481 replies to this topic

[Squally160]

Kjudoon, on 27 September 2014 - 06:15 PM, said:

I see. So your fun is based on abusing people who don't enjoy being abused, plus your fun is superior to other people's fun and therefore be the punching bag or leave because we incorrectly believe any change will threaten our favorite way to play the game?

Good luck with that line of thinking and thanks for proving how entitled and selfish that philosophy is.

I'm sure you and your trollish legions will spend much more money and make the game far more successful for PGI as we all go somewhere else.





....aaaaand another false equivalency and choices.

If you have read any of my posts, I do not want to go up agaisnt "punching bag" teams. I just want to be able to play, same as you. Do you think tactical/comp teams sit around and wait to drop until there is 8+ of us on? No, we drop with what we have and do our best to win regardless of what we are up against.

People in here, do not share that mindset, and thats fine, but dont segregate us into a special q because less of us are on right now. Do you really think small groups would like it anymore being rolled by a lance of 4, as opposed to a group of 8? I doubt it.

Honestly, what you guys should be screaming for is better Elo matching, rather than your own q.

[Kjudoon]

Squally160, on 27 September 2014 - 06:21 PM, said:

If you have read any of my posts, I do not want to go up agaisnt "punching bag" teams. I just want to be able to play, same as you. Do you think tactical/comp teams sit around and wait to drop until there is 8+ of us on? No, we drop with what we have and do our best to win regardless of what we are up against.

People in here, do not share that mindset, and thats fine, but dont segregate us into a special q because less of us are on right now. Do you really think small groups would like it anymore being rolled by a lance of 4, as opposed to a group of 8? I doubt it.

Honestly, what you guys should be screaming for is better Elo matching, rather than your own q.

I'm in a unit that has 7 companies of 12 or more. 2 of which compete in third party tournys and do well. I know precisely what competitive teams do when they don't have 12. Lance practice happens, 8 man drops... all of that.

The point is 4 man lances are easier to balance and get closer matches than anything over 6 it seems. The better the Elo Granularity, the better chance for good matches, the less suprises hidden in groups, the less need for elo inflation or deflation by the MM. The best elo matches are the solo queue, even in a sync drop because if your elo isn't in the range, you don't get in. I posted earlier the math on that, and that ten 12man teams can ruin the week for around 9-10 THOUSAND people in MWO at best and drive a portion of that away never to return causing the crisis of getting people to play with you in larger groups.

You are not being 'segregated' as I have posted in the past like some pariahs any more than the solo queue. There MUST be a middle ground here using Opt In functions. Just in case people haven't seen it:

1. Solo Queue (individual players only)
2. Lance Queue (Groups of 2-4 with opt in Solo players)
3. Company Queue (Groups of 5+ with opt in Solo and Lance Queue teams)

Do this and the following happens:

The player base expands with solo players who enjoy the challenge.
Solo Players are protected from all groups
Social / Casual players are protected from competitive teams practicing in larger than a lance as was tradition
Team players get more options including 11man groups.

Furthermore, if you offer the ability to match/drop in teams 8+ as another option, you expand the ability to match better AND vary the gamestyle more giving back the Closed Beta level of 8v8 which would make a LOT of people happy too.

I cannot understand how ANYONE would not want such a plan to go into effect.

Edited by Kjudoon, 27 September 2014 - 06:49 PM.

[Valore]

Kjudoon, on 27 September 2014 - 06:48 PM, said:

I cannot understand how ANYONE would not want such a plan to go into effect.

One easy concern I have with that.

Hoping people 'opt in' isn't good enough. That's basically the gist of it. Yes, you want to call us on being selfish on this point, that's fine.

But leaving the possibility that people don't opt in, and the 5+ queue becomes excruciatingly slow, is not an option any of us would support.

I hope that answers your question as to why people don't think your idea is the dog's bollocks.

Any solution, that provides a chance that a certain segment, whether a big group, small group, or solo, gets locked out from getting a game, whether it is a hard lock programmed into the game itself, or a 'soft' lock resulting because the filtering levels were too stringent, is not acceptable to us.

