129 replies to this topic

[Ghostwolfe]

I know there are going to be some who flame this, despite that negativity I'm hoping this post is seen by a Dev and taken as constructive.

The issue is what happens when you drop in a group. Seriously, I grouped with one friend who is new to the game and we ended up going up against multiple 12 man teams. Each game ended as expected: The "pug" team was rolled hard and fast and not a once of fun. I just logged from one game where the 12 man team killed 9 of my pug group in under two minutes by just rushing as a solid group. You can't even get a bunch of puggers to group up in the first minute on average so there is not really a way to stop that. Might as well just log out.

Is this working as intended? multiple 2 or 3 person groups going up against full 12 man teams using headphones? Absolutely not fun and if anything only discourages new people from making groups. A 12-0 roll is not even worth logging in for, even if you are on the winning side.

Any devs?

[MischiefSC]

The fix for this is population growth. Also, you can generally avoid that by dropping in Assault. Most competitive teams only do Conquest/Skirmish.

[Russ Bullock]

Thanks for your post.

Of course we don't like seeing this but it really is a form of trade off for the "groups of any size" feature the community was asking for.

Our next step and I really need to get around to posting a command chair about this is the removing of the hard stop options. I mentioned this in the town hall, our game offers too many hard stop options for match making and it is very difficult for the MM to do a better job than it is doing without removing some player options.

I want to change the game mode selector from a hard stop to a "vote" this way it is more possible for the match maker to match that 12 man up against another 12 man. Since it is possible that while you were playing, the MM actually had another 12 man to put them up against but one of those 12 mans said they wanted to play Conquest only, where the other 12 man said no to conquest. You see in this case I feel it is much more important to make the best match possible even if the votes are tallied and one of the 12 man groups plays a game type they didn't desire.

It won't make it perfect but it will help, I want to get this into the Oct 7th patch but I need to remember to poll the community, would anyone really vote against best match possible if it meant playing any game mode?

[Pika]

Russ Bullock, on 19 September 2014 - 10:46 PM, said:

Thanks for your post.

Of course we don't like seeing this but it really is a form of trade off for the "groups of any size" feature the community was asking for.

Our next step and I really need to get around to posting a command chair about this is the removing of the hard stop options. I mentioned this in the town hall, our game offers too many hard stop options for match making and it is very difficult for the MM to do a better job than it is doing without removing some player options.

I want to change the game mode selector from a hard stop to a "vote" this way it is more possible for the match maker to match that 12 man up against another 12 man. Since it is possible that while you were playing, the MM actually had another 12 man to put them up against but one of those 12 mans said they wanted to play Conquest only, where the other 12 man said no to conquest. You see in this case I feel it is much more important to make the best match possible even if the votes are tallied and one of the 12 man groups plays a game type they didn't desire.

It won't make it perfect but it will help, I want to get this into the Oct 7th patch but I need to remember to poll the community, would anyone really vote against best match possible if it meant playing any game mode?

Is there any chance of just adding a Lance queue? The Lance Challenge proved that the game could be amazing in that kind of environment. Would make the newbie introduction a little less insane.

[Dark DeLaurel]

Russ Bullock, on 19 September 2014 - 10:46 PM, said:

Thanks for your post.
It won't make it perfect but it will help, I want to get this into the Oct 7th patch but I need to remember to poll the community, would anyone really vote against best match possible if it meant playing any game mode?

it would remind me of the old Quake 2: Rocket Arena days when the server voted on the map. Which begs the question how would this work? Do we click launch-->Grouped and dropped into a general chat-->Vote-->Auto-Launch?

I think the community would welcome it, I say think. After seeing the posting around here lately no idea

[Russ Bullock]

Dark DeLaurel, on 19 September 2014 - 10:51 PM, said:

it would remind me of the old Quake 2: Rocket Arena days when the server voted on the map. Which begs the question how would this work? Do we click launch-->Grouped and dropped into a general chat-->Vote-->Auto-Launch?

I think the community would welcome it, I say think. After seeing the posting around here lately no idea

No basically in the front end UI where you select game modes. That stays just the same but instead of becoming a hard stop it becomes a vote. So the match maker ignores game mode when it creates a match, it just creates the best one possible within the remaining criteria. Only then does the match maker take a tally of all the votes and chooses a game mode. So it isn't totally random and is still voted on by the players passively in their choice from the front end UI.

