M 2 - 6 feels like Bronze in league

[sensei-]

The same way solo shuffle "fixed" Arena. It's not meant to be a replacement for manual queues, especially not at the high end - manual groups would still exist, and probably be the predominant mode for the highest M+ keys.

The target audience for a solo queue is not the people who already have M+ figured out, with stable groups and the ambition to go with it. The target audience is the vast bulk at the low to mid end, who get annoyed by waiting in queue and having their spec/class discriminated against because of meta selection in a bracket where "the meta" means jack shit.


There'd obviously be some kind of restrictive matchmaking in place so you don't get queued into a +10 with 550 ilvl and whatnot. A separate MMR M+ rating is also entirely feasible, though it's probably not impossible to just have one rating and use that. Which means you'd force people to climb in rating to queue for higher M+, meaning that the people you get have a certain level of gear and experience or the queue won't put them into your party.

Of course this is not a perfect system. Nothing is. Manually inviting someone with high ilvl and high M+ rating also doesn't guarantee they aren't an idiot. It's a trade-off you accept in exchange for ease of use, and you rely on the average experience being good enough.


Raiding is different because it's not repeatable at will (at least not for rewards). You can afford to be more selective because all you have to worry about is your one, single weekly clear. Waiting for an hour or two to have your one weekly group is acceptable - whereas waiting an hour or two for every M+ group when doing a dozen of them per week becomes a massively frustrating experience. And just as a point of fact: I think a matchmaking queue for normal/heroic raiding could work. It's just that it's much less needed for that kind of play and so the trade-off isn't particularly attractive. Whereas for something like M+ there is a lot more frustrating on the individual level that makes this exchange way more desirable.


Putting aside the problem that you seem to just want to be abrasive and obnoxious for no reason, those kinds of players are a massive chunk of the population. A matchmaking system isn't intended to "fix" something for people who aren't having problems - obviously. It's intended to fix it for people who do, because pointing a finger and them and going "lmao antisocial loser!" like you are doing isn't fixing anything. And I get that you, personally, quite evidently don't care about people - that's fine. But assume for a second that there exist people who can look beyond their own narrow personal horizon and actually have empathy for a larger community. Those people may think about how to make things better for people who aren't themselves.

If you are/were talking about an entirely new game mode, let's call it "Solo Rated Dungeons" because it has nothing to do with M+, of course it would need its own rating. You can't rank players in a mode like that based on their highest completed key levels. You need to have a real MMR system that takes into account who you played with and if you won or lost (depleted/quit) the key. You lose MMR every time you don't time the key and you lose even more if it's not completed at all. After your MMR climbs to a certain level the matchmaker starts to put you at a one higher key level. It would be a grind by necessity.

What you'll get is endless whines of people saying they get queued into comps with trash specs (even if things like utility and interrupts would be the same DPS never is) which kills their MMR, etc. At lower MMR's you'd also have leavers and AFKers on their alts taking matchmaker bans but killing their teammates MMR. The mode would need an extensive AI managed report system, which would still be abused LoL/Dota style with people calling everyone to report the first guy who wiped the group.

This mode would be completely isolated from the other ecosystems. While M+ is more flexible where for example raiders can just jump in with high item levels straight to a 10 for some vault gear in between their other activities, Solo Rated Dungeons would be its own separate game where you start from bottom and get key levels automatically as you go up and down in MMR. Rewards would come in due time and you wouldn't be able to get carried to crests or items because simply your team with players of similar MMR won't be able to time the key if you are slacking or sucking.

Frankly the game mode would justifiably shatter some illusions, because the same guys who are now stuck in 6's would still be stuck in 6's, because after the first couple of days the matchmaker won't find anyone with hands to put in a group with you (because good players climbed already) so the scrubs will be stuck there with no way to invite overgeared/rated friends or pay for carries. It could also have an absolutely reverse effect on the importance of meta specs, because logically you'll be able to climb MMR easier if you play a meta spec. This same effect is seen in MOBAS where you definitely want to play meta heroes every chance you get if you want to increase your MMR.

Regardless I wouldn't mind new game modes. Nothing is lost if more options are given so everyone can choose which carousel they like in the theme park.

[Relapses]

@Biomega -- Gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. I simply do not see a world where manual grouping can exist at the same time as an automated queue. One of the two will, by nature, always be better than the other and as a result, people will simply refuse to engage with the version that's worse. This is an all-or-nothing gambit, as I see it; which is why I'm concerned about how a version of M+ with a solo queue plays out. I personally feel Blizzard should focus their efforts improving the balance and quality of the current paradigm instead of chasing windmills with stuff like solo queue. That doesn't mean I'm satisfied or that I feel like Blizzard can do no wrong, just on a principle level I cannot see this playing out the way you seem to be convinced it will.

[Tech614]

And that's not what I said in any way. I said separate the scaling between the two. That would mean e.g. scale the unavoidable burst and rot damage much faster so it keeps challenging healers, while keeping the avoidable things more subdued. The important part is to just recognize that different sources of damage should not scale with the same coefficient by key level.

And guess what?

Healers will still complain.

[Biomega]

@Biomega -- Gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. I simply do not see a world where manual grouping can exist at the same time as an automated queue. One of the two will, by nature, always be better than the other and as a result, people will simply refuse to engage with the version that's worse.

Nonsense. It's no different than PUGing raids vs. doing a guild run, say. Or doing solo shuffle vs. premade 3v3 Arena. Things are not created equal across difficulties, and having more ways to do something does not mean people choose one or the other exclusively. That's not how it's worked in the past, that's not how it works currently, and there's zero reason to assume it'd work like that with such a system.

I personally feel Blizzard should focus their efforts improving the balance and quality of the current paradigm instead of chasing windmills with stuff like solo queue.

Ah, I see. You still, somehow, think that these two things are mutually exclusive. Either that or you've run out of counterarguments and are retreating back to a false dichotomy Fair enough.

- - - Updated - - -

If you are/were talking about an entirely new game mode, let's call it "Solo Rated Dungeons" because it has nothing to do with M+, of course it would need its own rating. You can't rank players in a mode like that based on their highest completed key levels. You need to have a real MMR system that takes into account who you played with and if you won or lost (depleted/quit) the key.

Not necessarily. MMR exists to match you with content here - not with players. As such, your rating doesn't need to be different, because its purpose is to reflect your performance against key levels. Completing a +10 key via group finder or completing it with a premade do not, inherently, need to be measured differently, because all that you want to measure with a rating is "how many keys did they complete and at what key level".

