481 replies to this topic

[Kjudoon]

Aym, on 24 September 2014 - 10:35 PM, said:

Can't just put the 2-player groups into the solo queue, would impact the group queue significantly, however I'd like to see 1-3 player groups put into BOTH queues, with solo's having an option to opt out.

That is a variant of my 3 queue solution that could work. It relies on Opting Out.

Solo Queue (solo player only)
Lance Queue (2-4 with opt in solos)
Company Queue (5+ with opt in 4mans) ... this could easily be made opt in for ANYONE, then groups of 11 could be viable.

You think you're hardcore enough to handle massive elo mismatches? Fine, do it. You don't like playing hardcore? Fine, stay out of it. Everyone is given what they desire. No one is denied, and it opens up greater option for the 12mans who are so upset about not having easy picking PUGs to practice on. You got em because they wanted it. Those of us who don't... awesome.... we don't have to deal with it.

Either way, this is the best solution I've seen, especially with Aym's little twist to opt in for ANY queue, just like you opt in for any game mode you like. Done and done.

Edited by Kjudoon, 25 September 2014 - 05:26 AM.

[-Natural Selection-]

UnsafePilot, on 25 September 2014 - 04:50 AM, said:

Most of the sentiments here are agreeable enough but the way they're being expressed are one of the larger problems with trying to get new people to play.

Largely because the game isn't finished. And rather than work with what we have and balance things out once done, people want it to meet 100% needs at the moment. So the Devs have this battle of tug of war. Taking 2 steps forward then one step back to appease the "in the moment" satisfaction of the people who hold their breath till the get what they want.

Because most, if not all the groups that are being complained will be focused on territory battles HOPEFULLY a few months from now. And rather than using this time to find a unit or allowing others to grow for that stage of the game, they want a NOW NOW NOW solution.

In short, the game will ALWAYS be behind schedule to try to keep everyone happy for a day.

[Tarl Cabot]

This will likely be lost in the static here but some questions/observations.

For groups/units, it takes the overall average ELO of each intact unit to match units up on both side, yes? But each unit are not alike, some will be more competitive than others, regardless of their ELO. Like soldiers, there will be those who will simply follow and execute the commands given in a unit setting, regardless if they are an average player or not. And if no orders are provided there will be those who will visually follow the lead of the larger group, to bring to that drop what had been learned from previous excursions in larger groups.

What is one of the differences between group and solo queue? For the larger groups it is bringing complementary mechs/setups that work well together while in the smaller groups and the solo queue it is usually what works best/fun/odd lot. Add on top of that either the I will do my meme thing, or follow the big guy (1st time in assault? ), or someone providing an idea of what to do.

The sad thing is, PGI has provided at least 2 tools that are not used as much as they should be, especially for those who wish to group with friends/family while training them. CCC, if TS is not an option, but more importantly the Private matches. Wait for it... I do not have time to commit to groups/etc, or I will not pay for more than one premium time. Start a thread and have those who are like-minded friend up. There needs to be some social contact and for those who plan to spend a few hours with your child, why not hook up with other link minded parents and spend part of the time in private matches instead of all of it in public queue?

As for the public queue, while not run it with a max of 2 lances/8 person unit for the time being? Even the units dropping with 12 tend to have people waiting in the wings, dropping either solo/smaller groups. PGI, via announcement, as plans to remove the 12-person requirement in their CW2.

I do wonder though how the group queue would flesh out if ELO was removed from the equation? Think about it, a 12-man unit, made up of 5-6 really good players, great ELO and the others are average/below average ELO bracket but they are working as a unit, communicating. Their overall ELO average has them facing 2-man/5-man/5-man units. The 2-man unit is high on the ELO, the others are above/average ELO. In fact their overall ELO average is higher than the 12-man ELO, so they are expected to win but they do not, they lose horribly, 3-12. Just looking it would appear as a romp but in reality it was a Pyrrhic victory. The winners had 10 weapons left between them all, missing arms/legs/torsos. If RR was still in the game it would have been a very costly victory for the winners.

