28 replies to this topic

[Bront]

Many people complain that 4 man teams are too small, and 12 man teams are too hard to organize. So why not open up a 6 man queue? It would require a team of 6 exactly, and you'd be matched up with another 6 man against 2 other 6 man teams.

This keeps a 6 man out of the PUG queue while offering an alternative to 12 man teams for folks who can't get them together. It would mostly draw players from the 2-4/PUG queue as folks looking for a 12 man are either going to play 12 man games, or would have ended up in the 2-4/PUG queue anyway.

Option: If there are 2 odd 6 man teams in the queue and 1 odd 12 man team in the queue, if the match maker can't find any other matches, match the 2 6-mans against a 12 man.or possiblly 3 4 man teams.

[Supersmacky]

I'd like a 6 man team option. I don't think PGI is on board with that idea, but I like it. Then again, I am an advocate for any team size 2 through 12. My unit regularly has more that 4 (usually 5 to 8) on during the week. A 6 man option would at least allow more of us (or any group) to drop together.

[Bront]

I'm giving up on the > 6 man fight for now, but a 6 man queue is both workable and should be balanced from the get go regarding teams ability to communicate and work together, but won't be quite as organized as a 12 man, offering a middle ground for many folks who enjoy a good team and like not having newbs or low ELO players thrown in for "balance".

[tucsonspeed6]

I like the idea, and I think if PGI found 4 mans more common than they are, they might be on board too. I just don't think they'd want to spend the man hours on building a queue that might not get used.

[Roland]

There's really no reason to institute arbitrary caps on team sizes. It doesn't really solve the problems it was designed to deal with.

But a 6 man queue is far more accessible than a 12 man queue, so that's good.

Although I would say that just making the 12 man queue into an unrestricted queue, where teams of any size can join (as well as solo players who want to play with teams), would be an infinitely better solution. And there's really no reason not to implement that solution.

[Bront]

Roland, on 06 March 2014 - 11:53 AM, said:

There's really no reason to institute arbitrary caps on team sizes. It doesn't really solve the problems it was designed to deal with.

But a 6 man queue is far more accessible than a 12 man queue, so that's good.

Although I would say that just making the 12 man queue into an unrestricted queue, where teams of any size can join (as well as solo players who want to play with teams), would be an infinitely better solution. And there's really no reason not to implement that solution.

The idea is balance, and a 6 man queue is easy to balance (it's 2 premade 6 man teams vs 2 other premade 6 man teams).

till we get private matches, 12 mans are the only realistic way to synch drop against specific opponents (6 mans wouldn't work either, as 12 man would be more likely to happen). That doesn't mean an unrestricted queue wouldn't be a bad idea, I just don't see it happening under the current system.

[Supersmacky]

Was thinking about this and reading some of the comments. A better solution would just be to have a lobby where people could either queue up for the next match or choose to join an open match (as an individual or team). Then have a commit button and one you have 12 v 12 (or at least even numbers), launch the match. The lobby would allow for chatting across the community and for groups from different units to jump in a match either against each other or in support of each other. It would be open to everyone, allow any sort of mix and let people set up meaningful matches on the fly.

Just my thought...not to get off topic. Doing a six man would be better that the current limit of 4 or trying to set up a 12.

[Roland]

Bront, on 06 March 2014 - 12:25 PM, said:

till we get private matches, 12 mans are the only realistic way to synch drop against specific opponents (6 mans wouldn't work either, as 12 man would be more likely to happen). That doesn't mean an unrestricted queue wouldn't be a bad idea, I just don't see it happening under the current system.

Ah, well I'm assuming that the private matches will be implemented.
At that point, the 12 man queue basically loses all utility.. because folks are really just using it to do what private matches will be for (mainly because the 12 man queue is so empty that if two folks drop in it, they're gonna be the only guys dropping).

Once we have private matches, we can safely just get rid of that queue, and replace it with an unrestricted one.

Likewise, I'd probably replace the current queue with a solo queue, to appease folks who want to play in environments without teams... That is really the queue which should have been made originally, instead of the player caps and 12 man queue that they added.

[TB Freelancer]

Considering that premades have so thoroughly avoided facing each other that the 8 man queue was still born, and the 12 man queue in even worse shape, the group queues ignored so utterly by the premades that PGI is considering removing the 12 man queue from the game entirely, I'm curious.....

....how would 6 mans be any different?

[Bront]

TB Freelancer, on 06 March 2014 - 03:53 PM, said:

Considering that premades have so thoroughly avoided facing each other that the 8 man queue was still born, and the 12 man queue in even worse shape, the group queues ignored so utterly by the premades that PGI is considering removing the 12 man queue from the game entirely, I'm curious.....

