129 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

Kjudoon, on 20 September 2014 - 04:22 AM, said:

You have completely misunderstood my statement. I'm all for relegating all 5+ to a queue of their own and keeping any group 2-4 in it's own queue. I do not think small and large groups should mix... ever.

How will you fill out a 12-man team with groups of only 5-11 players? With the exception of 2 6-man teams, the answer is never.

Votanin FleshRender, on 20 September 2014 - 05:14 PM, said:

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.

That very same idea was proposed not so long ago. The ****storm was really bad (and that is putting it mildly).

Votanin FleshRender, on 20 September 2014 - 05:14 PM, said:

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....

I am one of those.

[Tarl Cabot]

May or may not have been posted. For the company, have it matched/searching up against another company then if not found after a set time the next largest unit available then fill in the missing pieces.

For the public queue another option would be to set the max single unit to two lances then fill it up. It would not need to be set in stone if PGI has it coded to be flexible, they could set it to run for a set amount of time.

Another option would be groups drop in even numbers and cap the max group to 8 (2 lances) then fill with 2x2 or 1x4.

Of course any suggestions provided at this moment would only be a temporary solution, provided actual planetary/system/house lobbies go live. When/if such things go live there may come a time where it becomes difficult to find smaller units to fill the queue. If that happens PGI may need to put into place a check box to allow solos to drop in either queue, with a restriction of how many solo pugs can fill out the rest of the roster.

If PGI has made it flexible enough, and provided a time line is announced, why not do some alternate setups for a week/two weeks at a time til other parts of the game has been fleshed out, and even have a public poll for each week?

Dang, I need a drink!!

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 20 September 2014 - 06:08 PM.

[MischiefSC]

So I ran 32 drops in group queue yesterday (baby needs a new set of modules) in sizes from 2-10.

I ran into (got run over by?) A mixed HoL group twice. Compounded by the tendency of many "pug groups" to freeze our try and play defensively against a group that is not only going to play better individually but be far better coordinated these were rolls.

Statistically though I get 1-sided matches more often in pug queue. Group queue with a bit of effort and a willingness to try and coordinate you can run a 55-65% win rate. That is a lot harder to do in pug queue.

Get rolled by a 12 man or get rolled because the pug team you are with says huddling and waiting to get rolled is the smart plan (it isn't. Never in pug queue. Aggressive team wins in pugs and must groups). Rolls happen either way. Group queue if more balanced overall on average.

If taking a new player out in group queue say so in group chat.

[Bartholomew bartholomew]

Meh, stomped a 12 man and got rolled by an 8 man today. It ain't always about size.

[CG Chicken Kn]

I absolutely do not care how a 10 man group fills the other two spots. As they have been saying since CLOSED FRIGGIN BETA, "go get two more folks, it's not hard!" And yet apparently it is, since it is the folks who don't always have a full 12 all night that cry the hardest about letting 2 or 3 man groups , ( ONE per side) be in the solo queue, instead of being thrown in to the meat grinder of 4 or 5 small groups being fed to the 10-12 man groups.

According to PGI's own numbers a while back. 85% of all drops are solo drops. That would go down some if being in a small group was not basically unplayable. So now you have 15% or less of the player base dictating to 85% of the player base how things should go for them.

And more people quit playing because of exactly that.

Again, how exactly does having LESS people playing, and LESS people spending money help the game again? Because that is the direct result of small groups being fed to the meat grinder. New people leave. Folks with Founder's tags leave. Etc. This is not anectdotal evidence. That is hard data from personal experience, based on the approximately 20 or so people I have got to come play MWO. Only one still plays with any regularity. So counting me, that's a 10% player retention rate.

Is that a number you are happy with Russ?

[MischiefSC]

That 85%has exactly what they want. A solo queue. It's a fraction of the 15% that isn't.

Flat out telling you, they to split the group queue and groups will just sync into the smaller queue. It's what always happens.

[Hoax415]

Exactly. The massive majority is solo players in the solo queue. Some to most of them do not want 2-man groups to be allowed into solo queue. A universal rule that allows 2-man or 3-man or 4-man groups, even if its 1 per team max into solo queue is probably upsetting people we don't need to upset for relatively low benefit.

This leaves us with only two groups that are under served and only one that imo really matters.

