Beyond that, I think win-based matchmaking would effectively make Trials even more punishing, for players of all skill levels. As much as it sucks to go in and get stomped, it sucks even more to go 8 wins and then lose. It's far more frustrating and demoralizing.

As someone who has developed a knack for going 8-0 and losing the 9th game, I've got to disagree here. Those nail-biting final games where we fought with all we had and just fell a bit short to a tougher team ended up being some of the most fun I've had in Destiny. In contrast, my first trip to the lighthouse came with the defeat of a team that had probably never played trials before (they didn't even know to come to the control point in overtime). It was exciting because it was my first time to make it, but at the same time, it was a bit anticlimactic because that last game was no challenge at all.

To be honest, if it hadn't been for the first of those 8-1 tickets that fell just short of the Lighthouse, I probably would have never bothered to play again after the first week. There's nothing more soul-crushing than buying your trials ticket, getting curb-stomped game after game after game and finishing 0-3. Maybe matching win numbers on tickets would make for a slightly easier start (though, probably not much easier), give people a chance to get a feel for the playlist, and get more people into the player pool. You still have to be the best of the best (or at least play with the best of the best) to earn the grand prize, but at least those of us who aren't pro players will still have some incentive to give the playlist a try.

-Disciple

As someone who's been to The Lighthouse enough times to be annoyed at the random loot, I also dislike the way Trials works right now, but I really don't have a solution. There's a lot to be said for both sides, but i'm vehemently against the "Mah Lighthouse is special, only the cool kids should get to see it" attitude, and I feel like some kind of skillbased matchmaking would remove some of that, with the added bonus of it maybe not making people quite so miserable when they're on a losing streak.

I've managed to get to the lighthouse 3 times this weekend, and not once did anyone on my teams use a sniper rifle.

I feel like sniping can sometimes be a disadvantage, honestly. If your opponents are caught unawares it's great, but countersniping specifically requires that you and your opponent place yourselves in each other's line of sight. Everyone wants to be a good sniper and kill that guy scoped in on your entryway, but often you're much better off just keeping out of the way - a hardscoped enemy isn't a threat if you avoid his LoS.

Especially true on this map. Sure, you could poke your head in and maybe kill that guy, or you could wait outside nice and safe next to the capture point.

Also, Blinkers are nigh-impossible to counter on the outside.

I've managed to get to the lighthouse 3 times this weekend, and not once did anyone on my teams use a sniper rifle. Just don't let the enemy force you into playing that game with them if you don't want to.

The biggest mistake is engaging with snipers down the middle hallway, and in the lower area outside. Today I played with Chaos and managed not to get sniped once. Just not going down that middle hallway completely shuts off snipers if they are aiming down it. If you go outside, there are ways to run which completely cut off sniping lanes.

If you absolutely must engage snipers from the hallway, stand on the donut thingy and use a sliver of a lane to shoot them. First of all they may not see you, and second of all your head is not at the usual level making them have a harder time to shoot.

if a player is "top level" then beating players who don't know what they're doing wouldn't be sheer luck ;)
Jokes aside, if you're talking about the possibility of playing 9 easy games in a row, I think that's more of a theoretical concern. I'm sure it is technically possible, but not once have I ever gone to the lighthouse by beating 9 easy teams straight. It just doesn't happen. There aren't enough inexperienced teams who play trials. You'll run in to an easy team every now and then, but most opponents put up a serious fight.

Yeah. The majority of my tickets are maybe 2 easy teams, 3 good teams, 2 great teams in which the games are close and they push us to really play our best, and one amazing team that stomps us.

FYI...
I played again last night, with Disciple and ZackDark, and we did a little better but neither of them had ever played on the map before so I didn't really expect to 'win big' (or at all). Maybe that map is just not the one for me (or them); we all commented how it's SUCH a sniper's-map, and none of us are especially great at twitch sniping. Oh well...

It certainly can play out that way, if you let it. But there are ways to work around snipers on this map without trying to counter-snipe them. If the enemy team is camping one side of the middle-outdoor area with snipers, there are plenty of paths with loads of cover that let you get close to them. What tends to happen more often is teams will set up camp in the center building and snipe through the doorways. This is easy to deal with; you just need to be patient. All you need to do is take positions outside and wait. Snipers inside have very small sightlines. As long as you don't stand in the 1 or 2 places they can hit you, you're safe. The overtime capture point spawns outside, so they'll be forced to abandon sniping and move outside eventually. That gives you the advantage.

I've managed to get to the lighthouse 3 times this weekend, and not once did anyone on my teams use a sniper rifle. Just don't let the enemy force you into playing that game with them if you don't want to.

Why do you think it's a good idea to intentionally pit first-timers against seasoned vets?

It is true; the card-based matchmaking idea is still "skill based" to a degree - but so what if you start off facing teams of similar skill level? Why is that a bad thing?