....how would 6 mans be any different?

6 men are easier to organize than 12 man queues, and since you're not making up the entirety of the drop (since it's ultimately 12v12), it lessens the "ultra hardcore" impact on the queue (since both sides have 2 distinct 6 man teams) but it also means you'll be getting paired with and against similar tactically viable competition. It also could lead to some interesting tactics, as it's now more viable to split up into 2 6 man teams.

The closes equivalent to the old 8 man queue would be if there was a 4 man queue that worked the same way.

Honestly, I'd be happier if they opened the group size up to 2-6 man, but since that seems to be something they're dead set against, a 6 man queue has the potential to be a good middle of the road queue that's fairly easy to implement (logistically, not sure about the programming end) as well as potentially attractive to current players.

[Dark Kn1ght]

I am quite new to this game, but am enjoying it tremendously thus far. I would love to see an additional option added to the group feature currently in place in between the 2 - 4 and the 12 man group options. 2 - 4 grouping, 5 - 8 grouping, and the 12 man grouping. Some friends and I play regularly, and there is always a couple of 'odd men out' because we don't have enough to do 12 mans, but too many to be able to utilize the 4 man grouping option.

[Roland]

TB Freelancer, on 06 March 2014 - 03:53 PM, said:

Considering that premades have so thoroughly avoided facing each other that the 8 man queue was still born, and the 12 man queue in even worse shape, the group queues ignored so utterly by the premades that PGI is considering removing the 12 man queue from the game entirely, I'm curious.....

....how would 6 mans be any different?

I think that a large portion of grouped players didn't intentionally ignore those larger queues, but rather simply could not effectively get enough people to play in them on a regular basis. The mere act of TRYING to get a bunch of people together was a huge pain.

Additionally, it turned those high level queues into a much more "serious business" affair than I think a lot of folks really wanted, which hurt participation rates.

If you just made an unrestricted queue, then that's where folks would play... There would be no trouble playing in it, and there would be no way for folks to try and avoid playing in it by taking smaller groups.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Two queues:

Unrestricted
Solo-only.

I honestly believe these would help the community develop along the lines necessary to be most comfortable in a competitive community warfare scene once it arrives.

edit: this assumes matchmaking works as effectively as it is advertised/intended. A separate but closely tied issue that must be addressed.

Edited by Lukoi, 09 March 2014 - 01:17 PM.

[Sandpit]

Roland, on 09 March 2014 - 12:48 PM, said:

I think that a large portion of grouped players didn't intentionally ignore those larger queues, but rather simply could not effectively get enough people to play in them on a regular basis. The mere act of TRYING to get a bunch of people together was a huge pain.

^ This

have any idea how hard it can be to get 12 people all on the same page and readied up just to wait at the searching screen for 10 minutes sometimes or worse yet get a failed to find match message? If you don't, then you've definitely not spent much time in 12mans.
it's a matter of it's being extremely difficult to get that kind of match together a lot of times.

[Sandpit]

Lukoi, on 09 March 2014 - 01:05 PM, said:

Two queues:

Unrestricted
Solo-only.

I honestly believe these would help the community develop along the lines necessary to be most comfortable in a competitive community warfare scene once it arrives.

I would be happy if they did but in my opinion it would severely hurt the new players and solo queues.

There's a lot of players that would gravitate to the unrestricted queue. That means a smaller population in the solo queue. All new players are going to drop in the solo queue to start. Now you have all new players segregated into a queue with veterans and ggclose players with a smaller overall population. That means now you have new players facing off against those types of players more often, not less. That's a bad situation and makes things worse, not better.

it basically creates a situation where new players are easier to find and play against for more of the ggclose type dbags. I'm all for it if it means I can drop in a group of any size and participate in CW but I really believe it would be a bad situation for new players

[EvilCow]

Very good idea, it just makes sense... but NIH so forget it.

[Roland]

Sandpit, on 09 March 2014 - 01:11 PM, said:

I would be happy if they did but in my opinion it would severely hurt the new players and solo queues.

There's a lot of players that would gravitate to the unrestricted queue. That means a smaller population in the solo queue. All new players are going to drop in the solo queue to start. Now you have all new players segregated into a queue with veterans and ggclose players with a smaller overall population. That means now you have new players facing off against those types of players more often, not less. That's a bad situation and makes things worse, not better.

it basically creates a situation where new players are easier to find and play against for more of the ggclose type dbags. I'm all for it if it means I can drop in a group of any size and participate in CW but I really believe it would be a bad situation for new players

I don't think it'd actually be a problem though.

