1126 replies to this topic

[GrizzlyViking]

Is the 3/3/3/3 rule necessary if tonnage matching is "exact." In other words, if tonnage for each team is equal, does it really matter what combination of Mechs is needed to get there?

[Navy Sixes]

Ransack, on 16 April 2014 - 04:22 AM, said:

[/list]I really have to ask you and anyone who feels this way, why? Why would you even enter the group queue if you have this fear? It defies logic for you to leave the solo/4 man queue.

First off, I'm a dumb-a$$ solo PUG; your "logic" means nothing to me. Second, I think if you read my post in context, you'll maybe get a better sense of what I was saying...

Tycho von Gagern, on 16 April 2014 - 01:54 AM, said:

All kidding aside, though, if the group queues turn out to be a six-man and six solos vs. a seven-man and five solos, then

• I don't want to drop in. It will just be the PUGs with a few extra prem-trolls. Why would I want to do that if I can just PUG and get no more than a lance of premades? If PGI makes this happen for the premade teams, you guys have got to dedicate yourselves to it, even though it will be a lot harder than the easy cheese you've been getting fat on dropping a four man into the PUGs.
  
• Premades are going to have to acknowledge that, for all of the forum noise about wanting to drop with their buds, there are just not enough of you out there to warrant catering to. Either you can't field enough premades to get your own matches, or most of you would rather troll the PUGs in four-man squads instead of going up against teams comprised mostly of other groups.

In any event, it's not PGI's fault. It's not the PUGs' fault. It's the premades' fault. Before you try to encourage solos to join up groups, you need to start by encouraging the premade groups already out there to put down the PUG crack-pipe and use the premade queue, or it really won't work.

Finally, maybe that didn't make my position clear, so let me just answer your questions.

I don't mind, and even look forward to, dropping in with (and against) teams of advanced players working together. I hear a lot of good talk in these forums about how team-play is the way to go, the way the game is meant to be played. I really want the group queue to reflect this, to be the place where this is the norm. Because honestly, that's not evident in the PUGs, where 4-mans are often a bunch of guys who like the easy-cheese advantage playing against uncoordinated solos, and using uncoordinated solo teammates as chaff. That's not impressive, and it does nothing to make me, or a lot of other solos, want to enlist. It's like that guy peeling out in a muscle car infront of some women who really really really wants to think that's a turn on, but in fact they are repulsed. Some of us are looking for something more, and are hoping that this group queue will be somewhere more can happen. Maybe this is where I'll find the unit that's right for me. It would be great if the group queue was a place where those leet teams could show us solos how they handle something more than focusing down a lone underhiver.

It is clear and evident that 5-11 call teams will be there; they've got nowhere else they can drop together. I am expressing concern that they are the only premade teams that will be there, and that instead of being a place where all that good advanced teamwork is pitted against all of that good advanced teamwork, with a sprinkling of solos (again, no more than 4 per team) it will instead devolve into a place where 5-man's can get in on that fun PUG-stomp action, and the advanced teamwork will amount to nothing more than those same "use the solos as food/ammo-sponges" tactics we see in the PUGs. If that's what you're after, Ransack, then we really don't have anything else to talk about. You're a bad. Maybe you're a bad with a headset and a great Elo/KDR or whatever, but you're still a bad. (How's that for checking myself ? )

The only way to avoid this is if the 4 and under premade crowd leaves the PUGs for the group queue. When a group match is forming, the matchmaker needs to be able to drop a 6-man, then a 4-man, then 2 solos to fill out the team. That won't happen if there are no 4-mans out there because they'd all rather troll-stomp the PUGs. Then you've got a 6-man and 6 solos on a team, and how's that different from the PUG, except for the bigger premade (Hey, I know that's what a lot of you want, and I'm happy for you, honestly. But try to think about the rest of us here for a minute!)

