Pooh
Legend
I meant to say IF I lolIt is trying to communicateeeeeeee!! D:
Just kidding, but seriously, what was that? I'm afraid I didn't get it D:
Lets talk 10v10s
- Thread starter Bmac
- Start date
Yak
Legend
Great idea for those of us "missing" insta-bgs (remember when 8min seemed like a long time?)!
Like Bop said, you will probably need a crew of 15 in order to put a team of 10 in the field at any given time. Would combining teams of 5, each with a "captain," be more feasible (for communication) and flexible (for competition)?
I think there are a lot of quiet players who'd be interested (and intimidated). My concern is that the "jocks" will pick the "jocks" (just like arenas), and quietly improving fellows like myself may get hammered as if we were pugmates. I'm slowly learning through pug arenas, but tbh it's not much fun. Would this be any different? I respect getting beat by skill, but it would be nice to have access to the constructive criticism. Would veterans be willing to include and develop new talent as half of their teams?
I'll be ready with a Rdruid, AP, either faction.
Like Bop said, you will probably need a crew of 15 in order to put a team of 10 in the field at any given time. Would combining teams of 5, each with a "captain," be more feasible (for communication) and flexible (for competition)?
I think there are a lot of quiet players who'd be interested (and intimidated). My concern is that the "jocks" will pick the "jocks" (just like arenas), and quietly improving fellows like myself may get hammered as if we were pugmates. I'm slowly learning through pug arenas, but tbh it's not much fun. Would this be any different? I respect getting beat by skill, but it would be nice to have access to the constructive criticism. Would veterans be willing to include and develop new talent as half of their teams?
I'll be ready with a Rdruid, AP, either faction.
Kincaide
Legend
Even though the OP has stated that he wants to construct himself an A Team and practice and play only with that team, I think that you have a very strong point here, in that this plan can be used not just to test who is the best team of players, but also to encourage and support those people who want to get better. I for example consider myself to be rather good, but most of my experience is in working 5-man comps in a pug, rather than a full coordinated 10-man team like AP Horde used to field. Perhaps it should be considered that the A-Team players, who are used to playing together in 10-man comps, should instead break into two 5-man comps and take on other people who are clearly interested and dedicated to improving and who just need to see how it's done. It's all fine and good to beat everyone and sit on the top of the heap, but it's going to be a very small heap if everyone but one or two 10-man A Teams get smashed and discouraged. If we're really interested in promoting wargames and not just winning wargames, then we should listen to Yak's suggestion.
Bop
Remember the Treeline
I completely agree. I would like to turn this into more than just the top 20 players fighting each other.
There isn't really an easy way to get 20 people together regardless of skill, though.
My suggestion has always been to try to get 3v3 arena wargames going where 1 person on each team is new, and the other 2 try to teach them. Hell, even 2v2 would work for that purpose.
I'm absolutely down to try to get a 10v10 with half of each team being new, or new-er. But organizing /any/ 10v10 is difficult, let alone trying to fit specific skill populations into the mix.
One of the things that made the 10v10s last summer so successful was that about 25% of the players were actively taking an administrative role in organizing the games. They'd go out and group other players, or they'd try to get in touch with as many players as possible. Then, they'd go into the organizing skype call and synchronize up groups.
I simply do not see that leading potential present in these games. I see people who are interested, but not interested enough to try to form a web of communication with other players. I see soldiers, I don't see officers. We need more officers.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bop
Remember the Treeline
No, I'd like to take the time to double post to update my thoughts on 10v10's in this bracket.
I have no interest in investing more of my time or assisting to help others group for 10v10s in this bracket.
For the most part, the newer or even semi-experienced players tend to be selfish and inconsiderate of the time and efforts of others. I do not want to spend 60+ minutes organizing a 10v10 only to have 1 member drop, and then have the opposing team queue random BG's - which is what just occurred on Aerie Peak in an attempted 10v10.
