What is up with the matchmaker? - Page 2 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

What is up with the matchmaker?

2

Comments

  • @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
    Re: the matchmaker not keeping high rated players in queue longer: The reward for getting better at the game can't be, "You don't get to play anymore."
    Re: Duo queue - We thought about this for a long time. In the end, we decided it's just not fun to not be able to play with your friends. Additionally, removing a feature is a poor reward for getting better at the game. It also motivated all sorts of bad behavior, which I won't go into.

    Just curious, is there any other queue options being looked into besides merged queues? Is a split SoloQ and/or TeamQ on the table at all? If not Is there a cap coming to that? Like, not allowing two people of great rating disparity to queue together(IE a Legend or Plat3 queuing with a silver who might not be silver on another account?)

    I kinda feel like it gets, or has the potential to get a bit Kafkaesque; especially given what you said about the matchmaker and high-rating DuoQs.

    Remove Ranked DuoQ pls&ty

  • phantom.1675phantom.1675 Member ✭✭
    edited June 28, 2019

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
    Re: the matchmaker not keeping high rated players in queue longer: The reward for getting better at the game can't be, "You don't get to play anymore."
    Re: Duo queue - We thought about this for a long time. In the end, we decided it's just not fun to not be able to play with your friends. Additionally, removing a feature is a poor reward for getting better at the game. It also motivated all sorts of bad behavior, which I won't go into.

    Just curious, is there any other queue options being looked into besides merged queues? Is a split SoloQ and/or TeamQ on the table at all? If not Is there a cap coming to that? Like, not allowing two people of great rating disparity to queue together(IE a Legend or Plat3 queuing with a silver who might not be silver on another account?)

    I kinda feel like it gets, or has the potential to get a bit Kafkaesque; especially given what you said about the matchmaker and high-rating DuoQs.

    You can queue with a team of 5 at anytime in unranked. If you all don't like the number 1 and 2 players queuing together in ranked, you really wont like the 1,2,3,4,5 players queuing together.

  • @phantom.1675 said:
    You can queue with a team of 5 at anytime in unranked. If you all don't like the number 1 and 2 players queueing together, you really wont like the 1,2,3,4,5 players queueing together.

    I mean specifically for ranked ^^

    That'd be up to the top 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 players at that time to do. At least that way there's options to play ranked with friends that don't burn or even interfere with SoloQ players at all.

    And if the first thing those top 5 players do with TeamQ is queue exclusively with eachother, then i'd question whether being able to play with friends is the motive or an excuse.

    Remove Ranked DuoQ pls&ty

  • sephiroth.4217sephiroth.4217 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

    @Crab Fear.1624 said:

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
    Re: the matchmaker not keeping high rated players in queue longer: The reward for getting better at the game can't be, "You don't get to play anymore."
    Re: Duo queue - We thought about this for a long time. In the end, we decided it's just not fun to not be able to play with your friends. Additionally, removing a feature is a poor reward for getting better at the game. It also motivated all sorts of bad behavior, which I won't go into.

    Well, can we start playing with 4 friends?

    You can, if you queue up for an AT!

    I hope that wasnt a serious answer...

    some of us have jobs and family to provide for and cant adhere to your very specific time schedule.

    Not to brag, but I put together a puzzle in 4 days and the box said 2-4 years.
    Please allow team queue with rewards again at our own discretion.
    Apologies if I come off as dry or blunt.

  • sephiroth.4217sephiroth.4217 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 28, 2019

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

    @sephiroth.4217 said:

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

    @Crab Fear.1624 said:

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
    Re: the matchmaker not keeping high rated players in queue longer: The reward for getting better at the game can't be, "You don't get to play anymore."
    Re: Duo queue - We thought about this for a long time. In the end, we decided it's just not fun to not be able to play with your friends. Additionally, removing a feature is a poor reward for getting better at the game. It also motivated all sorts of bad behavior, which I won't go into.

    Well, can we start playing with 4 friends?

    You can, if you queue up for an AT!

    I hope that wasnt a serious answer...

    some of us have jobs and family to provide for and cant adhere to your very specific time schedule.

    It's a bit of a joke, a bit of truth. We made the sliding schedule so that there should always be a tournament time 2-3 times per week that fits your schedule. We're currently considering increasing available tournaments to give people more opportunities. In the far distant future, we are planning for on demand tournaments. Basically, tournaments that will launch when at least 4 teams have signed up.

    That'll be great.
    You guys have built such a wonderful combat system to enjoy, I miss enjoying it with friends.

    For me personally it's just timing, I happen to get home right as the enrollment closed and I'm generally in bed before the next enrollment.

    Not to brag, but I put together a puzzle in 4 days and the box said 2-4 years.
    Please allow team queue with rewards again at our own discretion.
    Apologies if I come off as dry or blunt.

  • Crab Fear.1624Crab Fear.1624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @sephiroth.4217 said:

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

    @sephiroth.4217 said:

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

    @Crab Fear.1624 said:

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
    Re: the matchmaker not keeping high rated players in queue longer: The reward for getting better at the game can't be, "You don't get to play anymore."
    Re: Duo queue - We thought about this for a long time. In the end, we decided it's just not fun to not be able to play with your friends. Additionally, removing a feature is a poor reward for getting better at the game. It also motivated all sorts of bad behavior, which I won't go into.

    Well, can we start playing with 4 friends?

    You can, if you queue up for an AT!

    I hope that wasnt a serious answer...

    some of us have jobs and family to provide for and cant adhere to your very specific time schedule.

    It's a bit of a joke, a bit of truth. We made the sliding schedule so that there should always be a tournament time 2-3 times per week that fits your schedule. We're currently considering increasing available tournaments to give people more opportunities. In the far distant future, we are planning for on demand tournaments. Basically, tournaments that will launch when at least 4 teams have signed up.

    That'll be great.
    You guys have built such a wonderful combat system to enjoy, I miss enjoying it with friends.

    For me personally it's just timing, I happen to get home right as the enrollment closed and I'm generally in bed before the next enrollment.

    Well, I"ll be around in the distant future playing GW2 with my cybernetic implants as long as the game is still running.

    Soon™ ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
    Bring back Impending Dhuum.
    No FotM for me, only thief, weak or strong.