Because that's not how competition works. Teams in the NBA, NHL, NFL, etc, don't go up against evenly matched opponents. If you're in the league, you're all in the same pool together. Some weeks will be easier than others, but they all face the same challenges over time. That's how Trials works, too. Some nights will be tougher than others, but if you play on a regular basis you (and everyone else competing) will face teams that cover the whole spectrum. Even over the course of 1 or 2 tickets, you'll face a decent representation of the skill range currently competing. If you're getting steamrolled 12 games in a row, then that's most likely just how your team stacks up against the other teams competing at that time. I know it can be discouraging... I've been there myself. But again, that's competition.

As soon as you add any form of skill-based matchmaking into the pool, you diminish the experience and the value of the rewards. Some of the most valuable games I've played we're the times my team was completely outclassed; those games can be fantastic learning experiences.

Because that defeats the entire purpose of trials- It's a test of competitive skill where only the best of the best receive the ultimate prize. Not the best of a specific pool of equally skilled players- The best of the best.

Precisely. Take that away, and Trials looses what makes it special.

In a sense, this both true and untrue. Teams in a professional league are all exposed to the same competition, so the really good teams will face the really bad teams. The Browns will usually lose most games most years. However it is also true that the teams are in groups of Leagues with very similar skill levels. College teams wouldn't stand a chance against NFL teams. High School teams wouldn't beat college teams. However there are champions in each level of play. Trials is open to all from PeeWee to AllPro levels of difficulty though.

It seems that there could be some compromise in a tiered system where you'd have 3-5 tiers of play. Maybe Bronze, Silver, Gold. I don't know how you'd be chosen for tiers, but maybe its an automatic trueskill/combat rating. This would allow for good tough competition at all levels while still allowing lower tier player access and some enjoyment. To add a little more difficulty you could add in the earlier idea of playing teams that have similar wins streaks going. Rewards could also be better for the higher tiered players. I also think they should remove the three boons and bump the win streak to a full 10 wins. :)

I do agree that Trials should be tough and the best rewards should go to the best players. If it was just a cake walk, it wouldn't be so sweet to make it to the lighthouse.

To me, the junior or college leagues already exist in Destiny: regular crucible. If you assemble a team and jump into Trials, you're "drafting" yourselves into the majors :)

Because that's not how competition works. Teams in the NBA, NHL, NFL, etc, don't go up against evenly matched opponents.

Isn't matching teams to other teams with similar win/loss records exactly how most playoffs work? I'm not the most knowledgeable about sportball, but I'm pretty sure that's how most major playoffs work, aside from the ones that are based on league structure, which is still an indirect skill-based measure. Why should Trials, supposedly the highest tier of competition in the game, be like a regular season, instead of playoffs?

2 differences:

1) the "playoffs" of any pro league have a barrier of entry: only the top teams from the season are allowed in. What's being proposed here is a system that makes it easier for less experienced teams to win. Very different.

2) during playoffs, there is only 1 single prize. 1 team gets it, everyone else gets nothing. The goal is to let the single best team rise to the top. Again, very different from Trials.

Now I'm not opposed to a game mode based on a playoff-style format... That could be really interesting! But that's going in a different direction than what we've been discussing, I think :)

You're making an argument that the competition should be random, but the proposed solution, that the more wins you get, the more you go up against people who have more wins, focuses the toughest challenges on the later matches, instead of just randomizing it. And that, to me, sounds how it should be?

I get that you don't want a mediocre person to be able to triumph over nine teams of other mediocre people to get to the Lighthouse, but if you are able to soundly and regularly trounce nine other teams, you're... you're not really mediocre. And under the proposed system, you'd get matched with other teams that would tend towards better and better the farther and farther in you went.

I have a couple concerns about this. 1 is a bit "philosophical", the other is practical.

One of the reasons I love Trials so much is that it is very different mentally than any other activity in Destiny. When you assemble your team and buy your ticket, you're saying "I'm ready for whatever this community can throw at me". I personally don't like the idea of anything that changes that dynamic.

Beyond that, I think win-based matchmaking would effectively make Trials even more punishing, for players of all skill levels. As much as it sucks to go in and get stomped, it sucks even more to go 8 wins and then lose. It's far more frustrating and demoralizing. Right now, it is a very real possibility. You might lose any game. But if the system used win-based matchmaking, then every single trip to the lighthouse means ruining someone else's night.

Far more worrisome is the idea that some top-level guy just gets matched up against people who don't know what they're doing, and coasts to the Lighthouse on sheer dumb luck, isn't it?

if a player is "top level" then beating players who don't know what they're doing wouldn't be sheer luck ;)
Jokes aside, if you're talking about the possibility of playing 9 easy games in a row, I think that's more of a theoretical concern. I'm sure it is technically possible, but not once have I ever gone to the lighthouse by beating 9 easy teams straight. It just doesn't happen. There aren't enough inexperienced teams who play trials. You'll run in to an easy team every now and then, but most opponents put up a serious fight.

