Premade groups are ruining battlegrounds...

ecru

Yes

Baconlad wrote: »

Thoggy's right. Good premade groups that fight each other really wait until everyone has ults, everyone is in a proper position and preferably immov pots are up. They try to focus on getting resources up. It is more like a dance around each other until one team or the other is ready.
The bad premades who are used to roflstomping solo players are the ones who break.

TBH though look at everything else for content in the game though. What do you do when you want to get into the hardest trial content in the game? You dont random ly pick up a pug group and attempt VMOL hard mode. You find a guild of other players interested in getting SERIOUS about the content. You want to be the absolute best always winning at cyrodil raiding no cp or cp? You find a coordinated raid group of PvPers who are SERIOUS about that playstyle. Or if you are like me, enjoy dueling, enjoy small scale 2-4 man cyrodil CP campaign PvP, I found a guild of players who are serious about that kind of play. I've got two accually... one for duels and another for social/ small team PvP.

For BGs if you want to always win and be a beast on the leaderboards...you find a guild of players who are interested in getting SERIOUS about BGs.

If you are not serious about BGs you are not going to care to find a group of players to go in there with. I haven't always been ok with premades. But I came to the realization that I wasn't that serious about BGs. I jump in a few for the random bag and dip out. So...I deserve to get *** on by @thogard and his premade group or any other group of well coordinated players...cause, as much as I dont like getting *** on by premades, I'm not willing to put the work in to be a beast in them, or change my build to a AoE based or support build...cause I really only play BGs for the bag and to get out of vivec lag once in awhile...

GET SERIOUS

No one should have to "get serious". These are casual, solo queued instanced matches open to anyone. The suggestion that you have to "get serious" to have some sort of chance at enjoying yourself or winning a match is a great way to make sure people stop queueing for BGs altogether.

Thogard

No

ecru wrote: »

Baconlad wrote: »

Thoggy's right. Good premade groups that fight each other really wait until everyone has ults, everyone is in a proper position and preferably immov pots are up. They try to focus on getting resources up. It is more like a dance around each other until one team or the other is ready.
The bad premades who are used to roflstomping solo players are the ones who break.

TBH though look at everything else for content in the game though. What do you do when you want to get into the hardest trial content in the game? You dont random ly pick up a pug group and attempt VMOL hard mode. You find a guild of other players interested in getting SERIOUS about the content. You want to be the absolute best always winning at cyrodil raiding no cp or cp? You find a coordinated raid group of PvPers who are SERIOUS about that playstyle. Or if you are like me, enjoy dueling, enjoy small scale 2-4 man cyrodil CP campaign PvP, I found a guild of players who are serious about that kind of play. I've got two accually... one for duels and another for social/ small team PvP.

For BGs if you want to always win and be a beast on the leaderboards...you find a guild of players who are interested in getting SERIOUS about BGs.

If you are not serious about BGs you are not going to care to find a group of players to go in there with. I haven't always been ok with premades. But I came to the realization that I wasn't that serious about BGs. I jump in a few for the random bag and dip out. So...I deserve to get *** on by @thogard and his premade group or any other group of well coordinated players...cause, as much as I dont like getting *** on by premades, I'm not willing to put the work in to be a beast in them, or change my build to a AoE based or support build...cause I really only play BGs for the bag and to get out of vivec lag once in awhile...

GET SERIOUS

No one should have to "get serious". These are casual, solo queued instanced matches open to anyone. The suggestion that you have to "get serious" to have some sort of chance at enjoying yourself or winning a match is a great way to make sure people stop queueing for BGs altogether.

Well seeing as how it takes about 500 to 1000 matches before the characters start reliably getting thrown up against the tryhard premades, i think it’s safe to assume that NONE of the players in those matches are casual.

Irfind

Yes

Worst thing i experienced was yesterday evening.

Pug against 2 premade and they knew each other (working together)

0-400-500 they even farmt us and draw the BG time on purose.

Jup really fun

Aurielle

Yes

Irfind wrote: »

Worst thing i experienced was yesterday evening.

Pug against 2 premade and they knew each other (working together)

0-400-500 they even farmt us and draw the BG time on purose.

