Roll back duo q in high ranked again

[voltaicbore.8012]

How many people who have strong feelings about duoQ are actually affected by the changes? I ended last season at 1600, so most of the time the "no duoQ above 1600" didn't matter to me at all. Even at most of my sub-1600 matches, I hardly saw a duo.

[SPESHAL.9106]

Don't be fooled by all the people whining about "playing with friends" logic. If that was TRULY their intention, they would have pushed for the former "team vs solo" que setup.

 

The setup preventing duo ques only impacted 1% of players and kept the games fair at high levels. The ones whining about "playing with friends" are merely disguising their wish to exploit a weakness in the matchmaking algorithm and small player base at high levels.

 

There WAS a reason why Anet changed things. It's baffling how they forgot the obvious so quick.

 

Not sure how they forgot people exploiting the system and ending up with 80-90% win rates. Most matches at the high levels were decided before they even began with almost 100% certainty. It was a joke to have such lopsided matches at high levels and should be obvious/embarrassing to any developer.

 

NOTHING has changed...These players make it almost impossible for the algorithm to find an equal duo que (or set of 5 solo players) that could statisticly have any chance. PLUS...these players banked on how the algorithm relaxes its matchmaking "fairness" after wait times exceeded a certain point.

 

This was 100% predictable based on former PROOF of what happens, so that's what makes this change back to the way it was so baffling. If Anet TRULY wanted to reverse a bad decision in the past based on "playing with a friend" logic, they should have brought back team versus solo que.

[witcher.3197]

I think OP should be rolled back :/

[MithranArkanere.8957]

> @"voltaicbore.8012" said:

> How many people who have strong feelings about duoQ are actually affected by the changes? I ended last season at 1600, so most of the time the "no duoQ above 1600" didn't matter to me at all. Even at most of my sub-1600 matches, I hardly saw a duo.

 

This season duoQ is available at all tiers on a trial basis.

[Elementalist Owner.7802]

Agree. There is enough ELO hell due to the lack of population, now we have to deal with tryhard duo queue players coordinating with mirage portal?

 

Just another reason to stay away from this game... I'm sure the numbers will speak for themselves.

[Faffin.6741]

> @"SPESHAL.9106" said:

 

> Not sure how they forgot people exploiting the system and ending up with 80-90% win rates. Most matches at the high levels were decided before they even began with almost 100% certainty. It was a joke to have such lopsided matches at high levels and should be obvious/embarrassing to any developer.

>

> NOTHING has changed...These players make it almost impossible for the algorithm to find an equal duo que (or set of 5 solo players) that could statisticly have any chance. PLUS...these players banked on how the algorithm relaxes its matchmaking "fairness" after wait times exceeded a certain point.

>

> This was 100% predictable based on former PROOF of what happens, so that's what makes this change back to the way it was so baffling. If Anet TRULY wanted to reverse a bad decision in the past based on "playing with a friend" logic, they should have brought back team versus solo que.

 

Truth. Just look at the leaderboard top 5. Funny thing tho, all those gankboi duos waiting for a solo player to queue because you can't have 6 in a team...

 

[XxsdgxX.8109]

Even more reasons to not play sPvP now, getting farmed by duos is infuriating.

By the way, allowing full teams vs pugs has **always** been problem on any game with multiplayer. The amount of stomping gets to ridiculous levels and

Duo queue allows some of that.

[Megametzler.5729]

> @"sephiroth.4217" said:

> > @"Megametzler.5729" said:

> > > @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > > In a multiplayer game people are looking for a solo experience, have you lost your mind?

> >

> > Are you talking about the NPC bossfights in Queen's Jubilee? Because that's the only real solo experience I know in GW2.

> >

> > That argument is just stupid and not well thought through. As that argument "i wanna play with friends" is.

> >

> > With duoQ, the leaderboard does not represent individual skill anymore, so they removed the individual titles. Fine. Kind of. Still, I hope they have some different system coming up. Yes, I am being naive.

> >

>

>

>

> Please enlighten me as to why playing video games with friends is stupid?

>

> I get the feeling comments like these are made by anti-social people who can't make friends but I could be wrong, maybe you are going to be the first person to have a logical reason as to why playing a video game with friends is stupid...

