1126 replies to this topic

[Amsro]

Craig Steele, on 28 April 2014 - 06:41 AM, said:

Except in that queue they have to play against 7+ man teams that just feed off them.

Why do all the big "Guild" players want to do everything they can to make sure they play against a disadvantaged opponent? Can you not play effectivily on a fair basis?

Why do you keep perpetuating this idea?

4- Man plays vs 4-Man. Not some magic arbitrary higher number. You keep claiming this in your post as if you know the matchmaker will bone solo's and small team players for fun.
MATCHMAKER.

As long as PGI can make a matchmaker there would be no issue like you fear. Small teams get matched with small teams. The Boogie-Man isn't going to eat your baby unless PGI eats it.

Craig Steele, on 29 April 2014 - 12:32 AM, said:

Ergo, give them both the choice.

A PUG queue for small groups and Solo's where people can get quick games, play the mech of their choice and move on.

But that is what we have now, the solo's still think that the small groups are eating them for breakfast in every match. So as long as it isn't 100% solo, those solo players will not be satisfied.

Craig Steele, on 29 April 2014 - 12:10 AM, said:

Why should 2 and 3 man groups be forced to fights against 6+ man teams on comms with synched loadouts?

They wouldn't, this is where a matchmaker comes into play.

Edited by Amsro, 29 April 2014 - 04:47 AM.

[Craig Steele]

Amsro, on 29 April 2014 - 04:45 AM, said:

Why do you keep perpetuating this idea?

4- Man plays vs 4-Man. Not some magic arbitrary higher number. You keep claiming this in your post as if you know the matchmaker will bone solo's and small team players for fun.
MATCHMAKER.

As long as PGI can make a matchmaker there would be no issue like you fear. Small teams get matched with small teams. The Boogie-Man isn't going to eat your baby unless PGI eats it.



But that is what we have now, the solo's still think that the small groups are eating them for breakfast in every match. So as long as it isn't 100% solo, those solo players will not be satisfied.



They wouldn't, this is where a matchmaker comes into play.

Have you actually read what Bhaels proposal is and the starting point (with subsequent repeated references) of this part of the discussion?

Please, catch up on the actual conversation and then you will have the answers to your questions.

Bhaels system was one were the focus is on larger groups, and backfilled by smaller groups.

[Amsro]

Craig Steele, on 29 April 2014 - 05:03 AM, said:

Have you actually read what Bhaels proposal is and the starting point (with subsequent repeated references) of this part of the discussion?

Please, catch up on the actual conversation and then you will have the answers to your questions.

Bhaels system was one were the focus is on larger groups, and backfilled by smaller groups.

Yes,

I've paid attention to "Bhaels System" but like many it has too many restrictions causing issues in matchmaking.

I'm not referencing from this system. I made no allusions to it.

But, since you have brought it up, it would STILL work even in his proposed idea as follows;

-3 Man gets matched vs a 3 man
-6 Man gets matched vs a 6 man
-two get drawn into the same match, fill the remainder with solos.
6+3+solo vs 6+3+solo.

Why couldn't the matchmaker match in such a way, and where would the unfairness now come from?

[Ransack]

So, after being "encouraged" to take a break from the forums, I am back and ask, has any there been any sort of feedback from the PGI?

[Craig Steele]

Amsro, on 29 April 2014 - 05:12 AM, said:

Yes,

I've paid attention to "Bhaels System" but like many it has too many restrictions causing issues in matchmaking.

I'm not referencing from this system. I made no allusions to it.

But, since you have brought it up, it would STILL work even in his proposed idea as follows;

-3 Man gets matched vs a 3 man
-6 Man gets matched vs a 6 man
-two get drawn into the same match, fill the remainder with solos.
6+3+solo vs 6+3+solo.

Why couldn't the matchmaker match in such a way, and where would the unfairness now come from?

But you asked why I keep saying what I do and the answer is because that conversation spun of Bhaels proposal.

If you wanted to talk about a different option, you could have explained better in your post what you wanted.

In any case, here is the recent discussions similar along the lines you seem to be putting forward.

Davers, on 28 April 2014 - 07:19 PM, said:

I have always advocated that the 'premade' que would have one team per side, matched for team size. After all, putting 4 3-man teams vs a 12 man team isn't much different than going against pugs.

Craig Steele, on 28 April 2014 - 07:30 PM, said:

Thats another way to tackle the issue, but the Solo population in the queue will have to be huge to back fill games 2 - 11 groups.

Using PGI's stats (in the absence of any other), Your talking something like

2 man 6% of activity needs 30% of solo player activity to back fill (10 players being 5 x 2 man portion)
3 man 4% of activity needs 12% of solo player activity to back fill
4 man 4% of activity needs 8% of solo players activity to back fill

Ergo, just on face value to backfill those "groups" alone you need 50% of total activity or 60% of Solo activity to join the "Group queue" instead of the "Solo only" queue.

I perceive that as being a challenge.

But it certainly would be "fairer", how to attract a sufficient population of Solo players to the queue then?

Davers, on 28 April 2014 - 07:42 PM, said:

Plenty of players in this thread alone said they would join such a queue. Plus how else can a solo player get a feel of 'competitive play' if not dropping with a large unit?

Craig Steele, on 28 April 2014 - 07:49 PM, said:

Sure, but there seems to an equal amount of players saying 'competitive play' is not why they are here. Quick games, mindless violence and then off to dinner / whatever.

I just think getting 66% (at face value) of the population into that group queue given what PGI are telling us is a real stretch.

I do like Bhaels suggestion because it does the backfilling from those "groups" but that does put the smaller groups "in the pan" so to speak.

Ergo, I come back to let them nominate for that queue if thats the challenge they want, but otherwise don't restrict them either. Give them an option as long as its within a reasonable game balance mechanic.

Edited by Craig Steele, 29 April 2014 - 05:35 AM.

[Amsro]

Craig Steele, on 29 April 2014 - 05:35 AM, said:

But you asked why I keep saying what I do and the answer is because that conversation spun of Bhaels proposal.

If you wanted to talk about a different option, you could have explained better in your post what you wanted.

In any case, here is the recent discussions similar along the lines you seem to be putting forward.

Uh, why oh why are you just posting a conversation you've had with Davers, I've read the ENTIRE thread. Thanks though!

[-Natural Selection-]

PISSSED the fruck off!!!!!


So no cbills in private matches. So because the solo guys don't not want any group size in public matches so we get private matches.

So yes we get a place to play now.. Buut no rewards at all for being nice and separating ourselves from them to ease their misery. Nothing for consumables, nothing for the newer players that are trying to buy mechs or do upgrades. And on top of it, paying money to set up these matches. I don't care about the money.. I am really ticked that some of our guys are gonna be dropping solo while the rest of us are enjoying matches because they cant further their game otherwise.