1126 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

White Bear 84, on 14 April 2014 - 08:06 PM, said:

I just do not get why PUGS cannot have the option of dropping against groups if they specified they wanted to? Maybe they would like the challenge of playing amongst group? When I PUG, I prefer being on a team with a group that's for sure...

cuz Paul said so

[Craig Steele]

Bhael Fire, on 14 April 2014 - 08:17 PM, said:

As I mentioned, the MM would not try to put three 3-man groups on the same team; it would look for the largest groups first, smaller groups second, and then fill in the gap with a solo player (if needed).

Yes, sure.

But what I am saying is that there are "more" of those smaller groups in actual activity.

What happens to the left over groups?

So MM takes a 7, puts it with a 3 and 2, what happens to the other 3 and the pair of 2's? They cannot get a match?

[BLOOD WOLF]

Sandpit, on 14 April 2014 - 08:19 PM, said:

way to nto answer the question, personally attack someone, and try to detract from there points. Also good one trying to make it into something it's not by calling it QQ and whining and saying I said they lied (which was never even remotely hinted at in any of my posts) when I'm posting my feedback in the FEEDBACK thread.

gj just showing that you're quick to be a little PGI shill dude. keep on keepin on sparky

like you guys did me? Bucuase half the time i felt as if you guys were just rude for no reason.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 14 April 2014 - 08:29 PM.

[Tekadept]

I can't even.

[Roadbeer]

Craig Steele, on 14 April 2014 - 08:22 PM, said:

So MM takes a 7, puts it with a 3 and 2, what happens to the other 3 and the pair of 2's? They cannot get a match?

In that scenario, 2s and 3s are going to have no trouble filling in in matches, it's the 7s and above that will have slightly longer wait times.
Not speaking for everyone, but if it means I have to wait 15-30 seconds to find a match with 7 and above, and only ~5 seconds when I'm <6. I can live with that.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Tekadept, on 14 April 2014 - 08:29 PM, said:

I can't even.

haven't seen you in a bit.

[TKSax]

So here is the thing, back where the 8v8 que allowed unlimited groups, you know how many groups of 8 or smaller I saw on Comstar and NGNG? Very few, as soon as one person would drop we would find another to fill out. We would build our teams from practially nothing to 8 people and play on, very few would play with less than 8. Becuase of this I see no reason to worry about the small groups be cause all those 4 person groups will group up and form bigger groups.

No I am sure people are going to say why don't you just do that for the 12 man que. Because you can only launch when all 12 are ready. I did some tracking in January (pre ui 2.0) of a completely casual 12 man we formed on the house marik server, I played for 3 hours.

Hour 1 we got 2 drops in, why? because after the first drop someone left and took a some time to find a replacement and several failed to find matches. The same thing happened after the second game.

In the second hour we also got 2 games in ,due to people leaving and getting ready several failed to find matches.
In the 3rd hour we got a whopping 3 games in, and that was because no one left, but still took time for people taking breaks and getting mechs loaded out.

7 games in 3 hours, (did it after ui 2.0 was implemented and with the friends list being so slow to load it was about the same actually 1 game worse) this is why causal groups do not play in 12 v 12 because it is too painful to keep a 12 man team going unless you are there for a dedicated practice.

[Tekadept]

BLOOD WOLF, on 14 April 2014 - 08:36 PM, said:

haven't seen you in a bit.

XOXO

[Bhael Fire]

Craig Steele, on 14 April 2014 - 08:22 PM, said:

What happens to the left over groups?

So MM takes a 7, puts it with a 3 and 2, what happens to the other 3 and the pair of 2's? They cannot get a match?

I understand what you're saying, but if the queue has a low amount of large groups, the MM is smart enough to do math; it's basically a computer, that's all it does in its meager existence.

If it can't fulfil its 12-player requirement with the 7-man in the queue, it will wait until it has something more suitable for the smaller groups, like a 5-man or two 4-mans...or whatever.

And like I said, the 1 solo player max per team is basically just a precaution to curb PUG stomps within the group queue. There's nothing to say that they couldn't loosen up that restriction if after a certain amount of time of searching for a match (example if after 1 minute of search it increases the maximum solo player count on each team to 2, after 3 minutes it raises it to 3, etc.).

Edited by Bhael Fire, 14 April 2014 - 08:41 PM.

[GalaxyBluestar]

well it doesn't take much of a read...

[Craig Steele]

Roadbeer, on 14 April 2014 - 08:31 PM, said:

In that scenario, 2s and 3s are going to have no trouble filling in in matches, it's the 7s and above that will have slightly longer wait times.
Not speaking for everyone, but if it means I have to wait 15-30 seconds to find a match with 7 and above, and only ~5 seconds when I'm <6. I can live with that.