I will support a solution that TRIES to match bigger groups first, AND gives us an Elo handicap against smaller groups. But it must also allow for a maximum waiting time, before it then becomes less stringent and starts broadening search criteria.

Hopefully that gives you a better understanding of why we're at an impasse.

[Squally160]

Kjudoon, on 27 September 2014 - 06:48 PM, said:

I'm in a unit that has 7 companies of 12 or more. 2 of which compete in third party tournys and do well. I know precisely what competitive teams do when they don't have 12. Lance practice happens, 8 man drops... all of that.

The point is 4 man lances are easier to balance and get closer matches than anything over 6 it seems. The better the Elo Granularity, the better chance for good matches, the less suprises hidden in groups, the less need for elo inflation or deflation by the MM. The best elo matches are the solo queue, even in a sync drop because if your elo isn't in the range, you don't get in. I posted earlier the math on that, and that ten 12man teams can ruin the week for around 9-10 THOUSAND people in MWO at best and drive a portion of that away never to return causing the crisis of getting people to play with you in larger groups.

You are not being 'segregated' as I have posted in the past like some pariahs any more than the solo queue. There MUST be a middle ground here using Opt In functions. Just in case people haven't seen it:

1. Solo Queue (individual players only)
2. Lance Queue (Groups of 2-4 with opt in Solo players)
3. Company Queue (Groups of 5+ with opt in Solo and Lance Queue teams)

Do this and the following happens:

The player base expands with solo players who enjoy the challenge.
Solo Players are protected from all groups
Social / Casual players are protected from competitive teams practicing in larger than a lance as was tradition
Team players get more options including 11man groups.

Furthermore, if you offer the ability to match/drop in teams 8+ as another option, you expand the ability to match better AND vary the gamestyle more giving back the Closed Beta level of 8v8 which would make a LOT of people happy too.

I cannot understand how ANYONE would not want such a plan to go into effect.

I am fairly ok with this solution.

However, do you really think 9-10k peoples weeks are ruined based on 1 bad match? as your math is based on?

even in a small group, I have MANY more good games, than bad games. But maybe i am not stuck in elo hell.

Valore, on 27 September 2014 - 07:09 PM, said:

One easy concern I have with that.

Hoping people 'opt in' isn't good enough. That's basically the gist of it. Yes, you want to call us on being selfish on this point, that's fine.

But leaving the possibility that people don't opt in, and the 5+ queue becomes excruciatingly slow, is not an option any of us would support.

I hope that answers your question as to why people don't think your idea is the dog's bollocks.

Any solution, that provides a chance that a certain segment, whether a big group, small group, or solo, gets locked out from getting a game, whether it is a hard lock programmed into the game itself, or a 'soft' lock resulting because the filtering levels were too stringent, is not acceptable to us.

I will support a solution that TRIES to match bigger groups first, AND gives us an Elo handicap against smaller groups. But it must also allow for a maximum waiting time, before it then becomes less stringent and starts broadening search criteria.

Hopefully that gives you a better understanding of why we're at an impasse.

Itd be nice if we had some sort of display of our Elo. Maybe past a certain level you auto-opt in no questions asked? Only way to turn it off, is if a brand new player is with you, ionno.

[Kjudoon]

Quote

Hoping people 'opt in' isn't good enough. That's basically the gist of it. Yes, you want to call us on being selfish on this point, that's fine.

Then you're being unreasonable and not worth talking to on the subject till you start taking into account other people's desires and PGI's survival into your considerations.

Quote

I am fairly ok with this solution.

