3 clan members in ranked battles

[eliastion]

19 minutes ago, EdiJo said:

This would help of course, but only to some degree. Assembling a game is usually not instantaneous, and even "shifted" players could be included by MM. My solution from the other thread (recording player IDs who played with given player during last ~2 weeks and eliminating those who played more than ~3 times - in any mode) is simpler and (closer to) 100% effective. Well, you can stack a game those 3 times per 2 weeks if you don't play together at all, but... nothing prevents both remedies being applied in parallel 

Your solution would be effective... problem is that 100% effectiveness isn't what we're aiming for - we need a workable solution. I mean, removing Ranked would be even more effective, right? I've played enough Ranked (especially at top Rank bracket) outside peak hours to be strongly against your idea. The player pool can get pretty damn small, with very few concurrent matches. You meet the same people over and over again. With your system forget two weeks - even making it a 24h limit of 3 matches with the same person would kill a night Ranked queue. 2 weeks would likely cripple the morning queue as well.

 

As effective as your solution might be, it's just not an acceptable one. The issue addressed is just nowhere near serious enough to justify the cost of your approach.

[ghostbuster_]

On 8.5.2018 at 12:42 AM, elder_gutknecht said:

Are you joking i know when someone find another of their clan ramdonly

This is a coward's tactic easyly banned

And please think about the number of players in RB, queue? come on mate all with a little of battles know how to do that fuckin unfair trick

and what trick should it be? counting down to get into the same battle? there is no grantie of getting in the same team. even if they counted down and entered the same battle there is no problem as long as they played properly. so, instead of whining on forums, try to get bettter and help people carrying the team you are in.

[RenamedUser_92906789]

6 minutes ago, ghostbuster_ said:

and what trick should it be? counting down to get into the same battle? there is no grantie of getting in the same team. even if they counted down and entered the same battle there is no problem as long as they played properly. so, instead of whining on forums, try to get bettter and help people carrying the team you are in.

Nobody is cryin mate. But if WG suddenly starts banning ppl for their own exploit, the community has the right to press them.

[therealVanquisher]

On 26.8.2018 at 11:12 AM, Sark74 said:

LOL! …  I don't play ranked purely because I moron get matched !..

Here, I've fixed that for you.

[cpt_sparrow_jack]

On 26/8/2018 at 12:12 PM, Sark74 said:

LOL! …  I don't play ranked purely because I get matched with morons!.. if I could div up and be 100% Guaranteed to be there with clan mates.. I would probably play ranked... in the last 2 season I've played 6 games... don't enjoy it at all..  so I'll probably go play something else until its over.. 

 

 

at list u are more honest player than others that abusing the MM in ranks (solo competitive mode) by counting down ,with the blessings of @MrConwayand @Crysantos 

p.s u may consider put division options if u dont have any problem with counting down

[EdiJo]

11 hours ago, eliastion said:

Your solution would be effective... problem is that 100% effectiveness isn't what we're aiming for - we need a workable solution. I mean, removing Ranked would be even more effective, right? I've played enough Ranked (especially at top Rank bracket) outside peak hours to be strongly against your idea. The player pool can get pretty damn small, with very few concurrent matches. You meet the same people over and over again. With your system forget two weeks - even making it a 24h limit of 3 matches with the same person would kill a night Ranked queue. 2 weeks would likely cripple the morning queue as well.

 

As effective as your solution might be, it's just not an acceptable one. The issue addressed is just nowhere near serious enough to justify the cost of your approach.

Maybe you're right, it depends on the population. I occasionally noticed having the same guy in the next game, but still it doesn't mean that the queue would be insanely longer if one of us was excluded from MM for that next game. Neither I nor you have this data. Still, most of the time the queue is not so short, so excluding would be used. 

And if the queue is short, that means longer waiting times, and that means easier stacking, even with your solution. And I think that getting rid of "illegal divisions", especially in times of low server population when it can be most easily exploited, is serious enough to justify longer waiting. 

[eliastion]

1 hour ago, EdiJo said:

Maybe you're right, it depends on the population. I occasionally noticed having the same guy in the next game, but still it doesn't mean that the queue would be insanely longer if one of us was excluded from MM for that next game. Neither I nor you have this data. Still, most of the time the queue is not so short, so excluding would be used. 

