377 replies to this topic

[Richter Kerensky]

I don't see why you'd force groups of a certain size to play CW. Why should large units be locked out of playing certain game modes?

[Kjudoon]

Thank you for validating the very argument against forcing solo players into the group queue.

/thread

[Imperius]

Funny I remember suggesting as well as others as opting in. You're just afraid many will opt in.

/thread you can't even keep your argument strait now you're just fighting due to pride.

Edited by Imperius, 23 August 2015 - 08:55 PM.

[Vlad Ward]

Pjwned, on 23 August 2015 - 07:48 PM, said:

None of that eliminates the problems of forcing solo players to mix with group players, it just makes thing less bad and even then not always

There actually are reasons to think mixed queues will result in problems, it's just that you and other people ignore (or attempt to sweep it under the rug) the exclusive benefits of playing in a group.

Read the damn thread and stop ignoring the issues.

There isn't a good reason to "just try it" because acknowledging the problem of mixed queues at even the most basic level makes it obvious why it's not a good idea. You can argue for allowing people to opt in to play with groups as a compromise, but that's not the same thing and I suspect that it's not good enough for the people with an entitlement complex.

I'm gonna need a list of these exclusive benefits of being in a group because the vast majority of things I've seen fall under that label - both in this thread and elsewhere - are hogwash invented by people who've never played in a serious group for any real length of time or played with a group but thought they were much hotter **** than they really were. Cue up the guy citing Seraphim as a Tier 1 unit, y'all.

Otherwise you're just left with things like "Groups know how to communicate and call targets."

That's not exclusive to groups. In fact, in just about every other Team v Team game on the planet, that's basic noob tier 101 crap.

Do people walk into not-**** tier League of Legends matches without knowing what Junglers and bot lane are? Hell no. It's basic vernacular for the game. If you don't know how to call targets or how to respond to a call, you're not gonna go very far.

You're acting like being remotely close to competent at the game is a trait reserved for top tier group players. It's not. Unfortunately, due to MWO's nonexistent new player experience, it is rather difficult to teach these sorts of things to people who are just starting out. But considering most of y'all have more posts than I do, and I've been here since PGI bought the domain, there's really no excuse for that sort of thing on your end.

As an aside, this Tier 1+Tier 5 boogeyman is really getting annoying. If Paul woke up tomorrow and said "Hey guys, btw, group tiers are actually a weighted average. I didn't think I'd need to clarify this, considering we hate disclosing the fine details of our server code," suddenly everything would be okay, right?

So long as a pair of Tier 1s can't show up in their moduled out ThunderCats, weigh themselves down with a half dozen Tier 5s, and roll across new players, laughing and ruining their day for their own amusement, y'all are cool, right?

Edited by Vlad Ward, 23 August 2015 - 08:56 PM.

[Kjudoon]

Who? Me afraid of players opting in????

ROFLMAO

Need to pay closer attention if so because i am ALL about the opt in. You wanna believe you are captain hardcore with a bag of chips and pickle on the side? Have at it! If you do well bully for you! Go pug in cw all you want. All for it. I want you to play in the mode and queue you have the most fun in because that is what will grow the game if it can grow at all.

[Pjwned]

Nyden, on 23 August 2015 - 08:05 PM, said:

What is the problem with mixed cues at even the most basic level? Is the problem that solo players tend to lose? Because, I thought I addressed that. I honestly don't understand what you mean. If you have specific problems with mixed cues I would be happy to address it. Maybe there's something I haven't thought of.

Groups have inherent advantages over solos, I've already explained why earlier in the thread.

Quote

I would be happier with solos opting into group play but I don't expect group play to get any better as a result because most solo players will not opt in, because they have no reason to. I believe that full amalgamation is the only way to fix the group cue, and the group cue needs to be fixed or this game ain't gonna make it much longer and that would really suck because I've spent alot of money here.

Even if the group queue were to essentially die without being "fixed," the game wouldn't fold just because of that, whereas it would fold without a proper solo queue to play in.

Mandating that people play against groups no matter where they go because you're not happy with the group queue is part of the entitlement complex I was talking about by the way.

Quote

I don't play in groups and, frankly, I don't really expect to but if small groups of mostly noobies get crushed everytime they play, the steam release will end us.

