Return of Reckoning

Azarael wrote:

Jaycub wrote:You will never change the casual player base in this game, they will continue to solo que as long as that option is available. The burden should not fall upon them, it should fall upon game design.

You are advocating for a system that allows grouped players to beat up on solo players as a norm, as if that is just how it should be. I don't get how you cannot see what is fundamentally wrong with that.

Exactly.

Once upon a time, I used to be the kind of person who would claim that any issues casual players experienced were their own fault and they should just get good.

Then I saw the results of maintaining that philosophy: the casual players just leave.

There are clear rules when dealing with casual players:

Accept that they are NOT going to get good.

Accept that they want to play for fun.

Accept that if you force them to play the game under your conditions, they CAN and they WILL leave rather than adapt.

Casual players NEVER care about any given game enough to want to suffer in order to play it. Never.

You either accomodate them or you lose them. Those are your two simple choices and that is not going to change.

The only acceptable form of design is that which matches similarly skilled players against each other, i.e. matchmaking. This is why matchmaking exists. Anything else is doomed to fail.

Penril wrote:

Azarael wrote:

Jaycub wrote:You will never change the casual player base in this game, they will continue to solo que as long as that option is available. The burden should not fall upon them, it should fall upon game design.

You are advocating for a system that allows grouped players to beat up on solo players as a norm, as if that is just how it should be. I don't get how you cannot see what is fundamentally wrong with that.

Exactly.

Once upon a time, I used to be the kind of person who would claim that any issues casual players experienced were their own fault and they should just get good.

Then I saw the results of maintaining that philosophy: the casual players just leave.

There are clear rules when dealing with casual players:

Accept that they are NOT going to get good.

Accept that they want to play for fun.

Accept that if you force them to play the game under your conditions, they CAN and they WILL leave rather than adapt.

Casual players NEVER care about any given game enough to want to suffer in order to play it. Never.

You either accomodate them or you lose them. Those are your two simple choices and that is not going to change.

The only acceptable form of design is that which matches similarly skilled players against each other, i.e. matchmaking. This is why matchmaking exists. Anything else is doomed to fail.

I disagree for several reasons already explained. But anyway.

If you ever implement a separate Q for pugs and premades, please keep in mind that:

- Game is meant to be played in a group
- premade vs premade Q´s would be significantly longer than pug vs pug
- Winning a premade vs premade fight takes more effort than winning a premade vs premade fight

Therefore i would suggest that premade vs premade SCs have much better rewards than pug vs pug. Maybe quad emblem reward, triple xp, double renown, etc.

This might actually be incentive enough for casuals to try and form a premade.

Forbiddian wrote:
For some reason ppl like this guy like to do premades and face pugs and he doesnt want to face only premades, making me wonder why...

Tiggo wrote:the topic was about keep trading, what has it to do with premades in a scenario queue ???


are premades now even the reason for keep trading, or what?

Tklees wrote:Casuals won't change. But a role based que is win for everyone. Pugs get thier solo que while actually being in a balanced group and premades keep que time down and get a better fight simply from group comp being proper.