481 replies to this topic

[Valore]

Kjudoon, on 25 September 2014 - 09:41 PM, said:

Now, for the sake of the example, let's assume for some bizarre reason, they do not face each other and run into teams that consist of various sizes but average 4 per group.

What? Wouldn't a fairer way of looking at things be comparing the number of times a small group would face a small group, vs the number of times they face a large group?

Simple question, do you think small groups face large groups more, or do they face other small groups more?

Kjudoon, on 25 September 2014 - 09:47 PM, said:

Then what solution will you accept if it does not leave the status quo and allows people to not participate in either the solo or 5+ queue? People are quitting because they do not wish to play either.

Simple. Have an option system.

If you 'opt' for casual play, you get a reward penalty, and the MM tries its best to match you against other people who have opted casual. People who do not opt casual, i.e. they are fighting all comers, will always get first priority for matching. Only if the MM cannot find opposition for the 'we'll fight everyone' line, will they stick them against the 'casual option' players.

Will troll groups still try to opt their 12 man groups into the casual group? Most likely. Discourage that by making the penalty scalar. The larger your group is, the bigger the penalty becomes.

[Kjudoon]

Quote

Simple. Have an option system.

Fine. Here's the suggestion I've been touting and has been gaining traction in the community and Aym gave a great tweak to it.

1. Solo queue (no groups of any size)
2. Lance Queue (Traditional 1-4, with solo players having opt in option)
3. Company Queue (5+ with Opt In for Anyone)

This way, you can play alone, in a small group that is in much more balanced elo and coordination levels, or in the Company Queue 'man mode free-for-all' for anyone and everyone who feels tough enough to take it or is a masochist.

No penalty for not wanting to be hardcore. No bonus for being a glutton for punishment. No incentives to play one mode or the other. Play what you want.

Agree or disagree, and what could be done to improve it if you disagree?

Edited by Kjudoon, 25 September 2014 - 09:59 PM.

[Valore]

Kjudoon, on 25 September 2014 - 09:57 PM, said:

Fine. Here's the suggestion I've been touting and has been gaining traction in the community and Aym gave a great tweak to it.

1. Solo queue (no groups of any size)
2. Lance Queue (Traditional 1-4, with solo players having opt in option)
3. Company Queue (5+ with Opt In for Anyone)

This way, you can play alone, in a small group that is in much more balanced elo and coordination levels, or in the Company Queue 'man mode free-for-all' for anyone and everyone who feels tough enough to take it or is a masochist.

Agree or disagree, and what could be done to improve it if you disagree?

I don't mind it, but I am not willing to accept a solution which 'locks out' our larger groups.

My view is, if a group is open to fighting all comers, they should ALWAYS have top priority.

Following that, if the wait becomes too long, the matchmaker must ALWAYS keep loosening the restrictions.

And I think you should always have a penalty for 'opting out'. After all, its basically the equivalent of saying 'I prefer easy mode' in any other normal game. Rewards are usually reduced.

Also, your solution doesn't solve your issue of being rolled by better players.

People are complaining they get mangled by people who play the best builds, use consumables, etc. Competitive players drop in smaller groups all the time when they don't have enough players to form a bigger group, as I earlier mentioned. Wouldn't this still cause 'family and casual players' grief?

[NeoCodex]

Valore, on 25 September 2014 - 10:03 PM, said:

People are complaining they get mangled by people who play the best builds, use consumables, etc. Competitive players drop in smaller groups all the time when they don't have enough players to form a bigger group, as I earlier mentioned. Wouldn't this still cause 'family and casual players' grief?

It wouldn't, because it's less depressing losing to a mix of small group of players than a 10-12 man of the same unit.

It's not just about what they use and how good they are, but the whole notion that they were 12 and organised and they were put against your mixed small groups, which for many people, friends and families is a very uncomfortable and discouraging environment to be in.

Edited by NeoCodex, 25 September 2014 - 10:17 PM.

[Johnny Reb]

Kjudoon, on 25 September 2014 - 06:14 PM, said:

Reading how many people are complaining about this other than myself, yes, a large portion. I would have said majority if I knew for a fact it was over 50% but it's not just the idle fancy of a few... unlike those who are trying to harry amidships any effort to create a small group queue.