Groups vs groups is a much more fair match-up than groups vs solos, so it's pretty much tough **** for the groups that can't handle playing better groups. Yeah it's not ideal for small casual groups to have a hard time because they don't want to play super seriously, which has even affected me personally because my small casual group pretty much stopped playing at least partially because of that, but the alternative is a lot worse so too bad.

Quote

And frankly your average modern solo pugger could use a little show in team work from time to time.

Even if that's true, forcing them to play against groups no matter where they go is not the correct way of accomplishing that.

Quote

I just don't think that putting the cues together will spell the doom of the game but there's no way to develop reliable data on the subject unless we go all-in.

You need to have a really convincing argument to do something as drastic as abolishing the solo queue, not just "well I don't know how it will turn out so let's try it anyways."

Vlad Ward, on 23 August 2015 - 08:54 PM, said:

I'm gonna need a list of these exclusive benefits of being in a group because the vast majority of things I've seen fall under that label - both in this thread and elsewhere - are hogwash invented by people who've never played in a serious group for any real length of time or played with a group but thought they were much hotter **** than they really were. Cue up the guy citing Seraphim as a Tier 1 unit, y'all.

Nah, I'm not going to repeat myself because you can't read.

Edited by Pjwned, 23 August 2015 - 09:05 PM.

[Kjudoon]

Wow Vlad... Nope. I just cant say what that post made me think. But wow. Its taken a lot of effort to not fire flamers but i thin i am just going to opt out of listening to anything you have to say because its not healthy.

[Vlad Ward]

Kjudoon, on 23 August 2015 - 09:10 PM, said:

Wow Vlad... Nope. I just cant say what that post made me think. But wow. Its taken a lot of effort to not fire flamers but i thin i am just going to opt out of listening to anything you have to say because its not healthy.

k bye. Again.

[Imperius]

Anyway I'm back on topic allowing solos to opt in to group queue.

[Pjwned]

Imperius, on 23 August 2015 - 09:35 PM, said:

Anyway I'm back on topic allowing solos to opt in to group queue.

Sure, if we're no longer talking about forcing players out of the solo queue and are instead talking about simply allowing solo players to opt into the group queue, then that is fine and I have no real arguments against it.

Edited by Pjwned, 23 August 2015 - 09:48 PM.

[Vlad Ward]

Pjwned, on 23 August 2015 - 09:46 PM, said:

Sure, if we're no longer talking about forcing players out of the solo queue and are instead talking about simply allowing solo players to opt into the group queue, then that is fine and I have no real arguments against it.

At this point it's more a cat fight over opting in versus opting out.

Opting out makes the most sense. It's not like these forums are even remotely representative of the game's population as a whole. Whatever hatred General Discussion has for groups doesn't necessarily apply to everyone.

You guys can go play solo only. Let everyone else use the matchmaker normally, like in every other pvp game on the planet.

[Vlad Ward]

I would also accept an Opt-In system with bonus rewards for players who choose to play with groups. Pretty much every other multiplayer game does something like this to incentivize people into low population areas.

1.25x c-bill and XP multiplier for running in mixed queue, go.

The problem with opting in isn't that people don't want to do it, it's generally that most people don't even realize there's an option.

[Richter Kerensky]

Vlad Ward, on 23 August 2015 - 10:00 PM, said:

I would also accept an Opt-In system with bonus rewards for players who choose to play with groups. Pretty much every other multiplayer game does something like this to incentivize people into low population areas.

1.25x c-bill and XP multiplier for running in mixed queue, go.

The problem with opting in isn't that people don't want to do it, it's generally that most people don't even realize there's an option.

That's why you have it on by default. Make it opt-out.

Edited by Richter Kerensky, 23 August 2015 - 10:08 PM.

[SmoothCriminal]

Richter Kerensky, on 23 August 2015 - 10:07 PM, said:

That's why you have it on by default. Make it opt-out.

Sadly that wouldn't work as we'd be back to pugs whining about getting killed by 12 mans (aaaaalllllll over again) and not realising its a function to be toggled. Should be opt in with a disclaimer/clear reward in my book.

Edited by SmoothCriminal, 23 August 2015 - 10:12 PM.

