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

[ClassicPeon]

Instead what you get is that everybody wants 5+ years of work experience but nobody wants to take a chance on a fresh grad.

I've pugged 3 dps chars to +15's within the last 3 months(i fucking love m+). From my experience the only people who have issues finding m+ groups that they are geared for is people who expect to be taken to m+'s that are leagues beyond what they have done before.

Raider.IO is an experience monitor. It outs people with little experience and that makes them angry. Buying a m+15 doesnt mean you get invited into all the +15's you want. Which is actually a really positive system for the people who actually like progressing in m+ instead of just being carried.

[Wuusah]

Instead what you get is that everybody wants 5+ years of work experience but nobody wants to take a chance on a fresh grad.

If there are people with 5+ years of work experience applying for the job, then why not ask for people with 5+ years of work experience? Companies wouldn't have such high requirements if they couldn't fill the position with it, would they?

If people have too high requirements for their keys and don't invite you, then that's not out of spite against you. It's because more experienced players are also in that list right next to you. And if you really don't like how others make their groups, then make your own group with your own rules. Invite random people. Throw the dice, pick only off-meta chars, pick only low rio score players, pick only druids, pick only dwarfs. It's your group, it's your rules. Play your game how you want to play and stop complaining how others are playing their game. You are not entitled to a position in their group, just as nobody is entitled to a place in yours.

[Alroxas]

People who do not have the appropriate Rio rating complain about Rio being used to sort them out and calling people who decline them trash/elitist BUT AT THE SAME TIME they are crying because they cannot get into groups with the same people they call trash/elitist.

The hypocrisy in this one is thru the roof actually.

If someone can actually explain the thought proces behind this one I'll gift you 30 days gametime.

Quite simply, r.io has become a benchmark that if you don't have X score (let's say 1k+ at season 1 and 2k at season 4) then your chances at being picked in a PuG group dramatically decreases unless you're playing towards the meta.

So outside of a meta class and with a sub-standard score, you won't be readily accepted by others in PuG keys. And while yes, you can make your own groups (or play with friends/guildmates), this is not a convenient solution compared to the rest of the player base with necessary threshold score.

Additionally, I would add that getting to that threshold score becomes more difficult (in terms of time required) as the season progresses because players see the general increase of r.io scores after each week and would prefer to choose players with higher scores to play with.

Now let me very clear. I'm not saying that you should be force to pick a person with a lower score. Nor am I saying that lower r.io score players should be given special treatment. Instead I'm saying that the way the system is being used, it sidelines players who don't choose to run M+ consistently and frequently upon season start.

[ClassicPeon]

SNIP

All of this is quite literally just not true. You wont ever get acceptet by all the groups you apply to for a million different reasons. That doesnt mean you cant get into any groups at all.

The only reason you cant find groups at all is:

- You havent done a dungeon near the difficulty you are signing up for
- You dont have an appropriate ilvl

[scelero]

I did my IO up to 2.1k as a PUG holy pally. If I can do it, so can you. I did everything m0 first. Moved on to +5s. On to +10s next. Then from 10-15 it was done in smaller increments.

[Alroxas]

Whose the problem here?

It's really both. The group leader is trying to make a group with unrealistic requirements. I mean you want 2.5k+ r.io score for just a +8? GTFO that's stupid but I suppose if it's your key, you can be as zany as you want with your group requirements. But what happens when everybody (or when it feels like everyone) wants that as a requirement?

How can a player (with a low r.io score) get the experience they need at the +8/+9 level (they already finished all keys at +7 in time) if it seems like groups are looking for players with 2.5k+ scores for just a +8? And it's not really just that either, like another poster illustrated, if I've got a good key in group finder (decent dungeon with easy affixes) my applicant list fills up immediately and assuming all things equal, the community (me included) is more likely to pick a higher r.io person than a lower r.io person even if their gear ilv is the same.

Yeah I get that people will always pull up make your own groups or play with friends/guildmates/etc. But what if it's a specific dungeon you need and you don't have the key for it? For instance, let's say out of the 12 dungeons currently in BFA, you have all 11 of them done in time at the +15 level. The only one you need is now Waycrest Manor but your key is Workshop. How do you approach trying to get that WM +15 done in time?