However, do you really think 9-10k peoples weeks are ruined based on 1 bad match? as your math is based on?

even in a small group, I have MANY more good games, than bad games. But maybe i am not stuck in elo hell

I did the math in an earlier post showing how 10 12man teams who are out there practicing for 2 hours in prime time every night can really upset almost 10k people who face against them. It's probably more towards 5000 a week, but that is also generously assuming that the 12mans only won a paltry 75% of the time but 90% of them are stomps of victory with 8+ kills. (which considering what usually happens, is fairly accurate)

Even I was shocked. I also know that prime time happens at 4 times around the world according to PGI's statements in CW Phase 2 (USEast, USWest, EU and Pacific/Asia), This means these numbers could EASILY be quadrupled on top of it all. THis does not take into account sub 12man groups doing the same thing because that's getting into far more complex math for my little head to do in his off time.

The point is, an entitled few demanding protection of their stompfests causes discontent with MWO group queue as a whole by a factor of 800-1000% of their numbers to be fair. PGI cannot afford to alienate this size of a crowd and must look at a way to resolve this issue. My solution with a tweak by Aym will go a long way to fixing that and preserve much of what the 5+ crowd wants. Everyone gets their own play style and protection using Opt In gateways just like you would for game mode Opt In. (I won't willingly play skirmish for instance, and glad they have it for those who love it)

There is no reason for the impasse. In fact, the people standing in the way of this solution are pretty much the reason the solution is needed, the same way the solo queue was needed.

[Hoax415]

This entire thread is a waste of time.

The people crying are acting as if there exists some ruleset or gameplay in competitive pvp where nobody loses.

Someone always loses. That's how this works.

So when your complaints really boil down to, "I'm losing too much and its the game's fault". There really isn't anything to do.

That isn't a problem that can be solved. Except by "forcing" someone else to be the one losing instead of you.

The reality is in every game with a matchmaking system you find people like this who swear up and down they will be quitting tomorrow if something isn't done and post over and over and over demanding this "problem" be fixed.

Nothing but pve fixes this problem though. In a pvp game everyone can't win.

[Valore]

I'm being unreasonable, when your proposed basically says 'hopefully you get a game' but proposes no compromise if we don't?

Hypocrisy much?

[Kjudoon]

Yes, this thread is now entrenched and advancing nothing.

That said, PvE is the best solution for those that care nothing for competing against other players and PGI's player pool is so small this could be devestating... even though I want it... I almost don't want it for this reason.

And yes, in a game format like this, one side wins, the other loses. The issue isn't that, the issue is making sure both sides have a chance and aren't just the punching bag for a group of elites. There is a big problem with the MM, and this is well established. One way to combat this is to allow for players to gauge the level of challenge they face. Often the size of the group will determine the difficulty of the challenge, because of elo balancing and averaging being... well, not so great. So shrinking the group sizes and making 'size pools', you fix that problem to a good degree.

Stomps help no one over time because one side gets disillusioned if it continually happens to the same players while the other might quit if there is no challenge. Both sides are hurt, and then the game gets smaller because players don't want to play that way anymore.

Valore, on 27 September 2014 - 07:43 PM, said:

I'm being unreasonable, when your proposed basically says 'hopefully you get a game' but proposes no compromise if we don't?

Hypocrisy much?

I proposed a solution, you actually agreed to it, but now have reversed your attitude about it and accuse me of being a hypocrite? You are not negotiating in good faith, and are just looking for reason to ignore, criticize unfairly and create false equivalencies if your recent posts are any indication. How about YOU propose a way to improve it that is not the status quo. That position is not acceptable.

Demanding a compromise when you have no intention of doing so yourself is unreasonable and deceitful.

Edited by Kjudoon, 27 September 2014 - 07:51 PM.

[Squally160]

Kjudoon, on 27 September 2014 - 07:24 PM, said:

Then you're being unreasonable and not worth talking to on the subject till you start taking into account other people's desires and PGI's survival into your considerations.



I did the math in an earlier post showing how 10 12man teams who are out there practicing for 2 hours in prime time every night can really upset almost 10k people who face against them. It's probably more towards 5000 a week, but that is also generously assuming that the 12mans only won a paltry 75% of the time but 90% of them are stomps of victory with 8+ kills. (which considering what usually happens, is fairly accurate)

Even I was shocked. I also know that prime time happens at 4 times around the world according to PGI's statements in CW Phase 2 (USEast, USWest, EU and Pacific/Asia), This means these numbers could EASILY be quadrupled on top of it all. THis does not take into account sub 12man groups doing the same thing because that's getting into far more complex math for my little head to do in his off time.

