test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Official Feedback Thread: public vs. private queue item level requirements
rgutscheradev
Member, Cryptic Developer Posts: 188Cryptic Developer › Cryptic Developer
There's been a longstanding problem in Neverwinter with the accuracy of the requirements to get into various queues.
For example, if you're a newish level 70, and you hit item level 1600 (using the old item level numbers here, since I don't expect people are used to the new ones yet), you might decide to queue for a level 1600 dungeon like Lair of Lostmauth. But you probably wouldn't have a good experience -- if everyone else in your group has a similar item level, you might find the dungeon too hard to complete. If the others have a higher item level, they might be mad at you for holding the group back (if they are much higher than you, and they are feeling friendly, they might decide to carry you, but you can't count on that).
However, if we just raised the required item level for Lostmauth to 2000, players could legitimately complain that when they get a good group of 5 people together from their guild, they can absolutely do Lostmauth at an item level well below 2000. What a well-organized premade can do is wildly different from what is reasonable to expect from a group of random players (this is true in multiple ways: party role balance, overall skill, player coordination, willingness to tolerate frustration, etc.).
To solve this problem, we're looking into splitting the queue requirements between public and private queues. That way, an organized premade can run the dungeon and attempt to challenge themselves, but a queue of 5 randoms can still hope to have a good time even if they just meet the (public) required item level.
I have a preliminary set of numbers, and I'd love some feedback. Here's what I'm thinking of:
A few points:
* Players in a public queue should be able to have a good experience even if most or all of the people in the group just meet the public requirement. (It doesn't have to be super-easy, but it should be possible, even for a pug.) Nobody who joins a pug should need to feel bad because their TIL is too low -- if they meet the requirement, they should be legit.
* The private queue should be possible for a well-coordinated group that just meets the requirements. Challenging is fine, but totally impossible is not.
* Note the goal for the private queue is NOT to make it easier to set up situations where high-TIL people carry low TIL-people (although of course some amount of that will happen). It's to let people who want a challenge create one for themselves.
* You'll notice the difference of 1,000 between public and private. I picked that because 1,000 in the new system is about equal to 400 in the old system, and 400 was a common rule of thumb for how much extra TIL you needed to have in the lower queues. I'd be willing to raise or lower that 1,000 number, but I don't want to set it on a per-queue basis at this point. I'd rather find the best number overall and go with that for now.
* In general, I think the existing numbers on the higher item level queues were closer to accurate, so I "bumped up" the public requirements less for them. It was the 1600 and 2000 queues where you really could not hope to succeed if you just barely met the requirements.
What do people think? Are the above numbers a good balance between letting pre-mades do a tough dungeon, and pubs have a shot at success? Are there any places where the numbers should be higher or lower?
For example, if you're a newish level 70, and you hit item level 1600 (using the old item level numbers here, since I don't expect people are used to the new ones yet), you might decide to queue for a level 1600 dungeon like Lair of Lostmauth. But you probably wouldn't have a good experience -- if everyone else in your group has a similar item level, you might find the dungeon too hard to complete. If the others have a higher item level, they might be mad at you for holding the group back (if they are much higher than you, and they are feeling friendly, they might decide to carry you, but you can't count on that).
However, if we just raised the required item level for Lostmauth to 2000, players could legitimately complain that when they get a good group of 5 people together from their guild, they can absolutely do Lostmauth at an item level well below 2000. What a well-organized premade can do is wildly different from what is reasonable to expect from a group of random players (this is true in multiple ways: party role balance, overall skill, player coordination, willingness to tolerate frustration, etc.).
To solve this problem, we're looking into splitting the queue requirements between public and private queues. That way, an organized premade can run the dungeon and attempt to challenge themselves, but a queue of 5 randoms can still hope to have a good time even if they just meet the (public) required item level.
