The issue has been and will continue to be the lack of PvP players. The more legit players in the queue counters the amount of times you get a declined match. However, due to the lack of overall content, including changes/upgrades to PvP content (same weapons, no gear, etc), the overall amount of participating PvP players remains small.

How exactly would you "fix" this? The population of PvP players is very small, so there isn't a huge pool to match from at all. If you inflict some sort of harsh penalty, then even fewer people would play.

New pirates find it difficult to join PvP because there is such a huge learning curve between fighting Troggies and fighting an established player.

I don't know what would be fair, which is why I almost never PvP.

Willowydream on May 27, 2018 wrote:

How exactly would you "fix" this? The population of PvP players is very small, so there isn't a huge pool to match from at all. If you inflict some sort of harsh penalty, then even fewer people would play.

New pirates find it difficult to join PvP because there is such a huge learning curve between fighting Troggies and fighting an established player.

I don't know what would be fair, which is why I almost never PvP.

Continued.

Enabling spectating in Ranked would also tone down boosting. Since the boosters will HAVE to make this legit or they'll be exposed in front of everyone easily. We've been asking for spectating system now for 3 years. Removing Royale also helps boosting to stop. Instead implement 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4 systems (After they fix the 4v4 fort glitch first). It isn't that hard but only if Kingsisle is really willing to add these simple solutions out.

anecorbie on May 28, 2018 wrote:

If you could watch a match from a good vantage point, do you think it would encourage you to try?

I don't know - it might, but how long is a typical match? My own are pretty quick because I tend to die quite easily.

I wouldn't spend an hour watching other players fight when I could be questing or farming for my own characters.

Smart Logan West on May 27, 2018 wrote:

I agree that that the PvP Community Population is less interested in ranked, However, There's still people who still want to go all the way to Champion legit and clean. Only time where boosting is impossible and queue is stressed is Summer Season from what I noticed. So why not add a punishment where it takes 5 to 10 points from the person who dodges/declines their match? If that method was implemented already like many requested before it'd have stopped the Boosting scenario. It'd have removed 100 rank points from the player who declined my matches 10 times in a row already and got him to think twice before declining. It'd force them to accept the match because of course all what the booster wants is to keep their rank raising. If this method gets added they'll have to accept. At least accept some matches. of course they won't accept all the matches but they'd only dodge 1 or 2 matches and confirm their opponent for the rest instead of dodging ALL of their opponents just because they failed to pull their friend/Secondary Account. Increasing the timer +10 Minutes also per dodged match to make it a 20 minutes wait and 30 minutes wait and so would also be a nice way to make the boosters quit and play fairly. There's many ways to fix this.

What if the person helping boost was the only person currently in the PVP queue, how could it take away points if that was the only match available?

Oran from Urz on May 29, 2018 wrote:

Here's the deal with punishing boosters with your idea....it may not fix the issue.

Clearly, those players do not want to compete the correct way, but you assume if a punishment was put into place boosters would all of suddenly start playing fairly. If they were punished, or were discouraged, they would probably stop entering ranked PvP matches entirely. Yes, that would lessen your headaches of "false matches", but you still aren't getting any more matches in a "legit and clean" way. You are still going to match up with the same people as before, because the boosters are not likely going to suddenly want to compete the correct way. Pirate101 needs participation by additional legit players in ranked PvP (which needs hype/advertisement/etc), not by trying to convert boosters into legit players.

The other issue with your idea is that the option to decline a match is there for a reason. I use it all the time. If it takes an unusually long time to find a match for me, I automatically decline it when it comes up. Why? I know I'm getting a mismatch. One of us is either higher level or higher rank than the other person. I do the same thing in Wizard101, since it is notorious for matching Privates with Warlords after unusually long queues. The faster you get a match, the more evenly the level/rank is.

The five min "cooldown" currently in place is ample time to get rematched with a legit player....however, there aren't any legit players entering within those five mins. Hence, the fix isn't to waste time/resources on coding to punish, but rather coding to attract additional legit players.

You misunderstood my point, Here's how it works:

• You enter queue for your match
• You wait until an opponent joins
  
• Once an opponent is found you'll have either to accept to teleport or decline
• If you decline your match the 5 - 10 penalty rank points will occur. It'll not occur when you cancel your match after taking long time in finding an opponent with no luck. that'd shatter rank everytime I have to go to get ready to do something irl or even to play another game.

I never said my Fixes will get Boosting to be stopped 100% or that'll get them to play legit. But it'll tone things down a bit. Also, I'm sure we do need more legit players; But we do already have some legit players that are still playing. I've been in the PvP Community now for 4 years and I tell you, We need more players but definitely there's dozens playing legit . You won't be also matching the same player more than 3 times from how the queue works. And if the Ranking penalty isn't fine from what I've seen from the other people's feedback in this thread, I think the longer Timer Penalty should fit great then.

"but you assume if a punishment was put into place boosters would all of suddenly start playing fairly. If they were punished, or were discouraged, they would probably stop entering ranked PvP matches entirely. Yes, that would lessen your headaches of "false matches", but you still aren't getting any more matches in a "legit and clean" way."

