BGs matchmaking system is not acceptable.

Volsers

I have been playing quite a bit of battlegrounds lately. Most of the time I am with my friends and in voice, we are all long term and max CP PvPers. So, we are a full group of 4 right... again, all in voice and we queue up.
The game mode is crazy king (as it is very often) and when we first start fighting we see that all of these players are not experienced. Many of them are below CP 200 and when you look at them they are not coordinating indicating that none of them queued together. These guys are falling left and right none of us are having fun as the only thing they do is die and we that are killing them feel too guilty too get any fun from it. Below I post a picture of the final score after the match ran out of time...



How the game can place a premade against two other teams that seem to be as far from a premade you can get is just soo outright stupid and not fun for anyone.

I do understand though that when there is not that many playing this can happen and is happening in many MMOs but there are ways to help not make this issue too bad. One way of solving this is too create a separate queue for people below CP cap but that would cause longer queues. Another way is making battlegrounds totally no CP (like they are doing in Dragon bones infact, which will help yes) but i do not believe in that.
I think players should be able to choose if they wanna play BGs with CP or without, but that would of course cause longer queues. instead of forcing everyone to play no CP battlegrounds I think that they should instead give players under CP cap, max CP for the full duration of the match similar to the battle leveling system we already have. this would make games more fair even if they can not solve the issue regarding lowbies being put against premades.
If more people played BGs though it would allow the game to put premades v premades more efficiently and let people who solo queue compete against other solo queuers since right now there are infact not many premades who queue at the same time it seems.
Perhaps why battlegrounds needs to be opened to all players (not only to Morrowind owners), but of course that may.. or may not be depending on how you view it be a bit hard business wise. In short words though... a competitive matchmaking system leads to fair matches which successively leads to streamers being interested in streaming and making content for the game, this leads to other people catching an interest for the game which makes the game grow and that means more sales and more money for the company which they can use to for example further the quality of the game even more.
Back on topic it would be even better if people high on the leader boards get put against each other.

Gravord

Volsers wrote: »

I have been playing quite a bit of battlegrounds lately. Most of the time I am with my friends and in voice, we are all long term and max CP PvPers. So, we are a full group of 4 right... again, all in voice and we queue up.
The game mode is crazy king (as it is very often) and when we first start fighting we see that all of these players are not experienced. Many of them are below CP 200 and when you look at them they are not coordinating indicating that none of them queued together. These guys are falling left and right none of us are having fun as the only thing they do is die and we that are killing them feel too guilty too get any fun from it. Below I post a picture of the final score after the match ran out of time...



How the game can place a premade against two other teams that seem to be as far from a premade you can get is just soo outright stupid and not fun for anyone.

I do understand though that when there is not that many playing this can happen and is happening in many MMOs but there are ways to help not make this issue too bad. One way of solving this is too create a separate queue for people below CP cap but that would cause longer queues. Another way is making battlegrounds totally no CP (like they are doing in Dragon bones infact, which will help yes) but i do not believe in that.
I think players should be able to choose if they wanna play BGs with CP or without, but that would of course cause longer queues. instead of forcing everyone to play no CP battlegrounds I think that they should instead give players under CP cap, max CP for the full duration of the match similar to the battle leveling system we already have. this would make games more fair even if they can not solve the issue regarding lowbies being put against premades.
If more people played BGs though it would allow the game to put premades v premades more efficiently and let people who solo queue compete against other solo queuers since right now there are infact not many premades who queue at the same time it seems.
Perhaps why battlegrounds needs to be opened to all players (not only to Morrowind owners), but of course that may.. or may not be depending on how you view it be a bit hard business wise. In short words though... a competitive matchmaking system leads to fair matches which successively leads to streamers being interested in streaming and making content for the game, this leads to other people catching an interest for the game which makes the game grow and that means more sales and more money for the company which they can use to for example further the quality of the game even more.
Back on topic it would be even better if people high on the leader boards get put against each other.

