1126 replies to this topic

[BLOOD WOLF]

Sandpit, on 14 April 2014 - 04:50 PM, said:

I don't think you understood it

it's nothing more than
we aren't putting it in launch module
we have things on the backburner we'll look at again later
we won't allow solo players the option to play with groups even though many of them want to

you just gonna find anything to whine about.

let them get done with CW first and then can hold your hand.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 14 April 2014 - 04:52 PM.

[Asmudius Heng]

Sandpit, on 14 April 2014 - 04:44 PM, said:

I'm willing to bet we're coming close to half the posts in this feedback thread so far are saying the exact same thing

Hopefully that feedback will filter through.

I am sure that many players would NOT want to go into this queue also which is fine - giving the more hardcore gamers the OPTION of joining is such a simple solution ...

Just make sure it is gated off for newbies and a massive signpost for solos out of newbie stages saying this is where roving bands of bloody minded group murders roam - some know the score, some will relish the challenge. Those that think this is scary just go back to the regular queue no harm no foul

Sigh ... i would not bring a group to this queue if over 4 because the balance and wait times will be so screwy that it would not be a great experience even if i might end up playing with more of my friends.

[Sandpit]

Deathlike, on 14 April 2014 - 04:50 PM, said:

I like the 3-day "retention" claim after 3PV was deployed. Go figure.




You really should consider/reconsider joining up @ the MWO Lobby browser. Seriously... once it grows to a viable size, even PGI can't "ignore" the userbase's demand for a global lobby or lobbies.

I'm not saying i won't use it, I'm saying I won't dedicate any of my time or money to build it. I'm through supporting this game with money and my time outside of playing it for free from time to time no matter what form it's in.

BLOOD WOLF, on 14 April 2014 - 04:52 PM, said:

you just gonna find anything to whine about.

let them get done with CW first and then can hold your hand.

says the guy who's doing nothing but attacking me because I'm pointing out why some of us aren't agreeing with you. gpclose sparky

[Deathlike]

Imperius, on 14 April 2014 - 04:51 PM, said:

I hope no supports private matches just to prove a point

I think this will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once the novelty "wears off", especially when it becomes "pay per use", it will be an excuse to "can" 5-11(12) player groups.

[Imperius]

Blood Wolf is Pauls alt account... I'm calling it

[Deathlike]

Sandpit, on 14 April 2014 - 04:53 PM, said:

I'm not saying i won't use it, I'm saying I won't dedicate any of my time or money to build it. I'm through supporting this game with money and my time outside of playing it for free from time to time no matter what form it's in.

???

This is a 3rd party creation, and not by PGI... Did I miss something?

[Roadbeer]

Deathlike, on 14 April 2014 - 04:50 PM, said:

I like the 3-day "retention" claim after 3PV was deployed. Go figure.




You really should consider/reconsider joining up @ the MWO Lobby browser. Seriously... once it grows to a viable size, even PGI can't "ignore" the userbase's demand for a global lobby or lobbies.

I haven't seen you at the meetings.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Imperius, on 14 April 2014 - 04:54 PM, said:

Blood Wolf is Pauls alt account... I'm calling it

how did you know?

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 14 April 2014 - 04:55 PM.

[Deathlike]

Roadbeer, on 14 April 2014 - 04:55 PM, said:

I haven't seen you at the meetings.

Meetings?

/hides

[Sandpit]

Asmudius Heng, on 14 April 2014 - 04:52 PM, said:

Hopefully that feedback will filter through.

I am sure that many players would NOT want to go into this queue also which is fine - giving the more hardcore gamers the OPTION of joining is such a simple solution ...

Just make sure it is gated off for newbies and a massive signpost for solos out of newbie stages saying this is where roving bands of bloody minded group murders roam - some know the score, some will relish the challenge. Those that think this is scary just go back to the regular queue no harm no foul

Sigh ... i would not bring a group to this queue if over 4 because the balance and wait times will be so screwy that it would not be a great experience even if i might end up playing with more of my friends.

That's my goal actually. I'm going to give it a few days but I'm quoting these so I can easily find them later under my own posts to collect and present the support for this.

I agree, new players shouldn't be able to opt in until they've got a little experience under their belts. THAT is how you protect players from themselves. You don't do that by telling veteran players that they don't know what's best for them. You do it by helping new players get some experience in a new player friendly environment (although I feel the group queue would teach them more and faster than puggin ever will but I digress)

Deathlike, on 14 April 2014 - 04:53 PM, said:

I think this will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once the novelty "wears off", especially when it becomes "pay per use", it will be an excuse to "can" 5-11(12) player groups.

well that's actually what I'm getting from Paul's post to be honest. They know (because I honestly don't believe any of them are stupid) that their previous group limitations reduced group numbers in the population so by making that post and thinking he was going to placate groups, the extended time it took to "review groups again" would all but have completely killed off the group population which means there would be no need to do it.

[p4r4g0n]

Paul, thank you for your post but would appreciate if you could clarify a couple of points if you could.

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

-snip-
Some of you may suggest that allowing solo players the ability to drop into the group queue would be the solution. A solo player would have MUCH greater success at winning in the regular public match than up against teams.
-snip-

Other than the possibility that a solo player would have a better game experience playing only in the regular public matches, are there any technical reasons why it would not be possible to:-

• allow a solo player to tick an option that would include the player as "filler" in a public group match?
  
• allow a group to tick an option that would preclude any solo players in their match?
  
• restrict each team in a public group match to no more than 1 solo player per team?

