481 replies to this topic

[Kjudoon]

Ace Selin, on 26 September 2014 - 12:47 AM, said:

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.

YMMV

[Edustaja]

Kjudoon, on 26 September 2014 - 12:56 AM, said:

And I have no place else to go.
So, DCUO it is till then.

Hey, it's completely ok to take a break from the game if you're feeling burnt out. I took almost a half year break during the last year. Everything will feel a lot more fresh when you come back

[Lily from animove]

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.

If that would be true, but yesterday i dropped in 2 man group with a buddy who is fairly new and unexperienced we had probably a lose streak of 6 or even 7. Yes he is not good at this game, and he died mostlikely as the first with nearly no score, and this is hardly fun. So how about playing as a group like this? Do you think when 2 random PUG lower skilled players make friednship wanting to paly together will have much fun? They won't. And people who do not have fun in a game may go to another game. so not sure if that is healthy for the games population.

[The Wakelord]

Quote

I'm not sure why there is so much hatred and angst being flung about for some people saying "hey, I want to have fun with my friends. We're not very good, so we don't like going up consistently against really skilled people. We like going up against people of our own skill level."

Valore, on 25 September 2014 - 01:04 AM, said:

Because that highlighted part is patently not true and keeps being propagated by people trying to use it as evidence.

There aren't that many 10-12 man groups in the queues. To try and portray that is facetious and disingeneous.

Where did I say 10-12 mans? I didn't, and I didn't on purpose. I'm smart enough to know that skilled players may be in more than 1 group. It could be 2 sets of 4 really skilled players, or a 8+2 skilled players. The group size can matter, but it is the Elo I care about.

I wouldn't care if I fought vs a 12 man of a similar skill level.

Regardless, you avoid my question. Why are you, Valore, and your buddies, hating so hard on people on lower skill brackets wanting to have a fun game?

Note: Because you have trouble reading what it written, I will try to be more clear.
1) Skill bracket: A rough approximation (say by elo) of a player/group's skill. This does not take into account things like build build but may take into account average dmg, or k/d ratios, or even the number of modules taken [modules being end game content generally]
2) Hating on: Wildly misreading things so they are offensive to you then complaining
3) Fun game: A game organised by skill level, not to make the numbers match up. Ideally where the final score is 12-5 or higher
4) Fun: A fair game. Win or lose is irrelevant most of the time (a close game is a good game. a 12v0 is only fun for 1 side, and only fun some of the time for that side)
5) Winning: Just to reiterate, I am not requesting 50~100% win rate, and not requesting winning just because I'm playing. I'm not requesting to win regardless of my tactics.

Quote

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 sounds about right. The MM relies on the group size above all else.

A simple fix would be to make the matches not always be 12 vs 12. That'd allow greater Elo accuracy & more variation in gameplay, so win-win.

Saxie, on 25 September 2014 - 05:50 PM, said:

No one is saying you are QQ'ing or L2P, the game should be enjoyable for you. Well everyone for that matter. I would expect PGI to look into it and see whats going on.

Oh Saxie, how I wish you were right.

Quote

MWO at the moment is a very core game, meaning that the playerbase of grouped play is pretty tightly knit. There are not a a huge number of these small casual groups. There are also not a huge amount of groups in general in the queue.

Do you ever wonder why it is a core?

Perhaps because many new players that join with their friends get rolled in the significant majority of matches due to matching on group-size not Elo. e game does not flash up a warning when you enter group queue saying that the the group queue is hardcore, or give any indication it would be much more different than a PUG match except now you get to play with your friends. I'm one of the many repeating cases where I've invited friends, played together for 2 nights, then they uninstall MWO due to complexity, lack of information and poor gameplay.

Side-note: Pika explains things well. Good work Pika.

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.

Why? As you've pointed out, a large group can (and does) become small groups. If the wait time for a big group is too big, split into smaller groups. You now have the option of a (potential) long wait with your ideal, large group, or the option to split into smaller groups for a faster match.
The game should be focused on generating fun for the largest number of people, not to cater to the exclusivity of the large groups to roll small groups.

[DeRazer]

Fonzie260, on 23 September 2014 - 10:38 AM, said:

Here's a solution,


Join a Clan. Even Clans have casual players and groups for such occasions.

But they also have "rules" and "training" and all sorts of stuff "casual" people can't be bothered with.

[DeRazer]

Suggestion. Permit 2 or 4 man groups in the Solo queue.. BUT... the MM puts them (1 or 2) on different teams!

Can still chat with your buddy if on voice - but no real advantage as they can't talk about the game! (I recall a post from Russ which said 2 man groups only had around a 3% advantage in solo games anway)!