Hmm, 2 ppl in your premade died... id kick them, they dont deserve spot

On the serious note, im trying catch devs attention to bg issue but without result so far:
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/4795513#Comment_4795513

MurderMostFoul

LOL, I've never seen one so lopsided. You guys went pure farm mode.

The removal of CP will help some, but clearly this case illustrates the problems PUG v Pre-Made can cause.

Kartalin

This is where if there aren't any premades running you split up your group to help make things more competitive.

Anethum

Volsers wrote: »

I have been playing quite a bit of battlegrounds lately. Most of the time I am with my friends and in voice, we are all long term and max CP PvPers. So, we are a full group of 4 right... again, all in voice and we queue up.
The game mode is crazy king (as it is very often) and when we first start fighting we see that all of these players are not experienced. Many of them are below CP 200 and when you look at them they are not coordinating indicating that none of them queued together. These guys are falling left and right none of us are having fun as the only thing they do is die and we that are killing them feel too guilty too get any fun from it. Below I post a picture of the final score after the match ran out of time...



How the game can place a premade against two other teams that seem to be as far from a premade you can get is just soo outright stupid and not fun for anyone.

I do understand though that when there is not that many playing this can happen and is happening in many MMOs but there are ways to help not make this issue too bad. One way of solving this is too create a separate queue for people below CP cap but that would cause longer queues. Another way is making battlegrounds totally no CP (like they are doing in Dragon bones infact, which will help yes) but i do not believe in that.
I think players should be able to choose if they wanna play BGs with CP or without, but that would of course cause longer queues. instead of forcing everyone to play no CP battlegrounds I think that they should instead give players under CP cap, max CP for the full duration of the match similar to the battle leveling system we already have. this would make games more fair even if they can not solve the issue regarding lowbies being put against premades.
If more people played BGs though it would allow the game to put premades v premades more efficiently and let people who solo queue compete against other solo queuers since right now there are infact not many premades who queue at the same time it seems.
Perhaps why battlegrounds needs to be opened to all players (not only to Morrowind owners), but of course that may.. or may not be depending on how you view it be a bit hard business wise. In short words though... a competitive matchmaking system leads to fair matches which successively leads to streamers being interested in streaming and making content for the game, this leads to other people catching an interest for the game which makes the game grow and that means more sales and more money for the company which they can use to for example further the quality of the game even more.
Back on topic it would be even better if people high on the leader boards get put against each other.

yeah, thats what about i talking about in many threads here on forum about bgs, in ESO Live also (and Zenimax absolutly avoided this topic), its absolutly no fun for players from both sides, any competition.
Only if they are masohists or sadists, psyhopates with one word.
@ZOS_GinaBruno , @ZOS_JessicaFolsom , @ZOS_Wrobel CAN U HELL READ AND REACT ON ASK TO SEPARATE premades and randoms in bg?

Thogard

Kartalin wrote: »

This is where if there aren't any premades running you split up your group to help make things more competitive.

Bingo.

There’s nothing more fun than getting 4+ people in a discord and synchronizing your solo queues to randomize the teams. Then if you do see a premade you can group right back up the next match.

JobooAGS

Just have 2-4 queues, 1 for premades, one for pugs, and make a cp and non cp version for them.

brandonv516

JobooAGS wrote: »

Just have 2-4 queues, 1 for premades, one for pugs, and make a cp and non cp version for them.

That's too many I think (in the current state of the game).

I've found in the off-peak hours that there are only about 20-30 players in BGs (I base this on the same players being grouped together over and over).

How would 4 queues look during these hours?

I don't see why we can't raise queues for primetime and take them away during off-peak hours. It's not like Cyrodiil where you are locked in a campaign.

So from like 5pm to 2am we have 4 queues and then the rest of the time it's 2 queues. Put both a non-CP and a CP leaderboard in place.

Anethum

Thogard wrote: »

Kartalin wrote: »

This is where if there aren't any premades running you split up your group to help make things more competitive.