 

Unranked and ATs. If "I wanna play with friends" would be the actual argument for duoQ, I still wait for a counter argument for these two options.

 

But thank you for your personal attack, really appreciated. :smile:

[shadowpass.4236]

> @"Megametzler.5729" said:

> > @"sephiroth.4217" said:

> > > @"Megametzler.5729" said:

> > > > @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > > > In a multiplayer game people are looking for a solo experience, have you lost your mind?

> > >

> > > Are you talking about the NPC bossfights in Queen's Jubilee? Because that's the only real solo experience I know in GW2.

> > >

> > > That argument is just stupid and not well thought through. As that argument "i wanna play with friends" is.

> > >

> > > With duoQ, the leaderboard does not represent individual skill anymore, so they removed the individual titles. Fine. Kind of. Still, I hope they have some different system coming up. Yes, I am being naive.

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > Please enlighten me as to why playing video games with friends is stupid?

> >

> > I get the feeling comments like these are made by anti-social people who can't make friends but I could be wrong, maybe you are going to be the first person to have a logical reason as to why playing a video game with friends is stupid...

>

> Unranked and ATs. If "I wanna play with friends" would be the actual argument for duoQ, I still wait for a counter argument for these two options.

 

The argument is, "I want to COMPETE with friends."

 

Neither Unranked nor ATs are competitive.

[Amaranthe.3578]

> @"Elementalist Owner.7802" said:

> Agree. There is enough ELO hell due to the lack of population, now we have to deal with tryhard duo queue players coordinating with mirage portal?

>

> Just another reason to stay away from this game... I'm sure the numbers will speak for themselves.

 

WTH man(are you?)...the whole point is to coordinate with each other

you should look for a single player game

[breno.5423]

Only manipulators want duoq.

Real nerds have not friends.

[Exedore.6320]

> @"Megametzler.5729" said:

> Unranked and ATs. If "I wanna play with friends" would be the actual argument for duoQ, I still wait for a counter argument for these two options.

 

I'll bite.

 

ATs are the easiest to explain. You get at most one actual competitive match out of the entire AT bracket. You'll begin the AT by stomping pick-up teams who queued for the daily or for the gold. Then you'll run into an actual 5-man team and if you're not a full group, you'll be destroyed. If you did have a decent group, congrats, you have a good match; you'll be knocked out in the next round (usually the finals) by the couple teams which farm the AT rewards. Remember that ATs happen once every 6 hours and are single elimination. Good luck finding a group of people to be on at a shifting time of the day for at best _one_ decent game. If I'm going to get a group, I want to play for a few hours with most of the games being competitive.

 

Unranked matchmaking either doesn't exist is to so broad it may as well not exist. Any matches which are close are usually because some players have to carry other really bad teammates. Additionally unranked is used for people to play casually, test builds, learn alts, etc. Your chances of having a competitive match in unranked is even less than in an AT.

 

So ya, your argument is invalid.

 

Many of us want to play with a friend or two when they log on. Ranked at least gives people near our skill level which keeps the matches interesting. I bet if you polled people over 1600, very few would actually care about the rewards; most would value gameplay. And in order to promote strong teamplay _in a team-based game_ you need to let people queue together.

 

[Aaralyna.3104]

I don't play ranked pvp as I rather do unranked myself (casual and just do it for fun), but reading this forum topic makes me wonder something... Why is it so different to have duo queue vs solo queue. Either teams can have players either duo queuing or soloqueing. But in the end... aren't you playing a game together with 5 players, all with a common goal, a common sort of tactic, and you can communicate in team chat.... Or is everyone just playing for its own instead of a team effort.... If I read along the lines I sense that there are a lot of players that either want a ranked 1 vs 1 (to be some top rank solo) or a ranked self made group 5 vs 5 (so you can follow your known team mates tactic with voice chat along).

[sephiroth.4217]

apparently everyone here is above 1600 and gets crushed by duo queue...

[Elementalist Owner.7802]

> @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > @"Elementalist Owner.7802" said:

> > Agree. There is enough ELO hell due to the lack of population, now we have to deal with tryhard duo queue players coordinating with mirage portal?

> >

> > Just another reason to stay away from this game... I'm sure the numbers will speak for themselves.

