402 replies to this topic

[DarkonFullPower]

Update 2. Ya this Group Queue and/or any other changes they made to the matchmaker has made everyone I know abandon this game once again. Looks like I'm once again perm-pug until this is fixed.

Such a shame. Last patch was the most fun we've ever had in the history of MWO, and not a single one of us had Clan Mechs for those wondering. Until the option to opt-out of Group Queue happens, it looks like this is the end of the road for now.

[Idealsuspect]

Kristov Kerensky, on 13 July 2014 - 11:05 AM, said:

I've dropped with you in solo que more than a few times idealsuspect, I've seen you in the group ques maybe 2 times since the MM changes. I drop solo, 2-10 and 12 depending on who's on and who needs another player that's on my list. I really prefer the 12 man the most, we work as a team even though we aren't all in the same unit, hells half of the people I drop with regularly will be my targets once CW comes around as they are all Clan factions. We have differing ideas on tactics and builds and combat styles, but we forget all that while we're dropping and do our best to work as a team and we generally have a really good time, even when we totally bugger it up and get rolled 12-0 by a dedicated 12 man or a random group of pugs like ourselves. Every loss is a lesson to be learned from regardless of being solo or grouped.

So you never queue in little groups? ....
That's why you don't seem understand what we are talking about man ...

2', 3' or 4's, even they are in 3x4's, haven't to face a real 12's but all 12's aren't good i dont say this.. in fact lots of them play for fun and don't play only for rollstomp groups PUGs units .

Anyway just look my FL most of people who groups usually, play now only solo or large group and i don't accept regular/casual MWO player on my FL...

DAEDALOS513, on 13 July 2014 - 02:01 PM, said:

''..whining, bla bla,'' ''..toughen up..yada yadda,'' ''..can't stomp no more, diddle diddle..''

You forgot " welcome to where the big boys play " and " you ain't the big kid in high school anymore " héhé

[JigglyMoobs]

DAEDALOS513, on 13 July 2014 - 02:21 PM, said:

You're so clueless presuming to know what I'm trying to say without obviously reading the previous posts.

You, just like a few other 12man ego-stomp-hards can't answer my question straight without resorting to smarta$$ remarks. I'll try again:

What.. would.. be... wrong.. with... small groups... fighting... only... other... small groups?

And... what.. would... be... wrong... with... big groups.. fighting... only... other... big groups?

What you are suggesting is not going to work. You're never going to create a 12 man team out of two 10 man groups. As long as you allow large groups, you will have to have small groups on the same queue in order to fill out the teams.

Furthermore, MM needs to have a large number of available groups in queue in order to rapidly create fair match-ups. The smaller the queues get, the harder it is to piece together two evenly matched 12-mans .

Your proposal will make it impossible to run the large queue. The large queue people will then just break into smaller groups and move to the small group queue. They will then continue to stomp you again and again.

[Idealsuspect]

JigglyMoobs, on 13 July 2014 - 02:41 PM, said:

What you are suggesting is not going to work. You're never going to create a 12 man team out of two 10 man groups. As long as you allow large groups, you will have to have small groups on the same queue in order to fill out the teams.

Furthermore, MM needs to have a large number of available groups in queue in order to rapidly create fair match-ups. The smaller the queues get, the harder it is to piece together two evenly matched 12-mans .

Your proposal will make it impossible to run the large queue. The large queue people will then just break into smaller groups and move to the small group queue. They will then continue to stomp you again and again.

People who want play fair 12' game don't care about wait 10 minutes for find a FAIR game ... we did it long time ago

[SVK Puskin]

Idealsuspect, on 13 July 2014 - 03:00 PM, said:

People who want play fair 12' game don't care about wait 10 minutes for find a FAIR game ... we did it long time ago

Agree fairplay is more important than waiting time but unfortunately many players do not know what is fairplay and patience!

[JigglyMoobs]

Idealsuspect, on 13 July 2014 - 03:00 PM, said:

People who want play fair 12' game don't care about wait 10 minutes for find a FAIR game ... we did it long time ago

You don't get it. If you had a large queue and a small queue, there will not be games for 8 mans, or 9 mans, or 10 mans, ever. How are you going to make a 12 man team out of a 10 man without putting on a 2 man group?