  • Sorem.9157Sorem.9157 Member ✭✭✭
    edited June 28, 2019

    @Crab Fear.1624 said:

    @sephiroth.4217 said:

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

    @sephiroth.4217 said:

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

    @Crab Fear.1624 said:

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
    Re: the matchmaker not keeping high rated players in queue longer: The reward for getting better at the game can't be, "You don't get to play anymore."
    Re: Duo queue - We thought about this for a long time. In the end, we decided it's just not fun to not be able to play with your friends. Additionally, removing a feature is a poor reward for getting better at the game. It also motivated all sorts of bad behavior, which I won't go into.

    Well, can we start playing with 4 friends?

    You can, if you queue up for an AT!

    I hope that wasnt a serious answer...

    some of us have jobs and family to provide for and cant adhere to your very specific time schedule.

    It's a bit of a joke, a bit of truth. We made the sliding schedule so that there should always be a tournament time 2-3 times per week that fits your schedule. We're currently considering increasing available tournaments to give people more opportunities. In the far distant future, we are planning for on demand tournaments. Basically, tournaments that will launch when at least 4 teams have signed up.

    That'll be great.
    You guys have built such a wonderful combat system to enjoy, I miss enjoying it with friends.

    For me personally it's just timing, I happen to get home right as the enrollment closed and I'm generally in bed before the next enrollment.

    Well, I"ll be around in the distant future playing GW2 with my cybernetic implants as long as the game is still running.

    Which is perfect, considering swiss will probably be coming soon by then.

    PS: I love that Ben is being more active in this thread today, really appreciatte it.

    With that said, there are some threads with some really good critics to PvP that should get some attention. I see a lot of constructive feedback being ignored and that is just sad. More transparency, please.

  • Yasi.9065Yasi.9065 Member ✭✭✭

    @Sorem.9157 said:

    @Crab Fear.1624 said:

    @sephiroth.4217 said:

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

    @sephiroth.4217 said:

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

    @Crab Fear.1624 said:

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
    Re: the matchmaker not keeping high rated players in queue longer: The reward for getting better at the game can't be, "You don't get to play anymore."
    Re: Duo queue - We thought about this for a long time. In the end, we decided it's just not fun to not be able to play with your friends. Additionally, removing a feature is a poor reward for getting better at the game. It also motivated all sorts of bad behavior, which I won't go into.

    Well, can we start playing with 4 friends?

    You can, if you queue up for an AT!

    I hope that wasnt a serious answer...

    some of us have jobs and family to provide for and cant adhere to your very specific time schedule.

    It's a bit of a joke, a bit of truth. We made the sliding schedule so that there should always be a tournament time 2-3 times per week that fits your schedule. We're currently considering increasing available tournaments to give people more opportunities. In the far distant future, we are planning for on demand tournaments. Basically, tournaments that will launch when at least 4 teams have signed up.

    That'll be great.
    You guys have built such a wonderful combat system to enjoy, I miss enjoying it with friends.

    For me personally it's just timing, I happen to get home right as the enrollment closed and I'm generally in bed before the next enrollment.

    Well, I"ll be around in the distant future playing GW2 with my cybernetic implants as long as the game is still running.

    Which is perfect, considering swiss will probably be coming soon by then.

    PS: I love that Ben is being more active in this thread today, really appreciatte it.

    With that said, there are some threads with some really good critics to PvP that should get some attention. I see a lot of constructive feedback being ignored and that is just sad. More transparency, please.

    Im pretty sure no constructive feedback gets ignored. Just because theres no direct discussion with devs doesnt mean they are not considering and discussing things internally.

    Swiss, alliances, more ATs... gotta say, cant wait for all the PvP changes.

  • Meteor.3720Meteor.3720 Member ✭✭✭

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

    @sephiroth.4217 said:

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

    @Crab Fear.1624 said:

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
    Re: the matchmaker not keeping high rated players in queue longer: The reward for getting better at the game can't be, "You don't get to play anymore."
    Re: Duo queue - We thought about this for a long time. In the end, we decided it's just not fun to not be able to play with your friends. Additionally, removing a feature is a poor reward for getting better at the game. It also motivated all sorts of bad behavior, which I won't go into.

    Well, can we start playing with 4 friends?

    You can, if you queue up for an AT!

    I hope that wasnt a serious answer...

    some of us have jobs and family to provide for and cant adhere to your very specific time schedule.

    It's a bit of a joke, a bit of truth. We made the sliding schedule so that there should always be a tournament time 2-3 times per week that fits your schedule. We're currently considering increasing available tournaments to give people more opportunities. In the far distant future, we are planning for on demand tournaments. Basically, tournaments that will launch when at least 4 teams have signed up.

    In the far distant future, in a galaxy far far away, Anet will introduce updates soon.

  • ZeroTheCat.2684ZeroTheCat.2684 Member ✭✭✭

    ...

    Re: Duo queue - We thought about this for a long time. In the end, we decided it's just not fun to not be able to play with your friends. Additionally, removing a feature is a poor reward for getting better at the game. It also motivated all sorts of bad behavior, which I won't go into.

    Really? Why not create a separate queue for duos then? Or allow 5man teams. Cmon man can’t you see this hurts the game mode more than it favors it. You are punishing people that dont play with a partner to cater for a minority...

  • Yasi.9065Yasi.9065 Member ✭✭✭
    edited June 28, 2019

    As I understood it years ago during a forum discussion about the change from solo/teamarena to unranked/ranked, its a LOT difficult, if not impossible to add another queue. I think duo queue and ATs is a good compromise there. You can always luck out and get 2 passable duos on your ranked match. Or join as duo yourself.
    Also, the poll wasnt clearly in favor of soloqueue, so neither solo-queuers nor team-queuers are a minority.

  • JETWING.2759JETWING.2759 Member ✭✭✭

    No problem to me queue against duo legendary, but my team needs have least my own skill level/experience. Some times i feel like some team mates neever played pvp or their character's proffesion before.

  • Crab Fear.1624Crab Fear.1624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @JETWING.2759 said:
    No problem to me queue against duo legendary, but my team needs have least my own skill level/experience. Some times i feel like some team mates neever played pvp or their character's proffesion before.

    Maybe they are bored of Djinn map, so here we come to practice in ranked with the good maps.

    Soon™ ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
    Bring back Impending Dhuum.
    No FotM for me, only thief, weak or strong.