[ClassicPeon]

It's really both. The group leader is trying to make a group with unrealistic requirements. I mean you want 2.5k+ r.io score for just a +8? GTFO that's stupid but I suppose if it's your key, you can be as zany as you want with your group requirements. But what happens when everybody (or when it feels like everyone) wants that as a requirement?

How can a player (with a low r.io score) get the experience they need at the +8/+9 level (they already finished all keys at +7 in time) if it seems like groups are looking for players with 2.5k+ scores for just a +8? And it's not really just that either, like another poster illustrated, if I've got a good key in group finder (decent dungeon with easy affixes) my applicant list fills up immediately and assuming all things equal, the community (me included) is more likely to pick a higher r.io person than a lower r.io person even if their gear ilv is the same.

Yeah I get that people will always pull up make your own groups or play with friends/guildmates/etc. But what if it's a specific dungeon you need and you don't have the key for it? For instance, let's say out of the 12 dungeons currently in BFA, you have all 11 of them done in time at the +15 level. The only one you need is now Waycrest Manor but your key is Workshop. How do you approach trying to get that WM +15 done in time?

If you have all 15's done in time except one and you have decent experience in lower levels of waycrest you can easily find a pug. Easily.

[Alroxas]

If people have too high requirements for their keys and don't invite you, then that's not out of spite against you. It's because more experienced players are also in that list right next to you. And if you really don't like how others make their groups, then make your own group with your own rules. Invite random people. Throw the dice, pick only off-meta chars, pick only low rio score players, pick only druids, pick only dwarfs. It's your group, it's your rules. Play your game how you want to play and stop complaining how others are playing their game. You are not entitled to a position in their group, just as nobody is entitled to a place in yours.

Glad to see you're missing the point. The problem community which dislikes r.io is concerned about is that r.io creates a increasing threshold that's a bar of entry that is off-putting towards new players (and even returning players).

Let's be clear, because people keep missing this point: I'm personally fine with r.io BUT for all the advantages of r.io, there are some problems and I'm trying to illustrate one of them.

I don't advocate for special treatment of lower r.io score players. Nor do I think they are "entitled" to a specific run. But you can't escape the problem that for new players with low scores, they will be passed on compared to other players with higher scores. Even if their low scores are appropriate for the low key they want to run, the fact that there are higher scores puts them at a disadvantage.

[ID811717]

Additionally, I would add that getting to that threshold score becomes more difficult (in terms of time required) as the season progresses because players see the general increase of r.io scores after each week and would prefer to choose players with higher scores to play with.

The gear improvements more than make up for it. Failing a low key becomes more and more harder.

[Alroxas]

I'm fine with a better system but people aren't proposing one. They want group leaders to take a chance with minimal or no information. Why is that good for the game?

No less information isn't good. But there is an alternative that some of us are proposing: Have a PvE rating score similar to how there is a PvP rating score. Base this PvE score based off performance, class/spec knowledge and dungeon experience. R.io has some elements of this but is still based off the team effort instead of the individual contribution. Like did the individual use interrupts? Did they use their class utility to help the group? Did that healer also pump out some serious DPS numbers? How often (if any) did the individual stand in fire?

[Wuusah]

glad to see you're missing the point. The problem community which dislikes r.io is concerned about is that r.io creates a increasing threshold that's a bar of entry that is off-putting towards new players (and even returning players).

Make. Your. Own. Group.

[ClassicPeon]

The problem community which dislikes r.io is concerned about is that r.io creates a increasing threshold that's a bar of entry that is off-putting towards new players

And this concern is founded in absolutely nothing but them being lazy

Edit:

The rating score you propose changes nothing for the people who are scared of RIO. Those peoples problem is that they dont have the experience but want to get boosted

[Garymorilix]

Quite simply, r.io has become a benchmark that if you don't have X score (let's say 1k+ at season 1 and 2k at season 4) then your chances at being picked in a PuG group dramatically decreases unless you're playing towards the meta.