I do not want the time of 20 people held hostage to the whims of a selfish individual. These events are a privilege; they are something behind which there is no logical reason as to why the leaders would attempt to organize them besides bettering the F2P community. For there to be the potential of even 1 member throwing off the entire group's dynamic, I would say that we are better off leaving this attempt at education and organization alone.
Organized premades, such as this, will be something that I shy away from in the future unless they consist of only the top players in the bracket; the players who I know I can trust to be considerate and frugal in consideration to the massive time-sink and resource cost that this has on the organizers.
What an absolute waste of time.
Good day.
I have no interest in investing more of my time or assisting to help others group for 10v10s in this bracket.
For the most part, the newer or even semi-experienced players tend to be selfish and inconsiderate of the time and efforts of others. I do not want to spend 60+ minutes organizing a 10v10 only to have 1 member drop, and then have the opposing team queue random BG's - which is what just occurred on Aerie Peak in an attempted 10v10.
I do not want the time of 20 people held hostage to the whims of a selfish individual. These events are a privilege; they are something behind which there is no logical reason as to why the leaders would attempt to organize them besides bettering the F2P community. For there to be the potential of even 1 member throwing off the entire group's dynamic, I would say that we are better off leaving this attempt at education and organization alone.
Organized premades, such as this, will be something that I shy away from in the future unless they consist of only the top players in the bracket; the players who I know I can trust to be considerate and frugal in consideration to the massive time-sink and resource cost that this has on the organizers.
What an absolute waste of time.
Good day.
Meagain
Legend
Yes! I really like this post for all the wrong reasons but it's so true, especially this part. This is the type of stuff I hate and why I mostly decline to group for BG's specifically. Too many people just want to be part of something but invest little to no time into it which is nothing but frustrating. I understand that BG 's on their own take a long time to happen but leaving while a match is trying to be formed whether it's while you're in a party, trying to form a 10v10 or even solo is counter productive.
After queuing for the past few months on AP and forming parties just to have the same people leave continuously you start to learn who's there to play and who's going to leave at the first sign of trouble so to speak. People have mentioned above that they wouldn't want these groups to be full of only the experienced well known players but they don't understand that you don't get experienced, well known and good at the game by leaving ques every time they extend past the average que time. People become cliquey because the cliques are full of people they trust and know they can depend on.
Kincaide
Legend
If you'll allow me, Bop, I'd like to offer a rebuttal to your statement. I understand just how you're feeling at the moment, but I think there's another perspective to be taken here.
There's an expression I'm sure you've heard that goes something along the lines of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If you had 20 people's time held up by one selfish person, that means you had 19 people who were interested and willing to wait as long as they did. It's unfortunate that it fell apart, but that means that that one person should be blacklisted from participating in the future, not that the whole endeavor should be chucked.
Just because someone is one of the top players in the bracket does not mean that they can be trusted to be considerate of other people's time. I mean, I don't know who you had as raid leader of the opposing group, I assume it was a senior person, but if he queued his team for randoms, then he wasn't doing his job of keeping his team patient. Likewise there are bound to be lots of people out there who are considerate and worthy of being trusted but who are not yet top players. Every considerate and trustworthy person you know was also at one point an inexperienced player. Someone has to give them a chance and to be patient enough to separate the wheat from the chaff: not in terms of their play skill, but in terms of their willingness to be a considerate team player.
Please also consider that you attempted to make this happen on Christmas Eve, when lots of good people aren't anywhere near the game. For that reason alone, I don't think the statistical sample of one experience you collected should be used to judge all future encounters.
Call out the people who made it fall apart, let everyone know that they won't be invited back, but consider continuing to give those 19 (or so) other patient people a fighting chance (pun intended). I am sure they are just as dejected as you are that things fell apart, but someone's got to say we're not going to let this setback derail us permanently.
Falling down is a chance we take. Staying down is a choice we make. I'll try to be around on Sunday or beyond, and maybe by then enough other people will also have posted words of encouragement so that we'll all be pumped to try it again.
