Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Redefining the Team Queue question.


sephiroth.4217

Recommended Posts

Since season 5-6 people have asked about team queue return and the finalization of the duo queue trial and since season 5-6 those questions have been met with complete silence, the playerbase that actively supported this company with thier wallets was pushed out of the game to make room for people who wanted to solo play in an MMO.

So at this stage, the silence says that it won't be coming back, or at least that's what it looks like.


I ask a different question just in case Anet are allowed to answer it, but what went wrong?Can it not be put back into the game due to a coding issue the same as SAB?Did we lose too much of the player base when you made the change?Do you need permission from NCsoft before allowing it just in case other games within your company want to use 5v5 conquest as a selling point to a new game?


I don't get it guys...

Before you sweep this one under the rug too, just let me appeal to your humanity for a second: You dropped a trial queue and then abandoned it altogether leaving players like me, who supported your company for years to be left in the dust and you continue to ignore legitimate questions in regards to it... Not once did we ever get an official post saying something like "due to blah blah, we can no longer support it or blah blah"... Instead we just get complete silence while you also go to the effort to moderate the posts and move them around, wouldn't it be easier to use that same effort to respond at least once and put an end to these threads?


Edit: I thought it was very clear that the point of this thread is about team queues but apparently not, so I put this in to clarify that the point of this thread is about team queues.All I'm hoping to seek is at least 1 post from Anet in regards to the matter as we have had nothing but silence on the subject since the trial started back in season 5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my take:

There was never real guidance on how to take pvp. They did what you should do when considering a big change by asking your client's what they want and it turned out that solo queue won. This change isn't something you seesaw with so it's most likely staying from here on out. Now that it has been in the game for a few seasons and they are working on swiss style tournaments and on-demand at's. And I feel as if their direction for pvp is keep the current ranked as is but open up pvp to organized fights with the framework for swiss style tournaments and then eventually on-demand tournaments.

I feel like they could do a bit more with the current ATs to satisfy team through frequency, none of this one and done - which swiss will help. Essentially, tournaments is where we're going to see group play so here's to making sure they satisfy that want by players with their upcoming changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as someone who has left the game and no longer a active player...

i left the game or at least it was in mostly part to the removal of ranked team queue with no viable team outlet....i was always open to on demand ATS and swiss tourneys as a replacement but every time i see a ANET dev post on this its in the very distant future and that does not appear to be improving either..

i totally get why people wanted / want solo que in ranked but the removal of team que in MY OPINION killed the pvp community (pretty much every pvp guild in the game disbanded) including my own which was over 200 members strong....there just isn't any reward to playing unranked (from either drive for rewards which are lacking OR overall competitiveness bc people in unranked run troll builds).Since the only point for playing unranked is for the hell of it... which is great and all but isn't gonna keep anyone around long term...

i would return if ranked team que was to resume OR if Unranked was given the same rewards OR if on demand tourneys are a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@zinkz.7045 said:

@sephiroth.4217 said:....people who wanted to solo play in an MMO.

Because a 5v5 'tiny' mulitplayer / co-op sidegame that is instanced off outside the persistent world is so MMO...

referring to a single game yes you can only play with 4 plays which isn't very MMO however being apart of a 200 man guild of which i played with pretty much all the members in various groups is very MMO...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Nova.3817 said:

@"sephiroth.4217" said:....people who wanted to solo play in an MMO.

Because a 5v5 'tiny' mulitplayer / co-op sidegame that is instanced off outside the persistent world is so MMO...

referring to a single game yes you can only play with 4 plays which isn't very MMO however being apart of a 200 man guild of which i played with pretty much all the members in various groups is very MMO...

I disagree, that is barely MMO at all, you can belong to a guild in lots of solo / co-op games (Diablo 3 for example), that doesn't make them an MMO.

But really it doesn't matter how "MMO" a 200 man guild is or isn't, because you don't need to be in a 200 man guild to queue as a team of 5, you just need 4 other guys, might be the only 4 other guys you even talk to in the game, and you only need that because the actual content is not "massively multiplayer" (go see WvW , HoT zone events, etc, for "massively multiplayer"), real MMORPGs had public dungeons, open world PvP, etc, this 5 man sidegame does not even belong in a real MMORPG.

QQing about solo players not being "MMORPG" whilst pretending instanced content for 2 teams of 5 is "MMORPG" is laughable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@zinkz.7045 said:

@"sephiroth.4217" said:....people who wanted to solo play in an MMO.

Because a 5v5 'tiny' mulitplayer / co-op sidegame that is instanced off outside the persistent world is so MMO...

referring to a single game yes you can only play with 4 plays which isn't very MMO however being apart of a 200 man guild of which i played with pretty much all the members in various groups is very MMO...

I disagree, that is barely MMO at all, you can belong to a guild in lots of solo / co-op games (Diablo 3 for example), that doesn't make them an MMO.

But really it doesn't matter how "MMO" a 200 man guild is or isn't, because you don't need to be in a 200 man guild to queue as a team of 5, you just need 4 other guys, might be the only 4 other guys you even talk to in the game, and you only need that because the actual content is not "massively multiplayer" (go see WvW , HoT zone events, etc, for "massively multiplayer"), real MMORPGs had public dungeons, open world PvP, etc, this 5 man sidegame does not even belong in a real MMORPG.

QQing about solo players not being "MMORPG" whilst pretending instanced content for 2 teams of 5 is "MMORPG" is laughable.