This system pseudo-exists already by virtue of how people select groups. All a group finder would do is automate that.

What you'll get is endless whines of people saying they get queued into comps with trash specs

That's kind of the point, really. The whole purpose is to cut down on meta discrimination - which is a perception problem, not a performance problem. The way you address the perception issue is by forcing people to confront reality instead of indulging their version of it; i.e. you make it more annoying for them to try and resist what they think are subpar groups than it would be to just suck it up and do the run.

That's the only way out of the hole, really. Because it's about perception and not about reality, changing the reality has little effect. You can make the performance gaps smaller - but people will still metagame based on perception, whether it's "required" or not. And in a way, you can't even blame them. If you're offered the choice between $90 and $100 you'll take the $100 every time. Even if all you want is to buy something for $50. And upping the $90 to $95 or even $99 still won't change that - people will pick the $100 even if they only "need" $50 or $80 or whatever. The only solution would be either to make everything $100 (which isn't feasible) or to not give them a choice.

And again, I emphasize: this system is meant for the low to mid end. It does not replace manual grouping. You want to do +14 keys or whatever the highest level is at the time? You don't need to use this system. Hand-craft your group. Nothing changes for you. If you're really, genuinely worried about performance - manual grouping exists for you.

However, historically people have demonstrated that they're above all lazy. People will think they need to still do manual groups to avoid "trash comps" at the +5 to +7 level, say. But they'll very quickly realize they don't actually. And then laziness takes over. And they value the convenience of automation. And then see that yes you can in fact clear a +7 in time with a BM hunter.

And it'll have its own problems, no question. It won't be the same. There'll be issues. Other issues. That's fine. No system will ever be perfect. But in the average, and in the aggregate, it'll make things a lot easier for a lot of people.

This mode would be completely isolated from the other ecosystems. While M+ is more flexible where for example raiders can just jump in with high item levels straight to a 10 for some vault gear in between their other activities, Solo Rated Dungeons would be its own separate game where you start from bottom

I've already addressed this in another post. It's a trivial problem to solve. One, you could just not have a requirement for premades - if you want to do a high key with 4 other people who think they're ready for it, by all means. Same as now. Two, you could gate the entry levels differently. My example was to have key levels 1-5 not require rating but only ilvl, and then use rating as a gating mechanism only once you go higher than that. And the range for that cutoff is obviously negotiable. Maybe it's 1-7. Maybe it changes as seasons progress. Whatever. There's no need for the system to treat a +2 identically to a +10 in terms of access. It's very easy to stagger things.

The biggest hurdle, really, is finding a robust penalty system that works against both leavers and griefers. That's going to require the most fiddling. But a lot of it will sort itself out over time with rating brackets - most people simply won't be able to progress enough if they're idiots. And those who can, well, there always exist some people. It's not like manual group-making guarantees you never get idiots. Far from it.

[Relapses]

Nonsense. It's no different than PUGing raids vs. doing a guild run, say. Or doing solo shuffle vs. premade 3v3 Arena. Things are not created equal across difficulties, and having more ways to do something does not mean people choose one or the other exclusively. That's not how it's worked in the past, that's not how it works currently, and there's zero reason to assume it'd work like that with such a system.

PvP had MMR prior to the introduction of a solo queue. IO is not MMR so it's an apples to oranges comparison. Would you want depletes to result in losing IO? How do you handle leavers? Would leaver penalties only apply to groups formed via the queue? How do you stop people from quiet quitting a key and griefing in an ambiguous way? (Ie, not interrupting or intentionally doing subpar DPS) These aren't things that will just work themselves out. People are fucking sociopaths and if you force players to stay in groups, you're inviting a whole new world of toxicity that doesn't currently exist.

Ah, I see. You still, somehow, think that these two things are mutually exclusive. Either that or you've run out of counterarguments and are retreating back to a false dichotomy Fair enough.

I'm not "retreating." I don't wish to continue an argument about something when it's clear your vision of how a solo queue for M+ could work is vastly different from my own. I don't think it's a bad idea, I just can't see it working the way you want it to work.

[sensei-]

I think there's a false premise in Biomega's argument, which is that Meta is simply a 'perception problem' and not a 'performance problem'. On surface level sure, one can make simplified arguments of a nutless monkey failing the healing checks in a +4 irregardless of the class he plays, but he still has more problems finding groups with his Druid than his Shaman. But I don't see anything wrong there. Players try to build the strongest possible group before spending a keystone, and the class choices are in the leader's control. He opts the path of least resistance by having the best classes with the best available (applied on the finder) players. Now, just because he sometimes finds out that some of the players (regardless of the rating and item level) are so bad that the run would have failed no matter what classes they had doesn't make his choices wrong. He controls the factors which he can and the rest is up to pure luck.

So the often complained side effect of this is that there are supposedly some awesome players playing Feral Druids and Arms Warriors who get passed over endlessly on the finder in favour of Mages and Death Knights. But again if there is a problem it is based on the false assumption that all of those meta specs are run by trash players which make their inclusion unfair over this fantastic Feral. However if that was the case the system would autocorrect itself by showing that meta comps fail more than offmeta comps and leaders would quickly use more definitive measures of vetting the players (only guys they know, etc.). We know this isn't the case.

Frankly I don't think a problem exists at all which couldn't be solved by 'better balance'. And at this point DPS is balanced so well that utility and survivability is the area that needs to be looked at.

[Biomega]

PvP had MMR prior to the introduction of a solo queue. IO is not MMR so it's an apples to oranges comparison. Would you want depletes to result in losing IO? How do you handle leavers? Would leaver penalties only apply to groups formed via the queue? How do you stop people from quiet quitting a key and griefing in an ambiguous way? (Ie, not interrupting or intentionally doing subpar DPS) These aren't things that will just work themselves out.

Not all of those things will work themselves out, to be sure. Some will, many won't. And I completely agree: finding robust solutions for leavers/griefers would be crucial. I do not believe that can't be done, though. You just have to be a bit more aggressive, and you have to accept that nothing will be a perfect solution. There's many precedents for being aggressive about pursuing griefers, in this game and others. If LoL can ban people for intentionally feeding and WoW can sanction people for sabotaging PvP, it can't be that hard to do this in PvE as well. And outright griefers aren't super common to begin with. Addressing leavers is much easier - simply add some kind of penalty that really stings and makes it more annoying to quit than to just finish a poor run. Part of the reason leaving is so easy in M+ right now is that it only really hurts the key holder - shifting that to the leavers will dramatically cut down on this behavior. Like idk, some kind of queue penalty until they complete a key or something, with escalating penalties if they keep doing it. Something that HURTS but that's trivial to avoid by simply sticking it out.

