319 replies to this topic

[Dracol]

Akulla1980, on 22 September 2014 - 02:41 PM, said:

Well go and loose a lot in the queue then have some smart ass comment how good their team is and how crap u and your team performed. Then add the loss on the KDR and the crap cbills and xp reward.

Ive spent ages in the solo getting my stats back up. And yes i do care about my stats. Gives me something to strive for. Other than mastering all 140 mechs i own.

So now both my boys have said they are not going to group. Its no fun. They are 10 and 11 years old. If those comments are coming from children who love the game. Then something is fundamentally wrong

You have hours of game time, then group up with new players and expect to face opponents equal to their skill level, not yours?

Your w/l might not be that much higher or lower then an even 50/50, but I can guarantee your ELO is higher then theirs, there by causing the new players to face tougher competition. You didn't give em a fair chance. You tossed em to the wolves.

[Gyrok]

1453 R, on 22 September 2014 - 02:26 PM, said:

What should be happening, and I believe this is something Piranha's said it wants to do, is that large teams (8+ players), should be heavily weighted towards engaging other large teams, with small groups stitched together into a ragtag 12-man against a large team only as an act of last-ditch desperation. This...doesn't really happen, in my experiences of the group queue.

If all the high-dollar ultracomps are so all-fired eager for good, stiff competition and matches that let them improve themselves and hate seeing hodgepodge four-cell small groups thrown against them, they should be campaigning as hard as the small-group guys are for some kind of something. I understand that it's a very difficult problem with no good solution, which is why I've mostly been quiet about it, but since it's a topic of Official Discussion now, I'm going to make my views known and do what I can to propose possible solutions or even simply educate people on why the problem exists in the first place.



I don't care if I win every match, and neither does anyone I drop with. What sucks is knowing that my and by buddy, dropping next to this 10-man death squad, are basically completely superfluous. Nothing we do matters one way or another to whether or not our team wins or loses - we could go stand in a corner of the map and 'Mechsturbate and the outcome of the match would be exactly the same as if we'd dove in and fought as hard as we could. That's a lousy feeling, and even if we're on an Elo-dictated winning streak we both know that it's not us winning games, we're just riding the death squads' coattails.

Believe it or not, I don't particularly enjoy being carried. I want to earn my victories, and when I lose a match I want it to be because *I* screwed up, or because our team got outplayed despite my best performance. I can do neither of those things playing Tagalong Sally to 10-man death squads fighting 12-man ultracomp scrimmage teams.

We are campaigning for having someone at all

Believe it or not, when we run 12 mans in the pub queue, we usually (figure probably 80% of the time or better) encounter a group of at least 7-8 or more. Only on VERY rare occasions is it literally a few 3-4 mans against us...typically there is at least one large group on the other side as well...

[MischiefSC]

So criteria sounds like it should be group size first, then Elo highest to lowest used used full large team matches.

Due to the relatively low number of big teams Elo is almost irrelevant for it anyway you take 2-4 man teams as filler for 6-10 mans by highest Elo available.

I think we need step back from Elo as a primary balancing factor in group queue. Dropping in 5-12 man groups is a bigger effort investment and is inherently not "casual". You know you're going to be playing with other big boys. Only use Elo primarily to pick 2-4s to fill 5-10s. Even if it's an Elo mismatch the group size multiplier is a bigger factor.

So you have mostly low-mid Elo teams of 2-4 stacked on both sides like a "Plus Size pug queue" in with larger teams playing larger teams with the highest Elo smaller teams as backfill. Match for weight last.

Make sense? Not a full split queue but priorities set to try and keep them apart.

Also with mode a soft limit in group queue.

[Gyrok]

Mickey Knoxx, on 22 September 2014 - 03:18 PM, said:

Well we have a Dad that drops with his 9 and 10yo EVERY night until they go to bed. They wreck it in group que despite being only 3 of them. While one Dad and sons seem to be loving it, another does not. So who do we please here? I sure as hell don't think the solo que wants the 3 of them in there banging out almost 1k each every map.

*you know the ultimate problem? 90% of the people who have an issue come in here and post up. The 90% who have no issues are in game and don't bother to share their opinions.

This!!!!!!!!!!!!! So. Much. Right. Here.

Squeaky wheels...that is all that these forums are anymore...

