Original Post — Direct link

I believe a big part that makes apex ranked feel unfair is that solo players are lumped together against three stacks. Ideally there would be separate queues for solo players and premade teams, but this would likely increase queue times (especially in higher ranks, where they are already pretty long)

So my solution is to have decreased entry costs for solo and duo players, for example, Master's new entry costs could be:

  • Full party: -60 RP
  • Duo: -55 RP
  • Solo: -50 RP

The amounts could be lower or higher and could be applied to all ranks, this would make ranked a bit more easier for solo players without having too big of an impact on queue times.

Thoughts?

External link →

I actually had this discussion a while back, among the many other reasons, I didn't want to punish players for playing with friends.

For the record, we already attempt to match Full parties against Full parties, so this suggestion wouldn't be validly apply 100% of the time...

Originally posted by Galatex

we don't want to punish stacks, we want to make solo q more fair

in dota 2 for example you get +30 mmr for a win as solo q(if you lose you get -30), in a party you get +20

I understand your desires here, this is way more complicated than what you are suggesting.

Originally posted by Kynexz

While I was climbing to Masters last split which I didnt do full squad for the first time, I got placed into obv full stack pred lobbies while having diamond randoms.

Why do you see it as punish players for playing with friends when this is a teamgame and playing with randoms makes it significantly harder over a coordinated team? It happens rly often where randoms cause u to die early on. Theres not rly a downside to a solo player losing less RP.

When you play with friends, your climb will be harder, because the entry cost will be higher. Why play with friends when I could play solo instead? (Lost aversion will kick in)

Originally posted by HairyFur

Could you not get a sample size of players and measure their average peformance soloqueueing vs in 3 stacks and with a duo, and use that data to adjust entry costs?

I have done that, and you are ignoring the point about punishing players for playing with friends...

Originally posted by linpawws

I hope my response makes sense here.. Do you think the Loss Aversion mentality would convince people who are comfortable playing in a 3 stack to ditch their teammates and play solo just so they have lower entry cost?

After all, even given the lower entry cost as a solo, it's still harder to get KP/ RP as a solo in the first place!

Tbh I'm down for any change to make solo q ranked more fair so I'm open to more ideas other than this. I just wanted to justify this idea cause I think it's a relatively fair change.

I think most people will read the change as 'it is better to play as solo' .

I was the person that pitched a variant of this proposal internally - "Solo players pays less entry cost", and was convinced pretty quickly this isn't the right solution after I deep dove into the problem... I convinced myself out of my own idea.

Aside from the "punish for playing with friends", this systems is 'conditionally' valid. It is only valid sometimes depending on the results of the matchmaking given queue population. To elaborate; If a game is matched fully with 3 stacks, everyone would be an equal footing, and it invalidates the need to increase the entry cost (and we already try to do this matching first);

I'm fairly certain there is no easy solution for this by adjusting RP.

Originally posted by linpawws

Alright I see what you're talking about. Now that I know you're putting in work to matchmake 3 stacks against 3 stacks I'm fine.

I have another idea I wanna run buy you. What if we added rank demotion BUT make it like Arena Ranked where you get ranked rewards based on the highest rank reached? So people wouldn't 'stop' playing as once they get to (P4, D4, Masters) they still get rewarded on reaching their highest rank. This is in reference to the comments under your most recent tweet.

I'm trying to accommodate players who just want to get ranked rewards (badge+trail) and the players who rightfully complain that hardstuck randoms play with 0 fear since they're aren't punished for making dumb plays.

That's a thread on reddit about that right now... Tldr; Demotions would be ineffective at addressing the reckless play behavior. Because: "If I've hit my peak, I can troll anyways anyways, since I've gotten my reward already." Demotions are good for other things, but Not for this one specific thing.

Originally posted by linpawws

Alright gotcha. Thanks for taking the time to explain to us. I don't envy your position as this is a really complicated issue but I hope you guys make some meaningful changes wherever you see fit.

I enjoyed the chat! Have a good day!

Originally posted by Nindzya

Curious how you reached this conclusion when the community at large has agreed that demotion would in fact be effective at addressing reckless play behavior.