The difference between the two units? Likely better communication, complementary setups that work well together, team work, and some luck (low crit rate on ammo bins).

In the end, in the group queue how that drop develops and ends can be dependent several things such as on how the unit overall comes together, just like in the solo queue. In this group game, this PVP (and currently with respawn/dropship mode) what are you really bringing to the table? This is not a PVE game, and remember the global chat was made Off by default if you do not wish to listen to the other team trying to pull your strings.

[jackal40]

Agree totally with this. The casual player who drops with a friend or two is nothing more than filler and canon fodder.

A friend and I dropped 5 times last night and got rolled 12-3 or worse every battle.Then we tried dropping solo - the battles were better, only saw 1 of 8 being a stomp AND it was fun.

Put the 2 or three man groups in the solo queue. And drop ELO.

Even though I am against the idea, I would consider paying Mc to drop in a casual queue with a two or three man group.

Edited by jackal40, 25 September 2014 - 05:37 AM.

[Piney II]

It's a dilemna, for sure, but putting small groups into the solo queue would be a TERRIBLE idea.

The fight to keep solo queue exclusive to solo players was long and ugly................and we really don't want to go down that road again.

[Triordinant]

jackal40, on 25 September 2014 - 05:36 AM, said:

Put the 2 or three man groups in the solo queue. And drop ELO.

The Devs have spoken on that.

[Valore]

Piney, on 25 September 2014 - 05:41 AM, said:

It's a dilemna, for sure, but putting small groups into the solo queue would be a TERRIBLE idea.

The fight to keep solo queue exclusive to solo players was long and ugly................and we really don't want to go down that road again.

Exactly. I don't get how people can't see how hypocritical that suggestion is.

Its basically 'I hate dropping against people with more teamwork, so I want to drop against people who have less teamwork.'

What? Seriously?

[Hoax415]

There is no dilemma and there is no casual crises.

This is a real problem like "rampant sync dropping is destroying solo queue" is a real problem. 95% of people just play the one bad match and move on to play other matches.

The other 5% rush to the forums to cry and threaten that they will quit if something isn't done instantly to make the game work just right for them.

Edited by Hoax415, 25 September 2014 - 05:49 AM.

[Kjudoon]

Hoax415, on 25 September 2014 - 05:48 AM, said:

There is no dilemma and there is no casual crises.

This is a real problem like "rampant sync dropping is destroying solo queue" is a real problem. 95% of people just play the one bad match and move on to play other matches.

The other 5% rush to the forums to cry and threaten that they will quit if something isn't done instantly to make the game work just right for them.

Well one.... Sync Dropping destroys nothing.

Two, keep all groups out of the solo queue.

Three, Sync drops are not group drops and do not suffer the same issues as a group drop because elo is still calculated individually and you cannot guarantee being on the same side.

I drop in a group with over 200 active members, and let me tell you, the distaste for the group queue is nearly universally bad. I'm noticing more and more of our non-mechwarrior queues filling up with guys that used to spend hours on end playing MWO. More and more are dropping solo and not even with other members because the group queue is a horrifying mess right now and they're not enjoying losing 5-10-30 matches straight to highly competitive groups that have huge elo mismatches if you looked at them individually.

This is a crisis. "Move on, nothing more to see here" is ignoring the issue because too many saying that got what they want and don't give a fig if anyone else gets theirs.

[totgeboren]

Triordinant, on 25 September 2014 - 05:16 AM, said:

Apparently it does, based on Russ Bullock's post.

Yet as he said, "It is the group queue that is frustrating players - especially groups on the smaller side." and that problem remains, and more critically is driving newly recruited people away.

I haven't really figured out how the Elo system works (is it just the 3/3/3/3 system or what?), but maybe some sort of system for small groups where you weigh the W/L ratio, K/D ratio and number of games played for the players in the group to determine if they should play in the PUG or the Group queue?