Nobody else is b*tching about the MM as loud as the guys who want small groups to go back to decimating the solo queue pubs who were clueless as a deer in headlights and walking around shooting medium lasers at targets 1000+ meters away, and shooting LRMs into the air to watch the vapor trails...seriously...

[Triordinant]

Akulla1980, on 22 September 2014 - 09:53 AM, said:

Why should we have to do that. Families have as much right to the queues as anybody else.

Thats like saying u should only group up with ur mates in private matches. Nu uh. Don't see that happening!

Oh and why should we pay while others get it for free?

Private matches are free. Exactly the same as the solo and group queues except you choose who you play with. Paid private matches allow you to choose maps, determine how long the match lasts, change the tonnage limits and change team size to something other than 12 vs 12.

[Russ Bullock]

I appreciate all the feedback truly - I have confidence that we can collectively agree on a combination of:

1) a few tweaks - game mode selector etc
2) a few improvements - VOIP
3) a few tradeoffs - potentially less group options and more mech requirements within.

This is not a short term problem if I want to stay on track with CW which of course I do and about 99% of you do as well. So we need to apply a few of the short term improvements asap.

1) put the game mode selector vote system in.
2) Slightly increase the wait time of groups as they get larger to find a more competitive match

These will help - will it be light and day and everyone stops talking about MM? no. But I do believe it will be noticable with the majority of players seeing the difference and we have more tolerance to await engineering time.

[Squally160]

Russ Bullock, on 22 September 2014 - 03:33 PM, said:

I appreciate all the feedback truly - I have confidence that we can collectively agree on a combination of:

1) a few tweaks - game mode selector etc
2) a few improvements - VOIP
3) a few tradeoffs - potentially less group options and more mech requirements within.

This is not a short term problem if I want to stay on track with CW which of course I do and about 99% of you do as well. So we need to apply a few of the short term improvements asap.

1) put the game mode selector vote system in.
2) Slightly increase the wait time of groups as they get larger to find a more competitive match

These will help - will it be light and day and everyone stops talking about MM? no. But I do believe it will be noticable with the majority of players seeing the difference and we have more tolerance to await engineering time.

I am good with this. If I have to wait an extra minute or two for a better match, so be it.

And I agree, a solid CW and you will basically never see us in the group q anymore, unless there is absolutely nothing we can do in CW at that moment.

[Rebas Kradd]

Russ Bullock, on 22 September 2014 - 11:51 AM, said:

Off the top of my head if we could put groups of 2 and 3 in solo queue and restrict group queue to group sizes of 4, 8 and 12.

That is an absolutely pointless solution. We already tried that this year and nobody was happy.

Russ Bullock, on 22 September 2014 - 11:51 AM, said:

) a few tradeoffs - potentially less group options and more mech requirements within.

No, no, no, no, no. Again, we tried that from last winter through June. The result was twofold:

1) Those complaining about stomps shifted their complaints from the (presumed) influence of groups to the (presumed) influence of ELO. ELO, ELO, ELO, that's all people talked about for the entire first six months of the year and into last winter.

2) Groups got frustrated because they had to wait and clique and prioritize and triage and awkward until they had exactly 4, 8, or 12 people, instead of just letting groups drop the way they wanted. So [self-edited for name and shame] hollered his lungs out and waved his "butbutbutbutbut let us drop with our frieeeeeeeennnnnnds!!!" placard until he (and the group scene in general) regained the ability to drop in any group size, which immediately made groups happy again. That's how it should be.

Nobody was happy with the previous version. Especially not the people who are complaining right now. They'll experience the same result, because there are other factors at play, and we'll keep right on chasing the end of the rainbow.

If you want to eliminate a hard stop, sacrifice game mode. Doesn't really make a difference in gameplay right now anyway.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 22 September 2014 - 04:16 PM.

[Roadbeer]

Russ Bullock, on 22 September 2014 - 03:33 PM, said:

I appreciate all the feedback truly - I have confidence that we can collectively agree on a combination of:

1) a few tweaks - game mode selector etc
2) a few improvements - VOIP
3) a few tradeoffs - potentially less group options and more mech requirements within.

This is not a short term problem if I want to stay on track with CW which of course I do and about 99% of you do as well. So we need to apply a few of the short term improvements asap.

1) put the game mode selector vote system in.
2) Slightly increase the wait time of groups as they get larger to find a more competitive match

These will help - will it be light and day and everyone stops talking about MM? no. But I do believe it will be noticable with the majority of players seeing the difference and we have more tolerance to await engineering time.