So outside of a meta class and with a sub-standard score, you won't be readily accepted by others in PuG keys. And while yes, you can make your own groups (or play with friends/guildmates), this is not a convenient solution compared to the rest of the player base with necessary threshold score.

Additionally, I would add that getting to that threshold score becomes more difficult (in terms of time required) as the season progresses because players see the general increase of r.io scores after each week and would prefer to choose players with higher scores to play with.

Now let me very clear. I'm not saying that you should be force to pick a person with a lower score. Nor am I saying that lower r.io score players should be given special treatment. Instead I'm saying that the way the system is being used, it sidelines players who don't choose to run M+ consistently and frequently upon season start.

This is simply untrue.

You don't have to play with neither friends or a guild. All you have to do is make your own groups for a week and you will have that initial score you're looking for to PuG.
It is literally the most convenient way to increase your rio. I would even say you shouldn't even queue for other people's keys until you have at least X-1 dungeons done at +10 in time using your own, X being the current amount of dungeons in the game.

The fact that every. single. person. is omitting "making your own groups" as an option is beyond arrogant and stupid.

I can guarantee you that you will have more success making your own groups then otherwise. So just do that and stop complaining.

[Alroxas]

And this concern is founded in absolutely nothing but them being lazy

How so? Let's examine this:

Week 1: everybody's r.io score is 0, so if I'm a group leader outside of meta, I might pick what highest ilv?
Week 2: well according to another poster, he got 1k score by week 2, so let's say that average r.io for those doing M+ is 800. Now i'm slightly interested in folks with prior experience over those still at r.io score of 0, even for a low key.
Week X+: Group lead here with a +5 key, oh wow I got folks with 2k+ scores on their mains versus this toon with a r.io of 800, going with the 2k+ score person, they have "experience".

Sucks for that toon with r.io 800.

Now they might be lazy for not using their own key. Ok, sure but what if it's a bad key on a tough affix rotation? Like Sanguine in Waycrest Manor? Or maybe they really need a different dungeon (for score building or specific gear farming) so they are trying to branch out via PuG. Are they being lazy?

[Elbob]

No less information isn't good. But there is an alternative that some of us are proposing: Have a PvE rating score similar to how there is a PvP rating score. Base this PvE score based off performance, class/spec knowledge and dungeon experience. R.io has some elements of this but is still based off the team effort instead of the individual contribution. Like did the individual use interrupts? Did they use their class utility to help the group? Did that healer also pump out some serious DPS numbers? How often (if any) did the individual stand in fire?

and how do you expect that system to work without being abused? Did they use a single interrupt check yes/no? thats hardly helpful. Total interrupts used? So people who are holding interrupts for specific spells that are higher threats are punished and get less score than people who just kick anything and everything on cd?

Class utility can be harmful to groups if used wrong. Stunning at wrong times and DR'ing it or just using it on packs that don't need it. How would the system measure these performances?

Even healer dps is subjective to routes/strats/affixes/grp quality. The only easily measurable thing you listed was standing in avoidable things.

[Alroxas]

So just do that and stop complaining.

I feel like I have to repeat this every time. I have KSM. My r.io score is over 2k+.

On making your own groups: the problem still exists! Let's say I'm making my own group to go do a +15. Generally speaking, I want good experienced players that can handle a +15 and because of our reliance on r.io, I'll likely look at folks with similar r.io scores of 1.9k~2.1k. Which most people here would probably say "Yeah that's fair-ish".

But the problem is that by picking r.io threshold, I'm effectively weeding out everybody under 1.9k. Sure those sub 1.9k players did not have take the time to grind their score but that doesn't mean there aren't good players down there. And by picking somebody at or above that threshold score, that's one less chance for someone to build their score up to the threshold. Yes, I could be charitable and pick someone lower but let's be honest, we all want smooth runs preferably in time. Why take on more risk when you don't need to?


And lastly, I don't need to make my own group because I run in a guild who is active in M+ (and raiding). So I don't have the PuG problem but that doesn't mean I'm not sympathetic to their cause.

[Wuusah]

And lastly, I don't need to make my own group because I run in a guild who is active in M+ (and raiding). So I don't have the PuG problem but that doesn't mean I'm not sympathetic to their cause.

