1126 replies to this topic

[Craig Steele]

Roland, on 16 April 2014 - 04:34 PM, said:

Er... you mean, is it "the same" in that it involves some kind of queues with groups and solo players? Yeah I guess?


No. That results in two harmful effects.

1) It gives people a way to try and game the system by sync-dropping.
2) It means that solo players will continue to complain about how their losses are due to pre-mades.

And really, there is no reason for it.

If you want to play as a group, then you play in the regular queue... And since it's just "the regular queue" it doesn't mean that you're going to be going up against 12 man teams. It means that the vast majority of the time, you're just going to be playing against other teams who are also just mishmashes of solo players and groups of different sizes.

No, I mean the same in the sense that we are creating the same sort of "left out" scenario that PGI are except the other way around.

How could you synch drop if the Solo PUG queue is capped at a max of one team each side and at 2 or 3 man teams (maybe 4, but thats probably stretching it).

I'd submit there is nominal if any chance of effectivily Synch dropping and "Pre mades" of 2 or 3 are not going to have the same "stomping" impact.

I'd like to see a system where 2 and 3 man teams have the same choices as Solo's, after all, this thread is supposedly arguing that more choice is better.

They are far more likely to be Dad + 1, or 2 brothers etc and not a formalised team with optimal load outs etc.

They too could "Opt In" to the group queue using exactly the same functions, it's not going to be any extra programming or anything.

So why could we not give smaller groups the same options that we want to give Solo players?

EDIT: Another thing I am thinking about is that larger groups will monopolise some Weight Classes (cause you know, as Roadbeer said once all the firepower will be better off in the larger group to minimse the impact of non team members) so those people who prefer to play with one or two 'freinds' will effectivily be blocked from playing heavier mech classes. That can't be good long term.

Also, Solo players entering the Group Queue would need to appreciate the same thing, that they are far less likely to get a game unless they are in a light mech. That's probably a good thing for some, but for many I'd submit they will have some concerns about mech choices.

Edited by Craig Steele, 16 April 2014 - 05:24 PM.

[Osric Lancaster]

Craig Steele, on 16 April 2014 - 04:55 PM, said:

*stuff*

You're misconstruing the logic behind the argument here quite a bit.

The original premise of the argument wasn't ;
"Let's let solo players join the group queue because they want to!"

It was ;
"Let's separate the group and solo queues completely, and allow groups of any size to launch."

The " Solo player can opt in to fill the gap in special cases. " bit was a means, not an end.

Letting groups join solo queues "because options are good" isn't derivative of the core argument. The "options" people are talking about in that case is the option to launch as a group with any number of your friends in a group queue.

Edited by Osric Lancaster, 16 April 2014 - 05:29 PM.

[Bhael Fire]

Osric Lancaster, on 16 April 2014 - 03:49 PM, said:

So by prioritizing sticking large groupings together you tend to not end up with huge grouping differences. If you have a whole lot of 2 man teams left over they'll launch into 6x(2 man) vs. 6x(2 man) 'group matches' that will probably function much like three-legged-races (still beats the average PUG ).

This is the gist of what I was talking about. But in order to avoid entire teams being made up of six 2-man groups, it would try to build the team with larger groups first.

This might take a bit longer, but in the long run it will equate to a funner "team" experience. Also, the number of groups allowed in the match can be adjusted dynamically based on how long the search goes for.

For example, when MM starts building teams for a match, it will place a three group maximum per team, then after certain period of searching (say, 1 minute) it will widen that search to include a limit of 4 groups, then 5 groups, etc.

That way, it minimizes the amount of "loose-cannons" in the match — which can lessen the "team-play" experience.

Edited by Bhael Fire, 16 April 2014 - 05:35 PM.

[Craig Steele]

Osric Lancaster, on 16 April 2014 - 05:24 PM, said:

You're misconstruing the logic behind the argument here quite a bit.

The original premise of the argument wasn't ;
"Let's let solo players join the group queue because they want to!"

It was ;
"Let's separate the group and solo queues completely, and allow groups of any size to launch."

The " Solo player can opt in to fill the gap in special cases. " bit was a means, not an end.

Letting groups join solo queues 'for the heck of it isn't supportive of the original argument.

I'm not misconstruing anything.

Why is it people always default to this "you're wrong" or "you don't understand" argument.

It's BS.