I have a preliminary set of numbers, and I'd love some feedback. Here's what I'm thinking of:
| Old | New | Private (Proposed) | Public (Proposed) |
| 1600 | 6600 | 6500 | 7500 |
| 1700 | 6800 | 6700 | 7700 |
| 2000 | 7600 | 7400 | 8400 |
| 2500 | 9000 | 8500 | 9500 |
| 2800 | 9800 | 9000 | 10000 |
| 3100 | 10600 | 9700 | 10700 |
| 3200 | 10600 | 9700 | 10700 |
A few points:
* Players in a public queue should be able to have a good experience even if most or all of the people in the group just meet the public requirement. (It doesn't have to be super-easy, but it should be possible, even for a pug.) Nobody who joins a pug should need to feel bad because their TIL is too low -- if they meet the requirement, they should be legit.
* The private queue should be possible for a well-coordinated group that just meets the requirements. Challenging is fine, but totally impossible is not.
* Note the goal for the private queue is NOT to make it easier to set up situations where high-TIL people carry low TIL-people (although of course some amount of that will happen). It's to let people who want a challenge create one for themselves.
* You'll notice the difference of 1,000 between public and private. I picked that because 1,000 in the new system is about equal to 400 in the old system, and 400 was a common rule of thumb for how much extra TIL you needed to have in the lower queues. I'd be willing to raise or lower that 1,000 number, but I don't want to set it on a per-queue basis at this point. I'd rather find the best number overall and go with that for now.
* In general, I think the existing numbers on the higher item level queues were closer to accurate, so I "bumped up" the public requirements less for them. It was the 1600 and 2000 queues where you really could not hope to succeed if you just barely met the requirements.
What do people think? Are the above numbers a good balance between letting pre-mades do a tough dungeon, and pubs have a shot at success? Are there any places where the numbers should be higher or lower?
1
Comments
I guess that questions hits at the core of: why do you have ilvl requirements at all?
For public queues, it's to give an indication of relative difficulty and to attempt to make pug parties successful (if perhaps challenging) to improve the gaming experience for strangers who meet in the dungeon.
But for private queues, I'm not sure those same objectives hold. The relative difficulty is communicated with the public ilvl requirement. Private parties choose their members (you even relax the class role restrictions in priv), so it's clear that the queue leader is responsible for putting together a "successful" party that will provide a good experience. It seems that the only purpose of ilvl restrictions in a private queue would be to restrict access to content for lower level players until they have progressed further in the game. But is that actually beneficial to the community? Again, is it actually harmful if I want to give a fresh 70 a leg up on seals and some elven gear?
I don't have a definitive answer to this myself, but I was curious about your thoughts (or the community's thoughts).
▁ ▂ ▄ ▅ ▆ ▇ █ Gankdalf The Icehole █ ▇ ▆ ▅ ▄ ▂ ▁
That dramatically changed my perspective on the matter.
Neverwinter Census 2017
All posts pending disapproval by Cecilia
Separating public and private is something that just seems flat-out better than what we have now. So it's not a hard sell for me internally -- nobody has to be convinced we should do something wildly different from what we are doing now.
Eliminating iLevel requirements entirely (even just for private queues) is a big change. I'd have to convince a lot of people. Odds are, it would be a lot of effort, and maybe in the end nothing would change at all. That would be sad.
Another way to say it is I'm trying to solve a very particular problem:
* It's bad for a player to see a queue has a requirement of 2000, join the queue, and then get yelled at by other players with much higher TIL (or to get totally crushed along with a bunch of other 2000 players).
Here is a problem I am totally not trying to solve:
* Neverwinter queues could be totally different in terms of how they do (or don't) require a certain item level to get in. Maybe some other method would be much better.
I'm all for speculation, but keep in mind what I am hoping for in this thread is feedback on the questions I asked. (I mention all this to improve my chances of getting that feedback, and also to limit expectations of what changes are going to come from it.)
That said, let me address the bigger picture, since you ask! I'd say (and keep in mind I wasn't here when the original queue decisions were made, so this is me looking at things after the fact) that the main purpose of the item level requirements is to give people enough guidance that they can have a good experience. Neverwinter (like most MMOs today) isn't meant to be a total toss-you-to-the-wolves, figure-it-out-by-dying experience. It's meant to be a little easier on players than that. So I think it makes sense that there's some guidance in terms of queue requirements, and if you meet the queue requirement, you should have a good chance to succeed in the queue.