[Dark DeLaurel]

Russ Bullock, on 19 September 2014 - 10:54 PM, said:

No basically in the front end UI where you select game modes. That stays just the same but instead of becoming a hard stop it becomes a vote. So the match maker ignores game mode when it creates a match, it just creates the best one possible within the remaining criteria. Only then does the match maker take a tally of all the votes and chooses a game mode. So it isn't totally random and is still voted on by the players passively in their choice from the front end UI.

Interesting to say the least, I would need to see it on the PTS to say for sure if that way would be good or not. My only fear is Conquest mode, man I hate it with a passion lol.

Although in the end if players can see what your describing (remember most are visual folk) then it could go over smoother and be more welcomed. That is why i suggest the PTS to showcase it and then run a poll (and I mean like a 24hr PTS of it), I understand what you are explaining but some wont.

[Kjudoon]

I would like to add something that has been observed in my unit in regards to this and propose a solution.

A lot of our players are no longer bothering to come into teamspeak and even more are quickly losing their enjoyment of grouping up because the stomps are so constant one way or another inside the group queue that they're just quitting playing in the group queue most times. It's no fun for such severe imbalances in skill and elo averaging that the matches are just abyssmal either way. So they're going into stomp town to just keep their skills up and are unhappy there too because they can't just hang out and have fun in the group queue anymore. I can see this as a growing problem as the organized team company practice stomps more and more people in it or large group elo averaging hides players in matches they never should have been a part of.

The only solution I see available left is to create a third queue similar to what the original gameplay style we had pre solo/group queue. I know what you said in your podcast, Russ, about us creating some of our own matchmaker problems due to our selections "I have the perfect match in conquest, but you only want to run skirmish so you get this far less ideal match." I also understand the math that this will parse the queues to reduced sizes. I just don't see any more how we can avoid the fact that players are being disenchanted and walking away from playing much because they no longer have a game experience they enjoy. I've posted my solution before, but figure sooner or later it will maybe reach your engineer's ears and see if it can be implemented.

Three Queue Solution

Solo Queue: Solo players only just as it was before.

-- this Queue is necessary for those who either have no desire of playing as a group, facilitate solo tourneys and get the purest elo match ups possible. It should remain group free.

Lance Queue: Groups of 2-4 with the ability for solo players to 'opt in' if they want the extra challenge.

-- The purpose here is to keep groups small so elo mismatches are minimized, and dodge the current problem of small group stomps. If you add in the option for solo players to 'opt in' because they feel confident in their skills, they can't complain about being unfairly matched with the 'evil premade' because they chose this. The smaller the group size, the less impact TS has, and the smaller the elo averaging hides good and bad players who should never match.

Company Queue: Groups of 5+ with "Opt In" groups of 4. Groups of 8 or greater can choose to match to groups of similar size allowing a group of 11, while the 8v8 experience can return.

-- The ability to Opt in for 4 mans allow a larger group queue if they feel their good enough to stand with larger groups. The ability to drop short brings back the nostalgic 8v8 experience, plus expands the ability for groups to drop against better matches. Small groups with poor elo matches and prone to stompage will be kept out of harms way, providing for the casual 'buddy play' environment without worrying on facing a full company of esport players looking to kick teeth in rendering the game a very disappointing experience.


I think this would go a long way to helping out with the non CW matches we have now that are breeding some dissatisfaction out there that I'm witness to. I hope this gets passed along, Russ and you see merit to it, let alone the possibility of it being pulled off so our community can have a better, more positive experience with the game with far less demoralizing matches.

[Kjudoon]

Russ Bullock, on 19 September 2014 - 10:54 PM, said:

No basically in the front end UI where you select game modes. That stays just the same but instead of becoming a hard stop it becomes a vote. So the match maker ignores game mode when it creates a match, it just creates the best one possible within the remaining criteria. Only then does the match maker take a tally of all the votes and chooses a game mode. So it isn't totally random and is still voted on by the players passively in their choice from the front end UI.

I see where you're going with this, but I don't play Skirmish mode because I do not enjoy the attitude and gameplay of deathmatches. If I I am in a group desiring to play this mode, I leave the group. If now I won't know that I can't stay out of that match mode, I will probably play a lot less till I'm with people I know who won't vote for Skirmish mode.

You may wonder why I have such a hard stance on this, but it's simple: I want people who hate other forms of play who denigrate other forms of victory beyond 'mech smash' to have their own sandbox to play peacefully with those who enjoy it, and stay out of the queues that I prefer like Assault and Conquest.

