523 replies to this topic

[Midax]

They have private matchs that can pit 12-12 premades. Thats the only place that these groups go for a true challange.

When 12 man groups drop in the matchmaker, they are just lloking for easy credits. The solotion to that is move the best rewards to CW. The groups with then move to were the best rewards are. If these upcoming changes to CW are fun, then you end up with a win win. A better game mode and more people in it.

[TWIAFU]

Tastian, on 26 June 2015 - 04:45 AM, said:

We cannot remove 5-12 man groups. We had that once. It was bad. We also cannot continue allowing 12 mans to stomp noobs. We either need strict ELO brackets or solo/group queue in CW like regular drops.

But. You know what. It doesn't matter how we discuss this here because PGI won't read this thread anyway.

CW needs a mode selector, with the admission that wait times will suffer, to choose to play against Units and/or Skirmish teams with the furher understanding that Skirmish team will never get to own a planet unless the have a Unit majority.

We found out yesterday how best to improve your ELO;

ELO only really goes up in group, else it roughly stays the same.

[Triordinant]

Lugh, on 26 June 2015 - 04:50 AM, said:

Likely incorrect. They likely looked at the samples of the people loving 12 man groups and large group play and found that they were the most invested in mech packs of their audience.

Sorry freescrubs, you want your way? Buy some stuff from PGI to get heard.

We could speculate about what is "likely" until we're blue in the face and it won't amount to a hill of beans. "Facts" from PGI are few and far in between. We DO have two facts. From the February Town Hall: only 13.5% of all activity on MWO servers takes place in CW. From yesterday's Town Hall: only 7% of all groups are groups of 5 or more. That's it.

[Tombstoner]

One solution is AI NPC's
Another is to create 4, 8 and 12 man drops for pugs and teams alike that don't mix. eventually the 12 man team will run out of people and groups will have to fragments and play against each other. then 4 man teams. this is moot if population is healthy.

[Triordinant]

TWIAFU, on 26 June 2015 - 04:54 AM, said:

Why are you focused on group sizes and just that one when it clearly state that 93% of players are in a group, size does not matter, the group does, in a group game. 93% of players in a group is not a minority. You are selectively taking points out of context to support a failed argument while ignoring the whole picture.

Game modes are for different size GROUPS, the modes are not specifically set for a size, but have size options.

By your "logic" if only 5%, your "math", play in groups of 5 or more, then supporting large groups needs to end. Since 93% play in groups and such a small amount solo, solo play must end being supported. Instead of allowing people to play with whom they want when they want and in what size group they want, you want it only limited to 4 or less. Thus ending CW, hampering Units, and taking us back years in development where we had to choose to leave friends behind.

You have to brush up on your English. As you pointed out yourself, Russ said 93% OF GROUPS are 4 or less, NOT 93% of the entire MWO population. The vast majority of MWO players are soloists and PGI said so many, many times. Are you just pretending to not comprehend or is your English comprehension really that bad?

Also, I never said I wanted to limit groups in CW to 4. You must have me confused with some one else you're trying to argue with.

[Wintersdark]

To clear something up: there is NO talk about limiting group size in CW. That is a ridiculous notion. The thought to restrict group size in the group queue is supported now because you can still take big groups into CW.

Nobody is looking to restrict CW group sizes.

[Lugh]

TWIAFU, on 26 June 2015 - 04:57 AM, said:

CW needs a mode selector, with the admission that wait times will suffer, to choose to play against Units and/or Skirmish teams with the furher understanding that Skirmish team will never get to own a planet unless the have a Unit majority.

We found out yesterday how best to improve your ELO;

ELO only really goes up in group, else it roughly stays the same.

My experience had been that ELO is best improved in Solo play, as my KDR and Damage numbers improve greatly there.