Heh, and the same/similar ppl complained about the group in solo, hence boogieman in solo. It is fixed! Yet not good enough, we need ppl that need group drops to cater to what they want cause I have a friend online and he sucks? Terrible! Your a pug play pug and sync. As to 2 man groups getting rolled its about who you team up with, won with multi teams and lost with 10 mans. I play exclusively in group and I would take my 2 man in group over solo any day. Sry if not kid friendly but this is not a share bear convention its group drop deal, or sync in solo.

edit: depending on time of day in any config will get top Europe teams, lords or steel jags eventually. Talk about fun!

Edited by Johnny Reb, 25 September 2014 - 10:28 PM.

[Valore]

NeoCodex, on 25 September 2014 - 10:14 PM, said:

It wouldn't, because it's less depressing losing to a mix of small group of players than a 10-12 man of the same unit.

Really? That's interesting.

Personally, I'd have the opposite mindset. I'd be more disappointed that I'd lost to a side that didn't have any clear advantage over me. If the other side had the benefit of more teamwork, at least there'd be some justification.

So if you lost a race to someone driving a Ferrari, you'd feel worse than if you lost to someone driving a Ford Pinto or something ?

Edited by Valore, 25 September 2014 - 10:18 PM.

[Kjudoon]

Valore, on 25 September 2014 - 10:03 PM, said:

I don't mind it, but I am not willing to accept a solution which 'locks out' our larger groups.

My view is, if a group is open to fighting all comers, they should ALWAYS have top priority.

Following that, if the wait becomes too long, the matchmaker must ALWAYS keep loosening the restrictions.

And I think you should always have a penalty for 'opting out'. After all, its basically the equivalent of saying 'I prefer easy mode' in any other normal game. Rewards are usually reduced.

Also, your solution doesn't solve your issue of being rolled by better players.

People are complaining they get mangled by people who play the best builds, use consumables, etc. Competitive players drop in smaller groups all the time when they don't have enough players to form a bigger group, as I earlier mentioned. Wouldn't this still cause 'family and casual players' grief?

That solution does not lock out anyone. It turns the Company queue into a free for all gawdaweful mess for those who think they're manly-man enough to handle it, allows groups of 11 and expands your queue. You not only get what you want, but expand what you want with all the Rambos who want to clip off a piece of what you got.

If they really like it, they'll stay. If they get sick of it, they'll leave and return to the form of play they desire.

How can you not be 100% behind this?



Stomps are exacerbated by larger groups in the elo mechanic. The best way and easiest to limit this is a small group queue where you have fewer people to hide elo differentials with. The problem is, unless you forcibly limit who can group with who due to their elo differential by creating tiers or some other system (something I am not advocating) you're not going to get rid of this group elo averaging issue, so just deal it out by reducing it mathematically through smaller groups.

[Mr D One]

I do like the 4 vs 4 idea. (Or 5 vs 5 for clan "Stars")

[Johnny Reb]

Stomps happen everywhere and if its a 8+ v mixes the odds are increased, However, not enough to scrap the system. That said, it is annoying some groups once they see and plan for they have the numbers just rush and they planned for that. When they meet a similar team prepared they usually die even its a 10 them v 8 other coordinated team.

[totgeboren]

I do understand that those who regularly play in 12-man groups do not want longer wait times in the queue, but really, the current system is actively reducing the player base.
There are lots and lots of people who have quit because of the current system, yet I have not heard of people quitting because the waiting time in the queue as a 12-man is too long?

So what's more important, maintaining and expanding the player base, or keeping the vets happy? It's almost always a problem in games like these, but having played MMOs that catered to the vets before, I can tell you they don't tend to last for very long.

[Kjudoon]

Actually, I do know of a few groups that scaled back their 12man operations big time because of wait times before 5+. Of course, some teams have also scaled back their operations to private matches only in scrimmages against other similar teams (something all practicing 12mans should be made to do) because they were winning 75-100 matches in a row against the public group queue and it was both no challenge, and they were starting to get a bad rep... that is still showing up here and there today. I won't do name and shame but I know a few teams out there and have been on the receiving end of their attacks. No denying how awesome their play is, and how inappropriate it is for them to be playing in a league of players well beneath their station.

That said, a 4 man from those teams is not overwhelming, while a 6+ usually is. It only takes that little to wreck games for people.