So I support the ideas why you are looking at a voting system, and why opting out is often detrimental, being forced into gameplay you do not enjoy will encourage people to opt out of playing MWO entirely and spending more money as well.

So, yeah... I'm kinda resigned and not thrilled, but I'll wait to see how it implements, too. I could be wrong.

Edited by Kjudoon, 19 September 2014 - 11:15 PM.

[Sadist Cain]

Russ Bullock, on 19 September 2014 - 10:54 PM, said:

No basically in the front end UI where you select game modes. That stays just the same but instead of becoming a hard stop it becomes a vote. So the match maker ignores game mode when it creates a match, it just creates the best one possible within the remaining criteria. Only then does the match maker take a tally of all the votes and chooses a game mode. So it isn't totally random and is still voted on by the players passively in their choice from the front end UI.

Everywhere I seem to go these day there's this "Russ" character in threads posting helpful info and future insights.

Very interested to see a matchmaker without hard stops.

Have you perhaps also consider a "rematch" vote option or something of that ilk? Losing teams always like to get payback and winners usually like to show their dominance.
I think it would be interesting to see if teams could vote for the option of two additional rematchs, creating a best of 3 kind of environment (then you can title the matchmaker the 3/3/3/3/3 )

Also I believe it would give far more bang for your buck on the matchmaker, teams that get steamrolled by another can choose to decline the rematch and teams that have good games can battle it out for longer.

You can bet those second games would see a lot more tactics and coordination between players too.

[n r g]

Ghostwolfe, on 19 September 2014 - 10:30 PM, said:

I know there are going to be some who flame this, despite that negativity I'm hoping this post is seen by a Dev and taken as constructive.

The issue is what happens when you drop in a group. Seriously, I grouped with one friend who is new to the game and we ended up going up against multiple 12 man teams. Each game ended as expected: The "pug" team was rolled hard and fast and not a once of fun. I just logged from one game where the 12 man team killed 9 of my pug group in under two minutes by just rushing as a solid group. You can't even get a bunch of puggers to group up in the first minute on average so there is not really a way to stop that. Might as well just log out.

Is this working as intended? multiple 2 or 3 person groups going up against full 12 man teams using headphones? Absolutely not fun and if anything only discourages new people from making groups. A 12-0 roll is not even worth logging in for, even if you are on the winning side.

Any devs?

Who "rolled" you Ghostwolfe?

[Kushko]

I think 2-3 man groups should be put in the "solo queue" and hardlock the group queues to 4/8/12 man groups. This way you have no "we have 9-10 ppl and we need to mix and match another 2-3 in to our group to make a full group" and would also fix the small group of friends that really dont want to get rolled by an organized full 12 man.

Russ, you want people to bring their friends in to the game and not get discouraged by playing together in small groups. A 2-3 man group will never roll over an enemy pug team, especially if the matchmaker also puts a 2-3 man group on the other team.

So 2-3 man teams get put in solo queue and 4/8/12 hardlocked teams (you need 1,2 or 3 full lances to queue) for group queue and organized play. Simple and effective solution for both types of players and along with the vote instead of hardlock choices it would go a long way to fix most current MM problems.

[Ghostwolfe]

Thanks for the response Russ.


That three queue idea looks like a possible winner. I understand the issue with growing the player base out, I even tried my part and brought a new player. However after the solid 12-0 games due to full 12 man teams stomping the pug groups his only comment about MWO to me before logging was "You play this??? Why?" Then he logged off for the night and I'm back in the solo queue.

It simply doesn't help when those 12 man winning teams rub it in either, the ggclose crap just encourages others to not log on. I know trolls will be always present and not much can be done other than grow thick skin but a new player is not going to bother. That kills the chance to grow the playerbase. Very vicious circle.

E N E R G Y, on 19 September 2014 - 11:46 PM, said:

Who "rolled" you Ghostwolfe?

That's pretty mean of you to post this. You and your 12 man team was just one of the teams. There were others but we played yours twice. No chance in hell of beating it. You are one of the very players who LIKE a 12 - 0 game in your favor and seeing you post here that comment is just asinine. I don't even give your question or opinion any weight after seeing this from you.

[n r g]

Ghostwolfe, on 19 September 2014 - 11:55 PM, said:

Thanks for the response Russ.


That three queue idea looks like a possible winner. I understand the issue with growing the player base out, I even tried my part and brought a new player. However after the solid 12-0 games due to full 12 man teams stomping the pug groups his only comment about MWO to me before logging was "You play this??? Why?" Then he logged off for the night and I'm back in the solo queue.