People are fucking sociopaths and if you force players to stay in groups, you're inviting a whole new world of toxicity that doesn't currently exist.

That depends on the definition of "forced". There's a line between forcing and enforcing. People are toxic maniacs because they can get away with it. You'll never get rid of all toxicity - that's never the goal. Only keeping it manageable. That's far from impossible.

I'm not "retreating." I don't wish to continue an argument

Ah. My bad. You're not giving up, you're choosing not to fight anymore. I apologize for getting that confused.

- - - Updated - - -

I think there's a false premise in Biomega's argument, which is that Meta is simply a 'perception problem' and not a 'performance problem'.

Let's clarify. It's mostly a perception problem at the low/mid key levels. At the high and especially the top levels, the meta exists in a very real way. However that's mostly not a problem, because at that level, not only are people skilled enough to always manifest a meta, but they are also used to doing whatever they have to in order to compete at a high level. That doesn't obviate the need for balancing, of course, but balancing around the very high end is rarely super fruitful.

On surface level sure, one can make simplified arguments of a nutless monkey failing the healing checks in a +4 irregardless of the class he plays, but he still has more problems finding groups with his Druid than his Shaman. But I don't see anything wrong there.

What's wrong is that this kind of exclusion is damaging to the community for no good reason. Because the differences - while real - are trivial at that level. No +4 key is going to fail because someone is a Druid instead of a Shaman and for no other reason. That is complete nonsense. But people are going to not invite the Druid anyway. And that pisses off a lot of people.

The only reason this kind of meta discrimination exists is because it can - because the group finder allows you to pick freely from an overabundance of applicants, allowing you to skip completely over anything not perceived as super meta whether that has any real impact on your run or not. And the only solution to that is to not give people the choice, because if you do then they can pick based on meta perception. The only other solution would be complete homogenization which is neither feasible nor desirable.

Players try to build the strongest possible group before spending a keystone, and the class choices are in the leader's control.

Because the system allows that. It doesn't have to. At least not at the low/mid levels. That's my entire point. There's concerns that go beyond that kind of choice - very similar to what happened in the past with say heroic dungeons and the dungeon finder tool. You trade off choice for other things, and that's fine because choice doesn't really matter much at the levels such a system would be designed for.

This is purely a trade-off situation. You take away some capacity for choice in return for more equity in the community. And you make that optional - so in the end, people will in fact choose not to have a choice because it's more convenient. At least at the low/mid levels. At the high end they can still make the same choices in the same way as always. No change. Unless they want to. So for them it's more choice, not less.

So the often complained side effect of this is that there are supposedly some awesome players playing Feral Druids and Arms Warriors who get passed over endlessly on the finder in favour of Mages and Death Knights.

That's not my argument. My argument is there's plenty of totally average dorks who get a more annoying M+ experience for no good reason because it's not about their performance making or breaking anything, it's just people being spoiled for choice with FOTM classes. The "super awesome" players compete at a different level, and they know to accept certain things with their choices. That kind of acceptance comes with a skill requirement, though - at the lower ends of the skill curve, people don't accept, they just get pissed off.

But again if there is a problem it is based on the false assumption that all of those meta specs are run by trash players

I never in any way made that assumption. I don't care about individual skill levels. Only about the average and the aggregate. There'll be great meta players and trash meta players, great off-meta players and trash off-meta players. There's always great and trash players. My point is purely that at the low/mid level, meta comps don't actually matter for your key success. But pissing off tons of people who never had any real ambitions and just want to blast some M+ does, in fact, matter. At the high end, again, nothing really changes. Those players know how to sort themselves out. It's part of the reason they are high-end players. They don't really need a ton of help beyond what they'd normally be getting (balancing and whatnot). For them, nothing changes.

Frankly I don't think a problem exists at all which couldn't be solved by 'better balance'.

Better balance always needs to happen. This is not intended to replace balance. In any way. However there are limits to how far balance can realistically go, and there's differentials between the way balance manifests across the skill curve and the way that skill and key level curves progress upward. Certain parts of the spectrum need more help than others.

[Relapses]

Not all of those things will work themselves out, to be sure. Some will, many won't. And I completely agree: finding robust solutions for leavers/griefers would be crucial. I do not believe that can't be done, though. You just have to be a bit more aggressive, and you have to accept that nothing will be a perfect solution. There's many precedents for being aggressive about pursuing griefers, in this game and others. If LoL can ban people for intentionally feeding and WoW can sanction people for sabotaging PvP, it can't be that hard to do this in PvE as well. And outright griefers aren't super common to begin with. Addressing leavers is much easier - simply add some kind of penalty that really stings and makes it more annoying to quit than to just finish a poor run. Part of the reason leaving is so easy in M+ right now is that it only really hurts the key holder - shifting that to the leavers will dramatically cut down on this behavior. Like idk, some kind of queue penalty until they complete a key or something, with escalating penalties if they keep doing it. Something that HURTS but that's trivial to avoid by simply sticking it out.

Why does there need to be a leaver penalty? You're saying you want players to still have the option to manually queue and if players know that queues have leaver penalties and manual queues don't, they're going to choose the latter every time.

Also, the punishment for griefers in League works because it's pretty obvious when somebody is "running it down mid." This is less obvious in a game mode like M+ where missing an interrupt can cost you a key. How is Blizzard to differentiate between players who are intentionally making a key experience worse and those who are just having a bad day? Moreover, if the keys bricked but the keyholder wants to finish, what's to stop the rest of the group from holding the group ransom to avoid a leaver penalty? How do manual groups who are trying to push WF keys leave? Do we now have to introduce an "abandon key" surrender option? And if so, what's to stop people from spamming the surrender key button 20 times through a dungeon that they no longer want to complete?

There's really only one way I see to fix all of these issues and I mentioned it before: Homogenization. If all classes are relatively equal and able to perform at roughly the same level then it becomes pretty easy to tell when players are griefing.

That depends on the definition of "forced". There's a line between forcing and enforcing. People are toxic maniacs because they can get away with it. You'll never get rid of all toxicity - that's never the goal. Only keeping it manageable. That's far from impossible.

It's manageable now. Your suggestion would require Blizzard to make case-by-case determinations of griefing.

Ah. My bad. You're not giving up, you're choosing not to fight anymore. I apologize for getting that confused.

