The 100th "Make Mercing Optional" Thread

[Misun]

I despise these threads because the reasoning for them falls on encompassing a piece of logic regarding a system. All I see is ignorance when people ask for taking mercs away.

I want to admin PvP forums just to delete these threads =/

Vio for admin.

[Soul sky]

No. QQ moar

[Doorf]

The explanation has already been given.

This is not even remotely a rational explanation, and I have already read it. Just because someone is a dev does not make them infallible when making decisions on what is best for the community. Saying "no you cannot have something because I said so and here is a brief and vague basis for that" hardly qualifies as productive discussion. I will address his trite justification though: "Faction imbalance is a real issue, not an imagined one."

There are two possible meanings to this -

1) "Faction imbalance" refers to the number of people queuing for pvp on Guardian/Defiant. I think this is the most likely meaning for "faction imbalance" here since this is ostensibly what the merc system was put in place to combat. It seems that there are a lot more Defiant queuing for pvp than Guardians, so sending some Defiant to the other side balances the numbers out and allows for much faster queues. As I already stated in my original post, there is absolutely no way that allowing people to opt out of mercing can have a negative effect on this system unless there are more people that don't want to merc than there are Guardians + Defiants who want to merc. Again, if that is the case then you're allowing a system to be forced on people when the majority of them are not fine with it and that is really not a good way to run a community.

2) "Faction imbalance" means that Guardians are just much worse at pvp than Defiant, lose most warfront matches, and this system is attempting to make the sides more equal in terms of ability to win a match by putting some Defiant with Guardians. This reasoning is laughable on so many levels. First of all, if somehow most of the bad pvpers are ending up on one faction, we're really supposed to give them some sort of pvp aid because they're bad at something? Isn't the point of a competitive game to reward skill, not punish it? Anyway, that's still not the most logical basis for why this possible meaning still changes nothing. Instead, it should be the exact same as before: if enough people are fine with giving this help to Guardians in exchange for faster queue times, they wont opt out and everything continues as normal. If enough people aren't fine with it, then why are you making decisions which is unpopular with the majority of your players?

I'm not arguing that "faction imbalance," whatever it means, isn't a real thing. I'm just saying that there is absolutely no basis for why the decision to fix it can't be made by the players who are playing the game.

[Doorf]

This will probably end up being a double-post because for whatever reason I can't edit my last post again. Sorry about that, but it's right after my last post so it's not to artificially bump this thread but rather to address more responses.

I despise these threads because the reasoning for them falls on encompassing a piece of logic regarding a system. All I see is ignorance when people ask for taking mercs away.

I want to admin PvP forums just to delete these threads =/

I would absolutely love for you to tell me what is ignorant about my proposed question. Artificially constructed systems should be logical otherwise I'm not sure how you can justify their existence.

And to the people saying everything should be red vs blue: I'm fine with that idea, as I basically agreed with above. If pvp servers were removed or made free-for-all and then warfronts were done in such a way that everyone is mixed into the pool and then randomly divided into two colored teams, that would be perfectly fine. Now someone has responded as a realist and pointed out that completely reworking pvp servers would be a lot of work. Okay, that's fine too - creating an opt-out system wouldn't be and logically must lead to a better situation than we currently have, so if it's an issue of feasibility due to work, that should be the solution.

To everyone saying "yawn another one of these, close this thread!" I only believe that another one of these threads had to be created because I felt that the discussion on the subject had never been rationally concluded. The only dev response I had seen was the one I addressed above as being incomplete. As you can see in the first couple replies, someone actually proposed an alternate solution to mine which I thought was completely reasonable and I didn't continue arguing with him. I would hope that these forums are a place for people to reasonably discuss together the future of a game we all enjoy, not simply shout dissenting opinions away into oblivion.

[Eggs]

I don't have a problem with being merced, it gives me a chance of playing in wfs .

Fix'd.

~Eggggggggggggggggs

[aux]

This is not even remotely a rational explanation, and I have already read it. Just because someone is a dev does not make them infallible when making decisions on what is best for the community. Saying "no you cannot have something because I said so and here is a brief and vague basis for that" hardly qualifies as productive discussion. I will address his trite justification though: "Faction imbalance is a real issue, not an imagined one."

I remember when warfront queues were over an hour long. Right now they're a few minutes at the worst. Seems rational to me.

[Violacea]

I would absolutely love for you to tell me what is ignorant about my proposed question. Artificially constructed systems should be logical otherwise I'm not sure how you can justify their existence.

The thing is dude, this has been rehashed so many times. And, unfortunately, multiple times already I have literally written several paragraph, long drawn explanations filled with analogies and examples galore. I just don't have it in me to do that anymore in these threads. I must've done it 5 or more times, blew 20 minutes on a long winded post just explaining fundamentals of why it makes sense.

I'll make a short attempt. Just think of amusement park rides where there are two entry lines. There is a reason a guy at the front divides people up evenly and people don't just wildly choose which one they get on. In the depths of that analogy is basic fundamentals of why the merc system should stay and always will, and should have existed from the beginning.