If that'll make it frustrating to boosters to the point they'll legit quit and leave, I don't mind it. Purpose is still fulfilled. Keeping them away from obtaining an overpowered weapon in PvP lol. It'll give opportunity to players that are willing to rank legit to try the Ranked System out.

@Anercorbie -- fighting someone over and over is boring and if the opponent is unpleasant to compete against, it could be annoying.

That's one of the purposes of ranked. If you cannot beat someone in a match, You try again, Improve strategies and work on beating them.

Smart Logan West on May 29, 2018 wrote:

You misunderstood my point, Here's how it works:

• You enter queue for your match
• You wait until an opponent joins
  
• Once an opponent is found you'll have either to accept to teleport or decline
• If you decline your match the 5 - 10 penalty rank points will occur. It'll not occur when you cancel your match after taking long time in finding an opponent with no luck. that'd shatter rank everytime I have to go to get ready to do something irl or even to play another game.

I never said my Fixes will get Boosting to be stopped 100% or that'll get them to play legit. But it'll tone things down a bit. Also, I'm sure we do need more legit players; But we do already have some legit players that are still playing. I've been in the PvP Community now for 4 years and I tell you, We need more players but definitely there's dozens playing legit . You won't be also matching the same player more than 3 times from how the queue works. And if the Ranking penalty isn't fine from what I've seen from the other people's feedback in this thread, I think the longer Timer Penalty should fit great then.

"but you assume if a punishment was put into place boosters would all of suddenly start playing fairly. If they were punished, or were discouraged, they would probably stop entering ranked PvP matches entirely. Yes, that would lessen your headaches of "false matches", but you still aren't getting any more matches in a "legit and clean" way."

If that'll make it frustrating to boosters to the point they'll legit quit and leave, I don't mind it. Purpose is still fulfilled. Keeping them away from obtaining an overpowered weapon in PvP lol. It'll give opportunity to players that are willing to rank legit to try the Ranked System out.

@Anercorbie -- fighting someone over and over is boring and if the opponent is unpleasant to compete against, it could be annoying.

That's one of the purposes of ranked. If you cannot beat someone in a match, You try again, Improve strategies and work on beating them.

Didn't I also say that winning or losing is beside the point? Fighting one person over and over is boring. And why should I subject myself to taunts or temper tantrums from poor sports?
If you continually win against one player, you run the risk of falling into a pattern, a fresh match is better.

Kevin BoomCaster on Jun 3, 2018 wrote:

I may not ever agree in this thing people call "boosting" but let's get things straight

"boosting" is and will always be a legit way to rank up just like on wizard101 as it also ranks down people helping

The reason people do boosts as we all know is to get pvp gear, not to run around being forced to fight people who actually pvp for a hobby

And any nerf or attempt to stop boosting will only decrease the population of the game (or at least pvp)

so trying to force players to fight people that they would rather not fight is probably something Kingsisle does not want to do
(and may even lead to many matches being fled which then makes you the boosted {irony})

Instead why not just allow another way to receive pvp items and gear (weapons, Mounts, and other PvE useable items)
and just add a leaderboard so that there is still a reason for people to still do rank pvp and prove their skills.

*facepalming intensifies*

No, boosting is not, and never will be a "legitimate" method of gaining rank. The intent of pvp is to create a competitive environment where wins are rewarded and losses are punished. Boosting removes any chance of said booster losing a match. They get all the rewards of pvp (pets, weapons, etc) without any of the associated risks (losing rank). PvP rewards are meant to be rewards for the most skillful of players and a way of "compensating" them for their successes in the arena. That person who spends an hour or two queueing in royale to get to 400 rank does not deserve such rewards.

You are correct, people boost to get the champion weapon, but I ask you this: Why should illegitimate players receive these weapons for doing nothing (as opposed to legit players who spent weeks or months ranking to earn them)? It's not like champion weapons are unparalleled in their power, removing any argument that they are "essential". Dreadnaught, Ashes of the Armada, and Moo Tower weapons are equally viable.

I disagree with your claim about boosting decreasing the population of pvp community. It may be true, but I don't think that's a bad thing. Some of these illegitimate players have no intention of ever queueing; some do. I don't care if those that would never queue up for ranked leave the community, good riddance. Those that do will just have to go through the learning curve like everyone else. Sorry, I'm not sympathetic to it being "too hard" for them to win without them.

As for "forcing" people to fight opponents they don't want to? No one is making them pvp. They don't like the competition, they can leave. They shouldn't be able to gain the rewards without working for them. And if they do queue and flee, it doesn't make otherwise legit people boosted. Being boosted implies intent. I did not intentionally join queue in order to get someone that would just flee, the booster did intend to receive illegitimate help.

