1126 replies to this topic

[Craig Steele]

Osric Lancaster, on 16 April 2014 - 06:50 PM, said:

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'.



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

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

So what exactly is your argument?

BTW, the proposal was not 10 + 2, it might be 10 + 2 vs 8 + 4, or some other combination therefof.

But if you're saying perfect matching is going to be the call, then I can live with that. I don't think it will work but if thats the system you want in then so be it.

Also, ELO buckets would still apply to the Solo queue so thats an argument that cuts both ways as well. Solo players will not be disadvantaged by a 2 / 3 man group in their team and opposed (caped at one) in the same ELO.

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

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.




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.

No, I'm saying small teams should have the similar options (not demand) as Solo players. Why should they have to play in an environment where they are prey for the 10 man team? That's as equally unreasonable. If you're argument is that that 2 man team is supported by another lager team thats equally true of having one team per side in the solo queue (2/3 man)

The fact is that unless we want to divide the player population up into so many individual parcels it will never be equal, but it can be relativily balanced.

2 or 3 mans groups in the Solo queue are not going to stomp, will have lower wait times for a game and have better accessiability to mech choices, all good things for that demographic.

Solo players are not going to be disadvantaged, ELO brackets will still apply.

In the "Big Boys queue" (as it's labelled here), they will still have the "competent" players who want to be there in whatever group size they want (1 - 12) and the smaller groups enter that queue knowing they are fillers in the sense of comms, mech choices etc. That's their call.

I think that both queues will have similar mentalities. There are Solo players who I have seen hang back from a fight and then swoop in to KS 5 mechs, their mentality is just as Pro competitive as 12 man juggernaughts and will in all likelyhood be similar percentages. Just like I think there are going to be some Solo players who abuse the group queue for farming C-Bills at the same percentage as those who try and PUB stomp for the same purpose.

It is a MMO game , that's unavoidable on both sides of the coin.

That doesn't mean we need to build exclusive divisions.

[Roland]

Craig Steele, on 16 April 2014 - 07:18 PM, said:

No, I'm saying small teams should have the similar options (not demand) as Solo players. Why should they have to play in an environment where they are prey for the 10 man team?

Because you are demanding that solo players play in an environment where you can prey on them?

Quote

The fact is that unless we want to divide the player population up into so many individual parcels it will never be equal, but it can be relativily balanced.

Yes.
And that balance point is the same one that has been established in multitudes of other games:
1) Solo Queue
2) Unrestricted Queue

Quote

2 or 3 mans groups in the Solo queue are not going to stomp,

And yet that is what people have complained about consistently ever since the 4 man limit was put in.

For the record though, I've been in games where me and one other friend got ALL the kills for our whole team, and won the match.

Quote

That doesn't mean we need to build exclusive divisions.

I absolutely agree. That's why the only restriction is to allow solo players, who specifically do not want to play with grouped players at all, to play without interference from grouped players.

Everyone else plays together.


You may have missed it though, since it got rolled to the last page, check out the second link my sig. It's got a mechanism which could potentially help balance an environment with groups of various sizes, by effectively giving a handicap based on group size.

[Craig Steele]

Roland, on 16 April 2014 - 07:27 PM, said:

Because you are demanding that solo players play in an environment where you can prey on them?





Yes.
And that balance point is the same one that has been established in multitudes of other games:
1) Solo Queue
2) Unrestricted Queue


And yet that is what people have complained about consistently ever since the 4 man limit was put in.

For the record though, I've been in games where me and one other friend got ALL the kills for our whole team, and won the match.



I absolutely agree. That's why the only restriction is to allow solo players, who specifically do not want to play with grouped players at all, to play without interference from grouped players.

Everyone else plays together.


You may have missed it though, since it got rolled to the last page, check out the second link my sig. It's got a mechanism which could potentially help balance an environment with groups of various sizes, by effectively giving a handicap based on group size.

Roland, repeating the same false assertion / insinuation over and over won't make it true.

I am saying that 2 and 3 man groups should have the same option as solo players, to opt in and play with the "Big Boys". Not once have I said anything about my game, why keep asserting you know whats going on for me?