Bingo.

There’s nothing more fun than getting 4+ people in a discord and synchronizing your solo queues to randomize the teams. Then if you do see a premade you can group right back up the next match.

if your friends still play. Sometimes game in general. But they don't, because part of them want only group play, part solo.
So they say *** Zeni and go offline. And often never go bg again.
And they will go bg only if will have a choice.
There are few people in bg because there is some kind of negative filtration.
Randoms bored of be nuked, adequate premades bored of nuking randoms.
Lasts only most patient randoms or most ret-arded premades.
And it will become worse and worse with nowadays system

@ZOS_JessicaFolsom Separate randoms and premade groups in battlegrounds.
@ZOS_GinaBruno Separate randoms and premade groups in battlegrounds.
@ZOS_Wrobel Separate randoms and premade groups in battlegrounds.

Maulkin

This has been said countless of times. They don't even need 4 queues. Two will do fine:



2 Queues, a small and a large group queue, with solo players falling into both. Trio +1 random is strong enough to take on a Quartet (full premade). And solo players are fine mixing with duos.

This is both easier to implement than MMR and it will cause smaller fragmentation of the relatively small player base than proper MMR would cause.

emilyhyoyeon

yeah Battlegrounds are kinda absolutely awful because there's no separation of premades and nonpremades or MMR matchmaking system. Honestly I'm pretty surprised the current system was let through as it is

Volsers

Maulkin wrote: »

This has been said countless of times. They don't even need 4 queues. Two will do fine:



2 Queues, a small and a large group queue, with solo players falling into both. Trio +1 random is strong enough to take on a Quartet (full premade). And solo players are fine mixing with duos.

This is both easier to implement than MMR and it will cause smaller fragmentation of the relatively small player base than proper MMR would cause.

I have to agree on this to start with. If I got it right, it could function like someone who have less then three members in their group can not enter the large group queue and the people who have more then two members in the group can not enter the small group queue. People who are in no group can enter both.

Chances are though that low/new players that solo queue will bring down the team and i do think those players should gain a compensation in power to help with that problem. No CP battlegrounds are on the way but again... people who play only in places that CP is allowed and base their builds around the CP passives will avoid battlegrounds and that is concerning.
Some people will not be playing BGs that much when the queues are only no CP but question is if more people in general will be there after dragon bones... I still think battlegrounds should be fit, fun and enjoyable for as many as possible if possible.

Olupajmibanan

Maulkin wrote: »

This has been said countless of times. They don't even need 4 queues. Two will do fine:



2 Queues, a small and a large group queue, with solo players falling into both. Trio +1 random is strong enough to take on a Quartet (full premade). And solo players are fine mixing with duos.

This is both easier to implement than MMR and it will cause smaller fragmentation of the relatively small player base than proper MMR would cause.

Small group queue is perfect. No problems with mixing solo and duo players at all.
Large group queue should be full 4-premade only for the reasons I state below.

Trio queue isn't acceptable for the very same reason why LoL queues which are 5v5 can't be queued as 4.
Reason 1: The vast mayority of solo players would queue for Small group queue and only few would queue for Large group queue resulting in very big queue times.
Reason 2: The one solo being with three premade would be always the first one to blame if things go wrong. Even less solo players would queue for Large group queue resulting in even bigger queue times.

Full 4-premade queue would have longer wait times than Small group queue, but for most full premades which seek challenge would be worth it. The only ones affected bad way by this queue would be full premades which seek only free easy quick AP (and these aren't worthy of our analysis anyways).

Maulkin

Olupajmibanan wrote: »

Maulkin wrote: »

This has been said countless of times. They don't even need 4 queues. Two will do fine:



2 Queues, a small and a large group queue, with solo players falling into both. Trio +1 random is strong enough to take on a Quartet (full premade). And solo players are fine mixing with duos.

This is both easier to implement than MMR and it will cause smaller fragmentation of the relatively small player base than proper MMR would cause.