I'd love this way to still be able to grind the Cbills AND shove some ballistic in the face of my pals!

[Lily from animove]

Josef Koba, on 25 September 2014 - 09:55 AM, said:

I feel your pain; I really do. I'd just be surprised if you got a lot of sympathy around here. Any other time it's been brought up it's met with "No way should two mans be put back into the solo queue!" When I started playing two years ago (before 12 man teams) I dropped solo. Then I got a buddy of mine into it and we started dropping together, and for a short time we had a full lance but the other two didn't feel competitive and lost interest. With the introduction of the new matchmaker and placing two mans in the team queue, I'm better off dropping solo again. While I still score near the top on any given team, we lose far more often than we win. Now that the unit initials are included, we can tell, usually, what we're facing in the OPFOR and what we have on our side. It's utterly demoralizing to see a full twelve man on the opposite side while we're serving as mere filler for our team. And that's how we feel; we're just filler as a two man drop. Sure, we have been on hodge podge teams and embarrassed 12 man drops, but it's pretty rare. I'd estimate that in over 50% of the matches we are routed (anything from a 12-1 to a 12-3 loss). It's frustrating to feel, rightly or wrongly, that we're just filling slots to be slaughtered by organized, competitive teams who play together all the time on comms. Do I complain about it? Not generally, but it's not that fun these days to drop with my lancemate. I'm not asking for a competitive edge so that me and my comrade can stomp PUGs, so I don't have a solution. I'm sure that a group of 12 individuals will feel as frustrated if they drop against six 2 man teams. But neither he nor I have the time or inclination to join an established unit, which seems to be about the only way we can play the game in the team queue with a reasonable chance of winning at a 50% rate. Two man life in the group queue is as frustrating as any PUG game, and probably more so that a solo guy dropping against a team (as were the days of old).

Edit: If my other friends were to want to fire MWO back up and drop as a four man, I can guess with a reasonable degree of certainty that they'd quit in about ten matches. They're not very good yet, and I doubt they would improve dramatically by being slaughtered by 10 and 12 man teams. In fact, I'd guess that dropping as a less skilled four man is more detrimental to success than dropping with only two. Yes, sure, private matches and all that. But that might get boring after a bit. Again, no solution, probably, unless the player base grows dramatically larger.

much of this, if you are 2 skilled palyers, chances to have fun even in losing group games are good. But what about people who choose friends for being friends and not by skill? I can not bring any of my regular gaming friends to the group queue. Because they don't have much fun there. They are not competitive enough. Even if we win they didn't had much fun.

Lyoto Machida, on 25 September 2014 - 12:20 PM, said:

No! I don't want to get on comms with other people...it's scary!

I just want to play in silence with only one other friend while groups on TS abuse us.

Even if using TS, it doesn't helps lower skilled players that much.

Edited by Lily from animove, 26 September 2014 - 02:56 AM.

[Widowmaker1981]

Given the following conditions are true, how would you fix this though?

i) Small groups (2 and 3 man) in the solo queue would be too open to abuse by small teams of ubers farming.

ii) without 3 man groups in the group queue, matches would almost never form if you queued with 5, 7 or 9 people

iii) without 2 man groups in the group queue, matches would literally never form if you queued with 10 people.

the only solution i can see being even remotely possible is limiting group queue to 8 max or full 12, and letting 2-3 man groups have the choice, but see issue i) and i think the flames would be worse from that.

Or your small 2 group could jump on one of the open teamspeak servers and join in with a bigger group. there are plenty of casual 6-10 mans to join, you can have fun like that and not get stomped.

All that said, i do see there is an issue with people wanting to play with only their couple of mates - small groups get the short end of the stick... but i think someone HAS to, and i dont currently see a fairer way.

[Lily from animove]

Widowmaker1981, on 26 September 2014 - 02:42 AM, said:

Given the following conditions are true, how would you fix this though?

i) Small groups (2 and 3 man) in the solo queue would be too open to abuse by small teams of ubers farming.

ii) without 3 man groups in the group queue, matches would almost never form if you queued with 5, 7 or 9 people

iii) without 2 man groups in the group queue, matches would literally never form if you queued with 10 people.

the only solution i can see being even remotely possible is limiting group queue to 8 max or full 12, and letting 2-3 man groups have the choice, but see issue i) and i think the flames would be worse from that.

Or your small 2 group could jump on one of the open teamspeak servers and join in with a bigger group. there are plenty of casual 6-10 mans to join, you can have fun like that and not get stomped.

