129 replies to this topic

[IceSerpent]

Russ Bullock, on 19 September 2014 - 10:46 PM, said:

I want to change the game mode selector from a hard stop to a "vote" this way it is more possible for the match maker to match that 12 man up against another 12 man. Since it is possible that while you were playing, the MM actually had another 12 man to put them up against but one of those 12 mans said they wanted to play Conquest only, where the other 12 man said no to conquest. You see in this case I feel it is much more important to make the best match possible even if the votes are tallied and one of the 12 man groups plays a game type they didn't desire.

Russ, there's a potential problem with this idea - players who really don't like something (game mode, map, etc.) tend to simply bail when they end up in a match with a "feature" they dislike. This change can very easily result in a situation where group (or part of that group) that said "no conquest" would simply DC and re-queue if outvoted into playing that mode.

[Kirkland Langue]

To be honest, ever since Closed Beta - the forums have been full of people looking to fix "current" issues without keeping their focus upon the long term.

In other words, People are the problem.

Get PGI to implement Community warfare.. THEN worry about the matchmaking. All this talk is just noise distracting the idiots at PGI from actually accomplishing anything.

[CG Chicken Kn]

MischiefSC, on 20 September 2014 - 11:03 AM, said:

If the 12man queue was any indication what would happen would be some competitive 12man teams would syncdrop in 3x4mans. While sync dropping in the pug queue is very difficult to do successfully in a group queue it would be akin to trying to sync into a 3v3 match, since it's only 3 groups of 4 players each it's only placing 3 'individuals' in that context. That would make the process of sync dropping in a group queue easier. You just wouldn't drop all 3 groups at once; you'd drop, wait about 5-10 seconds, drop second, wait 5-10 seconds, drop 3rd. You're still going to end up getting split up sometimes but that would maximize your odds of getting all 3 groups on the same team.

The moment you make high end competitive teams only able to play against other high end competitive teams you're just going to empty the high end competitive queue, they'll find a way to continue to play against less competitive groups. A few groups will drop out of the new '5-12 queue' and suddenly matchmaking time will stretch, so more people will sync in smaller groups, then it will die out and you'll have a bunch of synced 2-4s doing the same thing only now against smaller, even less well organized players to roll.

One group max per side. No sync drops ever. Easiest thing in the world to avoid.

[MischiefSC]

CG Chicken Kn, on 20 September 2014 - 11:48 AM, said:

One group max per side. No sync drops ever. Easiest thing in the world to avoid.

So let 4mans roll in the solo queue again? That's a big part of what this was created to stop.

You'd just end up with a 4man sync dropping with 8 solo buddies. Odds are good that several would be on the other team but you'd get more than 4 people on one side for certain.

No mix of solo and group save by volunteer - which, lets be honest here, wouldn't fill a 4+8 pug per team queue.

[Gut]

Simple Answer: Ranked drop queue.

Most of the time bigger groups are there to grind XP or Cbills.

The better groups DO want a challenge. It's the general player mindset that doesn't want to work that hard that prevents more teams from getting better.

[CG Chicken Kn]

When we had up to one lance in the "solo" queue, the games were much much better. Usually had time to type some "suggestions" in to chat once in a while, and the majority of the games were pretty good. Once in a while the sync dropping happened, but you did not see it all that often really.

Now? You simply cannot take a new player under your wing and show him what he needs to know. Or play with a buddy or two, at all. This is not good for growing the playerbase. I got something like 15 or 20 non mech players to try MWO. Most spent at least a little money initially. Now we go play other games that do not punish us for playing with one or two people together. And none of them will ever spend another dime.

Under what scenario is having LESS players spending LESS money good for the game?

P.S. to PGI. Thumbs up for the massive increase in attempting to respond to issues of late. Seeing even a "We are trying to find a solution" one liner in a thread goes a long ways towards increasing confidence.

Edited by CG Chicken Kn, 20 September 2014 - 12:10 PM.

[Gut]

Private Lobby? ^

[CG Chicken Kn]

You cannot launch a 1 v 1 match in a private lobby unless both people have premium, unless something drastic changed there that I missed. If you can launch a 1 v 1 private match ( or however many, but less than 12 v 12) with neither side having premium, that would help a lot with teaching new people, but somehow I don't think that is going to happen.

And is kind of an unrelated issue, but I see your point, which is true.

[Kjudoon]

Zuesacoatl, on 20 September 2014 - 07:25 AM, said:

And yet you wish to bring your group of up to 4 players against solo players? How is the old days of 4 man's roflstomping pugs any better than 12's doing it to small groups? To say there is a difference between them is disingenuous at best.