I mean, if a group of two or three have a member that has played say ten games, they have no business at all being paired up with other groups even if the group contains a veteran player. By the same token if they have a combined K/d and W/L ratio of around 1 they are obviously not hardcore players and would probably fit better with the PUG crowd.

I think for small groups, it's often just one of the players that are really 'good', and the other one or two are just casuals that like big stompy robots. (I base that statement on absolutely nothing.)

Sure, competitive players could take advantage of a system like this, but a group of competitive players should fairly quickly have a distinctly above average mean K/D and W/L ratio, meaning they would not be eligible for joining the PUGers anyway.

[Piney II]

I play mostly group drops now, mainly in small groups. I have no illusions that the matches are going to be rainbows, unicorns and fairey dust.

The group queue is smash-mouth playing and I like the challenge. Somes we get rolled, sometimes we do the rolling, and sometimes the fights are epic. Either way, I still have fun.

You just need to know what you're getting into when you group launch. If you're taking a brand new player with you, that player would be better served by going into a few private matches with you and learning some basics there. The shark tank is no place to learn how to swim.

I don't want to see the group queue watered down. My only beef with groups is they tend to ignore the small group(s). Let them know the general plan of the larger group. They just might make a difference.

[VixNix]

Valore, on 25 September 2014 - 04:39 AM, said:

LMAO. So a few pages ago you post this:



Referring to some random screen shots you wanted to use as evidence.

I post actuall collected screenshots, a lot more and a lot more conclusive that whatever you were referring to, and suddenly, screenshots are 'anecdotal'.

Whatever man.

And last but not least, this gem from you:



So that translates as 'We casuals don't want to play with you, but hopefully there will magically be other casual people who you can play with'?

You're hilarious.



This is what I've suggested to your clan mate VixNix, but he apparently isn't willing to listen to any reason or logic.



PS, your statement here:




Is both demeaning and insulting, especially to people like the NGNG guys, who are both often welcoming and polite to all comers. It shows you obviously have a lack of experience in trying this, and are just relying on stereotypes to build your opinion.

you only read what you want to and you read into it what you want.

[Triordinant]

totgeboren, on 25 September 2014 - 06:00 AM, said:

Yet as he said, "It is the group queue that is frustrating players - especially groups on the smaller side." and that problem remains, and more critically is driving newly recruited people away.

Therefore the solution has to be one for the group queue that does not involve making any changes to the solo queue. Any solution that meets those Dev-determined parameters might work.

[Valore]

Kjudoon, on 25 September 2014 - 05:58 AM, said:

Well one.... Sync Dropping destroys nothing.

Two, keep all groups out of the solo queue.

Three, Sync drops are not group drops and do not suffer the same issues as a group drop because elo is still calculated individually and you cannot guarantee being on the same side.

I drop in a group with over 200 active members, and let me tell you, the distaste for the group queue is nearly universally bad. I'm noticing more and more of our non-mechwarrior queues filling up with guys that used to spend hours on end playing MWO. More and more are dropping solo and not even with other members because the group queue is a horrifying mess right now and they're not enjoying losing 5-10-30 matches straight to highly competitive groups that have huge elo mismatches if you looked at them individually.

This is a crisis. "Move on, nothing more to see here" is ignoring the issue because too many saying that got what they want and don't give a fig if anyone else gets theirs.

The strangest thing then is that my unit is the exact opposite.

We'd practically abandoned MWO for a year, and only recently with the new matchmaker changes, have we started playing again. Where barely there would be 2 lances playing, now we have about 40 active players, of those 24 playing practically every day, and having a good time.

Similarly, the units we scrimmage against say the exact same thing.

Fascinating then, seeing how things are. To me it seems an impossibility that people actually see lance play as the basis of how MWO should be played. Yet here you are claiming that very fact.

[Mott]

Group Q has been horrendous lately. If your team doesn't include at least one coordinated 6-man group, you're pretty much toast.