The game is MMO regardless of your definition to MMO if it be wrong or right, but this is not what this thread is about. if you would like to discuss definitions I suggest making a thread about it.

not that it matters though, Anet swept this one under the rug again and players like yourself are defending this shameful behaviour by jumping to thier defense even just to argue about off topic junk such as definitions while completely ignoring the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@sephiroth.4217 said:

@sephiroth.4217 said:....people who wanted to solo play in an MMO.

Because a 5v5 'tiny' mulitplayer / co-op sidegame that is instanced off outside the persistent world is so MMO...

referring to a single game yes you can only play with 4 plays which isn't very MMO however being apart of a 200 man guild of which i played with pretty much all the members in various groups is very MMO...

I disagree, that is barely MMO at all, you can belong to a guild in lots of solo / co-op games (Diablo 3 for example), that doesn't make them an MMO.

But really it doesn't matter how "MMO" a 200 man guild is or isn't, because you don't need to be in a 200 man guild to queue as a team of 5, you just need 4 other guys, might be the only 4 other guys you even talk to in the game, and you only need that because the actual content is not "massively multiplayer" (go see WvW , HoT zone events, etc, for "massively multiplayer"), real MMORPGs had public dungeons, open world PvP, etc, this 5 man sidegame does not even belong in a real MMORPG.

QQing about solo players not being "MMORPG" whilst pretending instanced content for 2 teams of 5 is "MMORPG" is laughable.

The game is MMO regardless of your definition to MMO if it be wrong or right, but this is not what this thread is about. if you would like to discuss definitions I suggest making a thread about it.

not that it matters though, Anet swept this one under the rug again and players like yourself are defending this shameful behaviour by jumping to thier defense even just to argue about off topic junk such as definitions while completely ignoring the point.

Let's see, who introduced the "off topic junk" into the thread... oh yes it was you... there is a word for that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@zinkz.7045 said:

@sephiroth.4217 said:....people who wanted to solo play in an MMO.

Because a 5v5 'tiny' mulitplayer / co-op sidegame that is instanced off outside the persistent world is so MMO...

referring to a single game yes you can only play with 4 plays which isn't very MMO however being apart of a 200 man guild of which i played with pretty much all the members in various groups is very MMO...

I disagree, that is barely MMO at all, you can belong to a guild in lots of solo / co-op games (Diablo 3 for example), that doesn't make them an MMO.

But really it doesn't matter how "MMO" a 200 man guild is or isn't, because you don't need to be in a 200 man guild to queue as a team of 5, you just need 4 other guys, might be the only 4 other guys you even talk to in the game, and you only need that because the actual content is not "massively multiplayer" (go see WvW , HoT zone events, etc, for "massively multiplayer"), real MMORPGs had public dungeons, open world PvP, etc, this 5 man sidegame does not even belong in a real MMORPG.

QQing about solo players not being "MMORPG" whilst pretending instanced content for 2 teams of 5 is "MMORPG" is laughable.

The game is MMO regardless of your definition to MMO if it be wrong or right, but this is not what this thread is about. if you would like to discuss definitions I suggest making a thread about it.

not that it matters though, Anet swept this one under the rug again and players like yourself are defending this shameful behaviour by jumping to thier defense even just to argue about off topic junk such as definitions while completely ignoring the point.

Let's see, who introduced the "off topic junk" into the thread... oh yes it was you... there is a word for that...

I made one post and it was the Original post.

Guild Wars 2 is MMO and just like Nova I was also part of a huge PvP guild, in this beautiful MMO.

next youll be saying that people who raid in this game arent playing MMO because they partied up, extremely illogical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@sephiroth.4217 said:

@sephiroth.4217 said:....people who wanted to solo play in an MMO.

Because a 5v5 'tiny' mulitplayer / co-op sidegame that is instanced off outside the persistent world is so MMO...

referring to a single game yes you can only play with 4 plays which isn't very MMO however being apart of a 200 man guild of which i played with pretty much all the members in various groups is very MMO...

I disagree, that is barely MMO at all, you can belong to a guild in lots of solo / co-op games (Diablo 3 for example), that doesn't make them an MMO.

But really it doesn't matter how "MMO" a 200 man guild is or isn't, because you don't need to be in a 200 man guild to queue as a team of 5, you just need 4 other guys, might be the only 4 other guys you even talk to in the game, and you only need that because the actual content is not "massively multiplayer" (go see WvW , HoT zone events, etc, for "massively multiplayer"), real MMORPGs had public dungeons, open world PvP, etc, this 5 man sidegame does not even belong in a real MMORPG.

QQing about solo players not being "MMORPG" whilst pretending instanced content for 2 teams of 5 is "MMORPG" is laughable.

The game is MMO regardless of your definition to MMO if it be wrong or right, but this is not what this thread is about. if you would like to discuss definitions I suggest making a thread about it.

not that it matters though, Anet swept this one under the rug again and players like yourself are defending this shameful behaviour by jumping to thier defense even just to argue about off topic junk such as definitions while completely ignoring the point.

Let's see, who introduced the "off topic junk" into the thread... oh yes it was you... there is a word for that...

I made one post and it was the Original post which clearly you had no idea about.

Which contained the "off topic junk" I responded to, as you seem to need it spelled out for you, it wasn't me who brought up the notion of how people choose to play in an MMO and whether that fits an MMO, it was you, if you didn't want anyone to comment on that, then you should not have introduced it into the thread in the first place.

@sephiroth.4217 said:...extremely illogical.

Irony...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...