1126 replies to this topic

[Tekadept]

mekabuser, on 16 April 2014 - 04:53 AM, said:

the tragedy continues.. Like the fall of rome, or whatnot.

too bad its NOT like rome where you could um "change" upper management.

Sorry too late

[Bagheera]

Well, while I appreciate the update I'm afraid that you're still basing all of these design decisions on skewed data, as shown by the 33 pages of responses prior to this post.

Not much to be done about it until you start to understand how people actually want to play the game and design for that.

Edited by Bagheera, 16 April 2014 - 06:42 AM.

[AlmightyAeng]

I've been out of town.

Quote

Group Queue
Allows 2-10 man groups.
Groups can only play against other groups.
No solo players.
Match Maker will not make a team of 11 players
Probability of longer wait times for teams to be built.
Cannot incorporate exact tonnage matching like the other queues.

Please implement this ahead of the "it's on the backburner" schedule. Groups of 2-10, no ELO, no tonnage matching, no 3/3/3/3 BS. A queue for groups of people who want to grab their friends and go.

So the MM will take longer. Fine. I'll deal.

Edited by Ghost Badger, 16 April 2014 - 07:40 AM.

[dangerzone]

Honestly, as of now, I'm okay with having no 2-10 groups for now. I run an organized mercenary unit, and we naturally drop in 3 groups of 3 or 4 anyway for practice night and attempt to sync drop, so nothing is really going to change for us other than 3/3/3/3.

Paul, you actually explain that very nicely. I understand that it is not that you do not want to find a way for 2-10 man groups. There just is not any time to implement it into V1 of the Launch Module unless you guys delay it past April 29th.

Just the fact that you guys are still trying to find ways to implement it, makes me a happy Mechwarrior. Cheers!


~Dangerzone

[dangerzone]

GalaxyBluestar, on 15 April 2014 - 11:26 PM, said:

we have it, it's the public queue where being beaten wasn't because people wanted to shoot you and you wanted to stare at the ground or take half a match to figure out where your team is fighting the enemy but because elo is flawed and the other team had premades. the quality of player around now compared to 15 months ago is abismal.

you see being as casual as i am i'm rarely on when there's friends on etc. it'd be so cool to see a lobby of names etc need one more guy i'm there being your body gaurd and wiith people who even now how to use teamchat effectively, none of it exsists in the public queue and i can't be hearding cats through teamchat or i'll be shot at, in fact my chat becomes interupted between shooting opponants it just doesn't work.

still VOIP seems to have gotten on the table... so what advantage would any size of group player have then? VOIP was the only reason premades were the "devil" so if they got VOIP in as Russ and co have recently chatted about why not allow premades of any size in the public queue as VOIP would link them to the randoms and boom everyone's a "12 man". no advantage over the other and elo should be covering the herp newbie derps from the vets.

PGI can't introduce group limits for premades because Voip makes them OP and introduce VOIP to link everyone. or they can admit their ELO MM is broken and always has been?

OH dear lord your forum sig xD I saw it and just started laughing...oh dear...GET ALL THE ASSISTS!

[Roland]

Ghost Badger, on 16 April 2014 - 07:31 AM, said:

I've been out of town.



Please implement this ahead of the "it's on the backburner" schedule. Groups of 2-10, no ELO, no tonnage matching, no 3/3/3/3 BS. A queue for groups of people who want to grab their friends and go.

So the MM will take longer. Fine. I'll deal.

To be clear, that's pretty much the worst possible way of doing the "unrestricted queue" since it intentionally prohibits solo players from joining the queue.

There's really no reason, AT ALL, to actively tell solo players they can't voluntarily join the solo queue if they want to.

I mean it's better than it is today, but it's still much worse than could be achieved through a simpler system where you just have a queue that is exactly what we originally had, and no grouping restrictions are imposed at all.

But hey, maybe that will make it more likely for PGI to implement it, since it contains extra useless complexity.

[Roland]

dangerzone, on 16 April 2014 - 07:39 AM, said:

Paul, you actually explain that very nicely. I understand that it is not that you do not want to find a way for 2-10 man groups. There just is not any time to implement it into V1 of the Launch Module unless you guys delay it past April 29th.

Just the fact that you guys are still trying to find ways to implement it, makes me a happy Mechwarrior. Cheers!


~Dangerzone

Just to clarify a few things for you...

Implementation of a solo and unrestricted queue is pretty much a TRIVIAL task. How do I know this? BECAUSE IT ALREADY EXISTED AT ONE TIME.

The idea that it is going to take some kind of herculean effort to implement is absolute nonsense.

It simply is not that hard to make a queue with no restrictions on it, and let anyone who wants to join it join.

The worst case scenario if you do that is that all of Paul's fears become reality, and folks can't find matches in that queue, and then the queue dies... But given that it would have taken ZERO effort to implement, you've lost nothing. And you will have won brownie points with the players by actually at least TRYING something that they have been suggesting for over a year.

The bigger risk is wasting some massive amount of time trying to make some over-engineered "ghost grouping" mechanic, which takes a long time to design and implement, and then ALSO doesn't work anyway.

