Raider IO needs to go. It's just as bad for the community as Gearscore was in WOTLK

[Twdft]

With Rio people do anything they can to boost the score. Rio doesn't measure gear so the emphasis is on the run itself. If it's not going to time then people leave. Then the key is depleted. This is a worse result than healers rolling on dps trinkets.

This is a communication problem on your part. If you are OK with not timing a key you have to tell everyone. So people who are only in it for a timed run can leave before you start.

[crakerjack]

Yea, blizzard needs to get rid of IO or make their own variation of it. What you end up with is people refusing to invite people who are actually qualified for the content and waiting for someone who's overqualified to come along and carry them. I'm not judging the person for going that route because they just want to make sure their key is done in time, but players shouldn't have access to a system that fails to measure individual performance. IO fails miserably IMO because it fails to gauge individual performance, which honestly matters the most. It doesn't factor in interrupting, especially interrupting highest priority spells. It doesn't factor in dispelling, offhealing and worse of all, it doesn't even record your DPS/HPS.

It sucks because there's no other systems out there, so raider io is used as the gold standard when reality is, it's dog shit. It's not even remotely accurate at gauging how well a player plays. It literally does nothing but give you a score based on your team performance. An individual grade, based on a team performance. Fucking dog shit.

[Relapses]

Could you describe one pve match making system that has stopped you from forming your own group.

The way the dude described this system seemed to very heavily favor solo-queuing as apposed to making a premade. The whole idea is antithetical to the purpose of M+, however, so it's barely worth even addressing. The game needs more reasons to interact with one another, not fewer.

[Naville]

Yea, blizzard needs to get rid of IO or make their own variation of it. What you end up with is people refusing to invite people who are actually qualified for the content and waiting for someone who's overqualified to come along and carry them.

What would prevent players to do so if the information comes from an official Blizzard source? Such as people browsing armory of signed up players and only invite those who have timed +18s to their +15 run?

[munkeyinorbit]

pug is a random groups... i dont know the people...

A pug is not a random group. A pug is a group of players that are selected by the leader. A random group is people chosen at random to form a group. You may not know the people but a pug is not random.

[RuneDK]

People who think r.io is toxic fall into these categories:

1. they are bad, know they are bad and feel entitled to a carry from other players because that's how they always played their MMO previously. Just having fun with the boys in a dungeon group like in the good old times. Except that those boys are random players and the dungeon is on a timer and at a higher difficulty than they are used to.

2. they are bad but think they are good. The "ELO hell" argument. Other people are at fault, the system is at fault. Everyone and everything is at fault for their current situation, except they themselves. If it wasn't for r.io then they would get invited into so many more groups (and deplete their keys)...

3. no matter if they are good or bad, they simply don't understand what r.io is and instead of googling for an explanation they just make assumptions.

Ive gotten into groups of people with good R.io scores who were garbage players...and more often than not that has been the case for me...I hate r.io because it makes the community more toxic than it already was.

Is r.io good for finding players for pushing high keys...absolutely....but for anything under the weekly is an absolute joke.

[munkeyinorbit]

Again, this shows you have no idea what you're talking about.

Your queuing system is based on ilvl and ilvl holds no value compared to skill once you reach a certain level of challenge. 2 player can have ilvl 475 but be vastly different in terms of skill. Your logic is why players like you and player like me should never play together. You say you "smash" +10s from time to time.. well I don't want to be grouped with that. What you're laking for is just an excuses to be boosted by good players while being as lazy as possible. Because you are never going to be able to get into any good group unless you force your way in there by using some stupid auto queuing system. Even if there was an auto queuing system for M+, no good players would ever use it. We would still just make premade groups.

- - - Updated - - -



No one would use his stupid auto queuing system anyway. People can still make premade groups for all auto queuing content, so no one would use it for M+.

I would use the auto queue system. I think a lot of people would use it. Players actually serious about m+ wouldn't and that is fine. I'm not sure if the auto queue system presented in this thread is any good but if there was a queue system that was able to have a high completion rate then it would be popular. Whether a system like that is good for the game is not so clear.

[RuneDK]

Gearscore looked at gear, not at performance. They are two completely different systems.

r.io doesnt look at performance...its an assumption they know what they're doing because their score says so...I've been in plenty of awful groups who used r.io to find people....

as someone said, people aren't using it right....qualified people get the shaft because most people are just looking for overgeared players to get carried themselves....can it be useful...absolutely...if you're pushing really high keys...I would want to use the tool...anything under the weekly using it as a pre-requisite to get into the group is shit.

[Twdft]

r.io doesnt look at performance...its an assumption they know what they're doing because their score says so...I've been in plenty of awful groups who used r.io to find people....

as someone said, people aren't using it right....qualified people get the shaft because most people are just looking for overgeared players to get carried themselves....can it be useful...absolutely...if you're pushing really high keys...I would want to use the tool...anything under the weekly using it as a pre-requisite to get into the group is shit.

Let's assume you seek players for your key and do not use r.io: how do you find qualified people? (real question, r.io is not perfect but the best thing we have IMO. but I'm always interested in other ways to fill groups if you can think of a better)

[Djanco]

no. case in point being a level 11 key is objectively harder to complete not using io than a 19 using io to build a group

[Kaver]

I would use the auto queue system. I think a lot of people would use it. Players actually serious about m+ wouldn't and that is fine. I'm not sure if the auto queue system presented in this thread is any good but if there was a queue system that was able to have a high completion rate then it would be popular. Whether a system like that is good for the game is not so clear.