The point is, an entitled few demanding protection of their stompfests causes discontent with MWO group queue as a whole by a factor of 800-1000% of their numbers to be fair. PGI cannot afford to alienate this size of a crowd and must look at a way to resolve this issue. My solution with a tweak by Aym will go a long way to fixing that and preserve much of what the 5+ crowd wants. Everyone gets their own play style and protection using Opt In gateways just like you would for game mode Opt In. (I won't willingly play skirmish for instance, and glad they have it for those who love it)

There is no reason for the impasse. In fact, the people standing in the way of this solution are pretty much the reason the solution is needed, the same way the solo queue was needed.

Again though, you are basing this off each player only facing a 12 man once, and their entire night is ruined?

Ok.... toughen up? seriously?

Should we all stop playing if we get a 12-0 loss? Or should you try again.

As well, based on your numbers, youre saying the 10 big man groups should go get pushed into a different q, so the 5k other folks dont have to deal with ONE bad game a week? seriously?

While we get 1 game a night, maybe?

[Mystere]

Lorgarn, on 27 September 2014 - 11:04 AM, said:

Honestly, I cant take it anymore. Cant play in PUG because you have to play with Beavis and Butt-Head then, cant do groups ether because you cant just bring a friend because you get trampled.

You insult the PUG queue and yet get mad when told to L2P in the group queue. What is that word I am thinking of?

jaxjace, on 27 September 2014 - 02:02 PM, said:

Taking a break for a few days myself. Its either get 4 kills and lose on solo que or manage maybe 400 dmg in the group que and lose. **** it. im waiting for an update on the matchmaker.

Killing 4 in the solo queue even when losing is not so bad at all.

[Mystere]

Kjudoon, on 27 September 2014 - 06:07 PM, said:

No one... and I repeat NO ONE has said to do away with the 5+ queue. It's just you should be dealing with other 5+ groups nearly exclusively, or with those who want to get punched in the face by you.

Firstly, I did not read all 20 pages. As such, pardon me if I missed something. Having said that ...

Here's the problem with having a queue of only 5-man and higher groups. How are 8, 9, 10, and 11-man groups supposed to be filled to 12 if solos and 2-4 person groups are not allowed or chose not to join? The same holds for combinations that need 1-4 people to complete 12.

Brody319, on 27 September 2014 - 04:11 PM, said:

me and a friend I was showing the game off too get into a fight. I leave to go to the bathroom while we connect. Come back, the start up is happening. We play for about 10 minutes before we are all dead. Then the stat screen pops up. The enemy team was ALL in the same clan, 12 people group drop, vs a bunch of tiny groups. Why is this fair? If i bring 1 person with me, just put us in the solo drops. We aren't going to be dominating with 2 mechs. Just put us in the match with the solo droppers.

If 2-man groups are allowed, why not 3? And if 3 are allowed, why not 4? Do you see the problem? Unfortunate as it may seem, solo-only and group-only separation is much easier.

And before anyone thinks otherwise, I play only solo and have been since the very beginning.

[Kjudoon]

Squally160, on 27 September 2014 - 07:57 PM, said:

Again though, you are basing this off each player only facing a 12 man once, and their entire night is ruined?

Ok.... toughen up? seriously?

Should we all stop playing if we get a 12-0 loss? Or should you try again.

As well, based on your numbers, youre saying the 10 big man groups should go get pushed into a different q, so the 5k other folks dont have to deal with ONE bad game a week? seriously?

While we get 1 game a night, maybe?

Fine, you believe what you want and the game will continue to shrink as bad experiences continue to mount. You only hurt yourself by denying it's happening and petulantly scream that things must remain the same.