In group play my ELO is on the lower end (having only come back recently from a long hiatus) andthose I play with have High ELO and we see way more competitive teams than I do Solo. I expect that my Solo ELO and group ELo will eventually balance, but currently I have better win and KDR rates Solo than with groups (Thanks 228[they kick our butts often])

[Wintersdark]

Also: while I don't remember the exact quote - and go listen, don't use someones notes - I do know that it's not 93% of all players being grouped. That's clearly wrong, as by a massive margin solo players are a crushing majority.

I'm pretty sure it's 93% of groups being 4 or less.

Why did PGI cater to large groups if they were only a small fraction of the community? Yes, everything PGI does is in the end for money, because they are a business, but that's a small but fairly hardcore part of their user base that had been heavily neglected since MMO's inception. They were buying some very much needed good will.

[Lugh]

Restricting group size is silly and will just lead to longer wait tiimes for 3 4 man groups of ELO x rather than one 3x3x3x3 12 man group of ELO x.

It will also lead to some of the better LARGE UNITS, never fighting anyone but themselves as ELOs and player availbility will be similar.

The unintended consequence of this waste of time change will be 228 fighting mostly 228 and so on. This matchmaker isn't sophisticated enough and robust enough to do ELO properly, NOW, let alone throwing a max group size limiter on it.

[Wintersdark]

Lugh, on 26 June 2015 - 05:16 AM, said:

My experience had been that ELO is best improved in Solo play, as my KDR and Damage numbers improve greatly there.

In group play my ELO is on the lower end (having only come back recently from a long hiatus) andthose I play with have High ELO and we see way more competitive teams than I do Solo. I expect that my Solo ELO and group ELo will eventually balance, but currently I have better win and KDR rates Solo than with groups (Thanks 228[they kick our butts often])

your reasoning is flawed. If you do much better in solo play, that's more likely because your Elo rating is too low. Russ 's issue here is that while your rating is too low, it doesn't tend to go up in solo play because all the other factors work to randomize results too much.

That's why he wants to have your match score influence how your score changes (as per the town hall) so if you do really well but lose, your rating doesn't decrease, or if you do really poorly and win it doesn't increase.

[AlphaStruck]

Lets just start here.
Why would people want to just 12 man stomp other players? Easy they DONT. Saying that only tell us your not even bothering to listen to us.

People want to play large groups for 2 reasons alone. Neither are the want to easy win...(thats what metatrollings for)

We want to play large groups because:
1. We found friends in our unit and friends + game = better experience.
2. Winning or losing every match not due to our playing, skill, loadout, situation, or effect but because Matchmaker blessed/screwed us SUX!

Every friend you drop with is 1 less slot the MM can screw you with.

The matchmaker is designed specifically to ruin our matchs. The idea to use newer or lower ranked players to dead weight older players is EPIC STUPID.

This throws the new guys to the wolves and ruins their game and sandbags the older players to the point they have no chance to win and leaves them cursing over the VOIP. This is really amplified by the 2-3 alpha kill twich shooter style the game has taken on, were every player not elite metatrolling is severly hurting your chances. The PUG drops are a dice roll generater with fancy graphics...

The game needs to be fixing things and offering more to get more players and larger long term groups, not thinking about how to screw over the hardcore long term players keeping the game afloat.

MM must take into account synergy builds (NARC + Missles) weapons, tech, ranges, Mastered mechs/trial etc.... real data. Right now its garbage in garbage out.

A multi tier system must be added also, not just really new and then everyone else. More like 4-5 min. ("Not enough players"... yeah and youll keep losing more till you add this.)

Or you could just do what every game did before the " players must obey us for we, the developers, have spoken and know more than you little people who dont matter" mentality and just create a true lobby system and let US THE PLAYER build our matches and fun. Not perfect but simple and effective.

How nice would it be to say "Hey, we know your a collection of 2,3 and 4 mans but well spot you 20 tons to your drop deck or and extra assault in place of med to help compensate if you wanna drop."

Edited by AlphaStruck, 26 June 2015 - 05:40 AM.

[Wintersdark]

Lugh, on 26 June 2015 - 05:20 AM, said:

Restricting group size is silly and will just lead to longer wait tiimes for 3 4 man groups of ELO x rather than one 3x3x3x3 12 man group of ELO x.

