What would it take to remove DuoQ vs SoloQ from ranked?

[Xentera.4560]

> @"Crab Fear.1624" said:

 

> In video games, an exploit is the use of a bug or glitches, game system, rates, hit boxes, speed or level design etc. by a player to their advantage in a manner **not intended by the game's designers.** (copy pasta from wiki)

>

> Duo Q is a feature, and intended.

 

 

There is a difference between "intended" and "allowed". DuoQ is "allowed" for the time being, nothing can convince me that it is "intended" for a DuoQ party to go against a

a party of SoloQ'ers.

 

 

[Psycoprophet.8107]

They need to separate team and solo q pvp ranked modes.

Team could be duo or 5 could care less but fight against other opponents that are teamed up and solo q be all solo q players. Still not perfect but be way better than what it is now and maybe in time population would actually grow cuz as it is now it's in a decline so anything's better than what it is now.

 

Another option to make ranked better for the player is to simply not play it and go play a better pvp game lol.

[Rue.2061]

> @"Xentera.4560" said:

>

> There is a difference between "intended" and "allowed". DuoQ is "allowed" for the time being, nothing can convince me that it is "intended" for a DuoQ party to go against a

> a party of SoloQ'ers.

>

>

By your very own logic literally any game then that has any kind of queueing feature that allows anyone to solo or team queue and also get matched against other team queues is not intended, but merely allowed. Would you complain about the same thing in any other team based game where you can solo or duo/team queue into other solos and duos/teams?

 

[Fueki.4753]

I think the bigger problem is having two duos on the same team and none on the other occurs significantly more often than having equal amounts of duos on both sides.

 

 

[Shao.7236]

Still think people shouldn't be so casual and self oriented about ranked, that would help a lot. In the end when you look at it properly, unless you are against a clueless team, DuoQ's don't really carry if the rest of the team is useless, got that experience first hand a lot.

 

Think there's too much drama for any loss too, even when games are close. People don't get better if you treat them like garbage either, taking a toll on your own already niche community contributes to the problems we are facing.

 

It might be healthier now because there's clearly less people playing to have SoloQ only, but it's down right Anets decision to keep DuoQ so there's not even more people leaving because they can't play with their friends.

 

If you tell me that SoloQ only is gonna attract players again for an healthy state of game, I'd like to know why? Seems people are making too much of a big deal out of it. I play both and personally, both have gave me the same rate of success.

[Genesis.5169]

> @"Xentera.4560" said:

> > @"Crab Fear.1624" said:

>

> > In video games, an exploit is the use of a bug or glitches, game system, rates, hit boxes, speed or level design etc. by a player to their advantage in a manner **not intended by the game's designers.** (copy pasta from wiki)

> >

> > Duo Q is a feature, and intended.

>

>

> There is a difference between "intended" and "allowed". DuoQ is "allowed" for the time being, nothing can convince me that it is "intended" for a DuoQ party to go against a

> a party of SoloQ'ers.

>

>

 

Please stop pvping its clearly not for you. Every other competitive game has this get out of the fire its clearly to hot for you.

[Crab Fear.1624]

> @"Zexanima.7851" said:

> > @"Crab Fear.1624" said:

> > > @"Xentera.4560" said:

> > > > @"Keyba.9570" said:

> > > > > @"Xentera.4560" said:

> > > > > > @"Keyba.9570" said:

> > > > > > So, in other words, you believe that people who decide to duo queue to provide themselves the best chance of winning vs individuals who solo queue and essentially play the Guild Wars 2 version of Russian roulette.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I am not sure the game would be as balanced as you believe if things were just solo queue for ranked, but also the individuals who don't want to duo queue have no one to blame but themselves for not trying to maximize their winning chances.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This game mode is supposed to be a bit more serious than unranked. That is why they are separate.

> > > > >

> > > > > Blaming the vast majority for not using the same exploit a small minority uses to farm rank is not really a valid argument.

> > > >

> > > > There is no exploit if it is openly available to everyone. That is just an excuse for people who choose themselves not to duo q.

> > >

> > > Exploits are by definition available to everyone, some choose not to use them. In the case the vast majority.

> >

> > In video games, an exploit is the use of a bug or glitches, game system, rates, hit boxes, speed or level design etc. by a player to their advantage in a manner **not intended by the game's designers.** (copy pasta from wiki)

> >

> > Duo Q is a feature, and intended.

> >

> > Sorry if the vast majority neglects to bring all their tools to the game.

> >

> > On the side, when they say a majority of players solo q, I wonder if they just mean people who pvp ever.

> >

> > I would like to know the percentage ballpark that duo q is used for players that finish a season 120+ games.

>

> I don't know what would motivate someone to put themselves through the hell of soloqing 100+ games. I did that last season and went from gold3 to super close to plat2, then down to gold1 and up and down and up and down. I've played a good handful of PvP ranked video games and this was by far my worst experience with one ever. The problem with duoq isn't that it's not available to everyone but that it gives a pretty large advantage over soloq players to the point where soloq isn't even worth it. It goes against the games philosophy of "play how you want".

