Cap/Randomization Change to BG

[Arrowdei 0]

On 9/9/2017 at 5:58 AM, Spanishboss said:

i am here now.

 

Hi all, long time no see. THIS MEASURE IS GOOD I APPROVE :) WILL HELP COOMUNITY =) EAGER TO RAID =)

ANLADY baby!! :D Good to see my favourite spaniard still trolling everyone ;)

This simply won't work logically. It's simply socialism in the form of honor distribution, i'll explain:

What you are doing is removing the ability for people to mutually work together to get the most honor they can in the most optimal setting and forcing those specific players to now subsidise those who are unwilling to put the time and effort that the rankers are. Essentially, limiting the BG base to premades of 3 is putting a 70% efficiency tax on those ranking players, forcing them to carry 7 others if they want an efficient method of winning for honor. Like all horrific ideas, this "FEELS GOOD", but will fail because it's not logically thought through.

The reason for this is that the incentives are now so lopsided that those players cannot efficiently carry 7 people who no longer have to try their best to maximize their honour output. Because now they have 3 higher calibre rankers, those 7 players can now slack off, AFK, do whatever they want and be "carried" to victory. This subsidising of their honor doesn't help them get better as players (there is no reward internally if you get everything handed to you, thus people stop putting energy into it, ala retail), and it will make ranking so inefficient for the "rankers" that they will no longer find it time efficient to do so. Having done the ranking grind myself, the thought of doing it with 7 other retards actually makes me physically ill to think about. Was bad enough having to carry mediocre players in premades let alone complete incompetent players.

What this also does that people don't understand is subsidise bad behaviour, or inefficient behaviour. Which if you know anything about behavioural psychology will only heighten and increase that behaviour. You have rewarded both complaining and tantrums, appeasement only begets escalation from weak people, you only have to look at what happens in retail when they start appeasing tantrums. But it's going to reward anti-social / inefficient behaviour, by forcing people who would otherwise not want to be with a specific group, you are allowing the lowest common denominator to dictate the terms of the engagement rather than the other way around. Which will mean because the premade player can no longer not play with this lower calibre player, that player no longer needs to play as well as he possibly can to earn the respect or affection of said player but the other way around. This forces a race to the bottom in skill and commitment rather than the other way around, which will eventually lead to mass AFK'ing, inefficiency in play (be it in talents or playstyle, not going for efc just fighting mid coz why not?), lack of effort(why try when you can just do nothing and earn the same amount as tier 1 ranker? be it consumables or others, why buy grenades when who cares who wins or loses). The lack of investment into outcome are the bitter seeds prior to collapse of any institution, be it small such as ranking on a private server, or the largest scale possible in economics..

This also removes agency from players both stomping and getting stomped, part of getting stomped in pvp makes you want to create your own premade. When people lose enough, they do two things: Give up, work towards beating them. Weak people will give up, the tough ones will work towards beating them. This removal of agency completely removes the entire point of MMO gaming, being the incentive to get better. Seeing a r14 warrior completely wreck, will make you want to become that warrior if you are new to the game. In the same way being on a wealthy boat when I was young made me want to become rich. Some will be jealous and cry like children, however, like all tantrums they are best left ignored and for the people to grow out of it and give them the agency to solve this issue themselves.

What this also does is remove an entire segment of the population who play specifically because of premade games. MMO's as in life are meant to be done with other players. We are a tribal species, we prefer the company of others and the completion of difficult tasks in concert with others, particularly when it's efficient to do so. Removing this will remove entire segments of the population who while don't intellectually understand this, "feel" it when they play vanilla as opposed to retail WOW. It's why Vanilla has retained it's popularity, and will do so decades after the game has been released.

Europoors and Berniebros won't ever get this but socialism won't ever work no matter how much you want it to. Be it in the real world, just look at Venezuela, or in WoW with the honor system. Giving people lopsided incentives and expecting them to perform at the same level as they did previously has been tried and tried again, while the consequences in the real world means lots of real people die. Luckily in this case it will simply mean rankers and premade players will simply stop playing and the race to the bottom in pvp will begin and slowly die out.