If you do this, 8 mans will only be able to play other 8 mans, 9 mans will only be able to play other 9 mans, etc. If you happened to be the unlucky 9 man group on a night where an SJR/Lords/228th 9 man is one of the only 2 or 3 9 man groups in the queue, not only will you wait for a long time each search, you will face them over and over and over again regardless of elo.

What a great solution for "fair" games.

I understand the desire to play people of similar skill, but some of the proposals being pushed as "solutions" here will only make the problem much much worse for everyone.

Futhermore, many of what people here think of as "12 mans" are actually just combinations of smaller groups. They just got stomped so hard that they think the other team is a 12 man because that's the "only explanation". In reality what's happening to them is that they are facing players from a higher competitive tier who are matched up with them because of problems with the current MM. The problem will be solved not by making the queues smaller and more restrictive, but by expanding the queue further and tweaking the MM algorithms.

[Idealsuspect]

JigglyMoobs, on 13 July 2014 - 03:36 PM, said:

You don't get it. If you had a large queue and a small queue, there will not be games for 8 mans, or 9 mans, or 10 mans, ever. How are you going to make a 12 man team out of a 10 man without putting on a 2 man group?

If you do this, 8 mans will only be able to play other 8 mans, 9 mans will only be able to play other 9 mans, etc. If you happened to be the unlucky 9 man group on a night where an SJR/Lords/228th 9 man is one of the only 2 or 3 9 man groups in the queue, not only will you wait for a long time each search, you will face them over and over and over again regardless of elo.

What a great solution for "fair" games.

I understand the desire to play people of similar skill, but some of the proposals being pushed as "solutions" here will only make the problem much much worse for everyone.

Futhermore, many of what people here think of as "12 mans" are actually just combinations of smaller groups. They just got stomped so hard that they think the other team is a 12 man because that's the "only explanation". In reality what's happening to them is that they are facing players from a higher competitive tier who are matched up with them because of problems with the current MM. The problem will be solved not by making the queues smaller and more restrictive, but by expanding the queue further and tweaking the MM algorithms.

Huum peoples who want play 12' understand they risk to face a clan unit, maybe a real team who play together since many time, with TS, with special designated loadout, maybe with a military language for orders and a real lead...

People who create a 2', 3' or 4's don't.... and ELO have to be applicated ... and of course for solo player...

( Of course peoples who want play 12' can face many pugs who group up in a 12'... ELO should be applicated for 12' if possible, i mean if many 12' are in queue. )


10's should be able to face 6' + 6' or 8' + 4', 10' + 2', 7' + 5' or 9' + 3' with ELO too.


That's why 12' should only face another 12' even if they have to wait 10 whole minutes.... people who played mwo since 2 years do it before new MM, same for people who played mechassaut on xbox, chromehound etc...

Edited by Idealsuspect, 13 July 2014 - 04:00 PM.

[Grrzoot]

just saying, I dont mind being in a group of 6 or above going against 12 mans. I think that is a great way to stop the pwnage that would occur if that same group dropped in tie solo cue.

But 2 man groups should only be used to fill out 10 man groups in the 12 cue, never as a composite to create a 12 man out of smaller groups.

If anything the minimum into 12 man group should be 5, ts or not, most groups i know are smart enough to gather with their teammates without much of direction.

[JigglyMoobs]

Idealsuspect, on 13 July 2014 - 03:56 PM, said:

Huum peoples who want play 12' understand they risk to face a clan unit, maybe a real team who play together since many time, with TS, with special designated loadout, maybe with a military language for orders and a real lead...

People who create a 2', 3' or 4's don't.... and ELO have to be applicated ... and of course for solo player...

( Of course peoples who want play 12' can face many pugs who group up in a 12'... ELO should be applicated for 12' if possible, i mean if many 12' are in queue. )


10's should be able to face 6' + 6' or 8' + 4', 10' + 2', 7' + 5' or 9' + 3' with ELO too.


That's why 12' should only face another 12' even if they have to wait 10 whole minutes.... people who played mwo since 2 years do it before new MM, same for people who played mechassaut on xbox, chromehound etc...

The thing is, the most scary groups tearing through the group queue are usually <12. Usually it's like a few 6-8 mans composed of the top tier. separating out the true 12s isn't going to help you avoid them.