Jup really fun

That happened to me a couple of times yesterday. The more irritating thing, though, was the one tryhard premade that no-lifed DMs the entire freaking day. Literally every second match was against that cancer. Was a really fun way to spend my day off... not. Seriously, how is it enjoyable to steamroll through pugs as a coordinated group with hardly any opposition? Premade queues and solo queue should 100% be separate. Playing against the same tryhard premades over and over again just makes me want to play other games.

Aurielle

Yes

Also, to anyone who doesn’t think this is a problem, some recent screenshots from one MMR bracket on PS4:

Full PUG matches:





1 Premade vs 2 PUGs:





The imbalance is COMPLETELY ridiculous. Full pug matches are fun, because people actually DIE (no coordinated guardplars, no Permafrost/WoE snare spam/no coordinated pack leader WWs), you encounter a wider variety of builds, and scores are closer. Good premades versus pugs is just stupid. How is it fun to go 300-0-0 in less than five minutes?

eliisra

Yes

This is a tricky problem. I played mmos in the past where you couldn't queue with friends for PvP. That sucked just as much!

Ideally strong premades should be matched against other good premades. The system should prioritize that. But wonder if it's enough people in the queue to make that possible?

Also not all premades are synchronized, organized with meta builds using voice chat. You also have crappy premade groups from casual or like rp guilds, that even get slaughterer by unorganized pugs lol. They would sure as hell not dare to queue with guildies anymore if automatically matched against proper PvP premades = total annihilation.

Maybe make it so you can only queue 2 people? That way you can still play with a friend, but not get a massive advantage.

Kelces

Yes

Since there has always been a group of people, amazingly predictable, that act in ways that destroy everybody else's fun. Just for the sake of it, no matter if it is in real life, or in a game. Same story over and over again...

Edit: To blame the programming is like blaming laws: They never work against criminals - that's why they are named as such. So you can write programs (laws) as much as you want, it is never a security against them doing things that are not desired.

Iskiab

No

Premades are good for the game. They encourage cooperation, commradery, and smart play. If you’re too antisocial to find a group of people to play with that’s your problem, you’ll have this issue in the rest of your life too and you should work on it. Plus it’s like an achievement if you solo queue, you just beat a premade solo.

I usually solo queue - in before someone says I’m biased because I premade all the time.

However, you should not be able to group queue under level 50. It’s always been a thing that those who can pvp do it on their mains, those who can’t look for new players to pick on. This should be discouraged as much as possible. Force people to get better and not pick on new players, it discourages new players from ever pvping again and is bad for the game.

Iskiab

No

Leogon wrote: »

It doesn't matter how good you are when you're queuing as a solo player because you can end up facing a premade group of 4 good players who've been playing together for a while and using discord to ask for heals, etc. Also, when you're not queuing as a premade group of 4, you sometimes end up with only 2 other players on your team instead of 3.

True about being short a player, but you can still win. I solo queue as a healer and win a good chunk of my matches in the higher MMR bracket (I think I am at least). I haven’t been keeping track, but I’d say my team wins over half the time.

Aurielle

Yes

Iskiab wrote: »

Premades are good for the game. They encourage cooperation, commradery, and smart play. If you’re too antisocial to find a group of people to play with that’s your problem, you’ll have this issue in the rest of your life too and you should work on it. Plus it’s like an achievement if you solo queue, you just beat a premade solo.

I usually solo queue - in before someone says I’m biased because I premade all the time.

However, you should not be able to group queue under level 50. It’s always been a thing that those who can pvp do it on their mains, those who can’t look for new players to pick on. This should be discouraged as much as possible. Force people to get better and not pick on new players, it discourages new players from ever pvping again and is bad for the game.

It’s not about being “antisocial” (I’m not). I simply prefer to solo queue because it’s more entertaining and varied. I still encourage group play among my teammates and talk to them.

The problem with premades is that there’s a meta that hardly anyone strays from, and that when equally matched premades go head-to-head, hardly anyone dies. I’ve been in three-way premades before, and it was honestly the most boring experience in ESO thus far. Battlegrounds in most games are fun, fast-paced, brief encounters. Do you think games like COD and BF would be as popular as they are if three teams merely slugged it out in a marathon encounter to find out who’s the tankiest or who has the best heals? People generally LIKE to get kills in PVP games, and they like getting them quickly. It is not fun for me to spend 15 minutes fighting, and win the match with 2 kills, 0 deaths, and 3 assists. If people find that fun, then it’s all good — different strokes for different folks, and all that jazz. They’re definitely in the minority, though. This is why queues should be separate. Let those of us who enjoy the random experience queue together, and let the minority who enjoy the tanky meta slugfests queue together.

wheem_ESO

Yes

Iskiab wrote: »

Premades are good for the game. They encourage cooperation, commradery, and smart play. If you’re too antisocial to find a group of people to play with that’s your problem, you’ll have this issue in the rest of your life too and you should work on it.