MM builds the Q around the 6-10 & 12 man teams. It fills up that one strong team and then tries to pack in any assortment of small groups to fill a 12 to face team 1.

This past weekend i was part of a 2-4 man group for 11 drops. We won 2. Then more of my unit arrived and we gradually built up to 10 players. At that point we were the dominant team and MM was throwing together crap teams to face us and we won 10 of 13.

That is no way to run a game. It's a pathetic mess.

[Kjudoon]

Quote

Fascinating then, seeing how things are. To me it seems an impossibility that people actually see lance play as the basis of how MWO should be played. Yet here you are claiming that very fact.

Been a fan of this game since it was called BattleDroids, and that is precisely what the cornerstone of the game was for 20 years.

Mott, on 25 September 2014 - 06:16 AM, said:

Group Q has been horrendous lately. If your team doesn't include at least one coordinated 6-man group, you're pretty much toast.

MM builds the Q around the 6-10 & 12 man teams. It fills up that one strong team and then tries to pack in any assortment of small groups to fill a 12 to face team 1.

This past weekend i was part of a 2-4 man group for 11 drops. We won 2. Then more of my unit arrived and we gradually built up to 10 players. At that point we were the dominant team and MM was throwing together crap teams to face us and we won 10 of 13.

That is no way to run a game. It's a pathetic mess.

And when the large group is actually just a unit pug who's out to have fun, you may as well have a solo queue versus 12man and relive the stomps that happened when PGI screwed up and unleashed 12mans into the public queues for 36 hours of horrific play.

[Livewyr]

Quick question: What games do not pit you against veterans at the outset?

WoT: Could be considered to have such a practice due to the tier leveling system, but once you hit Tier 4.. Sorry about your luck.
BF4: They give zero ****s. I got my *** handed to me for quite a while while I caught on to the way things went.
SC2? Yeah, they have brackets...but that has not stopped me and me friend from getting shoved into 2v2s against obvious veterans that stomp the living hell out of us. (Hell, our first game in four months ,after 2 seasons went by,was against two 105 level randoms with 120 and 150 APMs and productivity to match it. We got our ***es handed to us. Repeatedly. In SC2, I am definitely a "filthy casual."

(I stopped playing WoT after getting several T10s, I still play BF4, and I still play SC2... so what is the deal with these kids?)

[Triordinant]

Mott, on 25 September 2014 - 06:16 AM, said:

Group Q has been horrendous lately. If your team doesn't include at least one coordinated 6-man group, you're pretty much toast.

MM builds the Q around the 6-10 & 12 man teams. It fills up that one strong team and then tries to pack in any assortment of small groups to fill a 12 to face team 1.

This past weekend i was part of a 2-4 man group for 11 drops. We won 2. Then more of my unit arrived and we gradually built up to 10 players. At that point we were the dominant team and MM was throwing together crap teams to face us and we won 10 of 13.

That is no way to run a game. It's a pathetic mess.

This looks like useful empirical data. Maybe all large groups should try this (play as a lance or less for several hours, then as a 10- to 12-man for several more) and collect the data on wins and losses.

[Valore]

Kjudoon, on 25 September 2014 - 06:21 AM, said:

Been a fan of this game since it was called BattleDroids, and that is precisely what the cornerstone of the game was for 20 years.

Yeah, but this game isn't Battledroids, it isn't TT. Neither is Mechwarrior for that matter.

This game was sold on the basis of community warfare and team play. They've catered for less formal play through the solo only queue.

[Valore]

Triordinant, on 25 September 2014 - 06:24 AM, said:

This looks like useful empirical data. Maybe all large groups should try this (play as a lance or less for several hours, then as a 10- to 12-man for several more) and collect the data on wins and losses.

We do this all the time when not enough people have showed up for a full team. The games are as random as when we're in a bigger team.

At the end of the day, the better players win. If you're skeptical, look a few pages back where I posted up a whole list of screenshots. You'll see many of them are less than 8 man teams from my corp.