I think there is a lot of talk about how premades want to get away from us underhive scum solo PUGs, but the truth is that many 4-man teams have gotten comfortable with how "good" they are in the PUGs, and won't like dropping into an environment where there are only a scattering of solos to lunch on, and the rest of the enemy's forces enjoy the same advantages in coordination/communication that they do. That's going to be the biggest problem in keeping the group queue viable and vibrant, and I was pointing that out: Getting enough solos to check it out isn't a problem. Getting enough smaller premades who already enjoy troll-stomping the PUGs to cross over, that is going to be a challenge.

If the community can't make that happen, then the group queues will be nothing more than the PUGs with bigger and more imbalanced premades. That may be fun for the few, (and fewer than you think... everyone's all happy with dropping bigger than four right now, but how long do you think it will be before the 5-call teams start complaining about dropping against the 9-call teams?) but not for me.

TLDR: Group queue will only be a good place if 4-man teams leave the PUG and join in. Without them to fill out the rosters, group queue will wind up being a solo PUG stomp with 5-man teams instead of 4's. That's lame. Group tactics are supposed to be the way the game is meant to be played. Tell me the group queue will be more than a chance for bigger premades to lunch on PUGs, or my heart will break. I did not "check myself."

[GrizzlyViking]

Zolaz, on 16 April 2014 - 10:05 AM, said:

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.

Clearly, all for profit businesses are in business to make a profit. Also, MWO is free to play, so nobody is taking anyone's money. People choose to buy MC, they are not stolen from or forced to buy it. If no profit is made, then MWO ceases to exist. Profit is necessary and planned. To suggest that the Devs get more money by focusing on getting more money instead of working to make the game better is ludicrous. The better MWO is the more money it will generate. PGI understands this and it is why they spend considerable time listening to the players wants and working to accommodate them. The more money MWO generates the better it is for everyone.

Edited by GrizzlyViking, 16 April 2014 - 11:41 AM.

[Kamikaze uy]

GrizzlyViking, on 16 April 2014 - 11:19 AM, said:

Is the 3/3/3/3 rule necessary if tonnage matching is "exact." In other words, if tonnage for each team is equal, does it really matter what combination of Mechs is needed to get there?

I agree, 3/3/3/3 not really necessary, in GROUP QUEUE. Just let MM find similar tonnage (or the closest it could get)

Also let 1 man-group go to Group Queue. If he goes there alone it means he knows the risk, but I don’t think filling groups with more than 2 solos is correct (they destroy the group purpose).only for 10vs12 fill ups or completing 3 groups.

How about allow a 8vs8 decision too? not having to complete all public group games to 12...

Finally leave private games for what u already said (with selected group fighting, ton limit option, uneven drops, etc.)

This game is getting nicer...please keep listening to the group comunity.

[Deathlike]

Chronojam, on 16 April 2014 - 11:09 AM, said:

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.

I'll hope you post it Soon™, but I won't give you crap if you can post it ASAP. I mean, I'll give you the best shield you'll ever need.... the beta tag!

[Mylardis]

GrizzlyViking, on 16 April 2014 - 11:39 AM, said:

PGI understands this and it is why they spend considerable time listening to the players wants and working to accommodate them.

Lol, wut? I must have missed something in the last two years.

Please, by all means, prove that assumption.

[Leigus]

GrizzlyViking, on 16 April 2014 - 11:19 AM, said:

Is the 3/3/3/3 rule necessary if tonnage matching is "exact." In other words, if tonnage for each team is equal, does it really matter what combination of Mechs is needed to get there?

In a 2-12 Premade Queue: No. In real life, weight matters and choosing how to divide it up is part of strategy.

In PUGs: Yes. Symmetry is simplicity, and the more things PGI has going for them to keep games equal, the more likely matches are to be balanced.

Edited by Leigus, 16 April 2014 - 01:29 PM.

[Osric Lancaster]

Tycho von Gagern, on 16 April 2014 - 11:33 AM, said:

TLDR: Group queue will only be a good place if 4-man teams leave the PUG and join in. Without them to fill out the rosters, group queue will wind up being a solo PUG stomp with 5-man teams instead of 4's. That's lame. Group tactics are supposed to be the way the game is meant to be played. Tell me the group queue will be more than a chance for bigger premades to lunch on PUGs, or my heart will break. I did not "check myself."