This tired old argument yet again?

I might be a little antisocial sometimes, but I could absolutely form premades (with good players) if I wanted to...but why would I want to? Being on either end of a premade-vs-solo stomp is extremely boring, and not something that I'm the least bit interested in doing on a regular basis.

rabidmyers

Yes

ye

jediodyn_ESO

Yes

Iskiab wrote: »

Leogon wrote: »

It doesn't matter how good you are when you're queuing as a solo player because you can end up facing a premade group of 4 good players who've been playing together for a while and using discord to ask for heals, etc. Also, when you're not queuing as a premade group of 4, you sometimes end up with only 2 other players on your team instead of 3.

True about being short a player, but you can still win. I solo queue as a healer and win a good chunk of my matches in the higher MMR bracket (I think I am at least). I haven’t been keeping track, but I’d say my team wins over half the time.

If you don’t know if you’re in the top MMR bracket, you almost certainly are not.

We all know each other. Sure, a few people come and go, but if you can’t look at the roster at the start of the match and recognize at least a couple people from every team you’re matched against, you aren’t there yet.

Top bracket players fight the same freaking premades/duos/tríos over and over again every freaking night with the occasional fun pug mixed in.

Yes we know they are grouped/premade. How? Super simple, after the match you say “GG, are you guys teamed up?” If you’re not a jerk about usually they will respond and let you know that they are, or partially are.

ruikkarikun

Yes

Sure.
Never understand what is the point to play in TS, with timing ult, using most op premade setups (templar, warden etc) vs weak unorginized pugs.
But know what that's not enough for them because I'm getting to much bg which already started. Like when I'm joined to it, it is already running, and my team is underground and have 3 ppl (with me, yes 3 ppl vs 4 vs 4).
I bet those premade eltisit think they're pro when they play organized TS group against unorginized not optimal and even 3(yes, yes) ppl.
GL to you, nice game mode...

PhoenixGrey

Yes

Iskiab wrote: »

Premades are good for the game. They encourage cooperation, commradery, and smart play. If you’re too antisocial to find a group of people to play with that’s your problem, you’ll have this issue in the rest of your life too and you should work on it. Plus it’s like an achievement if you solo queue, you just beat a premade solo.
.

Stop comparing a behind the desk video game to IRL. I want to a do a few bg's when I find time and not go 3v4v4 every single time I do. Premades encourage pug stomping, chesse setups and snobbery

ChunkyCat

Yes

MaxJrFTW wrote: »

Thogard wrote: »

bardx86 wrote: »

It's really become a boring way to play. Everyone stacks on each other in a brawler style until someone finally dies which could take minutes. It's just not fun anymore.

If they’re bad yeah.

When the good premades fight its a very elaborate dance / marathon with practically no fighting until a team *** up their positioning.

You're also assuming everybody is high MMR, and everybody plays as late as you do. When you play late your team is pretty much stacked to the point that it hardly matters if you go against a premade or not. If you queue in the morning or at noon, you're going to get a couple of potatoes in your team. Good luck beating a premade 2v4.

Fr4ctalz wrote: »

Battle grounds are a competitive sport. If your team gets shook, yeah it sucks but work on your strategy and with your teammates. The problem you all are experiencing comes from the none-competitive being paired with the competitive. Honestly, i just think there arnt enough people to being competitive to place them in their own genre.

And there you go contradicting yourself.

A professional sports team doesn't play amateur teams. ESO is not designed, and it doesn't have the playerbase to house a competitive environment. So why let players who are competitive be in the same league as non competitive?

Bgs should be solo queue only. End of story.

Thogard

No

I want a separate queue for premades.

And I want a meaningful ladder system for that queue... and much better rewards for that queue (arena weps)... but have them be rare drops or rare ladder rewards that are only tradable with your premade group.

