1126 replies to this topic

[IceCase88]

Yes... why allow solo pugs to join a group? I mean how would you be able maintain this PUG vs group fight? Instead of enticing people to join groups let's keep the us vs them fight going. Goodness knows we do not want community peace or anything. Massive . Sure, not every player is going to want to join a group but since you are asking groups to train new players to the game wouldn't the best way to make their experience better be by allowing them to play with coordinated groups? Just a suggestion.

lol... there is an emoticon limit? WOW!

[stevemac]

Heffay, on 24 April 2014 - 02:29 PM, said:

And the great news is that starting Tuesday, you'll be able to play with all of them at exactly the same time!

Heffay your right they can but not the way most of us would like. IE. group click launch.

Using Roadbeer's list he has 5 people he wont be able to start a lobby group up and go into a public match.
Providing that at least 2 people have a Paid account. It will only work if there is a prem on ether side then it becomes a 2 on 3 match. If there is only 1 person that has premium time they will be forced to ether look in there TS for 7 more (12man) or use a 3rd party software to find a few more players so he can drop. I'm sorry but in my opinion that's going to get old real quick.

Edited by stevemac, 25 April 2014 - 04:42 AM.

[Amsro]

Deathlike, on 24 April 2014 - 11:17 PM, said:

What is Craig Steele's logic?

Devil's Advocate

Quote

someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position they do not necessarily agree with (or simply an alternative position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further. In taking this position, the individual taking on the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process.

Once you realize this you will see this he is mostly harmless. He's truly on our side.

King Arthur IV, on 25 April 2014 - 01:02 AM, said:

stealing me post ideas i see!

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3306835

I'm sure you created The Loch Ness monster too!

Craig Steele, on 25 April 2014 - 12:24 AM, said:

But some people seem to be suggesting that 2-3 man groups might just have to suck it up and their only option is to backfill larger guilds / teams.

But truly that is ALL 2-3 man groups can ever do is backfill a 9-10 player team.

I'm lost as to how this is bad thing? Simply a 2-3 man will be on the other side of the fence in the same position as you. This would be matchmakers job, to match.

Edited by Amsro, 25 April 2014 - 04:52 AM.

[Craig Steele]

Amsro, on 25 April 2014 - 04:51 AM, said:

But truly that is ALL 2-3 man groups can ever do is backfill a 9-10 player team.

I'm lost as to how this is bad thing? Simply a 2-3 man will be on the other side of the fence in the same position as you. This would be matchmakers job, to match.

Or more accurately,

Someone who thinks about future possibilities and promotes robust discussion of mitigants before they become an issue.

And yes, as you identified in your example, there are two sides evenly matched in an ideal world.

So thats 4 - 6 people getting chewed up by the "larger group" and perpetuating the "Evil Premade wiped me and my <insert here>" scenario.

It's really not rocket science.

We all know that Pre made groups enjoy a force multiplier advantage. The bigger the group the bigger the advantage. That's why its called a multiplier.

We all know smaller groups will be required to fill out teams in a "Group Only" queue and will be at a disadvantage to the larger group "pack".

Why force them into the scenario, why not give them the option.

Want to play with the big boys, fine, knock yourself out (same option for Solo players) The more the merrier. But you will be a filler and you will have to choose lighter mechs to get a game in the MM as the bigger teams will monopolise the heavier chassis weights mostly.

Want a quick get in and get out "mech of your choice" experience, sure. PUG queue for you, all similarly minded people just playing for laughs and entertainment. (Bar the odd wanna be hero)

Theres really no reason for us to not say to PGI, lets have something with more options for players (subject to getting the balance of things right, no pre made stomps).

[Pyrrho]

Craig Steele, on 25 April 2014 - 05:04 AM, said:

And yes, as you identified in your example, there are two sides evenly matched in an ideal world.

So thats 4 - 6 people getting chewed up by the "larger group" and perpetuating the "Evil Premade wiped me and my <insert here>" scenario.

It's really not rocket science.

We all know that Pre made groups enjoy a force multiplier advantage. The bigger the group the bigger the advantage. That's why its called a multiplier.

In this scenario, anyone who would complain that they were wiped by a group (not being in a group themselves) can choose to play where there are never any groups.

I like your point that the paradigm of solos complaining about groups will turn into 2-3 man groups complaining about groups, but that is just a slippery slope that leads to a solution like "have a queue for every group size that is a divisor of 12" plus a solo queue, plus a possible unrestricted/any size queue. This gives maximum choice to all *group* sizes, I think.

Practical, though? Probably not.

Edited by Pyrrho, 25 April 2014 - 07:10 AM.