Is that all? I've got a simple fix for that; If you're in a group you launch to group queue, period. You're a soloist you get launched to the solo queue unless you have -
1 - Opted to be used for filling underpopulated teams in the group queue.
2 - There aren't enough teams of the appropriate size available to the match maker to form complete equivalent sides.

A group queue game isn't going to get started without a group to start it, and that group will get matched against a similarly sized group or combinations of other groups, when available. There's little chance of soloists making up a significant portion of the group queue, and no chance of groups fouling the solo queue.

( If soloists aren't available to fill groups and we go with the Paul system you'll waste 10 minutes and have the match fail to launch. Plus in his proposed system you still have 4 man teams in the pug queue for no apparent reason.)

The "joining group games to get easy wins / PUG stomp" thing got shot down on page 31. Give it a read, it's hilarious!

Vote today! -

http://mwomercs.com/...age__mode__show

Edited by Osric Lancaster, 16 April 2014 - 01:47 PM.

[The Lonegopher]

Serious, I'm in a match where their pugs all formed together and bull rushed, and our pugs made no plan, didn't talk nothing. If I could make a group of however many people I wanted I could battle this, since battle is random that way. Your donkey bowl game is broke. How many games out there limit big team battles and say you can't bring more than this? None that I've recently played. Like most things dealing with freedom to do what you want, you fall in line like most governments. Too much control. Let my group of 5,6,7,8,9,10 people play in the public match server. Pugs will either keep playing or they'll go hey I need to make friends. But the sad truth is, you won't do it, cause us guys that wanna play groups will still take the big d and keep playing even though we hate it, because we're addicts. Keep boning the dedicated. Rant for the day done (makes sure to unfollow so I don't respond just like the devs).

[Roadbeer]

I am loving the mixed messages we're getting though...

IGP: "Hey, have your unit featured, if you're helpful or accommodating to new players, we'll do all these things to promote you!"

PGI: "Hey, we don't want to give your unit a way to play together unless its limited to 4 in the Derpqueue or have to use 3rd Party solutions to find Private Matches where you don't receive rewards for playing"

[Pyrrho]

Roadbeer, on 16 April 2014 - 01:44 PM, said:

I am loving the mixed messages we're getting though...

IGP: "Hey, have your unit featured, if you're helpful or accommodating to new players, we'll do all these things to promote you!"

PGI: "Hey, we don't want to give your unit a way to play together unless its limited to 4 in the Derpqueue or have to use 3rd Party solutions to find Private Matches where you don't receive rewards for playing"

When one hand washes a foot and the other hand is being... unseemly.

[Bhael Fire]

Tycho von Gagern, on 16 April 2014 - 11:33 AM, said:

TLDR: Group queue will only be a good place if 4-man teams leave the PUG and join in. Without them to fill out the rosters, group queue will wind up being a solo PUG stomp with 5-man teams instead of 4's. That's lame. Group tactics are supposed to be the way the game is meant to be played.

This is why the best way to structure it is:

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.

Edited by Bhael Fire, 16 April 2014 - 02:19 PM.

[Navy Sixes]

Osric Lancaster, on 16 April 2014 - 01:27 PM, said:

Is that all? I've got a simple fix for that; If you're in a group you launch to group queue, period. You're a soloist you get launched to the solo queue unless you have -
1 - Opted to be used for filling underpopulated teams in the group queue.
2 - There aren't enough teams of the appropriate size available to the match maker to form complete equivalent sides.

+1 because I think we're on the same page, here. Voted for option "A" in the poll, and looks like many are for it as well. I'll try to push the link to that poll in my posts. If we can get more numbers, maybe PGI will take note...