All that said, i do see there is an issue with people wanting to play with only their couple of mates - small groups get the short end of the stick... but i think someone HAS to, and i dont currently see a fairer way.

The problem is small groups are more than large groups, and so more players are impacted by the short stick. The problem is small groups is what Puggers first turn into before going big groups, so the whole groupqueue is affected by the short stick to drive most people bakc to Pugland, or even totally off the game.

And lets say 2 very skilled palyers get by the randomnes of queueing in pug solo be thrown in the same team make such a MCUH more difference then 2 skilled players as a premade group? I don't think so. A single skilled player cna abuse pugland as much as a 2 man grp of skilled players. And MM shold rather easily be able to find at leats one other 2 man group of equal skill to put them into the same match on the other side.

[Valore]

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.

Psh. Strengthens your back. Builds character. How else can you carry harder?

Ghogiel, on 26 September 2014 - 12:47 AM, said:

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.

Sometimes, I don't even look at the team lists before the match. First sign some of the regulars are on the other side is when you start taking return gauss fire.

The Wakelord, on 26 September 2014 - 01:36 AM, said:

Where did I say 10-12 mans? I didn't, and I didn't on purpose. I'm smart enough to know that skilled players may be in more than 1 group. It could be 2 sets of 4 really skilled players, or a 8+2 skilled players. The group size can matter, but it is the Elo I care about.

I wouldn't care if I fought vs a 12 man of a similar skill level.

Regardless, you avoid my question. Why are you, Valore, and your buddies, hating so hard on people on lower skill brackets wanting to have a fun game?

To answer the first part of your question, you may not have, but that's not what a lot of people on your side seem to be arguing.

If you really are just concerned about the skill part of it, then my solution proposed addresses that:

Valore, on 26 September 2014 - 12:07 AM, said:

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.

The Wakelord, on 26 September 2014 - 01:36 AM, said:

Why? As you've pointed out, a large group can (and does) become small groups. If the wait time for a big group is too big, split into smaller groups. You now have the option of a (potential) long wait with your ideal, large group, or the option to split into smaller groups for a faster match.
The game should be focused on generating fun for the largest number of people, not to cater to the exclusivity of the large groups to roll small groups.

I'm amazed you need to ask such a question, but I guess its the same feeling I get when I don't understand why some people choose to shirk away from competition rather than try to get better. I'll take your question at face value, and answer accordingly.

Being FORCED into splitting into smaller groups, is different from doing so because we don't happen to have the numbers at the moment.

What would be your response, if PGI suddenly decided 'Okay, there's only a solo queue, or a full 12 man queue. Nothing in between'? If you didn't have enough friends to fill a 12 man, I'd assume you'd feel really annoyed, because you were forced out of playing with your friends.

So why is it that's not okay, but its perfectly okay to punish people who happen to have more friends/bigger social groups? Why is it okay that we get to exclude people?

You can claim that we would merely have 'longer' wait times, but anyone who was in an organised unit during the 4 or 12 man only stage of the MM can tell you that was BS. The 12 man queue was a deserted, self-fulfilling prophecy. Because it was slow to get games, less and less people used it, resulting in even harder to find games.

Furthermore, as you can see even in this thread, there ARE people who are in small groups, who still have no issues fighting bigger groups. This is exactly what I was mentioning earlier, and the reason why this thread gets very argumentative. Because people keep making assumptions and conjecture with no basis, while trying to portray anecdotal evidence as gospel.

TBH, you and I are not as far apart as some of the other more extreme people on your side of the argument. If you're concerned solely about skill levels, then fine, give bigger groups an ELO multiplier or boost, put them against more skilled smaller groups. I'm fine with that.

At the end of the day, as long as we get to fight someone within a reasonable time with my friends, without having to jump through hoops, I can live with that.

Edited by Valore, 26 September 2014 - 04:51 AM.

[Widowmaker1981]

Lily from animove, on 26 September 2014 - 03:02 AM, said:

The problem is small groups are more than large groups, and so more players are impacted by the short stick. The problem is small groups is what Puggers first turn into before going big groups, so the whole groupqueue is affected by the short stick to drive most people bakc to Pugland, or even totally off the game.

And lets say 2 very skilled palyers get by the randomnes of queueing in pug solo be thrown in the same team make such a MCUH more difference then 2 skilled players as a premade group? I don't think so. A single skilled player cna abuse pugland as much as a 2 man grp of skilled players. And MM shold rather easily be able to find at leats one other 2 man group of equal skill to put them into the same match on the other side.