You don't have their problem. You don't understand their problem. You vastly overestimate their problem. You dramatize their problem. You make up a problem.

There is no problem. If so many people get constantly rejected from M+ groups then it shouldn't be an issue AT ALL to just start your own key and invite all the players that got rejected. Unless those rejected players don't want to join someone with a low rio score, while having a low rio score themselves. And that's not a problem either. That's just players who want a carry without paying for it. Why should anyone care about such a person?

[Alroxas]

and how do you expect that system to work without being abused? Did they use a single interrupt check yes/no? thats hardly helpful. Total interrupts used? So people who are holding interrupts for specific spells that are higher threats are punished and get less score than people who just kick anything and everything on cd?

First off, any systems can be abused including r.io. Second, IMO I'd probably take the route that DBM/LittleWigs takes to prioritize that should be kicked and what shouldn't be. The key is that if a player has an interrupt that they don't just sit on it completely. Yeah I've seen dungeon runs where a melee (which has shorter interrupts CDs than range) do ZERO interrupts the entire dungeon.

Class utility can be harmful to groups if used wrong. Stunning at wrong times and DR'ing it or just using it on packs that don't need it. How would the system measure these performances?

Maybe instead of looking as a negative, look at it as a positive reward. Like a higher score for using a stun at the right time to allow the tank to drop stacks of necrotic as an example.

Obviously a PvE rating would need to be comprehensive which is necessary if we want it to be a better system than r.io is.


I'm thinking of a potential approach is probably something akin to logging dungeons then submitting said logs to wowanalyzer for performance analysis which is then used to generate a score which is also combined with dungeon difficulty and time it took to complete dungeon. Except instead of the player doing this, it would be done automatically by Blizzard servers (so less outside/3rd party influence).

[ClassicPeon]

How so? Let's examine this:

Week 1: everybody's r.io score is 0, so if I'm a group leader outside of meta, I might pick what highest ilv?
Week 2: well according to another poster, he got 1k score by week 2, so let's say that average r.io for those doing M+ is 800. Now i'm slightly interested in folks with prior experience over those still at r.io score of 0, even for a low key.
Week X+: Group lead here with a +5 key, oh wow I got folks with 2k+ scores on their mains versus this toon with a r.io of 800, going with the 2k+ score person, they have "experience".

Sucks for that toon with r.io 800.

Now they might be lazy for not using their own key. Ok, sure but what if it's a bad key on a tough affix rotation? Like Sanguine in Waycrest Manor? Or maybe they really need a different dungeon (for score building or specific gear farming) so they are trying to branch out via PuG. Are they being lazy?

So... where is the problem here?

YOu think the person making the group should be forced to take the low elo person?

How does your system change nanything here?

As i said. You wont ever get invited to every group you sign up for - thats not a problem.

[Elbob]

First off, any systems can be abused including r.io. Second, IMO I'd probably take the route that DBM/LittleWigs takes to prioritize that should be kicked and what shouldn't be. The key is that if a player has an interrupt that they don't just sit on it completely. Yeah I've seen dungeon runs where a melee (which has shorter interrupts CDs than range) do ZERO interrupts the entire dungeon.



Maybe instead of looking as a negative, look at it as a positive reward. Like a higher score for using a stun at the right time to allow the tank to drop stacks of necrotic as an example.

Obviously a PvE rating would need to be comprehensive which is necessary if we want it to be a better system than r.io is.


I'm thinking of a potential approach is probably something akin to logging dungeons then submitting said logs to wowanalyzer for performance analysis which is then used to generate a score which is also combined with dungeon difficulty and time it took to complete dungeon. Except instead of the player doing this, it would be done automatically by Blizzard servers (so less outside/3rd party influence).

Are grps with warriors gonna value kicks just as strongly cause of spell reflect or do I get a less score cause I let casts go through cause my tank wants to reflect them? If so fuck bringing prot warriors they make my pve score look worse. Also different grps need different things kicked its often a communication thing with the healer. Then you end your first point it being a just a check yes/no if kicking at all? Which do you want? The system is INSANELY too complicated to try and implement it with having any real value.

How will the system know when the grp wanted the stun vs useless stuns?