Davers, on 11 March 2014 - 07:07 PM, said:
A. If the planned MM is going to try to match mech for mech (as the Devs have said it would) then I see no reason that it can't try to match group size as well. I am sure groups wouldn't mind longer que times in exchange for better matches.
B. As for going through all that 'time and expense', they sure are dedicating a lot of time and effort to cater to 12 man groups who only represent 1% of all launches, compared to the 16% of other group sizes.
A: That's true, as far as it goes - but I haven't seen any plans from PGI for that, and it's a different philosophy of match balance. It would also cause a higher failure rate for any length of queue timer, since the game would be trying to match people with more restrictive criteria. This is one of the reasons PGI gave us, if you recall. If you get a significant failure rate, you have to either increase the queue timeout limit, or else start relaxing the matchmaking criteria - which gets us right back to how much a larger team will affect the matches. If you have an 11-man team, and you're the odd man out, ironically that might not be so bad. But if only half the team, or three-quarters, is on dedictated voice coms and not talking to you, that might have different outcomes - and in any case a larger team on the other end means more people cooperating to kill you unless you adopt a "hide behind the premade" playing style. In short, it's quite possible that matches would not
be better.
B: I haven't said anything about "all that" time and expense - I've asked whether the time and expense being advocated is
worth the expected outcomes, and whether those outcomes are reasonable to expect. It's a matter of cost-effectiveness, not volume. Possibly increasing their server load on public matches to allow larger teams is also somewhat different from implementing a system where players pay for the ability to more narrowly define match parameters. Allowing larger teams, particularly midsize teams, runs the risk of creating games where the PuG players' collective contributions feel less important - and larger team sizes become less distinct an experience compared to 12-man play. The 12-man environment, on the other hand, is largely used by competitive teams, often for such things as MRBC, Marik Civil War, and RHoD. Since many of these custom tournaments have nonstandard drop compositions (take
MRBC for example,) the potential for investment in this queue to pay for itself is present. Also, I'd expect that 12-man organized play - with the teams, competitions, and social organiztions that grow up around it - would be a way for the game to gain visibility via twitch.tv and the like. So expanding participation in 12-mans might be a good investment, while blurring the lines and increasing the matchmaking time in the PuG queue might not.
The quote you cited isn't a critique of people wanting larger team sizes - it's a defense of my critique of the emotionalistic language and shoddy logic used by many proponents of larger PuG teams. PGI has given us clearly stated reasons for why they're going with 4-man teams; claiming that they "just don't want to do it," is silly, and claiming they're acting "for no reason" is an out-and-out lie. That being said, while I reserve the right to disagree and object, I don't mind hearing reasonable responses (such as your own) on the subject. It is my patience with sophistry and dishonest thought that tends to be... limited. =) Thanks for your input.
PS: (where does that "1% of all launches" figure come from? I'm always interested in reliable data, but I haven't been able to source that one.)