Re: Ranked sucks if youre solo queing

@XHelperZ 

So "every game" is actually Overwatch? Haha.

"You're expected to perform well".

Well why even have ranks in the first place? Arent a silver player "expected to perform well" too? Why not match him against Predators? Because what we are discussing here is the design of the ranked system in terms of competitive fairness.  Dividing player to compete against each other based on mmr/elo is just a valid tool to achieve this as giving competitive leniencies to Solo Qers who play against premades, or even dividing players to compete against each other based on solo Q or premades.  These are standardized and well adopted ways of designing the competitive mode of games. That is not an opinion but an empirical fact.

Should Respawn adopt this is a question of OPINION though. What we discuss on these threads is OUR opinion wish to have it so. Sometimes it seems like you base your arguments on the assumption that Respawns design OBJECTIVLY is the most perfect design in competitive PvP gaming ever and therefore it it OBJECTVLY shouldn't be messed with.  I beg to differ. I think Apex has one of the WORST competitive design which perhaps is necessary because of the 60 player lobbies. But if you randomly blind pick a set of players from the same rank, I think you would find the largest intervall of actual skill among Apex players, compared to other games. 

But you are right. Respawn doesnt have to change squat. I am totally fine with griding in Diamond-Pred lobbies with my premade squad and I am totally fine with accepting that Diamond probably is my peak rank with my current skills. And in the meantime, I just keep smurfing in low elo lobbies solo since Solo Q above a certain level is impossible. If that makes a healthy gaming environment for everyone is not up to be to decide. I just adapt to the system given to me but I will ofc have opinions how I think it SHOULD be.

"Separating the queues would increase queue times, not a good fix either." 

 If the solo Qers are necessary to  to fill up diamond-to-predator lobbies then the system is broken in the first place from a competitive point of view. This means that a game requires "fillers" so that some can feed off. That is not good.  But it MAY be necciserly because of the requirement of 60 players to fill a lobby, that I accept.

And regarding everything with LFG etc.

I dont know how you interpreted what I said as I having those problems and that I need carrying. I dont. I have both IRL friends and online-friends to play with.  I was just arguing objectively about LFG as a solution. 

@NerfMyAimPlz 

I compared Overwatch to Apex due to the similar TTK, which is one of the most important things to account for when comparing games.

Mechanics differ so you can truly never compare one, though League is so much different than Apex so that had to be pointed out as something that wasn't valid.

So no, I specifically said that not every game is like Overwatch, like I mentioned, I picked it based on TTK.

Ranks are there to categorize your skill on multiple bases, to name a few: Aim, Game sense, Communication.

They exist to put everyone in their respective category of their skill, if you fail to climb then it means you're currently around that rank.

It's a measure to see improvement, it isn't a ladder you continue to climb constantly, that's not how any ranked system functions.

Silver players are expected to perform well, for a Silver player.

If they can't perform well enough like a Gold, then they won't be able to keep up there.

(Same goes in your situation, you can't hold it out in a rank higher than your current one)

And again, there is no use catering to Solo-Q users.

The system was designed in mind that players in competitive play well with their team.

If you can't succeed that in a solo-q then you should move to premades, as clearly you're limited in that area.

You're being judged on team play, so the system won't adjust to that.

I'm not saying that Respawn has the best design either, though your idea would throw off the entire idea the system was created under.

This would mean revamping the entire system, which is quite a lot of work, which should be avoided.

Sure, you might want to make this game more centered towards solo-q players, sadly enough that's not the case and it's extremely unlikely that they'd adopt said idea.

Though the issue you're mentioning currently is quite different, yes, it does affect how high you can climb, it won't be a factor every game.

Apart from that, this issue stands completely separate from premades/solo-q's, so it doesn't really help with supporting the change you want to be made.

Next to that you abuse the system by smurfing on an alternative account, which indicates you aren't even using the system for what's it used for.

You just want to stomp lobbies, no? Then ranked clearly isn't made for you since that's sweat-centered.

So you're pretty much saying "Do X or I'll make the issue worse"... which isn't great either.

Improvement doesn't always equal to a high kill count, it can take ages to get up in a rank.

It's pretty much how a lot of players experience it, it can take an extremely long time to climb.

Yes it's not fun because you don't see improvement constantly, though you're only looking at a rank in that case and just not enjoying the matches themselves.

Why would that mean that the system is broken?

Just because people can solo-q or duo-q it's broken?

I mean, of course you'll need solo-q players to fill in the gaps for other duos, otherwise it would be impossible to fill a lobby.

According to your logic we should remove duo's in ranked and make it so only trios and full solo-q's can get into a game... which punishes the duo's for existing despite them at least going into a premade to have better communication.

This doesn't mean these solo-q users are just put in as fillers, what gives you the idea that they would throw matchmaking out of the window purely for that?

That just isn't logical, that would then also apply to other games like TF2, Overwatch and CS:GO, meaning that any solo-q'er in a lobby is just a filler for the premades in the lobby.