That’s my pipedream

Aurielle

Yes

jediodyn_ESO wrote: »

Iskiab wrote: »

Leogon wrote: »

It doesn't matter how good you are when you're queuing as a solo player because you can end up facing a premade group of 4 good players who've been playing together for a while and using discord to ask for heals, etc. Also, when you're not queuing as a premade group of 4, you sometimes end up with only 2 other players on your team instead of 3.

True about being short a player, but you can still win. I solo queue as a healer and win a good chunk of my matches in the higher MMR bracket (I think I am at least). I haven’t been keeping track, but I’d say my team wins over half the time.

If you don’t know if you’re in the top MMR bracket, you almost certainly are not.

We all know each other. Sure, a few people come and go, but if you can’t look at the roster at the start of the match and recognize at least a couple people from every team you’re matched against, you aren’t there yet.

Top bracket players fight the same freaking premades/duos/tríos over and over again every freaking night with the occasional fun pug mixed in.

Yes we know they are grouped/premade. How? Super simple, after the match you say “GG, are you guys teamed up?” If you’re not a jerk about usually they will respond and let you know that they are, or partially are.

Easy way to tell as well is if you get matched up against the same 3-4 players multiple times in the run of a day. The other day, I played against the same no-lifing cancer premade about eight times before I gave up and played Battlefield.

Iskiab

No

I do the daily every day, some days I’ll do 4-8 or so in between other things. I’m starting to recognize names like one guy Sekob who I see all the time, but then I’ll sometimes see a CP160 thrown in with the CP1k people.

Either way I solo queue for the same reasons you guys do. People run meta builds for one reason- they need to, they need every advantage they can get to do well. Not knocking people for trying to be the best they can be, but pvp is boring if you always win.

I also can’t be bothered organizing a group because I play varying times, but if I did form an always dominating group I’d get bored fast.

However, blocking grouping for pvp means you think there shouldn’t be premades or pvp guilds. It’s attachments to people that keeps players, more so than the game. If you block grouping with people you know you’re blocking the social part of MMOs, that’s a death sentence for a MMO, just look at WoW with the raid finder.

StarOfElyon

Yes

So one team just fought two teams combined and beat them 510-60-60. I was on one of the losing teams. For once, the other team got smart and didn't bother fighting against my team at all. We pretty much behaved the same towards them. We both went after the Pit Demons. A total of 8 players focusing all their might against just 4...

and they DESTROYED us all.

Weesacs

Yes

The poll results from this post are pretty conclusive so far. Hopefully zos is putting some thought into the best way forward to accommodate both premades and pugs in the future.

DivineFirstYOLO

No

StarOfElyon wrote: »

So one team just fought two teams combined and beat them 510-60-60. I was on one of the losing teams. For once, the other team got smart and didn't bother fighting against my team at all. We pretty much behaved the same towards them. We both went after the Pit Demons. A total of 8 players focusing all their might against just 4...

and they DESTROYED us all.

Sounds like the winning team was simply too good for you. Most of the time the problem is not enemies being too good, but your own team being just awful. In high MMR matches random players are able to beat premades. Factors like running together, helping each other, not getting sandwitched are as important as being on voice chat.

Premades are fine, but ZOS needs to add more variables to their MMR equation. Right now "games played" has the highest factor, actually, I'm not even sure if there are other variables. I can play sniper all day and have loads of games played, but if I get matched up against people that actually know how to play, my team will get rekt because snipers usually don't help.
(sniper play style was just an example, you don't necessarily need to play sniper to be useless)

Anyway, MMR rank should include damage/healing done, win/lose, kill/death/assists and medal points scored with a higher factor for damage/healing, k/d/a and medal points. Win/lose ratio should have a lower weight, since no matter how good you are, the better the players are in the lobby, the lower the impact of the single player will be. (is this even english? sounds strange, hope you get my point)

Also here is a simplified equation for the CS GO ranking system:




(source: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=888007256)

I don't know if we need such an elaborate system as Counterstrike has, but we definitely need a better one than we currently have. Let @Gilliamtherogue work on the equation for a few hours, im 100% sure he will come up with something better than:
rank(MMR) = games played

jcm2606

Yes

No. The solution to premades is not to bloat out the already flawed, failing match making system. The match making system needs to be dumbed down, because it's clear there's just not enough players for an advanced match making system. Even the flawed one we have now shows that perfectly, when those in the higher MMR brackets are seeing the exact same players every game.