Have a Merry Christmas, all of you.
sevenslacks7
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
His frustration comes from this being the latest, in a long string of many other events like this (In this bracket), that he (/we) have been a part of trying to form/ help lead. The mishaps occurring in this one being very predictable, as the same problems have arisen for each other event.
Now, on to what I believe is the root of the problem, and what the solution should be . That is if enough players in this bracket want events that are fun... and don't last an hour, while taking 4 to set up.
In general, while this bracket does not have problems with raw numbers (Like most other twinking brackets), it has issues with the ‘right’ numbers. By ‘right’, I am referring to people that are considerate, can follow simple instructions, and know how to communicate with others, so that things stay on track. Skill doesn’t really factor in to that; as long as Joe Shmoe F2P isn’t backpedaling and/or keyboard turning, and follows the stipulations I already listed, I don’t see any reason they can’t participate in an event.
Now what have been the problems that have been faced in EVERY. EVENT. In the F2P bracket? Well, in the past, how events have been developed: someone will get an idea for an event they want to try. 10v10 WSG? “Well TI, I am looking for 20 players, then we will set a date”. World pvp raid? “Hey TI, looking for x amount of players (20+) before we set a date”. There are multiple issues with this strategy. What ends up happening, is rarely the required number of players to start an event will be met strictly from people that sign up from TI alone. What’s the next best thing? Well, lets throw in a bunch of random AP players the day of to fill those slots. These players don’t have any respect for the event, or the time put in to setting them up, and why should they? They were formed the day of, and don’t know about the planning that may have been put in to it. Some other issues: getting 20 people to be on at the same time, for 2+ hours, is just not very realistic, and that's no ones fault. Communication: Yes. You may have seen that persons name before in a couple battlegrounds. But does that mean you have their skype? / would be willing to communicate with them to facilitate any issues that may come up during this event? The list could go on and on really with issues that have been faced, but this is the bulk of it, and the part that really counts for how it can be fixed.
So how do these problems get fixed? What is needed, is a solid group of trustworthy and cooperative/communicative players, that aren't formed from event to event, but stay in contact to decide what events they may want to do. A thread may be started later down the road, to try and set in stone a group of people willing to get quality events to happen, on a regular basis, and in a timely fashion. All that is needed is maybe 10 players (maybe more maybe less) that can be counted on, and want to participate on a regular basis. They talk every week about what they may want to do, arena events, battleground events, pvp raids, etc etc. If the event calls for more than 10 people (or however many are in this group), those people can vouch for others, then people can be held accountable for any issues that may arise.
TL;DR: The way events have been formed up until this point is simply unmanageable and untenable. Rock solid players (Players who can be trusted, and can/know how to communicate) need to make up the core of any event for it to be successful. Don’t call us F2P bracket, we’ll call you.
Kincaide
Legend
I'll think over what you said. I've personally been a part of four successful organized world PVP events and two successful 10v10 Aerie Peak WSG games without the benefit of the Wargames system, so I'm convinced that it is possible, and I'll think on what you said in terms of what was different then that isn't happening now. I agree that getting people invested in the success of the activity is key, but why pick-up members feel less invested in the activity now than they did in the past, I can't be sure. I think back then we had a stronger server identity rather than group identity, so that people would feel bad about "letting their server down" if they didn't do what they were supposed to. We could talk all day about how we came to identify more with our groups of friends and less with our server community, but that's way too big a topic for this discussion.
We discussed earlier about having, in any group of 10 people, five of them being super solid and super reliable and the rest being "in-training". I wasn't there yesterday so I don't know what those ratios were, but I think it's worth considering having those five solid people per team and whomever else wants to learn and get better, and if you don't have a solid 10 per side, then go with 9 per, or even less. The more successes we report back to the community, the more people are going to want to be a part of it, and the more we can enforce a need to be committed to the cause or be uninvited back. I recommend focusing efforts on those who demonstrate commitment, with the understanding that some weeding out of the uncommitted will have to happen each session.
Make note of the people who stood patiently by and did what you asked of them yesterday, and we'll just start out from here by devoting our attention to those who have thus so far earned it.