Maybe next season I’ll keep you in mind. Taking a hiatus waiting for Undermine patch. Giving SoD and other games a shot.
I never said they did. You’re the one claimed the difficulty of M+ is artificial and that meta abusing is the answer for this difficulty:
Yep, who could forget those PvP boss mechanics.
If you go back you can see I specifically talk about the timer.
It adds an artificial layer of difficulty on top.
I’ve also made posts about the reward structure and how they could fix most problems people have by rewarding pushers better while simultaneously using other avenues of progress for people like me and the clown who only really do M+ if it has a nice mount.
Buffing heroic raid loot to better drop off into Mythic raid and unlocking Mythic for x server while simultaneously rewarding players for pushing 18s instead of just giving extra IO would be a win win for the entire playerbase.
It looked like they were toying with dungeon objectives in torghast and implemented some of that in delves. Maybe they could tie rating to best runs with x amount of objectives accomplished. Maybe not do mmr in the traditional sense but dungeon rankings of best runs, biggest pulls, fastest times, highest dps, whatever.
Never killed Kazzak on a PvP server before huh?
It’s fun proccing the 26th man lmao
Cool deal. Been hearing my warrior and tried some solo shuffle last night. Games with crafted pvp gear were fun until people realized how undergeared I was lol
You mean a World Boss which is not at all a PvP unit? I thought you were going to talk about the mechanics of Drek’thar or the faction leads, bland as they were they were at least PvP tagged.
Would these be tied to the group or the individual? Individual MMR in group contexts (for all games) always runs into problems where the goal of the group doesn’t align with the drivers of the MMR for the individual. But a group MMR isn’t particularly helpful if groups aren’t static.
I know you were just throwing out examples, but lets consider biggest pulls for a second. Do you not see how a conflict between group success and individual accomplishment is created by this metric? There are already disagreements in groups when just worried about whether a key will shoot to time it or focus just on completion. Can you imagine how much conflict would exist when 2 of your DPS want to go for the biggest pull ever in Nectroic Wake, while your tank is wanting to focus solely on doing reasonable pulls for the group that will still result in comfortably timing?
And then in order for an MMR system to function, scores have to rise with success and fall with failure. How would this work without punishing players for trying risky strategies? If my MMR could go down because I helped a buddy who just wants to get into M+, I’m likely to just not offer to help him at all.
Perhaps you are using MMR as a generic term for a number tied to some kind of outcome. But an actual MMR system would be a disaster for any PvE game mode, especially one that’s based around group play with the high likelihood of PUG groups.
AV has been a PvE map for 19 years.
Kazzak was special because he was an organization boss.
The boss himself wasn’t difficult, but every major raiding and PvP guild on both sides would want him. If 26 players engage Kazzak he starts wiping everybody, so the actual mechanic was to organize a second raid dedicated to securing the area via WPvP. I used to pull dive bomb levitates and proc his 26th debuff as it was the smartest way to override a second raid.
and raiding gets separate progression system right?
and world questing too?
what else?
Your examples make sense although I’m not trying to design a solution from scratch. Im just thinking out aloud, maybe Rating is better used term than mmr. Appreciate the response.
so tell me you got a participation trophy without telling me you got a participation trophy. Got it. People like you think that because we all pay the same 15 a month we should all get the same gear. WORK FOR IT and you can. I mean it’s not a hard concept unless you just want everything to be given to you on a platter, and then you’d still find something to complain about. If you can’t run M+ then the content and the rewards are OUT OF YOUR REACH. easy as that. Just like Mythic Gear is to me. I am not searching for it nor actively running 8 keys a week at 10 to get it, but I don’t think it should just be given to me because super sweaty chad got it from his hard work.
Ok boomer.
Most people who hate it dont do it…
Let me apologize if it made it seem like I was getting caught around the semantics of MMR versus not. That wasn’t my intention. Just MMR systems carry many characteristics in order for me to classify them as an MMR, and those characteristics wouldn’t work in an M+ context.
And I certainly understand if you’re just spit balling and might have some rough ideas. I don’t intend to shut that down. I just have significant concerns about the potential points of conflict if any alternative rating system were to be attempted. Any individual metric will immediately result in conflict due to team goals not aligning with that personal metric (such as if a warrior is planning to spell reflect a spell cast at them yet someone else interrupts the cast). Then there is also the concern of balancing opportunities for getting rating across specs with inconsistent toolkits (how do we reward a resto shaman for interrupts that would be fair to a disc priest that cannot take an interrupt even if they wanted?).
There might be some team-oriented metrics that we could consider, and I’m happy to engage in discussions on such metrics. But even then I worry that this would encourage teams to make plays specific to building up that rating rather than the play that increases their team’s chances to win. For example, Xal’atath’s Bargain is many times a complete non-affix if you have a disc priest because of the way disc priest gets its healing out; having players dispel themselves can be a waste of a global. I’m sure there are better examples we can find where group A has a more optimal strategy for handling a situation than group B, yet the rating system would likely award one group more points than the other.
As much as I would love for a system to properly capture how well teams played beyond just how long it took them to finish a dungeon, I am struggling to think of a metric that would adequately capture that data that wouldn’t be abused (either intentionally or unintentionally). There’s a reason many group-based games only use whether teams won, lost, or tied in their rating calculations. Even if players didn’t try to abuse the wrinkles in a more complex system, the complexities of the game mechanics themselves would result in some groups being punished for not playing a traditional way and other groups being overly rewarded for playing overly traditional, regardless which play style actually was more effective.
What is going on in here?
No absolutely man, it’s good to have constructive criticism and open dialogue. We all love this game and want it to get better. The competitive system definitely needs to encourage teamwork, that’s a great point.
Son of a boomer! But it’s okay little gen a we know you’re struggling to find the left vs right hand! keep up the good work though, we’re proud of you!
Heh, if this site wasn’t as broken as the game I’d switch my avatar so you can see what a twerp you are. You don’t even have your portals you hard working gen x. Lolol goofball. 
great m+ parses btw.