182 replies to this topic

[Chemie]

The weight class is also a very real issue. Pug can drop in anything. A team of 3 assault, 1 heavy (which is likely since 4-mans will not cede all the tons to the pugs) means that wait times will be very long indeed.

Of course, maybe this is how 4-mans can force their way into the queue? The MM needs to have at least one team so then you grab all those assault slots forcing the pugs out of assaults completely. LOL

The more I think about it, the more broken it gets.

[Sandpit]

Chemie, on 21 March 2014 - 03:24 AM, said:

The weight class is also a very real issue. Pug can drop in anything. A team of 3 assault, 1 heavy (which is likely since 4-mans will not cede all the tons to the pugs) means that wait times will be very long indeed.

Of course, maybe this is how 4-mans can force their way into the queue? The MM needs to have at least one team so then you grab all those assault slots forcing the pugs out of assaults completely. LOL

The more I think about it, the more broken it gets.

Yup, I've also pointed out how it's fairly easy to get a group together and solo sync drop, then whoever makes it into the game just move into the same TS channel and go from there. The new launch module doesn't solve or "fix" anything. It just pissed off people who were told group limits were temporary

[Screech]

Yes, a separate any sized queue is needed. Will open up new excuses.

[Bhael Fire]

I think the likelihood of unrestricted group queue comes down to this;

What's more important to grouped players: Balanced matches with shorter wait times OR the ability to drop in any group size?

Pretty sure it ultimately boils down to that. Personally, I'd love to see a groups-only queue that matches groups of all sizes together (e.g. 6+4+2 v 2+2+3+5)...if not just for the freedom of dropping in any sized group, but also so solo players could have their own queue.

Personally, if I'm playing in a group (which I do from time to time) I'd easily sacrifice shorter wait times just to be able to drop in a group larger than 4 but less than 12. As for balance problems, I know Russ and Bryan have stated that 12-mans could steamroll teams comprised of smaller groups, but not so much so as they think. Even a team comprised entirely of 2-mans could reasonably take on a 12-man, especially if the 2-mans had higher Elo scores.

Even if they made it so you couldn't form a 5-11 sized group in the public queues unless the group leader had premium time, I think that'd be better than forcing those players into private queues.

Basically, with over "100 years combined experience", I'm fairly certain they can come up with a better idea than making groups of 5-11 play in private matches only.

Edited by Bhael Fire, 21 March 2014 - 12:38 PM.

[Sandpit]

Peiper, on 20 March 2014 - 07:05 PM, said:

22:30In FACTION play, Piranha will create the rules. That's where you're faction will mean something. Clanners will have to be clanners, and use clan mechs and IS will use IS mechs and “get involved in those battles and situations of rules and roleplay.” [And us mercs? Black Market? Omnimech factories on Outreach? Come on, spill it, Russ! -Peiper]

23:20 Look at future matchmaking in 3 balloons. One is pug play (what we have now). One is private matches. One is faction warfare.

27:00 If clan mechs prove to be better than inner sphere mechs after all, there is an ability with their matchmaker to treat clan mechs as 5 tons heavier, as an example, so matchmaker will try to pad the IS tonnage to fit with the number of clan mechs opposing. .

Well I give up. It's quite apparent that PGI has no desire to make the CW that was originally touted out to us. For the first time ever I sincerely feel cheated by this company. Countless hours and a good amount of dollars spent supporting community warfare and groups that are now considered "op".

Bhael Fire, on 21 March 2014 - 12:27 PM, said:

I think the likelihood of unrestricted group queue comes down to this;

What's more important to grouped players: Balanced matches with shorter wait times OR the ability to drop in any group size?

Pretty sure it ultimately boils down to that. Personally, I'd love to see a groups-only queue that matches groups of all sizes together (e.g. 6+4+2 v 2+2+3+5)...if not just for the freedom of dropping in any sized group, but also so solo players could have their own queue.

Personally, if I'm playing in a group (which I do from time to time) I'd easily sacrifice shorter wait times just to be able to drop in a group larger than 4 but less than 12. As for balance problems, I know Russ and Bryan have stated that 12-mans could steamroll teams comprised of smaller groups, but not so much so as they think. Even a team comprised entirely of 2-mans could reasonably take on a 12-man, especially if the 2-mans had higher Elo scores.

Even if they made it so you couldn't form a 5-11 sized group in the public queues unless the group leader had premium time, I think that'd be better than forcing those players into private queues.

Too bad people are trying to make it out that 5-11 should be lumped into 12mans and want "private custom matches for free" (check out my twitter for me being accused of that lol) instead of just grouping up and dropping into a CW match. PGI is completely out of touch, I think road is right and they're just moving this to be another LoL and some sort of "esport" type game.

[Sam Slade]

Sandpit, on 21 March 2014 - 12:38 PM, said:

For the first time ever I sincerely feel cheated by this company. Countless hours and a good amount of dollars spent supporting community warfare and groups that are now considered "op".

If Sandpit is getting down on PGI this must be pretty effing serious to the true believer fans(I used to be one)...

wake up Russ... your community is not going to stay if you keep this up.

[Deathlike]

Sam Slade, on 22 March 2014 - 07:19 PM, said:

wake up Russ... your community is not going to stay if you keep this up.

Did you not know we're vacationing on some island? It's a nice place!

[Hood]

Here is a perfect reason of why we need them so bad (I could give you more but this on is comical).

I'm in a group of 3, 1 fast med two fast assaults.Everyone starts heading for the saddle, the three of us head to the right side to check and see if the enemy forces went that way. As we head over there I notice that mechs are headed to the middle of the saddle and then back. Ok so everyone is there and engaging...