1) 2-3 man groups where a new player is being taught to play the game who are now forced into group queue. There are no 9-10 man super low elo teams playing in group queue and certainly not enough of them to link the new player training party up with in a timely fashion.

This means that a new player can't really be taught by playing with a friend because he will just end up as fodder for match after match in the group queue which really isn't a good place for him.

2) 2-12 man groups that just want to scrub it up and resent anyone beating them too badly or trying "too hard".

***

You can't really do anything to solve #2, but we do desperately need to find a solution for #1. New players being unable to play in the easier solo queue where more bad and new players are if they have a friend helping them.

I think we need a longer cadet time, say 100 matches, even if that means the bonus amount is reduced and during cadet games a player should be dropped in solo queue even in a 2 man with a player who isn't cadet time. I do not think there are enough players on cadet time for this to make anything resembling a ripple in the way that solo queue plays but it would make a huge difference in the quality of games new players can enjoy while being taught.

Its completely worth it to try to continue to grow the player base.

Edited by Hoax415, 20 September 2014 - 06:59 PM.

[WVAnonymous]

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

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.

That's an interesting idea, and helps with the "buried Elo" team problem as well. The lower Elo team gets more tonnage and more violations of any 3/3/3/3 caps. Dead easy.

My other thought, which I think no one has proposed directly is a special variant for cadets where you could drop 2 people in the solo queue if one of them had fewer than 25 drops. I know there will be people who try to exploit that, but there is a limit to how much any individual (Lord or otherwise) can do in an unleveled trial mech.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

I just today had a drop against a 12-man. My team had 2 4-mans and 2 2-mans.

We pulled an easy 12-5 win.

12-mans don't guarantee victory; they don't even guarantee a strong enemy performance. At least hypothetically, Elo should be balancing teams out, even when the premade ratio isn't all that close.

That said, I'd be happy if PGI added some kind of weighting to the Elo of a group based on its size (say, 2-4 no mod, 5-8 slight mod, 7-10 a bit more, and 12 the most).

[lpmagic]

vettie, on 20 September 2014 - 04:39 PM, said:

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.

Well......

Not a single one of those is still in season, save for the playoffs for open division of RHOD, and that is limited, all other leagues are in hiatus (full team leagues anyway) RHOD premier is in it's death throes (sadly, damn fine league) a couple are getting ready to get ramped up, but right now, there is s__t all to do for organized comp teams, besides practice by going in to the queue. Know your audience good sir

And I will second what ENERGY said about comp teams wanting good competition, sure they will take the win and all the c-bills xp etc it generates, but they would love nothing more then to have some stiff competition, and it happens very rarely, so they hunt until they find someone to fight them, it is a simple thing, it is what the game is designed for, you can not penalize players because they have a good dynamic, they will have their pound of flesh, learn from it, move on, take it out on the next opponent. I know when me and me droogies see the lords we gear up and go for it, and they do to, same for SJR, 228th and others.

when people start talking about cheating and hacks and all of that and talking trash to good players because they got stomped, well thats when things get nasty and people talk back, and thats part of why people are upset, they get stomped, say F off you dirty so and so, and are angry when they say something back.......I know off topic sorry.

I'm NOT saying anything like L2P, what I'am doing, is saying, just because people are good at the game, people should not tell them they should not play, and win....that's kind of the point.

Things will get marginally better when the leagues all kick in to gear again, but it's going to be a tough winter until CW...thasts just a fact mon.........

Edited by lpmagic, 20 September 2014 - 07:18 PM.

[CG Chicken Kn]

If you can only have ONE group per side in solo queue, they cannot sync in.
That is so utterly simple to avoid it's not even funny.

If you don't think the inability to not get facerolled in a two man group all day long is not losing players and revenue, I've got this bridge you might be interested in.

[lpmagic]

TEAM GAME

I like bridges...do you have one in red?

[MischiefSC]

So you have a 2-man to 4-man group.

Then you have 8 other players all dropping solo.

Most of them will end up in the same match by sync-dropping. Several will end up on the team with their 4man.

So you get a 6man or 8 man in the solo queue, possibly against a 2-4 man casual group and some pugs.

Fewer individuals on each team the easier it is to sync; having 2-4 man groups makes syncing 20-33% easier.

Exact same thing that happened when people realized that the 12man queue would not be as easy as playing groups against pugs. Nobody played in 12mans because sync-dropping on pugs was easier. Eventually even those who didn't like the idea did it because the 12man queue was empty.