To be sure, that would be the best and easiest fix, and were it the case, I would definitely be one to opt for filling in underpopulated teams in the group queue. As I said earlier, even as it stands I'm willing to give it a shot because even as a solo, I'd rather play with a better caliber of players than we often get in the PUGs, and I love a challenge! But I don't think they're talking about forcing smaller groups to launch into the group queue (unless I missed that), and as I said, without the 4's, 3's, and 2's, I'm concerned that group queue will often become a barely bigger than 4-man vs. a barely bigger than 4-man, with a bunch of solos to fill out most of the team, and if I wanted that I could just keep PUGing. So while I'll try it, if that's what it winds up becoming, I'll be opting out of group queue before long.

Every time someone brings up group-only/solo-only queues, you start to see a lot of pushback (the community can't support the split, Aw, you're just afraid of the premade boogieman, L2P, etc.) because a lot of the smaller prems really like stomping on the PUGs and don't want to give that up. But if PGI would make that commitment, I think the group queue would be the place to be.

You'd find a lot of the good solos looking for good matches trying to get in there, and because their wouldn't be a lot of room for solos, they'd have to enlist. So you'd see a lot of units finding their recruitment numbers going up. Conversely, the newer players could have the solo queues to learn and grow in without getting troll-piled and subsequently discouraged, so the player base might expand. Then, once they've stepped their game up and were ready for the challenge of the group queue they could move into the next level of group-play. And if they never do, well, let them steering-wheel around in the PUG to their heart's content.

The only people who really lose out in this scenario are the small teams that don't want to give up dropping into the solo PUGs. They are the ones who p&ss n moan the loudest about how much it sucks to drop with solo PUGs, but fight tooth n nail any attempt to seperate the prems from the solos. It would be great if that was an inconsequential segment of the team community, but I'm not so sure. Without them, group queue won't be the awesome "next level of play" that it should be.

Edited for because POLL!

Edited by Tycho von Gagern, 16 April 2014 - 03:03 PM.

[WVAnonymous]

I hereby volunteer to be the 12th man in an 11 man group.

When I solo drop now I couldn't be the 4th man topping off the lance for a 3 man group any more often than I am now. I don't take notes but it feels like that is the case somewhere in the 30%-50% range.

Lord only knows what it will do to my Elo, though. Is there still Elo in any of these proposals?

[Bhael Fire]

Tycho von Gagern, on 16 April 2014 - 02:35 PM, said:

I'm concerned that group queue will often become a barely bigger than 4-man vs. a barely bigger than 4-man, with a bunch of solos to fill out most of the team, and if I wanted that I could just keep PUGing. So while I'll try it, if that's what it winds up becoming, I'll be opting out of group queue before long.

This is very easily controlled by setting a maximum limit on the number of solo players in the match.

WVAnonymous, on 16 April 2014 - 02:50 PM, said:

Lord only knows what it will do to my Elo, though. Is there still Elo in any of these proposals?

Presumably, yes — At least as far the SOLO ONLY queue goes. The GROUPS + SOLO queue would probably need to be loosened up a bit to optimize wait times. But honestly, it's mostly the solo players that complain about Elo discrepancies since it affects them more.

Edited by Bhael Fire, 16 April 2014 - 02:55 PM.

[Osric Lancaster]

Tycho von Gagern, on 16 April 2014 - 02:35 PM, said:

But I don't think they're talking about forcing smaller groups to launch into the group queue (unless I missed that), and as I said, without the 4's, 3's, and 2's, I'm concerned that group queue will often become a barely bigger than 4-man vs. a barely bigger than 4-man, with a bunch of solos to fill out most of the team, and if I wanted that I could just keep PUGing. So while I'll try it, if that's what it winds up becoming, I'll be opting out of group queue before long.

Well Paul seems to be talking about allowing 2 - 4 man groups in the solo queue. I was talking about having all groups, 2-12 in the group queue. That by itself should keep the group queue population up and incidence of excessive solo fill down. You can also place hard limits on how many solos / how large a group size disparity the match maker allows, as Bhael Fire suggested. More on this -

Bhael Fire, on 16 April 2014 - 02:13 PM, said:

Max of 3 groups per team

Hm, this is the only point I can see having potential problems in the outlier case where you have 12 teams of two launching at once. You could set a limit on how the 'difference' that can be allowed between two teams, then add the number of soloists to that weighting.