My group gets to the end of the tunnel, and i tell the rest of the company, "Get ready to push". I talk to my guys and say we are at best going to get beat the hell up but we will catch them in a cross fire once the other side pushes and might survive.I doubt it but we might get lucky.

So we start our push under the platform and about half way start to get engaged. Im expecting to the our guys push soon, Im licking my chops this should be fun..

No now we are in the middle of the **** and i'm typing in push push... still no push.. so after putting up a good fight and lasting way longer then we should have. I type in to the rest of the team, 'Why didn't you push"? (not in those nice words) And here is what I got back....

"We thought you were saying they were going to push..."

Yes this is a very true story unfortunately for me and my friends..

Edited by Hood, 24 March 2014 - 05:42 AM.

[Edustaja]

Letting a 4-man bring 3 assaults and a heavy will imbalance the 3/3/3/3 system a lot more than in the current free for all where you can have half the team in assaults...

[Joseph Mallan]

Edustaja, on 24 March 2014 - 05:59 AM, said:

Letting a 4-man bring 3 assaults and a heavy will imbalance the 3/3/3/3 system a lot more than in the current free for all where you can have half the team in assaults...

Care to elaborate? I think I know where you are going so I can't disagree, but I am interested in your reasoning first.

[PhoenixFire55]

Hood, on 19 March 2014 - 01:02 PM, said:

PLEASE PGI, I beg you!!! Stop making me drop with stupid people.. Its just not fun.

You'll be able to not drop with stupid people soon ... as long as you pay real money for it. Fun game, eh?

Mystere, on 19 March 2014 - 02:03 PM, said:

What do you think will happen in the forums if a pug team faced a full 12-man and got massacred?

The QQ will be of biblical proportions.

Don't get me wrong. I myself am not against it, even if I only play solo. But ...

PUG teams are still getting massacred and they still blame everyone and everything but themselves. Nothing will change.
One queue for groups of 2-10, another queue for solo drops. Problem solved.

[Mystere]

PhoenixFire55, on 24 March 2014 - 06:11 AM, said:

PUG teams are still getting massacred and they still blame everyone and everything but themselves. Nothing will change.
One queue for groups of 2-10, another queue for solo drops. Problem solved.

On this I wholeheartedly agree with you.

[Edustaja]

Joseph Mallan, on 24 March 2014 - 06:05 AM, said:

Care to elaborate? I think I know where you are going so I can't disagree, but I am interested in your reasoning first.

If I can take a team of four coordinated heaviest mechs they will almost invariably have a larger impact on the game than other combination of coordinated mechs. You can effectively focus the majority of the team's firepower. Every time you take up the heaviest slots you will know that you have that advantage while the enemy might not.

The best the enemy team can hope for is having the same, otherwise the uncoordinated assaults and heavies will just get eaten.At least in this current matchmaker there might be more than three assault mechs to a side so the 4 assault lance is relatively less influential (though it's pretty grim) .

Medium and light teams can do pretty well against solo assault pilots or uncoordinated heavies, but to deal with a lance of assaults on voice comms is pretty hard.

Edited by Edustaja, 24 March 2014 - 06:19 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Ok but the best TEAM wins the match, so why force limits? So having your 3 Assaults and a Heavy in the best players (ie most coordinated) hands is better for the team.

[Edustaja]

Joseph Mallan, on 24 March 2014 - 06:17 AM, said:

Ok but the best TEAM wins the match, so why force limits? So having your 3 Assaults and a Heavy in the best players (ie most coordinated) hands is better for the team.

It all comes down to the basic philosophy that should you have an equal chance of victory regardless of your group size or lack of.

I was under the impression that this change of the matchmaker was there to make matches more even.

If you argue that you should get more of an advantage the more friends you bring then I guess you are correct.

[Sandpit]

Edustaja, on 24 March 2014 - 06:42 AM, said:

It all comes down to the basic philosophy that should you have an equal chance of victory regardless of your group size or lack of.

I was under the impression that this change of the matchmaker was there to make matches more even.

If you argue that you should get more of an advantage the more friends you bring then I guess you are correct.

LOL OK

No
No
No
We are arguing that we be able to play the same game as you even though we have more than 3 friends to play alongside of.
CW
5-11man groups
That's it. Don't make it into anything else.

[Edustaja]

Sandpit, on 24 March 2014 - 08:30 AM, said:

LOL OK

No
No
No
We are arguing that we be able to play the same game as you even though we have more than 3 friends to play alongside of.
CW
5-11man groups
That's it. Don't make it into anything else.

I would be OK with this provided the matchmaking would be fair, eg. it matched groups of about the equal size and Elo.

[Roadbeer]

Everyone seems like they'd be OK with it, but, unfortunately this doesn't look like it's going to happen.

[Edustaja]

Roadbeer, on 24 March 2014 - 09:19 AM, said:

Everyone seems like they'd be OK with it, but, unfortunately this doesn't look like it's going to happen.

Yeah, I missed the topic a bit
I was arguing against the planned implementation of the 1-4 player 3/3/3/3 queue as it stands, but I guess the thread was more about griping against the decision to not include the options to run 5-11 men without premium matchmaking

[Roadbeer]

Edustaja, on 24 March 2014 - 09:28 AM, said:

Yeah, I missed the topic a bit
but I guess the thread was more about griping against the decision to not include the options to run 5-11 men without premium matchmaking

It's not even the premium time thing, its that the private matches are without reward and the likelihood that we'll need to use 3rd party software to get a match for 5-11.

No statement about the alleged 'lobby' makes it seem like it's more than the current group system, with a couple options thrown in for setting match parameters. No "Oh, and you'll see a list of other groups that are equal in size, etc." No support for the private queues to be able to find matches, just, build your group then invite (if you know them) an opponent.