[Craig Steele]

Pyrrho, on 25 April 2014 - 07:10 AM, said:

In this scenario, anyone who would complain that they were wiped by a group (not being in a group themselves) can choose to play where there are never any groups.

I like your point that the paradigm of solos complaining about groups will turn into 2-3 man groups complaining about groups, but that is just a slippery slope that leads to a solution like "have a queue for every group size that is a divisor of 12" plus a solo queue, plus a possible unrestricted/any size queue. This gives maximum choice to all *group* sizes, I think.

Practical, though? Probably not.

You're right of course, where to draw the line?

I think that given the canon and the impact of force multiplier, 4 (a lance) is a fair number. If you're a group of 4 or more you go straight to the big boys queue so to speak. I'd hear arguments for 4's not to be in that boat, but I think thats about the right space.

But 2 and 3's are in no mans land, mathematically they can only get a game (in a Group only queue) if they are playing against a much bigger group, and that means they need to compromise on some things. Mech selection being one, but also they face the same issues that some Solo PUG's express today.

I'd like a structure more inclusive and empowering them, giving them the same choices we propose to give Solo players. Plug and play, mech of choice, rip in and move on with their day.

[Pyrrho]

Craig Steele, on 25 April 2014 - 07:22 AM, said:

But 2 and 3's are in no mans land, mathematically they can only get a game (in a Group only queue) if they are playing against a much bigger group, and that means they need to compromise on some things. Mech selection being one, but also they face the same issues that some Solo PUG's express today.

I don't think your assumption that a 2-3 man group can only get a game if it is against a much bigger group is valid. It appears to imply that 2-3 man groups are so rare that there would only be a handful in the matchmaking queue. We have no way to quantify this. If the MM is supposed to match by group size, then a 2-3 man group would try to matched with another 2-3 man group first, and then slowly start looking to match against bigger groups (4, then 5, etc...).

If there are many 2-3 many groups (which there currently are when small groups of friends want to drop together) then there should be no problem matching one 2-3 man group per team.

We will, of course, have to wait and see what kind of metrics are collected once the Launch Module is active.

[Leroifou]

Amsro, on 14 April 2014 - 09:47 AM, said:

Public Player Queue

• Solo players
  
• 1-12 man groups. 1 group per team as it is now. Extra spots filled by solo players. Both the teams would be of similar size +/- 2 fill the rest with solo. Tonnage Maximum for teams, as the team gets bigger the limits get tougher.

Seriously just save yourself all that headache remove the restrictions and your answer forms itself Paul. After that you can work on Community Warfare.


Make your job easier, stop overcomplicating.!

Edit; New Thread with poll! Please Vote!

Yes please! Canning the public 12-man queue just seems ridiculous when the whole point is to form a team of 12 people...
As long as it's group vs group of roughly the same size then no problems.

[Craig Steele]

Pyrrho, on 25 April 2014 - 07:32 AM, said:

I don't think your assumption that a 2-3 man group can only get a game if it is against a much bigger group is valid. It appears to imply that 2-3 man groups are so rare that there would only be a handful in the matchmaking queue. We have no way to quantify this. If the MM is supposed to match by group size, then a 2-3 man group would try to matched with another 2-3 man group first, and then slowly start looking to match against bigger groups (4, then 5, etc...).

If there are many 2-3 many groups (which there currently are when small groups of friends want to drop together) then there should be no problem matching one 2-3 man group per team.

We will, of course, have to wait and see what kind of metrics are collected once the Launch Module is active.

The MM structure proposed which spun off this detail was that a team would have a maximum of 3 groups and 2 solos.

Ergo, 3 x 2 = 6 + 2 Solo's = 8, failed to find, need a bigger group to make a match

Or 3 x 3= 9 + 2 Solo's = 11, failed to fin, need a bigger group to make a match.

There is most likely no scenario where a 2 man group can play unless they have at least a 6 man group on their side. As to whether there are "enough" 6 man groups to support the 2 man groups, you're right. We don't know. On face value of PGI's stats it might be close if every 4 man group (4%) is actually a larger group synch dropping (which is probably not accurate).

Ergo, under the Bhael proposal I am identifying with, 2 / 3 man groups become second class citizens in terms of finding matches and mech selection, as well as the in game disadvantage of a larger team having force multipliers.

The system suits larger groups very well as it makes them a priority, but it leaves behind the smaller groups.

Edited by Craig Steele, 25 April 2014 - 08:10 PM.