Just remove the grouping restriction, and make an unrestricted queue. It's trivial. Do it and see what happens.

[Roadbeer]

Roland, on 16 April 2014 - 08:06 AM, said:

Just remove the grouping restriction, and make an unrestricted queue. It's trivial. Do it and see what happens.

Intellectually, I know it's a little more than that, but it seems to me that they have the code that places groups together now (less than 5) and it would take some effort to establish parameters that you wouldn't get an 11+1 and drop it against a 12x1.

But I also look at how 3PV went from "Something we're considering" to full implementation in what? 3 months? And we were told that it was a "Pet project" of 1 Developer that didn't suck on the Development cycle. (Also, noted that it was something that the vocal minority of the island dwelling Forumites were vastly against)

Seems to me that if they REALLY wanted it (as much as it seems a lot of their players do) then it would become another "Pet project" and allow someone to work on it. (Actually work on something that it appears that the vocal minority of island dwelling Forumites do seem to want)

This whole (insert convoluted design implementation) seems to me to be a twofold statement. First dismissing it because it's been made to appear really, really hard (though looking at it from the view of the great unwashed as "you have X, you have Y, put them together like a Recess peanut butter cup and you have Z, why is that so hard?"). Second being that if you sell something as a convoluted process, if/when you get around to pulling it off, you look really cool to your bosses.

How many of us have told our bosses that doing X would be really difficult and take a lot of time, but in reality, it's actually 15 minutes of work and you spend the rest of the time watching cat videos on Youtube?

Edited by Roadbeer, 16 April 2014 - 08:30 AM.

[Bhael Fire]

Roadbeer, on 16 April 2014 - 08:18 AM, said:

and it would take some effort to establish parameters that you wouldn't get an 11+1 and drop it against a 12x1.

Not really...pretty sure they already have the means to set a maximum number of certain types of players. They could easily set the maximum solo player count to 1 or 2 per team and match large groups vs large groups first, then small groups, then fill in the gaps with 1 or 2 solo players.

Not for one second do believe this would be any harder than implementing some of the odd, convoluted designs they have in place already or their current design plans.

I'm thinking there's an ulterior undisclosed reason for not wanting to allow SOLO ONLY and GROUPS (2-12)+SOLO queues. If there is, I wish they'd explain rationally why they can't or don't want to implement such a system.

Edited by Bhael Fire, 16 April 2014 - 08:39 AM.

[Zerberus]

Why the fuss about 11 mans, Paul? IMO, here are 2 simple, effective solutions:

1. Allow groups a checkbox for "allow unbalanced drops", meaning that if MM only finds 11 vs 12 then it will set 11 vs 12 (or 10 vs 11, or , or)

This allows for any group size to be built, and (theoretically) also shortens wait times by allowing cases like 11 v 10 @ Elo(x) to not wait forever and /or possibly fail because there weren`t another 3 players of appropriate Elo available. and there is a slight boost in diversity as well by allowing the occasional match with irregular group sizes.

I DO realize that this would likely lead to a suboptimal server loading situation, which is why I think the next solution is more prudent, especially if the 2 are combined (hint)...

2. Allow single players to drop in the group queue.

This would allow for a more canon experience for those that desire it (being the "odd merc out" in a house drop), allow those players that wish for a more "hardcore" experience to have it (I do agree that being the stray lonewolf will be a bit brutal, but ironically some actually want exactly that), and would benefit the comunity as a whole by allowing merc corps or clan /house units to play with people they would otherwise never see and make appropriate offers.

I remember back in the CS /Q3Adays, nobody complained about being the odd man out on a team consisting of 3 or 5 separate groups on TS on public servers, and most clans found good new players in exactly this fashion.... With the caveat that humanity as a whole has become a whiny ***** compared to then, I don`t really see how continuing this tradition could be bad....

Edited by Zerberus, 16 April 2014 - 08:38 AM.

[Roadbeer]

Bhael Fire, on 16 April 2014 - 08:31 AM, said:

I'm thinking there's an ulterior reason for not wanting to allow SOLO ONLY and GROUPS (2-12)+SOLO queues.

Oh, I'm sure there is an ulterior motive. I was just giving them an out to say "Hey, we have someone in design that really wants to give this to you, so we're going to make it a pet project of theirs, it's not going to suck off the design schedule, and you'll get it when they're done"

Sometimes, you have to let people have their excuses, and when they've backed themselves into a corner, you give them a way out. It's up to them to decide if they want to take it or not.

[Leigus]

This current model would not please its target audience in any way. The addition of Private Matches by the end of the month, and the release of CW [hopefully] by this coming fall will help in keeping the game enjoyable, but long term (if your goal truly is to please everyone) you will need a system closer to this:

3 Queues: Solo only, 1 Group per team (main target demographic), and Grouping Unrestricted

The Solo Only Queue would exist to please the "purists" who feel that the only way to keep the game fair is to have 12 PUGs vs 12 PUGs. I personally disagree, but I can understand why some people feel this way.

