129 replies to this topic

[stache1]

Kjudoon, on 20 September 2014 - 02:31 AM, said:

Not a solution for those who do not desire to play against 12mans which is pretty much everyone in groups under 5. To cavalierly do a variation of L2P or get a team ignores the issue. They should not be facing players of significantly higher elo being hidden by group averaging. Ever.

If you ever tasted the "enjoyment"of getting roflstomped repeatedly by the same 12 or 10 man group, with arty and air strikes going off every 5 seconds and clan meta builds bearing down on your little lance of friends knows that this has to be changed ,not everybody has the time to be a 24/7 hardcore player,

It is that aspect that makes me a bit doubtfull about CW!,once these bigger organised groups take hold of a territory/planet it is going to be impossible to dislodge them (yep i experienced WOT clanwar!!) and then there will be no more place in CW for the more "casual "players.
This would be a big mistake because IMHO most of the players are of the casual type, with real life /job restrictions on the time they can spend ingame.

It will be a big challenge to balance the game for the enjoyment of both groups.

[Triordinant]

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.

That's the way it was before and it was thoroughly rejected by the MWO community.

[Triordinant]

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?

Suggestion: since the problem is only in the Group queue, make this solution only apply there and keep the solo queue the way it is. That way, a Light pilot who only wants to play conquest can do so and a Heavy pilot who only plays Skirmish can still do so in the solo queue.

[Kjudoon]

stache1, on 20 September 2014 - 03:39 AM, said:

If you ever tasted the "enjoyment"of getting roflstomped repeatedly by the same 12 or 10 man group, with arty and air strikes going off every 5 seconds and clan meta builds bearing down on your little lance of friends knows that this has to be changed ,not everybody has the time to be a 24/7 hardcore player,

It is that aspect that makes me a bit doubtfull about CW!,once these bigger organised groups take hold of a territory/planet it is going to be impossible to dislodge them (yep i experienced WOT clanwar!!) and then there will be no more place in CW for the more "casual "players.
This would be a big mistake because IMHO most of the players are of the casual type, with real life /job restrictions on the time they can spend ingame.

It will be a big challenge to balance the game for the enjoyment of both groups.

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.

[Hoax415]

A third queue will not solve the problem. It will only make things worse. Please stop suggesting that like its reasonable or constructive.

We have seen a couple of these threads lately though.
-person is playing with just their new(er) to the game friend.
-this puts them in group queue.
-proceed to get crushed as a 2-man and new player finds games not at all fun

The problem is letting those 2-mans or certain 2-mans into the group queue would majorly upset -or so it seems- the solo queue crowd.

Not sure what to do about it but a third queue is a poor poor idea that isn't going to happen. Splitting the player base more makes for more bad games not better ones.

Edited by Hoax415, 20 September 2014 - 04:28 AM.

[Chemie]

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?

Do the same to single player too!! What is your ETA?

[Sky Hawk]

I would prefer instead the simple change the three hard option boxes to three vote boxes, a possibility of both.. So six boxes, and you can choose between the hard option and the vote mode, all the time, for every gamemode separate...

I am sure, I am in a minority, but, sometimes I rather play a fast game against a much stronger team, instead of a long painfull conquer match, in one of my slow Assaults... I don't know, how many players think the same way, but.... the Right of choose should be there... (I am aware, it means a much bigger change in the UI/UI code... but, if not right "now".. in the near future, it should be implement this...)

[Jolly Llama]

Or you can get rid of 3/3/3/3.

[Kjudoon]

Hoax415, on 20 September 2014 - 04:27 AM, said:

A third queue will not solve the problem. It will only make things worse. Please stop suggesting that like its reasonable or constructive.

We have seen a couple of these threads lately though.
-person is playing with just their new(er) to the game friend.
-this puts them in group queue.
-proceed to get crushed as a 2-man and new player finds games not at all fun

The problem is letting those 2-mans or certain 2-mans into the group queue would majorly upset -or so it seems- the solo queue crowd.

Not sure what to do about it but a third queue is a poor poor idea that isn't going to happen. Splitting the player base more makes for more bad games not better ones.

A three queue solution is the most reasonable and constructive suggestion since the creation of Derptown and Stomptown. I suspect you distaste for it is because you got your preferred sandbox to play in and have no care in helping others get theirs if it would even remotely chance lessening yours temporarily. I did not and will not suggest 2 man groups in the solo queue, any more than they belong in the group queue. Claiming I did is false at best, idiotic at worst.

If things are so bad for matches everywhere because the queues are too small, let's get rid of the solo queue and mix all group sizes together just like it happened about 7 months ago when PGI made a mistake and put 12mans in the public queue for 48 hours of stompy fun. More than a few people stayed away, myself included till it was fixed. Then they got rid of the fairly decent balance, but imperfect 1-4 person queue in another classic overreaction to the 'evil premade' meme which is now showing to be nothing more than an excuse to dodge taking responsibility of bad play on the whiner's part.

And before you start with the 'well you are just doing the same about large groups', there is already evidence showing massive mismatches on a regular basis due to the group averaging system. They've tried to handicap it, and that too hasn't been working. There is more than enough circumstantial evidence to point to showing the community at large is not happy and wants another option. 3 Queues gives them one between the extremes and is similar to the 'vote' option I'm cringing about.

A third queue is not a perfect fix because the player pool is so small, but it is a good sight better than this bloody mess we have now with Rambotardia in Derptown running rampant, making solo play abysmal, and Esportitis destroying any casual play in Stomptown with even greater aplomb. It was far worse than before. The 5+ change has created many unintended consequences that were worse than what we had and so there needs to be a return of the 2-4 group queue with opt in solo players and keep the 5+ strictly for those who want the hard core game play and enjoy kicking mudholes in people or having one kicked in them by constant stomps due to elo averaging mismatches.

