All things being equal that’s true. You’re not considering that it would take development resources to implement. Consider the draught on class design and content it’d be tragic to spend resources producing a system nobody uses.
Most PuG can’t even clear Cata dungeons back in the day and they lashed at GC, asking said content to be nerfed.
Mythic+ Matchmaking should never be a thing.
1 Like
Lmao, big true
Thanks for the laugh 
This is essentially why I’m not sure why people are so averse to this idea. The automated system would be based on a numerical metric used to measure skill. People seem to assume this is going to be like LFD where you’re just paired with random people. Most people who have the score will be around the same skill level as you. You can communicate just as you would in any other group. The only thing this eliminates is the tedium of waiting for groups and being rejected even when you’re more than qualified to do a key. There are literally zero downsides to this other than not being able to cherry pick FOTM groups, which are just as prone to failing and wouldn’t even be removed from the game anyway. Nobody has presented a cogent argument against this idea but rather baseless speculation on how bad it will be.
Personally, I think that m+ should have to use the dungeon finder, but then I despise m+.
Semper Fi! 
1 Like
We’ve all seen enough high IO players who can’t interrupt and die to mechanics to know this isn’t the case a lot of the time.
And you’ve not presented anything but baseless speculation on how good it’ll be, when in reality it’s only advantage would be convenience if there were actually enough tanks and healers willing to queue, which is not very likely. You also ignore the big problem that this would result in nerfing m+ across the board, negatively impacting everyone but the lowest common denominator players who just want their guaranteed win like they always get in LFD/LFR.
1 Like
Uhh yes we do know if it will work or not, something similar was tried in cata with the dungeons being very hard on heroic alone. People HATED it, so it got nerfed and easy to run. Now add affixes on top of this and horrible affixes with random low DPS classes and you get failed keys non stop.
A person who purchases boosts to get into dungeons will be in the game regardless of whether he’s hand selected or chosen by an algorithm. You have somebody who cheesed the system in either case, so this is a null point unless you think you have some better way of screening out players who purchase carries than a computer does.
There is no requirement that this system will entail nerfs to any dungeons. This is baseless speculation. There is no evidence that tanks or healers will not use this system. This is baseless speculation. I do not claim that a matchmaking system will be ideal or solve the issues brought up in my original post, but it’s definitely worth a try.
The manual way would be to build relationships with folks with whom share like-minded goals and have similar time frames for play, essentially the same way the game had existed years ago. It does require effort and reaching out to create the friends list that one wants, but to assume that players shouldn’t or don’t friends list those players in randoms or manually-created instanced content is not holistic.
Because the players have the agency doesn’t mean they are willing to use it. I posit it’s more of the latter that is the issue, not the former.
If it’s an optional way to run m+, I don’t see an issue.
Players can still use the dungeon finder if they want.
It’s pretty easy to identify boosted toons if you look at the IO website. What criteria with the algorithm be using to eliminate carries that won’t get people in a twist about being gatekept by the system?
It’s based on every queued content in wow and how it’s been nerfed into oblivion. The precedent is absolutely there and there’s no reason to expect this wouldn’t be the same as everything else has.
Actual tanks and healers in every thread on the topic.
I disagree given that the inevitable outcome is going to significantly impact the system negatively for people who actually want the challenge.
If Blizz would commit to no nerfs, maybe. But they’ll never do it and they’re never stick to it if they did. What I would say would help and not harm would be adding a feature where you could list yourself as available so you wouldn’t need to watch LFG nonstop.
Ideally, there would be no need for PUGs, but the game never reached the harmonious social ideal that seemed to be a goal in the heady days of the early internet. I would say the game is far removed from that ethos today than it ever has been. Most people don’t even talk in groups and world chat is pretty much dead. There are still a good many players who play with friends–more power to them. Many others either get their socialization outside of the game or just prefer to PUG or don’t have the temperament for that sort of thing. They should still be able to enjoy themselves too.
The argument could be made that systems such as the one you’re proposing were the catalyst for the two quotes above. Whether or not that’s a good thing is subjective, and I don’t have a strong opinion - more avenues for play, I feel, is generally a good thing.