Small group queue is perfect. No problems with mixing solo and duo players at all.
Large group queue should be full 4-premade only for the reasons I state below.

Trio queue isn't acceptable for the very same reason why LoL queues which are 5v5 can't be queued as 4.
Reason 1: The vast mayority of solo players would queue for Small group queue and only few would queue for Large group queue resulting in very big queue times.
Reason 2: The one solo being with three premade would be always the first one to blame if things go wrong. Even less solo players would queue for Large group queue resulting in even bigger queue times.

Full 4-premade queue would have longer wait times than Small group queue, but for most full premades which seek challenge would be worth it. The only ones affected bad way by this queue would be full premades which seek only free easy quick AP (and these aren't worthy of our analysis anyways).

Just to clarify, I didn't recommend that players have a choice as to which queue they fall into. The queue model would be almost invisible to players. Players or groups would just queue as normal and they are automatically sorted into the appropriate queue based on the group size. Solo players would be sorted into both queues. They'd have no choice over it. The first queue they reach the top of, they get an invite for. So that eliminates Reason 1.

Reason 2 is a small concern, in my opinion. It's not that it doesn't happen, but it's not that frequent and I don't see it as reason to stop 3-man groups from entering BGs altogether and having to break up. In my personal experience, it's more common that solo players will start blaming and accusing one another rather than a 3-man premade blaming the one solo player. Premades tend to be focused on winning the game and they almost expect the solo player to be irrelevant, especially since BGs have no ranks, so it's usually a pleasant surprise for them if he/she can hold their ground and contribute. And the solution to getting grief is the same as with any other content. Mute the chat or add the people on ignore. Applies to dungeons, cyrodiil etc.

Regarding the LoL restriction, other games cope fine without it. For example I play Overwatch where the team has 6 players and in ranked games you often end up in game of 6 vs 5+1. Or 5+1 vs 4+1+1. They allow a 1-man disparity in group sizes. But you wouldn't get a game in where full 5+1 goes against 3+1+1+1 for example.

Finally and more importantly, allowing 3+1 to go up against full 4-man is creating more matches in the large group queue. Which, the way I see it, is kinda necessary due to the lack of players. In my experience the number of 3-man groups is higher than 4-man. Without the 3-mans filling in the numbers, the large group queue will really struggle to form matches. In PC EU there's rarely 3 full premades running about. And if they can't get a game in 10-15 mins, they're not gonna hang around they'll split up and remove themselves from the large queue. So if we want large group games, I feel we kinda have to let 3-man in there. If it seems to cause problems the decision could later be re-evaluated

Olupajmibanan

Maulkin wrote: »

Olupajmibanan wrote: »

Maulkin wrote: »

This has been said countless of times. They don't even need 4 queues. Two will do fine:



2 Queues, a small and a large group queue, with solo players falling into both. Trio +1 random is strong enough to take on a Quartet (full premade). And solo players are fine mixing with duos.

This is both easier to implement than MMR and it will cause smaller fragmentation of the relatively small player base than proper MMR would cause.

Small group queue is perfect. No problems with mixing solo and duo players at all.
Large group queue should be full 4-premade only for the reasons I state below.

Trio queue isn't acceptable for the very same reason why LoL queues which are 5v5 can't be queued as 4.
Reason 1: The vast mayority of solo players would queue for Small group queue and only few would queue for Large group queue resulting in very big queue times.
Reason 2: The one solo being with three premade would be always the first one to blame if things go wrong. Even less solo players would queue for Large group queue resulting in even bigger queue times.

Full 4-premade queue would have longer wait times than Small group queue, but for most full premades which seek challenge would be worth it. The only ones affected bad way by this queue would be full premades which seek only free easy quick AP (and these aren't worthy of our analysis anyways).

Just to clarify, I didn't recommend that players have a choice as to which queue they fall into. The queue model would be almost invisible to players. Players or groups would just queue as normal and they are automatically sorted into the appropriate queue based on the group size. Solo players would be sorted into both queues. They'd have no choice over it. The first queue they reach the top of, they get an invite for. So that eliminates Reason 1.