[Sam Slade]

craig,all those numbers are why it goes int unrestriced territory... MM grabs a bucket and pours groups out until the match is almost filled... plugs the gaps with PUGs... I'll bet you end up with maybe 3 to 4 solo pugs per match across both teams... max!

[Craig Steele]

Sam Slade, on 25 April 2014 - 08:46 PM, said:

craig,all those numbers are why it goes int unrestriced territory... MM grabs a bucket and pours groups out until the match is almost filled... plugs the gaps with PUGs... I'll bet you end up with maybe 3 to 4 solo pugs per match across both teams... max!

You might be right, it is an unknown at the moment

But it was the scenario Bhael put forward and it seemed to have some support so I work with that.

[Sam Slade]

and in that queue you also place 12 man teams.. and lo and behold, CW is born.. That is what they are after.. Pug Wars not Commun8ity Wars.

The response to that may well be, 'well you can't have you cake and eat it too'... to that I say 'if you want me to buy the whole cake I'll not settle for eating just a slice'.

Finding a method to put pug groups and organized team play in CW isn't hard, it just requires two things PGI no longer has: a good community manager and effort,

[DirePhoenix]

BLOOD WOLF, on 24 April 2014 - 03:23 AM, said:

• 239 replies
  
• 10417 views

that is fromt he adder screenshots.


what do those numbers tell you? it can be a number of things and that was just yesterday.

This thread as of this posting has 18865 views and 1093 replies from 195 "individuals". Craig Steel and Roadbeer each make up 10% of the volume in this thread.

[Amsro]

Craig Steele, on 25 April 2014 - 05:04 AM, said:

We all know that Pre made groups enjoy a force multiplier advantage.

Truly, you cannot know this. I prefer to be the underdog, short suited, non meta, 12vs10 scenario and win then recieve any sort of handicap. Challenge Accepted!

Instead it seems common from most of the ideas that come forward to directly match group size on opposite teams. The idea I came up with on the first page would give a deviation of +/- 2 to group size. Resulting in a 2 man being matched vs a 4 man at worst. Or a 12 man team getting no more the a 2 man advantage 12vs10+2 Solo.

This is just one idea of many that encourages a fair drop for all parties while allowing matchmaker more options to fill the matches. No one wants 10 minute wait times with multiple fail to launch events. The test of the Launch Module had VERY mixed results.

Edited by Amsro, 26 April 2014 - 02:23 PM.

[Davers]

I tried to test the LM, but was unable to find any matches. Which wasn't surprising as I was on after the originally posted end time. But I was a bit disappointed that the whole 'Dropship' idea wasn't included. Has that idea been scrapped or just postponed?

[DirePhoenix]

Davers, on 27 April 2014 - 09:55 AM, said:

I tried to test the LM, but was unable to find any matches. Which wasn't surprising as I was on after the originally posted end time. But I was a bit disappointed that the whole 'Dropship' idea wasn't included. Has that idea been scrapped or just postponed?

Dropships were never part of this initial LM. Probably (much) later when CW has things like multi-mission planetary campaigns.

Edited by DirePhoenix, 27 April 2014 - 10:21 AM.

[Davers]

DirePhoenix, on 27 April 2014 - 10:21 AM, said:

Dropships were never part of this initial LM. Probably (much) later when CW has things like multi-mission planetary campaigns.

Was this announced anywhere or just speculation? (No offence meant, thank you for trying to answer my question!)

[ICEFANG13]

OK so I tried to read most of this thread, it got a lot harder when Craig Steele started posting, so I just stopped reading what he 'said', completely honestly, what he posted was exactly as written, "lots of words that mean nothing".

Never seen any posts like that before, least not so many.

Now onto business. Personally I always had a simple concept for what the system should do as best as possible. There was 3 guidelines I had in mind, should I had been the one to make it (and of course I did not, just my thoughts).

I always wished that there would never be a limit to the size of mechs, that's just moronic. What I always wanted (and we once had) was weight balancing. I remember back in the day, each team would have 1-2-4-1 vs 1-2-4-1 (example), and it was nice! I loved that, not only was there this chess like mentality that I could use, it gave a huge purpose for mediums and smaller chassis for mechs (although the Locust would still be useless). The chess mentality was how it may be worth 2 mechs to take out the last light mech, this would give you and maneuver advantage and it was more complex then the ball vs ball concept we have now. It made mediums better, as well as the Cicada, Dragon, and Awesome, for the simple reason that those mechs allowed you to "cheat" the system. In a 2v2 light fight, it was quite even, but adding a Cicada to one side vs a real medium Cent would give your lights an advantage while giving their heavies an advantage, it also made mediums better indirectly for the reasoning I always held close. If you can do it in a heavy, but you can make a small sacrifice (say minus 2 tons of armor, 10 KPH, and 1 ton of ammo), then you would help your team by forcing another medium on their side, while you yourself were very similar to your heavy design, giving your team a heavy advantage.