>

> WTH man(are you?)...the whole point is to coordinate with each other

> you should look for a single player game

 

I'm happy to (and I do) coordinate with the other 4 players on my team. Having one of them in voice coms with me, however, is an unfair advantage over solo queue players. Don't misrepresent the argument.

[Zietlogik.6208]

The issue is that you aren't matched properly with duo queue AGAINST duo queue, it just throws them in like " !$@# it who cares! have fun!" and end up with a match where the quos don't have a ton of fun with no challenge, and the other team literally wants to quit the game because the experience is so abysmal...

 

I just had this gem earlier: https://i.imgur.com/oVUw7Tc.png

[lLobo.7960]

Problem is not just DuoQ in high ranks.

 

The meta is extremely bursty and spammy right now.

Its all about spamming all your burst, pop your invul and run away waiting for CDs.

 

Everyone is just burst.

Core guard, Holos, Thieves, mesmers...

Even necros are bursting with quickness in reaper shroud.

 

 

[Jalal.6783]

> @"Zietlogik.6208" said:

> The issue is that you aren't matched properly with duo queue AGAINST duo queue, it just throws them in like " !$@# it who cares! have fun!" and end up with a match where the quos don't have a ton of fun with no challenge, and the other team literally wants to quit the game because the experience is so abysmal...

>

> I just had this gem earlier: https://i.imgur.com/oVUw7Tc.png

 

And that is the exact sht i'm talking about. It's an absolute clown fiesta and all due to duo q's. why should 2 top 10 players be allowed to vs another team that has players outside of the top 100? makes absolutely no sense and they can cc burst you from stealth b4 you even realize what's happening. Seems like most of the players abusing duo q are the ones roflstomping people to over-inflate their ego and elo. people with upwards of 70 and even 80% winrates sitting in the top 10 positions, all from duo q. Not a single person made legendary until the very very end of the seasons when there was no duo q and that was maybe 1 to 3 people. It's being used how it has always been used in ranked, to give yourself a ridiculous advantage to the point where the enemy team hates their life. Unacceptable

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

It's disappointing that the very nature of wintrading and team ups is so destructive to the player pool.

 

Allow people to team up? Wintrading spikes. lower pools get steamrolled. Everyone suffers.

Make people go solo? Team players leave the game. People pine about not being able to team up with friends in a team game. People rage about afkers/people not pulling their weight. Everyone suffers.

[FyzE.3472]

So the reason why you want solo q back is because "They usually play 2 cc heavy, high damage burst, and mobility classes such as holo thief and absolutely wreck everything and are everywhere at once."

Really? Why don't you play with a friend and run those and see how it goes?

And save me from "But... but... but... they bad, I'm good" arguments, please.

[Megametzler.5729]

> @"Exedore.6320" said:

> > @"Megametzler.5729" said:

> > Unranked and ATs. If "I wanna play with friends" would be the actual argument for duoQ, I still wait for a counter argument for these two options.

>

> I'll bite.

>

> ATs are the easiest to explain. You get at most one actual competitive match out of the entire AT bracket. You'll begin the AT by stomping pick-up teams who queued for the daily or for the gold. Then you'll run into an actual 5-man team and if you're not a full group, you'll be destroyed. If you did have a decent group, congrats, you have a good match; you'll be knocked out in the next round (usually the finals) by the couple teams which farm the AT rewards. Remember that ATs happen once every 6 hours and are single elimination. Good luck finding a group of people to be on at a shifting time of the day for at best _one_ decent game. If I'm going to get a group, I want to play for a few hours with most of the games being competitive.

>

> Unranked matchmaking either doesn't exist is to so broad it may as well not exist. Any matches which are close are usually because some players have to carry other really bad teammates. Additionally unranked is used for people to play casually, test builds, learn alts, etc. Your chances of having a competitive match in unranked is even less than in an AT.

>

> So ya, your argument is invalid.

>

> Many of us want to play with a friend or two when they log on. Ranked at least gives people near our skill level which keeps the matches interesting. I bet if you polled people over 1600, very few would actually care about the rewards; most would value gameplay. And in order to promote strong teamplay _in a team-based game_ you need to let people queue together.