You're rebuffing with rather open ended, vague answers that show you really aren't thinking this through. I'm trying to be polite but you're making it difficult.

[Biomega]

Why does there need to be a leaver penalty? You're saying you want players to still have the option to manually queue and if players know that queues have leaver penalties and manual queues don't, they're going to choose the latter every time.

No, they won't. For the simple reason of convenience. People are lazy. They'll accept penalties if it means less work for them.

Disrespecting other people's time is one of the gravest sins in multiplayer games. Absolutely there should be penalties for that.

Also, the punishment for griefers in League works because it's pretty obvious when somebody is "running it down mid." This is less obvious in a game mode like M+ where missing an interrupt can cost you a key. How is Blizzard to differentiate between players who are intentionally making a key experience worse and those who are just having a bad day?

Messing up isn't griefing. And I'm fine with this being an imperfect system. You can accept the occasional troll getting away with it. Outright griefing is rare, and often egregious. That's easy to tell apart from incompetence.

Moreover, if the keys bricked but the keyholder wants to finish, what's to stop the rest of the group from holding the group ransom to avoid a leaver penalty?

Honestly, I'd do away with the key system as such in the first place. With a matchmaking system you don't need actual keys. Just some kind of level selection interface. People have been saying far and wide that the key system feels bad, irrespective of matchmaking. Just get rid of it.

And if people grief a key because they don't want a leaver penalty - report them. It's much harder than people think to plausibly hide griefing. Party members will be vocal in chat. They'll call out specific behaviors. And so on. Ban them for 3 days for griefing, something like that. That's quite frankly overdue anyway, way too many people get away with way too much shit.

Again: the system doesn't have to be perfect. No system is. There'll always be toxicity. There's toxicity now. That's just a reality, it doesn't have to be perfectly solved.

How do manual groups who are trying to push WF keys leave?

Any number of possible options. You could have the party leader re-queue. You could manually exit the dungeon and push reset dungeons (see above for getting rid of the key system entirely). That's a super specific situation that doesn't really require super elaborate solutions - the people for whom this is relevant can just go through some kind of manual actions that don't really impact low/mid key levels mechanically like some kind of abandonment vote (which I agree would probably be abused).

There's also a good argument to be made to slightly revise the reward structure. Like making a missed timer simply result in no rating, but still giving full gear, say. Making it more attractive for people to stick around and finish a key rather than instantly bailing, because at the levels this is most relevant for, people actually want the gear. And it's also the levels where leaving is the most prevalent.

There's really only one way I see to fix all of these issues and I mentioned it before: Homogenization.

That would fix things, but it's not a realistic solution. It's a purely hypothetical one - and in fact it's a great argument for a matchmaking system rather than against one, because if that is the alternative solution then hooo boooi you better get on board with the other one instead. Complete homogenization and perfect balance is a theoretical fantasy, not a feasible or practically implementable reality.

It's manageable now. Your suggestion would require Blizzard to make case-by-case determinations of griefing.

It's a matter of degrees, of course. Of course things work right now. That doesn't mean they can't work better. People frequently complain about the various problems in M+ especially around the low/mid key levels. Hence why someone made this very thread, say. There's obviously some things that could do with improvement.

And I fundamentally don't think that having to sanction griefers is a bad thing. WoW could do with stricter behavioral interventions in general. Communities adjust around that - yeah they're all toxic psychos, but they know where the lines are. They'll go as far as they think they can get away with. Slightly tightening those lines will make them adjust eventually. It'll never outright go away, of course - but it can be reduced.

You're rebuffing with rather open ended, vague answers that show you really aren't thinking this through. I'm trying to be polite but you're making it difficult.

Because this is a concept. Not everything is figured out. That doesn't mean it can't be figured out. Some things also just need testing. The whole notion of "you don't have a specific answer for everything therefore the entire idea doesn't work" is patently absurd on its face. I've given plenty of specific, concrete answers and examples and explained the underlying structural issues in great detail.

You've gone "I can see this doesn't work in two seconds flat" and when asked for details replied with "oh sorry I choose not to continue this argument". And I'm not even offended by that. This isn't my first rodeo. I argue things for a living. There's no move I haven't seen a thousand times over a decade and a half or so of debates. I'm just being snarky to convey - in a fun and biting manner - the fact that I cannot be flimflammed with excuses or misdirections.

[sensei-]

Not all of those things will work themselves out, to be sure. Some will, many won't. And I completely agree: finding robust solutions for leavers/griefers would be crucial. I do not believe that can't be done, though. You just have to be a bit more aggressive, and you have to accept that nothing will be a perfect solution. There's many precedents for being aggressive about pursuing griefers, in this game and others. If LoL can ban people for intentionally feeding and WoW can sanction people for sabotaging PvP, it can't be that hard to do this in PvE as well. And outright griefers aren't super common to begin with. Addressing leavers is much easier - simply add some kind of penalty that really stings and makes it more annoying to quit than to just finish a poor run. Part of the reason leaving is so easy in M+ right now is that it only really hurts the key holder - shifting that to the leavers will dramatically cut down on this behavior. Like idk, some kind of queue penalty until they complete a key or something, with escalating penalties if they keep doing it. Something that HURTS but that's trivial to avoid by simply sticking it out.


That depends on the definition of "forced". There's a line between forcing and enforcing. People are toxic maniacs because they can get away with it. You'll never get rid of all toxicity - that's never the goal. Only keeping it manageable. That's far from impossible.


Ah. My bad. You're not giving up, you're choosing not to fight anymore. I apologize for getting that confused.

- - - Updated - - -


Let's clarify. It's mostly a perception problem at the low/mid key levels. At the high and especially the top levels, the meta exists in a very real way. However that's mostly not a problem, because at that level, not only are people skilled enough to always manifest a meta, but they are also used to doing whatever they have to in order to compete at a high level. That doesn't obviate the need for balancing, of course, but balancing around the very high end is rarely super fruitful.


What's wrong is that this kind of exclusion is damaging to the community for no good reason. Because the differences - while real - are trivial at that level. No +4 key is going to fail because someone is a Druid instead of a Shaman and for no other reason. That is complete nonsense. But people are going to not invite the Druid anyway. And that pisses off a lot of people.

The only reason this kind of meta discrimination exists is because it can - because the group finder allows you to pick freely from an overabundance of applicants, allowing you to skip completely over anything not perceived as super meta whether that has any real impact on your run or not. And the only solution to that is to not give people the choice, because if you do then they can pick based on meta perception. The only other solution would be complete homogenization which is neither feasible nor desirable.