Remember, the group queue is a recent creation... maybe only 10weeks old? And it was created only because Solo players demanded to be culled out, and deservedly so. Look again at my solution. EVERYONE gets what they want.

So, enough with the entitlement pout, okay?

[Squally160]

Kjudoon, on 27 September 2014 - 08:21 PM, said:

Fine, you believe what you want and the game will continue to shrink as bad experiences continue to mount. You only hurt yourself by denying it's happening and petulantly scream that things must remain the same.

Remember, the group queue is a recent creation... maybe only 10weeks old? And it was created only because Solo players demanded to be culled out, and deservedly so. Look again at my solution. EVERYONE gets what they want.

So, enough with the entitlement pout, okay?

.... I am using your math as an example. You say 5k players go up against a 12 man once a week/night, and after that one time they quit?
So they come and rage after a SINGLE game according to your logic.

[Kjudoon]

Quote

Firstly, I did not read all 20 pages. As such, pardon me if I missed something. Having said that ...

Here's the problem with having a queue of only 5-man and higher groups. How are 8, 9, 10, and 11-man groups supposed to be filled to 12 if solos and 2-4 person groups are not allowed or chose not to join? The same holds for combinations that need 1-4 people to complete 12.

Opt in Solo and 2-4man groups. If you think you're all that and a bag of chips, have at it.

Also, if you allow matches of 8v8 and so forth, that problem goes away instantly. Only have 11men? Fine. A 5+6 can help alleviate that load, or a single player can opt in and you're suddenly in an 11v11 or 12v12. Issue solved group flexibility increased and you're still going against group of equal size and supposedly balanced elo (I know hide your laughter).

Nobody's prohibited from going 'larger' but they cannot go 'smaller'.

Squally160, on 27 September 2014 - 08:25 PM, said:

.... I am using your math as an example. You say 5k players go up against a 12 man once a week/night, and after that one time they quit?
So they come and rage after a SINGLE game according to your logic.

TEN 12man groups is what it's based on.

Go back and read my post. I'm not going to find it for you. Quit being lazy and misunderstanding the example because of it; if you have a problem with it, go to the source.

Edited by Kjudoon, 27 September 2014 - 08:28 PM.

[-Natural Selection-]

Kjudoon, on 27 September 2014 - 06:48 PM, said:

1. Solo Queue (individual players only)
2. Lance Queue (Groups of 2-4 with opt in Solo players)
3. Company Queue (Groups of 5+ with opt in Solo and Lance Queue teams)


I cannot understand how ANYONE would not want such a plan to go into effect.

Only issue I see with this is that the que was similar to #2 before. And despite both teams landing with multiple 4 man groups on each side, people still complained. Seen MANY matches where we knew none of the other players, and people cried sync drop because 6 or 7 people had the same "faction". Hence why teams were limited to a single group per team.

And now you have people with the same unit tags? Some may land in the same match by chance, some may sync drop into the same (don't know why, but they will).

Hate say it, but there are going to be people in here posting up no matter what is done. As I said 20 times before, territory battles should send danm near all the big groups out of that que.. Maybe quit making them address everything THIS SECOND so they can finish it ffs.. Its suppose to be soon..

[Kjudoon]

Mickey Knoxx, on 27 September 2014 - 08:28 PM, said:

Only issue I see with this is that the que was similar to #2 before. And despite both teams landing with multiple 4 man groups on each side, people still complained. Seen MANY matches where we knew none of the other players, and people cried sync drop because 6 or 7 people had the same "faction". Hence why teams were limited to a single group per team.

And now you have people with the same unit tags? Some may land in the same match by chance, some may sync drop into the same (don't know why, but they will).

Hate say it, but there are going to be people in here posting up no matter what is done. As I said 20 times before, territory battles should send danm near all the big groups out of that que.. Maybe quit making them address everything THIS SECOND so they can finish it ffs.. Its suppose to be soon..

I will believe CW cures the problem when I see it cure the problem. Till then, we still need the 3 Queue solution.