The assertion that a 2 or three man group wants to "prey" on Solo's is equally valid for the 5 - 11 man team that wants to "prey" on pairs. Every time you argue that it's just as valid for the 5 - 11 queue. You're not all saints and of the highest of integrity I can assure you.

Some people like to play in pairs / threes and they like to play the mech of their choice and they don't want to be waiting 45 minutes (or whatever it is) for a game.

Why should they be forced to wait longer wait times and limited (by virtue of the environment they are queuing in) to certain mech choices.

If you trying to tell PGI that you want a system more inclusive, then be more inclusive. Don't shift the problem from one demographic to another.

[Lindonius]

Roland, on 16 April 2014 - 09:27 AM, said:

Chronojam, are you going to write a thesis on PGI's adventures in MWO, and all of the crazy missteps at some point?

I would very much like to see this.

[Roland]

Quote

The assertion that a 2 or three man group wants to "prey" on Solo's is equally valid for the 5 - 11 man team that wants to "prey" on pairs. Every time you argue that it's just as valid for the 5 - 11 queue. You're not all saints and of the highest of integrity I can assure you.

Well, but it's not really... because in an unrestricted queue, everyone's just playing. Certainly for a 5 man team it's not an advantage really over anyone. Some groups will be bigger, some will be smaller. It's merely playing with other players. Which is why it's reasonable to just put them all together.

Really, the only reason for the solo queue is because some people want to not have any groups at all. And in a solo queue, you can guarantee that basically everyone is even. No one is grouped, everyone's solo.

Quote

Some people like to play in pairs / threes and they like to play the mech of their choice and they don't want to be waiting 45 minutes (or whatever it is) for a game.

That's perfectly reasonable. They wouldn't have to wait to find a game in the unrestricted queue at all.

Quote

Why should they be forced to wait longer wait times and limited (by virtue of the environment they are queuing in) to certain mech choices.

I wouldn't make them wait longer or limit their mech choices.

Perhaps you could explain why you think they would have to wait longer, or have their mech choices limited more severely?

Quote

If you trying to tell PGI that you want a system more inclusive, then be more inclusive. Don't shift the problem from one demographic to another.

The system would be dramatically more inclusive, as it would account for two large groups who aren't allowed to play currently... mainly, solo players who don't want to play with groups at all, and players who want to group easily.

[Mycrus]

Craig Steele, on 16 April 2014 - 07:41 PM, said:

Roland, repeating the same false assertion / insinuation over and over won't make it true.

I am saying that 2 and 3 man groups should have the same option as solo players, to opt in and play with the "Big Boys". Not once have I said anything about my game, why keep asserting you know whats going on for me?

The assertion that a 2 or three man group wants to "prey" on Solo's is equally valid for the 5 - 11 man team that wants to "prey" on pairs. Every time you argue that it's just as valid for the 5 - 11 queue. You're not all saints and of the highest of integrity I can assure you.

Some people like to play in pairs / threes and they like to play the mech of their choice and they don't want to be waiting 45 minutes (or whatever it is) for a game.

Why should they be forced to wait longer wait times and limited (by virtue of the environment they are queuing in) to certain mech choices.

If you trying to tell PGI that you want a system more inclusive, then be more inclusive. Don't shift the problem from one demographic to another.

Things must be slow in your high powered financial big'un job... I've lost track of who you are "discussing" with

[Craig Steele]

Roland, on 16 April 2014 - 07:54 PM, said:

Well, but it's not really... because in an unrestricted queue, everyone's just playing. Certainly for a 5 man team it's not an advantage really over anyone. Some groups will be bigger, some will be smaller. It's merely playing with other players. Which is why it's reasonable to just put them all together.

Really, the only reason for the solo queue is because some people want to not have any groups at all. And in a solo queue, you can guarantee that basically everyone is even. No one is grouped, everyone's solo.



That's perfectly reasonable. They wouldn't have to wait to find a game in the unrestricted queue at all.



I wouldn't make them wait longer or limit their mech choices.

Perhaps you could explain why you think they would have to wait longer, or have their mech choices limited more severely?



The system would be dramatically more inclusive, as it would account for two large groups who aren't allowed to play currently... mainly, solo players who don't want to play with groups at all, and players who want to group easily.

The system discussed was the MM would be looking to put together 12 man teams from Groups first, with an ideal max of 3 groups.

