1126 replies to this topic

[hideyourkids]

I think the answer here is just let 11 man groups drop with 11. As long as everybody knows the risk beforehand, it shouldn't be an issue. I think most organized groups would prefer playing 11 v 12 than playing with 8 pugs.

[StalaggtIKE]

This is much better. It means I can finally play with my friends.

Edit: Just open up the group queue to 2-11 while allowing solo players. I see no reason to not allow solo players that want to join with a group. It could make for great recruitment and potentially a great experience for new players.

Save yourself some work.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 17 April 2014 - 06:37 AM.

[Kraven Kor]

Point of order:

Most players played in a group, prior to the gutting of groups.

Let's not re-write history here. By your own numbers, prior to the change to the 4-man max outside of the 8-man queue, more players played in a group than not in a group.

MWO's abysmal handling of social game functions (no persistent chat channels, no way to "find a group" within the client, no in-game comms, etc.) is why people don't group.

I want to group, but largely do not anymore due to the difficulties in doing so.

[stevemac]

Thanks at least most of my questions were anwsered.

[TercieI]

StalaggtIKE, on 14 April 2014 - 09:55 AM, said:

This is much better. In means I can finally play with my friends.

It really, really doesn't.

[PharmEcis]

The simple solution is to not force a 12 man drop. Allow 11 on 11. 10 on 10. Allow the players to check a box if they don't care if they go up against more or less so you could end up with a 10 on 11 or an 11 on 12.

Problem solved.

[Gorgo7]

Thanks, sounds good.

Are we still on for the end of the month?

Cheers,

Gorgo7

[Nicholas Carlyle]

hideyourkids, on 14 April 2014 - 09:54 AM, said:

I think the answer here is just let 11 man groups drop with 11. As long as everybody knows the risk beforehand, it shouldn't be an issue. I think most organized groups would prefer playing 11 v 12 than playing with 8 pugs.

I think this is accurate as well.

If someone wants to risk going 11 vs 12, let them.

[AlexEss]

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

Public Player Queue

• Solo players
  
• 2-12 man groups. 1 group per team as it is now. Extra spots filled by solo players. (I'll be there without a doubt)

And then we have a 12-man on coms team vs a 2.man on coms + pugs,,, And even if that does not happen very often it will. Not only that people will think it happens more often then not. And as with all matters of perception the only ways to stop it is by setting up solid boundaries.

So while i can understand why you would like it... It would not work at all in the long run.

[QuaxDerBruchpilot]

Well, judging your latest posts (this one and the ones before) it seems you're catching up to the communities needs .... good to see .. please keep that pace, PGI. Maybe 2014 will be the year of MWO ...

[o0Marduk0o]

We need at most 3 queues:

• only solo
  
• 2-4man + solo, 1 premade each side
  
• 5-12man + solo as filler, 1 premade each side, if possible same player count

[VagGR]

i really cannot understand how can you base your decisions on numbers that say group players is a small minority while this is the very thing you should try to change. Its only logical that the vast majority will drop solo as the game for almost 2 years now does LITTLE to NOTHING to promote group play apart from the flock mentality "stay together to stay alive" which by itself is just wrong. communicating with other players is a pain through chat in battle, putting players in random lances does not equal that those players will work together, there is not even some ingame interface that would allow PUG players to coordinate in a fast and efficient way. and as a result the ONLY way is to go and join a copr and use 3RD PARTY systems for something that a game, that states "teamwork is key", should provide by itself in the first place. and then you seem suprised that the majority drops solo and yet again you take steps to improve the solo experience instead of trying to LEAD people to play as a team!

As for the 3/3/3/3 system even though i too feel it will greatly improve PUG games, i cant help but think that it is the result of a failure. You failed to prevent this game from becoming an arms race ("bigger is better" as you so stronlgy stated when the game was announced) and now you can find no other way than to force it upon us and in doing so take away a very big chuck from the diversity that made a lot of drops very interesting.

hopefully when you feel that the solo players is at the best possible state you will turn your attention to the people that want to play as a group

[Nicholas Carlyle]

o0Marduk0o, on 14 April 2014 - 10:04 AM, said:

We need at most 3 queues:

• only solo
• 2-4man + solo, 1 premade each side
• 5-12man + solo as filler, 1 premade each side, if possible same player count

While I agree that we SHOULD have this, I don't think the player population can handle that kind of split up.

I think two queue's is probably the max.

[Amsro]

AlexEss, on 14 April 2014 - 10:02 AM, said:

And then we have a 12-man on coms team vs a 2.man on coms + pugs,,, And even if that does not happen very often it will. Not only that people will think it happens more often then not. And as with all matters of perception the only ways to stop it is by setting up solid boundaries.