>

 

Don't get me wrong, I have zero issues with duoQ and teamQ in theory. But what you're saying is not an argument for "i wanna play with friends", it is - as @"shadowpass.4236" said - "i wanna compete with friends". Which ist not "just wanna have fun", but focusses on that competitiveness.

 

I could throw in ATs again. You actually described what would happen in a full teamQ with leaderboards as well. Actual premades completely dominating every game while newbies are getting stomped to hell. We experience this right now in a minor way by strong duoQs. The main problem here is the system with **those long waiting hours for just a few games**. Something maybe the new tournament system is going to fix, in case it ever gets released.

 

But the main point is:

With duoQ or teamQ an individual leaderboard does not make sense because it is heavily biased. So they got rid of individual titles. This is kind of completely fine for me. The final placement rewards could be better, but Ben said they're probably going to work on that. If there'd be seperated leaderboards for soloQ, full teamQ and duoQ (with fixed partners maybe?), that would kind of work too. Or - because of underpopulation - give soloQers some (small) extra incentive to play with these kind of groups, when they allow "[x] Match me up with premades" or something like this. The leaderboard still wouldn't make any sense, but there would be options and choices and hopefully nice games, while having actually accurate leaderboards once we get rid of manipulations.

 

€: I just saw @"SPESHAL.9106" described the actual problem more in detail, thanks for that. The way out are seperate Qs and/or leaderboards.

[shadowpass.4236]

> @"Jalal.6783" said:

> > @"Zietlogik.6208" said:

> > The issue is that you aren't matched properly with duo queue AGAINST duo queue, it just throws them in like " !$@# it who cares! have fun!" and end up with a match where the quos don't have a ton of fun with no challenge, and the other team literally wants to quit the game because the experience is so abysmal...

> >

> > I just had this gem earlier: https://i.imgur.com/oVUw7Tc.png

>

> And that is the exact kitten i'm talking about. It's an absolute clown fiesta and all due to duo q's. **why should 2 top 10 players be allowed to vs another team that has players outside of the top 100? makes absolutely no sense and they can cc burst you from stealth b4 you even realize what's happening.** Seems like most of the players abusing duo q are the ones roflstomping people to over-inflate their ego and elo. people with upwards of 70 and even 80% winrates sitting in the top 10 positions, all from duo q. Not a single person made legendary until the very very end of the seasons when there was no duo q and that was maybe 1 to 3 people. It's being used how it has always been used in ranked, to give yourself a ridiculous advantage to the point where the enemy team hates their life. Unacceptable

 

You say that as if every top 10 player plays insta gib thieves and mantra mesmers.

 

The duo in the screenshot were playing necro/guard and holo. They can't 100-0 you from stealth on those classes.

 

Also, top players have 60-70%+ winrates without duo que. We win more. That's why we're top of the leaderboards regardless of whether its solo que or duo. EVERYONE in the top 10 right now is a player that deserves to be there.

[Amaranthe.3578]

> @"Elementalist Owner.7802" said:

> > @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > > @"Elementalist Owner.7802" said:

> > > Agree. There is enough ELO hell due to the lack of population, now we have to deal with tryhard duo queue players coordinating with mirage portal?

> > >

> > > Just another reason to stay away from this game... I'm sure the numbers will speak for themselves.

> >

> > WTH man(are you?)...the whole point is to coordinate with each other

> > you should look for a single player game

>

> I'm happy to (and I do) coordinate with the other 4 players on my team. Having one of them in voice coms with me, however, is an unfair advantage over solo queue players. Don't misrepresent the argument.

 

Its not an unfair advantage because nothing stops them from doing exactly the same and its freaking nuts to claim that it is.

The game should insentivise people to form pre-maids and communicate with each other instead of relying completely on the auto-grouper and playing with people who might as well be bots.

(the game is clearly built around communication and cooperation -_-)

[Math.5123]

> @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> > @"AngelLovesFredrik.6741" said:

> > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> > > > @"AngelLovesFredrik.6741" said:

> > > > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> > > > > > @"AngelLovesFredrik.6741" said:

> > > > > > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> > > > > > > > @"AngelLovesFredrik.6741" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"AngelLovesFredrik.6741" said:

> > > > > > > > > > Punishing good people for being good sounds like a great idea .. if your goal is to further kill the population.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Well, teams need 5 players.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Keep aggravating players with duoQ, and what you'll get is queues that last **AGES** because you can't make teams of 5 with only duos after everyone else leaves, fed up with matches that have duos exploiting how variable-size team formation never works well with solo team formation.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > It just never works. Even if metrics and real experience show that DuoQ doesn't really favor duoQ players, the rest of the players will perceive it that way. And perception is what really matters in the end, and that's why most games who try variable team formation end up with a process like this:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > * Any team size in ranked play.