  • KryTiKaL.3125KryTiKaL.3125 Member ✭✭✭
    edited June 28, 2019

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
    Re: the matchmaker not keeping high rated players in queue longer: The reward for getting better at the game can't be, "You don't get to play anymore."
    Re: Duo queue - We thought about this for a long time. In the end, we decided it's just not fun to not be able to play with your friends. Additionally, removing a feature is a poor reward for getting better at the game. It also motivated all sorts of bad behavior, which I won't go into.

    One could also argue that removing the 5 man que option years ago was a poor reward for players who worked on team coordination and that also denied people from playing with even more of their friends.

    Oh but right, Automated Tournaments...which aren't even available as frequently as just being able to Que for Ranked.

    :/

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

    @sephiroth.4217 said:

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

    @Crab Fear.1624 said:

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
    Re: the matchmaker not keeping high rated players in queue longer: The reward for getting better at the game can't be, "You don't get to play anymore."
    Re: Duo queue - We thought about this for a long time. In the end, we decided it's just not fun to not be able to play with your friends. Additionally, removing a feature is a poor reward for getting better at the game. It also motivated all sorts of bad behavior, which I won't go into.

    Well, can we start playing with 4 friends?

    You can, if you queue up for an AT!

    I hope that wasnt a serious answer...

    some of us have jobs and family to provide for and cant adhere to your very specific time schedule.

    It's a bit of a joke, a bit of truth. We made the sliding schedule so that there should always be a tournament time 2-3 times per week that fits your schedule. We're currently considering increasing available tournaments to give people more opportunities. In the far distant future, we are planning for on demand tournaments. Basically, tournaments that will launch when at least 4 teams have signed up.

    You guys at ArenaNet should really do a Devstream where you talk about the future of this game. Barely anyone is going to see a post like this, especially after it gets buried in the forums after a couple of days to a week where the information will just be lost to the ether until it randomly comes up again or until you actually announce the change or until it just appears in the patch notes one day in the far flung future.

    The attempts at communication are appreciated, but it really needs to be more consolidated and more direct so that the information is easily found and doesn't get lost in the depths of the forum space.

  • @KryTiKaL.3125 said:

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
    Re: the matchmaker not keeping high rated players in queue longer: The reward for getting better at the game can't be, "You don't get to play anymore."
    Re: Duo queue - We thought about this for a long time. In the end, we decided it's just not fun to not be able to play with your friends. Additionally, removing a feature is a poor reward for getting better at the game. It also motivated all sorts of bad behavior, which I won't go into.

    One could also argue that removing the 5 man que option years ago was a poor reward for players who worked on team coordination and that also denied people from playing with even more of their friends.

    Oh but right, Automated Tournaments...which aren't even available as frequently as just being able to Que for Ranked.

    :/

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

    @sephiroth.4217 said:

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

    @Crab Fear.1624 said:

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
    Re: the matchmaker not keeping high rated players in queue longer: The reward for getting better at the game can't be, "You don't get to play anymore."
    Re: Duo queue - We thought about this for a long time. In the end, we decided it's just not fun to not be able to play with your friends. Additionally, removing a feature is a poor reward for getting better at the game. It also motivated all sorts of bad behavior, which I won't go into.

    Well, can we start playing with 4 friends?

    You can, if you queue up for an AT!

    I hope that wasnt a serious answer...

    some of us have jobs and family to provide for and cant adhere to your very specific time schedule.

    It's a bit of a joke, a bit of truth. We made the sliding schedule so that there should always be a tournament time 2-3 times per week that fits your schedule. We're currently considering increasing available tournaments to give people more opportunities. In the far distant future, we are planning for on demand tournaments. Basically, tournaments that will launch when at least 4 teams have signed up.

    You guys at ArenaNet should really do a Devstream where you talk about the future of this game. Barely anyone is going to see a post like this, especially after it gets buried in the forums after a couple of days to a week where the information will just be lost to the ether until it randomly comes up again or until you actually announce the change or until it just appears in the patch notes one day in the far flung future.

    The attempts at communication are appreciated, but it really needs to be more consolidated and more direct so that the information is easily found and doesn't get lost in the depths of the forum space.

    Not just a regular devstream - one oriented towards the competitive aspect of the game. We saw Anet maybe play once or twice WvW and then... I can't even recall the last time I saw them play PvP. Just playing the FFA or in unranked, as a 5 men. They'd get time to appreciate, in the word's largest sense, how these two gamemodes went off track. I'm still traumatizes (well, it's an exaggeration but still) fighting against Naru and Anya because they queued for 8 minutes straight, placing them against gold players. But that's off-topic. I guess XD

  • Crab Fear.1624Crab Fear.1624 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 28, 2019

    "In the end, we decided it's just not fun to not be able to play with your friends."

    Brings back duo q, leaves out 5 man that was removed on trial only with no official post season poll as promised.

    The crowd want to play with more friends...

    "You can, if you queue up for an AT!"

    What?

    By Anets own word, people mostly solo q.

    Here they are catering to the top 0.1% for duos of a caliber that actually ruin games for even greens and yet refuse to bring back teams that another extreme minority.

    Swiss are so SOON away that you may as well bring it back.

    Maybe the top 2 or 3 can find more friends too.

    Top players could actually be challenged if some solid plat 2 plus formed a real team.

    You see, there would be no people dropping out of that 5 man to create a favorable situation for anyone.

    When you are talking about getting better at the game Ben, it doesn't make sense to make sure no one gets challenged by a organized 5 man.

    You approve of getting better at the game.

    The top players want to keep duo for friends, but are against teams cause ATs can satisfy that friends need?

    Well, ATs can satisfy all friends needs.

    Challenges make people better.

    Soon™ ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
    Bring back Impending Dhuum.
    No FotM for me, only thief, weak or strong.

  • Firebeard.1746Firebeard.1746 Member ✭✭
    edited June 28, 2019

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
    Re: the matchmaker not keeping high rated players in queue longer: The reward for getting better at the game can't be, "You don't get to play anymore."
    Re: Duo queue - We thought about this for a long time. In the end, we decided it's just not fun to not be able to play with your friends. Additionally, removing a feature is a poor reward for getting better at the game. It also motivated all sorts of bad behavior, which I won't go into.

    How does Anet know that high level players aren't coordinating when they're in queue duo so they always win? The big hole in this system is with so few players it basically allows match manipulation and discourages people from playing with huge loss streaks. I don't have a good solution for you because splitting them could also encourage match manipulation between the two of them anyway, but i can say this is flat out broken and feels worse this season vs. Last. The game mode feels dead.