[Spawnsalot]

I'm willing to bet a lot of grief for a large portion of groups is caused by having an over-inflated Elo from waffle-stomping solos, so your solution is to keep playing, take the defeats (maybe learn from them and know the suffering of your solo brethren), before long your Elo will level out and you *should*be matched against more equally skilled opponents.

(But a lot of this wouldn't be an issue if we had in-game VOIP!)

[VixNix]

Grrzoot, on 13 July 2014 - 04:10 PM, said:

just saying, I dont mind being in a group of 6 or above going against 12 mans. I think that is a great way to stop the pwnage that would occur if that same group dropped in tie solo cue.

But 2 man groups should only be used to fill out 10 man groups in the 12 cue, never as a composite to create a 12 man out of smaller groups.

If anything the minimum into 12 man group should be 5, ts or not, most groups i know are smart enough to gather with their teammates without much of direction.

I think it should be 7 or 8+ not 5, not even 6.

Anything 6 or less should be able to choose ranked for hard core or un-ranked for casual (use ELO?)

ELO,
what is it?
how's it work?
why cant we see it?

[Idealsuspect]

JigglyMoobs, on 13 July 2014 - 07:21 PM, said:

The thing is, the most scary groups tearing through the group queue are usually <12. Usually it's like a few 6-8 mans composed of the top tier. separating out the true 12s isn't going to help you avoid them.

Avoid what....

Read the damn post before respond...

Problem concern 2's, 3's and 4's... they haven't to face 12' not because 12' always are all real units from real team but cauze most of times they are and they want to face another units or team...

But smaller group can face 10's no scary about its the game some groups are better than other specialy if we are a part of them ...

VixNix, on 14 July 2014 - 03:59 AM, said:

I think it should be 7 or 8+ not 5, not even 6.

Anything 6 or less should be able to choose ranked for hard core or un-ranked for casual (use ELO?)

You agree for 7' or 8' but you disagree for 6', 5' or 4', but man if you want 12 players with a primary group of 8 you need how many player more ? 4 ? Yes that is ...

That's why even a 10' +2s shouldn't be able to face 12' but 6' + 6' are able to face a 10' + 2'... all others combinaisons works.

Edited by Idealsuspect, 14 July 2014 - 09:14 AM.

[VixNix]

Yes, my post made almost no sense whatsoever...

Groups of equal size should be pitted against each other, but skill needs to be part of that, not of single players in that group but an average of them?

I don't know how to make it work.

I know that once a week up to 6 of us get together and before we had to be in separate groups due to 2-4 or 12, now we can be in the same group but stand a snowballs chance in tera therma of surviving...

I'd like for the six of us to be able to be in the same game on the same team but not face a group of 7+ (6+ is fine)

Way to many pugs scatter at the first wiff of combat and way to few actually look around and grasp whats going on the the group on thier team and then try to help out.

LACK OF COMMUNICATION IS THE BIGGEST KILLER OF MULTIPLE GROUPS WORKING

Edited by VixNix, 14 July 2014 - 11:54 AM.

[DAEDALOS513]

LordSkyKnight, on 13 July 2014 - 02:25 PM, said:

So what should the max group size be? if you remove 12 man, you go to 10 being the max group. 10 organized players will still have a disgustingly disproportionate effect on the course of the game. Bump it down to 8? Ok, 2 organized lances. Oh wait, 2 organized lances can still crush 3 lances that don't work together. Damn, better drop it further. 5-7 doesnt make much sense really, not in a game organized around 4 man fireteams. So we should put the limit at 4. Yeah, that works, 1 organized lance can't take on 3 unorganized ones by themselves. Wait, isn't that the limit we had before that the community was complaining about because they wanted to be able to play with more friends?

Do you see how silly all of your complaints are? Don't rage at PGI for trying to make everyone happy ffs. The only ideas I've seen so far are just ridiculous as well. Allow solo's to play only against solo's? What solo in their right mind would ever drop in a queue with groups if given the option? So then 2-4 is left out to dry because there will be 0 chance of dropping in a game with solo players. Well then allow 2-4 to drop in a 2-4 only queue? then the larger groups may as well not exist because they'll never find matches with no 2-4 to fill in around the groups that have 8+, so MM breaks. Get a clue people. Think about how these things might work before you complain about them. The ONLY way to have groups larger than 4 is to invite the possibility that those larger groups will be matched against multiple smaller groups from time to time.