No... my solution does not force anyone to do anything they do not WANT to do. Solo players would be able to drop in a 2-4man queue if they chose to to both expand their options or if they never had a problem with the previous method of play of 1-4mans. Right now 2-4 mans are forced to be playing against groups they neither desired nor can avoid as solo players now can. By the same token, a 4 man group would be able to play in the 5+ group queue if they wanted to for the same reasons.

I almost quit playing MWO because playing solo sucks, not to put too fine a point on it. Now the group queue sucks even more because the same problem that the solo queue whined about is endemic in the group queue, just the scale and size of the issue has increased dramatically. This leaves no place for balanced play for gamers who want nothing of the Rambos in the Solo Queue and the Esportos in the Group queue.

All I hear now are the Rambos screaming "I don't want to be placed into a group queue and I dont' want groups to be split off into smaller groups either because I'm vindictive and have mine!" All I see from detractors from the Esportos is "I don't want my easily abused 12man to run out of easy prey... aka the same complaint as the solo players had against all groups beforehand and the 12man queue sucks when forced to play against only other esportos so change nothing!"

Meanwhile the non-competitive, social player just walks away with his money instead.

Edited by Kjudoon, 20 September 2014 - 02:51 PM.

[Kjudoon]

IceSerpent, on 20 September 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

Russ, there's a potential problem with this idea - players who really don't like something (game mode, map, etc.) tend to simply bail when they end up in a match with a "feature" they dislike. This change can very easily result in a situation where group (or part of that group) that said "no conquest" would simply DC and re-queue if outvoted into playing that mode.

This is true and exactly what I have been noticing. It started with the Skirmish mode.

Essentially, if you do not provide people the option to play the game they want to play, they will leave. Right now, in the group queues, you have the anti-social queue where nobody can group up and be social, or you have the hardcore queue where it's all meta all day and an unavoidably broken matchmaking system due to group elo averaging.

[n r g]

Kushko, on 20 September 2014 - 03:08 AM, said:

Why wouldn't the same team act like adults and/or want skilled and organized teams to go up against to actually prove their skill.

Tell me...would you feel like a big man if you beat a 12yo at arm wrestling?

Maybe because in your ignorance you fail to recognize there are NO established leagues at the moment for MWO?

Furthermore, teams that are preparing for CW (if it even comes out), have nothing else to do than to drop 10-12 players in the group que; there aren't any lobbies, leagues, barely any competitive teams left to be honest, so thus, those who still like this game, as absurd as that sounds, group up with friends and drop into a group. That's the only thing left to do?

Make sense now?

Edited by E N E R G Y, 20 September 2014 - 03:50 PM.

[n r g]

Ghostwolfe, on 20 September 2014 - 10:00 AM, said:

And THIS is what I was explaining. Russ we have enough groups like this one with ENERGY going around who are not looking for a competition match but just looking for an easy stomp. To them that's skill when in fact it's just a mob able to deathball a bunch of 2 man groups who have no clue what is going on. They pat themselves on the back and try to keep things as is.

Before we had the queues seperated I never saw a two man group help roll a team in a solo style setting. I'd suggest the 2 - 3 person groups be allowed in the "solo" queue. 4 person groups could be in the group queue. At least as a lance players might have a chance to be grouped with a 8 man group. However all this means little without actual numbers of the player base, data in general.

What is clear to anybody else however is that what we have right now just won't encourage game growth.

The LORDS will and have stomped 99% of the teams that exist in MechWarrior Online. They aren't "looking for easy games".

You fail to realize, as I have stated, they are NO leagues/tournaments atm for Mechwarrior Online. Those who haven't left the game already (and there are a lot who have) out of pure boredem, have stayed and do big group/team drops because they still have some love for this game... as absurd as it sounds.

So, to reiterate, you catch big groups/teams in GROUP QUE because they still have some shred of enjoyment for this game.

I have no issue with MWO changing the balance system to the "lesser players" get 12 assault mechs, for all I care. Just please don't blame organize groups of players, who tend to have light-years more gaming experience than the collective whole of this community, for striving to be good or wanting to win. Blame the matchmaker system (one that we had nothing to do with) please.

Edited by E N E R G Y, 20 September 2014 - 04:24 PM.

[oneproduct]

CG Chicken Kn, on 20 September 2014 - 11:27 AM, said:

First off, we need to let at least one 2 man group per side in the "solo" queue. If not up to one 4 man lance, per side. making sure both sides get a group of some kind under this. If the group is only two people, it will not affect the outcome significantly if only one side has a two group and the other doesn't. I would rather waitt longer than have what happened the other day to myself and a friend I have gamed with for years that I convinced to try MWO.