It simply doesn't help when those 12 man winning teams rub it in either, the ggclose crap just encourages others to not log on. I know trolls will be always present and not much can be done other than grow thick skin but a new player is not going to bother. That kills the chance to grow the playerbase. Very vicious circle.



That's pretty mean of you to post this. You and your 12 man team was just one of the teams. There were others but we played yours twice. No chance in hell of beating it. You are one of the very players who LIKE a 12 - 0 game in your favor and seeing you post here that comment is just asinine. I don't even give your question or opinion any weight after seeing this from you.

Why wouldn't a competitive team, who strives to be the best and plays to win, want anything but a 12-0 game.....?

Edited by E N E R G Y, 20 September 2014 - 12:25 AM.

[Zolaz]

Small groups prefer beating up on solo PUGs. 2 man groups find the game too hard and difficult. Seems like 2 man groups should go onto one of the dedicated Teamspeak servers and find some friends. Teamwork is OP and the battlefield is a brutal place if you go there all alone.

It is probably easier for people to ask for the game to be made easier than to get better or alter their current behavior.

[R E A V E R]

its an interesting problem. on one side you have people complaining that they can't play in groups larger then 4 so their friends leave the game. on the other hand you allow these groups and players complain that they are getting rofl stomped by 10 and 12 man groups and are leaving the game....... Seems that people are going to leave no matter the solution. i think that there should be a singles only queue. i like this idea alot. To get new players comfortable, i think an AI script should be written for the mechs in the training ground that activate when the player mech initiates combat by shooting one of them. A player hosting training ground should be able to lobby and run a small single group free to train on maps and vs these AI mechs. Maybe have tutorial tips in this scenario. (no cbills gathered) I think this would be the easiest new player training scenario to set up.

As for the group queue. Its going to be hard to break up through more options and still keep wait times low. Maybe an algorithm can be added that will allow matchmaker to place groups of 6+ in a bucket, then build two teams with the largest available group on each team. Then scan the 5 player and less group bucket to fill any short fall.

Groups of 5 or less could be placed in a separate bucket and teams built from these exclusively with the occasional group put into the larger group teams to fill them out if required.

This would mean the game would have only two queues, but would prioritize small group teams vs small group teams and large group teams vs large group teams with fill in groups taken from the small group bucket if required

[Namouche]

Russ Bullock, on 19 September 2014 - 10:46 PM, said:

I want to change the game mode selector from a hard stop to a "vote" this way it is more possible for the match maker to match that 12 man up against another 12 man.

Why not making it a priority selector? something nice with a grid like the weapons group

[Kjudoon]

Zolaz, on 20 September 2014 - 01:27 AM, said:

Small groups prefer beating up on solo PUGs. 2 man groups find the game too hard and difficult. Seems like 2 man groups should go onto one of the dedicated Teamspeak servers and find some friends. Teamwork is OP and the battlefield is a brutal place if you go there all alone.

It is probably easier for people to ask for the game to be made easier than to get better or alter their current behavior.

Not a solution for those who do not desire to play against 12mans which is pretty much everyone in groups under 5. To cavalierly do a variation of L2P or get a team ignores the issue. They should not be facing players of significantly higher elo being hidden by group averaging. Ever.

[Kushko]

E N E R G Y, on 20 September 2014 - 12:24 AM, said:

Why wouldn't a competitive team, who strives to be the best and plays to win, want anything but a 12-0 game.....?

Why wouldn't the same team act like adults and/or want skilled and organized teams to go up against to actually prove their skill.

Tell me...would you feel like a big man if you beat a 12yo at arm wrestling?

[Jaguar Prime]

No matter what you do, there are going to be people who are unhappy with it. Getting rolled 12-0 is part of the game. It happens, some days more than others.

Forcing players and teams into undesired game modes will create a new set of issues and complaints. When a primary skirmish 12 man goes into conquest against a primary conquest 12 man, 12-0 it like a skirmish match, you will get complaints. Samething when an assault primary 12 man goes into skirmish and get rolled by a skirmish primary 12 man. Complaints will come.

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. so what happens if you take 12 man's out. Then the Complaints come about 10 man and 8 man groups rolling through the smaller groups. What do you do then? Teamwork is overpowered......

The best compromise is the current system until the player population his high enough that it fixes itself.

Just my $0.02.