It boils down to system efficiency. They are not going to back-peddle and reduce the efficiency of a system for an imaginary concept. There are places where video games imaginative aspects are great to run free. But as far as them having an impact on a methodical system like a queue system - no, there needs to be a line drawn and logical efficiency needs to be your go-to, not perpetuated imaginative aspects.

This discussion has been very rationally concluded. The fact you aren't even aware of any posts I've made on it shows you have little insight to where previous discussions like this have gone. Nobody remembers every detail, but this has been very rationally concluded. And I hate to say it but, I don't see why it isn't clear as day to people why it exists. But then again, I drive my car 20 miles away from my house and ask myself "why" many times. Part of life.

[Doorf]

I remember when warfront queues were over an hour long. Right now they're a few minutes at the worst. Seems rational to me.

You're completely ignoring everything I said (which tends to be how internet discussions go). If enough people are fine with mercing to have shorter queue times like you and some other people that have posted in this thread are, then giving some people who don't want to merc the ability to opt out will NOT have the impact of increasing queue times because there will always be enough. And it will be better for those who don't want to merc by not forcing them. Thus you still get a few minute queue times while having added benefit for some portion of players.

The only way you would lose your shorter queue times is if not enough people wanted to merc in order to maintain parity in numbers between [Guardians + mercs] and [Defiants]. However, again, if this was the case, that would actually mean the MAJORITY of players who pvp don't want to merc, and therefore still implementing it would basically be thumbing your nose at the majority of your target audience, which is also not rational. So no, it does NOT, in fact, seem rational in the regard that you put it.

@Violacea: I'm sorry that you don't consider this to be worth your time anymore. Obviously I wasn't here before so I can have no impact on how fruitful any previous discussions were. In fact, I spent hours searching the forums relating to this issue before posting, and I found no contributions any more substantive than the one you just made. Let me break down your response piece by piece:

The amusement park analogy - This fails at its conception because it is completely arbitrary and has little resemblance to the situation at hand. In the case of an amusement park ride, the experience is completely identical regardless of which line you're put into. In the case of of Warfronts, it is not. Factions were created in this game, along with pvp servers. These are all factors which dictate the experience. If pvp servers were changed or removed and everyone was put into one pool and randomly divided into two arbitrary teams, THEN the experience would be the same "regardless of which line" and your analogy would work. And I have conceded that this would be an acceptable resolution to the problem. However, without those additional changes, this analogy of yours has absolutely zero bearing on this discussion.

Regarding system efficiency - You're correct that the system would be less efficient with an opt-out system, to some degree. Again, it wouldn't change much in a practical sense because you'd still either have enough players on both sides of the equation to allow for quick matches or a system which is disliked by the majority of your player-base yet still forced on them (which is certainly a more important concern than system efficiency). So is a small decrease in system efficiency (which, again, still leaves a perfectly workable system) an acceptable cost in order to appease a not insignificant portion of the player-base? I would say so.

So ultimately, you're welcome to make as many vague or irrelevant points as you'd like, but that still does absolutely nothing to contradict the binary which I established in my premise.

[Eughe]

Just because someone is a dev does not make them infallible .

But it does mean that the topic is already done. Since we have been having this same ***** fest since inception.

Just because you brought out "new and exciting" old arguments does not change the fact that there isnt a single argument made thus far that has:
1) Swayed the masses
2) Swayed the devs
3) Hasnt been argued before.

So wtf is your point other than you feeling lofty enough to think your particular words are going to do anything or that anyone really owes you an explanation when one has been provided, several times.
Especially when your argument is speculation, when the the reason for the merc program was backed up by data.

[TedO]

"Factions" have already been deemed unneeded on PvE shards.....the reason they even exist on a PvP shard is so you have SOMEONE to PvP with in an owPvP environ, the merc system was a bandaid to address the disparity in faction population differences....if you're Queued for a WF, Merc is a stop gap measure to address queue times...even GW2 addressed factions by going server specific.....YOU are hung up on an old and dead concept...It is already essenatially Red vs Blue......just deal with it by queueing with someone you feel comfortable with....do you think I fight less hard if I see a Guild mate across the other side?...ask them and you'll know....

[TedO]

..as a solo queuer....If I ain't dyin'....I ain't tryin'.....

[Doorf]

But it does mean that the topic is already done. Since we have been having this same ***** fest since inception.

Just because you brought out "new and exciting" old arguments does not change the fact that there isnt a single argument made thus far that has:
1) Swayed the masses
2) Swayed the devs
3) Hasnt been argued before.

So wtf is your point other than you feeling lofty enough to think your particular words are going to do anything or that anyone really owes you an explanation when one has been provided, several times.
Especially when your argument is speculation, when the the reason for the merc program was backed up by data.

What data? I must confess, despite rather extensive searching I've found absolutely zero data. Furthermore, my argument would stand in the face of data proving either sort of "faction imbalance" as I've already addressed.

I'm sorry that you consider this an "old, tired" discussion, but I'm a f2p player who just joined recently, and I'm pretty sure the idea of making the game f2p was to attract more people. Are people who just joined the game within the past 2 months not entitled to an opinion about how the game is run? I wasn't able to be here for your apparently endless discussions on this topic, but I am here now and I am still certain, based on what I've seen presented, that there is still absolutely no rational basis for excluding an opt-out system or otherwise changing the current system to something different.