I don't mind the wait. Having seen both sides of it with WoT and short wait times and War Thunder with typically 50% greater times than I see in MWO, plus as long as I get to play with the maximum number of friends posible, we can have a conversation while we wait.

Honestly, I think you'd get more bang for your buck with a command wheel over VoIP though. Most in game VoiPs are horribad, both in quality of sound AND angry tryhards. .02 Cbills inserted.

[pbiggz]

As i said before, limiting groups damages the core of your game. This is a team game, other players should be playing IN teams. You do not punish teams for being teams.

[Triordinant]

MischiefSC, on 22 September 2014 - 01:10 PM, said:

Group in solo queue = playing with an advantage. Even just 2 players is an advantage. That's why the revolt against groups in solo queue. Putting any groups back in solo queue is bad.

A better option is trying to focus the group queue around homogeneity of group sizes between teams.

All true.

[1453 R]

Dracol, on 22 September 2014 - 03:24 PM, said:

You have hours of game time, then group up with new players and expect to face opponents equal to their skill level, not yours?

Your w/l might not be that much higher or lower then an even 50/50, but I can guarantee your ELO is higher then theirs, there by causing the new players to face tougher competition. You didn't give em a fair chance. You tossed em to the wolves.

Please pardon me for asking, Dracol, but...

HOW ELSE ARE WE SUPPOSED TO INTRODUCE NEW PLAYERS/OUR BUDDIES TO THE GAME?

Shall I tell me friends to totes legit play MWO, but then tell them that I can't play with them because my Elo score is higher than theirs and it wouldn't be fair to them to play with the friend that told them to get into the game?

Really now, man - I understand where you were trying to go with that one, but the logical conclusion drawn from it is so absurd as to be laughable.

The first part of coming up with a solution for the small/casual groups problem is admitting that there is a small/casual groups problem. Half the people in this thread aren't even willing to go that far, which is just sad to see considering how incredibly vocal they were about the big groups problem back in the day. Kinda puts paid to the notion that Big Groups are in it to fight other big groups and get close-fought matches that let them hone their abilities, doesn't it?

[Triordinant]

We fought tooth and nail for years on end until we finally got a solo-only queue. We will fight twice as hard to keep it. Any solution that doesn't allow any kind of group into the solo-only queue works for me.

[White Bear 84]

Joseph Mallan, on 22 September 2014 - 09:20 AM, said:

Heck yes!
Nobody ever dies in this murder simulator.

Nobody except teh Tetatae

Akulla1980, on 22 September 2014 - 01:41 PM, said:

This is what ive been seeing. Not always 12 man. Often 9 man and up in size.

Exactly. Wait till you see the scores I have been recording, the w/l balance is terrible. On Monday night had one game that was ggclose, everything else was pretty much stomp. You look at the team compositions you can see why.

A more organised team with the ability to communicate will almost always trump a motley crew of groups.

There is also the issue of numbers: is the matchmaker matching high/low skill players because there are low numbers?

Edited by White Bear 84, 22 September 2014 - 04:11 PM.

[Triordinant]

Russ Bullock, on 22 September 2014 - 03:33 PM, said:

I appreciate all the feedback truly - I have confidence that we can collectively agree on a combination of:

1) a few tweaks - game mode selector etc
2) a few improvements - VOIP
3) a few tradeoffs - potentially less group options and more mech requirements within.

This is not a short term problem if I want to stay on track with CW which of course I do and about 99% of you do as well. So we need to apply a few of the short term improvements asap.

1) put the game mode selector vote system in.
2) Slightly increase the wait time of groups as they get larger to find a more competitive match

These will help - will it be light and day and everyone stops talking about MM? no. But I do believe it will be noticable with the majority of players seeing the difference and we have more tolerance to await engineering time.

Please make the game mode selector vote system apply only to the group queue where there's a problem, and not the solo queue where there is no problem.

[Dracol]

1453 R, on 22 September 2014 - 03:58 PM, said:

Please pardon me for asking, Dracol, but...

HOW ELSE ARE WE SUPPOSED TO INTRODUCE NEW PLAYERS/OUR BUDDIES TO THE GAME?

Shall I tell me friends to totes legit play MWO, but then tell them that I can't play with them because my Elo score is higher than theirs and it wouldn't be fair to them to play with the friend that told them to get into the game?

