319 replies to this topic

[pbiggz]

This isn't about ultra comp vs pug

I cant even begin to describe the effect not being able to play together had on my company. Its that important.

[CocoaJin]

Come on guys/OP, it seems you are missing a perfect opportunity to teach your sons to stick it out, step up to the challenge, and finding value in the individual acts of success while enduring hardships and difficulties. As a a Dad, you can help redirect and influence how they see and respond to obstacles. Instead, you taught them to only push forward if the road isn't too hard.

They are going to take your queue on how to approach difficult situations, this means you could have had a big part in helping them see the value and enjoyment in playing, even if your losing.

You should be encouraging and celebrating every little success they have, every kill, every critical,never severed limb, every evasion, every contact report, every detected flank,never intercepted scout, etc, etc.

Edited by CocoaJin, 22 September 2014 - 04:21 PM.

[Kin3ticX]

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.

Roadbeer, on 22 September 2014 - 04:14 PM, said:

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?

I don't see why his post needs to be ridiculed

Is there some kind of back-story I am not aware of?

Edited by Kin3ticX, 22 September 2014 - 04:21 PM.

[Triordinant]

Roadbeer, on 22 September 2014 - 04:14 PM, said:

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?

Your translator's broken. The actual translation is: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Fix the one that is broken.

[Squally160]

Triordinant, on 22 September 2014 - 04:21 PM, said:

Your translator's broken. The actual translation is: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Fix the one that is broken.

or: Ha! I always get to play EXACTLY what I want to, suck it filthy groups.

but, the sad fact is, we dont know, how many people solo group only in conquest, or skirmish, or assault? people the MM could use to build more balanced solo teams.

WOMP WOMP.

[Roadbeer]

Triordinant, on 22 September 2014 - 04:21 PM, said:

Your translator's broken. The actual translation is: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Fix the one that is broken.

The point is that yours is an entirely subjective point of view. Maybe others are experiencing problems that you aren't?
I don't know, I don't solo.

[Triordinant]

Roadbeer, on 22 September 2014 - 04:33 PM, said:

The point is that yours is an entirely subjective point of view. Maybe others are experiencing problems that you aren't?
I don't know, I don't solo.

This is what Russ Bullock knows about the solo queue.

[1453 R]

Dracol, on 22 September 2014 - 04:12 PM, said:

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

That helps...how? That'd just mean Pierce and I'd get thrown into the cracks in 10-man ultracomp scrimmages with both of us in garbage 'mechs with no efficiencies, modules, or redundancy in hangar space so as to adjust to the matchmaker's drop weights, on top of the man being rightly insulted that I'm pitching my proper account and smurfing down to run with him. It wouldn't actually change which Elo brackets we'd drop in as Elo gives up and dies every match that drops in the Group queue anyways. As does size weighting, as the group queue matchmaker is forced back on its "any combination of groups that starts a game" desperation coding every single frogging match.

I'd honestly be more willing to drop in the 12-man queue by myself than I would be to take my buddies or family into it, with any account. I'm dead serious. Give me my TBR-C, or even any of my Stormcrows, and no buddies to be disappointed with the murderstomps and I'd be far more willing to take a crack at the 12-man queue. There are days I'd enjoy the challenge. There is never a day where I feel like hurling my buddies into the fangs of the House of Lords or the Headhunters of Davion or any of the other big-wig league teams we've dropped against in the group queue.

[Rebas Kradd]

Russ Bullock, on 22 September 2014 - 12:16 PM, said:

Honestly any groups in the solo queue really screws it up. The solo Queue right now is actually pretty amazing with an average team elo difference of around 40. Exact weight class matching 95% of the time etc.

It is the group queue that is frustrating players - especially groups on the smaller side.

I'm fairly certain that groups would rather be frustrated with that, then be frustrated with only being able to drop in multiples of four. They were well and duly warned by Paul, months ago, that larger groups would dominate any group queue, and that the only other solution was to dice the queues into bite-size, 40-minute-wait-time pieces.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 22 September 2014 - 06:14 PM.

[Imperius]

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

Getting on with it, isn't possible. Any change we make is viewed as a fatal error by some and the right move by others. We need more agreement on what the best trade offs are.

A few things to keep in mind:

1) Solo queue was very upset that any groups at all were in and wiping them.
2) Putting all 2-3 man groups in with the solo queue means removing groups of 9 and 10 from the group queue.