[Sabre 5]

15 minutes ago, Arrowdei said:

ANLADY baby!! :D Good to see my favourite spaniard still trolling everyone ;)

This simply won't work logically. It's simply socialism in the form of honor distribution, i'll explain:

What you are doing is removing the ability for people to mutually work together to get the most honor they can in the most optimal setting and forcing those specific players to now subsidise those who are unwilling to put the time and effort that the rankers are. Essentially, limiting the BG base to premades of 3 is putting a 70% efficiency tax on those ranking players, forcing them to carry 7 others if they want an efficient method of winning for honor. Like all horrific ideas, this "FEELS GOOD", but will fail because it's not logically thought through.

The reason for this is that the incentives are now so lopsided that those players cannot efficiently carry 7 people who no longer have to try their best to maximize their honour output. Because now they have 3 higher calibre rankers, those 7 players can now slack off, AFK, do whatever they want and be "carried" to victory. This subsidising of their honor doesn't help them get better as players (there is no reward internally if you get everything handed to you, thus people stop putting energy into it, ala retail), and it will make ranking so inefficient for the "rankers" that they will no longer find it time efficient to do so. Having done the ranking grind myself, the thought of doing it with 7 other retards actually makes me physically ill to think about. Was bad enough having to carry mediocre players in premades let alone complete incompetent players.

What this also does that people don't understand is subsidise bad behaviour, or inefficient behaviour. Which if you know anything about behavioural psychology will only heighten and increase that behaviour. You have rewarded both complaining and tantrums, appeasement only begets escalation from weak people, you only have to look at what happens in retail when they start appeasing tantrums. But it's going to reward anti-social / inefficient behaviour, by forcing people who would otherwise not want to be with a specific group, you are allowing the lowest common denominator to dictate the terms of the engagement rather than the other way around. Which will mean because the premade player can no longer not play with this lower calibre player, that player no longer needs to play as well as he possibly can to earn the respect or affection of said player but the other way around. This forces a race to the bottom in skill and commitment rather than the other way around, which will eventually lead to mass AFK'ing, inefficiency in play (be it in talents or playstyle, not going for efc just fighting mid coz why not?), lack of effort(why try when you can just do nothing and earn the same amount as tier 1 ranker? be it consumables or others, why buy grenades when who cares who wins or loses). The lack of investment into outcome are the bitter seeds prior to collapse of any institution, be it small such as ranking on a private server, or the largest scale possible in economics..

This also removes agency from players both stomping and getting stomped, part of getting stomped in pvp makes you want to create your own premade. When people lose enough, they do two things: Give up, work towards beating them. Weak people will give up, the tough ones will work towards beating them. This removal of agency completely removes the entire point of MMO gaming, being the incentive to get better. Seeing a r14 warrior completely wreck, will make you want to become that warrior if you are new to the game. In the same way being on a wealthy boat when I was young made me want to become rich. Some will be jealous and cry like children, however, like all tantrums they are best left ignored and for the people to grow out of it and give them the agency to solve this issue themselves.

What this also does is remove an entire segment of the population who play specifically because of premade games. MMO's as in life are meant to be done with other players. We are a tribal species, we prefer the company of others and the completion of difficult tasks in concert with others, particularly when it's efficient to do so. Removing this will remove entire segments of the population who while don't intellectually understand this, "feel" it when they play vanilla as opposed to retail WOW. It's why Vanilla has retained it's popularity, and will do so decades after the game has been released.

Europoors and Berniebros won't ever get this but socialism won't ever work no matter how much you want it to. Be it in the real world, just look at Venezuela, or in WoW with the honor system. Giving people lopsided incentives and expecting them to perform at the same level as they did previously has been tried and tried again, while the consequences in the real world means lots of real people die. Luckily in this case it will simply mean rankers and premade players will simply stop playing and the race to the bottom in pvp will begin and slowly die out.

No

[Caber 4]

They're now trying something out on Anathema, and they'll find out what is pretty obvious for anyone with some experience to see: people will just sync queue anyway. I'm glad Anathema is beta testing for us, though I guess it sucks for them.

Pugs will still get stomped by teams that consist over half of some premade, and pug vs pug games will still be riddled by AFK retards because "every game is a premade anyway! lol! might aswell afk!".