[Valore]

totgeboren, on 25 September 2014 - 10:59 PM, said:

I do understand that those who regularly play in 12-man groups do not want longer wait times in the queue, but really, the current system is actively reducing the player base.
There are lots and lots of people who have quit because of the current system, yet I have not heard of people quitting because the waiting time in the queue as a 12-man is too long?

Don't take my word for it. There are plenty of voices on both sides of the issue. If you start assuming we're the minority, it won't solve any issues, because we aren't.

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.

Imperius, on 22 September 2014 - 05:18 PM, said:

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.

Killashnikov, on 22 September 2014 - 06:52 PM, said:

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.

WM Jeri, on 22 September 2014 - 07:15 PM, said:

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.

pbiggz, on 22 September 2014 - 03:44 PM, said:

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.

Domoneky, on 22 September 2014 - 12:23 PM, said:

I'm' fine with how the MM is right now. Granted fine tuning is always welcome but otherwise I'm just happy I can finally drop with my friends.

Mickey Knoxx, on 25 September 2014 - 05:41 AM, said:

wait a sec.. wasn't it a couple months ago they should cater to the "76%" solo players and why the groups had to be removed to their own que. And that a 12 man had to wait an hour (or 2) to find a match?

And now you are starting to see more and more groups grow and the number of larger groups increase.

So the fact that before the group que, at best would have 6 people online during our primetime. And now from the same list daily see 20-30 online is a showing a problem?

I would say things are better. People I know who have not dropped a penny in years, dumping hundreds now. I think they are catering to the right people, but I may be wrong.

alVolVloLy, on 25 September 2014 - 06:03 AM, said:

I think the queues are fine as is. We finally have the ability to drop with any amount of teammates (except 11) and solo players can play with solo players. Wait times for groups are also pretty reasonable at this point also.

I don't think that any amount of group size restrictions are going to work for the people advocating groups of 2-4 only. Within a week there will be posts about larger units splitting into smaller units to farm the 2-4man queue and we will be back to the same place as we are now.

Maybe there is an answer within elo brackets, but we've already been down the pug/premade road regarding group size and I think most would agree that the game is finally in a good spot regarding group sizes.

Gyrok, on 22 September 2014 - 12:07 PM, said:

*sigh* I would rather the MM stay exactly as it is with almost any size group then go back to shoehorning odd numbers of players into one off groups. This does not fix the issue at all.



THIS!!!!!!!!!!!

Gas Guzzler, on 22 September 2014 - 12:04 PM, said:

The flexibility of group sizing is just so nice though.. I know some have issues with fairness and getting stomped, but it just happens sometimes. Additionally, many times a team made up of 3-5 smaller groups will give a 10-12 man group a run for there money, and even win. I have been on all sides of this, and I have to say, being able to play in any group at any time is really nice, and I would gladly trade the risk of having a bad game just to play with whoever whenever.

It really comes down to smaller groups losing their pride/stubborness and working together. A lot of times in the group queue, someone will say lets do this, and 2/3 of the team will do that, and the rest will go off by themselves and get killed because they didn't want to cooperate. On the flip side, a small group will say "lets go D5" and the rest will say no or just not do it, and the small group in question will go ahead and do it anyway and get killed.

In either scenario, it is most likely going to end in a wipe, and that isn't the match makers fault. Your chances of success are just so much higher when you decide to do something (other than hide and wait) as a team. Watch your mini map, if you are in a small group and are isolated from your team, you are asking to run into the full force of their team and get kicked to the curb.

You are better off going with a bad strategy as a whole team then going with a good strategy with a couple buddies.

Kjudoon, on 25 September 2014 - 10:23 PM, said:

That solution does not lock out anyone. It turns the Company queue into a free for all gawdaweful mess for those who think they're manly-man enough to handle it, allows groups of 11 and expands your queue. You not only get what you want, but expand what you want with all the Rambos who want to clip off a piece of what you got.

If they really like it, they'll stay. If they get sick of it, they'll leave and return to the form of play they desire.

How can you not be 100% behind this?

I'm not against it, I simply feel the onus should be to play full games, with people who opt for a casual game reaping less rewards than those who play all out.

If we are to use your example, then leave the solo queue alone, except for offering them an option to fill up group queues. If they select this option, they get a reward boost.

Don't restrict groups at all, give them an option to either play casual, or play with no restrictions. If they select no restrictions, then they play with full rewards. If they select casual, they take a penalty on their rewards. My suggestion is a 25% penalty, which increases depending on how many people you have in your group.