Having someone drag you along as a way to advance rapidly is one of those opportunities that is hard (as a player) not to take advantage of if someone offers it, but doesn't necessarily make for a fun game in the long run. Most MMOs have some sort of limitations on this kind of thing. For example, most MMOs won't let you group a L70 and a L1, and have the L70 kill stuff and the L1 gets full credit and rockets to L70 in no time. Systems are put in deliberately to prevent that. That's because, in the long run, it's more fun to play the game and get the rewards than it is to just get the rewards handed to you. (Again, I understand that players will take any acceleration chances they can get -- I know I do in the games I play -- but that doesn't mean the game design should have lots of extreme accelerators.) I think the argument not to let a bunch of high TIL characters help a super-low TIL character get gear is pretty similar. A certain amount of "strong characters help the weak" is fine and fun and a part of every MMO (NW included). But too much and it gets tedious -- it feels like you're just being run through the game rather than really playing it yourself.
Note the changes we're talking about here actually do make it a bit easier for strong characters to help weak characters get gear. (Some people on the dev team have argued against the changes for that reason.) For me, that's a price worth paying because I really hate the idea that we tell you "this queue is ok for TIL 2000" and then the game smashes your face in if you queue with TIL 2000. The other alternative would be to just leave the system as-is, but flat out raise the queue requirements for the problem queues. I'm going to speculate that that solution would not be well received. :P
Anyway, for anyone reading this, speculate or not as you please, but please do give me some feedback on the original question!
P.S. Becky's point is an excellent one as well.
I'm going to use the current IL because it's easier to understand and for this reason I try to convert the numbers.
The concept underlines the fact that the difference of 1000 between public and private queue is enough to have a better balance.
From another point of view and using a simple proportion, you discover that for lostmouth:
Public 1600 : 6600 = x : 7500 -> The equivalent IL is ~1818
Private 1600 : 6600 = x : 6500 -> The equivalent IL ~ 1575
For a fresh 70, it's very easy and cheap to reach 2000: cheap ranks 7 + some blue items + cheap underdark pants and shirt + some cheap artifacts. I did it many times: bad build, but I overcome the gate to run T2s and be carried.
Different story for the end game contents.
Public 3100:10600 = x : 10700 -> 3129
Private 3100:10600 = x: 9700 -> 2836 (or even lower if we consider the table).
At higher IL the marginal cost of 1 IL point increase is higher than at low IL. 29 points (3100 - 3129) can be quite expensive in a context where the public queue for the end game contents is often empty. On the other hand the value of the private queue is very attractive: 2836 (or less) only. If we measure the cost of the gap (3129 - 2836= 293) , it is HUGE.
Imo this choice will def. kill the public queue for the end game contents.
I suggest to avoid the "flat 1000" rule and to consider the cost of the IL gap between public queue and private queue. That's not linear: the cost to go from 1600 to 2000, it's not like going from 2800 to 3100 and this fact will have a big impact imo.
PS: the old/new IL converter is not linear, but I assume the IL has a linear behavior in each range. Maybe not perfect, but enough for a preliminary assessment.
Oltreverso guild leader
Maga Othelma - DC | Svalvolo - SW | Dente Avvelenato- GWF
Regarding your original point, it's somewhat hard to gauge because we don't really know how ilvls will shake out for the rank and file (most of my characters already qualify for the top gates). I kind of suspect that with SH boons a majority of active players will get at least a small bump in ilvl.
With that in mind and caveats attached, your proposal comes off a bit restrictive on the low end (which I personally might not want) and perhaps a bit generous on the high end (which I think is less of an issue). If I were in charge, I would probably scale your number up from 1,000 to 1,100 or 1,200 by lowering the priv reqs. I think that would make T1s more friendly for fresher 70s without running too much into the issue Becky pointed out.
But I understand that I'm also biased towards making group content accessible early on for lvl 70s (says the guy who questioned even having a priv req)
And the next step would be: do we need a public/private queue system? why not a single q system with lower values for anyone? i.e. go back to the starting point. At the end it's the lower value that move the mass (opportunism), not the higher. Moreover the public q has stricter requirements because you're forced to go 3 dps+1 tank + 1 healer, which is not often optimal. Why should I go public q with higher IL requirements and stricter composition requirements, when I can ask to be carried (mixing up guild/alliance/lfg/friends...)? Ofc there are players who look for challenges occasionally and a random group is a good way to do it, I do it, but I don't think it's the most popular way to play. I suspect that the public queue would be a marginal option to do something different occasionally and only if I don't have to wait hours for a DC/tank, because they are all in private groups.