Because the system allows that. It doesn't have to. At least not at the low/mid levels. That's my entire point. There's concerns that go beyond that kind of choice - very similar to what happened in the past with say heroic dungeons and the dungeon finder tool. You trade off choice for other things, and that's fine because choice doesn't really matter much at the levels such a system would be designed for.

This is purely a trade-off situation. You take away some capacity for choice in return for more equity in the community. And you make that optional - so in the end, people will in fact choose not to have a choice because it's more convenient. At least at the low/mid levels. At the high end they can still make the same choices in the same way as always. No change. Unless they want to. So for them it's more choice, not less.


That's not my argument. My argument is there's plenty of totally average dorks who get a more annoying M+ experience for no good reason because it's not about their performance making or breaking anything, it's just people being spoiled for choice with FOTM classes. The "super awesome" players compete at a different level, and they know to accept certain things with their choices. That kind of acceptance comes with a skill requirement, though - at the lower ends of the skill curve, people don't accept, they just get pissed off.


I never in any way made that assumption. I don't care about individual skill levels. Only about the average and the aggregate. There'll be great meta players and trash meta players, great off-meta players and trash off-meta players. There's always great and trash players. My point is purely that at the low/mid level, meta comps don't actually matter for your key success. But pissing off tons of people who never had any real ambitions and just want to blast some M+ does, in fact, matter. At the high end, again, nothing really changes. Those players know how to sort themselves out. It's part of the reason they are high-end players. They don't really need a ton of help beyond what they'd normally be getting (balancing and whatnot). For them, nothing changes.


Better balance always needs to happen. This is not intended to replace balance. In any way. However there are limits to how far balance can realistically go, and there's differentials between the way balance manifests across the skill curve and the way that skill and key level curves progress upward. Certain parts of the spectrum need more help than others.

I think your post mostly makes sense but I can't help but wonder how you can feel so strongly about taking away choice from a keyholder? It's his key and he suffers the most if it's depleted. You yell from your pedestal that players suffer because the keyholder chooses to wait a little longer and tries to invite a) meta specs b) people who have proof of already mastering this key level or higher c) people who overgear this key level. He does all those things to guarantee his key as large of a chance of success as possible. You say he shouldn't be able to. Well that's a steaming pile of poop you stepped into. When your argument boils down to that people shouldn't be able to choose who they want to play with you have to re-evaluate your position. This is still somewhat of an MMO where dynamic groups are formed for dungeons and raids and where gamers make friends and organize steady teams. Trying to make all types of group content solo content is a strange goal to have, when in fact what you could also do is what Blizzard has done and simply create new solo content for those who prefer it (Delves, Mage Tower, etc).

And as always, everyone gets a key, and everyone can push their own keys. People will join. And surprise surprise, the totally average Feral Druid who got tired of declines and starts to create his own keys will also wait a little and attempt to invite overgeared meta specs with high ratings as his buddies.

[Kehego]

"take away choice from group leads so i can get easy groups" is fun when you aren't the group lead, i guess

[Biomega]

I think your post mostly makes sense but I can't help but wonder how you can feel so strongly about taking away choice from a keyholder?

Because choice qua choice has no meaning. Choice has meaning in relation to goals and results only. In the abstract "more choice is better" is not universally true. We constrict choices IRL all the time for very good reasons. Because curtailing choice for some people is often better for a lot of other people.

This isn't about wanting to take away choices. It's about accepting less choice in exchange for more and better participation.

It's his key and he suffers the most if it's depleted.

As I noted in another response, I think the key system is outdated anyway and should be replaced with a simple key level selection baked into the UI. The whole notion of depleted keys and whatnot is a remnant from the beginning of the system that they should have done away with long ago. Irrespective of whether matchmaking exists, people have been complaining about the key system left and right for years. Just get rid of it.

The goal should be to make things like M+ easily accessible and convenient to use. None of that faffing about with keys and whatnot. In 2024? Please.

This is still somewhat of an MMO where dynamic groups are formed for dungeons and raids and where gamers make friends and organize steady teams.

And nothing is stopping that. In fact you could argue that a system like this encourages that by expanding the reach of M+ in general. But even if it doesn't - not a big deal. The trend has been going towards automated ad-hoc gameplay for a long time. People are fine with incidental socializing, but the more work that is the less interested they are. Even D4 realized that they could only introduce forced multiplayer content if it came with some kind of group-finding tool.

There'll still be room for fixed groups and nothing stops people from doing premades - you can still run with your guild or whatever. Except that it'll be more convenient for when you only have 3 people online but want to do a run and can just hop in the queue real quick without needing to constantly monitor applications etc. Those people who want fixed groups can still do them. Those who do not want to engage in social engineering can just leave that to automation. Win-Win.

This fantasy of making new friends and forming lasting relationships through the group finder is nice and all, and it does happen; but that's no reason not to have it be more convenient for the 99% of people who don't meet their soulmate in a +15 Freehold and never want to.

Trying to make all types of group content solo content is a strange goal to have

The only strange thing here is calling matchmaking "solo content". Accept that there's people for whom the social engineering aspect of a multiplayer game isn't particularly compelling. They just want to play. And that's a lot, lot, LOT of people who feel that way. Which is why almost any modern game does some kind of automated matchmaking rather than just going "here you are then, find some friends on your own, good luck!".

And surprise surprise, the totally average Feral Druid who got tired of declines and starts to create his own keys will also wait a little and attempt to invite overgeared meta specs with high ratings as his buddies.

Yeah, well, I guess I simply think that the best solution to discrimination isn't to go and practice it yourself. Might just be me, I suppose. That's possible.

[Eapoe]

But again: it's not like manual M+ groups are any better. So worst case it takes as long as it does now. But as I said, historically ease of use has increased participation which tends to reduce queue times.


That's a fairly trivial problem to solve, though. Especially given, as I said, that at the true high end, you'd always do premades anyway. And even so: I do not believe that having 2 adequately geared/experienced BM hunters makes a +9 key impossible. That's a gross exaggeration.


Okay, and? You say that like it's a bad thing.

Do keep in mind that this is PvE - you race against a static difficulty: that of your key. Your rating is a representation against key difficulty - not against other players, like it is in PvP. It measures different things. If you keep smashing high keys, that means you're good enough for those keys; the more you smash them the more accurately that is reflected through your rating. You can't really "cheat" by farming keys to "inflate" your rating - not unless you get carried, but that's always a possibility in any form of content so it's moot as an argument.


PvE and PvP don't exactly work the same, but I'm entirely fine with not allowing kicks or coming up with a different penalty system.