On page one (and several subsequently) the argument was exactly "Let Solo's join the grop queue" and "Don't tell us how we should play Paul" and "Let the players choose". Read it, they're all presnting very good arguments.

Now this thread is telling Small group players how they should play and you're defending it?

Why is it such a bad thing to allow the small groups player the same choice as the Solo player?

They can't stomp, they can't synch but they can get a game quicker than sitting around waiting for a 7 man or 10 man to log on and then get on with their lives. They can also play the mech of their choice instead of being restricted by the "left over" slots from a larger team.

It's all win for that demographic and no loss to anyone else.

[Bhael Fire]

Craig Steele, on 16 April 2014 - 04:55 PM, said:

Also, Solo players entering the Group Queue would need to appreciate the same thing, that they are far less likely to get a game unless they are in a light mech. That's probably a good thing for some, but for many I'd submit they will have some concerns about mech choices.

You misunderstand the general proposal that's been posted in this thread several times; Solo players that "opt in" to be included in the GROUP+SOLO queue would drop primarily in the SOLO ONLY queue unless they are needed to fill in a spot in the GROUP+SOLO queue.

Craig Steele, on 16 April 2014 - 04:55 PM, said:

I'd like to see a system where 2 and 3 man teams have the same choices as Solo's, after all, this thread is supposedly arguing that more choice is better.

No, the proposal is to allow groups to drop with any number of players from 2-12 and to allow solo players to play the game without having to face grouped players.

[Bhael Fire]

Craig Steele, on 16 April 2014 - 05:34 PM, said:

Why is it such a bad thing to allow the small groups player the same choice as the Solo player?

They do have the same choices, that's the beauty of the proposal; they would be able drop with any sized group as they want (2-12) or they can drop solo.

Or are you indirectly asking for the ability to take advantage of PUGs instead of playing with other grouped players?

[Davers]

I guess Craig's point is that he drops in small groups and would rather fight pugs than other groups.

[Osric Lancaster]

Craig Steele, on 16 April 2014 - 05:34 PM, said:

I'm not misconstruing anything.

You're arguing against people with arguments they haven't made. Eg. Say person A made a statement around premise D in support of a system person B suggested based on premise C, and then person F claims that person B is wrong because of some flaw in premise D. That's pointedly misconstruing their argument.

Or to put it more bluntly -

Quick, someone agree with Craig using a completely inane central argument so that I can claim that was his real argument all along!
I suggest : "If corporations can have personhood, then small groups are actually solo players!"

Craig Steele, on 16 April 2014 - 04:28 PM, said:

Not all smaller groups will be populated with "team players". maybe we should leave them with the Solo / PUG queue option as well.

This is a non argument. A two man can have better, more cohesive teamwork than a larger group.

Per my earlier post, small two man groups will 'tend' to get matched against groups of similar size. If they want to play as pure PUGs they have that option, just not as a team. Letting a team join the pug queue defeats the purpose of separate queues and deflates the speed and efficacy of the match maker.

Edited by Osric Lancaster, 16 April 2014 - 06:10 PM.

[Roland]

Craig Steele, on 16 April 2014 - 05:34 PM, said:

Now this thread is telling Small group players how they should play and you're defending it?

How is it telling them how they should play?
They're allowed to drop as much as they want, in groups of any size they want.

They only thing they aren't allowed to do is play with people who specifically say that they don't want to play with grouped players.

What exactly is restrictive about that?

Quote

Why is it such a bad thing to allow the small groups player the same choice as the Solo player?

The only choice they don't have is the choice to play with people who don't want to play with groups... because they're a group, and thus their playing in the solo queue would be at direct odds with the solo players who choose to play there because they don't want to play with groups.

Quote

They can't stomp, they can't synch but they can get a game quicker than sitting around waiting for a 7 man or 10 man to log on and then get on with their lives.They can also play the mech of their choice instead of being restricted by the "left over" slots from a larger team.

Ah... Ok, maybe now I see your issue.

I wouldn't impose things like "Only one group per team" or anything like that. So they wouldn't need to wait for a 7 or 10 man to log on.

They also wouldn't be limited to some kind of "leftover tonnage" or anything.

Craig Steele, on 16 April 2014 - 05:34 PM, said:

It's all win for that demographic and no loss to anyone else.

It's actually win for everyone... it's a win for the solo players who specifically don't want to play with groups, because they no longer will be forced to, and it's a win for groups because they can freely play with whomever they like.