I just think we lack the information to prove anything like that.

I don't really think that was an objective statement, after all, you were saying that you had issues with hardstuck players.

Now of course, you didn't provide an exact reason, though you did show that there were issues with playing with hardstuck players.

And because of that, I thought you shared the same issues, therefore you could try working on those issues yourself in the case that's holding you back.

Again, your skill won't be measured better in solo-q, you still need to show proper team-play.

Now, you can communicate with a duo stack if you're the solo-q player, that wouldn't really be that harder now would it?

I don't see any merits to making a change like this, by doing it you simply aren't measuring how well you can play with other users.

So far I'm only seeing arguments that blame other systems or by assuming certain players aren't good to be played with.

Next to that it seems like you want to change the main idea of the game, changing it more from a team-based to an individual-based shooter.

Whilst there would be teams, it's less centered around playing together.

Personally, I wouldn't really see why this should be changed, so far it just seems to make it easier to climb. (Which isn't even guaranteed) 

@XHelperZ

What is it that you dont get? Stop trying to define stuff as the objective truth when its only matter of opinions. You give me an essay what ranked objectively should work though this is just ONE way to design ranked. So you like the current system that mixes squads of solo Qs, squads of premade duos and solos Qs with 3-stack premades. I respect that opinion but can you respect MY opinion that I think this is a less fair system that separating solo Q and full trios? Well probably not. You will just give me a lesson what "true skill" is and what a "true competitive Apex player" is.

Your standpoint on this is as subjective as my standpoint. Do you think there should be weight classes in the UFC? Well you are a guy that says "no fighting skill is measured in strength, technique and stamina and should be fought in one single weight class". Sure, I would respect that opinion but I wouldnt agree that this is the most fairest way of designing the competition in the UFC, just like I dont think that mixing solos Qs with premades squads is the fairest way of designing Apex competitive ladder..

But whatever. I found you quite condescending to be honest. You feel the need to describe me as a person and Apex player. "You only need carrying". "You smurf because to stomp", "ranked clearly isn't made for you" etc etc.  So lets ignore each other from here on. Bye

And just for the record; no I dont smurf to stomp. I dont stomp in Gold/Platinum lobbies. I smurf because Pubs is a joke and sweat ranked requires a premade squad, which isnt always available".

@NerfMyAimPlz 

I don't see how it would be a matter of opinions when you're going about fairness.

You try to use it as a point, but if it's a subjective matter, how would I be able to understand it if you don't explain why you think it would be fair?

The only argument I've pretty much heard is that the system doesn't properly measure your skill, nothing to do with being stuck with premades as a player in solo-q.

There are weight classes yes, though do note that the sport is quite refined.

Apex hasn't been around for such a long time, it hasn't had the chance to do that.

A weight class isn't an indication of skill, you don't get put into a weight class purely based on skill, though in this game that is the case.

You will be classed according to your skill and you will play with around the same amount of skill.

Could you tell me why you think it would be unfair to mix these 2?

I really don't understand the negative side of mixing a duo player with a solo player.

Or is it rather an issue to play as a 3 man solo against a premade trio?

If it's the second case, then I might've misunderstood your previous points.

Well of course I have to analyse your behaviour in-game, this would give context to why you would be suggesting said things.

Of course it's not good to find flaws in the person themselves, though do note you are putting this information on the table yourself, am I supposed to just ignore it despite you having the need to put said information into it?

You have issues with playing together with hardstuck players, whilst you are one yourself.

You said that only the good players match together, saying it's a bad thing for you because you want to get matched with the good players.

Now you haven't specifically said you think yourself as good, though you have issues with being hardstuck so it's not that hard to assume.

Therefore you could be set above those other hardstucks whilst you're just part of them getting lifted by those other good players in the party you'd like.

Next to that you haven't really given a reason to why you were smurfing.

Is it just to get kills? Do you like easy matches?

You can't exactly link something positive to smurfing, after all you want an issue resolved, though why would we resolve that issue if you're one of the users that creates issues for others?

Can't really feed that now, can we?

Pubs is a joke? So you'd rather destroy the competitive integrity below you and hope the developers still will fix that issue you're having?

Premades are pretty much always available, unless you're playing on off-times.

I have never seen empty LFG channels on the Apex Discord, so I don't think you're really speaking the truth there either.

Ranked is something that has to be taken seriously, it's not something you just jump in for a quick match.

It takes time and prep to improve, if you don't do that then you're obviously not going to climb the ranks.

If it's not available then you simply don't play ranked.

And whilst yes, it's still purely based around opinions, you'd still need to give proper arguments.

Hell, if you can't really convince me, can you convince the devs?

Are there any merits to the devs to implement this?

How many players will suffer and how many players will enjoy this change?

Now of course it's still a suggestion, though if you want it implemented then you really have to start convincing people.

Can't really start adding in changes that are purely based around a concept that hasn't been worked out well.