1126 replies to this topic

[Roland]

Quote

Solo Queue Rules: no more than 4 players per side can be grouped. The actual number will range from 2-4, however, if there is a group on one side, the other side must also have a group. The group sizes can be different. This shouldn't destroy balance of the solo queue in theory, as with so many solo players there will be the traditional pug cohesion anyhow. Some games will end up stomps, others won't. Welcome to the world of online gaming with random teammates.

There's really no reason for the grouped players to be allowed in the solo queue.
They can play in the regular queue with all the other grouped players.

[Craig Steele]

Roland, on 28 April 2014 - 05:29 AM, said:

There's really no reason for the grouped players to be allowed in the solo queue.
They can play in the regular queue with all the other grouped players.

Except in that queue they have to play against 7+ man teams that just feed off them.

Why do all the big "Guild" players want to do everything they can to make sure they play against a disadvantaged opponent? Can you not play effectivily on a fair basis?

[Imperius]

Not that it's an excuse but there is no "fair" in war... Since this is supposed to be a community game. You getting stomped should be the catalyst to build or join a team. Thus expanding the "community" by creating/expanding groups.

Solo queue would be for the PUGS afraid of the premade boogie men. Group queue would be for the real mechwarriors that like a challege.

[Edustaja]

Craig Steele, on 28 April 2014 - 06:41 AM, said:

Except in that queue they have to play against 7+ man teams that just feed off them.

Why do all the big "Guild" players want to do everything they can to make sure they play against a disadvantaged opponent? Can you not play effectivily on a fair basis?

It's an aversion to losing more than wanting to win on all costs.

When the 5-8-mans were taken out of the regular queue and only 8-mans were put to queue against each other the effort per match ratio for the 8-man group went through the roof. Before that it was just casual fun join whenever groups mostly. They could win against unorganized teams and had good fights against each other.

The 8-man queue quickly condensed into the more hardcore who did not mind the effort because they could still get a good match and win in that environment. After the initial hump the casual teams started to get fewer and fewer as there was little to no reward in playing those matches. All you got was a lot of hassle and waiting to get a team together after which you lost most of the games.

12-man matchmaking weeded out even more of the teams.

It all comes down to what kind of gameplay does the game reward. Initially it was all 8-mans all the time (because you won against most pug teams. Then it turned to 4-mans all the time. Now it's just 4-man or solo.

Group play should be rewarded more so people take their time to do it.
I would not mind a 1-12 mans in the general queue if it placed relatively similar teams against each other and offered higher rewards for the solo guys that are filling the extra slots (maybe a 10-20 % boost).

[Craig Steele]

Imperius, on 28 April 2014 - 06:50 AM, said:

Not that it's an excuse but there is no "fair" in war... Since this is supposed to be a community game. You getting stomped should be the catalyst to build or join a team. Thus expanding the "community" by creating/expanding groups.

Solo queue would be for the PUGS afraid of the premade boogie men. Group queue would be for the real mechwarriors that like a challege.

But if this thread is any indication, the people saying that are the ones with 7+ friends in a team and they are happy for it to be "unfair", as long as they are not on the side that is "unfair".

[Davers]

Craig Steele, on 28 April 2014 - 06:41 AM, said:

Except in that queue they have to play against 7+ man teams that just feed off them.

Why do all the big "Guild" players want to do everything they can to make sure they play against a disadvantaged opponent? Can you not play effectivily on a fair basis?

Except in that que they have to play against 4 man teams that just feed off them.

Why do all the "casual premade" players want to do everything they can to make sure they play against a disadvantaged opponent? Can you not play effectively on a fair basis?

[Craig Steele]

Davers, on 28 April 2014 - 07:03 PM, said:

Except in that que they have to play against 4 man teams that just feed off them.

Why do all the "casual premade" players want to do everything they can to make sure they play against a disadvantaged opponent? Can you not play effectively on a fair basis?

Touche, but the agrument goes round and round. It comes down to where you draw the line.

I draw a line on the basis of minimum impact of force multiplier and some empathy for the players demographic concerned. I don't say 4 man for example, I say 2-3.

Many arguments in this thread have exactly zero reasoning, apart from "I'm right".

It gets tiring listening to "I'm right" without any substance or an ability to appreciate what other people have to put up with.