So while i can understand why you would like it... It would not work at all in the long run.

Uh seriously did you read that before you you hit post?

The obvious answer is no, simply put you have the teams matched in size. With a variance of +/- 2 this way the size gap becomes a non factor in the game.

Besides, there is always the SOLO que for those not quite ready for a more tactical match.

Edit; The idea I'm posting isn't new, in fact in december it was the same view as Paul, then Paul got his data from # of drops and was (in his own words) "Surprised" to see that more were solo, when in fact this should have been expected due to 4-man team cap.

Now Paul has changed his mind based on the stats he created with his own change years prior. And now he is too blinded to see the simple truth in it.

Solo
Group+Solo

No limits needed on either que. Match Team sizes, enjoy, watch the gameplay evolve to be more tactical and enjoyable while the solo's still have their sandbox to just level mechs or learn to play.

Edited by Amsro, 14 April 2014 - 10:10 AM.

[intothefray]

Please push this into priority development. You don't have much for in game community development and this would be great for the teamspeak communities to be able to launch with larger and odder group sizes. Nothing sucks more than people leaving so others can play in a 4 man and then another person joins after they leave and we're back in an infinite problem. And looks like we won't be able to sync drop anymore so just bite the bullet and push something through.

It'd be nice if friends and communities can play together without a 2-4 or 12 man limit. 12 is difficult for my community to keep near 12 people in game not to mention a couple just sitting around doing absolutely nothing for when someone has to drop. 4 just isn't enough during prime time.

[Homeless Bill]

In terms of the planned possibility of a group queue, I just don't think it's worth the effort. For most of the day, it would be dead or result in excruciating wait times (how often will a 3 show up to fill out a 9 or a 5 to fill out a 7?), and the lack of tonnage restrictions would just make it a shit-fest.

I would much prefer the ability to create "open" private matches, where anyone can see your lobby on a list and join it. That way, you could still accomplish the same goal, but doing so you would gain multiple benefits:

• Knowing who's on. You wouldn't have to wonder, "Are there others even in the group queue right now?" You'd just go check the list of open private matches and see what needs filling.
  
• Wait times, solo players, and filling odd numbers. Because you'd know what matches need what number of players, there's much less of a chance of no match being made. If there's a 6, a 7, an 8, and a 4 trying to find, it's never going to happen. But if the group of seven sees that and one dude is willing to drop, they have a match. It also allows solo players to fill spots.
  
• Mitigating tonnage imbalance. By allowing everyone to get together in the private match lobby, you could ensure some modicum of fairness instead of just rolling the dice on who's bringing what.

Edited by Homeless Bill, 14 April 2014 - 10:13 AM.

[Mofwangana Bogogono]

It might just be simpler to integrate voice chat.

Having said that, I don't ever see myself using the group queue. The problem with multiple groups is that each group has their own idea on how the match should progress. It usually ends up with groups running off in opposite directions, only to get slaughtered when they run into the full enemy team.

I'd rather drop with 11 other PUGs than two 6-man groups that aren't talking to each other.

[TygerLily]

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

Public Player Queue

• Solo players
  
• 2-12 man groups. 1 group per team as it is now. Extra spots filled by solo players. (I'll be there without a doubt)

Yuck...back in the day, running with an 8-man in a public queue was ridiculous...

I think having more than a 4-man in a public should always be a no-go...

[hideyourkids]

AlexEss, on 14 April 2014 - 10:02 AM, said:

And then we have a 12-man on coms team vs a 2.man on coms + pugs,,, And even if that does not happen very often it will. Not only that people will think it happens more often then not. And as with all matters of perception the only ways to stop it is by setting up solid boundaries.

So while i can understand why you would like it... It would not work at all in the long run.

I think you misunderstood the original post. There will be a MAX of 4 people grouped in the public queue. So at most its 4 on comms vs pugs. The group queue will allow more than 4, and only group.s

[TygerLily]

Kraven Kor, on 14 April 2014 - 09:59 AM, said:

Point of order:

Most players played in a group, prior to the gutting of groups.

Let's not re-write history here. By your own numbers, prior to the change to the 4-man max outside of the 8-man queue, more players played in a group than not in a group.

MWO's abysmal handling of social game functions (no persistent chat channels, no way to "find a group" within the client, no in-game comms, etc.) is why people don't group.

I want to group, but largely do not anymore due to the difficulties in doing so.

A good suspicion. However, that really only reinforces the "Public Solo" and "Public Group" idea...after a while, the number will either stay the same (lots of pugging, not as much grouping) or they will change (lots of grouping, not as much pugging). Either way, implementing the "Public Group" will shed some light. I think the discussion is about how to structure the "Public Group"...