Reason 2 is a small concern, in my opinion. It's not that it doesn't happen, but it's not that frequent and I don't see it as reason to stop 3-man groups from entering BGs altogether and having to break up. In my personal experience, it's more common that solo players will start blaming and accusing one another rather than a 3-man premade blaming the one solo player. Premades tend to be focused on winning the game and they almost expect the solo player to be irrelevant, especially since BGs have no ranks, so it's usually a pleasant surprise for them if he/she can hold their ground and contribute. And the solution to getting grief is the same as with any other content. Mute the chat or add the people on ignore. Applies to dungeons, cyrodiil etc.

Regarding the LoL restriction, other games cope fine without it. For example I play Overwatch where the team has 6 players and in ranked games you often end up in game of 6 vs 5+1. Or 5+1 vs 4+1+1. They allow a 1-man disparity in group sizes. But you wouldn't get a game in where full 5+1 goes against 3+1+1+1 for example.

Finally and more importantly, allowing 3+1 to go up against full 4-man is creating more matches in the large group queue. Which, the way I see it, is kinda necessary due to the lack of players. In my experience the number of 3-man groups is higher than 4-man. Without the 3-mans filling in the numbers, the large group queue will really struggle to form matches. In PC EU there's rarely 3 full premades running about. And if they can't get a game in 10-15 mins, they're not gonna hang around they'll split up and remove themselves from the large queue. So if we want large group games, I feel we kinda have to let 3-man in there. If it seems to cause problems the decision could later be re-evaluated

That would not solve the current issue. Most solo players just don't want to be against full 4-premade no matter if they are with 3-premade or anything else. It would be discouraging to play solo, because if you don't want to be against 4-premade you would rather seek 1 friend and queue as duo to ensure that no full premade is going to be in opposite team. Number of solo players will be reduced in the system you proposed, resulting in larger queue times for full 4-premades (as you want to put these against solos) and trio premades as well.

Maulkin

Olupajmibanan wrote: »

Maulkin wrote: »

Olupajmibanan wrote: »

Maulkin wrote: »

This has been said countless of times. They don't even need 4 queues. Two will do fine:



2 Queues, a small and a large group queue, with solo players falling into both. Trio +1 random is strong enough to take on a Quartet (full premade). And solo players are fine mixing with duos.

This is both easier to implement than MMR and it will cause smaller fragmentation of the relatively small player base than proper MMR would cause.

Small group queue is perfect. No problems with mixing solo and duo players at all.
Large group queue should be full 4-premade only for the reasons I state below.

Trio queue isn't acceptable for the very same reason why LoL queues which are 5v5 can't be queued as 4.
Reason 1: The vast mayority of solo players would queue for Small group queue and only few would queue for Large group queue resulting in very big queue times.
Reason 2: The one solo being with three premade would be always the first one to blame if things go wrong. Even less solo players would queue for Large group queue resulting in even bigger queue times.

Full 4-premade queue would have longer wait times than Small group queue, but for most full premades which seek challenge would be worth it. The only ones affected bad way by this queue would be full premades which seek only free easy quick AP (and these aren't worthy of our analysis anyways).

Just to clarify, I didn't recommend that players have a choice as to which queue they fall into. The queue model would be almost invisible to players. Players or groups would just queue as normal and they are automatically sorted into the appropriate queue based on the group size. Solo players would be sorted into both queues. They'd have no choice over it. The first queue they reach the top of, they get an invite for. So that eliminates Reason 1.

Reason 2 is a small concern, in my opinion. It's not that it doesn't happen, but it's not that frequent and I don't see it as reason to stop 3-man groups from entering BGs altogether and having to break up. In my personal experience, it's more common that solo players will start blaming and accusing one another rather than a 3-man premade blaming the one solo player. Premades tend to be focused on winning the game and they almost expect the solo player to be irrelevant, especially since BGs have no ranks, so it's usually a pleasant surprise for them if he/she can hold their ground and contribute. And the solution to getting grief is the same as with any other content. Mute the chat or add the people on ignore. Applies to dungeons, cyrodiil etc.