It seems like you are imagining some third group of people who like to group, but only like to play in pug matches against groups smaller than themselves.

That's silly. If you're grouped, you play in the big boys queue... you don't get to go prey upon pugs who specifically do not want to play with you.

[Craig Steele]

LOL, you guys are hilarious.

Absolutely no ability to empathise with anyone outside your own agenda it seems

Bhael Fire, on 16 April 2014 - 05:48 PM, said:

You misunderstand the general proposal that's been posted in this thread several times; Solo players that "opt in" to be included in the GROUP+SOLO queue would drop primarily in the SOLO ONLY queue unless they are needed to fill in a spot in the GROUP+SOLO queue.



No, the proposal is to allow groups to drop with any number of players from 2-12 and to allow solo players to play the game without having to face grouped players.

You misunderstand that Dad + 1 or two brothers having a game or two before dinner do not have the same game play desires as the "team player". They want to play and get on with their day.

Your system puts them at the bottom of the queue (timewise) in the search paranters and they are a larger demographic (alledgedly) than the "5 - 11" crowd.

Try some empathy and look at it from their point of view.

Bhael Fire, on 16 April 2014 - 05:52 PM, said:

They do have the same choices, that's the beauty of the proposal; they would be able drop with any sized group as they want (2-12) or they can drop solo.

Or are you indirectly asking for the ability to take advantage of PUGs instead of playing with other grouped players?

Nice, I get called for mis representing and then you come up with this. I've already said (and we all know) that 2 or 3 man teams have a much lower capability of stomping PUG's but you make the insinuation regardless to throw doubt on my motives. I'll just leave this here for you.

Sandpit, on 14 April 2014 - 06:33 PM, said:

no it's just another example of
"I really have no rational reason or argument against anything they've said so I'll resort to attacking them to try and distract from their ideas and maybe even get them baited into attacking me so I can either derail the thread or get them moderated"

It's a pretty common tactic used around here

Davers, on 16 April 2014 - 05:57 PM, said:

I guess Craig's point is that he drops in small groups and would rather fight pugs than other groups.

I'll just leave this here for you.

Sandpit, on 14 April 2014 - 06:33 PM, said:

no it's just another example of
"I really have no rational reason or argument against anything they've said so I'll resort to attacking them to try and distract from their ideas and maybe even get them baited into attacking me so I can either derail the thread or get them moderated"

It's a pretty common tactic used around here

Osric Lancaster, on 16 April 2014 - 06:01 PM, said:

You're arguing against people with arguments they haven't made. Eg. Say person A made a statement around premise D in support of a system person B suggested based on premise C, and then person F claims that person B is wrong because of some flaw in premise D. That's pointedly misconstruing their argument.

Or to put it more bluntly -

Quick, someone agree with Craig using a completely inane central argument so that I can claim that was his real argument all along!



This is a non argument. A two man can have better, more cohesive teamwork than a larger group.

Per my earlier post, small two man groups will 'tend' to get matched against groups of similar size. If they want to play as pure PUGs they have that option, just not as a team. Letting a team join the pug queue defeats the purpose of separate queues and deflates the speed and efficacy of the match maker.

Let me be blunt then so you don't have to tax your mind with abstract "Person A says premise D" scenario's.

Letting a small team capped at one per side in a PUG population is not going to stomp.

I get that you guys want to get as many people into the team queue as possible because on PGI's stats, it's looks pretty ordinary for the wait times but switching the problem from one demographic to another is not the sustainable answer.

If you're going to take a moral high ground and argue "we want more choices" than the smaller teams of 2 or 3 man should have the same argument right? Or is that argument only applicable when it suits the needs you have?

Roland, on 16 April 2014 - 06:02 PM, said:

How is it telling them how they should play?
They're allowed to drop as much as they want, in groups of any size they want.

They only thing they aren't allowed to do is play with people who specifically say that they don't want to play with grouped players.

What exactly is restrictive about that?


The only choice they don't have is the choice to play with people who don't want to play with groups... because they're a group, and thus their playing in the solo queue would be at direct odds with the solo players who choose to play there because they don't want to play with groups.



[/size]
Ah... Ok, maybe now I see your issue.

I wouldn't impose things like "Only one group per team" or anything like that. So they wouldn't need to wait for a 7 or 10 man to log on.