I do think it is intellectually amusing that one system is being concocted (the one proposed here) to overcome the issues that may have originated from the some of the first random matchmaking systems (sharding, LFG queues for heroic and normal, etc). But this is perhaps a microcosm in how we’ve seen technology allow us to be together without actually ‘being’ together.
WoW, for many, was one of the ‘first’ interactive, digital social mediums. A game with others without the arcade or living room. So it’s no surprise that it’s changed with the landscape.
The ability to detect fraud in the system is based on how Blizzard designs the new scoring system. If it’s possible to detect fraud with IO, then it should likewise be possible with the system Blizzard uses which could be extended to a matchmaking system.
A matchmaking system is not queued content in the sense you are thinking of it. Queued content like LFR and LFD by design have a low barrier for entry and hence the difficulty of that content is going to be considerably lower. A system that queues on the basis of a scoring system has no need for nerfs because the people queuing for that content have already demonstrated the skill necessary to be able to complete it. Most often even when hand selecting players for a key, you don’t know anything about them other than their iLevel and IO score. You don’t know whether they’re going to fail at mechanics or brick your key. I would say in most cases the players are probably going to be competent, especially at higher scores and higher keys. There seems to be this equation of queued content = randoms = bad. But the present system is really the same thing: You’re choosing people on the basis of a score and nothing else. Usually it works out, and it would be no different in an automated system.
Tanks and healers saying they won’t do it is entirely anecdotal. They say this now, but it hasn’t be tested in real time to see whether this is the case. If the system is well designed and saves time, there’s a good chance that it will be widely adopted.
To be true, this is no more anecdotal than the assertions made here:
Respectfully, the discussion here is good to have. It gets at some key points and helps others reading and participating identify their own expectations and share their own thoughts. I just don’t dig monoliths or paradigms, when the gameplay, at it’s best, is emergent from the organic building of teams and friends. Subjective, to be sure!
have we seen that? i’m not sure we have seen that
yes, and the more factors you include, the long the queues get. why is it better to spend 40 minutes in queue vs spending 40 minutes applying to groups? is it just the psychological thrill of knowing the filthy elitists can’t decline you?
3 Likes
I think most folks won’t make that distinction, and Blizz doesn’t have the stones to say the difficulty is what it is, you can do heroics if you need easier content.
Tanks and healers don’t need the time savings, they’re not waiting on groups. There’s really no benefit to them unless you add massive bribe bags. (And we’ve already got threads complaining that about tanks just running for the bribes, so I’m sure that’ll go over well)
First week of LFD M+
Player Base: There’s no tanks, there’s no healer. Blizz fix!
Player Base: Blizz X boss/dungeon is too hard. Blizz fix!
The general player who engage in m+ isn’t trying to hold back other players to engage in it. In fact we want people to do it as well. But we want them to do with properly where you actually learn the fight and learn your class which lets face it alot of LFD people are clueless.
Also we’re trying to also shows how blizz can make a mistake of allocating time to a really bad system where they can actually spend it somewhere else that’s needed.
2 Likes
Not only could the queues become more stratified, but how does the algorithm ‘round up?’ Who becomes the mathematical lowest-common-denominator* and an easy scapegoat for the group to point to if things progress sub par?
The difficulty is this system assumes there is a score to begin with. But if this system went live when the patch/season started, there would be plenty of 0 iO’s What if a season 1 800iO dps is paired with a season 1 1800iO healer? Would the 1800iO tank risk slowly increasing their iO with this system?
Additionally, we have this thread as evidence to suggest that if a two-player group was entering the M+ queue, and such a disparity existed that caused frustration for the other players, it wouldn’t be as fun. Imagine if, in that 2-person party, the party leader had 0 iO, but the tank they were queueing with - a friend - had 1400 iO. They get a +2 dungeon. The 1400 iO tank can solo the instance, and pulls very dramatically and causes the healer great stress. In this example, we’re back to an issue where there is a misalignment of expectations and skill, all perpetuated by an automated system.
Who is in the wrong here in this scenario?
There are a lot of potential unintentional consequences here.