46 replies to this topic

[Triordinant]

Zoid, on 03 November 2014 - 09:46 AM, said:

I really think that groups of 2 and 3 should be allowed into the solo queue, but they must be balanced on both sides and no more than 1 per team. Once you start getting into coordinated groups of 4, they can wipe out half the enemy team without much difficulty, but 2 players working together isn't insurmountable.

Queue times would probably not be good for this, but that's the price you pay. You can get fast queue times by joining the bigger groups or slow ones by going into the solo queue.

It could also carry an ELO penalty for dropping into the solo queue as a 2 or 3 player group, which would partially negate the coordination advantage (you and your friend(s) may be coordinated, but your enemies are straight-up better).

Sorry, we fought tooth and nail for over 2 years to get a solo queue with no groups of any size in it and we'll fight twice as hard to keep all groups out of it.

[bobF]

Lobbies solve all these issues. Sadly, like a lot of other f2p franchises, we have a magic matchmaker that ostensibly mimics a console experience and matches people of equal skill; but in reality serves more to hide a pathetic number of users.

Failing any kind of lobby system, I would advocate 2 man groups to be allowed to join the general solo queue. If you think 2 people are going to unbalance the chaotic MM already going on in solo q, you're just bad. Let 2 buddies play casual or hardcore if they choose.

[Glythe]

It would have been better to have groups cap at 4 people like we had for ages. This lets small groups play together without going into the sexual violation queue.

This game is losing potential customers because of this condition. I guarantee you the people who have money in this game would still play (but they would just ***** more).

[Joseph Mallan]

Triordinant, on 03 November 2014 - 10:11 AM, said:

Sorry, we fought tooth and nail for over 2 years to get a solo queue with no groups of any size in it and we'll fight twice as hard to keep all groups out of it.

I like the commitment more than the sentiment.

[topgun505]

Sprouticus, on 03 November 2014 - 06:09 AM, said:

1) grow the population

I dunno about anyone else but aside from the PC Gamer magazine article years ago I have seen little to no advertisement of this game. PGI, it's time to get a marketing department and kick it into high gear.

The game for newbs is pretty brutal. Especially if they don't have any friends to help them out. It's pretty likely that to start off they will lose FAR more games than they win. That's to be expected. But the problem with that right now is that you make so little money for a loss (especially if you use consumables) that the grind would be unbearably long to afford a mech and/or parts to upgrade a mech.

This is supposed to be FTP. If players feel it is virtually REQUIRED to shell out money to get anything accomplished in a reasonable amount of time they will simply kick the game to the curb. They haven't spent anything so they aren't invested in this. You have to get them hooked FIRST before you try and bleed them.

This is, once again, piss poor marketing.

[Lykaon]

Abisha, on 03 November 2014 - 06:05 AM, said:

that are those people with 4.0 killrate not because they better but more abuse the system.
and even act high and mighty.... roles eyes.

away PGI need to introduce the 12/12 queue and 4/4 Queue's.
so long they like the solo Queue absolute solo.

Why? This is just the same PUG whine just this time it's from players who are in smaller groups.

What is the core issue here? Is it organized groups beat lesser organized groups?

How is making lesser organization mandatory a solution?

We need yet another division in the player base like a submarine needs a screen door.What we need are intergrated team building tools and features tied into our friends lists AND built in VOIP for teams.

Create the ability to build equal organization do not request for mandatory inferior organization.

[BourbonFaucet]

We don't need another queue split, but I did think of an idea recently that might help the situation.

A new rule to the current group queue is added that goes like this:

1. The largest group in a match should be no larger than 2 more people than the smallest group.

2. In the event that this is impossible, use the largest groups possible to fill the gap.

So let's suppose you want to play with 1 friend, a 2-man

Here's what would happen:

1. You play a match where there will only be 2, 3, or 4 man teams.

Since your group is the smallest (2), according to rule 1 the largest possible group on the server is a four man team. (2 + 2 = 4). Theoretically the absolute worst scenario possible with this rule is 6 pairs versus 3 four mans. Arguably that scenario will be somewhat rare.

2. You aid a 10 man against a 12 man.

Although this sounds like a horrible outcome, I still win roughly a third of the time when this happens.


Now let's try a scenario where you have a two lance team (8 players).

Under the rules above, you can't have a group of 6 since that puts you over the limit of 12. In this scenario, you will likely receive a 4 man due to the second rule, and go up against a 12 man, or a 10 man plus a pair, or two six man teams. None of these situations are likely to be so awful, you may lose more than half of the time, but it wouldn't result in continuous rolls without severe and consistent team error.

So of course, the question is, Pro Bono?

The small groups do. They will likely play against small groups. The larger groups will still receive a smaller group when they can, and the 12 man will be forced to fight at least 8 other organized players.