Example -
(Say your weight cap is 5.)

1 x (10 man) + 1x (2 man) vs.
1 x (10 man) + 1x (2 man)
(10 - 10) + (2 - 2) = (0 difference)
+ 0 solo = 0 weight.

1 x (10 man) + 1x (2 man) vs.
1 x (9 man) + 1x (2 man) + 1x (solo)
(10 - 9) + (2-2) + (1-0) = (2 difference)
+ 1 solo = 3 weight.

1 x (6 man) + 1x (5 man) + 1x (solo) vs.
1 x (8 man) + 1x (3 man) + 1x (solo)
(8-6) + (5-3) + (1-1) = (4 difference)
+ 2 solo = 6 weight, re-roll.


Of course there shouldn't be too much disparity as long as you match larger groups first in one game, then smaller groups in another game. Eg, with the following distribution of groups launching you'd match as follows -
~ ( I roll ze dice ) ~
3x (10 man)
5x (9 man)
2x (7 man)
5x (6 man)
3x (5 man)
9x (2 man)

Game 1 -
1 x (10 man) + 1x (2 man) vs.
1 x (10 man) + 1x (2 man)

Game 2 -
1 x (10 man) + 1x (2 man) vs.
1 x (9 man) + 1x (2 man) + 1x (solo)

Game 2 & 3 -
1 x (9 man) + 1x (2 man) + 1x (solo) vs.
1 x (9 man) + 1x (2 man) + 1x (solo)

Game 4 -
1 x (7 man) + 1x (5 man) vs.
1 x (7 man) + 1x (5 man)

Game 5 -
1 x (6 man) + 1x (5 man) + 1x (solo) vs.
1 x (6 man) + 1x (6 man)

Game 6 -
1 x (6 man) + 1x (2 man) + 4x (solo) vs.
1 x (6 man) + 6x (solo)


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 ).

If you get a case like game 6 where you need a lot of solo players to launch or there's a large disparity in group sizes then the match maker delays a bit to try for a better match.

Tycho von Gagern, on 16 April 2014 - 02:35 PM, said:

Spoiler

You'd find a lot of the good solos looking for good matches trying to get in there, and because their wouldn't be a lot of room for solos, they'd have to enlist. So you'd see a lot of units finding their recruitment numbers going up. Conversely, the newer players could have the solo queues to learn and grow in without getting troll-piled and subsequently discouraged, so the player base might expand. Then, once they've stepped their game up and were ready for the challenge of the group queue they could move into the next level of group-play. And if they never do, well, let them steering-wheel around in the PUG to their heart's content.

Pretty much what a lot of us are hoping for. (Though some sort of in-game social infrastructure for said enlisting couldn't hurt.)

Edited by Osric Lancaster, 16 April 2014 - 04:23 PM.

[ZachMan119]

Paul said give him our feedback, so we did! PGI do what we told them and it might (most likely) will work! But for Pete's sake fill odd group numbers with PUGs! And maybe instead of "Hazard pay" how about "Merc pay".

[Craig Steele]

Bhael Fire, on 16 April 2014 - 02:13 PM, said:

This is why the best way to structure it is:

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.

Isn't this broadly (ie, excluding the detail) the same as PGI's Solo + Small Group's queue and Group Queue except the other way around.

In principle it's perpetuating the similar issues?

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

[Roland]

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

Isn't this broadly (ie, excluding the detail) the same as PGI's Solo + Small Group's queue and Group Queue except the other way around.

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

Quote

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

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.

[Lindonius]

GrizzlyViking, on 16 April 2014 - 11:39 AM, said:

PGI understands this and it is why they spend considerable time listening to the players wants and working to accommodate them. The more money MWO generates the better it is for everyone.

Edited by Lindonius, 16 April 2014 - 04:42 PM.