You can't remove 2mans from group queue, that means you can only get groups size 3-9 in there, which is significantly more difficult to mix/match to fill to 12.

[Sadist Cain]

E N E R G Y, on 20 September 2014 - 12:24 AM, said:

Why wouldn't a competitive team, who strives to be the best and plays to win, want anything but a 12-0 game.....?

Because true warriors are forever searching to find someone who can beat them

[Riverboat Sam]

Here's a radical idea. Why not do it like every other online game I play does. It's all essentially private matches. If a 12 man high elo team wants to play let them start a game in the lobby and wait for some group that feels up to taking them on. If an eight or four wants a go, do the same. Let the ones proposing the game choose the map and game type. If they get no takers - well, then maybe they have to change their minds. How can this idea be such a bad one if it works for every other game out there? I don't know of any other game where there is a matchmaker trying to balance the games. Maybe it just can't be done?

[Varik Ronain]

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

Thanks for your post.

Of course we don't like seeing this but it really is a form of trade off for the "groups of any size" feature the community was asking for.

Our next step and I really need to get around to posting a command chair about this is the removing of the hard stop options. I mentioned this in the town hall, our game offers too many hard stop options for match making and it is very difficult for the MM to do a better job than it is doing without removing some player options.

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.

It won't make it perfect but it will help, I want to get this into the Oct 7th patch but I need to remember to poll the community, would anyone really vote against best match possible if it meant playing any game mode?

Part of the issue is when you have multiple small teams vs 8 mans+ you end up with one side having direct voice communication and the other side has a pug like mindset most of the times. When I am teaming up and showing my brother how to play I should not be facing large pre made groups from experienced units. When I play with units on teamspeak we at least face other large groups most of the time.

So please either remove some of the valves or add direct voip comms for groups in the team q.

[-Natural Selection-]

The best thing imo that has come in a long time is the group que, but more so is the unit creation. Now people can see who for the most part is grouped up and what unit they belong to. This allowing others to scope out said units if they so desire.

While the good thing is this is allowing groups to grow and establish communities that will help with "daily active players" for the game.

This also allows for these growing groups to increase in group drop size as they grow. Also to work out their cohesion of play styles, builds and strats as they grow.

The down side is that as they get better and grow larger in size they start to be a wall the smaller groups have to bust through.

While it is an overall good for the game for it to be like it is. There may need to be adjustments made to make it not so it is not so brutal on some. I can agree that maybe giving a weight advantage to the weaker team could be an option.

Edited by Mickey Knoxx, 21 September 2014 - 12:03 AM.

[Glythe]

As it stands right now if you're not running with 10-12 guys on some voice server you're better off playing alone. This is very stupid. Most people I know don't want to play anything but solo because you get abused as 6x 2 man teams vs a single team of 12 players. Quite often you're having to hold the hand of some new player and he learns how to play MWO in the competitive Elo bracket.

This reminds me of launch when 8 man premade groups were allowed to roflstomp 8 man random teams.


If you want to play with 10+/12 players on the team in voice communication you should only be playing against another team that does the same thing. Steal an idea from world of tanks and make some kind of display so that full teams can meet up and play in their own groups. Let them know if other groups are looking for matches.

Edited by Glythe, 21 September 2014 - 03:20 AM.

[Satan n stuff]

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

It won't make it perfect but it will help, I want to get this into the Oct 7th patch but I need to remember to poll the community, would anyone really vote against best match possible if it meant playing any game mode?

I'll play anything regardless, and I always want the best possible matches, no point in stomping or getting stomped due to factors out of your control.

[Gyrok]

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

Thanks for your post.

Of course we don't like seeing this but it really is a form of trade off for the "groups of any size" feature the community was asking for.

Our next step and I really need to get around to posting a command chair about this is the removing of the hard stop options. I mentioned this in the town hall, our game offers too many hard stop options for match making and it is very difficult for the MM to do a better job than it is doing without removing some player options.

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.

It won't make it perfect but it will help, I want to get this into the Oct 7th patch but I need to remember to poll the community, would anyone really vote against best match possible if it meant playing any game mode?

Yes, I do not play 2 of the 3 modes you offer because they are boring, and I hate them. I would literally quit this game over being forced to play conquest or assault.