We can make this a lot more competitive but you guys need to let me know what is acceptable. 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. Then make game mode selection a vote instead of a hard stop. Then make groups of 4 made up of one of each weight class, groups of 8 made of of 2 of each weight class, finally 12 mans made up of the 3,3,3,3.

The match maker would have a grand time of putting matches together.

Russ Bullock, on 22 September 2014 - 12:15 PM, said:

I have to at least high lite these posts to show that not everyone feels the same way as the OP - believe it or not many don't.

It does a pretty dang good job of putting even tonnage per side, on average around 20 tons diff the last time I checked.

I think if we can smartly remove a few restrictions the MM is working with like the game mode selection hard stop.

Also if we left the grouping as it is now, how willing would players be to have more weight restrictions in their group window? for instance you have a group of 2 you would not be allowed to drop with 2 heavies etc. More rules within the group window will also help greatly.

I have paid tons of money I play this game with 3-10 players I've played all night with 3 man against larger groups and we won. I fought long and hard to get groups back into this game. Many many merc units fought hard to play with thier friends.

To the OP, you should be happy you can play with your kids. The game should be about having fun and playing with them. Not about winning, if they are too focused on that then you have a problem that you should fix.

Of douse adding a single player campaign to MWO with up to 4 players could fix this issue.

[Davers]

Russ Bullock, on 22 September 2014 - 12:16 PM, said:

Honestly any groups in the solo queue really screws it up. The solo Queue right now is actually pretty amazing with an average team elo difference of around 40. Exact weight class matching 95% of the time etc.

It is the group queue that is frustrating players - especially groups on the smaller side.

I for one think more restrictions in the group que is a good thing. Makes people more aware of team composition and lance building.

[Dracol]

1453 R, on 22 September 2014 - 04:50 PM, said:

That helps...how? That'd just mean Pierce and I'd get thrown into the cracks in 10-man ultracomp scrimmages with both of us in garbage 'mechs with no efficiencies, modules, or redundancy in hangar space so as to adjust to the matchmaker's drop weights, on top of the man being rightly insulted that I'm pitching my proper account and smurfing down to run with him. It wouldn't actually change which Elo brackets we'd drop in as Elo gives up and dies every match that drops in the Group queue anyways. As does size weighting, as the group queue matchmaker is forced back on its "any combination of groups that starts a game" desperation coding every single frogging match.

I'd honestly be more willing to drop in the 12-man queue by myself than I would be to take my buddies or family into it, with any account. I'm dead serious. Give me my TBR-C, or even any of my Stormcrows, and no buddies to be disappointed with the murderstomps and I'd be far more willing to take a crack at the 12-man queue. There are days I'd enjoy the challenge. There is never a day where I feel like hurling my buddies into the fangs of the House of Lords or the Headhunters of Davion or any of the other big-wig league teams we've dropped against in the group queue.

It was not my intention to insult you. I just figure since starting ELO is dropped below average in order to give newer players a chance, that when they drop with you and your most likely much higher ELO, the MM has a much higher average ELO to work with... there by allowing your group to drop against higher ELO players, which also consists of the larger groups.

If all players drop in a starting ELO mech, or close to it, the MM threshold to include higher ELO opponents is reduced. Whether or not to the extend to make it a more of an even match for the new players in the group, I can not answer that. You could if you tried it. That's if you are willing to work with the same equipment the new players have to use instead of relying on your established mechs.

Edited by Dracol, 22 September 2014 - 05:49 PM.

[Valore]

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

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

OMFG Russ, I've just come back to the game after close to a year and a half, and given you guys money, as has a significant portion of our corp. If you do something like this, myself and others like me will go on a warpath which will make the Horus Heresy look like bible study gone wrong.

The biggest reason we've come back, is because we can actually get a bloody game, without spending hours kicking people out of groups to meet arbitrary group sizes, AND play together without the process feeling like water torture.

Right now, its kinda funny being the pariah '11th man'. If you implement more number restrictions, its going to go from funny to downright infuriating again.

I'm okay with mech requirements, say maximum 1,1,1,1 in 4 or below, and 2,2,2,2 in 8 or below. An additional suggestion from me would be instead to have 'Max 4 of any class, with an actual tonnage limit'. That will give groups something to play around with, AND prevent light wolfpacks from running around ravishing people.