(Continued in next post)

Kevin BoomCaster on Jun 3, 2018 wrote:

I may not ever agree in this thing people call "boosting" but let's get things straight

"boosting" is and will always be a legit way to rank up just like on wizard101 as it also ranks down people helping

The reason people do boosts as we all know is to get pvp gear, not to run around being forced to fight people who actually pvp for a hobby

And any nerf or attempt to stop boosting will only decrease the population of the game (or at least pvp)

so trying to force players to fight people that they would rather not fight is probably something Kingsisle does not want to do
(and may even lead to many matches being fled which then makes you the boosted {irony})

Instead why not just allow another way to receive pvp items and gear (weapons, Mounts, and other PvE useable items)
and just add a leaderboard so that there is still a reason for people to still do rank pvp and prove their skills.

Players who boost in pvp to get the gear, mounts or pets are cheating; there is nothing "legit" about it. PvP stands for Player vs, Player, not Player vs Themselves. If those who boost are too lazy or inept to fight another player, then they don't deserve the gear by boosting.
If deterring boosting by adding to the timer will reduce the PvP population, so be it, who wants a bunch of cheaters who refuse to really fight anyway?
That gear is a reward for reaching Champion Rank and should only be for those who gain that rank by fighting.

RRRRZZZZ419 on May 28, 2018 wrote:

What if the person helping boost was the only person currently in the PVP queue, how could it take away points if that was the only match available?

Perhaps the solution to boosting is a selectable opponent list. This would at least fix the issue of people wanting a real match. Lets say when you go to do a ranked PVP match it gives you 3 possible opponents and you select the one you want. This list WOULD NOT have the pirates name or rank on it so you don't fully know who you would be fighting, the list WOULD have the pirates class and level. This should fix the issue of a max level unfairly fighting a low level.

OK, so what about the issue of an opponent selecting someone else when you select them? Yes, that would be the problem with this idea, but I think the solution would be to either "ask" for a random ranked PVP match, or to "join" 1 of 3 matches on the list.

I am curious about what Anecorbie, Matthew5250, and Smart Logan West think about this possible solution.

RRRRZZZZ419 on Jun 3, 2018 wrote:

Perhaps the solution to boosting is a selectable opponent list. This would at least fix the issue of people wanting a real match. Lets say when you go to do a ranked PVP match it gives you 3 possible opponents and you select the one you want. This list WOULD NOT have the pirates name or rank on it so you don't fully know who you would be fighting, the list WOULD have the pirates class and level. This should fix the issue of a max level unfairly fighting a low level.

OK, so what about the issue of an opponent selecting someone else when you select them? Yes, that would be the problem with this idea, but I think the solution would be to either "ask" for a random ranked PVP match, or to "join" 1 of 3 matches on the list.

I am curious about what Anecorbie, Matthew5250, and Smart Logan West think about this possible solution.

Bad idea. The "problem" of a max fighting a low level doesn't generally exist, and when it rarely happens, it's due to a bug (interestingly enough, the bug is caused by someone else dodging you). Also, there are certain matchups that are infinitely more favorable for certain classes (ex, a witch is at a major disadvantage vs. buck for reasons that are self evident). Being able to intentionally pick favorable matchups and avoid bad ones is not something that sits well with me. In addition, wiz did something similar where a player's level and rank would be shown in the queue. People at high ranks would memorize common opponent's ranks and know when to set for certain opponents. Something similar would occur in pirate if your solution was to be implemented. If I saw, say, a max witchdoctor in Queue at 10:00 Eastern, I'd know that it was Quentin and could plan accordingly

anecorbie on Jun 4, 2018 wrote:

First you're assuming that a max level would never fight a lower leveled player - yet if boosting is stopped what's to stop boosters from selecting a match with a lower level?
Not having the name is an excellent idea, this would prevent a player from avoiding the known champions so they can look for an "easier" match. But I am also concerned that class may be a factor of choice and that certain classes wouldn't be chosen. I would be tempted to avoid matches with Privateers, for example. It would also cause players to adjust their gear and companions if you are going into a match knowing what you'll be facing. Part of the excitement of a match is the surprise of what you are matched with.

As to coding this choice, it might be do-able, if KI were able to make sure that level of pirate ( or rank ) is one of the criteria of choice.

Does each class of pros and cons? If you find that answer to be yes, than most likely all classes would have an equal chance of being chosen? A swashbuckler might not want to fight a Privateer, but a Musketeer might for example. Therefore the privateer would still get chosen. One other thing to remember is my idea calls for specifically 3 opponents to choose from. Because there are 5 classes of pirates that means there would always be at least 2 classes not able to be chosen, so your favorite class to fight would always have an at least 40% chance of not being on the list of choices. There would also be the possibility that all 3 of your choices would be the same class, and if that was the case you could be forced to fight your least class (in your case Privateer), or wait 10 minutes and try again.

Now to answer your next concern. Under my idea, I don't think it would be possible to adjust your companions on the fly. You and your opponent, even knowing each other's class, would still have only a 60 second window occurring at the same time to select companions, and most companions have a Crown Shop version or counterpart. Because that is the case, neither you or your opponent could adjust companions on the fly. As for gear, because you wouldn't know the name of your opponent until the match began, you wouldn't be able to plan for what gear they might have.

I hope that addresses some of your concerns with my idea.