I would agree with you if the ingame comms options werent so utterly useless - since people in groups are on voice comms together (unless they have been bashed over the head with the stupid stick since birth) they have an absurd advantage over people who arent. stopping to type in combat gets you killed... at least small groups have the option of asking whoever they get bundled with what TS server they are on and joining

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 26 September 2014 - 04:25 AM.

[Haipyng]

Valore, on 25 September 2014 - 06:36 PM, said:

Because as many have pointed out, any effort to split the queues is in effect an effort to ruin the large group queue. Mainly because we don't have the numbers for a further split.

It is not an effort to ruin the large group queue. That is your perception. It's an effort to make a middle ground stepping stone so more people can enjoy the game and hopefully step up to the less restrictive large group queue.

Valore, on 25 September 2014 - 06:36 PM, said:

Which would be something to consider IF every other game put small groups up against a large group.

Not every other game penalizes you for dropping out of a match that is stacked. It's against the TOS to join and drop. Your mech is also locked up for the time that match runs.

Valore, on 25 September 2014 - 06:36 PM, said:

But as many of us have pointed out, this is an untruth that many championing the small group queue keep propagating.

If people would stop spreading that lie, then maybe discussions would be more civil.

Until then, as long as this discussion stems from a false premise, discussions are unlikely to be productive or constructive.

Again this is your perception and you see it as a lie. I have zero desire to ruin anyone else's fun. I just want to be able to enjoy this aspect of a game I otherwise love. This isn't just a one or two people complaining about it. I know of several other that quit on this issue that can't be bothered to comment.

It will only be unproductive if we assume any opposition to our point is lying to get some hidden agenda accomplished. Nothing is black or white and there are always two sides to an issue.

[Mott]

Edustaja, on 25 September 2014 - 06:48 PM, said:

He was talking about running a very loose 2-4 man group, mostly with his friends that are new to the game. They want to have a casual and fun experience and shoot some mechs in the face. He probably does not want to wait for a long time for the match though.

No, i wasn't. My unit is good. We have good communication and talented pilots. I'm not looking for relaxed play when i drop in group Q, i'm looking for fair play.

In my example - which took place last weekend - we had 2-4 experienced veteran (often great) MWO pilots + 1 (read ONE) newbie i was introducing to the game. As long as we were the filler/fodder, we were rolled. As soon as we had 6+ players in our group, we did the rolling. No change in pilot skills or abilities, but a BIG change in how the MM built the matches.

Not difficult to understand.

MM taking a team of 8, 9, 10 or 12 and then filling the rest of the match bracket around them with a patchwork of smaller teams is leading to steamrolls.

[Spurowny]

The only true solution to the dilemma presented in this thread is a larger population.

Most immediately, an increase in the number of large(ish) groups in the Que.

To this end, I ask all of you who are dropping in smaller groups to take that extra step and look for other small

groups of people to team up with. The community has great tools available to facilitate casual groups.

http://www.nogutsnogalaxy.net/ has it's community outreach server available to everyone.

larger numbers of large groups reduces the number of small groups that have to be pulled in to fill out a

match. This reduces the number of matches where larger numbers of small groups are pulled together to fight

single large groups. While it doesn't stop small groups from having to face groups larger then they are, it does

even the odds a bit. I know it requires some effort and a little trust that the people won't all suck. but check it

out. everyone playing the game is doing it to have fun.

Edited by Spurowny, 26 September 2014 - 05:38 AM.

[L A V A]

This week I participated in 20 10/12 mans and we lost 2.

I know it wasn't fun for most of the folks we played... and to be quite honest, it wasn't that much fun for me either.

We need better match ups... one way or another.

[Triordinant]

DeRazer, on 26 September 2014 - 01:44 AM, said:

Suggestion. Permit 2 or 4 man groups in the Solo queue.. BUT... the MM puts them (1 or 2) on different teams!

Can still chat with your buddy if on voice - but no real advantage as they can't talk about the game! (I recall a post from Russ which said 2 man groups only had around a 3% advantage in solo games anway)!

I'd love this way to still be able to grind the Cbills AND shove some ballistic in the face of my pals!

This is exactly what Russ Bullock said about any groups in the solo queue.

[Kjudoon]

I'm going to coin a term here in regards to groups: Elo Granularity

What is meant by this is the same thing that is dealt with in TTRPGs when you are dealing with the changes in effect caused by the probability of results on dice. For example:

1d4 = 25% chance per side of a result
1d6 = 16.3% (approximately... I'm doing this from memory)
1d8 = 12.5%
1d10 = 10%
1d12 = 8.3%
1d20 = 5%

As you can see, each individual side matters less and less increasing the granularity.