But actual player number requirements is stupid. It'd be as unreasonable as forcing small group to 'get more people' to compete'.

The biggest and most overriding concern should always be 'are wait times reasonable'.

Getting a match will ALWAYS be better than being stuck in Loading Screen Hell for 10 minutes at a time or never getting a match at all.

You are EXACTLY right when you think there's people who are perfectly happy with the way things are.

Guys who are in small solo groups, THIS is why we're happy, not because we get to kick your ass. You think losing isn't fun? Try sitting 10 minutes watching the searching spinny thing twirl round, tell me how much fun that is compared.

Any solution should be reversed: If people want to opt out of things, give them the longer searching/wait times. Don't sabotage people who just want to play anyone out there.

Edited by Valore, 22 September 2014 - 08:41 PM.

[Maver0ick]

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

...
2) Putting all 2-3 man groups in with the solo queue means removing groups of 9 and 10 from the group queue.
...
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.

Please don't put small groups in the solo queue and restrict groups to 4,8,12. This will be a return to the old days where the 5th guy has to go play by himself. I mainly play in groups of 2 to 4 very causal players and have no problems with matchmaker. We don't focus fire (very well), we don't coordinate mechs, we bring whatever mechs we happen to be leveling up (I'm looking at you Dyrael and your locust) and we still win about 50% of the time and have fun.

Edited by Maverdick, 22 September 2014 - 06:11 PM.

[1453 R]

Dracol, on 22 September 2014 - 05:47 PM, said:

It was not my intention to insult you. I just figure since starting ELO is dropped below average in order to give newer players a chance, that when they drop with you and your most likely much higher ELO, the MM has a much higher average ELO to work with... there by allowing your group to drop against higher ELO players, which also consists of the larger groups.

If all players drop in a starting ELO mech, or close to it, the MM threshold to include higher ELO opponents is reduced. Whether or not to the extend to make it a more of an even match for the new players in the group, I can not answer that. You could if you tried it. That's if you are willing to work with the same equipment the new players have to use instead of relying on your established mechs.

Apologies; I didn't actually see the edited-in half of your post until much later. I was forced to construct that given response over about forty minutes between calls at work.

That said, it's still not a viable solution. For one, the friend in question would feel deeply insulted and humiliated if I were to throw away my main account and start over from scratch just to artificially bottom out my Elo. I know he would, I asked him. Tossing several hundred dollars and hours both down the toilet is just not a thing I'm prepared to do, not even for my best bud. Not over something like this.

Second of all, let's make the assumption I'm a lot more popular than I am and that I get another new guy who wants to give MWO a shot and learn the ropes every four-odd months or so. Am I supposed to start a brand-new account every four months, just up and discard any progress I've made since the last time I flushed everything? Each new buddy in turn would feel like a right heel, eh? On top of the fact that even if flushing my account every time a new guy wanted to join the club in order to bottom out me Elo actually worked (and wasn't blatantly and horrifically against the EULA), the fact remains that by now I know what I'm doing and my theoretical string of buddies don't. My Elo would rapidly outpace theirs again, every time. To say nothing of the fact that the older, established buddies would also have to smurf it up Gangnam Style every time someone new came along, throwing away their accounts too.

It's not sustainable, it's not really ethical (gimme a Cadet bonus and a Griffin and watch me gut teams down at Rookie Green Elo levels. I'm not even all that good, but I know what 'Mechs to build and I'm a whole helluva lot better than people who haven't figured out how to disable arm lock or 3PV yet, or how fire groups work), and frankly I don't even think it'd work. The 12-man queue is perpetually starved for players, which is why a low-mid Elo talentless hack like me ends up still fighting against league ultracomps all the time. Everybody knows the 12-man queue is a shark tank containing only the biggest, hungriest sharks, and most folks avoid it like...well, a tank full of big, hungry sharks. the 12-man queue matchmaker has to use those handful of stubborn/uninformed dribs and drabs to fill in around the ultracomp death squads because nobody else plays in the 12-man queue.

Smurfing a fresh account's a notion, sure, but in my opinion it's a fatally flawed one.

Edited by 1453 R, 22 September 2014 - 06:44 PM.

[Killashnikov]

Lord, NO! PLEASE do not make it harder to form groups! This was the death of the game by slow agonising demoralisation.