You might use it. But no player who is good at M+ would use it. We would always make a premade group. The goal of the guy who suggested the system is to force good player to play with bad players. But that is not going to happen. So an auto-queuing system for M+ based on ilvl would just end up as a shitshow of bad players getting into content they cant complete. Unless it follows a proper ranking system like CSGO or LoL, an auto-queuing system will never work.

[Tziva]

players shouldn't have access to a system that fails to measure individual performance. IO fails miserably IMO because it fails to gauge individual performance, which honestly matters the most. It doesn't factor in interrupting, especially interrupting highest priority spells. It doesn't factor in dispelling, offhealing and worse of all, it doesn't even record your DPS/HPS.

It sucks because there's no other systems out there, so raider io is used as the gold standard when reality is, it's dog shit. It's not even remotely accurate at gauging how well a player plays. It literally does nothing but give you a score based on your team performance. An individual grade, based on a team performance. Fucking dog shit.

It's not supposed to tell you how good someone is, it's supposed to tell you how experienced someone is. From that experience (particularly if they have multitudes of it), you might infer competency but it's not trying to rank individual skill level. It's silly to hold that against the tool when that isn't its intended purpose. That's like saying hammers are shit because they can't cut wood.

Yes, team performance isn't perfect and has drawbacks, and can be skewed by having both really good or really bad players in one's group, but of the available or even potential tools to use when building a group, one shows that a person has successfully completed that specific content a few dozen times in the last few months is a pretty good indicator of whether future runs will also be successful.

If someone really wants to look at individual performance, they can ask for parses which is probably the best possible available tool now, and certainly isn't mutually exclusive with raider.io. Even parses aren't perfect since they can also be manipulated to skew the results and also reflect whatever limited context they logged, but I can't really think of a something that measures and accurately individual performance in a meaningful way that doesn't have downsides like that. I don't know exactly what system you'd have in mind that you think could accurately judge such a thing, but I'm sure no one would object to something like that existing if it was possible.

You might use it. But no player who is good at M+ would use it. We would always make a premade group. The goal of the guy who suggested the system is to force good player to play with bad players. But that is not going to happen. So an auto-queuing system for M+ based on ilvl would just end up as a shitshow of bad players getting into content they cant complete. Unless it follows a proper ranking system like CSGO or LoL, an auto-queuing system will never work.

Honestly, I would probably use something like that for low level keys when gearing up alts because I'm lazy. I don't really give a fuck if people are not good in a +6. (fwiw, I don't have the raider.io addon and I never look people up for anything under a 15 when I'm making my own group anyway)

I'd never risk it on higher keys, but for baby stuff on alts, sure, whatever. PuGs at that level already don't do much auditing of who they invite aside from ilvl and role (nor really should they since its entry level content) so they already can be shitfiestas but since they're so easy it also doesn't really matter.

[Kaver]

TBH if you don't understand the argument you shouldn't come on in and start attacking others. Please actually read the thread and try again.

I understand the argument. The argument is stupid.

Rio shows your actual experience. It shows how many dungeons you have completed and at what level. It is an extremely good representation of your ability to complete dungeons in time.

Gearscore didn’t show anything about your experience. It was just a number.

Comparing the two is therefore extremely stupid. They are nothing alike. Just because you are unable to complete challenging content in the game doesn’t give you the right to pull us all down with you based an false statements like this thread.

[trapmaster]

Pretty sure blizzard will purposely break the raider IO addon just like gearscore addon if i remembered correctly.

[Fientelo]

Problems with the game is as follows;
Cross-realm end content, I know it sounds weird and while I want to disagree with removing it, I do see how it's damaging, thing is that people in their mind stop respecting the fellow players that they engage content with and therefor stop treating them as human beings, in smaller communities it's harder to make groups and often opens up for the skill range in groups.

Raider io and wowprogress it's quite obvious along with the statement already mentioned above, putting numbers on people is just bad health for the game period, anyone who can't see that, should start opening their eyes.

And also the lack of ruleset for mythic+ a warning should apply when starting a mythic+ keystone where people acknowledge to play the full duration minimum untill expired time. People leaving keystones is a massive and toxic issue in most cases, rulesets are needed to keep them in check, this whole "just invite people you know" is a silly thing to say, not everyone has this option and that should be respected to a higher degree.

[Tziva]

Pretty sure blizzard will purposely break the raider IO addon just like gearscore addon if i remembered correctly.

They broke gearscore because the volume of queries was impacting server performance, not because players in the community misused or overvalued it. Raider.io just uses their API to gather Blizzard already provides themselves publicly. In order to break it, they'd have to break a lot of other things and their armory and I don't see them doing that.

[arkanon]

Pretty sure blizzard will purposely break the raider IO addon just like gearscore addon if i remembered correctly.

Pretty sure you do not remember correctly.

[crakerjack]

What would prevent players to do so if the information comes from an official Blizzard source? Such as people browsing armory of signed up players and only invite those who have timed +18s to their +15 run?

I was thinking more along the lines of them having power with it. Like rewarding people with additional rewards if they aren't the first person to leave a key before the time has expired. Idk, more of my gripe is how raider io doesn't gauge a players efficiency and how well they play. Just takes the overall team score of the dungeon and factors in zero personal skill.

[Firebert]

So an auto-queuing system for M+ based on ilvl

Not item level, key level (in order to help stop boosting).

[Your Mommy]

I have always thought that RIO was more or less another version of GS.
The difference (and the reason it survived longer than GS) is that unlike GS, RIO measures "skill" instead of just "gear".
I personally do want it gone, but I also understand why it is essential to some people.