The solution is two-fold.

One, do away with MMR. Go back to random matching. Not going to go into detail too much here, since this thread isn't about MMR, but removing MMR will make the experience of those at the top infinitely better by giving them two things; far quicker queues, and more diverse matching. Those at the bottom will suffer a little bit, but I honestly don't think the impact will be as adverse as people think, because in removing MMR you're diluting the pool of players so much that the top players would only be a few percent, if even.

Two, move group-versus-group matching to its own system. The reason why us solo queues are matching against premades so often is because the group matching system was carelessly tacked onto the ranked matching system. To the queue, the only difference between a premade and a solo queue is the premade has a higher collective MMR. That's it. There isn't any special values assigned to the premade specific to them being a premade, their MMR is just inflated. If I, another solo queue, come along with similar MMR, I can potentially (and generally do) match against them.

Moving group matching to its own system will not only severely reduce the likelihood of your average solo queue matching against a premade (since the queue will actually be hesitant in matching them against each other, rather than "oh you have a similar MMR to this premade, have at it"), but it will also make managing the two systems individually much better, since you don't have as much fluff to take care of, and it could potentially open the door to smarter group matching (it could specifically look for 2 duos or a 3-man to fight a 4-man on the other team, or it could even look for other 4-man premades to put on the other two teams).

StarOfElyon

Yes

DivineFirstYOLO wrote: »

StarOfElyon wrote: »

So one team just fought two teams combined and beat them 510-60-60. I was on one of the losing teams. For once, the other team got smart and didn't bother fighting against my team at all. We pretty much behaved the same towards them. We both went after the Pit Demons. A total of 8 players focusing all their might against just 4...

and they DESTROYED us all.

Sounds like the winning team was simply too good for you. Most of the time the problem is not enemies being too good, but your own team being just awful. In high MMR matches random players are able to beat premades. Factors like running together, helping each other, not getting sandwitched are as important as being on voice chat.

Premades are fine, but ZOS needs to add more variables to their MMR equation. Right now "games played" has the highest factor, actually, I'm not even sure if there are other variables. I can play sniper all day and have loads of games played, but if I get matched up against people that actually know how to play, my team will get rekt because snipers usually don't help.
(sniper play style was just an example, you don't necessarily need to play sniper to be useless)

Anyway, MMR rank should include damage/healing done, win/lose, kill/death/assists and medal points scored with a higher factor for damage/healing, k/d/a and medal points. Win/lose ratio should have a lower weight, since no matter how good you are, the better the players are in the lobby, the lower the impact of the single player will be. (is this even english? sounds strange, hope you get my point)

Also here is a simplified equation for the CS GO ranking system:




(source: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=888007256)

I don't know if we need such an elaborate system as Counterstrike has, but we definitely need a better one than we currently have. Let @Gilliamtherogue work on the equation for a few hours, im 100% sure he will come up with something better than:
rank(MMR) = games played

So was the winning team just too good or were both losing teams combined just that bad? You seem to be conflicted in your opinion.

jediodyn_ESO

Yes

Weesacs wrote: »

The poll results from this post are pretty conclusive so far. Hopefully zos is putting some thought into the best way forward to accommodate both premades and pugs in the future.

So far? I’m this post has been first page of the battlegrounds forums for an entire year!

Not a single dev comment, no feedback from ZoS at all. I’m sorry but, wtf!?

It’s really obnoxious that ZoS is like “hey new customers and returning players, we’re adding more battlegrounds with our expansion! Come and play!” but then then don’t seem to ever even look at this forum, let alone comment on it. A little communication can go a long way.

ruikkarikun

Yes

StarOfElyon wrote: »

DivineFirstYOLO wrote: »

StarOfElyon wrote: »

So one team just fought two teams combined and beat them 510-60-60. I was on one of the losing teams. For once, the other team got smart and didn't bother fighting against my team at all. We pretty much behaved the same towards them. We both went after the Pit Demons. A total of 8 players focusing all their might against just 4...

and they DESTROYED us all.

Sounds like the winning team was simply too good for you. Most of the time the problem is not enemies being too good, but your own team being just awful. In high MMR matches random players are able to beat premades. Factors like running together, helping each other, not getting sandwitched are as important as being on voice chat.