> > > > > > > > > * Only duos or trios.

> > > > > > > > > * Only duos.

> > > > > > > > > * Only duos against other teams with also duos.

> > > > > > > > > * Only one duo per team.

> > > > > > > > > * Not even duo. Only full solo or full team.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > A few players being happier with duo is not worth the depopulation and slower entry of new players it causes.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > GW2's PvP doesn't have enough players to have a Team ranked leaderboard, but at least we have Tournaments for that.

> > > > > > > > > We should also get 2v2 Tournaments in between 5v5 ones. I bet lots of players would love that.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The ladder is not competitive anymore, the competition lies in ATs and mATs.

> > > > > > > > As for driving away new players with duoQ, I'm sure that most people that starts playing the game today is because of veterans already in. If you would tell them that they can't compete with their friends, their stay would be rather short (as seen by multiple forum posts from the past months).

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The PvP population will not increase at this point, everyone is fed up with the decisions (or lack of) ArenaNet has made these past years. Just about every streamer is kitten talking the game mode.

> > > > > > > > We need to retain what limited player pool we have, and by segregating 1600+ into not being able to play with a friend, people **will** leave the game.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I don't know what rating you are, and if you know how the very top of the ladder works. There's a pool of 3-7 people online at anytime, and whoever gets the randoms tends to lose. In a solo scenario, there's nothing you can do about it as you can't good equally skilled players in a 1v3.

> > > > > > > > If we on the other hand had a prosperous population with hundreds of high rated players online at any point, I would be all for solo. But having your games be decided by who gets the mid gold player is simply too frustrating.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You vastly overestimate the number of players who try to enter PvP because a a veteran friend joins with them.

> > > > > > > Those pale in comparison with the number of players who enter solo for a variety of reason from just experiencing PvP to try and get some of the pvp-exclusive rewards that and end up leaving at the door after planting their face in the entry wall made out bad experiences like too much visual noise, a pace that is too fast, no decent tools to know what happened like replays or a proper death recap, seeing how the enemy team has an organize party of two but theirs doesn't and continuously losing in greatly uneven matches without hardly ever getting something like a 499/500.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Too many veteran players are blind to the experiences of new players, and tend to dismiss them as irrelevant, as if only the higher tiers mattered, but the truth is that competitive games need to cater to the lower end more than the higher end. Veterans are skilled enough to adapt to changes, but if there's no new blood steadily coming in, the game die.

> > > > > > > If new solo players think that duoQ is unfair, they won't try and make their own duoQ, or come to complain in the forums, they'll just leave the game mode.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Only, duoQ is not unfair. Everyone has equal opportunity to team up. Build a friend circle and improve from there. And rolling back duo for high tiered players does absolutely nothing for new players as they won't even encounter them. This means the only reason for people to whine about duoQ is because they refuse to put in the time to actually improve and contest them.

> > > > > > The most fun games I've had were against Sind + Misha duos, they were engaging and they were by no means unbeatable.

> > > > >

> > > > > Just because everyone can do it doesn't mean everyone will do it. That's just an excuse to keep it that way. Being dismissive like that just doesn't work.

> > > > >

> > > > > For example, when a player is bad, you can't just go "l2P", you have to stop to think why aren't they learning to play. Not everyone is comfortable needing the help of others or joining a guild. Many like solo queue and the freedom it entails. Leave them be, and they will give up and leave. Give them tools to learn solo, and more players will stay.

> > > > >

> > > > > In the meantime, the actual problem it causes persists. Player perception won't change.

> > > > > When players perceive SoloQ as something that give an unfair advantage to a few, telling them "If you can't beat them, join them" will be a waste of time most of the time. Telling these players how you think things really are will change nothing. They have already made up their mind. And you can't just think "Well, then they can just leave", because then what you get is an empty game mode.