Take a deep breath, pop a xanax and listen. If you read previous posts you would see that we decided +/- 1 group difference between versing teams is fair enough. So if one team has 4 groups, the other team can have no more than 5 and no less than 3 groups. If you think about it, it doesn't get much more fair than this, while at same time giving flexibility for matchmaker to do its job. The combinations are endless for MM!

• 12man vs 12man or 10+2man or 8+4man or 6+6man or etc...
  
• 8+4man vs 12man or 10+2man or 8+2+2man or 6+6man or 6+4+2man or etc...
  
• 4+4+4man vs 3+3+3+3man or 8+4man or 6+6man or 8+4man or 4+4+4man or etc...
  
• 2+2+2+2+2+2man vs 3+3+3+3man or anyway you get the idea..

Does this visual help you see that it's the number of groups that makes the difference? Not the SIZE of the groups? I defy you to give me a team combination that is far from being fair! 12man teams have the least possible combination of opponents, but there are even more combinations than presented above because I only used 'even' numbers not 'odd' in my illustration.


It's all about how many 'minds' are on each team. You simply cannot have 4 groups (ie. 4 minds) going up against 2 groups (2 minds). Have you heard of the saying "too many chefs in the kitchen?" Good luck getting a team with 4 separate 'minds' organized.

To be fair, teams should have +/-1 difference in the # of chef's on each team.

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 14 July 2014 - 05:48 PM.

[DAEDALOS513]

JigglyMoobs, on 13 July 2014 - 02:41 PM, said:

What you are suggesting is not going to work. You're never going to create a 12 man team out of two 10 man groups. As long as you allow large groups, you will have to have small groups on the same queue in order to fill out the teams.

Furthermore, MM needs to have a large number of available groups in queue in order to rapidly create fair match-ups. The smaller the queues get, the harder it is to piece together two evenly matched 12-mans .

Your proposal will make it impossible to run the large queue. The large queue people will then just break into smaller groups and move to the small group queue. They will then continue to stomp you again and again.

See my previous post.. combinations are endless as long as matchmaker follows +/-1 formula for group sizes per team.

JigglyMoobs, on 13 July 2014 - 03:36 PM, said:

You don't get it. If you had a large queue and a small queue, there will not be games for 8 mans, or 9 mans, or 10 mans, ever. How are you going to make a 12 man team out of a 10 man without putting on a 2 man group?

See my previous post.. combinations are endless as long as matchmaker follows +/-1 formula for group sizes per team.

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 14 July 2014 - 03:21 PM.

[FallenGod]

Rarely post.... Read at least a dozen pages in this thread.

I can tell you I'm done dropping in groups. Thought it would be fun to jump in with random friends and play. Sounded like a great idea with the new changes to match maker. Gave it a week and I can tell you it's ****.

I don't want to play WoW and build a damn min/max mech and min/max clan drop. Have one f'n guy calling out attack orders. I want to hop in a game with 2-3 friends, chat a bit and have fun playing a game. It's a simple fix...and no the 12 man clans will not like it because they cannot pad their k/d's and win stats. Minimize this to 4 queue types... solo, lance-1, lance-2 and lance-3.

You force these lance builds to have 4, 8, 12 or fight down a man or two...their choice to drop that way. Any lance-1 group with 3 or less drops in solo queues. Seriously, you've got an overblown ego if you think 3 can heavily change the outcome of a solo drop in 12 man groups.

Again....to reiterate in case you missed this. Gave it a week and I can tell you current matchmaker is ****.

P.S - would love to know the balancing with ELO (like to see numbers). Doubt balancing is even being computed in a reasonable manner from what I've seen. Liked the guys ideas that jumped to a different thread (little overly complex but some good ideas).

Edited by FallenGod, 14 July 2014 - 08:42 PM.

[JigglyMoobs]

DAEDALOS513, on 14 July 2014 - 02:29 PM, said:

Take a deep breath, pop a xanax and listen. If you read previous posts you would see that we decided +/- 1 group difference between versing teams is fair enough. So if one team has 4 groups, the other team can have no more than 5 and no less than 3 groups. If you think about it, it doesn't get much more fair than this, while at same time giving flexibility for matchmaker to do its job. The combinations are endless for MM!