OFC you can, you're in the larger group and in other threads have said you never have any problems finding a match.

I'm talking about the other people. The smaller groups will be more "numerous" (according to PGI) and so there will be groups "left over" from the MM described.

If the minimum team composition is 4 + 4 + 3 + 1, then there will be small groups "left over", more so for every "larger" group (5 -11). In this scenario the "2's" only get picked up when groups of 6+ are involved but they cannot get a match without a 6+ group.

I don't mind Bhael's theory, I just see it falling short accommodating 2 and 3 man groups (which are a larger demographic than the 5 - 11 apparently).

So how can it be tuned to accommodate everyone instead of prioritise 5 - 11?

[Tekadept]

[Roadbeer]

Craig Steele, on 14 April 2014 - 08:39 PM, said:

OFC you can, you're in the larger group and in other threads have said you never have any problems finding a match.

I'm talking about the other people. The smaller groups will be more "numerous" (according to PGI) and so there will be groups "left over" from the MM described.

If the minimum team composition is 4 + 4 + 3 + 1, then there will be small groups "left over", more so for every "larger" group (5 -11). In this scenario the "2's" only get picked up when groups of 6+ are involved but they cannot get a match without a 6+ group.

I don't mind Bhael's theory, I just see it falling short accommodating 2 and 3 man groups (which are a larger demographic than the 5 - 11 apparently).

So how can it be tuned to accommodate everyone instead of prioritise 5 - 11?

See, that's the beauty of FIFO (First In, First Out), which was actually the argument that would break my sync dropping in 3/3/3/3 theory. Where the first in the queue get placed, so there really are no horrendously long waits.

Even if you prioritize that each group must have a 6 or larger, then it becomes like playing Tetris and the small bits fill in quickly

[BLOOD WOLF]

In Theory

[Roadbeer]

BLOOD WOLF, on 14 April 2014 - 08:46 PM, said:

In Theory

LOL, even Paul's post is theory, all we can go on is what happened in Closed Beta when we didn't have group restrictions and speculate forward from there.

Remove the element of Solos who don't want to play in the group queue, and let those who do fill in the remainders.
The big reason that it was removed in the first place was that there were really no safe guards from placing a full 8 man premade against 8 solo PUGs and the concept (real or imagined) of PUGSTOMPING was born.

Instead of doing some fine tuning then, they threw the baby out with the bathwater and made the whole concept of large groups LOSTECH.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Roadbeer, on 14 April 2014 - 08:50 PM, said:

LOL, even Paul's post is theory, all we can go on is what happened in Closed Beta when we didn't have group restrictions and speculate forward from there.

Remove the element of Solos who don't want to play in the group queue, and let those who do fill in the remainders.
The big reason that it was removed in the first place was that there were really no safe guards from placing a full 8 man premade against 8 solo PUGs and the concept (real or imagined) of PUGSTOMPING was born.

Instead of doing some fine tuning then, they threw the baby out with the bathwater and made the whole concept of large groups LOSTECH.

what you dont understand, is he is backed by statistics, not only that he is seeing the Data and working as he is reading it.

There was no way at the time they could have fine tuned them. once again your making it sound easy and if not then say so. Also that would have delayed everything again, if they would have taken time to fix that. Then you would have ridden their ass about CW again being delayed and other things.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 14 April 2014 - 08:58 PM.

[Craig Steele]

Roadbeer, on 14 April 2014 - 08:45 PM, said:

See, that's the beauty of FIFO (First In, First Out), which was actually the argument that would break my sync dropping in 3/3/3/3 theory. Where the first in the queue get placed, so there really are no horrendously long waits.

Even if you prioritize that each group must have a 6 or larger, then it becomes like playing Tetris and the small bits fill in quickly

I don't see how?

In theory, anytime a 2 man group (for example) logs in they are waiting for a 6+ man group to launch.

There are more 2 man groups than 6 man.

Ergo, this system places a priority on 5 - 11 man teams at the expense of the 2 man. 2 man groups have nowhere to play in this scenerio unless a 6 man + comes along, and even then they are competing against 3 man and 4 mans for the same "filler".

All this is doing is (imo) shifting the problem to favour the needs of the 5 - 11 man group, which is according to PGI an even smaller demographic. It's not solving anything.

Why would they do that? I'd submit they wouldn't.