>

> The major issue is though, you're giving the same ranking to apples and oranges. On one hand you're ranking the soloq players on their ability to carry, work with randoms. Where as you're ranking the duo's on their duo coordination and ability to compliment each other's builds. Like, of course people doing duoq don't want it to go away because it's giving them an advantage. Then again for matches to be well balanced meta mechanics like this need to be balanced. "You can do it too" isn't a valid argument for a competitive game otherwise nothing would ever change because "everyone has it available, doesn't matter if its broken". It's like if they added the feature for just engineers to one shot with a single auto attack and then arguing "Well you can play engineer too, you have no room to complain".

 

actually it's more like a majority of players want to play basketball with one arm when they can play with two.

 

 

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

> @"Crab Fear.1624" said:

> no. the game lost players when teams went away.

>

> lost more when duo above 1600 went away.

>

> this is not the time to reduce groups.

>

> no need to think, i saw and remember what happens.

 

He's right you know.

 

The more people try to fragment a ranked, team orchestrated game to cater to what constitutes a fever dream of carrying 5 strangers to victory, the more people who want to play ranked with their friends will leave/the more they expose themselves to covert match manipulation/wintrading.

 

The game's balance needs to be addressed first, but __the people who want to premake to do competitive ranked need somewhere to go that isn't time gated.__

The moment you consider your solo needs more important than theirs is when the PvP community dies. Even the people who __wanted__ solo q permanently think rank doesn't mean anything right now, and they're the ones that resigned their games to chance thinking it would fix them getting stomped.

 

Maybe teams should not be able to match up against pugs. We can discuss how to address that too. The answer is definitely not "boot them out of competitive entirely" though. that won't work.

[Xentera.4560]

I have to say that so far I’m really enjoying watching those who can only win if they duoQ against a group of random players, try in various illogical ways to explain how they are somehow entitled to have that unfair advantage. And how removing it will be the end of pvp.

 

For that 10th time... play with your friends all you like, but do it against a team that’s doing the same.

 

Solo vs solo

Duo vs duo

Team vs team

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

> @"Xentera.4560" said:

> I have to say that so far I’m really enjoying watching those who can only win if they duoQ against a group of random players, try in various illogical ways to explain how they are somehow entitled to have that unfair advantage. And how removing it will be the end of pvp.

>

> For that 10th time... play with your friends all you like, but do it against a team that’s doing the same.

>

> Solo vs solo

> Duo vs duo

> Team vs team

 

See, that makes sense, yes. But __maybe not right now, we don't have the playerbase for it yet.__ All youll do is fragment the playerbase into people waiting 20-30 mins in q to fight another 3+man, and then have all of the people tired of that ((but not tired enough to leave)) jump into solo, queue sync, and either secretly pubstomp you or have someone throw a game by not playing as hard as they should if they get team split.

 

Then people will be back here talking about "dont let friends lists q together" or something crazy.

 

If swiss gives teams a reason to do their team thing and is frequent enough that it runs relatively smoothly then fine. We can take them out of Solo Q. Not before, though.

[Crab Fear.1624]

> @"Azure The Heartless.3261" said:

> > @"Xentera.4560" said:

> > I have to say that so far I’m really enjoying watching those who can only win if they duoQ against a group of random players, try in various illogical ways to explain how they are somehow entitled to have that unfair advantage. And how removing it will be the end of pvp.

> >

> > For that 10th time... play with your friends all you like, but do it against a team that’s doing the same.

> >

> > Solo vs solo

> > Duo vs duo

> > Team vs team

>

> See, that makes sense, yes. But __maybe not right now, we don't have the playerbase for it yet.__ All youll do is fragment the playerbase into people waiting 20-30 mins in q to fight another 3+man, and then have all of the people tired of that ((but not tired enough to leave)) jump into solo, queue sync, and either secretly pubstomp you or have someone throw a game by not playing as hard as they should if they get team split.

>

> Then people will be back here talking about "dont let friends lists q together" or something crazy.

>

> If swiss gives teams a reason to do their team thing and is frequent enough that it runs relatively smoothly then fine. We can take them out of Solo Q. Not before, though.

 

I wanted to say when swiss comes out and if it it successful, fine ranked goes full solo. (But you say it)

 

Unranked should just be everything goes like always.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

> @"James.1065" said:

> > @"Twilight Tempest.7584" said:

> > Separate solo and group queues. Group queue would work the same way as unranked currently does, allowing any combination of groups and singles. Solo queue would be singles only. Separate leaderboards for each. Everyone's happy.

>

> Actually that's a great idea. To add to it:

>

> 1. Remove unranked totally.

> 2. Have two ranked ques (1 for teams and 1 for solo que)

> 3. Teams que size = 2 Or 4. Matches consist of 4 players per team

> 4. Have separate leader boards for each que type

>

> It would be so interesting to see how many of the top team players are being carried when they don't appear in the top % of solo que leader board

>

 

do this! I think.

[Fearless.3569]

It would take all of the Solo queuers quitting Rank for ANet to remove Duo Q vs Solo Q. But at that point they will more than likely just shut down the mode.