The only thing that will be prevented by this cap to group queue will be high level (as far as you can call anything in WoW high level) premade vs premade games because it'll be completely impossible ot get a group of 10 people matched against another group 10 people now. Why does seemingly nobody care that this is killing premade vs premade games? There's a lot of fun being ruined here.

 

 

[Haestingas 30]

You say that like most premades actually fight each other on a regular basis. The vast majority of the time the weaker premade gives up.

They will gauge the success of this change most likely on pvp BG participation. If more people BG after the change, good change and they will most likely implement on Elysium. If it stays the same or goes down then they may revert.

[prsina 17]

1 hour ago, Haestingas said:

You say that like most premades actually fight each other on a regular basis. The vast majority of the time the weaker premade gives up.

They will gauge the success of this change most likely on pvp BG participation. If more people BG after the change, good change and they will most likely implement on Elysium. If it stays the same or goes down then they may revert.

And how do you know this? This week I've played some solo q games and some full 10 man prems as a filler when they needed ppl. Premades are far less likely to give up and bend.

[Tribe2 0]

 

38 minutes ago, prsina said:

And how do you know this? This week I've played some solo q games and some full 10 man prems as a filler when they needed ppl. Premades are far less likely to give up and bend.

Prsina is half right, I've been running a horde premade all weekend and for the first 2 days, every game was a premade vs premade. It was amazing fun and great competition all around. This is actually one of the best and most even weekends (between horde and alliance) that I've ever seen on Elysium.

However, after a little while the Chinese premades started to just roll over against us, they would either send 10 players to mid to try and farm kills and let us run flag, or they'd all sit on graveyard. This happens far less often with the Eu/Na rankers I've noticed.

[prsina 17]

58 minutes ago, Tribe2 said:

 

Prsina is half right, I've been running a horde premade all weekend and for the first 2 days, every game was a premade vs premade. It was amazing fun and great competition all around. This is actually one of the best and most even weekends (between horde and alliance) that I've ever seen on Elysium.

However, after a little while the Chinese premades started to just roll over against us, they would either send 10 players to mid to try and farm kills and let us run flag, or they'd all sit on graveyard. This happens far less often with the Eu/Na rankers I've noticed.

I do not consider chinese premades as premades, tradechat mades are better than any of the current chinese prems.

[Tribe2 0]

 

46 minutes ago, Sabre said:

That's racist.

It's not if it's true :P (which it is)

[donkey 0]

2 hours ago, Sabre said:

That's racist.

How's it racist you goon?

[piastoax 0]

Why not just set it up to queue people against equally geared people based on average ilvl. That should help. You cant stop premades from happening.

[Caber 4]

7 hours ago, Haestingas said:

You say that like most premades actually fight each other on a regular basis. The vast majority of the time the weaker premade gives up.

They will gauge the success of this change most likely on pvp BG participation. If more people BG after the change, good change and they will most likely implement on Elysium. If it stays the same or goes down then they may revert.

I don't think you've ever premaded, so your opinion is probably safely discarded

[Lorilay 12]

10 hours ago, Haestingas said:

You say that like most premades actually fight each other on a regular basis. The vast majority of the time the weaker premade gives up.

They will gauge the success of this change most likely on pvp BG participation. If more people BG after the change, good change and they will most likely implement on Elysium. If it stays the same or goes down then they may revert.

That's making the very generous assumption that this change was based on data instead of anecdotal complaints. I very much doubt that they actually have data to compare the current changes to, but if they do it's worth noting (anecdotally, of course), that there were 3 WSGs up on WSG weekend Saturday at 12pm PST, and 3 weeks ago there were approximately 7.

[Haestingas 30]

I mean I would certainly hope so. It will take a while for the word to get out about this change. I had a pretty hilarious conversation with a guild recruiter on Saturday where he was advertising for a premade pvp horde guild, and didn't know about the change. He thought I was totally screwing with him until I convinced him to check the forum.

[Mahtan 15]

Blizzard once said that managing WoW is like governing a small state.

I think Lorilay has a good point. I highly doubt they did that change based on data. Compare it to real life politic... It's more like that populist solution that is attractive at first sight, but creates more problems than it solves xD