    Also Can you look up the matches i've played since placing? Do you really intend people to lose that many matches in a row after being placed, with such huge differences in score? I'm sure skill difference had to be in place at least half of them: one of the matches i clearly remember distracting two of the players i was against for an extended amount of time yet my team mates were incapable of maintaining control over the rest of the map despite numbers advantage and later on i easily dealt with their guardian on more than one occasion. It's not like the whole team was actually good.

    Edit: i might have a solution, but high rated players might hate it. Basically, take the average rating of the players in a match and buff them if they're below that rating (give lower CDs and/or higher damage) and if you're above the average rating you, you're essentially nerfed: lose a certain % of damage/healing and/or gain additional time on your cds. Basically mess with the numbers to put everyone on close to even footing, scaling the nerf or buff against the player's difference from the average. You can tune the numbers based on how close the matches are in general. They should be close more often than not with high rated players with win rates in the 50-60% range and low level players in the 40-50% range.

  • shadowpass.4236shadowpass.4236 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 29, 2019

    @Firebeard.1746 said:
    1. How does Anet know that high level players aren't coordinating when they're in queue duo so they always win? The big hole in this system is with so few players it basically allows match manipulation and discourages people from playing with huge loss streaks. I don't have a good solution for you because splitting them could also encourage match manipulation between the two of them anyway, but i can say this is flat out broken and feels worse this season vs. Last. The game mode feels dead.
    2. Also Can you look up the matches i've played since placing? Do you really intend people to lose that many matches in a row after being placed, with such huge differences in score? I'm sure skill difference had to be in place at least half of them: one of the matches i clearly remember distracting two of the players i was against for an extended amount of time yet my team mates were incapable of maintaining control over the rest of the map despite numbers advantage and later on i easily dealt with their guardian on more than one occasion. It's not like the whole team was actually good.
    3. Edit: i might have a solution, but high rated players might hate it. Basically, take the average rating of the players in a match and buff them if they're below that rating (give lower CDs and/or higher damage) and if you're above the average rating you, you're essentially nerfed: lose a certain % of damage/healing and/or gain additional time on your cds. Basically mess with the numbers to put everyone on close to even footing, scaling the nerf or buff against the player's difference from the average. You can tune the numbers based on how close the matches are in general. They should be close more often than not with high rated players with win rates in the 50-60% range and low level players in the 40-50% range.

    1. Solo que made match manipulation significantly worse and it drove the population into the ground.
    2. Anet doesn't intend for people to win or lose. You don't deserve wins, you earn them. I have old vods from my twitch streams where I was 1v3/1v4 for the majority of the match and still lost. Matches like those are pretty lame but w/e. They get balanced out by the amount of wins I get.
    3. That is some extremely backwards logic. Skill gaps are a good thing. You don't reward players for being bad and punish players for improving. That's a great way to kill the gamemode and eliminate any incentive to practice.
  • choovanski.5462choovanski.5462 Member ✭✭✭

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
    Yep. That was definitely not a good match. Actually, probably the worst match I've ever personally looked up! Unfortunately, there is not much the matchmaker could have done in this case. 2 legendary players duo-queuing is near impossible to find another pair of legendary players playing at the same time.

    I would bet the legendary players were in queue for close to 10 minutes at least. When a match is being built around you, the matchmaker looks for players within 25 rating of you. It doesn't start expanding the range until it's been looking for players for 5 minutes. After that, it expands slowly until it can find 10 players. To find the players it did for this match, it would likely have taken close to another 5 minutes.

    We ran some experiments on the unranked matchmaker a while back, as some might recall. We tried several tweaks, but all it really did was make put some people in queue for 40+ minutes, with little discernible increase in match quality by the time they did finally make it in.

    you know what this means right?

    it means there are usually only 2 legendary players active in a region. the matchmaker can't even find other legendary players for them to fight.

    so the issue is the population is so tiny, there are not enough active legendary and platinum players for 10 man games.

    looks like the gamemode is dead tbh

    I'm a punk kid, no reason why
    Nothing finer than the taste of tears running down my face
    Oh cry baby cry, oh cry baby cry oh

  • ZeroTheCat.2684ZeroTheCat.2684 Member ✭✭✭

    @Yasi.9065 said:
    As I understood it years ago during a forum discussion about the change from solo/teamarena to unranked/ranked, its a LOT difficult, if not impossible to add another queue. I think duo queue and ATs is a good compromise there. You can always luck out and get 2 passable duos on your ranked match. Or join as duo yourself.
    Also, the poll wasnt clearly in favor of soloqueue, so neither solo-queuers nor team-queuers are a minority.

    A poll from when exactly..?

  • Trevor Boyer.6524Trevor Boyer.6524 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 29, 2019

    @choovanski.5462 said:

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
    Yep. That was definitely not a good match. Actually, probably the worst match I've ever personally looked up! Unfortunately, there is not much the matchmaker could have done in this case. 2 legendary players duo-queuing is near impossible to find another pair of legendary players playing at the same time.

    I would bet the legendary players were in queue for close to 10 minutes at least. When a match is being built around you, the matchmaker looks for players within 25 rating of you. It doesn't start expanding the range until it's been looking for players for 5 minutes. After that, it expands slowly until it can find 10 players. To find the players it did for this match, it would likely have taken close to another 5 minutes.

    We ran some experiments on the unranked matchmaker a while back, as some might recall. We tried several tweaks, but all it really did was make put some people in queue for 40+ minutes, with little discernible increase in match quality by the time they did finally make it in.

    you know what this means right?

    it means there are usually only 2 legendary players active in a region. the matchmaker can't even find other legendary players for them to fight.

    so the issue is the population is so tiny, there are not enough active legendary and platinum players for 10 man games.

    looks like the gamemode is dead tbh

    Most of that is because they are smart enough to purposely go out of their way to que dodge each other. The only time legendary players meet each other in a match is if 1 or 2 players are on alts, attempting to que snipe the other 2.

  • Ragnar.4257Ragnar.4257 Member ✭✭✭
    edited June 29, 2019

    @ZeroTheCat.2684 said:

    @Yasi.9065 said:
    As I understood it years ago during a forum discussion about the change from solo/teamarena to unranked/ranked, its a LOT difficult, if not impossible to add another queue. I think duo queue and ATs is a good compromise there. You can always luck out and get 2 passable duos on your ranked match. Or join as duo yourself.
    Also, the poll wasnt clearly in favor of soloqueue, so neither solo-queuers nor team-queuers are a minority.