> > > > > Like it or not, we need new players, even if it means getting rid of many things we think are fine. If they are too detrimental to new player entry, they have to be changed or eliminated.

> > > > > And do not forget teams need 5 players. The more players decide to go duo, the worse it will be the personal perception of solo players, and the worse queueing will be.

> > > > > Go to the extreme and have everyone do the same. How are you going to make teams of 5 with mostly groups of 2? Oh, right, realistically they will always be solo. But how long can the game mode sustain itself with solos that keep leaving, feed up?

> > > > >

> > > > > Right now, that leaves us with only one way to address the issue: getting rid of duoQ altogether, and giving duo players an alternative so they can still play together. That is, the same that was done for full teams: Tournaments.

> > > > >

> > > > > What we need is 2v2 tournaments post-haste, among other changes, like:

> > > > >

> > > > > * Solving the win trading dilemma.

> > > > > * Better entry with tutorials and learning challenges.

> > > > > * Better tools to learn: match replays, death cam, spectator camera while respawning, better death breakdown panels, etc.

> > > > > * Slower combat pace, with less spammy and more tactical gameplay.

> > > > > * Better skill visibility.

> > > > > * Improved personal participation metrics.

> > > > > * Larger scale fights like 10v10 and 15v15 guild tournaments.

> > > > > * Improved rank rewards including rewards that are temporarily exclusive to certain tiers. Like a 'treadmill' of exclusive wardrobe unlock rewards like skins and novelties that goes down over time as a new one is introduced for the higher tier each season, lowering the tier required to get them, but increasing the cost to get them as one's tier goes down. By making them exclusive temporarily, lower tier players do not feel disheartened thinking they'll never get the shiny stuff, but getting high tier allows you to get them earlier and for a lower cost, so you can show them off right when they are released in the current season if you get to legendary. Yet no one can sit on their laurels after getting to the highest tier, as the highest tier reward eventually becomes earnable at lower tiers, but with higher cost the lower your tier (like how the Dry Top vendor offers discounts the higher the meta tier, but as personal rewards). Yet nothing would be locked out of everyone's reach forever. That would both lure new players, encourage getting to higher tiers, and keep more people interested.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Like it or not, at this moment, repopulation should be the priority, many of us find it way less fun to fight over and over against the same 10-20 people.

> > > >

> > > > Stop presenting your opinion as fact, it does not help your argument.

> > > > It's evident that solo queue only didn't work, take a look at the past seasons. Now that they removed the rewards, even more people will leave.

> > > > Stripping the game of the things that made us play it in the first place to cater to newer players is straight up a horrible idea. If you don't like the fast paced combat of gw2, maybe the game isn't for you.

> > > > 2v2 tournaments is not a substitute for duoQ conquest, it's an alternative for the people that doesn't enjoy the game mode. On demand ATs are a good substitute however, but God knows how far away that is.

> > > >

> > > > I'm all for a compromise where every other season is solo and the other duo, but don't kill the ability for me to play with friends.

> > >

> > > At the end of the day, when people still want DuoQ even when given an alternative to play with friends like 2v2 tournaments that happen more often than 5v5 ones, that would only mean that what they enjoy insn't playing with friends, but that they perceive they are getting an advantage over other players.

> > >

> > > And that's not an argument in favor for it. It's an argument to get rid of an undesirable behavior.

> >

> > It absolutely does not. That's like saying "you don't enjoy playing Mirage, you only use it to get an advantage over other players."

> > I enjoy conquest and I enjoy the social aspect of MMOs, so naturally I'm driven towards team oriented games. 2v2 arenas does not equal 5v5 conquest.

> > That being said, I'm all for lifting the cap all together. Allowing anything from 1-5 players join ranked. I would probably seldom queue as five, but some people should. So why limit them? What's to say your opinion matters more than anyone elses?

> >

> > We both bought the game, you wanting to put a restriction on who I can play with is straight up arrogant. Having duoQ implemented does **not** mean you can't play as a solo player. However, restricting the queue means I can't play the way I want.

> >

> > As for getting an advantage over other players, I've been getting legend each season on hammer guard and DH (in solo). I literally do not care about the leaderboard. I want quality games, and duo has improved that for me. Both socially and gameplay wise.

