating congestion and the way rating systems work. As mentioned in the other thread the last time we talked, there’s a drastic drop in players once you go past challenger rating.
It’s also affected by the roles people play, for example what if 500 000 dpsers queues at a single moment for 3v3, all at the same rating. But only 50 000 healers, also all at the same rating. That means 150 000 players can be matched up instantly as soon as instance servers are ready for it, where having a healer is a requirement. But since games can take different lengths of time, it starts to split up after that, with each new game finished and a new person re-queuing (which isn’t a guarantee that they’ll re-queue to begin with), it means the matchmaking is then required to match those up. The dpsers would fall to the end of the line, while healers would be matched up asap as soon as the rating range matches (the rated matchmaking has a built-in parameter for rating ranges which expands the more time you spend in the queue).
That’d essentially determine the queue time where setups are enforced. Now have that split up into 12 classes and 36 specs. Where people can choose “a couple” of options for the matchmaking. So on and so forth. Then split them up into very different rating ranges.
It’s not feasible. Not until it turns into a lobby-game where you can pick what you play, or every spec is made to be self-sustained.
I get that but aren’t we experiencing a worse version of this right now and it still somehow “works”? Currently, it’s the “same” while the higher you go in rating, not just your role matters but even more your class/spec.
Speaking of arena soloq here, right?
I fail to see why the current system “works” then while having less options to check for players?
Not exactly. Right now it’s limited to people forming their own groups. And, well… I’m sure you’re aware of a constant problem with healer shortages, right? It’s not like it’s new.
And the matchmaking, i.e. the queue time itself, isn’t affected by roles. It’s only matching the ratings, since the freedom of setups is left up to the players to choose for themselves as they form their group.
So essentially, you can’t really compare them.
I’d rather not make this just a soloqueue discussion, but soloqueue works very badly with arenas indeed. (Comps matter too much)
But they would work okay with RBG. Comps matter there too, but I’d say less much. On lower rating you’re basically picked by your role, cr, exp… usually not because of spec / class. And if so, it’s only because of some spec performs badly and people don’t want to play with it, not because it wouldn’t fit.
But Holinka made a great case against 10v10 RBG with how the rating works. (Unsolvable issue… 10 ppl with 10 different ratings).
I’d also say strong cases against 10v10 RBG (and for smaller group objective-based gameplay - like 5-6 ppl) are that it requires too much ppl to find and organize (it’s usually hard for newer or casual players to talk at the same time, when 10 ppl needs to be talking… 5 or 6 is easier to manage).
As well as getting 10 ppl is hard too and limits the number of groups. Instead of 3 groups of 10 ppl playing, we could have 5 groups of 6 ppl playing, who are matched better.
To me really, 6v6 objective-based gameplay (“6v6 RBG”) with soloqueue is solution to everything.
If I had to choose one, I’d choose to make at least the 6v6 RBG. I could live without the soloqueue part.
But simply arena is just deathmatch and RBG is too dificult to organize and too limiting.
Also there’s that thing, where in 10v10 RBG you can suddenly be 1v5 and you have no chance. But with less people, you’re going to be less overpowered by multiple enemies. Meaning if you stumble upon enemies of larger number than is yours, it’s more likely they’re outnumbering you by smaller number.
Simply because largest desparity in 10v10 can be 10v1 and largest desparity between 6v6 can be 6v1.
It might sound like really small thing, but I think this is actually an issue in large Battlegrounds, because you travel somewhere and then you’re outnumbered and die and repeat. It makes for really garbage experience. Sure, because of lack of skill, but still so.
I think its just another bad idea that will ever come true. Too much effort into side part of a side part of the game (pvp).
You say it would fix some existing issues. Like what exactly?
As i see it, it wouldnt fix anything. Exactly the opposite, it would create more issues. Blizz refuses to put effort and resources into wow in general. All the effort they are willing to put into the game gets into raids. PvP have no real development and expecting them to balance the game around 3s, 2s, 10s and now also 6s, when they cant fix even the most gamebreaking pvp issues, is maximum level of naivity. You dont rly want it, same like you dont want 1v1, which some ppl suggest.
Holinka thinking about 6*6 RBG since Legion.
what issues do you perceive?
I perceive these:
I don’t perceive balance as the highest issue.
And yes, I don’t want 1v1. I don’t want it because of pillar hugging.
Also more people the less balance matters. In 1v1 disbalance is the highest.
How will these issues be different with 6v6 than 10v10? Its literally the same, except your idea would require huge rework, rebalance and I rly see no upsides.
If you have rated form of content, it will still suck for new players, there will always be a barrier to entry and you will still need a proper group for it. Its rated because its competitive, which also comes with certain so called toxicity towards bad players. I see no difference in the amount of ppl you need to get.
On the contrary, I would say you can afford having a bad player in 10 men group, while having a bad player in 6men group is way more noticable. Thats why you just cant reasonably play 6v6 bgs with a new char, if you want to win. You basically have to join 40 men or if ur into this, maybe 10men bgs could still work.
Newer players could soloqueue into 6v6 without forming groups. By it being 6 players more groups could be grouped at the same time (nearly twice as much) and it’d not take long to find groups automatically with similar rating.
And by it being rated, soloqueue and object-based, they have time to learn it and way to test their skill (by rating), yet without needing to commit to find partners before they learned how to play.
It’d not be deathmatch.
With it not being deathmatch they’d not be removed from game instantly after one mistake.
They have opportunity to learn and it’s not frustrating.
It also doesn’t require you to find teammates (sooner than you’re ready because of lack of skill) as it’s soloqueue, so you have opportunity to learn the game and again, it’s not frustrating anymore.
I’d add the soloqueue to it. And as well, RBG are hard to organize because of the number of players. When there is too many ppl (10), you may (as unskilled players) regularly be outmatched by numbers and dying within seconds without opportunity to learn anything other than being grouped. Which may lead to people staying in group being passive and not pro-active which is boring. With 6 ppl you’re less likely to be outmatched by larger number and if you’re, the maximum number of players you’re outnumbered by is lower.
Giving you opportunity to learn.
I’d say LFG is toxic too.
And I’d say soloqueue would’ve been less toxic.
As you can queue games after fast again.
I think toxicity mainly comes from 2 hours looking for partner and then finding out he’s absolutely rubbish at the game, so you relieve your frustration onto him.
And the newer player spend hour looking for teammates too just to find one who leaves straight after. Soloqueue would’ve solved this cause of toxicity while not introducing any new source.