It was more calculated and thoughtful before. It was better designed. But wait there is more!

Another thing I always wanted was ELO balancing of some kind. Truth be told this is the one I cared about the least, but it would be nice to have some skill-skill connection. I once said, it would be nice if there was an ICEFANG on our side (ie me) and there was a ICEFANG-skilled enemy mech, who does not have to be a light mech. It would add a degree of skill and unpredictability to the weight balancing above.

Lastly (this is two parted), I always watned there to be a premade balance. One side would have X players with (12-X) pugs and the other side would have X players with (12-X) pugs. X could be any number from 2-12, and perhaps yes or no, depending on what would work best, there could be multiple premades on each side. I never understood why a 8+4P vs a 8+4P would be a problem, assuming these pugs would be happy playing in this group. That brings me to part two.

I also wished there was 2 queues one was, as COD put it, "mercenary" (only single players "pugs") and one was group with PUGs. This would be similar to the 2 we have now really, it would let people play the 12v12, it would allow the 5-11vs5-11, it would allow people to avoid premades altogether, and it would allow people to drop with whoever they wanted. Of course there would also be a private match thing where you could make your own games, this would not be limited in any way, and would not require premium time (why is this a thing anyway?).

Now, I dunno how many people we actually have, and splitting the people up so much may not work, but this would make most mech sizes and chassis viable (except the ones that have a poor design feature), it would (ideally) have a similar skill set to both sides, and it would allow people to play the way that they want. I can't think of any better way to do it, provided the game had enough people to fill it.

Now pass me some popcorn.

[Deathlike]

Davers, on 27 April 2014 - 09:55 AM, said:

I tried to test the LM, but was unable to find any matches. Which wasn't surprising as I was on after the originally posted end time. But I was a bit disappointed that the whole 'Dropship' idea wasn't included. Has that idea been scrapped or just postponed?

TBH, no new mode was actually included in the proposed module. At this rate of gamemode additions, I anticipate the "next mode" will be added on Dec 2014 given the track record.

Edited by Deathlike, 27 April 2014 - 11:36 AM.

[monk]

I want to read all 56 pages, but I also want to play tonight, haha. My vote goes for this:

There are two queues. Solo and group. You are queued automatically based on how you launch. If you are in a group, you are first queued into the group queue. If you are solo, you go to the solo queue. There is, however, a toggle on the solo launch menu for "Group Queue Ok". If you toggle this, you may get slotted into a group game if needed. This will increase your chances at a speedy launch and or if you just like the group games more you'll have a better chance of getting into them even if you have to drop solo for some reason. ELO is used as per the PGI ruleset. You try to keep players fighting against suitable opponents, but as we know there are limitations to how effective this will be.

Solo Queue Rules: no more than 4 players per side can be grouped. The actual number will range from 2-4, however, if there is a group on one side, the other side must also have a group. The group sizes can be different. This shouldn't destroy balance of the solo queue in theory, as with so many solo players there will be the traditional pug cohesion anyhow. Some games will end up stomps, others won't. Welcome to the world of online gaming with random teammates.

Group Queue: No less than 9 grouped players a side in order to launch the match. Groups can be made up of 2-12 players. Fills up to 3 slots if needed from solo queue players who toggled the "Group Queue Ok" button. Group Queue manager attempts to match up group sizes and ELO with group sizes possibly having a higher value in the formula for large groups. Let's be honest. Groups dropping 12 men, probably aren't your casual friends playing with a buddy or two. Group queue places priority on larger groups sizes first and then tries to augment remaining slots with smaller groups. Small groups that aren't getting slotted fast enough may get dumped off to the solo queue.

Heretical thought: To avoid having queue times get murdered by having too many choices for players, I'd suggest having the game modes only selectable for private matches. If the population can really handle launching all these options even at low peak with few wait issues, great, continue to offer it, but I really don't see it as necessary. I'm sure a few people will vehemently disagree, but those are the breaks. I see the ability to have large groups as greater than the ability to pick game mode types. Or maybe just offer game mode types as a "preference" which may occur. (match players are selected based off of game mode type and then augmented by those deviants who chose another type. So you will likely get into your preferred type regularly, but not always. Something like that.)

Private matches would allow you to set match type, player counts, etc. A private match is just that. A customized battle with very specific rules and settings.

Edited by monk, 27 April 2014 - 09:24 PM.