Ergo, 2 and 3 man groups will have to wait for the numerically smaller number of 6+ groups to press launch, thats not only extending their wait time, but also reducing their chances of launching at all.

Secondly, the system will then "expand" to include smaller teams, so the smaller groups have to wait that time allowance until MM expands.

While the smaller group player can select any mech they want, in the group queue they are being forced into under this scenerio they are limited to the lighter mechs in actuality as heavy mechs will (more often) be concentrated in the larger groups they are being matched with.

So while their choice is theirs, if they want to launch they more likely need to choose lighter mechs to actually play.

If you are seriously saying that the line of thinking of Solo queues and All other is a good thing, then you should have no problems with PGI's current thinking of Solo / Small groups and larger groups. The basic theory is exactly the same for both arguments, just the postiion of the arbitary line is different. PGI favour Solo / Small groups, you favour larger groups.

I'm trying to find something more inclusive of all demographics.

[Roland]

Quote

Secondly, the system will then "expand" to include smaller teams, so the smaller groups have to wait that time allowance until MM expands.

Hmm.. I don't think that would necessarily be the case though, since I think it was suggested that the system would simply try to find other groups of similar size first.. so if a bunch of 2 man teams were out there, they'd be matched together and stacked into teams without too much trouble.

Basically, it'd just be the original, simplied matchmaker from days of ol'. I wouldn't expect it to be harder to find a match at all.

Quote

While the smaller group player can select any mech they want, in the group queue they are being forced into under this scenerio they are limited to the lighter mechs in actuality as heavy mechs will (more often) be concentrated in the larger groups they are being matched with.

I'm not sure why you think they would be forced into the smaller mechs? Why would they be limited to the lighter ones?

Quote

So while their choice is theirs, if they want to launch they more likely need to choose lighter mechs to actually play.

I'm not sure why you think they would be under more duress to play lighter mechs than larger groups would be.

Although, ultimately, I would point to my suggestion of team weight/value restrictions as being superior to the 3/3/3/3 system, and one which would avoid what you seem to be afraid of here.

Quote

If you are seriously saying that the line of thinking of Solo queues and All other is a good thing, then you should have no problems with PGI's current thinking of Solo / Small groups and larger groups.

The main reason I don't think the solo/small group queue is a real good idea, is because it's what you have now.... and it totally fails to achieve the original purpose of separate queues.
It doesn't reduce the claims (real or imagined) of "pugstomping".

If you just remove groups completely from that queue, then those complaints will finally end. People who want to play in that queue will finally no longer be able to blame their losses on "premades".

[Bhael Fire]

Craig Steele, on 16 April 2014 - 08:04 PM, said:

The system discussed was the MM would be looking to put together 12 man teams from Groups first, with an ideal max of 3 groups.

Ergo, 2 and 3 man groups will have to wait for the numerically smaller number of 6+ groups to press launch, thats not only extending their wait time, but also reducing their chances of launching at all.

You aren't taking into account that there's currently a 4-man and 12-man limit on groups. That's why a large portion of the player population is upset; they've set up a game that requires 12 players per team, but only allows for 4-player groups and 12-player groups. So naturally, there's an abundance of small groups and even more solo players....very few people know 12 people that are ready to play whenever they are.

If they opened up the proposed GROUPS+SOLO queue, you can bet there would be higher instances of groups consisting of 4-6 players...possibly even as much as 8 or more (though not quite as common).

Also, the proposal says/means "larger" groups first. That doesn't mean it sits and waits until it finds an 6+ player group...it means it will look for the largest group it can find in the bucket and go from there to build a team that fits within the 3-group maximum parameter. If it can't build a match after searching for 1 minute or so, it would loosen its search parameters to 4 groups, 5 groups, etc. until it finds a match.

In other words, being in a small group would probably be just as fast as the solo queue. You'd be able to drop in a balanced match within a reasonable amount of time and you'd be doing your part to quell the "Evil Premades at my baby" protests.

[Craig Steele]

Roland, on 16 April 2014 - 08:26 PM, said:

The main reason I don't think the solo/small group queue is a real good idea, is because it's what you have now.... and it totally fails to achieve the original purpose of separate queues.
It doesn't reduce the claims (real or imagined) of "pugstomping".