It will also lead to some of the better LARGE UNITS, never fighting anyone but themselves as ELOs and player availbility will be similar.

The unintended consequence of this waste of time change will be 228 fighting mostly 228 and so on. This matchmaker isn't sophisticated enough and robust enough to do ELO properly, NOW, let alone throwing a max group size limiter on it.

smaller groups are easier to match, not harder. The large groups are extremely difficult to tetris into place because each needs very specific other sizes to match with. . 9 man group? You can ONLY match with a 3 man group. This means 3/3/3/3 and Elo go totally out the window in every match.

[Lugh]

Wintersdark, on 26 June 2015 - 05:24 AM, said:

smaller groups are easier to match, not harder. The large groups are extremely difficult to tetris into place because each needs very specific other sizes to match with. . 9 man group? You can ONLY match with a 3 man group. This means 3/3/3/3 and Elo go totally out the window in every match.

But if we are following the weird specious logic that all groups are <5 players THAT is an easy match. Which is it, all groups are less than 5 (which means a high proportion of 2 3 4 5 man groups ) or all groups are larger than that. If the majority is TRULY less than 5 9 + 3 is just as easy to match quickly than 4=4=4=4

In any case ELO is something that doesn't belong in a game population this small. Match weight class and BV and you will be closer to even.

Nobody seems to want that as being Even scares them.

[Livewyr]

Can someone enlighten me as to other games that allow groups, and have a group queue, that do not allow full-sized groups?

*pictures a wow 25 man raid where you're only allowed to have a 20man group, and you have to pickup 5 from LFR by mechanical default*

Lolz.

[Novakaine]

Soldier up and enlist problems solved.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

I think 12 man groups aren't so much the problem.

The steep learning curve and the depth of game mechanics which allow 12 mans to stomp pug coalitions with impunity / relative skill disparities are what most people object to.

The proposed series of new tutorials should help level the playing field and represents a step in the right direction. The planned PvE campaign could help new players and close the relative skill gaps so that pugs could fare better against 12 man groups.

Eventually the gap in skill disparity could close to a point where 12 mans would no longer be a major concern.

Edited by I Zeratul I, 26 June 2015 - 05:58 AM.

[Mudhutwarrior]

I have no issue with 12-mans even if they comprise less than 1%. I do have issue with the statement about them being vocal and probably the loudest here on the forums.

They have the right to play as they want but...... I think you will find the vocal minority dominates the forums and shows an utter lack of respect and outright contempt for the base. Steering wheel underhive/ scubs comes to mind.

I think I should e-mail to Russ with an attachment of this behavior to show that maybe because of the caustic attitude towards the player base he should consider eliminating them or at least putting them on notice.

In pure numbers the group guys and 12 mans are the very distinct minority. I feel they have done more to hold the game back and drive new players away then any other part of the player base. This needs to be seriously considered moving forward especially since who was a part of the cheating bans and who they are watching now. It isn't the scubs or the steering wheel under hive . I think those involved here on the forums need to be closely watched as it follows a pattern.

[Wintersdark]

Lugh, on 26 June 2015 - 05:31 AM, said:

But if we are following the weird specious logic that all groups are <5 players THAT is an easy match. Which is it, all groups are less than 5 (which means a high proportion of 2 3 4 5 man groups ) or all groups are larger than that. If the majority is TRULY less than 5 9 + 3 is just as easy to match quickly than 4=4=4=4

I didn't say all groups are less than 5. RUSS said the vast majority of groups are less than 5. Lets not exaggerate or anything like that, as it confuses the subject.

The majority of groups being 2, 3 or 4 man is entirely believeable, and I can't see a reason Russ would lie about that, so lets assume it's true.

So, lets look at the situation.

Say a group of 4 queues, who can match with them? Another 2 groups of 4, but also 2 groups of 3 and one of 2, a single group of 8, one of 6 and one of 2, etc. But if you made a list, you'd find very quickly a couple common factors. The majority of the options are more small groups. Groups of 7 and 9 cannot match with a group of 4 at all. Small groups are more numerous, so it's much easier to find groups with the right Elo and the right weight classes.