And keep in mind this is a concept. I don't have definitive answers for every question. Many ideas would need to be tested. That doesn't mean there are no answers. It'd be idiotic to go "oh you can't give me a specific, precise answer to XYZ immediately? CLEARLY THIS IDEA DOESN'T WORK, THEN". Which I'm sure wasn't what you were implying anyway.


In exchange for faster and more equitable groups. That's the point. Obviously no solution is perfect - you trade solutions to old problems for new problems. You simply hope that the average comes out ahead. And as you can see from, oh, idk, this very thread here, say, those problems absolutely exist - primarily at the low to mid levels. Which is what such a system would be designed to address. It would not be designed to facilitate high-level play. That simply remains as-is.


If people want to do high-end keys with matchmaking, they can. With all that entails. If they're geared and skilled enough, I'm sure that'll happen just fine, too. High-end players tend to not have too much trouble with M+ PUGs as it is. They tend to figure things out and get along. But do keep in mind that the goals are different in PvP and PvE - most people don't do super high keys for gear. They do them to push. Same with rating: it's tied to key level, so you can't just "farm" rating at the high end. You have to push for it. Which at some point requires premades. Anyone interested in the goals of high M+ will simply keep doing what they're doing right now. Nothing changes for them. Unless they want it to, in which case cool, more options - never a bad thing. You're not taking away anything they can currently do.


I'm sure there's easy solutions to that, like I mentioned - you could just open all keys from 1-5 based purely on ilvl, say. Or something like that, to facilitate easy entry. And then tighten requirements with rating cutoffs the higher you go. It doesn't have to work the exact same on +2 and +10.

And it's not like this is substantially different now, anyway. You don't do one +2 key and then somehow get invited into a +7. People are being major snobs about rating. You have to push them all, gradually, to get invited into groups. Don't pretend like somehow this would be some massive grind that doesn't exist right now. And of course always remember: if you want to play like you do now and get friends to carry you or whatever, there's no reason that shouldn't still work. If you want to get 5 people together and fly to the dungeon - by all means. Same as always.

Once you get IO and some gear, depending on your spec, you can get into a m+ group thru the system relatively quickly. That will never be the case for a queue system, and in an extreme case could (potentially) have the opposite effect for a solo queue system as people start to have gaps in scoring.

Have you run with a BM Hunter? They’re lucky if they do more damage than tanks in most pulls. Having 2 show up in a 9/10, during Fort weeks, is going to be trouble.
As I also stated, there are people doing Solo Shuffle and Blitz and doing just as well, if not better, than organized players. To say that a solo m+ queue wouldn’t be utilized by them is delusional.

The questions I posed have been brought up over numerous threads about similar topics. I was hoping that maybe we would start seeing solutions that would work.

If people want faster and more equitable groups they can simply use their own keys. They even have their own agency of who to get grouped with. Yes, I understand social anxiety and emotional hang ups exist (not implying those are the same thing or I wouldn’t have separated them), but a random queue that can take dps anywhere from 10-40 minutes is much longer than being able to just fill your own.

That’s just a big assumption on your part. If a ladder/scoring system becomes available, it’s a little ignorant to think people won’t explore it. You say it wouldn’t happen, but I can easily see people climbing an IO ladder and getting grouped with other players to push higher keys.

Okay, but again, you’re stating that you believe there are easy solutions, while not really having them. (We’ll come back at the end).
It is different from now though. If I play a tank, with decent gear, I could jump into a 2-5, and my next key could end up a 7 with the same group. Or better yet, do my own keys and jump 2-3 levels each one. I’m also not restricted by what key I sign up for. If I time a 7 Mists as my first or 2nd key, I have a (possibly) better chance of getting into a 7 key of a different dungeon. Playing something “meta” increases that chance even more. Going by the question I posed, it is a much longer grind to get taken care of.

So, back the the solutions, the problem is this: people are stating that putting something in game are acting like it’s a great fix to a problem. I’m not opposed to new, better ways to play the game; however, when issues arise while under scrutiny that don’t already have a solution, or have a way to fix them, it’s not always a great fix. Just an idea of a fix.

[Biomega]

Once you get IO and some gear, depending on your spec, you can get into a m+ group thru the system relatively quickly. That will never be the case for a queue system

Why not?

Or do you mean, get into an M+ group for a key you vastly outgear? That is a very different statement.

And I agree - it's probably faster to get into a +5 key with +10 rating/ilvl than it would be to queue for a +10 key with +10 rating/ilvl. It may also be easier to get into certain keys if you are a top meta spec - but only then.

The entire idea behind a system like this is more equity. That means some people at the top lose out in order to get the average person down in the middle/low end up to par. That's how it works. If you're at the very top of the food chain, certainly I could see things getting worse for you - however that's a trade-off for all the [I]other/I] people for whom things are now better. If you don't want to make that kind of trade-off, I understand; but I don't sympathize.

Have you run with a BM Hunter? They’re lucky if they do more damage than tanks in most pulls. Having 2 show up in a 9/10, during Fort weeks, is going to be trouble.

Then if anything that's an argument for better balance. But regardless, I stand by the principle: outside of the top end of keys, group comp will never be what makes or breaks a key. There comes a point where comp is important - once you reach that point, you can just go back to doing manual groups, same as now. So nothing changes for people in that respect. But in the brackets where comp doesn't matter, a lot changes for those people. That's... the point.

To say that a solo m+ queue wouldn’t be utilized by them is delusional.

I've said repeatedly that I'm fine with them doing that if they want to, however there comes a point where you want to switch over. There's a point like that in PvP, too - it's just somewhere else. And PvP works slightly differently because the rating there is measured against other people, not key levels. You are in competition with people so you are incentivized to grind as they grind - it's an arms race. That isn't really the case in M+. Keys don't grind against you. Rating is a measure how well you stack up against static difficulty - not how well you stack up against variable people. There is no incentive to grind rating because it's not gated by number of runs - it's gated by success. Once you have every key on +14, say, you can't gain rating unless you go to +15. You can't simply keep grinding +14 for more rating in any meaningful way. At some point even gear becomes meaningless as a reward - you grind for the prestige of having beaten the highest keys. Which requires a level of coordination you can't find through automation.

There's a different ceiling in these systems that you run against.

If people want faster and more equitable groups they can simply use their own keys.

Yes. They can find their own guilds, all that. The problem is that's not convenient, and in the face of too much inconvenience, people don't bother.