If you just remove groups completely from that queue, then those complaints will finally end. People who want to play in that queue will finally no longer be able to blame their losses on "premades".

And what I am saying is that what this proposal does is shift the problem from the solo player to the "smaller groups".

It is forcing them to play in a certain environment that disempowers them, and we will simply see similar complaints in the future.

We know excluding demographics has had a negative effect on some players, lets not keep repreating the process.

Lets endorse something to PGI that embraces the maximum options without being restrictive.

PS, If the larger groups take all the Assault and Heavy slots as Roadbeer once identified (which imo is most likely for the majority of teams especially around the 5 - 8 mark) then MM cannot put the small group or solo's with them unless they have the lights and mediums.

Ergo, for them to find a match they will be "limited" to the lighter mech chassis.

[Osric Lancaster]

Craig Steele, on 16 April 2014 - 07:18 PM, said:

So what exactly is your argument?

Post 684

Craig Steele, on 16 April 2014 - 07:18 PM, said:

BTW, the proposal was not 10 + 2, it might be 10 + 2 vs 8 + 4, or some other combination therefof.

Imperfect matching does not effect small groups asymmetrically, and is therefore irrelevant to your argument.
That does not mean there aren't solutions to the issue.

Post 678

Craig Steele, on 16 April 2014 - 07:18 PM, said:

Also, ELO buckets would still apply to the Solo queue so thats an argument that cuts both ways as well. Solo players will not be disadvantaged by a 2 / 3 man group in their team and opposed (caped at one) in the same ELO.

Craig Steele, on 16 April 2014 - 07:41 PM, said:

The assertion that a 2 or three man group wants to "prey" on Solo's is equally valid for the 5 - 11 man team that wants to "prey" on pairs.

Post 696

Craig Steele, on 16 April 2014 - 07:41 PM, said:

Why should they have to play in an environment where they are prey for the 10 man team?

Post 695

That said, I suspect neither of us will convince the other entirely, and that's fine.
We ain't gotta think alike, and it looks like we've both made our arguments.
I'm going to go grab a free 'Mech bay and then crash. Night, Craig.

Edited by Osric Lancaster, 16 April 2014 - 08:39 PM.

[Craig Steele]

Bhael Fire, on 16 April 2014 - 08:36 PM, said:

Also, the proposal says/means "larger" groups first. That doesn't mean it sits and waits until it finds an 6+ player group...it means it will look for the largest group it can find in the bucket and go from there to build a team that fits within the 3-group maximum parameter. If it can't build a match after searching for 1 minute or so, it would loosen its search parameters to 4 groups, 5 groups, etc. until it finds a match.

Its hard to talk about what player demographics might or might not be, depending on your point of view their are equally unsubstaniatable arguments. Bottom line is everyone is guessing.

As for the outline here, yes thats how I read it originally, now here is how I see it possibly working for a certain percentage of times

2 player teams presses launch - no 6+ team to match mechs with atm

wait 90 seconds - no 6+ man mech match team still

go to "exceed 3 team max limit"

search another 90 seconds for mech matching, launch

vs in the solo queue

2 man team presses launch, matched with another 2 man team of similar ELO.

Solo's of ELO fill according to mech matching, launch.

Ergo, unless the numerically smaller 6+ man team (volume wise) is pressing launch within that 90 seonds, and they have the relevant mech allocations to accommodate the 2 man teams mech, the 2 man team is waiting longer for a match.

[Craig Steele]

Osric Lancaster, on 16 April 2014 - 08:38 PM, said:

Post 684



Imperfect matching does not effect small groups asymmetrically, and is therefore irrelevant to your argument.
That does not mean there aren't solutions to the issue.

Post 678




Post 696



Post 695

That said, I suspect neither of us will convince the other entirely, and that's fine.
We ain't gotta think alike, and it looks like we've both made our arguments.
I'm going to go grab a free 'Mech bay and then crash. Night, Craig.

So here is post 684

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 "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.

And here is where I pointed out you were wrong.

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

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.

The original premise of the argument WAS let Solo players join the group queue if they want to.

What I was presenting is that if that's an argument that resonates, it should be extended to as many as possible without creating any exploitation issues.

As such the 2 / 3 man groups would have benefits and not be to the degredation of the Solo player experience and should also have the choice.