Regarding the LoL restriction, other games cope fine without it. For example I play Overwatch where the team has 6 players and in ranked games you often end up in game of 6 vs 5+1. Or 5+1 vs 4+1+1. They allow a 1-man disparity in group sizes. But you wouldn't get a game in where full 5+1 goes against 3+1+1+1 for example.

Finally and more importantly, allowing 3+1 to go up against full 4-man is creating more matches in the large group queue. Which, the way I see it, is kinda necessary due to the lack of players. In my experience the number of 3-man groups is higher than 4-man. Without the 3-mans filling in the numbers, the large group queue will really struggle to form matches. In PC EU there's rarely 3 full premades running about. And if they can't get a game in 10-15 mins, they're not gonna hang around they'll split up and remove themselves from the large queue. So if we want large group games, I feel we kinda have to let 3-man in there. If it seems to cause problems the decision could later be re-evaluated

That would not solve the current issue. Most solo players just don't want to be against full 4-premade no matter if they are with 3-premade or anything else. It would be discouraging to play solo, because if you don't want to be against 4-premade you would rather seek 1 friend and queue as duo to ensure that no full premade is going to be in opposite team. Number of solo players will be reduced in the system you proposed, resulting in larger queue times for full 4-premades (as you want to put these against solos) and trio premades as well.

I disagree. I’m not sure why you think solo players don’t want to be involved with groups at all. I’m a solo player and I have no problem whatsoever playing against full premades so long as we have a hope in winning and enjoying a good game. Which is entirely possible if my team contains a good 3-man group.

If I know the other 3 in my team are a grouped, I’ll stick with them and help whichever way I can instead of running around like a headless chicken trying to pick kills. It’s important to know what the team formation is like. In Overwatch, during the loading screen into the instanced game it shows the team compositions (F5 equivalent in ESO PC) but also if players are pre-groupped there’s a line connecting their names. That way solo players would know the other 3 are organised and would be more inclined to follow and help.

Finally, the point of the queue system is to create more balanced games, not to pander to desires. I may want to play only deathmatch or to not have to fight any Wardens. These are not legitimate reasons to build the system around. If certain solo players only like to fight other solos players, then tough luck. We can't completely destroy the large group queue and force 3-man groups to always split just cause some people don't like groups. If the games are more balanced and scorelines are closer (instead of 500-80-0) then it's already a massive improvement over the current status with very small sacrifice.

Anethum

Maulkin wrote: »

I disagree. I’m not sure why you think solo players don’t want to be involved with groups at all. I’m a solo player and I have no problem whatsoever playing against full premades so long as we have a hope in winning and enjoying a good game. Which is entirely possible if my team contains a good 3-man group.

Who's talking about restriction to join matches vs premades as random?
Group finder should simply have oprion "only random players", which will work only if u turned it on.
In another case u will able to join to no full premades to fight vs premades.
Its a fair, its a choice, its a competition.
And its another leaderboard with maybe another rewards.


P.s: Scheme of Maulkin is too complicated. Simplest and efficient way to separate premades vs randoms - add just one option in group finder. Choice for random player, but not for premades. LIke for joining campagn. U can join vet campagn by nonveteran character, but cannot go non-vet with a veteran character.

MurderMostFoul

Maulkin wrote: »

This has been said countless of times. They don't even need 4 queues. Two will do fine:



2 Queues, a small and a large group queue, with solo players falling into both. Trio +1 random is strong enough to take on a Quartet (full premade). And solo players are fine mixing with duos.

This is both easier to implement than MMR and it will cause smaller fragmentation of the relatively small player base than proper MMR would cause.