Because that's not how competition works. Teams in the NBA, NHL, NFL, etc, don't go up against evenly matched opponents.

Isn't matching teams to other teams with similar win/loss records exactly how most playoffs work? I'm not the most knowledgeable about sportball, but I'm pretty sure that's how most major playoffs work, aside from the ones that are based on league structure, which is still an indirect skill-based measure. Why should Trials, supposedly the highest tier of competition in the game, be like a regular season, instead of playoffs?

You're making an argument that the competition should be random, but the proposed solution, that the more wins you get, the more you go up against people who have more wins, focuses the toughest challenges on the later matches, instead of just randomizing it. And that, to me, sounds how it should be?

I get that you don't want a mediocre person to be able to triumph over nine teams of other mediocre people to get to the Lighthouse, but if you are able to soundly and regularly trounce nine other teams, you're... you're not really mediocre. And under the proposed system, you'd get matched with other teams that would tend towards better and better the farther and farther in you went. Far more worrisome is the idea that some top-level guy just gets matched up against people who don't know what they're doing, and coasts to the Lighthouse on sheer dumb luck, isn't it?

I do agree that Trials should be tough and the best rewards should go to the best players. If it was just a cake walk, it wouldn't be so sweet to make it to the lighthouse.

I feel like I have to keep defending the fact that I don't want to just "give away" the Lighthouse, because I keep hearing it reiterated that you all think "Trials should be tough and the best goes to the best"...as if I don't agree.

CougRon's Card-based matching idea doesn't change the available pool of players - Trials is STILL full of the top-tier players - it just changes around the order in which you play various teams, depending on how many games they've played. I still don't see how that fundamentally "ruins" the competitiveness of Trials. I honestly AM open to changing my mind, now that I've had some time to cool off, but I just don't see yet how the card-based matching is such an abomination.

FYI...
I played again last night, with Disciple and ZackDark, and we did a little better but neither of them had ever played on the map before so I didn't really expect to 'win big' (or at all). Maybe that map is just not the one for me (or them); we all commented how it's SUCH a sniper's-map, and none of us are especially great at twitch sniping. Oh well...

We now have a lower tiered trials, in a permanent Elimination playlist. Crucible stands below that.

So think of Trials as the NFL, Elimination is College, and regular Crucible is peewee league.

I get what you're trying to say, but Crucible is hardly "Peewee" league. The stakes might be different, but the prospective pool of players is the same.

Another suggestion: the teams I play with rarely expect to jump into trials and do well right off the bat. We buy a "warm up" ticket and spend 4 or 5 games getting a feel for the map, working on various tactics, etc. once we feel like we're getting in to a groove, we buy new tickets and start a fresh run. I've found that approach can help a lot :)

I didn't expect to go on my first card.

Did I not write the part about how we played 4 cards and had zero wins?

So think of Trials as the NFL, Elimination is College, and regular Crucible is peewee league.

Why do you think it's a good idea to intentionally pit first-timers against seasoned vets?

It is true; the card-based matchmaking idea is still "skill based" to a degree - but so what if you start off facing teams of similar skill level? Why is that a bad thing?

Because that's not how competition works. Teams in the NBA, NHL, NFL, etc, don't go up against evenly matched opponents. If you're in the league, you're all in the same pool together. Some weeks will be easier than others, but they all face the same challenges over time. That's how Trials works, too. Some nights will be tougher than others, but if you play on a regular basis you (and everyone else competing) will face teams that cover the whole spectrum. Even over the course of 1 or 2 tickets, you'll face a decent representation of the skill range currently competing. If you're getting steamrolled 12 games in a row, then that's most likely just how your team stacks up against the other teams competing at that time. I know it can be discouraging... I've been there myself. But again, that's competition.

As soon as you add any form of skill-based matchmaking into the pool, you diminish the experience and the value of the rewards. Some of the most valuable games I've played we're the times my team was completely outclassed; those games can be fantastic learning experiences.

Because that defeats the entire purpose of trials- It's a test of competitive skill where only the best of the best receive the ultimate prize. Not the best of a specific pool of equally skilled players- The best of the best.

Precisely. Take that away, and Trials looses what makes it special.

In a sense, this both true and untrue. Teams in a professional league are all exposed to the same competition, so the really good teams will face the really bad teams. The Browns will usually lose most games most years. However it is also true that the teams are in groups of Leagues with very similar skill levels. College teams wouldn't stand a chance against NFL teams. High School teams wouldn't beat college teams. However there are champions in each level of play. Trials is open to all from PeeWee to AllPro levels of difficulty though.

