21 replies to this topic

[Osric Lancaster]

Which version of the launch module would you rather have?

Option A:

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, if there aren't enough of the former.
  
• 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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



Option B:

Public/Single Player Queue

• Solo players
  
• 2-4 man groups. 1 group per team as it is now.

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.

Private Matches

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

Edited by Osric Lancaster, 15 April 2014 - 01:01 PM.

[Roadbeer]

Could you make an "either" option?

[Osric Lancaster]

Sure thing, though it strikes me as a sort of a fatalistic "I don't care what we get as long as we get something" option.

[Roadbeer]

Osric Lancaster, on 15 April 2014 - 12:35 PM, said:

Sure thing, though it strikes me as a sort of a fatalistic "I don't care what we get as long as we get something" option.

Well, that's kind of my mindset TBH.
Sure there are a ton of ways suggested that'll help with the edge cases, I would love to have 2-11 and the ability for Solos to fill the gap, but if they can't/wont do that, I'm ok with it just for the ability to play with my friends, all of them, at once, and not have to attempt syncing or rotate people through just so everyone has a chance to play with the group.

The Premium Private Match system does nothing to encourage it because there are no rewards and no way to find a group without resorting to 3rd Party options.

So, as long as there is a group queue, that's relatively the same as the "solo" queue (Cbills, XP, and other rewards). I'm a happy boy.

[Osric Lancaster]

Roadbeer, on 15 April 2014 - 12:39 PM, said:

. . . not have to attempt syncing or rotate people through just so everyone has a chance to play with the group.

A bit of clarification on Option A -

Solo players who opt to play with groups default to solo queue. Group queue wouldn't pull from those players unless there aren't enough groups to complete a match. The end result isn't slower matchmaking, it's faster matchmaking.

[Bhael Fire]

I'm definitely in the Group A mindset; Solo and Grouped players must have the full deal, not some half-assed compromise. That is, we need a SOLO ONLY queue and a GROUPS (2-12)+SOLO queue.

Group B is a "brand x" generic product and it tastes like poo.

[Featherwood]

Voted "Other". I'd prefer to see Option A with two mandatory additions for Group Queue rules:

• Clan players should have an option to drop in stars (5+5) vs stars (5+5)/lances (4+4+4) *

• 3:3:3:3 rule must not apply to Group Queue

____________________________________________________________________________
* - to hell the balance and odds, I want to play as clansman with my friends. I'd accept the challenge.

[Sandpit]

I voted for Option A

[Roland]

Seems like it's easier explained as this:
1) Solo queue: Only ungrouped players can join
2) Unrestricted queue: Anyone can join

Seriously, that's all you need. Just do that.

Folks really need to stop overcomplicating it.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Roland, on 15 April 2014 - 02:50 PM, said:

Seems like it's easier explained as this:
1) Solo queue: Only ungrouped players can join
2) Unrestricted queue: Anyone can join

Seriously, that's all you need. Just do that.

Folks really need to stop overcomplicating it.

Quoted for truth.

People are terrified of the second option but honestly, that's because they groups as a boogie man based on the current restrictions. Too few play in 12's because of the preponderance of "ultra-competitives" playing in it.

IF it was much more common to see the VAST majority of the playerbase on an open queue you would see that skill-bellcurve change to be more commensurate with actual player base skill levels. Incentivize the open queue initially, so people see it's not so terrifying in there and it will become the norm faster than most people realize.

[p4r4g0n]

Wonder how many who regularly play in the 12v12 matches are going to rage if B is implemented since they're going to be facing the same problems 5-11 man groups do with the initial iteration of LM i.e. no XP, C-Bills using private matches.

[Osric Lancaster]

Roland, on 15 April 2014 - 02:50 PM, said:

Seems like it's easier explained as this:
1) Solo queue: Only ungrouped players can join
2) Unrestricted queue: Anyone can join

Seriously, that's all you need. Just do that.

Folks really need to stop over-complicating it.

That is "Option A" in a nutshell, with one slight distinction - A solo player that opts in to the group queue is still treated as a 'solo player' for the purposes of match making. The idea being that solo players that have opted to drop with groups are filler, and if they want to drop exclusively in the group queue, they need to be in a group. That should also help match making resolve more easily, since those opt-ins are made available to fill slots in both queues. It's a "stick me wherever" option.

Featherwood, on 15 April 2014 - 02:00 PM, said:

* - to hell the balance and odds, I want to play as clansman with my friends. I'd accept the challenge.

I hear you, and it's good that you bring that up, I'm just trying to kill one bird at a time. I've got stones.
Man. I'm really, really hoping IS and Clan 'Mechs won't drop together.

Edited by Osric Lancaster, 15 April 2014 - 04:23 PM.

[Bhael Fire]

Featherwood, on 15 April 2014 - 02:00 PM, said:

Voted "Other". I'd prefer to see Option A with two mandatory additions for Group Queue rules:

• Clan players should have an option to drop in stars (5+5) vs stars (5+5)/lances (4+4+4) *

• 3:3:3:3 rule must not apply to Group Queue

____________________________________________________________________________

* - to hell the balance and odds, I want to play as clansman with my friends. I'd accept the challenge.

They've stated that in Faction Play (a.k.a Community Warfare) they can set the restrictions to adhere closer to BT lore. That is, each faction will be restricted to mechs appropriate for their faction and matches will be Clan vs IS, IS vs. IS and maybe even Clan vs. Clan. They also said they can run Lance vs Star battles.

So thus far, they've said that there will be Public and Private queues that are divided as such:

Public
Public (Default): An "instant action" queue that allows players to drop with clan mechs and IS mechs on the same team. For all intents and purposes this is basically what we have now; i.e. the match outcomes do not affect CW.
Faction Play: This is where CW takes place. Adheres closely to BT lore.

Private
Free: 12-man groups only
Premium: Players are allowed to set the rules for the match.

[Mylardis]

Option A.

I want to choose. And tbh, I figure having PUGs in the group queue will make recruitment easier, and has the chance to raise skill and awareness levels "across the board". Despite some minor drawbacks.

[Nedlok]

I would rather see several different options to play.
1. Unranked queue, groups 2-12 that has no bearing on your elo. Would be nice to play some mess around builds with out being punished for it.
2. Three different ranked queues solo/duo, full lance (4 people), and full 12 man premades. Complete with a ladder and ranking system.

It would also be nice to be able to see your elo bracket for your weight classes too. I think an in game chat lobby would be a welcomed addition as well. Would be easier to put a team together say 4 people, play some unranked together see if you guys can work together or what ever.

Edited by Nedlok, 16 April 2014 - 05:57 AM.

[Roadbeer]

This is a serious poll and needs some business

[SweetJackal]

Roadbeer, on 19 April 2014 - 01:26 PM, said:

This is a serious poll and needs some business

Very serious. I support Option A as it allows Solo Players to find Group Players. Since, you know, MWO is lacking in any real means of connecting socially with other players outside of a 'friends list'

[Sinister Maestro]

As a 100% solo Player i would love to have a solo-queue (no groups) and maybe i would opt-in for the group-queue (and maybe stick with it, when the gaming experience is better than the solo-queue)

[Bobzilla]

Option A as long as the MM can only ever add a set max of (2,3,4?) solo players per team.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

As long as thare will be stock classic matches i would love it.