This is already what happens. If you are in a 2-4 man group, you can be placed in either the solo queue or the group queue. If you are placed in a solo queue game, the other team will also have a 2-4 man group.

http://mwomercs.com/...sizes-and-more/

Russ Bullock said:

Perhaps I saved the best for last: The New MM also allows for group sizes larger than 4. Yes, you will be able to create groups in sizes 2-10 and 12. How this works is that players that choose to continue to play in groups of 2-4 will either be placed into the “Solo Public Queue” or the “Group Queue”. Players choosing to play in groups of 5-10 or 12 will ALWAYS be placed into the “Group Queue”. While matches in this Group Queue are always formed of players in groups only, groups of 2-4 will appear in both queues. Players in the solo queue are ensured that there will be only one 2-4 sized premade per side.

Edited by oneproduct, 20 September 2014 - 03:57 PM.

[Gut]

Pretty sure I've never been matched in the solo queue as a 2-man.

[vettie]

E N E R G Y, on 20 September 2014 - 03:47 PM, said:

.

You fail to realize, as I have stated, they are NO leagues/tournaments atm for Mechwarrior Online.

Actually, there are some Community Run Organized Leagues
http://mwomercs.com/...ity-run-events/

Such as ISW
MRBC League
Marik Civil War
RHOD
MWO Lobby

to name a few

TRUE, they are NOT run by MWO / PGI, but they do utilize MWO as the game base.

So, yes, there are organized league settings for teams to compete in until Official CW comes out, and probably even afterwards.

[CG Chicken Kn]

oneproduct, on 20 September 2014 - 03:56 PM, said:

This is already what happens. If you are in a 2-4 man group, you can be placed in either the solo queue or the group queue. If you are placed in a solo queue game, the other team will also have a 2-4 man group.

http://mwomercs.com/...sizes-and-more/

Ummmmmm, no. Not once , ever, have we been in the "solo queue" in even a two man group. Yes I know that was stated, but it was disabled early on because it was severely broken somehow. And 10 man groups cried because they needed two fillers. Currently, and for quite a while now, two person group or more equals group queue, every single time. Since they enabled unit tags in game, it's pretty easy to see When your opponents are a mixed size group(s) , or a full 12.

Edited by CG Chicken Kn, 20 September 2014 - 04:49 PM.

[Votanin FleshRender]

oneproduct, on 20 September 2014 - 03:56 PM, said:

This is already what happens. If you are in a 2-4 man group, you can be placed in either the solo queue or the group queue. If you are placed in a solo queue game, the other team will also have a 2-4 man group.

http://mwomercs.com/...sizes-and-more/

There was a later update than that, explicitly stating that there are ZERO groups of any size in the solo Q, but I'm too lazy to look it up.

[Lulz Kev]

You want to wait in long search queues or do you want a chance at stomping a 10-12 man into the ground?

I vote for playing.

Honestly, I could agree with most things about balanceing the MM. But in reality I don't think the player pool is large enough to segregate any more then it already is. If I have to bite the bullet and play a few orginized groups every now and again so be it. Beats watching the never end searching wheel.

Edited by DTF Kev, 20 September 2014 - 05:00 PM.

[Mystere]

gh0s7m3rc, on 20 September 2014 - 02:01 AM, said:

From this discussion, seems like altering the Queues for: a group of 4 (3?) or less gets PUG Queue, while a group of 5 or more gets Group Queue; would be the best option to take. However, for the group of 4 (3?), should the mechanic of 4x3 be applied? Because, sometimes, when the unit I'm in makes a drop of 3 or 4, it's a bit common for 3 Assaults + 1 Heavy/Light ECM or 3 Heavies + 1 D-DC/Light ECM to be the formation . And, let me tell you, even though occasionally most if not all of us get to the end of the match dead, our contribution for a victory was somewhat essential for it. (not bragging, really... )

Allow small groups back into the PUG queue? Really? Prepare for another ****storm from the solo players.

Where is Mud when you need him?

[Votanin FleshRender]

Mystere, on 20 September 2014 - 05:12 PM, said:

Allow small groups back into the PUG queue? Really? Prepare for another ****storm from the solo players.

Where is Mud when you need him?

ONLY low Elo 2 man groups.

Would massively help trying to get new people to stay with the game. I had my brother and a couple friends that started around the same time I did. We all ragequit around the same time, but I came back and they didn't.

Edit - I'd add there should be an option for solo players who wish to join the group Q. I know I've heard this from many folks....

Edited by Votanin FleshRender, 20 September 2014 - 05:15 PM.