This is the best solution I've seen, it prevents PUG v. Premade, addresses the long queue times that could occur with a "premade only queue" (which wouldn't work for groups of 3), and is so streamlined as to be invisible to the player.

Props

Edit: @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom

Anethum

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

This is the best solution I've seen, it prevents PUG v. Premade, addresses the long queue times that could occur with a "premade only queue" (which wouldn't work for groups of 3), and is so streamlined as to be invisible to the player.

Props

It's not. premade always will be able to disband and join full random queue if have no opponents in premade only as randoms.
Simple separation with a choice for random player what queye to join will be better solution.
But they will have, because small scale is interesting. If u're not psyhopate ofc, who like only to nuke randoms, but avoid to fight premade vs premade.
Scheme too complicated.

MurderMostFoul

diplomatt wrote: »

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

This is the best solution I've seen, it prevents PUG v. Premade, addresses the long queue times that could occur with a "premade only queue" (which wouldn't work for groups of 3), and is so streamlined as to be invisible to the player.

Props

It's not. premade always will be able to disband and join full random queue if have no opponents in premade only as randoms.
Simple separation with a choice for random player what queye to join will be better solution.
But they will have, because small scale is interesting. If u're not psyhopate ofc, who like only to nuke randoms, but avoid to fight premade vs premade.
Scheme too complicated.

I'm not sure you are understanding what is being proposed. @Maulkin's suggestion is not complicated at all. The player doesn't even have to pick anything when queuing. And all matches would either be:

singles/duos v. singles/duos v. singles/duos

or

Quartet/trio+single v. Quartet/trio+single v. Quartet/trio+single

Simple.

If a premade disbanded and queued, they would be scattered among the rest of pool of players queuing. I don't get your point there.

Maulkin

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

diplomatt wrote: »

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

This is the best solution I've seen, it prevents PUG v. Premade, addresses the long queue times that could occur with a "premade only queue" (which wouldn't work for groups of 3), and is so streamlined as to be invisible to the player.

Props

It's not. premade always will be able to disband and join full random queue if have no opponents in premade only as randoms.
Simple separation with a choice for random player what queye to join will be better solution.
But they will have, because small scale is interesting. If u're not psyhopate ofc, who like only to nuke randoms, but avoid to fight premade vs premade.
Scheme too complicated.

I'm not sure you are understanding what is being proposed. @Maulkin's suggestion is not complicated at all. The player doesn't even have to pick anything when queuing. And all matches would either be:

singles/duos v. singles/duos v. singles/duos

or

Quartet/trio+single v. Quartet/trio+single v. Quartet/trio+single

Simple.

If a premade disbanded and queued, they would be scattered among the rest of pool of players queuing. I don't get your point there.

That's exactly what I'm proposing, thank you.

Artemiisia

made a similar thread a week ago, premade groups just ruins the fun in bgs in the long run.

right now im leveling up a new char, and doing non cp bgs a lot, and luvin it hell of a lot more, since rarely premades are there, it feels more skill over gear wins, and yeah sure luck of getting some good players on the team

TwistedThoughtz

You say you felt bad, but instead of going for the flags, you went for kills...

Anethum

Maulkin wrote: »

That's exactly what I'm proposing, thank you.

Do u believe Zenimax able to do this?
I'm absolutly sure that they can't.
Because of long statistics what and how they done from spring 2014 to today.
Even simple queue for dungeons or battlegrounds don't work properly.
Think about this.
They have no specialists to provide such mathematics, same as smart ranking system

Maulkin

diplomatt wrote: »

Maulkin wrote: »

That's exactly what I'm proposing, thank you.

Do u believe Zenimax able to do this?
I'm absolutly sure that they can't.
Because of long statistics what and how they done from spring 2014 to today.
Even simple queue for dungeons or battlegrounds don't work properly.
Think about this.
They have no specialists to provide such mathematics, same as smart ranking system

It doesn't require complicated mathematics at all though. They have already implemented it in fact. When you do your Undaunted Dailies with pugs, you queue for two dungeons and you are placed into two separate queues. Whichever queue you reach the top first, that's the one you get an invite for.

