ICONIC to the devs

[Secrets]

Warband queues will be enabled for city content, a group between 1 and 24 can queue at max. This won't be changing. (per our internal dev chat)

The total size of city sieges, as far as I'm aware, is not finalized but is being aimed at either 36v36 or 24v24.

I don't believe there will be separate queues for premades vs solo play. The system will obviously be able to match 24 mans vs 24 mans better as there's equal numbers that are queueing.

Regarding 6man content,

Those wanting engaging 6man content can simply queue for ranked scenarios when that system is finished. When rewards and leaderboards are finished, I expect it to take off a bit more in popularity.

I'm considering opening the "Ranked Solo" queue to duos and to match at least one healer, and the rest DPS or tanks, based on the numbers that we've seen queueing - it may be that the interest just isn't there yet because there's no rewards.

Sorry to hijack the thread, but you mentioned engaging 6man content and I feel like there's already a separate system being designed for that.

[Arbich]

Thanks for clarification!
Could you explain why you devs think it's a good idea to make wbs queue, considering the issues raised in this thread?
The mechanic will be like presented in the test last Sunday?

[carlos]

Thanks for clarification!
Could you explain why you devs think it's a good idea to make wbs queue, considering the issues raised in this thread?
The mechanic will be like presented in the test last Sunday?

Didn't he already? I might read this wrong

engaging 6man content and I feel like there's already a separate system being designed for that.

[toffikx]

Thanks for clarification!
Could you explain why you devs think it's a good idea to make wbs queue, considering the issues raised in this thread?
The mechanic will be like presented in the test last Sunday?

Didn't he already? I might read this wrong

engaging 6man content and I feel like there's already a separate system being designed for that.

No, he mean things as pugstomp by guild warbands. I’m sure some people would find it rather funny, if Caledoor Woods group 6 man would be the only way to obtain Sovereign in-game. Probably some of the very people here who pretend pugstomp is just fine, would end up crying and threatening to leave the game.
With no separate quque system the chances for guild warbands to meet will be lesser, probably resulting in gwarbands being in different instances. If you in a warband guild or thinking about joining one, then congratz you won the lottery with free sov as the main price. Otherwise, prepare to be farmed. Ideally you’ll find yourself in an instance without a dedicated warband premade.

[Arbich]

Thanks for clarification!
Could you explain why you devs think it's a good idea to make wbs queue, considering the issues raised in this thread?
The mechanic will be like presented in the test last Sunday?

Didn't he already? I might read this wrong

engaging 6man content and I feel like there's already a separate system being designed for that.

Yes, you read it wrong. I can repeat the issues:

1. terrain in altdorf (when you do occasionally bomb wb it should be obvious). I can´t remember IC from live, but should be roughly the same
2. high imbalance between bomb viable classes and unviable classes (imbalance was further increased with the recent AoE changes)
3. years of "experienced" anger about imbalanced scenarios when there is a premade on one side (the impact of premades is somewhat decreased in 18vs18 scs)

And I get, that its also an issue that wbs who pushed for city cant join city together.
Please don´t make this in another stupid wb vs premade discussion. I honestly think - given the mechanic I saw on sunday - that it is a bad idea to enable wb queue for city from a gameplay/fun perspective.
Thats why I also asked about mechanic in city instances.

[adamthelc]

Thanks for clarification!
Could you explain why you devs think it's a good idea to make wbs queue, considering the issues raised in this thread?
The mechanic will be like presented in the test last Sunday?

The issues raised arent that well thought out. Certain classes or bomb groups being too good isnt going to change based on what size premades are allowed to join together. It's based on the scale of the content.

So the only thing that would really change based on the amount that can join to together would be the level of coordination. Why should there be a line drawn at how competitive you can be and why should the line be drawn at 6? That seems like a rather arbitrary number, you could make the same argument for allowing 6 man's would he too competitive and that people should only be allowed to join solo.

The fact that a lot of people think a group of 6 is the appropriate level of coordination that should be allowed doesnt mean that there is any merit it to that idea.

You could argue that a group of 6 is more realistic for a lot of people to form and that's true. But literally everyone could form a group of 1. So with that same argument couldnt you say it would be more fair if you didnt allow groups to join together at all?

What if you had to queue for CH 22 PQs, but you could only queue with a group of 6? You would have take 18 random people even if you have 18 other friends ready to go? It makes no sense.

It seems like the crux of the argument is 24 people shouldnt be allowed to join together because it would harder for 6 mans to compete. Boo hoo, form an alliance and have multiple 6 mans team up. If you want to do the pinnacle of RvR, you should have to play it like RvR. Dont expect to be able to play whatever you want or in whatever group size you want and expect to be able to compete against people that are pushing the envelope, that's not realistic.