That will mean no reduction in the group queue wait times no matter what your group numbers, yet allow people who want to play 'less serious' to have an option to try and do so, as well as discourage serious players from griefing more casual teams.

[totgeboren]

But would these very skilled players who play in 12-mans quit playing if the queue took longer, or would they split into separate lances to keep the queue time lower but continue to play?

I think the important thing is to keep as many people playing.

[Ghogiel]

Valore, on 25 September 2014 - 09:51 PM, said:

Will troll groups still try to opt their 12 man groups into the casual group? Most likely. Discourage that by making the penalty scalar. The larger your group is, the bigger the penalty becomes.

Sometimes you just have to make your own fun in this game.

[Valore]

totgeboren, on 26 September 2014 - 12:10 AM, said:

But would these very skilled players who play in 12-mans quit playing if the queue took longer, or would they split into separate lances to keep the queue time lower but continue to play?

I think the important thing is to keep as many people playing.

Won't speak for others, but my own corp dropped from 80 regulars down to barely 2 lances. Now we are back up to 30 or so regulars, with about 2 groups online nightly.

Many of us do really play for the friends. It's the team aspect that keeps us here, making it hard makes the game far less attractive.

Ghogiel, on 26 September 2014 - 12:14 AM, said:

Sometimes you just have to make your own fun in this game.

Second most fun game after seal clubbing is 'count to see if the csj/as/lords team has more regulars and guess who gets to be the seal this round

[Kirtanus]

I brought my friend in this game and we are playing 2players group. Nothing bad - with my advices we are not suck and a few losses in row is not something strange for this game. Don't bring big groups in group queue until you are sure teammates have at least average skill. Small groups should just not die alone and shoot enemies.

[Ghogiel]

Valore, on 26 September 2014 - 12:27 AM, said:

Won't speak for others, but my own corp dropped from 80 regulars down to barely 2 lances. Now we are back up to 30 or so regulars, with about 2 groups online nightly.

Many of us do really play for the friends. It's the team aspect that keeps us here, making it hard makes the game far less attractive.

I wouldn't play any more if there weren't groups. I only do a PUG session couple times a week at most these days. Every time I do I remember why I usually don't.

[Ace Selin]

Saying 2,3,4 mans aren't fun in group Q is bull. Recently played 2 & 3 mans with a 1/2 friends & a long as they followed the horde we were fine (guys had solo dropped first 25-30 games for cbills etc). Yes if you do silly things like take your 2 guys into the enemies lance you'll die quick and the 10 man wont be in a rush to save you, but that's your fault not the games (for newbies, have them hang back until the brunt of fighting worked well for us). Games were fun and we even won more than half the games we played.

As for solo Q it should rightly be left for solo play only.

[Ghogiel]

Valore, on 26 September 2014 - 12:30 AM, said:

Second most fun game after seal clubbing is 'count to see if the csj/as/lords team has more regulars and guess who gets to be the seal this round

Like this one?



MM putting STS on our team when we were already a 9man, then 4 players with unit tags on the other with some (c) mechs thrown in for ***** and giggles. One of the guys ran out of bounds and exploded in the first 1min of the game because someone came up with a 'plan' and the grid they said to go to was D7... when the noobie in the trial SHD moved there he blew up and bitched to his team mates for it. Rightly so.

Was funny though.

Edited by Ghogiel, 26 September 2014 - 12:48 AM.

[Kjudoon]

Ghogiel, on 26 September 2014 - 12:35 AM, said:

I wouldn't play any more if there weren't groups. I only do a PUG session couple times a week at most these days. Every time I do I remember why I usually don't.

I play solo queue when I want to test out a build quickly and dont' want to embarrass myself with a team and drag them down because if it doesn't work, I'll be back in the mech lab fixing it. Otherwise it is only for competitions or a quick drop or two. But lately, because of rampant Rambotardia in the solo queue, I don't even want to play anymore. Solo play almost had me quit 11 months ago, and I've no interest in going back to it now. The problem is Stomptown has become the old bar joke at closing time "I don't care where you go, but you can't stay here." And I have no place else to go.

So, DCUO it is till then.

BTW, speaking of games to play... this is me in Skirmish mode



Cause I won't play that mode willingly either and this is the game I enjoy playing after being the last man standing in a pug stomp.