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

This leaves us with yet more restrictions: the Grouping interface cannot allow teams of 11 players, the Match Maker cannot create groups of 11 players (5+6, 4+7, 3+8, 9+2, 5+2+4, etc).

This problem is a direct result of not allowing a solo player to participate in the public group matches. In the absence of any technical reason why it is not possible, would it not be simpler to allow such participation rather than attempt to come up with a complicated fix?

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

An additional problem that arises is the exact tonnage matching that happens in the public queue. We will not know what Mechs players are bringing to the lobby. The 3/3/3/3 rule still works but we cannot ask the Match Maker to match exact tonnage per weight class when players are already in a lobby.

Noted and agree it could create long waiting times or failure to find a match. Has there been any attempt to model / simulate the anticipated waiting times / failure using the group data from before the restriction to 4 man groups? Furthermore:-

• would this issue not be alleviated somewhat if you allowed solo players to participate in the public group matches?
  
• would this be less of an issue with a larger player base than currently exist? If so, has there been any attempt made to extrapolate the minimum required increase in player base size where this issue would no longer be a significant concern?

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

Group Queue

• Allows 2-10 man groups.

There appears to be some confusion with respect to this. Can you clarify whether this means that the public group matches as currently envisaged will not include:

• 11 and 12 man groups; OR
  
• 11 man groups only?

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

Now that you see what is planned and the edge cases surrounding implementation of a group only queue, we’re still deciding when this important feature would fit into our development schedule.

For the record, I regard the use of the word "when" as being indicative that it will happen. If they aren't going to be doing a public group matches at all, I get the feeling I'm not going to be liking CW all that much if CW matches are just going to be the current public matches redux.

Also for the record, I would choose "any" if given a choice to drop in both public and public group matches. Whether the groups would want me to be in their matches is the real question

Edit: formatting, typo

Edited by p4r4g0n, 14 April 2014 - 05:19 PM.

[Osric Lancaster]

BLOOD WOLF, on 14 April 2014 - 04:55 PM, said:

Imperius, on 14 April 2014 - 04:54 PM, said:

Blood Wolf is Pauls alt account... I'm calling it

how did you know?

Even if you're joking, I don't think it's a good idea to pretend to be PGI staff.

Edited by Osric Lancaster, 14 April 2014 - 05:03 PM.

[Threat Doc]

Thank you for explaining what many of us have been wondering for the longest time. I am grateful.

Alright, now let's go see if I'm going to get an MAE and booted every single game, tonight. God, I hope this is fixed tomorrow.

[Sandpit]

Deathlike, on 14 April 2014 - 04:54 PM, said:

???

This is a 3rd party creation, and not by PGI... Did I miss something?

I just mean that if I were to donate time and money to build that, I'd be donating that time and money to PGI even though it's 3rd party because it would go directly into helping PGI make more money. They want more money they can stop being lazy and condescending when it comes to things like this.
I'll use it, just won't be a part of building and/or paying for it. That's not anything against anyone doing so, I applaud them actually, just not going to spend another dime in any way that would go to support PGI at this point.

[Roadbeer]

Sandpit, on 14 April 2014 - 04:58 PM, said:

well that's actually what I'm getting from Paul's post to be honest. They know (because I honestly don't believe any of them are stupid) that their previous group limitations reduced group numbers in the population so by making that post and thinking he was going to placate groups, the extended time it took to "review groups again" would all but have completely killed off the group population which means there would be no need to do it.

[Bhael Fire]

Osric Lancaster, on 14 April 2014 - 04:43 PM, said:

Public/Single Player Queue

• Solo players who have not opted for the Group Queue.
  
• Solo players who have opted for the Group Queue, if there aren't enough of the former.

Group Queue

• Allows 2-12 man groups.
  
• Groups are matched first against other groups.
  
• Solo players who have opted to join the group queue.
  
• Cannot always do exact tonnage matching.

Private Matches

• 2-24 players by invite only.
  
• Can set game options/restrictions.
  
• Used for competitive X vs Y players

This...This...THIS.

Removed the vitriol from the quote, because it's unnecessary and I want them to take this seriously, but everything here is absolutely what players are looking for and it's what PGI should plan on implementing.

There's not a single valid reason for not allowing players to play in a SOLO ONLY queue and a GROUPS (2-12) + SOLO queue. Groups want it this way...and solo players want it this way. Please make it happen.

[Imperius]

BLOOD WOLF, on 14 April 2014 - 04:55 PM, said:

how did you know?

A little dragon told me that he's experience that "poke" before.

[Sandpit]

p4r4g0n, on 14 April 2014 - 05:01 PM, said:

Also for the record, I would choose "any" if given a choice to drop in both public and public group matches. Whether the groups would want me to be in their matches is the real question

It's amazing how many are saying this in this thread and how few I see saying that this would be a bad thing. Our island is growing apparently

[Imperius]

Osric Lancaster, on 14 April 2014 - 05:01 PM, said:

Even if you're joking, I don't think it's a good idea to pretend to be PGI staff.

Shhh... I'm trying to rid the forums of impostors and you're not helping.

Sandpit, on 14 April 2014 - 05:04 PM, said:

It's amazing how many are saying this in this thread and how few I see saying that this would be a bad thing. Our island is growing apparently

Well technically a continent is a big Island

[Sandpit]

Imperius, on 14 April 2014 - 05:06 PM, said:

Shhh... I'm trying to rid the forums of impostors and you're not helping.



Well technically a continent is a big Island

I call dibs!

Sandopia is now open to all visitors!