• 12man vs 12man or 10+2man or 8+4man or 6+6man or etc...
  
• 8+4man vs 12man or 10+2man or 8+2+2man or 6+6man or 6+4+2man or etc...
  
• 4+4+4man vs 3+3+3+3man or 8+4man or 6+6man or 8+4man or 4+4+4man or etc...
  
• 2+2+2+2+2+2man vs 3+3+3+3man or anyway you get the idea..

Does this visual help you see that it's the number of groups that makes the difference? Not the SIZE of the groups? I defy you to give me a team combination that is far from being fair! 12man teams have the least possible combination of opponents, but there are even more combinations than presented above because I only used 'even' numbers not 'odd' in my illustration.



It's all about how many 'minds' are on each team. You simply cannot have 4 groups (ie. 4 minds) going up against 2 groups (2 minds). Have you heard of the saying "too many chefs in the kitchen?" Good luck getting a team with 4 separate 'minds' organized.

To be fair, teams should have +/-1 difference in the # of chef's on each team.

That's a much better idea than what you proposed previously. It might actually work if there are such groups on the server.

On the other hand, if there were not enough people on the server, you might have a high level 12 man continuously smacking down the lower tier guys who happened to also drop in a large group, which would be disastrous.

Played some 12 mans tonight and the groups that consistently gave us trouble have been ones that had higher elo players regardless of group size.

IMO, best bet to try is to do: Elo then team composition as you propose, then weight and mech composition.

[DAEDALOS513]

JigglyMoobs, on 14 July 2014 - 11:43 PM, said:

That's a much better idea than what you proposed previously. It might actually work if there are such groups on the server.

On the other hand, if there were not enough people on the server, you might have a high level 12 man continuously smacking down the lower tier guys who happened to also drop in a large group, which would be disastrous.

Played some 12 mans tonight and the groups that consistently gave us trouble have been ones that had higher elo players regardless of group size.

IMO, best bet to try is to do: Elo then team composition as you propose, then weight and mech composition.

We came up with this epiphany of a solution about 10 pages ago. It's simple and should work. Just for fun, let's see how many combinations of groups a 12man can possibly face with this +/-1 formula ..

12man vs 12man or 10+2man or 9+3man or 8+4man or 7+5man or 6+6man

Looks like six.. not as many combinations as the rest but DAMN will the battles be GLORIOUS. No more ROFLSTOMPS. As the player base grows, and it WILL because this game is getting better with each patch (just wait till new map goals are implemented, especially conquering maps!) the wait times will decrease.

Like I said, no system is perfect, but this one is close enough. Stomps should be a rare occurrence..

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 15 July 2014 - 06:41 AM.

[VixNix]

DAEDALOS513, on 15 July 2014 - 05:38 AM, said:

We came up with this epiphany of a solution about 10 pages ago. It's simple and should work. Just for fun, let's see how many combinations of groups a 12man can possibly face with this +/-1 formula ..

12man vs 12man or 10+2man or 9+3man or 8+4man or 7+5man or 6+6man

Looks like six.. not as many combinations as the rest but DAMN will the battles be GLORIOUS. No more ROFLSTOMPS. As the player base grows, and it WILL because this game is getting better with each patch (just wait till new map goals are implemented, especially conquering maps!) the wait times will decrease.

Like I said, no system is perfect, but this one is close enough. Stomps should be a rare occurrence..

I hope so, though in this case my "only play once a week" group could still be going up against lager premades with much more experience.

What is ELO, where are the numbers for this and need to average a groups ELO when looking for a match.

Also ELO should be on a per mech basis, it needs to be mech based and not player based due to getting used to new mech or having one you have to take that you may not be good at, yet.

Edited by VixNix, 15 July 2014 - 07:30 AM.

[DAEDALOS513]

VixNix, on 15 July 2014 - 07:28 AM, said:

Also ELO should be on a per mech basis, it needs to be mech based and not player based due to getting used to new mech or having one you have to take that you may not be good at, yet.

That is a GREAT point. I often take out mechs I'm crappy with simply because they are fun. It would be helpful if ELO WAS based on individual mech and NOT player.

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 15 July 2014 - 08:04 AM.