That's what matchmaking does: convenience. That's the whole point. It's never about it being literally impossible to find groups; it's about it being annoying and inconvenient. Which is why telling people "well just do more work!" doesn't solve the problem, because that's... more inconvenience.

Things rarely run into the wall of impossibility - it's almost always a matter of convenience and practicability (and cost, if you go more broadly).

That’s just a big assumption on your part. If a ladder/scoring system becomes available, it’s a little ignorant to think people won’t explore it. You say it wouldn’t happen, but I can easily see people climbing an IO ladder and getting grouped with other players to push higher keys.

I'm not sure what that's in reference to. Nothing about the top end would change. At the low/mid end, people can push all they like, but that's not really a competition in any real sense - it's just regular progression. The competition only happens at the top end. And at some point you won't be able to do keys with randos, you'll need prep and practice and coordination at a level that requires a premade in order to compete. Just as it does now. And nothing would change about that at all. If people want to try and do it with randos - by all means. That option exists right now, too. You can just invite random people and try to rank on R.IO if you so wish. You'll never beat the coordinated premades, though. And people happily accept that.

Okay, but again, you’re stating that you believe there are easy solutions, while not really having them.

No. I'm saying there's no reason to think there are no solutions. That's not the same as saying everything has an "easy" solution. Some things will take time and testing to figure out. I'll happily admit I don't have perfect answers for everything (and I've already done so many times in this thread). That doesn't mean those answers don't exist. And I've given plenty of answers and examples for other things, in great detail. And in most cases I've at least given a tentative answer of some kind rather than just going "magical faerie dust will fix it, believe you me!".

It is different from now though. If I play a tank, with decent gear, I could jump into a 2-5, and my next key could end up a 7 with the same group. Or better yet, do my own keys and jump 2-3 levels each one. I’m also not restricted by what key I sign up for. If I time a 7 Mists as my first or 2nd key, I have a (possibly) better chance of getting into a 7 key of a different dungeon. Playing something “meta” increases that chance even more. Going by the question I posed, it is a much longer grind to get taken care of.

In return for more equity. Though I think you'll admit that your 2->7 example is a bit far-fetched and exceptional in any event. 5->7 is much more reasonable, and I see no problem with allowing something like that. It may be more of a grind overall, it may not be. It depends on how you look at it, and for whom.

So, back the the solutions, the problem is this: people are stating that putting something in game are acting like it’s a great fix to a problem.

I've repeatedly said it's not some magic fix, it's a specific shift of problems in a way that's more equitable. Don't pretend I've ever suggested this would somehow lead to magical M+ rainbow land.

[sensei-]

Because choice qua choice has no meaning. Choice has meaning in relation to goals and results only. In the abstract "more choice is better" is not universally true. We constrict choices IRL all the time for very good reasons. Because curtailing choice for some people is often better for a lot of other people.

This isn't about wanting to take away choices. It's about accepting less choice in exchange for more and better participation.

This is where you're rambling. There can't be a much more pertinent and important choice in an MMO than choosing who you want to play with. The choice of M+ teammates is related to goals and results. The goal is to time the key and since there's always uncertainty with strangers the goal is to time it with the highest degree of certainty possible. Your ramblings about more choice not always being better has actually nothing to do with this discussion. We're not talking about the party leader choosing his teammates based on the colour of their hair or sexual orientation. We're looking at DPS, utility and previous experience in this particular game here.

As I noted in another response, I think the key system is outdated anyway and should be replaced with a simple key level selection baked into the UI. The whole notion of depleted keys and whatnot is a remnant from the beginning of the system that they should have done away with long ago. Irrespective of whether matchmaking exists, people have been complaining about the key system left and right for years. Just get rid of it.

The goal should be to make things like M+ easily accessible and convenient to use. None of that faffing about with keys and whatnot. In 2024? Please.

Outdated or just working well enough to not change it? You aren't the judge of that so please have some objectivity to your posts instead of just trying to state your opinions as matters of fact. There's a reason behind every feature of the key system. Some of those can and probably are looked at by Blizzard every expansion. Keys exist so that there's variety and players don't climb by spamming the easiest dungeon exclusively. Keys get depleted because Blizzard wants more cost to failure than the time spent. Currently this season M+ is probably at its most hardcore state ever. Excellent groups can wipe just once to a mechanic basically as hard as those existing in mythic raids and it will result in key not being timed anymore. Casuals are stuck at not being able to upgrade their heroic raid (delve) gear. There's probably a reason why they wanted it like this but I'm sure the pendulum will swing again and S2 will be completely casual friendly compared to now.

And nothing is stopping that. In fact you could argue that a system like this encourages that by expanding the reach of M+ in general. But even if it doesn't - not a big deal. The trend has been going towards automated ad-hoc gameplay for a long time. People are fine with incidental socializing, but the more work that is the less interested they are. Even D4 realized that they could only introduce forced multiplayer content if it came with some kind of group-finding tool.

There'll still be room for fixed groups and nothing stops people from doing premades - you can still run with your guild or whatever. Except that it'll be more convenient for when you only have 3 people online but want to do a run and can just hop in the queue real quick without needing to constantly monitor applications etc. Those people who want fixed groups can still do them. Those who do not want to engage in social engineering can just leave that to automation. Win-Win.

First of all the trend has been to create content for soloists, casuals, time constrained players and antisocials, but it doesn't mean that every form of social party generation has to be abolished. Blizzard has a careful balance here. On the other hand the feedback from Classic always was that it feels better to create your groups yourself and that the 'finder' killed the MMO aspect of WoW and made it a lobby game with teleports. D4 isn't the subject of this discussion but I'll just comment that talking about D4 and multiplayer in the same sentence is nonsensical, as in D4 the groups (even in VoH) are basically just players doing their single player stuff but with couple other guys around them doing the same. There's no teamwork or coordination required. The 'multiplayer' users might as well be rudimentary bots (NPCs) and the result is the exact same.

There'll still be room for fixed groups and nothing stops people from doing premades - you can still run with your guild or whatever. Except that it'll be more convenient for when you only have 3 people online but want to do a run and can just hop in the queue real quick without needing to constantly monitor applications etc. Those people who want fixed groups can still do them. Those who do not want to engage in social engineering can just leave that to automation. Win-Win.

This sounds like one of the most ludicrous statements yet. If I play DPS and have a tank and 2 DPS from my guild wanting to do a M+11 with me, I sure as hell won't put us on some automatic finder for a random healer. I'll put us on the premare group search, get 10 applications within a couple minutes and choose the one we like the most for our comp. Where's the problem in that? You see 'equity' in us not being able to choose the most synergistic and best candidate. Either way, the healer from the random finder either won't come faster or be better.

