[POLL]: Which form of battleground queue would you prefer most?

Grianasteri

Solo/Duo Queue /w separate Full Group Queue

Nairinhe wrote: »

Grianasteri wrote: »

The major issue of solo players being stomped by pre made groups, is not solved by simply taking away pre made groups

Judging by many "I abandoned BGs because being stomped by premades isn't fun, but now I play again" responses - it's exactly solved by this. Creating another problem is different topic.

How so when there are just as many folk who don't play BG anymore or play less, because they cannot group up with friends and guildies?

max_only

Solo Queue /w separate Group Queue Option

I think it’s telling that duos don’t want to be in with full group premades.

SebDeTyra

Solo /w Duo Queue Only

Here's my take on each option:

Solo queue only:

better for people with less time/ casuals/ daily PvP reward players only/ people with no voice chat/ people without guilds or friends to play with/ people who like fairness and evenly matched games even if some RNG is involved like 1 team getting 2 healers and a stamden and stamcro and other team getting 4 nightblades or something.

Old system:

better for veteran players who have the time and inclination to form up 4mans/ better for partners, siblings, friends who like to duo together/ better for vet players who like to stomp new players or solo queuers easily in a team.

Solo queue with separate group queue:

On paper clearly the best option by a mile, however there are cons. It divides the PvP player base so queues will be longer and group queue will have crazy long queue times compared to solo queue and may end up fighting the same 4 man's over and over which tend to be stalemates anyway and pretty tedious.

SidraWillowsky

Solo Queue /w separate Group Queue Option

Unfortunately, I just don't think the number of people who play BGs is high enough to support two separate queues.

I wish they'd make it possible to group up and then challenge each other to 'duels' as groups. It's technically possible in Cyrodiil, but if a fight is big enough it shows on the map and then people flock to you. I feel like a group battle option outside of Cyrodiil/IC might be a good way for premades to be able to fight premades outside of BGs (but for the love of god don't allow that in cities)

Alomar

Solo Queue /w separate Group Queue Option

Lol, so pathetic that this poll even exists in an mmo.

xXMeowMeowXx

Solo Queue /w separate Group Queue Option

This ^

Add two queues simple

Keep the solo

Also, add a separate queue for groups/premades, as I have mentioned in other posts.

It makes sense. There is no real reason not to have an option to be able to play with your friends and teammates. It takes time to put together a top group that works together.

For queues I have suggested quite a lot that ZOS should add in new incentives and rewards for seasoned premades. This would up the pop and participation in bgs.

MurderMostFoul

Solo /w Duo Queue Only

For all the folks picking the "Solo Queue /w separate Group Queue Option,"

Do you believe that there would consistently be 12 people (3 groups of 4) queuing in the group queue, enabling reasonable wait times? And even if you do get that 12 regularly, wouldn't it get boring fighting the same group game after game? Moreover, one of those group would likely be significantly better than the others, wouldn't you expect the least powerful group or groups to stop queuing due to being beaten by the same group over and over?

Unless I'm wildly underestimating the number of people who want to just do 4 man Premade v 4 man Premade v 4 man Premade, don't you think a truly functional group-only queue is just wishful thinking?

"Solo /w Duo Queue Only," allowing solos and duos in the same queue, isn't the ideal solution, but BGs aren't in an ideal state to permit an ideal solution. That's why "Solo /w Duo Queue Only" is a good, feasible, option.

SebDeTyra

Solo /w Duo Queue Only

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

For all the folks picking the "Solo Queue /w separate Group Queue Option,"

Do you believe that there would consistently be 12 people (3 groups of 4) queuing in the group queue, enabling reasonable wait times? And even if you do get that 12 regularly, wouldn't it get boring fighting the same group game after game? Moreover, one of those group would likely be significantly better than the others, wouldn't you expect the least powerful group or groups to stop queuing due to being beaten by the same group over and over?

Unless I'm wildly underestimating the number of people who want to just do 4 man Premade v 4 man Premade v 4 man Premade, don't you think a truly functional group-only queue is just wishful thinking?

"Solo /w Duo Queue Only," allowing solos and duos in the same queue, isn't the ideal solution, but BGs aren't in an ideal state to permit an ideal solution. That's why "Solo /w Duo Queue Only" is a good, feasible, option.

I agree. Stops the ultimate sweaties gettin their kicks stomping disorganised noobs but allows friends and partners etc to play for fun.

Would be even better if they improved the client to try to put duo queue on each team if one has it and the other doesn't as it's still an advantage.

Also you're not under- estimating anything. There were hardly any 4 man teams. The ones that did it did it to farm ap fast like the way they do in under 50 Cyro due to no faction lock ATM ( something else that needs looking at) Ap is worth a lot of gold.

Deathlord92

I prefer playing solo bgs is a lot of fun now before I was getting pre mades to much.

mavfin

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

Do forum-goers even understand that separate queues will lengthen the queue time for everyone involved (both solos and groups) ... ?

They don't care. They want what they want.

Most of the group players want their solo noobs to farm for easy rewards, regardless of anything they say here.

