Background Image

Que prioritization (again)

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Talron, Feb 19, 2018.


1-10 man que prioritization

  1. yes

  2. no

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. I personally think this is something that would make organization within the game MUCH easier, everytime we hold a community event we have to que individually or some crap and it always delays the whole thing. I can see how people say "but the pub stomp" but then again I have to counter with the fact that punishing dudes for having a warparty over 8 with slow ques more or less demoralizes and takes the wind out of the sails of guilds and groups dedicated to the game trying to keep it afloat.

    I feel like a change like this could only do good for community efforts to get events and games going.
  2. Not only that but if a new player likes the game or even just the setting they will try to get their own friends involved which will result in the same long queue. Many if not most people prefer to play online games with friends so this issue extends further than guilds.
    LOBOTRONUS likes this.
  3. Dekra Dekra Member

    In a game where team play is the most vital component, nobody should be punished for wanting to play in a group, be that with just their friends or with a guild. It is extremely counterproductive to continue with the current matchmaker, it simply worsens the gameplay by preventing you from enjoying the game as is intended. By solving this problem you are not just helping the guilds who are dedicated to keeping this game alive and want to see it live up to its potential, but the entire player base.
    LOBOTRONUS likes this.
  4. NurgleBurger NurgleBurger Steam Early Access

    I'm totally up for encouraging teamwork and making guilds good again. Maybe if they pushed the guild thing more (to the levels of say Guild Wars), They'd get the players in. So yeah go all for it but if it does happen, we really need to promote the guild thing to newbies else it will just die a death like last time.

    LOBOTRONUS likes this.
  5. Kantor Chzo Steam Early Access

    I hear what Proteus is saying, but isn't this thread to help prioritize 1 to 10 man party Qs? Most games are 15 v 15. or 20 v 20. To my knowledge we all try to Q up 7-8 man warparties just trying to get a game in. This isn't about pug stomping at all.

    As some of you know, TST, *cough*best guild imo*cough* plays together because we want to play with friends. And we're playing Eternal Crusade, not Eternal Queuesade.
    LOBOTRONUS likes this.
  6. Queue would be less of an issue if you could do something while the war party is in queue. So Lair missions or allowing being in the garrison with the war party. The sitting and staring at a spinning icon is just murder and looses players at a massive rate. I find my willingness to wait for the queue getting less and less the longer the game has been out. Moving the game from open world to battle fields really set you guys back and the queue problems early on were certainly understandable, but no matter how good the game is....if your just waiting in a queue, it does not matter. So you need to come up with a plan....what do we do at times that player count is low. How do we keep players engaged in the game even when they can't yet get in a mission. That should be a major priority for development.
  7. I'd be totally fine with that, if there was a better way for people to get involved with guilds. Right now it's almost impossible without joining a discord, going on a forum, or adding people in steam (where the names differ from character names ingame).
    If anything should have highest priority, it's a global HUB chat which is also linked to the guild system, so it's actually possible to get some community efforts going ingame. Like you can click on a person in chat and directly invite him to your guild or war party.
    Most likely that way there would be more warparties anyway, so other warparties would find a match easier as well.
    Also a faction-wide battle now button and total queue numbers, so players can actually see in which faction they will get a match the fastest.
    If this is done big warparties can be prioritized without too much trouble, because there are multiple ways for solo players to find quick matches as well.

    I'd vote "Yes, but not now"
    Zarbustibal and LOBOTRONUS like this.
  8. KHETTI Well-Known Member

    So you guys basically want EC to be" play in a group or fuck off!", the level of sheer stupidity in this playerbase is ass-tounding, doing everything you possibly can to ensure there is absolutely no room for population growth, and no understanding that this is the reason you don't have a playerbase except for a few retarded fanboi's, who still despite being told , have no idea that their Guilds ARE 50% responsible for the state the game is in.
    When a horse breaks it's leg, the vet doesn't waste time trying to repair a leg that won't heal, he just gives the horse a quick and painless death, that should be EC.
    ruititadiogo likes this.
  9. I see some interesting ideas in here and I like that. Having a setup lobby or being able to play nids or train into garrison while queuing would lighten everyone's heart obviously.


    It is probably more realistic, considering the reduced manpower in bEhaviour team, to simply ask for a tweak of the existing match making. From what I know that kind of task is quite simple and would take a few hours to proceed, maybe a day including some testing.

    In MYST we usually run warparties of 7-8 people, sometimes 10-12. On Saturdays to avoid pubstomping we split into two warparties one of 9 (the famous magic number supposed to trigger a new match) and one with remaining players. This works well on Saturdays but during the week we have sometimes long queue times. And it happens too often that while watching the timer of ongoing matches on world map we see a match end, expect to get into the new one... and not get into the new one. This is very very frustrating.

    So yeah please reduce the prioritization of queuing for solo players at least a bit. All I ask is a more balanced match making. Please do something @jbregg @Oveur help us to help you keeping the game alive.
    LOBOTRONUS likes this.
  10. Popoolo ruititadiogo Steam Early Access

    I don't agree.
    I think they should separate and que like all others, i believe stopping war parties would balance the game more..
    Its bad for the game to group experienced players VS noobs or less ready players.

    Yes guilds should have a que guild vs guild.

    No they should not group to kill players that enter to test the game, play occasionally or are not so good doing headshots all game never missing, and some don't even have the items.

    Better yet make a que button, and the game makes the war parties and choses the races and the players matchmaking so its more balanced. We can't have a clan with players with 90 kills for game VS some normal people who do 20 kills in a game, and hope to have players.

    When i see 50 90 kills in one side and 10 in the other, best players count, something is wrong, and next match i know i will have 50% less players in the game this is testes every day by me.

    I agree with this quote from Kaela:"Being able to play nids or train into garrison while queuing would lighten everyone's heart obviously."


Share This Page