This fantasy of making new friends and forming lasting relationships through the group finder is nice and all, and it does happen; but that's no reason not to have it be more convenient for the 99% of people who don't meet their soulmate in a +15 Freehold and never want to.

I don't make friends or lasting relationships in WoW most of the time despite having played since original Molten Core, but I do like to select my guild carefully in the same way as the guild leadership wants to choose its members carefully. Likewise when I engage with challenging content I want to choose my teammates carefully. If I engage with heroic dungeons I have no problem joining a couple of drunk guys playing from their sofa with playstation controllers and pedals. I actually have a really hard time seeing what is there to gain from changing the system. It doesn't benefit the Casual Bob on his Feral Druid to join a M+11 where he otherwise couldn't have been invited, because all he'll get is flamed, blamed and the key will result in a failure and Bob gets no loot or rating.

At every turn you're ignoring the suggestion of making your own groups and using your own key. Casual Bob has a key and he can push it with whoever he likes, and if he believes in no class synergy and loves players with low item levels and no experience he is free to invite them to his key ASAP with no queue time whatsoever. The group will be ready to go in under a minute. You ignore this suggestion because it doesn't fit the narrative that Casual Bob can't get groups. He can't get groups with Gingi and Meeres unless he pays them money, but clearly it seems like you want to change the system so that he will be randomly placed in their group and they can't get rid of him.

[AtomR]

DPS doesn't really matter at those key levels and the HPS required will be minimal if you aren't pulling more than you should be.

It's unbelievable how many tanks don't understand this. They expect to pull full rooms, survive and go immediately pull the next room while the party is still dealing with the last mob and are at 30% hp. I've actually stopped pugging m+ because the amount of time, the stress, and the reward is not even worth it compared to delves. When i do I do it with guildies.

[Brinjevec]

Halfpremade halfpugged my main to 3200.

And full pugged to 2700-2900 range on 3 alts, never felt like there was any ELO hell even when I was playing completely undergeared alts.

[RobertMugabe]

I feel like I'm in ELO Hell. I have to get my key to a 7, but anything below a 7 doesn't reward anything so the only people who sign up to anything below a 7 have no hands.

What this means is I'm just stuck. I can't progress my key but I haven't got the score to join other peoples keys.

A situation like this shouldn't exist, they either need to create incentive to do 2 - 6 or they need to give a way of skipping to 7s.

Right now, a 5 is harder than a 9 to pug.

It has ALWAYS been this way tbh, ever since M+ was added to the game. Back then a +10-11 used to be way harder than a +15.

I generally agree with you that it sucks, but just like elo hell in LOL and other games, it is actually possible to escape it. It's just a little harder than it should be, but not impossible or perma stuck.

- - - Updated - - -

It's unbelievable how many tanks don't understand this. They expect to pull full rooms, survive and go immediately pull the next room while the party is still dealing with the last mob and are at 30% hp. I've actually stopped pugging m+ because the amount of time, the stress, and the reward is not even worth it compared to delves. When i do I do it with guildies.

It's just poor coordination of CD's (or a lack of it) I'd say. I have seen it both ways, since I have recently started playing a tank alt. I can pull and deal with an entire corridor, but only if I and the healer have all our CD's up. However after that I can ofc just pull normally, but some DPS who don't know will pull extra mobs for me, because they saw us deal with more boss just before.

[Siraeyou]

I feel like I'm in ELO Hell. I have to get my key to a 7, but anything below a 7 doesn't reward anything so the only people who sign up to anything below a 7 have no hands.

What this means is I'm just stuck. I can't progress my key but I haven't got the score to join other peoples keys.

A situation like this shouldn't exist, they either need to create incentive to do 2 - 6 or they need to give a way of skipping to 7s.

Right now, a 5 is harder than a 9 to pug.

This honestly just feel like a 'git gud' situation. It's been proven time and time again that things like 'Elo Hell' don't really exist in most games. It's people who are in their appropriate skill bracket making excuses instead of taking accountability. The good players always manage to climb regardless of their circumstances.

You have a couple of options available to you:

Find people to play with so you can have a more controlled environment for your keys.

Get better and eventually you can carry yourself out of the lower key range and break into the higher keys you want to do. You are precisely right that M keys feels like ranked in League- Everyone feels like they are better than the rank they are currently at and choose to consistently blame everything other than their own actions/decisions/skill instead of thinking critically and striving to actually improve.

If you can't push your own keys than I'm sorry you are doing something wrong. You can be as selective as you want with who you allow into your groups so if you're inviting people who you think should be able to complete the key in time and the group still consistently fails then all you can do is look at what you can do better. You are the only consistent factor in your keys if you PUG and if the vast majority of you key attempts are failures then maybe you need to look at what the most common factor is between them.

I mean sometimes you can just get into keys that are doomed I'm not saying that doesn't happen, but when you "get unlucky" 9 times out of 10 maybe you should have the sense to think there is more to it then "everyone else is the problem"

[ImAnALtOfYou]

This honestly just feel like a 'git gud' situation. It's been proven time and time again that things like 'Elo Hell' don't really exist in most games. It's people who are in their appropriate skill bracket making excuses instead of taking accountability. The good players always manage to climb regardless of their circumstances.

You have a couple of options available to you:

Find people to play with so you can have a more controlled environment for your keys.

Get better and eventually you can carry yourself out of the lower key range and break into the higher keys you want to do. You are precisely right that M keys feels like ranked in League- Everyone feels like they are better than the rank they are currently at and choose to consistently blame everything other than their own actions/decisions/skill instead of thinking critically and striving to actually improve.

If you can't push your own keys than I'm sorry you are doing something wrong. You can be as selective as you want with who you allow into your groups so if you're inviting people who you think should be able to complete the key in time and the group still consistently fails then all you can do is look at what you can do better. You are the only consistent factor in your keys if you PUG and if the vast majority of you key attempts are failures then maybe you need to look at what the most common factor is between them.

I mean sometimes you can just get into keys that are doomed I'm not saying that doesn't happen, but when you "get unlucky" 9 times out of 10 maybe you should have the sense to think there is more to it then "everyone else is the problem"

While I agree with you, I will say that as a healer in m+, it is more difficult to heal +4-6 than +8-10 with coordinated groups; since I was forced to do 4-6 for a bit to upgrade two pieces of left over gear, I got to re experience the horrors of the "I'm good I'm just stuck" people lol