Premades are fine, but ZOS needs to add more variables to their MMR equation. Right now "games played" has the highest factor, actually, I'm not even sure if there are other variables. I can play sniper all day and have loads of games played, but if I get matched up against people that actually know how to play, my team will get rekt because snipers usually don't help.
(sniper play style was just an example, you don't necessarily need to play sniper to be useless)

Anyway, MMR rank should include damage/healing done, win/lose, kill/death/assists and medal points scored with a higher factor for damage/healing, k/d/a and medal points. Win/lose ratio should have a lower weight, since no matter how good you are, the better the players are in the lobby, the lower the impact of the single player will be. (is this even english? sounds strange, hope you get my point)

Also here is a simplified equation for the CS GO ranking system:




(source: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=888007256)

I don't know if we need such an elaborate system as Counterstrike has, but we definitely need a better one than we currently have. Let @Gilliamtherogue work on the equation for a few hours, im 100% sure he will come up with something better than:
rank(MMR) = games played

So was the winning team just too good or were both losing teams combined just that bad? You seem to be conflicted in your opinion.

He's a part of zerg squad - ball group which farm weak unorginized player in cyrodil, what do you think?:))

DivineFirstYOLO

No

ruikkarikun wrote: »

StarOfElyon wrote: »

DivineFirstYOLO wrote: »

StarOfElyon wrote: »

So one team just fought two teams combined and beat them 510-60-60. I was on one of the losing teams. For once, the other team got smart and didn't bother fighting against my team at all. We pretty much behaved the same towards them. We both went after the Pit Demons. A total of 8 players focusing all their might against just 4...

and they DESTROYED us all.

Sounds like the winning team was simply too good for you. Most of the time the problem is not enemies being too good, but your own team being just awful. In high MMR matches random players are able to beat premades. Factors like running together, helping each other, not getting sandwitched are as important as being on voice chat.

Premades are fine, but ZOS needs to add more variables to their MMR equation. Right now "games played" has the highest factor, actually, I'm not even sure if there are other variables. I can play sniper all day and have loads of games played, but if I get matched up against people that actually know how to play, my team will get rekt because snipers usually don't help.
(sniper play style was just an example, you don't necessarily need to play sniper to be useless)

Anyway, MMR rank should include damage/healing done, win/lose, kill/death/assists and medal points scored with a higher factor for damage/healing, k/d/a and medal points. Win/lose ratio should have a lower weight, since no matter how good you are, the better the players are in the lobby, the lower the impact of the single player will be. (is this even english? sounds strange, hope you get my point)

Also here is a simplified equation for the CS GO ranking system:




(source: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=888007256)

I don't know if we need such an elaborate system as Counterstrike has, but we definitely need a better one than we currently have. Let @Gilliamtherogue work on the equation for a few hours, im 100% sure he will come up with something better than:
rank(MMR) = games played

So was the winning team just too good or were both losing teams combined just that bad? You seem to be conflicted in your opinion.

He's a part of zerg squad - ball group which farm weak unorginized player in cyrodil, what do you think?:))

I suggested a solution to the current system so that premades actually have to fight good players and noobs can keep doing their noob thing, too bad you are not able to read. Anyway, I have no problem with the current system, I am not the one that has to 8v4 and still lose 510/60/60.

StarOfElyon

Yes

DivineFirstYOLO wrote: »

ruikkarikun wrote: »

StarOfElyon wrote: »

DivineFirstYOLO wrote: »

StarOfElyon wrote: »

So one team just fought two teams combined and beat them 510-60-60. I was on one of the losing teams. For once, the other team got smart and didn't bother fighting against my team at all. We pretty much behaved the same towards them. We both went after the Pit Demons. A total of 8 players focusing all their might against just 4...

and they DESTROYED us all.

Sounds like the winning team was simply too good for you. Most of the time the problem is not enemies being too good, but your own team being just awful. In high MMR matches random players are able to beat premades. Factors like running together, helping each other, not getting sandwitched are as important as being on voice chat.