[Roland]

Davers, on 28 April 2014 - 07:03 PM, said:

Except in that que they have to play against 4 man teams that just feed off them.

Why do all the "casual premade" players want to do everything they can to make sure they play against a disadvantaged opponent? Can you not play effectively on a fair basis?

Why do you ask the question when you already know the answer?

Regardless, his complaints are moot.

Either the number of small groups will be so small as to not matter, or it will be large and the regular queue will have tons of small groups, and thus won't get preyed upon by larger groups with any regularity.

So it's a non issue either way.

[Davers]

Craig Steele, on 28 April 2014 - 07:14 PM, said:

Touche, but the agrument goes round and round. It comes down to where you draw the line.

I draw a line on the basis of minimum impact of force multiplier and some empathy for the players demographic concerned. I don't say 4 man for example, I say 2-3.

Many arguments in this thread have exactly zero reasoning, apart from "I'm right".

It gets tiring listening to "I'm right" without any substance or an ability to appreciate what other people have to put up with.

I have always advocated that the 'premade' que would have one team per side, matched for team size. After all, putting 4 3-man teams vs a 12 man team isn't much different than going against pugs.

[Craig Steele]

Davers, on 28 April 2014 - 07:19 PM, said:

I have always advocated that the 'premade' que would have one team per side, matched for team size. After all, putting 4 3-man teams vs a 12 man team isn't much different than going against pugs.

Thats another way to tackle the issue, but the Solo population in the queue will have to be huge to back fill games 2 - 11 groups.

Using PGI's stats (in the absence of any other), Your talking something like

2 man 6% of activity needs 30% of solo player activity to back fill (10 players being 5 x 2 man portion)
3 man 4% of activity needs 12% of solo player activity to back fill
4 man 4% of activity needs 8% of solo players activity to back fill

Ergo, just on face value to backfill those "groups" alone you need 50% of total activity or 60% of Solo activity to join the "Group queue" instead of the "Solo only" queue.

I perceive that as being a challenge.

But it certainly would be "fairer", how to attract a sufficient population of Solo players to the queue then?

[Craig Steele]

Roland, on 28 April 2014 - 07:18 PM, said:

Why do you ask the question when you already know the answer?

Regardless, his complaints are moot.

Either the number of small groups will be so small as to not matter, or it will be large and the regular queue will have tons of small groups, and thus won't get preyed upon by larger groups with any regularity.

So it's a non issue either way.

Spoken like someone who either has not read or comprehended Bhaels submission or who has a pre programmed agenda / view that he is "right" regardless of any correlation to the discussion.

[Davers]

Craig Steele, on 28 April 2014 - 07:30 PM, said:

Thats another way to tackle the issue, but the Solo population in the queue will have to be huge to back fill games 2 - 11 groups.

Using PGI's stats (in the absence of any other), Your talking something like

2 man 6% of activity needs 30% of solo player activity to back fill (10 players being 5 x 2 man portion)
3 man 4% of activity needs 12% of solo player activity to back fill
4 man 4% of activity needs 8% of solo players activity to back fill

Ergo, just on face value to backfill those "groups" alone you need 50% of total activity or 60% of Solo activity to join the "Group queue" instead of the "Solo only" queue.

I perceive that as being a challenge.

But it certainly would be "fairer", how to attract a sufficient population of Solo players to the queue then?

Plenty of players in this thread alone said they would join such a queue. Plus how else can a solo player get a feel of 'competitive play' if not dropping with a large unit?

[Craig Steele]

Davers, on 28 April 2014 - 07:42 PM, said:

Plenty of players in this thread alone said they would join such a queue. Plus how else can a solo player get a feel of 'competitive play' if not dropping with a large unit?

Sure, but there seems to an equal amount of players saying 'competitive play' is not why they are here. Quick games, mindless violence and then off to dinner / whatever.

I just think getting 66% (at face value) of the population into that group queue given what PGI are telling us is a real stretch.

I do like Bhaels suggestion because it does the backfilling from those "groups" but that does put the smaller groups "in the pan" so to speak.

Ergo, I come back to let them nominate for that queue if thats the challenge they want, but otherwise don't restrict them either. Give them an option as long as its within a reasonable game balance mechanic.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

I don't understand why the "group" and "solo" queues need to be different ... one group per team and hard Elo buckets should be enough.

