9 replies to this topic

[Khereg]

Had a random thought and wanted to see if it held water. I trust everyone will shred it if it falls short.

I was thinking about variety in game modes and trying to follow the KISS philosophy, b/c I realize PGI has limited resources to make changes and already have a number of things on their plate. However, one complaint I hear about the game is the repetitive nature of the matches and I think this could help somewhat.

What if, in solo queue only, the size of each team were randomized to a multiple of 4, with a maximum of 12?

So, you could play 4v4, 8v8, or 12v12, and the player could have a selector to choose which of the modes they were interested in (just like we do for Assault/Skirmish/Conquest and server location now). It seems like this wouldn't be time consuming to implement, but what do I know.

Reasoning:

1. I've heard lament for the move from 8v8 to 12v12 and this would give those players a way to play that mode if desired.

2. Multiples of 4 lets PGI keep the weight class distribution logic they've set up in the matchmaker now, although I know that when it's difficult to make a match, those restrictions can be modified to avoid the spinning wheel of death. In 4v4, this could excessively upset the match balance, but if you know going in it could happen, maybe that wouldn't be awful. So, 1/1/1/1, 2/2/2/2, or 3/3/3/3 unless you have trouble making a match. Worst case scenario would be something like 1/2/0/1 v 0/1/1/2, or similar.

3. I don't think this would work well in group queue for reasons owing mostly to lower population, but maybe it could. Discuss.

4. By making it a selector for the player, you can choose not to play any of the modes you don't like - not forcing something on anyone, just opening up possibilities for variety.

5. Obviously, wholly inappropriate for CW as it is implemented now, but maybe goes along with the "scouting" mission idea that PGI considered and subsequently seems to have abandoned. Also discuss.

Thinking through some of the possible pitfalls...

4v4 conquest might be weird. Lots of map to cover with only 1 Light for each team. Capping strategies could dominate. I could see it being hard to find an opponent to fight.

4v4 might be hard in general on a couple of the larger maps. Perhaps PGI would want to limit 4v4 mode to exclude Alpine and the new River City. Although, that's what scouts are for: to find the enemy. It would certainly make early scouting by lights a valuable function.

Anyway, thoughts?

Edited by Khereg, 10 August 2015 - 07:32 AM.

[Bilbo]

Adding that many more options to the solo queue MM would undoubtedly cause wait times to skyrocket.

[Khereg]

Bilbo, on 10 August 2015 - 07:27 AM, said:

Adding that many more options to the solo queue MM would undoubtedly cause wait times to skyrocket.

Depending on selections, absolutely. But, we would be in control of that as a player. If matchmaking is taking too long, broaden your selection for faster matches.

[Bilbo]

Khereg, on 10 August 2015 - 07:40 AM, said:

Depending on selections, absolutely. But, we would be in control of that as a player. If matchmaking is taking too long, broaden your selection for faster matches.

The matchmaker can only handle so much. It already has issues making good matches in the group queue and there are only 4 player choices made there. Loading it up with another 3 on top of the three already available to the solo queue is just asking for terrible matches to happen no matter what I have selected to alleviate wait times.

[Dino Might]

I suspect it is too expensive from a server perspective. Move from 8v8 to 12v12 was likely to save bucks on # of servers required to run a given number of matches simultaneously.

Good business decision. Bad gameplay decision. I'm not sure things have changed enough to warrant going smaller than 12v12 for a large percentage of the matches played.

Edited by Dino Might, 10 August 2015 - 08:34 AM.

[Chuck Jager]

Bilbo, on 10 August 2015 - 07:27 AM, said:

Adding that many more options to the solo queue MM would undoubtedly cause wait times to skyrocket.

It could act as a valve to make matches when there are not enough to make a full 12v12

My only worry would be ending up as a Dwolf with 3 locust

Also with the broad range of skill levels allowed now the fewer the people in a group the more magnified the difference.

[jss78]

I think this'd be nice, insofar as we have the player population to sustain it. It'd be a (seemingly) simple way definitely add some spice to the solo queue.

Caveats:

- Smaller teams would make the match balance a lot more sensitive to matchmaker performance. Especially so for 4-vs-4. Throw one complete novice on one team and one hot shot on the other, in 4-vs-4, and it's unlikely to become a close match.

- Also random and hard-to-quantify factors in team composition could severely affect match outcomes. For example, imagine dropping a 4-vs-4 on Alpine Peaks, and one team happens to get two ERLL boats, while the other gets two SPL boats. The more players per team, the more likely you'll get somewhat well-rounded teams, even when resorting to match-making only based on player skill and weight class.

- Not sure how well 4-vs-4 would work on current maps. Maybe they could simply make portions of the maps off-limits for 4-vs-4

[Khereg]

Dino Might, on 10 August 2015 - 08:34 AM, said:

I suspect it is too expensive from a server perspective. Move from 8v8 to 12v12 was likely to save bucks on # of servers required to run a given number of matches simultaneously.

Good business decision. Bad gameplay decision. I'm not sure things have changed enough to warrant going smaller than 12v12 for a large percentage of the matches played.

I hadn't thought of the server cost issue, but my understanding is the move from 8v8 to 12v12 was driven more by match imbalance when 1 exceptionally good or bad player could swing a match rather than by cost to operate servers.

Still, the basic idea of varying team sizes is still intriguing. Even going to larger sizes like 16v16 or 20v20 might be fun (although even the big maps will get too crowded and the strain on graphics would get to be too much at some point). I was keeping it to max of 12 introduce the fewest changes PGI would need to implement to support the mode.

[Khereg]

Chuck YeaGurr, on 10 August 2015 - 09:06 AM, said:

My only worry would be ending up as a Dwolf with 3 locust

Also with the broad range of skill levels allowed now the fewer the people in a group the more magnified the difference.

All those concerns are definitely magnified at 4v4. Maybe 4v4's only match when the 1/1/1/1 rule can be strictly enforced.

For the skill disparity, we'd have to trust the ELO system and the high skill disparity could still could definitely happen, especially during periods of low population. We'd just have to know that going in. If Proton shows up as an opponent in your 4v4 queue, it's time to laugh off that particular match and de-select the 4v4 option for a while.

Edited by Khereg, 10 August 2015 - 11:52 AM.

[Khereg]

jss78, on 10 August 2015 - 09:35 AM, said:

I think this'd be nice, insofar as we have the player population to sustain it. It'd be a (seemingly) simple way definitely add some spice to the solo queue.

Caveats:

- Smaller teams would make the match balance a lot more sensitive to matchmaker performance. Especially so for 4-vs-4. Throw one complete novice on one team and one hot shot on the other, in 4-vs-4, and it's unlikely to become a close match.

- Also random and hard-to-quantify factors in team composition could severely affect match outcomes. For example, imagine dropping a 4-vs-4 on Alpine Peaks, and one team happens to get two ERLL boats, while the other gets two SPL boats. The more players per team, the more likely you'll get somewhat well-rounded teams, even when resorting to match-making only based on player skill and weight class.

- Not sure how well 4-vs-4 would work on current maps. Maybe they could simply make portions of the maps off-limits for 4-vs-4

Some of what you say I would consider a feature instead of a bug (e.g. Alpine with mismatched ranges). Figure out how to adapt and overcome on the fly. I'd find that interesting, but I know a lot of people would just rage.

I think making map boundaries smaller for 4v4 gets into the realm of "hard to implement" and would stall the idea.

4v4 in general may just be too prone to imbalance to be successful. but I think I would like it. With players having the option, those that don't like could just de-select it and never have to worry about it again.