I love the public q when I play with my DC, I find a group immediately, but when I play with my SW it's a nightmare. I suggest to increase the quality of the reward if you go public: this can be an incentive. Higher requirements + stricter composition + random group + (in principle) more challenging = better reward (a rare artifact, a special version of a mount, etc). This could be the real end game.
Tricky.
Oltreverso guild leader
Maga Othelma - DC | Svalvolo - SW | Dente Avvelenato- GWF
There will be people who do not qualify for the public queue, but meet the requirements for a private queue. Most guilds are probably fine with "carrying" someone through a dungeon, but this change would mean an increased number of runs where one or more participants do not meet the "public" requirements.
There is a possibility that this will create a bit of "strain" within some guilds.
While a well-organized guild group (in particular one with voice communication) should generally not have problems, even if one or two participants barely meet the minimum requirements, such runs will take longer, and there is a higher risk of failure.
Can everybody handle that, or will some people feel like they are being "used" by their fellow guild members - basically pressured into carrying people constantly? Or, if players refuse to carry lower IL guild members, will those members feel left out? That's what I mean by "creating a strain" within the guild.
I am not worried about my own guild - I think we are sufficiently mature and helpful for this not to be a problem, but I can see that for some people I have known this might become a real issue.
Unfortunately, I do not have any suggestions for how to solve this issue other than "just grow up".....
I want to second the guild problem of @adinosii in terms of private queues though. It's really an interesting issue. On the one hand you can reason that private queue shouldn't have any requirements at all. If you compile a team, it's on you alone to get people in there can beat the dungeon. Most guild rules however work against private queues in the way that they enforce public queue rules within guild and alliance channels. No item levels, some even don't allow specific class requests, only roles (healer, tank, buffer, dps).
While I would agree that this is a problem that must be solved by guilds and players themselves, I'd like to have additional guidance in private queues as well. Most guild leaders (or the legit channel) blindly adopt the faulty queue requirements, which imho pushes players outside these chats into private channels. The proposed system even worsens the situation in high item level content, where private queues even have lower requirements than in the new system.
I know that this would kill "pugging" inside guild/alliance for me. In the end the dungeons in Neverwinter are farm content and carrying hardly necessary. The system should reflect that.
The next point is how to make the public queue more attractive to balance. Imo the higher IL level requirement for public queue- i.e. the higher probability to complete a dungeon succefully - is not enough to convince many players to select it. I can do the same setting up a premade and burning the dungeon in few minutes.
Paradoxically if a better reward for public queue is implemented, what you get is something new and strange. I understand that the idea has nothing to do with the intentions of the devs, but:
-With the private queue, the players can set up their teams as they like, mixing up classes, high and low IL players, lower IL requirement to access the content and so on: you get the ordinary rewards as we know them.
- The public queues make the contents harder by design: higher IL requirement, fixed composition, random players. So why don't they use these features to build a different reward system that pay for the effort as an incentive to give up the ordinary private queue? Furthermore the random group composition can partially solve the "cheese-this" problem because in principle you cannot premade, you cannot have 2 DCs or 1 DC + 1 GF + 1 OP.
I see this upside down. Public queue can be for end-game players, private queue to progress, but a good incentive is needed to convince the players to join a public queue voluntarily.
Finally I cannot estimate if such an idea is technically feasibile..or it's simply a stupid idea.
Oltreverso guild leader
Maga Othelma - DC | Svalvolo - SW | Dente Avvelenato- GWF
What would people think about the very simple solution of just leaving public = private, but raising the queue requirements on the low-level queues? Phrasing everything w/ the old numbers, it would look something like:
1600: +400
2000: +300
2500: +200
>2500: no change
I really don't want to leave a 1600 requirement on a queue when 1600 isn't enough for you to succeed!