[Richter Kerensky]

Right but then their solution is click a thing. Bam. You're done.

[SmoothCriminal]

Richter Kerensky, on 23 August 2015 - 10:14 PM, said:

Right but then their solution is click a thing. Bam. You're done.

Sure - as long as its clearly outlined what you are signed into I think it would help beef up numbers in the group queue. That said if the MM allowed 12 mans v all solos there would be hell to pay.

Radical hypothetical - take 12 mans out of group queue for CW/private matches only?

[Vlad Ward]

SmoothCriminal, on 23 August 2015 - 10:18 PM, said:

Sure - as long as its clearly outlined what you are signed into I think it would help beef up numbers in the group queue. That said if the MM allowed 12 mans v all solos there would be hell to pay.

Radical hypothetical - take 12 mans out of group queue for CW/private matches only?

If the pugs are logging on to the forums to complain about it, then surely someone will be able to tell them about the function. They can also mention it in-game if people start complaining there.

Honestly, take out the influence of the forums, and I doubt that many players would even notice the difference assuming the matchmaker is doing its job.

Edit: taking people out of the group queue will solve the issue of low population in group queue?

Edited by Vlad Ward, 23 August 2015 - 10:31 PM.

[Nyden]

SmoothCriminal, on 23 August 2015 - 10:12 PM, said:

Sadly that wouldn't work as we'd be back to pugs whining about getting killed by 12 mans (aaaaalllllll over again) and not realising its a function to be toggled. Should be opt in with a disclaimer/clear reward in my book.

I'm not so sure that would be the case. When the cues were first separated there was a statistically measurable advantage to having half or more of your team on the same team speak channel. Most of these groups were not organized, competitive teams but the results were clear. Communication trumped all. It was so advantageous that it was possible for a solo pugger with a decent ELO to see nothing but 8+ mans all day because thats what all the unit players were doing and they were a significant portion of the player base at the time. PGI's only solutions were to tell the player base to use teamspeak or to separate the teamspeak players from everyone else.

I should point out that 12-man stomps has largely turned out to be a myth as solo puggers still come to the forum to complain about stomps all the time. The real problem was always the match maker and the lack of proper communication tools. I never could understand how a match maker which, when working perfectly, should generate a 1:1 win/loss ratio would base it's projections on your win/loss ratio.

I put to you that, perhaps with a little fine tuning and maybe weighted average based on loadout and mech xp, most players wouldn't immediately notice a difference if the cues were amalgamated using this far more sensical match maker. I would be for opting out because I think opting in won't generate the necessary traffic. If it turns out that the matchmaker is still borked or that organized twelve mans suddenly become a regular thing than everyone can migrate to the solo only cue and we can safely say that groups and solos will never coexist in MWO but I honestly don't think that's the case (and I don't think it should be). If the tickbox is right next to all the other game modes it's going to be hard to miss.

I don't think we should do this tomorrow, the match maker will need to prove that it's working as intended with the solo cue first, but I really think it's a necessary step for the longevity of the game.

[SmoothCriminal]

Fair enough. In any way that it might be implemented, I still think it's a good idea. I would also be tempted by a cheeky 25% reward boost as a solo pugger with a mic.

[Deathlike]

I spent time not playing MWO and had some fun, so I'll try to catch up with some of the stuff posted.

Kjudoon, on 23 August 2015 - 07:43 PM, said:

Deathlike.... Again the point you are missing is i dont want to be in a group. A group is NOT... REPEAT NOT the same as a team. Particularly if being in a group means i am just going to be the flunky who gets int the sparring ring with some jackhole who thinks hes going to be the next middleweight champion of the world and doesnt realize you dont disrespect or try to kill your sparring partner.

I dont get that in the solo queue. Sure you get the Rambos and the monday morning Pattons... But that is tolerable in comparison.

The last and most salient point i need to drive home is this: if you take away the only remaining positive gsming experience crom players... They will leave and not come back till those who took it from them are gone. Since the majority of players play solo queue only, can you risk alienating that group?

I'm not even sure what you mean. Please define your teams clearly.