If I've hit my peak, I can troll anyways anyways

Ok, but you're trolling in lobbies below your skill level where you can play recklessly to success and thus less likely to sabotage players trying to seriously climb the ladder.

League of Legends at like Season 2, had a system pretty much identical to what is suggested by the community; it enabled further gate keeping/inting until they had to change reward structures...

Originally posted by PalkiaOW

there is no easy solution for this by adjusting RP.

How about a performance bonus? Valorant already does that.

Just award players a bit of extra RP based on certain achievements after the match. This would give you a lot of control without all the nasty psychological side effects.

For example, solo queuers receive a bonus depending on how many other solo queuers were in the lobby. Kill leaders and players who wiped an entire squad by themselves also get a nice reward. And so on.

It would mostly be exploit-proof, and you'd even get a nice surprise reward conditioning effect on top.

"For example, solo queuers receive a bonus depending on how many other solo queuers were in the lobby. "

That is fundamentally the same thing as "solo queue pays less entry cost"

Originally posted by rspn_exgeniar

"For example, solo queuers receive a bonus depending on how many other solo queuers were in the lobby. "

That is fundamentally the same thing as "solo queue pays less entry cost"

Apex is a battle royal game. Systems and features from a 2 team Matchmaking / Ranking model (Ie. Valorant) don't transfer well to Apex. Two team games have binary results; either you won or you don't. So the stack ranking of 2 team is obvious. Stack ranking is less obvious in a battle royal game, so arguments like "[insert non battle royal game] uses this in their rank system, it should be applicable for Apex" usually falls flat immediately as we start to develop the "metric" of performance, and how many points I should give you.

What is then more difficult is that what we select as "metrics" must align with the goal of the game... and... that's its a rabbit hole.

Originally posted by PalkiaOW

That is fundamentally the same thing as "solo queue pays less entry cost"

The outcome is the same, but it fixes the "conditional validity" problem.

I also think you're overestimating the degree to which Loss Aversion would kick in. People would definitely realize that triple stacking is still more advantageous (and infinitely more fun) than solo queueing with a small consolation prize.

At the end of the day solo queuers will always make up a considerable chunk of the playerbase, but unlike other team games Apex doesn't really offer them anything, which probably is why you see so many "game xyz does that" type of suggestions.

Anyway, thanks for giving some insights. I get that it's a very complex issue, so it's good to know that Respawn has smart guys working on it.

people would definitely realize that triple stacking is still more advantageous (and infinitely more fun) than solo queueing with a small consolation prize.

They already do, why do you think Preps only 3 stack?

I am saying, designs that have elements that makes the player feels punished when playing with friends will be rejected per my design constraints.

Originally posted by PalkiaOW

They already do, why do you think Preps only 3 stack?

Because grinding with your homies is a lot more enjoyable than playing alone. No one's gonna deny their friends just to save a bit of RP.

People who triple stack now would still triple stack after those changes. And again, there are ways to make it feel less punishing.

I'm telling you... they know they are more likely to win as a 3 stack.

Originally posted by TheOpeningThread

Jesus f**king christ. These responses make me lose hope in the dev team. The number one reason people don't give a shit about supporting the game monetarily anymore is because of this. Day in and day out, your playerbase tries to f**king say to you "hey, this isn't fun to us. It's not an enjoyable experience. Please do this to change it, or here are some requests." and you all just refuse to do anything because your heads are so far up your ass you can't see sunlight. Everyone sees the base value of the game, and how it's technically and fundamentally good, but every day, more and more people are saying "you know what, I'm done spending money on this game." If they ever did in the first place. Stop implementing EOMM, and FIX the matchmaking so that solos stop getting paired with people far below or above their skill level. Give us solos like we have been ASKING for for two years. LISTEN to your playedbase. Even if you, for WHATEVER reason feel that YOUR thought process and design choice is sound, TRY different things. Stop treating your playerbase like shit. Stand up for the people that are passionate about this game. Stand up for your f**king selves and make decisions WITH AND FOR your fans, instead of decisions that suck the value, uniqueness, fun, and enjoyment out of your f**king game.






Recent Apex Legends Posts

about 12 hours ago - EA_Kent