So how can it be made more accommodating to all without favouring the 5 - 11 demographic.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Just want to add, we take the theory or hypothesis and we test it. we test it to see if it would work. From the data recorded we can draw conclusions.

[Amsro]

Bhael Fire, on 14 April 2014 - 08:07 PM, said:

First: A SOLO ONLY queue would be a snap for the match maker. Like, stupid fast.

Second: A GROUPS (2-12) + SOLO queue would not be any different that what it's doing now. During certain times it might be harder for large groups (8+) to find a match...but that's old news and nothing new to the matchmaker (in that game or any other). It's even in the disclaimer.

Plus you get the ENTIRE population of the 12 man que + the return of the team players that have been waiting for this.

Both que's will be populated and fill up games quickly.

[Sandpit]

Craig Steele, on 14 April 2014 - 08:39 PM, said:

OFC you can, you're in the larger group and in other threads have said you never have any problems finding a match.

so we're going to bring up stuff we've stated 3, 4, 5+ months ago?
like before they made the launch module announcement?
don't take things out of context.
groups are dwindling BECAUSE of group limits and the launch module announcement.

BLOOD WOLF, on 14 April 2014 - 08:28 PM, said:

like you guys did me? Bucuase half the time i felt as if you guys were just rude for no reason.

Blood....
I want you to look back through this thread and I want you to read through some of the other threads, specifically about groups. I want you to look and see how many times Road and I are personally attacked without any kind of provocation on a regular basis simply because we don't agree with someone else. (K Town doesn't count because it's K Town)

Now just go back over the past week or so. Then multiply that by 2 years worth of that crap.
Then throw in the "group limits are temporary" tagline before they "changed their position"
then toss in that Road and I, along with many that agree with us and are in the same boat, have finally gotten frustrated enough to not "play nice" as often anymore because we're sick and tired of watching this game get watered down, changed, realigned, positionally changed, take your pick.
We've watched for two years while players have constantly, consistently whined, posted 23075454 duplicate threads, raged, attacked, etc. and PGI cater to them.

You know what we wanted? The ability to play this game in groups larger than 4, just like we were originally able to. Heffay wants to talk about lying?
Ok, we joined this game, we spent money on this game, there were no group limits. That's not the game we were "promised", that's the game we bought. That's how it was played. Then they said "Ok, we need to limit groups temporarily while we work on MM" Ok, no big deal, we understand, that's cool. We'll eagerly wait for that limit to be lifted, In the meantime we'll continue spending money, buying stuff, etc. based on that premise. Then all of a sudden 2 years later it's "Not gonna happen. We COULD do it, we COULD take some of the player suggestions and implement, but we're not going to"

Lies? Eh, that's a bit subjective but it's a classic case of bait and switch. We were not only offered one thing we were GIVEN one thing and then told it was temporarily removed but we'd get it back. Then we get told it's not coming back

I don't care how you try to spin that, it's deceptive. If this was a case of "We CAN'T do it" that would be one thing. They CAN do it, they just don't want to. There's a huge difference in that and stuff getting delayed because UI2.0 was bottlenecking it.

Now as far as what you said? Show me where I've attacked you or anyone else in this thread without being provoked
repeatedly
over and over again

If you antagonize someone then yes, you're going to receive retaliation. The "victims and martyrs" aren't nearly as innocent as you and a few others would like to make them out to be. I'm a pretty reasonable person and all of my posts were on-topic, not directed at anyone personally, and pointing out that PGI's logic is severely flawed on several levels. That's what this thread is SUPPOSED to be about.

Except the ones posting why they're unhappy, why the logic is flawed, giving ideas and suggestions on how PGI could very easily implement groups are attacked as being
whiny
QQ
trolling
etc.

Even then, I still post on-topic and explain WHY some of us feel the way we do and why we're unhappy. Do you think we do that because we're just trying to rile up the community? No, we're doing it to give PGI FEEDBACK (looks at thread title) yet yourself and several others seem to think "feedback" is talking about community member personally. Don't sit there and try to play the victim card. It doesn't work when I can very easily work my way back through this thread and point out where you and several others have done more personal attacking than posting anything even remotely relevant to the topic.

You want a discussion on ideas? Discuss ideas.
"haha, you're mad naoooooo!" is not an idea or feedback.
when you (or anyone else for that matter) opens a dialogue with something along those lines, you're trying to instigate and detract from the ideas, suggestions, etc. that have been posted.

You yourself have cherry picked a few quotes here and there, brought up posts from several months ago, etc. that have absolutely NOTHING to do with this discussion. What you're seeing is people who are finally to the point where they're going to fire right back at you and call you on it.