I should also note that Private Queues were supposed to cure this too... and it hasn't.

Edited by Kjudoon, 27 September 2014 - 08:35 PM.

[Squally160]

Kjudoon, on 27 September 2014 - 08:27 PM, said:

Opt in Solo and 2-4man groups. If you think you're all that and a bag of chips, have at it.

Also, if you allow matches of 8v8 and so forth, that problem goes away instantly. Only have 11men? Fine. A 5+6 can help alleviate that load, or a single player can opt in and you're suddenly in an 11v11 or 12v12. Issue solved group flexibility increased and you're still going against group of equal size and supposedly balanced elo (I know hide your laughter).

Nobody's prohibited from going 'larger' but they cannot go 'smaller'.



TEN 12man groups is what it's based on.

Go back and read my post. I'm not going to find it for you. Quit being lazy and misunderstanding the example because of it; if you have a problem with it, go to the source.

Yeah, I read your post, and looked at your math.

That still doesnt change the fact that you said they will go up against a 12 man ONCE and their week is ruined, regardless of the number of 12 mans in q. Please, try again.

[Mystere]

Kjudoon, on 27 September 2014 - 08:34 PM, said:

I will believe CW cures the problem when I see it cure the problem. Till then, we still need the 3 Queue solution.

I should also note that Private Queues were supposed to cure this too... and it hasn't.

The opt-in provisions of your 3-queue solution are the sticking points. They have the potential to starve the large-group queue.

The best that could probably be hoped for is to implement some prioritization scheme in the group queue in which the MM tries to put 12-mans with other 12-mans or, failing that within a reasonable amount of time, form a 12-man group using the largest group possible with fillers. But, Elo and 3/3/3/3 will really have to be loosened a lot for this to work. The MM is really currently hampered both by too many rules and by a small player base.

In fact, the group queue may already have that in place. In which case, the small player base is the issue.

Edited by Mystere, 27 September 2014 - 08:50 PM.

[Kjudoon]

Squally160, on 27 September 2014 - 08:35 PM, said:

Yeah, I read your post, and looked at your math.

That still doesnt change the fact that you said they will go up against a 12 man ONCE and their week is ruined, regardless of the number of 12 mans in q. Please, try again.

Yes, that's the case ignoring some sociological factors that matter. The point is that still for the pleasure of a few hundred people, thousands of people are having bad games. This is selfish. One bad apple spoils the whole barrel and you want to make sure the bad apple is protected.

IF that one match, which you obviously view as insignificant (which begs the question how many matches a week do YOU play I'm down to maybe 6-12 a week when I used to play 50-75 when the time and interest was there) was say the only night of the week that person is able to play, and they only get 8 matches in a night, this is 12.5% of all matches to them, assuming that they aren't stomped by any other group of 8+ often tied in to the '12man stomp'.

If this continues to happen week after week, what do you think they're going to do? Do that math.

It's about perception, and if they perceve to always get stomped by large groups when they're in a small group, they will alter their gaming experience to something they DO enjoy. If it cannot be found in MWO, they leave. This is the fact of the matter. If you don't care about the player population shrinking, by all means play this entitlement game and make sure to text L2P noob at them with a ggclose after embarrassing them 12-0. I'm sure it will help grow the population and the reputation for MWO of being a fun, inclusive community just like League of Legends has .

That's another game I wouldn't touch with a 10 meter cattleprod.

[-Natural Selection-]

Kjudoon, on 27 September 2014 - 08:34 PM, said:

I will believe CW cures the problem when I see it cure the problem. Till then, we still need the 3 Queue solution.

I should also note that Private Queues were supposed to cure this too... and it hasn't.

You are making the assumption that your idea will work, but ignore the fact that it already hasn't. And then suggest that an upcoming feature will not fix it, but it is what 90% of the players in the game have been waiting to play..

Weellll,, I really don't to tell you boss.

Edited by Mickey Knoxx, 27 September 2014 - 09:12 PM.