    A poll from when exactly..?

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/player-vs-player-poll-soloduo-queue/
    https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/pvp/PvP-Season-5-Ranked-Queue-Poll-Closed/6370640

  • phantom.1675phantom.1675 Member ✭✭
    edited June 29, 2019

    @Multicolorhipster.9751 said:

    @phantom.1675 said:
    You can queue with a team of 5 at anytime in unranked. If you all don't like the number 1 and 2 players queueing together, you really wont like the 1,2,3,4,5 players queueing together.

    I mean specifically for ranked ^^

    That'd be up to the top 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 players at that time to do. At least that way there's options to play ranked with friends that don't burn or even interfere with SoloQ players at all.

    And if the first thing those top 5 players do with TeamQ is queue exclusively with eachother, then i'd question whether being able to play with friends is the motive or an excuse.

    I guess I see ranked as "play to compete and win" and in such competitions, the best players are going to be rational and do the things that makes them win; can't fault them for that. And at the same time, I would expect Anet to structure the ranked system so that fair but competitive games are the goal. Now if that's fun along the way, I would say that's great.

    For players not looking to compete, and looking purely for fun, there is unranked queue at all times. There are also occasional ATs.

    I am on the side that competitive and skilled players should get more rewards, and I mention this since the difference between ranked and unranked is the rewards. This is what incentivizes becoming skilled, which I view as a good thing.

  • ZeroTheCat.2684ZeroTheCat.2684 Member ✭✭✭

    @Ragnar.4257 said:

    @ZeroTheCat.2684 said:

    @Yasi.9065 said:
    As I understood it years ago during a forum discussion about the change from solo/teamarena to unranked/ranked, its a LOT difficult, if not impossible to add another queue. I think duo queue and ATs is a good compromise there. You can always luck out and get 2 passable duos on your ranked match. Or join as duo yourself.
    Also, the poll wasnt clearly in favor of soloqueue, so neither solo-queuers nor team-queuers are a minority.

    A poll from when exactly..?

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/player-vs-player-poll-soloduo-queue/
    https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/pvp/PvP-Season-5-Ranked-Queue-Poll-Closed/6370640

    Wait.. what? So Anet’s basis for keeping this in game is based on data that is over 2.5 years old... Is this a joke? It hasn’t occured to people that this might have changed.. This is even worse than I thought.

  • Ragnar.4257Ragnar.4257 Member ✭✭✭
    edited June 29, 2019

    @ZeroTheCat.2684 said:

    @Ragnar.4257 said:

    @ZeroTheCat.2684 said:

    @Yasi.9065 said:
    As I understood it years ago during a forum discussion about the change from solo/teamarena to unranked/ranked, its a LOT difficult, if not impossible to add another queue. I think duo queue and ATs is a good compromise there. You can always luck out and get 2 passable duos on your ranked match. Or join as duo yourself.
    Also, the poll wasnt clearly in favor of soloqueue, so neither solo-queuers nor team-queuers are a minority.

    A poll from when exactly..?

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/player-vs-player-poll-soloduo-queue/
    https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/pvp/PvP-Season-5-Ranked-Queue-Poll-Closed/6370640

    Wait.. what? So Anet’s basis for keeping this in game is based on data that is over 2.5 years old... Is this a joke? It hasn’t occured to people that this might have changed.. This is even worse than I thought.

    Please read what the poll was for.

    It was for deciding whether to limit the party-size you can queue with from 5 down to 2.

    It was never about "adding" or "keeping" duos in solo-queue.

  • Instead of complaining that you are getting these 1 sided matches. Maybe take the opportunity to teach yourself what these better players are doing to completely stomp your team! It isn't often you get to face the Best of the Best. Take it as a learning experience.

  • shadowpass.4236shadowpass.4236 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 29, 2019

    @yanniell.1236 said:
    Hi, "Ben Phongluangtham.1065"

    https://imgur.com/a/Mb5D1OL

    Keep the nice work.

    They would've gained around 2-3 rating and lost around 40-50+ for that match.

    In comparison, you would've gained 20-30+ and lost 10.

    The best way to beat these players are by farming their pugs.

  • ZeroTheCat.2684ZeroTheCat.2684 Member ✭✭✭

    @Ragnar.4257 said:

    @ZeroTheCat.2684 said:

    @Ragnar.4257 said:

    @ZeroTheCat.2684 said:

    @Yasi.9065 said:
    As I understood it years ago during a forum discussion about the change from solo/teamarena to unranked/ranked, its a LOT difficult, if not impossible to add another queue. I think duo queue and ATs is a good compromise there. You can always luck out and get 2 passable duos on your ranked match. Or join as duo yourself.
    Also, the poll wasnt clearly in favor of soloqueue, so neither solo-queuers nor team-queuers are a minority.

    A poll from when exactly..?

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/player-vs-player-poll-soloduo-queue/
    https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/pvp/PvP-Season-5-Ranked-Queue-Poll-Closed/6370640

    Wait.. what? So Anet’s basis for keeping this in game is based on data that is over 2.5 years old... Is this a joke? It hasn’t occured to people that this might have changed.. This is even worse than I thought.

    Please read what the poll was for.

    It was for deciding whether to limit the party-size you can queue with from 5 down to 2.

    It was never about "adding" or "keeping" duos in solo-queue.

    Makes even less sense now... Just remove duo and everyone will be happy (exept a few legendary players).

  • Ragnar.4257Ragnar.4257 Member ✭✭✭

    @ZeroTheCat.2684 said:

    @Ragnar.4257 said:

    @ZeroTheCat.2684 said:

    @Ragnar.4257 said:

    @ZeroTheCat.2684 said:

    @Yasi.9065 said:
    As I understood it years ago during a forum discussion about the change from solo/teamarena to unranked/ranked, its a LOT difficult, if not impossible to add another queue. I think duo queue and ATs is a good compromise there. You can always luck out and get 2 passable duos on your ranked match. Or join as duo yourself.
    Also, the poll wasnt clearly in favor of soloqueue, so neither solo-queuers nor team-queuers are a minority.

    A poll from when exactly..?

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/player-vs-player-poll-soloduo-queue/
    https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/pvp/PvP-Season-5-Ranked-Queue-Poll-Closed/6370640

    Wait.. what? So Anet’s basis for keeping this in game is based on data that is over 2.5 years old... Is this a joke? It hasn’t occured to people that this might have changed.. This is even worse than I thought.