The One Group Per Team model is a good compromise in its simplicity and balance, but isn't a perfect fix. There will still be those who think that all premade groups are evil, and those who don't care about premades one way or the other.

The Grouping Unrestricted Queue (allowing any number of groups, of any size from 2-12, filling in the gaps with PUGs) would be a MAJOR boon to your gaming communities, from NGNG, to Comstar, to Merc Corps, to House Units (like my own). Forming groups would be simpler, time between matches would be shorter, sync-dropping would be pointless, and above all, experienced players would be able to include new players with incredible ease.


A group of 4 is joined by 2 players who are new to the server? No worries! Just invite them in and show them the ropes! No need to worry about removing 2 people or trying to sync, and the only opponents that group 6 would face are those who are WILLING to drop against premades larger than 4. (There truly ARE PUGs of that mindset).

Edited by Leigus, 16 April 2014 - 09:01 AM.

[Roland]

Just another little point here, which occurred to me.

The idea that it isn't feasible to support unrestricted queues is because of 11 man teams is kind of nonsensical, unless you believe that such groups would constitute some large percentage of cases.

So either you are screwing ALL groups, in order to worry about a trivially small case (oh, and you're also screwing them too by not letting them play anyway).. Or, that set is hugely large, and you are screwing a hugely large portion of your playerbase by not letting them play.

Either way, it's the wrong move on PGI's part to not support an unrestricted queue. Worrying about how to deal with 11 man teams (ignoring the fact that simply allowing solo players to join that queue totally solves that issue) and then using that as justification to screw ALL teams is absurdity in the highest degree.

[Roadbeer]

@Roland
That was kind of my thought too.
The scenarios given as to why it's a problem seem to be so rare, as to be the absolute fringe of the edge, that it almost seems like the equalivant of 700 years ago when people believed that if you traveled too far west "thar be monsters" or you'd fall off the edge of the world.

Despite the numerous solo players who have stated that they'd actually WANT to make the 12th, even if you wanted to restrict it so an 11 player team can't be created, it seems to me to be nothing more than a simple UI issue.

IF groupsize <> 11 THEN
launch button.visible = True

ELSE
launch button.visible = False

Hey, look, I think I solved the problem in 10 seconds of typing.

Edited by Roadbeer, 16 April 2014 - 09:26 AM.

[Kraven Kor]

Somewhere in PGI's offices:

Person 1: My lord, the Players. They want options, my lord.
Evil Overlord: Do they now? REMOVE ALL OPTIONS. They will play this game as I see fit, and they will like it!

(Mostly joking about the tone of the conversation here more than accusing PGI of being Hilariously Comic-Book Evil.)

[Sen]

Quote

[color=#00FFFF]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). 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.[/color]

Actually, you are addressing this the EASY way. The HARD way involves scrapping the whole thing and rewriting everything to provide a memorable enough expierience for players that will continue to attract more of a player base. A larger player base would mitigate a lot of the unbalanced groups issues, as it would have a larger sampling of people to pull from [which increases the odds of having a random X sized group to pair with a group of size Y.

TL:DR

The actual problem is in the programming, and it's either limit the capabilities of launch module or actually FIX THE CODE, and PGI has no interest in "fixing the code"

[Chronojam]

Quote

We have in our backburner an idea for the Group Only queue. This system will allow groups of any size match against each other. It would probably replace the current 12-man public queue. The problem areas come around the groups that are 11 in size. There will not be single player groups to fill that 12^th slot so the Lobby is now soft locked and players will not be able to launch. 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.

A lot of players have been caught up on this "Can't launch with 11" limitation and it's being positioned as a design problem. The thing is, there are players who would not mind dropping alongside pre-made groups, and that can be an excellent way to learn the game. Frequently, when I play a game like Battlefield, I will explicitly squad up with a group of players bearing the same clan tag because I can expect superior coordination, teamwork, and just might learn a new trick.

Because of this, I often see players phrasing what they want as "a solo-only queue" more than a "groups-only queue." The emphasis from the players has long been focused on making group play easier to accomplish, and easier to implement. The design decision to disallow single players to join up clearly is not in the best interest of single players or groups or the design team.

What I'm saying is, the hand-wringing about 11-man limitations is easily avoided by simply not imposing those limitations.

[Roland]

Chronojam, are you going to write a thesis on PGI's adventures in MWO, and all of the crazy missteps at some point? I'm pretty sure some fairly respected universities would give you a doctorate, or at least a masters, based on that compiled data set and research alone.

We're still waiting on access to the awesome timeline.

[Zolaz]

PGI's and Paul's actions become clear when you realize that they care more about sticking their grubby little hands into everyones pockets than putting out a decent game.

Edited by Zolaz, 16 April 2014 - 10:05 AM.

[Chronojam]

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'm pretty sure some fairly respected universities would give you a doctorate, or at least a masters, based on that compiled data set and research alone.

We're still waiting on access to the awesome timeline.

As a historian for the Word of Lowtax, I appreciate your encouragement. HomelessBill has recently contacted me about an effort to crowdsource more data, but I haven't had a chance to look at what may have been contributed yet.