[Unstoppable1776]

Warband queues will be enabled for city content, a group between 1 and 24 can queue at max. This won't be changing. (per our internal dev chat)

The total size of city sieges, as far as I'm aware, is not finalized but is being aimed at either 36v36 or 24v24.

I don't believe there will be separate queues for premades vs solo play. The system will obviously be able to match 24 mans vs 24 mans better as there's equal numbers that are queueing.

Regarding 6man content,

Those wanting engaging 6man content can simply queue for ranked scenarios when that system is finished. When rewards and leaderboards are finished, I expect it to take off a bit more in popularity.

I'm considering opening the "Ranked Solo" queue to duos and to match at least one healer, and the rest DPS or tanks, based on the numbers that we've seen queueing - it may be that the interest just isn't there yet because there's no rewards.

Sorry to hijack the thread, but you mentioned engaging 6man content and I feel like there's already a separate system being designed for that.

If this is the case, then i would recommend rewarding at least 1 massive bag for the losing side. Otherwise(like we saw in live) if a wb faces a pug wb and wipes people will just leave, creating a bunch of empty instances...Boring. Needs to be some incentive to stick it out even if you know its a loss.

[Unstoppable1776]

Thanks for clarification!
Could you explain why you devs think it's a good idea to make wbs queue, considering the issues raised in this thread?
The mechanic will be like presented in the test last Sunday?

The issues raised arent that well thought out. Certain classes or bomb groups being too good isnt going to change based on what size premades are allowed to join together. It's based on the scale of the content.

So the only thing that would really change based on the amount that can join to together would be the level of coordination. Why should there be a line drawn at how competitive you can be and why should the line be drawn at 6? That seems like a rather arbitrary number, you could make the same argument for allowing 6 man's would he too competitive and that people should only be allowed to join solo.

The fact that a lot of people think a group of 6 is the appropriate level of coordination that should be allowed doesnt mean that there is any merit it to that idea.

You could argue that a group of 6 is more realistic for a lot of people to form and that's true. But literally everyone could form a group of 1. So with that same argument couldnt you say it would be more fair if you didnt allow groups to join together at all?

What if you had to queue for CH 22 PQs, but you could only queue with a group of 6? You would have take 18 random people even if you have 18 other friends ready to go? It makes no sense.

It seems like the crux of the argument is 24 people shouldnt be allowed to join together because it would harder for 6 mans to compete. Boo hoo, form an alliance and have multiple 6 mans team up. If you want to do the pinnacle of RvR, you should have to play it like RvR. Dont expect to be able to play whatever you want or in whatever group size you want and expect to be able to compete against people that are pushing the envelope, that's not realistic.

There is 6 groups in a city. a WB would fills 4, a 6 man fills 1. The more organized the groups are, the higher the chance they will win. The chances of 4x6 mans to join the same city instance is unlikely. Where a wb its certain. This allows for a chance for balance.

However i am all for wbs joining if facing wbs or giving the losing side massive bags. No one is going to stick around a losing fight....aka take live for example.

[Secrets]

Thanks for clarification!
Could you explain why you devs think it's a good idea to make wbs queue, considering the issues raised in this thread?
The mechanic will be like presented in the test last Sunday?

The system will allow for a warband of up to 24 people to queue up for a city siege.

You will be able to queue as a 6man, a 12 man, or whatever-many-man you want up to 24 people.

It will not be the same restrictions as Sunday's test.

I should also mention that we'll be locking people to one instance per city siege. If you don't like the instance you are in, you will be unable to queue for another city siege until the next campaign's city siege. Subsequent queues will place you back into the city siege instance you're locked to, in case of disconnection.

[Unstoppable1776]

Thanks for clarification!
Could you explain why you devs think it's a good idea to make wbs queue, considering the issues raised in this thread?
The mechanic will be like presented in the test last Sunday?

The system will allow for a warband of up to 24 people to queue up for a city siege.

You will be able to queue as a 6man, a 12 man, or whatever-many-man you want up to 24 people.

It will not be the same restrictions as Sunday's test.

I should also mention that we'll be locking people to one instance per city siege. If you don't like the instance you are in, you will be unable to queue for another city siege until the next campaign's city siege. Subsequent queues will place you back into the city siege instance you're locked to, in case of disconnection.

Fair enough, can we sticky this thread for when city sieges come out. Posted before the inevitable cries.

As always ICONIC will adapt and overcome.