    Please read what the poll was for.

    It was for deciding whether to limit the party-size you can queue with from 5 down to 2.

    It was never about "adding" or "keeping" duos in solo-queue.

    Makes even less sense now... Just remove duo and everyone will be happy (exept a few legendary players).

    Its almost like other people have different opinions.

  • ZeroTheCat.2684ZeroTheCat.2684 Member ✭✭✭

    @Ragnar.4257 said:

    @ZeroTheCat.2684 said:

    @Ragnar.4257 said:

    @ZeroTheCat.2684 said:

    @Ragnar.4257 said:

    @ZeroTheCat.2684 said:

    @Yasi.9065 said:
    As I understood it years ago during a forum discussion about the change from solo/teamarena to unranked/ranked, its a LOT difficult, if not impossible to add another queue. I think duo queue and ATs is a good compromise there. You can always luck out and get 2 passable duos on your ranked match. Or join as duo yourself.
    Also, the poll wasnt clearly in favor of soloqueue, so neither solo-queuers nor team-queuers are a minority.

    A poll from when exactly..?

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/player-vs-player-poll-soloduo-queue/
    https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/pvp/PvP-Season-5-Ranked-Queue-Poll-Closed/6370640

    Wait.. what? So Anet’s basis for keeping this in game is based on data that is over 2.5 years old... Is this a joke? It hasn’t occured to people that this might have changed.. This is even worse than I thought.

    Please read what the poll was for.

    It was for deciding whether to limit the party-size you can queue with from 5 down to 2.

    It was never about "adding" or "keeping" duos in solo-queue.

    Makes even less sense now... Just remove duo and everyone will be happy (exept a few legendary players).

    Its almost like other people have different opinions.

    Not from where I am sitting. Actually seems like most want it removed. But hey why listen to the community, right..

  • @phantom.1675 said:
    I guess I see ranked as "play to compete and win" and in such competitions, the best players are going to be rational and do the things that makes them win; can't fault them for that. And at the same time, I would expect Anet to structure the ranked system so that fair but competitive games are the goal. Now if that's fun along the way, I would say that's great.

    For players not looking to compete, and looking purely for fun, there is unranked queue at all times. There are also occasional ATs.

    Correct, Ranked is at its core a more competitive option; at least it's supposed to be.

    I don't see how any sort of merged queue encourages competition and playing to your best, when it injects challenges that go far beyond just learning the game and your profession.

    In a low population like we got, they only encourage that the best stay the best, because there's little to no hope of a top 100 DuoQ being mirrored; let alone the very top player and the second to top player.

    Sure, you could find some friend on Discord to drag with you into playing Gw2 ranked and try to do it yourself, because apparently that's rational and playing to win. Of course, they'll be lower ranking starting out so that means you'll be gaining very little rank for wins, losing a ton for losses, and be matched with much lower rated players to compensate regardless. Eventually one of you will get sick of it, and the population drops further; you're right back to square one. It's a self-perpetuating issue.

    You might say "well why not find someone close to your own rank?" Well that would be doing it purely for the sake of a number's advantage, and not for playing with friends. Not being able to play with friends is the main excuse a fraction of top 1% uses to justify the existence of a mergedQ... but not TeamQ, because the population is too low. Clearly it's working, and it's a self-perpetuating issue.

    So you might say: "Why not adapt?" or "lol get gud." To say people can't adapt would be silly, because we can and do find ways to cope; like Queue dodging. Although, such a strategy encourages you to not play at all just to have a chance at decent matchmaking. It's a self-perpetuating issue. As to the whole "get gud" case that the same people responsible love to whip out, it's nearly impossible for someone to get any better when they're constantly being paired with and against people of vastly different skill ratings of eachother. Like for instance; if the two very top players queue together and get matched with golds to compensate, those golds can't learn anything from the impending 500-100 win or loss that's about to happen. They're going to be bored and disheartened and potentially even quit, and the population drops further. It's a self-perpetuating issue that this dude in this video talks about, only in the context of Apex Legends and Battle Royale, however; I found it really interesting and easy to compare to Ranked PvP as well as some of the top Ranked players atm: https://youtu.be/IbUwva2fgZo

    @phantom.1675 said:
    I am on the side that competitive and skilled players should get more rewards, and I mention this since the difference between ranked and unranked is the rewards. This is what incentivizes becoming skilled, which I view as a good thing.

    Basically if this is truly the case, then you'll understand or at least begin to understand that the most competitive, least exclusive games are the ones with the closest possible matchmaking and team structure. SoloQ/TeamQ in Gw2's case.

    Remove Ranked DuoQ pls&ty

  • Firebeard.1746Firebeard.1746 Member ✭✭
    edited June 29, 2019

    @shadowpass.4236 said:

    @Firebeard.1746 said:
    1. How does Anet know that high level players aren't coordinating when they're in queue duo so they always win? The big hole in this system is with so few players it basically allows match manipulation and discourages people from playing with huge loss streaks. I don't have a good solution for you because splitting them could also encourage match manipulation between the two of them anyway, but i can say this is flat out broken and feels worse this season vs. Last. The game mode feels dead.
    2. Also Can you look up the matches i've played since placing? Do you really intend people to lose that many matches in a row after being placed, with such huge differences in score? I'm sure skill difference had to be in place at least half of them: one of the matches i clearly remember distracting two of the players i was against for an extended amount of time yet my team mates were incapable of maintaining control over the rest of the map despite numbers advantage and later on i easily dealt with their guardian on more than one occasion. It's not like the whole team was actually good.
    3. Edit: i might have a solution, but high rated players might hate it. Basically, take the average rating of the players in a match and buff them if they're below that rating (give lower CDs and/or higher damage) and if you're above the average rating you, you're essentially nerfed: lose a certain % of damage/healing and/or gain additional time on your cds. Basically mess with the numbers to put everyone on close to even footing, scaling the nerf or buff against the player's difference from the average. You can tune the numbers based on how close the matches are in general. They should be close more often than not with high rated players with win rates in the 50-60% range and low level players in the 40-50% range.

    1. Solo que made match manipulation significantly worse and it drove the population into the ground.
    2. Anet doesn't intend for people to win or lose. You don't deserve wins, you earn them. I have old vods from my twitch streams where I was 1v3/1v4 for the majority of the match and still lost. Matches like those are pretty lame but w/e. They get balanced out by the amount of wins I get.
    3. That is some extremely backwards logic. Skill gaps are a good thing. You don't reward players for being bad and punish players for improving. That's a great way to kill the gamemode and eliminate any incentive to practice.