If there's only one group per team, and the groups are matched (let's say just by average Elo and number of 'mechs), with the rest of the slots on both teams being filled by solo players (matched by Elo against the teams, and all from the same Elo bucket), isn't that still a fair match?

Edit: If there is a significantly large number of groups playing in a particular Elo bucket, it could lead to long wait times, as the grouped players wait for the solo player to get out of match and fill in the next.

If that does develop, then I'd recommend start matching groups of groups (but with equal numbers of groups on each team that have been previously matched against each other). Say there are two 6-man groups and two 3-man groups waiting for solo fillers, then it becomes 6+3+3xSolo vs 6+3+3xSolo instead of four groups waiting forever.

Edited by Kageru Ikazuchi, 28 April 2014 - 08:11 PM.

[Sam Slade]

Craig Steele, on 28 April 2014 - 05:55 PM, said:

But if this thread is any indication, the people saying that are the ones with 7+ friends in a team and they are happy for it to be "unfair", as long as they are not on the side that is "unfair".

As a dedicated PUG I object to this... quite a few solo only players want this implemented with 'solo only' and 'unrestricted' so they can PUG in an environment that WILL have a team ethos.

[Craig Steele]

Sam Slade, on 28 April 2014 - 08:53 PM, said:

As a dedicated PUG I object to this... quite a few solo only players want this implemented with 'solo only' and 'unrestricted' so they can PUG in an environment that WILL have a team ethos.

Sure, but none of us speak for everyone, thats why giving people a choice or an option is probably a better scenario than dictating terms.

It embraces everyone then, not just the opinions of a few trying to dictate terms.

[Sam Slade]

Craig Steele, on 28 April 2014 - 09:19 PM, said:

Sure, but none of us speak for everyone, thats why giving people a choice or an option is probably a better scenario than dictating terms.

It embraces everyone then, not just the opinions of a few trying to dictate terms.

Based on the above, how can you advocate denying solo players a solo only queue?

Why should us solo players be forced to play with groups of two or three who can easily focus fire a solo mech down in seconds? Where are our choices and options?

[Craig Steele]

Sam Slade, on 29 April 2014 - 12:08 AM, said:

Based on the above, how can you advocate denying solo players a solo only queue?

Why should us solo players be forced to play with groups of two or three who can easily focus fire a solo mech down in seconds? Where are our choices and options?

Why should 2 and 3 man groups be forced to fights against 6+ man teams on comms with synched loadouts?

It's exactly the same question.

EDIT: Also, Why should a person in a 2/3 man group not be able to get a game unless they are playing light mechs

Edited by Craig Steele, 29 April 2014 - 12:12 AM.

[Sam Slade]

Craig Steele, on 29 April 2014 - 12:10 AM, said:

Why should 2 and 3 man groups be forced to fights against 6+ man teams on comms with synched loadouts?

It's exactly the same question.

EDIT: Also, Why should a person in a 2/3 man group not be able to get a game unless they are playing light mechs

Not exactly the same; those 2 and 3 player groups are on voice coms and play regularly together(have to assume this for balance sake) giving them a massive advantage over solo players.
Also, there are way more solo players then 2 and 3 man players

[Craig Steele]

Sam Slade, on 29 April 2014 - 12:24 AM, said:

Not exactly the same; those 2 and 3 player groups are on voice coms and play regularly together(have to assume this for balance sake) giving them a massive advantage over solo players.
Also, there are way more solo players then 2 and 3 man players

It is exactly the same question, and just like yours there is no reasonable answer that satisfies 100% of the population. And its certainly not a "massive" advantage any more than an 8 man team smashing a 2 man has. It is exactly the same dynamic.

The bottom line is the population has to split somewhere so that it can actually interact and allow games to progress.

Some small PUG groups have the same desires and gameplay needs as some Solo players. I also acknowledge that there are some small groups and Solo players who want a more intense environment.

Ergo, give them both the choice.

A PUG queue for small groups and Solo's where people can get quick games, play the mech of their choice and move on.

And a Group Queue for anyone to nominate into 1 - 12 where its going to be more intense and (presumably) challenging.