Remember, the group queue population is enormously smaller than the solo queue population. So, while the vast majority of groups are smaller groups, there's still not a whole lot of groups in the queue at any given time.

Large groups cause severe issues, because they're only limited by 3/3/3/3. If a group of 9 queues, it can (and very likely will) have 3 heavies, probably a couple assaults too. Maybe even 3 assaults. That means, the Matchmaker now has to search through the available groups of 3 in the queue. Of those, ideally ones within at most 150 Elo (ideally within 50). Of those, it's going to try to find ones that have no heavies and probably no assaults (good luck with that, because that group of 3 is almost certainly going to be just one weight class and probably 3 Heavies).

This is why, if you drop in a group of 9, you'll almost certainly end up with 6 Heavies or 6 Assaults on your side if you took 3 of either. And it does indeed happen a lot.

Small groups are trivially easy to match. Large groups are substantially more difficult, and it's largely the Elo+3/3/3/3 restrictions that have to be totally discarded to make it happen.

Quote

In any case ELO is something that doesn't belong in a game population this small. Match weight class and BV and you will be closer to even.

Nobody seems to want that as being Even scares them.

What? No. That's just ridiculous. Battlevalue is an awesome idea but totally impractical in this game with the realities of developer time, and weight class?

It shocks me you'd even suggest this as being closer to even. You've been around a long time, you should know damn well that the mech you're piloting, even your weight class, matters FAR less than your ability in the game. Pilot skill is BY FAR the single largest factor in any match.

I'm not an expert pilot, but I'm an experienced one. Put me in a Flame, and I'll utterly murder any new player one on one. I'll do it in a locust for christ's sake, and I'm an awful light pilot.

And yeah, it's always fun to say "nobody wants things to be even, because that scares them" as if "they" and "them" are some evil group of baddies, but we're all the same, all in this together. The majority of people want at least reasonably fair matches. Demonizing imaginary groups of players doesn't accomplish anything.

---

Why is Battlevalue ridiculous? It's an awesome theory, totally useless in practice, as assigning GOOD scores to all our mechs is virtually impossible; it would be a herculean task that would eat a TON of dev time to implement and lots more going forward to keep balanced as the game changes. Battletech Battlevalue scores would be meaningless as a starting point, because Battletech works on totally different mechanics. In MWO, as one minor example, the physical geometry of a mech is probably one of the most important factors in the success or failure of a chassis. It's totally irrelevant in Battletech. Then there are modules, weapons with totally different behaviours, etc.

If implemented right Battlevalue would be awesome. But implementing it right would require such a massive investment in resources and be so very difficult (Would you argue all weapons are well balanced right now, including IS vs. Clan? If they can't get the weapons balanced, how will they get battlevalues balanced?) that it's just totally impractical.

Elo isn't perfect, by any means, but it's the best system we've got to date. It at least accounts for your overall average performance, even if it's really variable on a per-match basis.

[TWIAFU]

Triordinant, on 26 June 2015 - 05:03 AM, said:

You have to brush up on your English. As you pointed out yourself, Russ said 93% OF GROUPS are 4 or less, NOT 93% of the entire MWO population. The vast majority of MWO players are soloists and PGI said so many, many times. Are you just pretending to not comprehend or is your English comprehension really that bad?

Also, I never said I wanted to limit groups in CW to 4. You must have me confused with some one else you're trying to argue with.

You can cut the English sh*t right now.

Right. And you want to limit group size because some 7% only play in larger groups going back to when we could only play in groups of 4. Remember that? How much people HATED not being able to play with friends? Having to choose who to leave behind.

Now, show me the recent link where PGI states vast majority are solo, I have not found it.

[Mechteric]

Private matches are still there for the large groups, so I don't see much of a problem with maxing to 4 in the public group queue. They can also still allow it in CW matches possibly I'd think.