And if the queue is short, that means longer waiting times, and that means easier stacking, even with your solution. And I think that getting rid of "illegal divisions", especially in times of low server population when it can be most easily exploited, is serious enough to justify longer waiting. 

If it's just one game after the other, sure, two players prevented from meeting isn't a problem. But when you build a whole web of banned pairings in a time window of two weeks?

 

Also, while without specific numbers, I DO have enough data to support my position. One season I mostly played at night. I got to R1 that way and by the time I climbed through the last couple Ranks I recognized a bunch of nicks every single match. We chatted with each other at the start and end of each battle because it was hardly strangers anymore - we were meeting again and again. The nexty match usually had at least 4+ people you've just been playing with a moment before. There's no way in hell ANY matches would've been created back then if we were banned from playing in the same match after meeting 3 times.

 

And no. Completely killing off Ranked in times of low server population is most certainly NOT an acceptable price for preventing a small minority from abusing the system to easier reach some individual rewards.

[EdiJo]

29 minutes ago, eliastion said:

If it's just one game after the other, sure, two players prevented from meeting isn't a problem. But when you build a whole web of banned pairings in a time window of two weeks?

 

Also, while without specific numbers, I DO have enough data to support my position. One season I mostly played at night. I got to R1 that way and by the time I climbed through the last couple Ranks I recognized a bunch of nicks every single match. We chatted with each other at the start and end of each battle because it was hardly strangers anymore - we were meeting again and again. The nexty match usually had at least 4+ people you've just been playing with a moment before. There's no way in hell ANY matches would've been created back then if we were banned from playing in the same match after meeting 3 times.

 

And no. Completely killing off Ranked in times of low server population is most certainly NOT an acceptable price for preventing a small minority from abusing the system to easier reach some individual rewards.

You are right. If we have a game when at times there is like less 50 available players for a given mode, anything MM could do doesn't make sense. 

This is hardly MMO game anymore. 

Recently WG announced this inter-server clan battle event. So why exactly can't they just merge the servers, so we'd have no dead night hours? 

[eliastion]

19 minutes ago, EdiJo said:

You are right. If we have a game when at times there is like less 50 available players for a given mode, anything MM could do doesn't make sense. 

This is hardly MMO game anymore. 

Recently WG announced this inter-server clan battle event. So why exactly can't they just merge the servers, so we'd have no dead night hours? 

The most objective reason would be the issue with communication. The language barrier, more specifically - people on other servers are accustomed to English, most are capable of a very basic communication at least. People from RU never faced this necessity, however. I'm sure many players there know English too, but the rest might be both unable and unwilling - and Ranked (in theory at least) requires some communication within team...

 

Although, yes, regardless of the whole thing about syncdropping, I do think Ranked would benefit from a combined playerbase. And if RU is a problem, they could combine just the other servers - for EU it would soften the "dead hours" problem, for the other (smaller) servers it would help with the overall small population.

[EdiJo]

3 minutes ago, eliastion said:

The most objective reason would be the issue with communication. The language barrier, more specifically - people on other servers are accustomed to English, most are capable of a very basic communication at least. People from RU never faced this necessity, however. I'm sure many players there know English too, but the rest might be both unable and unwilling - and Ranked (in theory at least) requires some communication within team...

 

Although, yes, setting aside the whole thing about syncdropping, I do think Ranked would benefit from a combined playerbase. And if RU is a problem, they could combine just the other servers - for EU it would soften the "dead hours" problem, for the other (smaller) servers it would help with the overall small population.

Meh. Most of EU players don't talk English very well either. And for example some older gen from the old commie block at least understands Russian.

Anyway vast majority of players doesn't talk at all in the chat ;)

Between AS player population language differences are even larger, I suppose - but younger generation there is quite good with English. The Asia server is the one which actually may have some network latency issues, but I think threshold for the latency should be built into the game client anyway. 

 

Also, in current state of technology it is not a big problem to expand set of in-game "ping buttons" and/or to implement a "translate button" in the chat.

 

And servers should be merged for all modes, not only clan & ranked...

True reasons for not doing it yet is just "the marketing" and corpo-inertia.