Premades are fine, but ZOS needs to add more variables to their MMR equation. Right now "games played" has the highest factor, actually, I'm not even sure if there are other variables. I can play sniper all day and have loads of games played, but if I get matched up against people that actually know how to play, my team will get rekt because snipers usually don't help.
(sniper play style was just an example, you don't necessarily need to play sniper to be useless)

Anyway, MMR rank should include damage/healing done, win/lose, kill/death/assists and medal points scored with a higher factor for damage/healing, k/d/a and medal points. Win/lose ratio should have a lower weight, since no matter how good you are, the better the players are in the lobby, the lower the impact of the single player will be. (is this even english? sounds strange, hope you get my point)

Also here is a simplified equation for the CS GO ranking system:




(source: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=888007256)

I don't know if we need such an elaborate system as Counterstrike has, but we definitely need a better one than we currently have. Let @Gilliamtherogue work on the equation for a few hours, im 100% sure he will come up with something better than:
rank(MMR) = games played

So was the winning team just too good or were both losing teams combined just that bad? You seem to be conflicted in your opinion.

He's a part of zerg squad - ball group which farm weak unorginized player in cyrodil, what do you think?:))

I suggested a solution to the current system so that premades actually have to fight good players and noobs can keep doing their noob thing, too bad you are not able to read. Anyway, I have no problem with the current system, I am not the one that has to 8v4 and still lose 510/60/60.

It's almost as if you don't believe good players play solo. As if being part of the group is what makes players good.

Aurielle

Yes

DivineFirstYOLO wrote: »

ruikkarikun wrote: »

StarOfElyon wrote: »

DivineFirstYOLO wrote: »

StarOfElyon wrote: »

So one team just fought two teams combined and beat them 510-60-60. I was on one of the losing teams. For once, the other team got smart and didn't bother fighting against my team at all. We pretty much behaved the same towards them. We both went after the Pit Demons. A total of 8 players focusing all their might against just 4...

and they DESTROYED us all.

Sounds like the winning team was simply too good for you. Most of the time the problem is not enemies being too good, but your own team being just awful. In high MMR matches random players are able to beat premades. Factors like running together, helping each other, not getting sandwitched are as important as being on voice chat.

Premades are fine, but ZOS needs to add more variables to their MMR equation. Right now "games played" has the highest factor, actually, I'm not even sure if there are other variables. I can play sniper all day and have loads of games played, but if I get matched up against people that actually know how to play, my team will get rekt because snipers usually don't help.
(sniper play style was just an example, you don't necessarily need to play sniper to be useless)

Anyway, MMR rank should include damage/healing done, win/lose, kill/death/assists and medal points scored with a higher factor for damage/healing, k/d/a and medal points. Win/lose ratio should have a lower weight, since no matter how good you are, the better the players are in the lobby, the lower the impact of the single player will be. (is this even english? sounds strange, hope you get my point)

Also here is a simplified equation for the CS GO ranking system:




(source: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=888007256)

I don't know if we need such an elaborate system as Counterstrike has, but we definitely need a better one than we currently have. Let @Gilliamtherogue work on the equation for a few hours, im 100% sure he will come up with something better than:
rank(MMR) = games played

So was the winning team just too good or were both losing teams combined just that bad? You seem to be conflicted in your opinion.

He's a part of zerg squad - ball group which farm weak unorginized player in cyrodil, what do you think?:))

I suggested a solution to the current system so that premades actually have to fight good players and noobs can keep doing their noob thing, too bad you are not able to read. Anyway, I have no problem with the current system, I am not the one that has to 8v4 and still lose 510/60/60.

You think that people who 8v4 and lose are noobs? A well-organized and optimized premade can roflstomp good, experienced solo players with ease. Exhibit A:



With one or two exceptions, every player in that match was someone I’d played against before; all decent/good players with lots of experience. Only a coordinated ult bomb was going to take down that premade (consisting of a frostden, two stamsorc WWs, and a Snipe glitching NB). Everyone on the other two teams solo queued with builds that were not specifically designed to synergize together. If we’d ALL been queued solo, the results would have been very different. Something more balanced like this:



Those two screen shots were taken two days apart. Some of the players in the second screenshot were solo-queued in the first screen shot.

Rolexdt

Yes

The easy solution is to limit the group to 2 players max for one bg type. These premade are not interested in a "challenge"...they just want to smash pugs. That's the reality. Most of the times that is exactly what they are doing.

I want a heal bot too so I can mana dump on 1 person in unison.

It is true that some people will whine when 4 really good player pugs happen to match up but I think we all know which groups we are really referring to.