It seems that there could be some compromise in a tiered system where you'd have 3-5 tiers of play. Maybe Bronze, Silver, Gold. I don't know how you'd be chosen for tiers, but maybe its an automatic trueskill/combat rating. This would allow for good tough competition at all levels while still allowing lower tier player access and some enjoyment. To add a little more difficulty you could add in the earlier idea of playing teams that have similar wins streaks going. Rewards could also be better for the higher tiered players. I also think they should remove the three boons and bump the win streak to a full 10 wins. :)

I do agree that Trials should be tough and the best rewards should go to the best players. If it was just a cake walk, it wouldn't be so sweet to make it to the lighthouse.

I still don't think matching by wins would, in practice, detract anything from the "flow" or effectiveness of Trials as a "competitive" event.

We've been looking at this from my perspective, from the bottom -> up....

Look at it from the other side, from the "better team's" perspective; why is it a "good competition" to get matched up against a team that offers zero challenge to you?

To me, it's about everyone facing the same opposition. We all go in to the same pool, we all face the same selection of opponents. Competition isn't about maintaining an equal level of challenge for everyone who competes, it's about seeing how you stack up against the other competitors.

I feel like you're arguing to keep the "challenge" in Trials, but by matching me with a team on a winning streak your just throwing chum to the sharks.

Except the "chum" is jumping into the water voluntarily. I keep going back to the elimination playlist, but I do think it will be a big help. It's a great way to get practice and experience so players can go back into trials better prepared.

Edit:

Another suggestion: the teams I play with rarely expect to jump into trials and do well right off the bat. We buy a "warm up" ticket and spend 4 or 5 games getting a feel for the map, working on various tactics, etc. once we feel like we're getting in to a groove, we buy new tickets and start a fresh run. I've found that approach can help a lot :)

Why do you think it's a good idea to intentionally pit first-timers against seasoned vets?

It is true; the card-based matchmaking idea is still "skill based" to a degree - but so what if you start off facing teams of similar skill level? Why is that a bad thing?

Because that's not how competition works. Teams in the NBA, NHL, NFL, etc, don't go up against evenly matched opponents. If you're in the league, you're all in the same pool together. Some weeks will be easier than others, but they all face the same challenges over time. That's how Trials works, too. Some nights will be tougher than others, but if you play on a regular basis you (and everyone else competing) will face teams that cover the whole spectrum. Even over the course of 1 or 2 tickets, you'll face a decent representation of the skill range currently competing. If you're getting steamrolled 12 games in a row, then that's most likely just how your team stacks up against the other teams competing at that time. I know it can be discouraging... I've been there myself. But again, that's competition.

As soon as you add any form of skill-based matchmaking into the pool, you diminish the experience and the value of the rewards. Some of the most valuable games I've played we're the times my team was completely outclassed; those games can be fantastic learning experiences.

Because that defeats the entire purpose of trials- It's a test of competitive skill where only the best of the best receive the ultimate prize. Not the best of a specific pool of equally skilled players- The best of the best.

Precisely. Take that away, and Trials looses what makes it special.

I still don't think matching by wins would, in practice, detract anything from the "flow" or effectiveness of Trials as a "competitive" event.

We've been looking at this from my perspective, from the bottom -> up....

Look at it from the other side, from the "better team's" perspective; why is it a "good competition" to get matched up against a team that offers zero challenge to you? I feel like you're arguing to keep the "challenge" in Trials, but by matching me with a team on a winning streak your just throwing chum to the sharks.

Why do you think it's a good idea to intentionally pit first-timers against seasoned vets?

It is true; the card-based matchmaking idea is still "skill based" to a degree - but so what if you start off facing teams of similar skill level? Why is that a bad thing?

Because that's not how competition works. Teams in the NBA, NHL, NFL, etc, don't go up against evenly matched opponents. If you're in the league, you're all in the same pool together. Some weeks will be easier than others, but they all face the same challenges over time. That's how Trials works, too. Some nights will be tougher than others, but if you play on a regular basis you (and everyone else competing) will face teams that cover the whole spectrum. Even over the course of 1 or 2 tickets, you'll face a decent representation of the skill range currently competing. If you're getting steamrolled 12 games in a row, then that's most likely just how your team stacks up against the other teams competing at that time. I know it can be discouraging... I've been there myself. But again, that's competition.

As soon as you add any form of skill-based matchmaking into the pool, you diminish the experience and the value of the rewards. Some of the most valuable games I've played we're the times my team was completely outclassed; those games can be fantastic learning experiences.

Because that defeats the entire purpose of trials- It's a test of competitive skill where only the best of the best receive the ultimate prize. Not the best of a specific pool of equally skilled players- The best of the best.

Precisely. Take that away, and Trials looses what makes it special.