Look at this thread. These response, about 20 of them, are basically EXACTLY what you consider an actual argument in other threads. I began by establishing a logical premise for why something should be changed. I showed that there are two possibilities we can expect from the change, and either of them would be better than the current situation. Absolutely no one has actually been able to disprove that thus far. One person, at the very beginning of the thread, did propose an alternate solution which was perfectly reasonable, but is also not currently in the process of being implemented.

So yeah, clearly you guys have been able to chase your tails around countless threads before, but that does not somehow make the discussion closed. The only official response I have seen linked numerous times throughout these threads is the same one that was posted here and is truly incomplete. And you're right that my argument hasn't swayed the devs, but it's also been posted for less than 24 hours. I'm not making this thread to prove that I'm better at logic than 95% of people on this forum, I'm doing it in the hope that devs will take note and actually make a change for the positive in a game that I like. Just because one dev previously gave a curt reply in one thread hopefully does not mean that all the devs couldn't care less about addressing a serious concern for some players.

[Doorf]

"Factions" have already been deemed unneeded on PvE shards.....the reason they even exist on a PvP shard is so you have SOMEONE to PvP with in an owPvP environ, the merc system was a bandaid to address the disparity in faction population differences....if you're Queued for a WF, Merc is a stop gap measure to address queue times...even GW2 addressed factions by going server specific.....YOU are hung up on an old and dead concept...It is already essenatially Red vs Blue......just deal with it by queueing with someone you feel comfortable with....do you think I fight less hard if I see a Guild mate across the other side?...ask them and you'll know....

You're right that this is the most reasonable response. The problem is that it's also completely nonsensical from a PVP server point of view, which was addressed in the first couple comments. I move throughout the entire world being able to kill or be killed by Guardians, but now I hop into an instanced PVP area and suddenly I can't kill those same people, and now actually need to WORK WITH THEM?

If mercing was a stop gap measure, it should have been replaced by a permanent solution a while ago. If everyone should be able to queue together and it's just red vs blue, open world PVP should simply be removed, or as was stated in the beginning, made FFA. There's no problem with this game not having open world PVP. It's not for every game. But trying to shoehorn that into the game while still trying to use this system in order to address a serious concern is nonsensical.

[Eughe]

What data? I must confess, despite rather extensive searching I've found absolutely zero data.

Queue times.

I'm sorry that you consider this an "old, tired" discussion,

Dates on the topic + an already delivered conclusion makes this an old and tired discussion.

but I'm a f2p player who just joined recently

Yet has been around enough to not know that this would be the "100th 'Make Mercing Option' Thread"

Are people who just joined the game within the past 2 months not entitled to an opinion about how the game is run?

Coming to a game that has been established with features which has finally been 'accepted' (tolerated), and with an official response adamantly stating said feature is here to stay?

No.

I wasn't able to be here for your apparently endless discussions on this topic,

Yet you know they existed and judging by your title, knew that there were endless discussions on the topic.

but I am here now and I am still certain, based on what I've seen presented, that there is still absolutely no rational basis for excluding an opt-out system or otherwise changing the current system to something different.

Opinion, you have no data on whether or not it would. All the while, faction imbalance is still indeed prevalent (else you wouldnt be merc'd) not only as a whole, but at certain times of day, week and month. All of which, had their not be a merc system, or less people participating, matches would take much longer to start.

Look at this thread. These response, about 20 of them, are basically EXACTLY what you consider an actual argument in other threads. I began by establishing a logical premise for why something should be changed. I showed that there are two possibilities we can expect from the change, and either of them would be better than the current situation. Absolutely no one has actually been able to disprove that thus far. One person, at the very beginning of the thread, did propose an alternate solution which was perfectly reasonable, but is also not currently in the process of being implemented.

Because the topic has been done with. Thats why. And no actual argument showing that things would be the same or better has been presented, other than your feelings.

So yeah, clearly you guys have been able to chase your tails around countless threads before, but that does not somehow make the discussion closed.

Well, when the man in charge says the discussion is closed, it usually indicates that it is.

The only official response I have seen linked numerous times throughout these threads is the same one that was posted here and is truly incomplete.

Opinion and it wasnt the first time it was said. Im pretty sure there was an official letter talking about the subject as well.

And you're right that my argument hasn't swayed the devs, but it's also been posted for less than 24 hours. I'm not making this thread to prove that I'm better at logic than 95% of people on this forum,

Thats what making a topic with the same arguments on a subject that has been closed implies.

make a change for the positive in a game that I like.

Opinion. Wait times in all factions of life, being in game or irl, has never been positive

Just because one dev

Unless things have changed since last week, he is pretty much running the show.

previously gave a curt reply in one thread hopefully does not mean that all the devs couldn't care less about addressing a serious concern for some players.

When they answer to that one dev, they probably dont or have had the discussion before and agreed that it was best.

[TedO]

****in **** is tiresome..........