They also wouldn't be limited to some kind of "leftover tonnage" or anything.


It's actually win for everyone... it's a win for the solo players who specifically don't want to play with groups, because they no longer will be forced to, and it's a win for groups because they can freely play with whomever they like.

It seems like you are imagining some third group of people who like to group, but only like to play in pug matches against groups smaller than themselves.

That's silly. If you're grouped, you play in the big boys queue... you don't get to go prey upon pugs who specifically do not want to play with you.

What about their right to say "I don't want to play against 10 man teams"? That argument is equally valid. Shoudl they be "preyed upon" by bigger fish. We are assuming that MM takes all these factors into acocunt and creates some sort of balance right? Otherwise it's just an 11 man auto win scnerio isn't it.

As for imagining, no I'm not. I remember some guy a few months back talking about his son in college and MW:O was one of the ways they got to spend some time together. He painted himself as no Pro, no interest in larger teams, it was just something he and his son liked to do to spend some time together. I imagine he is far from alone in his sentiment.

So if we are arguing to PGI that our ideas are more representative of the player base desires (cause you know, we think their stats are just plain wrong), lets actually try and think of ways to accommodate more of the player base instead of pushing one angle.

[Pyrrho]

For the sake of empathy, Craig, would a queue for 2-4 man groups and ONLY 2-4 man groups be amenable to your situation? 2, 3, and 4 are all divisors of 12 so there are many ways to construct two 12 man teams.

Now we could have a SOLO queue, a 2-4 man queue, and an unrestricted GROUP + SOLO queue.

I think that would cover all of our bases...

[Craig Steele]

Pyrrho, on 16 April 2014 - 06:35 PM, said:

For the sake of empathy, Craig, would a queue for 2-4 man groups and ONLY 2-4 man groups be amenable to your situation? 2, 3, and 4 are all divisors of 12 so there are many ways to construct two 12 man teams.

Now we could have a SOLO queue, a 2-4 man queue, and an unrestricted GROUP + SOLO queue.

I think that would cover all of our bases...

The way I'm thinking is about being more inclusive.

I think larger teams 5 - 11 will need smaller teams and solo's to fill the queue. I think empowering players to make this choice is a good thing.

I like the idea of a max of three "teams" in group play, it resonates with me.

2 queues seems fine to me on the surface.

But I think that many players are more "plug and play" (a phrase I used form another thread) and having a system that puts them at the bottom of the MM priority (timewise) is not ideal.

I also forsee that unless they are picking lighter mechs, their ability ot get a game will be EDIT: hindered (why are the most innocent words blocked?) by larger groups selecting (for every good reasons) the heavier weight classes.

So to alleviate both issues, why not allow small teams the option of playing in the Solo / PUG queue (capped at one team per side) such that they can have greater access to the mechs of their choice and the SOLO PUG experience is not adversely affected.

All the arguments for Solo players having the choice to play or not play in the "big boys queue" are equally valid and there doesn't appear (to me) to be any extra programming, it's the same queue selection process as a Solo player.

Edited by Craig Steele, 16 April 2014 - 06:49 PM.

[Osric Lancaster]

Craig Steele, on 16 April 2014 - 06:25 PM, said:

Let me be blunt then so you don't have to tax your mind with abstract "Person A says premise D" scenario's.

I don't think it's my mind I'm taxing here. You continue to pretend I'm making an argument I'm not making because it's easier for you to argue against them than me. You're also presuming upon peoples motivations for their arguments in an attempt to make them out as 'bad people'.

Craig Steele, on 16 April 2014 - 06:25 PM, said:

Spoiler

I get that you guys want to get as many people into the team queue as possible because on PGI's stats, it's looks pretty ordinary for the wait times but switching the problem from one demographic to another is not the sustainable answer.

If you're going to take a moral high ground and argue "we want more choices" than the smaller teams of 2 or 3 man should have the same argument right? Or is that argument only applicable when it suits the needs you have?

As far as empathy, how about presenting the other half of that argument -

They playing as a 2 man group against a 10 man group. . . with a 10 man group.
ELO buckets should still apply, so they aren't going to be playing outside their skill group.

Craig Steele, on 16 April 2014 - 06:47 PM, said:

But I think that many players are more "plug and play" (a phrase I used form another thread) and having a system that puts them at the bottom of the MM priority (timewise) is not ideal.