I agree, most players would likely move to the unrestricted queue. But in the solo queue, it's much easier to do matchmaking, so wait times for both queues would be reasonable.

In terms of good players showing up in the solo queue, that's also not really going to be a huge problem because you won't have the case where you have 4 top players all grouped together on one side. Having a few good players scatttered in a match isn't going to ruin anything for anyone.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Roland, on 09 March 2014 - 01:18 PM, said:

I don't think it'd actually be a problem though.

I agree, most players would likely move to the unrestricted queue. But in the solo queue, it's much easier to do matchmaking, so wait times for both queues would be reasonable.

Personally, Idk if most players would move to the unrestricted queue or not. But regardless, the concerns about the new player experience can be mitigated with minimum requirements (minimum Elo level, minimum # of games played etc....there are some arbitrary limits that can be placed out there to help with this, not just these) to ensure people are getting the "new player" experience more fully before being placed in pell-mell in the unrestricted queue.

A properly functioning MM, one that meets the expectations of players more fully, would help quite a bit with the 2 queues above, which is why I advocate for that option over a multitude of 4, 6, 12 and open queues with the caveat that the MM needs to work effectively.

I think you are spot on in your assessment of "good" players sprinkled across the solo queue as being relatively non-problematic.

[Koniving]

Bront, on 06 March 2014 - 09:23 AM, said:

Many people complain that 4 man teams are too small, and 12 man teams are too hard to organize. So why not open up a 6 man queue? It would require a team of 6 exactly, and you'd be matched up with another 6 man against 2 other 6 man teams.

This keeps a 6 man out of the PUG queue while offering an alternative to 12 man teams for folks who can't get them together. It would mostly draw players from the 2-4/PUG queue as folks looking for a 12 man are either going to play 12 man games, or would have ended up in the 2-4/PUG queue anyway.

Option: If there are 2 odd 6 man teams in the queue and 1 odd 12 man team in the queue, if the match maker can't find any other matches, match the 2 6-mans against a 12 man.or possiblly 3 4 man teams.

It's not likely to happen given the launch module, but...

But here's an idea.

What if there's a game mode with 3 teams. 8 versus 8 versus 8?

o.o; Just kinda thought of it while talking about a tabletop scenario with three players.

[Sandpit]

Roland, on 09 March 2014 - 01:18 PM, said:

I don't think it'd actually be a problem though.

I agree, most players would likely move to the unrestricted queue. But in the solo queue, it's much easier to do matchmaking, so wait times for both queues would be reasonable.

In terms of good players showing up in the solo queue, that's also not really going to be a huge problem because you won't have the case where you have 4 top players all grouped together on one side. Having a few good players scatttered in a match isn't going to ruin anything for anyone.

I don't mean "good" players. I mean moderately decent players that have a lot of experience with the game and generally are going to perform better than the average new player. That's where they'll start getting more roflstomps on new players which is not good at all.
The unrestricted queue would, just my opinion mind you, become more popular amongst most of the players. That means the ggclose crowd who's idea of fun is roflstomping other teams will be left in the solo queue with new players and the die hard "i hate premades and ts" type players. Then we'll not only have those diehards either moving on to the group queue or quitting out of frustration but we'll also have new players getting discouraged and disappointed quitting because they won't even stick around long enough to understand there's a whole different queue with premades available.

Premades are generally the type of players that want to do things like help new players because they want to recruit for units, see the game expand, and have their units improve. They invest countless hours and money into things like websites, ts servers, etc. Pulling those players out and away from the "gen pop" isn't going to improve anything.

Like I said, I'm all for giving premades a separate queue, I just don't see it helping anything

Lukoi, on 09 March 2014 - 01:35 PM, said:

Personally, Idk if most players would move to the unrestricted queue or not. But regardless, the concerns about the new player experience can be mitigated with minimum requirements (minimum Elo level, minimum # of games played etc....there are some arbitrary limits that can be placed out there to help with this, not just these) to ensure people are getting the "new player" experience more fully before being placed in pell-mell in the unrestricted queue. problematic.

This is where we should have a separate queue. I've said this for years. New players are the ones that should have their own queue. They only face other new players while they're learning the game. I'd also have vets in the community apply and approved for dropping in that queue along side of them to offer advice, tips, etc.
That's how you ensure new players aren't involved in roflstomps, horrid losing streaks, etc. As long as new players in trial mech are allowed to drop with the general population you're going to have new guys getting roflstomped.