So what am I getting at? Simple, the greater the differential of elo in a group, the greater the degree of influence it will have over an averaged elo as broken down by the percentage of the group.

That means one very high elo in a 12man would count for 8.3% of the total score. So one extremely good player in a group of 11 scrubs means that he would have very little impact in the overall elo, but he would then be matched against people of similar skill as the scrubs he was with. On the other hand, if he was only a member of a 4 man, suddenly his elo represents 25% of the total score, forcing a higher level match.

You can also notice that you will achieve the same results if 3 members of a 12man have similar high scores, and will influence approximately the same 25% as one in a 4man lance. That begs the question of 'so what's the big deal? They're both good players." Yes... and the elos would be similar and of similar composition... IF the other 2 lances followed the same pattern and percentages. BUT... if they don't, suddenly you have 3 high level players running amok against a whole lot of scrubs and one good player. There is no chance for them. Those three coordinated players, with their 8 other members playing cannon fodder should mop the floor with them because the scrubs are of equal level and the one single good player against them should be overwhelmed unless he's a tactical master or has very willing subordinates (which when broken into 2 other uncoordinated lances is now nigh impossible).

This is one of the major reason why solo queue has better matching in many ways because elo is calcuated individually, and why sync drops are NOT the boogymen some claim they are. Even if the people dropped solo, unintentionally synced, they'd still have ended up in the same match for the same reason: they're equally as good as the parameters of the match.

The larger the group, the worse the elo granularity becomes. Bigger differentials can be hidden and exploited, particularly when against smaller groups who can't coordinate with one another. I keep seeing the tipping point at around 6-8 players at the largest where this granularity becomes a huge problem. 5man, not so much but it's still noticeable.

This is ultimately the same argument made for why we needed a solo queue, which I 100% agree we did, and still should preserve intact. It's also the reason why we should have had skirmish queue as much as I dislike it, I fully think that it was necessary for this game to improve.

Now, adding in the "Caveat Emptor" Opt In clauses for anyone who wants to risk the next level higher of play (Solo to Lance to Company) there is no reason why a third queue should not exist for small groups. I've never heard someone say "I don't want solo players in my queue." Volare is providing excellent examples of a demand for small groups to be forced to play against large groups in an inverted idea that the game is supposed to support 12mans first, and solo players and small groups last.

We should heed the warning of "Caveat Emptor" very much, but this is showing more and more conclusively that Elo Granularity is a huge problem, and the current best solution is a third small group queue, with the proven "Opt In" option available for all who choose it.

[Haipyng]

Edustaja, on 26 September 2014 - 01:22 AM, said:

[/size]

Hey, it's completely ok to take a break from the game if you're feeling burnt out. I took almost a half year break during the last year. Everything will feel a lot more fresh when you come back

Considering the pace and way development is going it WILL be a fresh game when it gets back.

[Kjudoon]

xLAVAx, on 26 September 2014 - 06:02 AM, said:

This week I participated in 20 10/12 mans and we lost 2.

I know it wasn't fun for most of the folks we played... and to be quite honest, it wasn't that much fun for me either.

We need better match ups... one way or another.

It ill serves the really competitive teams to not give them real quality meat 12man competition, instead of just feeding them the meat byproduct dogfood offered by PUG 12mans. I've seen my fellow competitive Seraphim go up against you guys and know quite well what you're capable of and what you need to improve. I personally don't like getting gnawed on by your pack of pitbulls in that fashion anymore, but hope you will find more of what you want/need in the future and with CW coming, I think you're going to get it.

[Jon Gotham]

Valore, on 26 September 2014 - 04:13 AM, said:

Furthermore, as you can see even in this thread, there ARE people who are in small groups, who still have no issues fighting bigger groups. This is exactly what I was mentioning earlier, and the reason why this thread gets very argumentative. Because people keep making assumptions and conjecture with no basis, while trying to portray anecdotal evidence as gospel.

Both ends of the arguments are more than guilty of that matey. Just because there are small groups who are not bothered, does mean things are fine. It simply means those people are not bothered or can't see the problem.
Just because you and others feel a certain way, does not mean you are right-it means you have one opinion.

Triordinant, on 26 September 2014 - 06:02 AM, said:

This is exactly what Russ Bullock said about any groups in the solo queue.

Enough now. I know you are trying to protect your empire so to speak, but constantly reffing Russ's words to back it up is getting rather tiresome.It's done in real world politics and it's just as distasteful there.
You got what you wanted and now others have to suffer, you won.
Stop it now please.