This is a game that NEEDS teamwork - this is why people get stomped... they do not play as a team. Get in-game comms working right, create a PVE mode to let people lean to play.

Create a lop-sided game mode(s) so that patch teams have an easier objective than larger pre-mades! Then work on the matchmaker to ensure the weaker side gets a advantage.

Edited by Killashnikov, 22 September 2014 - 06:53 PM.

[Kushko]

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

Getting on with it, isn't possible. Any change we make is viewed as a fatal error by some and the right move by others. We need more agreement on what the best trade offs are.

A few things to keep in mind:

1) Solo queue was very upset that any groups at all were in and wiping them.
2) Putting all 2-3 man groups in with the solo queue means removing groups of 9 and 10 from the group queue.

We can make this a lot more competitive but you guys need to let me know what is acceptable. 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. Then make game mode selection a vote instead of a hard stop. Then make groups of 4 made up of one of each weight class, groups of 8 made of of 2 of each weight class, finally 12 mans made up of the 3,3,3,3.

The match maker would have a grand time of putting matches together.

^This!

As long as the matchmaker put a group of 2-3 on each side (which i assume it will have no problem finding since many of us have 1 or 2 friends we are dying to play with or bring to MWO without getting slaughtered by organized 12mans) it should still have a balanced solo queue. Maybe add a restriction to the 3 man group to only be able to bring 2 of any 1 weight class to avoid 3 assault groups rolling over pugs. Or maybe even 1 max of each weight class, although that could be a problem with newer players trying to play together and only having 1 mech to do it with (but then again, some of the trial mechs are actually somewhat decent now).

Edited by Kushko, 22 September 2014 - 07:09 PM.

[TLBFestus]

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

Getting on with it, isn't possible. Any change we make is viewed as a fatal error by some and the right move by others. We need more agreement on what the best trade offs are.

A few things to keep in mind:

1) Solo queue was very upset that any groups at all were in and wiping them.
2) Putting all 2-3 man groups in with the solo queue means removing groups of 9 and 10 from the group queue.

We can make this a lot more competitive but you guys need to let me know what is acceptable. 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. Then make game mode selection a vote instead of a hard stop. Then make groups of 4 made up of one of each weight class, groups of 8 made of of 2 of each weight class, finally 12 mans made up of the 3,3,3,3.

The match maker would have a grand time of putting matches together.

What can you say about the possibility of letting groups of 2 to 6 (for discussion purposes only..go ahead and make it 2-4) have a toggle option of which queue they would be willing to participate in;

Option 1. "solo" queue
Option 2. "group" queue
Option 3. "Any"

Would that be feasible?

The real hitch here is that "sweet" spot for those of us that are casual and get together in groups of 2-6 just to pound a beer, laugh and enjoy. Right now the choices aren't great, it's either split up or take our chances in the group queue. Group isn't always a bad time, but generally the larger organized groups bit**slap most of the smaller conglomerates they encounter. Bad for the game.

Another option, and you can address this, is making private matchmaking more flexible so that you can form your group of 2-6 and THEN open the game to the match-maker to fill it as best it can. Think Left 4 Dead lobbies if you need an example.
Might also encourage more premium time subs.

[Astrocanis]

Rebas Kradd, on 22 September 2014 - 05:13 PM, said:

I'm fairly certain that groups would rather be frustrated with that, then be frustrated with only being able to drop in multiples of four. They were well and duly warned by Paul, months ago, that larger groups would dominate any group queue, and that the only other solution was to dice the queues into bite-size, 40-minute-wait-time pieces.

I play with my son. I am about done with the game. Playing as 2-3 man groups against large teams is not "character building" as someone above so eloquently put it /s. It's boring, frustrating and a crappy way to entertain myself.

[WM Jeri]

pbiggz, on 22 September 2014 - 04:18 PM, said:

This isn't about ultra comp vs pug

I cant even begin to describe the effect not being able to play together had on my company. Its that important.

Agreed we went from barely 4 to 5 on at prime time to an average of mid 20's. We went from few spending money to quite a few spending money.

I have bought every pak at the top tier to date i but I will walk away from it most likely and just focus my energy and money on Star Citizen if we are going to rehash this mess once again.

As the number two in charge for a unit of about 150 this one item would turn opinion of the game on a dime. I would really caution dramatic changes in this area, quite frankly we would like some continuity without game play changes destroying our attendance levels again.

Take the feedback for what its worth.