    1) If it's not solo then premades need to be matched with premades of the exact same size and rank tier, using the rating of the player with the highest rating (ex plat 1 goes against a plat 1 team). I wasn't here for that debate you're citing. But what's happening now is actually a case in point about why premades don't work with the way the matchmaker is coded: the matchmaker is incapable of finding an even team in the time alotted so it defaults to creating winners and losers by default.
    2) matchmakers in competitive PvP games Do try to put the players on an even playing field by enforcing similar ratings between the two teams. I'm not saying it should be forcing wins, i'm saying that their matchmaker should be creating an even playing field. If anet wants to sidestep even teams in favor of low queue times with a low active population then they need to come up with a way to make sure players are in a position to actually do something in a match instead of just feed legendary rank players pips for 5 matches straight.
    3) they are good. I'm not saying they're not, i'm saying make it matter. Matches that aren't winnable by one side or aren't a challenge by the other aren't healthy for a competitive environment either. There's nothing to learn and no way to grow.

    But you know what, you are making me realize my previous suggestion was bad
    They should just kill ranked and roll the ranked pip seasons into normal queue and come up with other formats for competitive play. Because this really isn't competitive and you can't tell me in your right mind that you think it is and nothing should be done in its current state.

  • yanniell.1236yanniell.1236 Member ✭✭✭

    @Endorphin.9147 said:
    Instead of complaining that you are getting these 1 sided matches. Maybe take the opportunity to teach yourself what these better players are doing to completely stomp your team! It isn't often you get to face the Best of the Best. Take it as a learning experience.

    This is actually funny.

  • @yanniell.1236 said:

    @Endorphin.9147 said:
    Instead of complaining that you are getting these 1 sided matches. Maybe take the opportunity to teach yourself what these better players are doing to completely stomp your team! It isn't often you get to face the Best of the Best. Take it as a learning experience.

    This is actually funny.

    You're right it is when your win rate randomly tanks between two seasons. And the outcome of a match has nothing to do how you play.

  • Crab Fear.1624Crab Fear.1624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    More friends in my q capacity will easily solve MY match making problems.

    Soon™ ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
    Bring back Impending Dhuum.
    No FotM for me, only thief, weak or strong.

  • sephiroth.4217sephiroth.4217 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Endorphin.9147 said:
    Instead of complaining that you are getting these 1 sided matches. Maybe take the opportunity to teach yourself what these better players are doing to completely stomp your team! It isn't often you get to face the Best of the Best. Take it as a learning experience.

    Forgive me if Im wrong but im guessing youre a bit older than most that play.

    Learning from better players and fighting better players is truly the only way to better oneself.

    This why certain guilds like FEAR and MAF stick out to me in the FFA arena.. I have to engage them because everyone else is practically cannon fodder and not worth the effort.

    Not to brag, but I put together a puzzle in 4 days and the box said 2-4 years.
    Please allow team queue with rewards again at our own discretion.
    Apologies if I come off as dry or blunt.

  • Reikou.7068Reikou.7068 Member ✭✭
    edited June 30, 2019

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
    Re: the matchmaker not keeping high rated players in queue longer: The reward for getting better at the game can't be, "You don't get to play anymore."

    The issue with this is the other side.

    The reward for getting better at the game currently is that match quality becomes worse and worse so much so that it becomes completely unenjoyable for absolutely everyone involved.

    So I guess the question is do you want a game that people actually enjoy and actually play?

    Or do you want a game that people "play" (more like grind) and basically afk half way through the matches etc.

  • RisenHowl.2419RisenHowl.2419 Member ✭✭✭

    @Firebeard.1746 said:

    @yanniell.1236 said:

    @Endorphin.9147 said:
    Instead of complaining that you are getting these 1 sided matches. Maybe take the opportunity to teach yourself what these better players are doing to completely stomp your team! It isn't often you get to face the Best of the Best. Take it as a learning experience.

    This is actually funny.

    You're right it is when your win rate randomly tanks between two seasons. And the outcome of a match has nothing to do how you play.

    I'm personally a big fan of the 90%+ winrates. In a game with no control over who you get on your team with a matchmaker that supposedly evens out skill level. Because that's not fishy in the slightest

  • Ouk.5914Ouk.5914 Member ✭✭

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
    Re: the matchmaker not keeping high rated players in queue longer: The reward for getting better at the game can't be, "You don't get to play anymore."
    Re: Duo queue - We thought about this for a long time. In the end, we decided it's just not fun to not be able to play with your friends. Additionally, removing a feature is a poor reward for getting better at the game. It also motivated all sorts of bad behavior, which I won't go into.

    this game is just kitten kitten bro, If you Solo Q you have almost no chance of winning games in plat 2.

    It's legit a problem if the dev in this game can't redo the system to fix it's low population or build a better match making system that prevents these 1 sided games.

  • @Crab Fear.1624 said:

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
    Re: the matchmaker not keeping high rated players in queue longer: The reward for getting better at the game can't be, "You don't get to play anymore."
    Re: Duo queue - We thought about this for a long time. In the end, we decided it's just not fun to not be able to play with your friends. Additionally, removing a feature is a poor reward for getting better at the game. It also motivated all sorts of bad behavior, which I won't go into.

    Well, can we start playing with 4 friends?

    This need to happen ASAP. Until this happen I don't think I could bring myself to queue for rank in GW2.

  • @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

    @sephiroth.4217 said:

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

    @Crab Fear.1624 said:

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
    Re: the matchmaker not keeping high rated players in queue longer: The reward for getting better at the game can't be, "You don't get to play anymore."
    Re: Duo queue - We thought about this for a long time. In the end, we decided it's just not fun to not be able to play with your friends. Additionally, removing a feature is a poor reward for getting better at the game. It also motivated all sorts of bad behavior, which I won't go into.

    Well, can we start playing with 4 friends?

    You can, if you queue up for an AT!

    I hope that wasnt a serious answer...

    some of us have jobs and family to provide for and cant adhere to your very specific time schedule.

    It's a bit of a joke, a bit of truth. We made the sliding schedule so that there should always be a tournament time 2-3 times per week that fits your schedule. We're currently considering increasing available tournaments to give people more opportunities. In the far distant future, we are planning for on demand tournaments. Basically, tournaments that will launch when at least 4 teams have signed up.