I think that if you raise the low end like your most recent suggestion (especially the 1600 and 2000 req dungeons), you'll lock quite a few newer players out of content that they were able to get into before (admittedly potentially struggling). I'd posit that those people are far less likely to be forum dwellers / regulars. I worry that those people would feel blindsided and frustrated, but those voices will only be heard after the changes go live. They might also conflate the ilvl changes with the req adjustments and rage about how the updates took away access to content despite the assurances to the contrary (if they read the ilvl changes commentary).
Keeping the "private" requirements similar to what the requirements are now will help take the edge off, as people will be able to at least queue in a priv group, even if they lose access to the pub queue.
So my vote is to have the 2 sets of reqs, and set the priv reqs not too much higher than what the reqs are now. But I see that I am in the minority advocating for not raising requirements. XD
ty.
P.S. For me increasing the IL for that amount sounds about right to make it achievable.
I think it's a good point that players can't judge adjustments to queue requirements very well until they see how the changes to item level shake out. There are already players fearful they're not going to be able to queue for stuff or will get passed over in LFG due to their lack of beefy guild boons.
Although... Company gear is also going to shake things up. It's looking like anyone with a decent stock of guild marks is going to be able to snag better equipment for a fresh 70 than most of what can be laboriously farmed now. Sharpfab, I know that you do sometimes pug for a change of pace, but do you really think the majority of NW players have the skill and experience for this? (Or the courtesy.)
Neverwinter Census 2017
All posts pending disapproval by Cecilia
if they wipe they already know why.
if they succeed they will feel great.
i dont think this topic needs feedbacks...if i m not seeing something please point that out
But from that 2.2k, their effectiveness drops noticeably for every 100 pts you take off. A 1.6k player in 5 man content spends most of their time on their face, even in skirmishes like Thrones, and they often quit the run or are vote kicked.
I do feel the minimum IL req is at least 200 points (old system) too low for T1 and T2 content - T3 @ 3.1k I'm cool with because even if a player isn't 'fully geared' they have enough experience of the game to understand their class and their stats and should have enough juice to contribute.
On private queues I'm cool with them having the same requirements as public, very few teams of good players would want to strip their gear and do a 'fun run' in their shorts and I agree it would be more common to find low level players pressuring their guildies into carrying them through a run they cannot contribute to.
Edit: just to add, that with boons now contributing to IL, raising the IL cap for dungeons will encourage fresh 70's to focus on what they really should be doing - progressing their campaign boons.
Xael De Armadeon: DC
Xane De Armadeon: CW
Zen De Armadeon: OP
Zohar De Armadeon: TR
Chrion De Armadeon: SW
Gosti Big Belly: GWF
Barney McRustbucket: GF
Lt. Thackeray: HR
Lucius De Armadeon: BD
Member of Casual Dailies - XBox
Keep the default requirements for private/public queues the same, but add a "disable minimum requirements" option for the group leader. That way, for example a guild group that specifically wanted to carry a new member through a dungeon (to help him/her gear up) would be able to do so, but you would not have the issue of lower private requirements giving undergeared players a sense of "entitlement to being carried"?
To answer the OP's question: I like the idea of having separate requirements to run dungeons Public and Private. Maybe if someone can't fill a public queue because of their item level they will take the time to speak to their guild, ask for a party and maybe learn how to make a well balanced party for content instead of running head first into a meat grinder. Sounds good to me.
The other thing that would probably increase socially would be those same people who are 2k IL ish standing in PE spamming for 3k+ or 4K for Tier 1 dungeons. I usually laugh and say to myself, that person is an idiot because you really don't need that high of an item level to do those dungeons. You just have to know *How* to do the content. IE Bacon Strips of death at VT or MC. But if all they've ever done is Public queue and die at the boss they see these people with high item level finish the dungeon and think that's what they need when in reality it's fight mechanics that they haven't even seen.
--
I'll never retrace my steps.
Some of my best friends are Imaginary.
Are the above numbers a good balance between letting pre-mades do a tough dungeon, and pubs have a shot at success?
Yes, taking apart the las 3 queue values, read bellow.
Are there any places where the numbers should be higher or lower?