Really now, man - I understand where you were trying to go with that one, but the logical conclusion drawn from it is so absurd as to be laughable.

The first part of coming up with a solution for the small/casual groups problem is admitting that there is a small/casual groups problem. Half the people in this thread aren't even willing to go that far, which is just sad to see considering how incredibly vocal they were about the big groups problem back in the day. Kinda puts paid to the notion that Big Groups are in it to fight other big groups and get close-fought matches that let them hone their abilities, doesn't it?

or, start a second account to drop with them til they get at least used to the game and understand how to contribute.

If you can get them to play again, give it a try. If I am wrong and you continue to have unfun games, then I will gladly admit that ELO did not have a contributing factor to your unfun games.

Edited by Dracol, 22 September 2014 - 04:13 PM.

[1453 R]

Triordinant, on 22 September 2014 - 04:01 PM, said:

We fought tooth and nail for years on end until we finally got a solo-only queue. We will fight twice as hard to keep it. Any solution that doesn't allow any kind of group into the solo-only queue works for me.

And the Devil take the hindmost, eh? Totally doesn't matter at all that 2-4 casual groups are getting ruined far more often and to a far greater degree than Puglandians ever got wrecked by those same 2-4 casual groups who're being used as nothing more than cannon-fodder filler for ultracomp scrimmage runs.

Man, I can just feel the love in this thread. Ultracomp 8+ groups telling the small casual groups to go to Hell and deal with being crushed underfoot ("Don't worry so much, we'll just carry harder and you'll win anyways, even though you're a bunch of useless scrubs!") and the Puglandians all telling us to go to Hell and deal with being crushed underfoot ("Take your evil baby-eating pug-grinding premade Sheer Evil to the group queue where it belongs, you raging psychopaths!").

[Roadbeer]

Triordinant, on 22 September 2014 - 04:10 PM, said:

Please make the game mode selector vote system apply only to the group queue where there's a problem, and not the solo queue where there is no problem.

Translation: Only change things for everyone who doesn't play like I do.

Got it.

Would you mind providing the Devs with your absolute favorite mech/loadout so they are sure to never make changes to it as well?

Edited by Roadbeer, 22 September 2014 - 04:17 PM.

[CG Chicken Kn]

I really can appreciate the pickle Russ and Co. are in here. Much higher player count would cure a lot of sins in MM. This is really obvious when I play WoT. NA server, low pop, and MM is borked. RU server, well over 100k players per server, MM works quite well.

I can say that being able to drop with one or two people is extremely painful at the moment, and has meant that less than 10% of the people I got to play MWO have stayed. The bulk of those spent at least a little money initially. Some spent in excess of $100. They no longer do so. This is a problem.

A lot of the arguments I see against ONE group per side in solo queue revolve around one 4 man group plus 8 solos sync dropping to get as close to 12 as possible on one side. That would be pretty weaksauce. I do not know enough about programming to be able to judge how hard it would be to only have either one small group per side in solo, or no groups per side, making sure it never happens that one solo queue team gets a small group and the other does not.

But I definitely know that not being able to play in any meaningful way as a small group has lost PGI customers, and paying customers at that. Not just folks who tried a few games as F2P and gave up. Less than a 10% retention rate. This cannot be a number anyone is happy with.

I do have faith that Russ and CO. are sincerely trying to achieve the best result. Keep your stick on the ice, we're all in this together.

[Triordinant]

1453 R, on 22 September 2014 - 04:12 PM, said:

And the Devil take the hindmost, eh? Totally doesn't matter at all that 2-4 casual groups are getting ruined far more often and to a far greater degree than Puglandians ever got wrecked by those same 2-4 casual groups who're being used as nothing more than cannon-fodder filler for ultracomp scrimmage runs.

Man, I can just feel the love in this thread. Ultracomp 8+ groups telling the small casual groups to go to Hell and deal with being crushed underfoot ("Don't worry so much, we'll just carry harder and you'll win anyways, even though you're a bunch of useless scrubs!") and the Puglandians all telling us to go to Hell and deal with being crushed underfoot ("Take your evil baby-eating pug-grinding premade Sheer Evil to the group queue where it belongs, you raging psychopaths!").

Russ already said he has some solutions that don't involve allowing any groups into the solo-only queue. There's more than one possible solution and they'll hopefully pick the one that does the least harm to the fewest people.