If this isn't fixed, players will continue to leave shrinking all pools, despite CW because there is no enjoyable way to play the game unless you are some sort of masochist or sadist. As it is, my playing time in this game has dropped 75-80% per week. I just pop in, test a new mech design, run in the solo queue a game or two and then quit and go play a game I enjoy. Do I go into the group queue? On occasion but usually quit just as quick because it is just no fun with the same results time and time again with less than a quarter of the match resulting in close or balanced matches.

I know I'll be taking my money elsewhere without something being done and fast.

[Kiiyor]

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?

I would not vote against it. IMPLEMENT.

[ApolloKaras]

What's going to end up happening is that everyone will not drop as 12 man and drop lance only. It'll dry up the 12 man queue. The 12 man queue was dead before the groups 2-10+12 came out. (Let me define dead one match an hour MAYBE, kinda dead) This probably would throw a wrench into the entire thing. Now the 8 man group can't find a four man to group because they are in the lance queue.

[Kirkland Langue]

Kushko, on 19 September 2014 - 11:50 PM, said:

I think 2-3 man groups should be put in the "solo queue"

And I think that solo queue should be just that: solo queue.

Worst thing for LOL and other games like that are the DUO queue people dropping with soloqueue. To say that it is ********, would be like saying {Godwin's Law} weren't very nice. You want to drop with a few friends so that you can pubstomp pubbie - but don't like it when you drop against 12-mans. Go. Figure.

[Elizander]

So this is generally how it goes.

Solo pugs like to fight each other.
Small groups like to pick on solo pugs.
Large groups like to fight large groups but they can't get along on which mode to play.

Edited by Elizander, 20 September 2014 - 06:05 AM.

[SVK Puskin]

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

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.

I think correct is part of the community, right? If i am correct it was the part of community which is able to make 12 men pre-mades becuase they had issues to find a match, right? With introduction of the new dynamic group queue you punished playing in small groups pretty badly. I think 12 men pre-mades have to be separated from the group queue becuase they will have always advantage over team of mixed groups. You forgetting about the most important pillar which is fairplay!!! Tuning of the match maker is like never ending story. My advice: get rid of match maker and give us dedicated servers, this would solve lot of issues of the current issue which is match maker.

[Dracol]

gh0s7m3rc, on 20 September 2014 - 04:40 AM, said:

Before, when? 8v8? Or was 12v12 already in place? Nowadays, while a (single) lance can certainly influence a match, it can't 100% assure a victory (much less a ROFLSTOMP) in PUG, methinks...
Instead of a group of 4, how about having the maximum of 3 for PUG's? Would that mitigate the issue? Further enforce it by having every player in the 3 (or less) group take a different weight class?

If 3 mans and 2 mans are regulated to the solo queue, then the group queue would loose the option to allow 10 mans and 9 man groups. Those sized groups require the smaller group sizes to fill out their team.

ENS Puskin, on 20 September 2014 - 06:15 AM, said:

My advice: get rid of match maker and give us dedicated servers, this would solve lot of issues of the current issue which is match maker.

Dedicated servers like the old MW games? Where we could populate it with all of our 24 friends and then milk the system to gain as much exp/cbills as possible? Ya, I don't believe dedicated servers will ever be an option.

[Foxwalker]

MischiefSC, on 19 September 2014 - 10:46 PM, said:

The fix for this is population growth. Also, you can generally avoid that by dropping in Assault. Most competitive teams only do Conquest/Skirmish.

Not really true, many 12 mans are doing "any" to reduce the game search time. I have to say that it is really great to see PGI Staff reading and responding to posts. It says a lot about how much they actually do care! Thanks Russ!

[Triordinant]

gh0s7m3rc, on 20 September 2014 - 04:40 AM, said:

Before, when? 8v8? Or was 12v12 already in place? Nowadays, while a (single) lance can certainly influence a match, it can't 100% assure a victory (much less a ROFLSTOMP) in PUG, methinks...
Instead of a group of 4, how about having the maximum of 3 for PUG's? Would that mitigate the issue? Further enforce it by having every player in the 3 (or less) group take a different weight class?

Yes, 12 vs 12 was already in place and the Community had been asking for a solo only queue and a group only queue for years. PGI finally granted our wish just a couple of months ago and we're keeping it. Maybe what you want is a queue for 2 to 4 man groups that's separate from the 5-12 man queue. Not sure if there are enough players for 3 queues, but the bottom line is the solo queue is for solo players only.

[Clint Steel]

Not really a fan of conquest, but I can see the benefits of using a vote system.

If a certain ELO doesn't generally play a game mode though, it could mean that a player could end up never playing the mode they want, if they are against the average.

[Dracol]

Ghostwolfe, on 19 September 2014 - 10:30 PM, said:

-snip-

Question/suggestion - did you try selecting anything but skirmish? Seems a lot of 12 mans prefer skirmish and you may increase your chances of of not meeting one if you do.

Also, when time do you game? Are you on outside of NA prime time and European prime time? Outside those windows the lower population can make it harder to find a more even game.

[-Teiwaz-]

One possible solution could be to allow two person teams to drop in the solo queue. That way I could drop with one friend and help train them, two people should not be able to upset the balance very much. Now I know some will disagree with this and I'm sure this is not a perfect solution but it may help the new player experience somewhat.