Same old story every time. When the twinks (less than max level chars, usually right at the top of a bracket) all swore that they only did it for good fights, Blizzard gave them twink-only queues, taking what they said at face value. When those queues came up, they were empty, because there were no noobs, only the twinks that swore up and down on the forums that they wanted to only fight those other good players. They couldn't pwn noobs endlessly, so they quit.

This is about the same, imo. The people screaming for group queueing just want their solo opponents back so they can pwn them endlessly. Yes, there are a few exceptions, but not enough to make a separate group-only queue viable, really.

YMMV.

max_only

Solo Queue /w separate Group Queue Option

mavfin wrote: »

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

Do forum-goers even understand that separate queues will lengthen the queue time for everyone involved (both solos and groups) ... ?

They don't care. They want what they want.

Most of the group players want their solo noobs to farm for easy rewards, regardless of anything they say here.

Same old story every time. When the twinks (less than max level chars, usually right at the top of a bracket) all swore that they only did it for good fights, Blizzard gave them twink-only queues, taking what they said at face value. When those queues came up, they were empty, because there were no noobs, only the twinks that swore up and down on the forums that they wanted to only fight those other good players. They couldn't pwn noobs endlessly, so they quit.

This is about the same, imo. The people screaming for group queueing just want their solo opponents back so they can pwn them endlessly. Yes, there are a few exceptions, but not enough to make a separate group-only queue viable, really.

YMMV.

Thank you.

MaxJrFTW

Solo Queue /w separate Group Queue Option

Duos shouldn't be a thing at all. Either all solo or full groups.

SirLeeMinion

Solo Queue Only

I'd vote solo queue with separate group queue if I thought there were enough BG players and enough developer resources to make it work; sadly there are not.

Nyteshade

Solo Queue /w separate Group Queue Option

Forgot the "this horse beaten to death" option!

idk

Irfind wrote: »

Solo Queue /w separate Group Queue Option second

Based on the message you typed it seems you chose the wrong option when you voted. The third option was specifically what you typed.

Sneaky-Snurr

Solo Queue /w separate Group Queue Option

Poll choice speaks for itself.

AzurasCry

Solo Queue Only

Solo with separate group queue. I duo is a maybe but trio is a hell no! Trio queue runs into many of the same problems we had with group queues back in the olden days. Long wait times and stack teams. Duos are going to make the team play stronger than solo since you have a partner. If the other two players on the team are also duos then you can play almost like a fully stacked team with a little less cordination. There are concerns if duo can pair up with solo which has other issues of its own. Solo only is probably the fastest queue time and least cordinated, but you do run into people who are good or knows what they are doing being placed in the same team sometimes and it becomes a slaughter. That’s just the luck of the draw.
Speaking of queue times, there is a great concern about whether the game can sustain a split queue system with its Current or Future BG population. If there isn’t enough players queueing for the same mode, the games will take too long to start and then there will be less people queueing for BGs. I don’t want to wait 30-40 mins for a match on a character for a single match like before which is why I like the solo queue. It takes around 1-15 mins to get a match now on PS4.

Berek_Bloodfang

Solo /w Duo Queue Only

Interesting that only 17% of the votes actually want "Solo Q" only. Hmm

Kawiki

Berek_Bloodfang wrote: »

Interesting that only 17% of the votes actually want "Solo Q" only. Hmm

Yes, however 90% of people want a solo queue, near solo queue option or separate queues. If it were a BG the score would 500-40-10.

I think a better poll would be solo queue only or old way. I think you would find solo queue only would win pretty handily.

Berek_Bloodfang

Solo /w Duo Queue Only

Kawiki wrote: »

Berek_Bloodfang wrote: »

Interesting that only 17% of the votes actually want "Solo Q" only. Hmm

Yes, however 90% of people want a solo queue, near solo queue option or separate queues. If it were a BG the score would 500-40-10.

I think a better poll would be solo queue only or old way. I think you would find solo queue only would win pretty handily.

That may be, but clearly the player base wants more than just "Solo Q", especially with Cyrodiil being so unplayable.

Zulera301

Solo Queue /w separate Group Queue Option

SebDeTyra wrote: »

Ri_Khan wrote: »

There doesn't even need to be an option on the players end. The way I see it is if you queue alone you should get put in a "Solo" match with other players that also queued alone and if you want to play with your friends, it would require you to be in either a 2 or 4 player group that gets matched with everyone else that queued in a 2 or 4 player group.

2x2 will always lose to 4 man. So not exactly fair match-ups. People will lose MMR due to losing unfair games, get annoyed and we lose more BG players.

wait, you can lose MMR? I thought it just always went up no matter if you won or lost.

peacenote

Solo Queue /w separate Group Queue Option

Bring back what I paid for in Morrowind!!! I want to queue with my friends but I am fine if others want a solo queue too.

x48rph

Original Group Queue System

Any is fine

Though I really don't think it matters what people prefer. I'm of the opinion that the change had absolutely ZERO to do with what the playe rbase wanted and everything to do with the performance of the group finder. Even after rewriting it they still couldn't get it to work properly and I think this was done just to help alleviate some of the stress on the system. Much less involved when you can consider each person's mmr separately. I think it's a workaround that will probably just continue for at least awhile cause then they can focus time on other things. Maybe one day they'll get bored and decide to take another crack at it but I'm not holding my breath.