Yes public to normal svardborg, FBI, master svardborg and master spellplague caverns should be increased (the 10 000 and the 10 700). Why: considering that a 10k group or 10,7k group queues for this content, their chance of success will be very covered by items not fully considered in the IL changes, bondings, weapon enchant (armor too, but mostly weapon and companions that affect uncapped DR debuff), the thing is many players that go there don't have bondings, i speak this from experience, and the chance for these groups to fail is big, not just that but also the expected time to complete the dungeon will be far from the supposed. So, private queue is fine, if they have bonding runestones, a good WE and debuff companions even a 8k IL group can go there, public, no, it should be at least 12k for a good chance of success.
About lower IL dungeons, i wouldn't botter much about it, the chance of a much higher IL player to make part of the group is very, very high, while the more problematic are ECC and CN the values you changed above seem to be enough for those to be more successful.
― Clint Eastwood, Heartbreak Ridge
Guild Leader of Ardent Justice HQ: Always recruiting People not Pixels.
FOUNDER and OWNER of the SKT3K Channel: SKT Only Content 3k+. http://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/neverwinter/#/discussion/1228278/skt-content-for-the-non-elite-video-links-provided
I think your original proposal will have the added benefit of encouraging Premades which is AWESOME... it will semi-force people to be more interactive and work together and teach people how to paly the game.. instead of what mostly happens that people just randomly Queue for stuff and hope to god they get carried by super uber players... if you reward people for doing private queues you encourage them to be more mindful of and helpful to the people they choose to include in their runs. That's a win win win for noobs, old-timers, and devs.
I've spent 12 hours a day everyday for 3 years hoping for and trying to find or create ways for people to be more INTERactive in content and the ONLY problems I have making this happen is limited support from current game systems and most of all Old School players from olden times that still play NW and try to keep things the way that makes the game as super simple and easy that it always has been... even if that hurts new players and keeps the community as Toxic and Anti-Social as it always has been.
This proposal of yours GREATLY encourages me that the game IS headed in a more Social and Cooperative Gameplay direction.
― Clint Eastwood, Heartbreak Ridge
Guild Leader of Ardent Justice HQ: Always recruiting People not Pixels.
FOUNDER and OWNER of the SKT3K Channel: SKT Only Content 3k+. http://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/neverwinter/#/discussion/1228278/skt-content-for-the-non-elite-video-links-provided
Imagine that without min IL. 'We 'just' need 3 ppl to carry XY and Z, could you help out'. It will only take one hour. You could do this for a friend, guild mate, alliance member. Take your pick.
As you might imagine I really like your original proposal and ask that you don't give up on it yet.
(Un)Academic Field Work Foundry Campaign: NWS-DAPZB2CTZ
I still want it though...
a) Grants a maximum of flexibility to those that want to run dungeons on lower ilvl (or even fewer than the recommended party size)
b) Have a reasonable entry point for "pugs" to be able to beat the dungeon comfortably.
As mentioned public vs. private doesn't entirely do the trick because inside guilds and alliances members are forced to use public rules on their private queues. And unfortunately some guild leaders are rather ignorant when it comes to the official requirements, which now are finally given a boot it seems.
The best I could come up with was to switch from a required average item level to a total one, but that doesn't solve all issues as well. It however helps when you already have a potent party and want to get a lower item level in. The system would also take care of cases where a subpar group wants to enter a dungeon as they need some high item levels to meet the total threshold.
Giving Public queues better rewards wouldn't work. This would kill Private queues, because the current Public system still allows you to have a premade group, it just limits you to 3/1/1 party makeup.
Would an average or total GROUP Item level work, if it could be implemented? Where instead of each individual player needing a certain IL, the group total or average would need to reach a certain point? For a currently 1600IL dungeon, providing you're adding on that extra 400 to make sure it's possible, this would mean the total group IL would have to be 10000. This would also allow one 4000IL player or two 3000IL players to carry through a few <2000 players, if they wished. Keep the individual ILs for Public queues, to make sure everyone is capable, but make the Private queues Group IL, to allow more flexibility?
Note that I'm using the old numbers here. They'll be drastically different come Mod 11b.