    Awesome, any ETA?

  • phantom.1675phantom.1675 Member ✭✭

    @Multicolorhipster.9751 said:

    @phantom.1675 said:
    I guess I see ranked as "play to compete and win" and in such competitions, the best players are going to be rational and do the things that makes them win; can't fault them for that. And at the same time, I would expect Anet to structure the ranked system so that fair but competitive games are the goal. Now if that's fun along the way, I would say that's great.

    For players not looking to compete, and looking purely for fun, there is unranked queue at all times. There are also occasional ATs.

    Correct, Ranked is at its core a more competitive option; at least it's supposed to be.

    I don't see how any sort of merged queue encourages competition and playing to your best, when it injects challenges that go far beyond just learning the game and your profession.

    In a low population like we got, they only encourage that the best stay the best, because there's little to no hope of a top 100 DuoQ being mirrored; let alone the very top player and the second to top player.

    Sure, you could find some friend on Discord to drag with you into playing Gw2 ranked and try to do it yourself, because apparently that's rational and playing to win. Of course, they'll be lower ranking starting out so that means you'll be gaining very little rank for wins, losing a ton for losses, and be matched with much lower rated players to compensate regardless. Eventually one of you will get sick of it, and the population drops further; you're right back to square one. It's a self-perpetuating issue.

    You might say "well why not find someone close to your own rank?" Well that would be doing it purely for the sake of a number's advantage, and not for playing with friends. Not being able to play with friends is the main excuse a fraction of top 1% uses to justify the existence of a mergedQ... but not TeamQ, because the population is too low. Clearly it's working, and it's a self-perpetuating issue.

    So you might say: "Why not adapt?" or "lol get gud." To say people can't adapt would be silly, because we can and do find ways to cope; like Queue dodging. Although, such a strategy encourages you to not play at all just to have a chance at decent matchmaking. It's a self-perpetuating issue. As to the whole "get gud" case that the same people responsible love to whip out, it's nearly impossible for someone to get any better when they're constantly being paired with and against people of vastly different skill ratings of eachother. Like for instance; if the two very top players queue together and get matched with golds to compensate, those golds can't learn anything from the impending 500-100 win or loss that's about to happen. They're going to be bored and disheartened and potentially even quit, and the population drops further. It's a self-perpetuating issue that this dude in this video talks about, only in the context of Apex Legends and Battle Royale, however; I found it really interesting and easy to compare to Ranked PvP as well as some of the top Ranked players atm: https://youtu.be/IbUwva2fgZo

    @phantom.1675 said:
    I am on the side that competitive and skilled players should get more rewards, and I mention this since the difference between ranked and unranked is the rewards. This is what incentivizes becoming skilled, which I view as a good thing.

    Basically if this is truly the case, then you'll understand or at least begin to understand that the most competitive, least exclusive games are the ones with the closest possible matchmaking and team structure. SoloQ/TeamQ in Gw2's case.

    I think my entire point is that playing with friends, because it's fun, should be irrelevant to how ranked queue is designed. They should only allow solo ranked queue, ie remove duo, and if you want to play full team queue, you play unranked.

  • Crab Fear.1624Crab Fear.1624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @phantom.1675 said:

    @Multicolorhipster.9751 said:

    @phantom.1675 said:
    I guess I see ranked as "play to compete and win" and in such competitions, the best players are going to be rational and do the things that makes them win; can't fault them for that. And at the same time, I would expect Anet to structure the ranked system so that fair but competitive games are the goal. Now if that's fun along the way, I would say that's great.

    For players not looking to compete, and looking purely for fun, there is unranked queue at all times. There are also occasional ATs.

    Correct, Ranked is at its core a more competitive option; at least it's supposed to be.

    I don't see how any sort of merged queue encourages competition and playing to your best, when it injects challenges that go far beyond just learning the game and your profession.

    In a low population like we got, they only encourage that the best stay the best, because there's little to no hope of a top 100 DuoQ being mirrored; let alone the very top player and the second to top player.

    Sure, you could find some friend on Discord to drag with you into playing Gw2 ranked and try to do it yourself, because apparently that's rational and playing to win. Of course, they'll be lower ranking starting out so that means you'll be gaining very little rank for wins, losing a ton for losses, and be matched with much lower rated players to compensate regardless. Eventually one of you will get sick of it, and the population drops further; you're right back to square one. It's a self-perpetuating issue.

    You might say "well why not find someone close to your own rank?" Well that would be doing it purely for the sake of a number's advantage, and not for playing with friends. Not being able to play with friends is the main excuse a fraction of top 1% uses to justify the existence of a mergedQ... but not TeamQ, because the population is too low. Clearly it's working, and it's a self-perpetuating issue.

    So you might say: "Why not adapt?" or "lol get gud." To say people can't adapt would be silly, because we can and do find ways to cope; like Queue dodging. Although, such a strategy encourages you to not play at all just to have a chance at decent matchmaking. It's a self-perpetuating issue. As to the whole "get gud" case that the same people responsible love to whip out, it's nearly impossible for someone to get any better when they're constantly being paired with and against people of vastly different skill ratings of eachother. Like for instance; if the two very top players queue together and get matched with golds to compensate, those golds can't learn anything from the impending 500-100 win or loss that's about to happen. They're going to be bored and disheartened and potentially even quit, and the population drops further. It's a self-perpetuating issue that this dude in this video talks about, only in the context of Apex Legends and Battle Royale, however; I found it really interesting and easy to compare to Ranked PvP as well as some of the top Ranked players atm: https://youtu.be/IbUwva2fgZo

    @phantom.1675 said:
    I am on the side that competitive and skilled players should get more rewards, and I mention this since the difference between ranked and unranked is the rewards. This is what incentivizes becoming skilled, which I view as a good thing.

    Basically if this is truly the case, then you'll understand or at least begin to understand that the most competitive, least exclusive games are the ones with the closest possible matchmaking and team structure. SoloQ/TeamQ in Gw2's case.

    I think my entire point is that playing with friends, because it's fun, should be irrelevant to how ranked queue is designed. They should only allow solo ranked queue, ie remove duo, and if you want to play full team queue, you play unranked.

    then let us earn the loot in unranked. yes we want cake and look at cake. keep leaderboard who gives kitten

    Soon™ ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
    Bring back Impending Dhuum.
    No FotM for me, only thief, weak or strong.

©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.