This is the same exact system only hidden from you. The only difference is that the queue you go into is not a choice, but depends on the group size when the crown queues the team. And solos get put into both queues like when you queue for two dungeons.

So yeah, I know they can do it cause they've already done it. It's not that hard to implement multiple queues. That's partly why I went for this recommendation. It's by far the easiest and cheapest method for them to develop and put in place out of the ones I heard so far.

the_broo11

Maulkin wrote: »

This has been said countless of times. They don't even need 4 queues. Two will do fine:



2 Queues, a small and a large group queue, with solo players falling into both. Trio +1 random is strong enough to take on a Quartet (full premade). And solo players are fine mixing with duos.

Best idea I've seen on this topic so far.

Olupajmibanan

Why not just making separate queue option in group finder?
1. Solo/Duo queue (with it's separate ranked brackets when we get some)
2. Full 4-group premade queue (with it's separate ranked brackets when we get some)

No players from one queue type could be put in game with ones from other queue type.

And no, population isn't the argument against this. We want matchmaking to increase BG population. Increased population along with more balanced matches is output from our effort, so we can't consider population as affecting factor or even input.

MurderMostFoul

Olupajmibanan wrote: »

Why not just making separate queue option in group finder?
1. Solo/Duo queue (with it's separate ranked brackets when we get some)
2. Full 4-group premade queue (with it's separate ranked brackets when we get some)

No players from one queue type could be put in game with ones from other queue type.

And no, population isn't the argument against this. We want matchmaking to increase BG population. Increased population along with more balanced matches is output from our effort, so we can't consider population as affecting factor or even input.

what about trios?

Thogard

1. Allow a lobby

2. Allow us to get 12 people into that lobby through a raid

3. Allow the raid leader to either set the teams for 4v4v4 or have a button for “randomize”

4. There’s your BG


We’re already doing it, but it would be easier with a lobby so we don’t have to wait for all 12 to get the same queue pop.

Maulkin

Olupajmibanan wrote: »

Why not just making separate queue option in group finder?
1. Solo/Duo queue (with it's separate ranked brackets when we get some)
2. Full 4-group premade queue (with it's separate ranked brackets when we get some)

No players from one queue type could be put in game with ones from other queue type.

And no, population isn't the argument against this. We want matchmaking to increase BG population. Increased population along with more balanced matches is output from our effort, so we can't consider population as affecting factor or even input.

First off, you haven't accounted for trios which makes your mechanism not cater for all possibilities and thus is incomplete. And you can't just turn around and say 3-man has to find a 4th or split. If I have two friends online, I wanna play with them. I don't want to try to find a random or kick one of my friends. That's gonna alienate players, it's pretty simple. We're trying to bring people in.

Secondly what's the point of having options if you can't choose them. In your scenario 4-man groups can only pick the 2nd queue, duos and solos can only pick the first queue. If queue availability is dictated by group size, then there's no option really. Your group size decides where you go. So why even show it? It should be something behind the scenes like in all games.

Thirdly, yes of course population is an argument. Just you saying it isn't it, doesn't make it so. You can't split the population before it increases. Like you can't create 10 Cyrodiil campaigns just expecting people to fill them. People will be too split and campaigns would be empty. Even worse in BGs because people won't be getting games at all thus abandoning the queue and making it worse. I mean it's not some advanced logic I'm employing here, it's basic stuff.

Anethum

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

what about trios?

same as for duos, randoms who want play bg vs premades can join as 4th or 3d and 4th to them, or they can invite someone to fill the group. With own choice.
Premade queue should be more professional league. Competition for the glory etc etc!

I'm definitely against hidden mechanism, which will provide premades fight vs randoms who didn't chose that. Even when population is very low. Separation is important thing.

If not, let all veterans possibility to join nonveteran campagn also. If they both will be "not enouch populated", why not? How u think, here no problems in such suggestions?