>

> Having your experience improved at the expense of other's is never good.

> Many players love to fail-farm events. Letting them last longer to farm more enemies, letting them fail on purpose so they restart. That's fun for them, but not fun for the rest.

> In GW1, many players used to sync-queue in random arenas to have a higher chance to be put in the same party, then even if their entire party were synced, they would leave after 25 matches when they were sent to team areas. They didn't do that because they enjoyed playing together, they do that to get a team advantage over random parties, and they left in team arenas because that advantage was lost. That was fun for them, but not fun for the rest.

> Back to GW2, there was players who were syncing and taking turns losing and even bribing enemies to lose on purpose, manipulating matches and trading wins to get titles. That was fun for them, but not fun for the rest.

> Conversely, while there's players who love DuoQ because they can play with friends, but there's also those who enjoy it because they can have a better coordination with their friends, and have a measure of control over the party, having at least someone you know in the party. They can make sure the matchmaking won't give them 4 random 'bad' players, they can make sure at least 1 of them is as good as they can get, they can ensure they can get a double stacked profession like two scourge, 2 mirages or 2 firebrands. That's fun for them, but not fun for the rest.

>

> When you have a situation in which some have fun, and the rest do not, one has to give up on having fun, or get used to have fun the same way everyone else has fun, or get an alternate way to have fun like 2v2 tournaments. Which one would be the most fair?

>

> The "This is why we can't have nice things" effect is never fun for those who were enjoying the thing, but it's unfortunately inevitable. Eventually the devs realize that something does more harm than good, and it gets removed for all who were harmlessly enjoying it because of a few exploiting it. PvP titles are gone because of a few wintraders. That's not fun, that sucks. But this is why we can't have nice things.

 

Of course I enjoy playing with friends in order to have increased coordination. It's a PvP game mode, why would I not want to win?

That being said, before duoQ came back. I synced with the person I currently duo with now, if we got into the same team, great. If we didn't, we spent the entire match ganking each other.

 

You say having fun at other people's expenses. Once again, they still have the option to solo queue if they find that fun. I don't have the option to duo.

The equal playing field is such a bs excuse, especially at high level games. Games are decided by who gets the noobs in their team.

You mentioned arena syncing, if they all manage to get into the same team in gw2 (which is what this thread is about) they deserve it because we have a Matchmaker in this game.

I don't know what mmr you are, but at any time in EU there's one high tiered game going. If you miss that game, you'll get queued into golds and silvers.

This means that if you carry the game like you're supposed to do, you get +3. If you don't, you'll lose -25.

 

Having a partner to talk to, to coordinate with and to mess around with makes the game so much more enjoyable for a lot of people (see polls). So, your opinion on wanting it removed because; you either don't have anyone to play with, or choosing to deliberately gimp yourself. I'd the very definition of having fun at other people's expenses.

[Dante.1763]

> @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > @"Elementalist Owner.7802" said:

> > > @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > > > @"Elementalist Owner.7802" said:

> > > > Agree. There is enough ELO hell due to the lack of population, now we have to deal with tryhard duo queue players coordinating with mirage portal?

> > > >

> > > > Just another reason to stay away from this game... I'm sure the numbers will speak for themselves.

> > >

> > > WTH man(are you?)...the whole point is to coordinate with each other

> > > you should look for a single player game

> >

> > I'm happy to (and I do) coordinate with the other 4 players on my team. Having one of them in voice coms with me, however, is an unfair advantage over solo queue players. Don't misrepresent the argument.

>

> Its not an unfair advantage because nothing stops them from doing exactly the same and its freaking nuts to claim that it is.

> The game should insentivise people to form pre-maids and communicate with each other instead of relying completely on the auto-grouper and playing with people who might as well be bots.

> (the game is clearly built around communication and cooperation -_-)

 

errr no its really not: when 90% of the game can be done solo without talking at all, id say its built around the solo experience.

 

However as someone who doesnt pvp often and doesnt do ranked because im just not that competitive: knowing that i could go up against people who are talking to each other via voice doesnt make me want to find someone to do the same with it makes me not want to do it all because it is an unfair advantage over the massive amounts of players who wont, or better physically *CANT* get in voice comms with other people.