[HUNTERS MOON]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 14 April 2014 - 09:25 AM, said:

Please let us know your thoughts of this Command Chair update:

Spoiler

Maybe you can charge us MC to purchase Uber MC, which lets us change how the cockpit buttons look?

WHY DO YOU KEEP CHANGING CRAP THAT DOES NOT MATTER? GIVE US 10 NEW TASTY NEW MAPS OR ADMIT YOU ARE FAILING? Then again you can't charge for maps can you.

WHERE ARE THE MAPS NERDS??????????????

[Craig Steele]

RENEGADEMOON, on 16 April 2014 - 08:58 PM, said:

Maybe you can charge us MC to purchase Uber MC, which lets us change how the cockpit buttons look?

WHY DO YOU KEEP CHANGING CRAP THAT DOES NOT MATTER? GIVE US 10 NEW TASTY NEW MAPS OR ADMIT YOU ARE FAILING? Then again you can't charge for maps can you.

WHERE ARE THE MAPS NERDS??????????????

Ooooo, "Nerds" ?

That should get you some sort of reaction I imagine.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

What I want is a place where it doesn't really matter how many friends you have online ... 1, 2, 5, 9, all the way up to 11 ... for you to build a group and play. (I also don't want to have to search for a new player to join the group every time someone has to go for whatever reason.)

If their metrics (84%) are correct, then there should be more than enough solo players to fill the gaps.

If roadbeer and others are correct, some of the people who stopped playing left because PGI took away groups of 5-7.

If some of those people start coming back, and groups become more and more popular, then, maybe, PGI will need to start looking at trying to match groups with groups to make full teams ... until then, one group plus solo players should work fine.

From what I gather from this discussion, there are many solo players who wouldn't mind dropping with (and against) groups of any size ... some would even prefer it.

If there's a serious concern about groups stomping solo players, and they feel a need for a "solo-only" queue, then offer it as an option, but I would bet that after trying playing with and against groups, most players don't go back.

Edit: Clarity

Edited by Kageru Ikazuchi, 16 April 2014 - 09:25 PM.

[GalaxyBluestar]

one reason why i would love to be a filler for organised groups is this...

GalaxyBluestar, on 16 April 2014 - 09:25 PM, said:

Spoiler

no brilliant scores but maybe inline for carry harder recognition? names blurred to protect the derpy. i mean i feel i'm fighting on my own sometimes...




my god so many unable to hunt down targets or shoot straight! this match felt like a one man band. not enough time or support to do anything of merit. seriously my match score 30, total of the team 100... alone i'm nearly half the ******* team!


i don't know if it's them or me but it just looks like suicide sqauds, that's my pug queue experience these days.

the vets have gone. i'm bored of trying to carry a team of newbies...

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 16 April 2014 - 09:40 PM.

[Craig Steele]

GalaxyBluestar, on 16 April 2014 - 09:38 PM, said:

one reason why i would love to be a filler for organised groups is this...



the vets have gone. i'm bored of trying to carry a team of newbies...

LOL, "Ran out of teammates......" ha ha ha ha ha ha, nice one, very PC

[GalaxyBluestar]

RENEGADEMOON, on 16 April 2014 - 08:58 PM, said:

WHERE ARE THE MAPS NERDS??????????????

Craig Steele, on 16 April 2014 - 09:12 PM, said:

Ooooo, "Nerds" ?

That should get you some sort of reaction I imagine.

[Bhael Fire]

Just so this thread stays on topic and doesn't get sidelined by troll posts:

This is the general proposal:

SOLO ONLY

• Only solo players
  
• No groups

GROUPS + SOLO

• Groups with 2-12 players and Solo players that have opted-in*
  
• MM tries to match groups 1:1 starting with the largest groups first
  
• Then tries to find 1-2 equal or smaller groups to fill in any gaps (if any)
  
• Any leftover spots are filled with 1-2 solo players per team
  
• Max of 3 groups per team
  
• 1-2 solo players maximum per team (to minimize PUG stomps)**

* Solo players that have opted-in for group+solo would drop in the solo only queue most of the time but would be on stand-by and used for filler when the MM needed to fill in any odd gaps in the groups+solo queue.

** This number can be tweaked based on actual tests.