Actually, if you're starting with large groups and filling with small groups the last groups to get matched on the first pass would probably be the mid-sized groups. 5-7 mans would match out last given an equal distribution. Since those groups are fairly easy to fit with other groups.

Edited by Osric Lancaster, 16 April 2014 - 07:16 PM.

[Roland]

Craig Steele, on 16 April 2014 - 06:25 PM, said:

What about their right to say "I don't want to play against 10 man teams"?

I don't think you have any right to say that.

See, a solo player has at least some basis for a wanting to only play against solo players.. because in such an environment, everyone's equal.

But you are suggesting that small grouped players should be able to demand a situation where they play against groups SMALLER than their own, and solo players, who they have an advantage over... but not be forced to allow their competitors to have such an advantage over them.

That's just not reasonable.

Although the reality is, that in an unrestricted queue, it's not like they would consistently be going up against 12 man teams. It'd be like things were back in beta... Mostly just groups of players, and periodically you'd happen to run into an organized team. And you know what? It wasn't the worst thing in the world.

Allowing small groups to play in the solo queue just means that you'll perpetuate what we've had since the beginning... folks complaining about how premades made their game unfair.

Remove all ability to have premades in that queue, and the problem goes away.

Quote

As for imagining, no I'm not. I remember some guy a few months back talking about his son in college and MW:O was one of the ways they got to spend some time together. He painted himself as no Pro, no interest in larger teams, it was just something he and his son liked to do to spend some time together. I imagine he is far from alone in his sentiment.

You realize that in the unrestricted queue, the vast majority of the players are likely to be like that guy, right?

Grouping with your friends doesn't mean getting all serious business.

That's actually one of the things that the 12 man queue did so incredibly poorly... Because it was so hard to actually get a match in, it tended to be focused very heavily on "serious business" fighting.. because it just wasn't really worth the effort to get 12 guys together if you were just gonna screw around (although we did our share of screwing around with nothing but hunchbacks and stuff back in the 8 mans).

The unrestricted queue isn't gonna be filled with juggernaut pro-e-sports teams. It's gonna be filled with all the players who like to play with friends.

[Davers]

Craig Steele, on 16 April 2014 - 06:25 PM, said:

My apologies if you thought I was making a personal attack.

[Bhael Fire]

One thing I'd like to point out that can be rather confusing; let's keep the use of the words "team" and "group" consistent. In this game, it's easier to just use these terms to avoid confusion:

TEAM: In this game a team is made up of 12 players. Each match has two teams.

GROUP: A variable number of players that organize outside of the game and create a "group" inside the game. Teams may consist of multiple groups. The difference between a team and a group is subtle, but noteworthy in this game.

Sorry...just a minor pet-peeve.

[Bhael Fire]

Roland, on 16 April 2014 - 06:50 PM, said:

The unrestricted queue isn't gonna be filled with juggernaut pro-e-sports teams. It's gonna be filled with all the players who like to play with friends.

Thank you. This sums up exactly what I was about to post...but you said it better.

[Roland]

One thing that may appeal to folks like Craig though, who worry about the large teams...
If you check out the second link in my sig, the dynamic BV system I laid out there has a potential use which would help to balance teams based on size, by effectively restricting larger teams more in terms of what they could bring.

So a solo player could bring anything he wanted.. A small group would be a little more limited (i.e. couldn't just bring 4 DDC's or something), while a 12 man team would actually have to make signfiicant compromises to bring the best mechs.

In that way, the inherent benefits of large groups could be somewhat reduced.

Ultimately, it achieves a goal that the 3/3/3/3 plan is designed to address, but I suspect it would do so better because it actually bases the limits on utility in game, rather than weight class.

[WVAnonymous]

Wow. You guys are way more personally attached to the queue system than I am.

Any system will have flaws. Any system can be gamed. Let's pick one and see how it goes. PGI has a suggestion.

Can't we all just kill each other on the battlefield like proper gentlemen?

(in before lock)

[Opus]

Once again you have reinforced that Lone Wolfs are.... Ummm...

how did you put it to me back in Early Beta, Paul

""Cannon Fodder for House units"" as you put it....

and something about long walks on beaches alone....

Regardless: We at the Lone Wolfs Website, are proving you wrong every damn day,

Now with this installment that places Single pilots as second class members of MWO .....

I am still at odds with your choice of words and treatment of Solo players

Edited by Opus, 16 April 2014 - 07:16 PM.