If you're saying you don't like grouping up (aka being in a premade), that is your prerogative. Understand that you "chose your path" for whatever reason, but if it's only because you don't like getting criticized for running sub-optimal build or mech... it comes with the territory. You gotta deal with it. In a game where teamwork is paramount, not being effective is gimping yourself... and some people like that challenge. However, you can't really complain about the challenge you put on yourself (unless you're trying to make a reasonable argument to fix something).

I make the points I make because I feel that allowing people to find ways to get better... usually by grouping up (not necessarily having to join a team) is usually a foundation of keeping players together.

Failure to do so doesn't keep people interested. That goes beyond PGI's terrible NPE and all the other BS that happens around here. I'd rather keep people here and playing and getting better (hopefully), but not at the expense of things that are core/paramount to how this game functions.

Kjudoon, on 23 August 2015 - 07:59 PM, said:

Also can we stop blaming the victim? No player is perfect not even me or you. This also does not excuse or give a pass to anything.
Pgi does have a LOT of self inflicted wounds here. No doubt. There are rambos pretty much in every game. You dont want to play with them form up a 1wman and play in the group queue. Leave them to their own devices.
We also need to stop trying to force people to :play better" in our opinion. Tier 1 isnt an end game. I dont want to play with people that good because i know what it takes to get there and stay there. It just isnt worth it.
Everyone has the right to suck if they want. You can watch my videos if you want to make your own opinion on whether i suck. My gameplay is how i want to play. You will even see me in cw and company drops. Heck i think i have one of me dropcalling in there.A recent RARE group drop for me. Personally a bad match but it was fun and the editing worked so well. This is what i get may one time in twenty in the group queue.http://youtu.be/NESLLw7gHfg

If you want to suck, then I hope you don't complain about balance issues and such stuff. You essentially "give up the right" to tell others what to do and say... essentially giving all accountability away. That's fine if you wish to play that way.. but for the health of the community... getting better is actually vital to improve the game and CW experience for players.

There is literally NO skill floor in the current state of CW... which is why it amounts garbage and seal clubbing. Once the participants in CW are actually able to drive and shoot other mechs reasonably (hard to create exact criteria for this), that's when things don't become so readily lopsided as they currently are (especially while in a trial mech).

Pjwned, on 23 August 2015 - 08:06 PM, said:

So...what, if I don't strive to be top-tier competitive then I don't need to care about the outcome of my matches or how rewarding they are or how much of an un-fun shitfest stomp it is because I'm supposed to be cannon fodder for the elder gods of the game?

Tell me how I'm wrong because that's a really garbage attitude to have if I'm right.

I don't think anyone has to be top tier. I'd hope PSR would eventually put you where you need to be (though it's kinda unlikely by design).

I'd rather there would have an unranked queue.. if people who desire using Pretty Babies, Mist Lynxes, and a whole host of players would want to experiment in their mech builds... Ideally, this would be a place for the casual player (and casual groups).

If you decide to goto a ranked queue (PSR adjustments will be made there only of course), then players should be rewarded better IMO. Especially in comp play where airstrikes+arty are a thing after all.

Pjwned, on 23 August 2015 - 09:04 PM, said:

Groups vs groups is a much more fair match-up than groups vs solos, so it's pretty much tough **** for the groups that can't handle playing better groups. Yeah it's not ideal for small casual groups to have a hard time because they don't want to play super seriously, which has even affected me personally because my small casual group pretty much stopped playing at least partially because of that, but the alternative is a lot worse so too bad.

I've read enough complaints about the group queue like 2-man gets stuck with 10-man and all this other stuff.

Again, try an unranked queue, where all casual solos+groups can play.

Regardless of what happens - there honestly has to be an in between queue between solo and group... if only because there is no in-between between "bad" and "ultra srs" in this game. "Casual" is a thing, but not every resource can be dedicated to that IMO. Thinning out the queues more can be more detrimental long term.


Note that I would like to point out that solos are NOT the majority of the queues IMO. I solo because people aren't on (or are not playing together on coms, which is what it is), but catering to only solos is a mistake in a group oriented game. What is "supposed" to happen is that many of the solos join up in a bigger group, and thus the groups are the most dominants. I suspect the majority of the people soloing just don't want to be bothered with grouping up at the moment (which happens a lot) or can't (because not many people are on), and it is what it is. However, the solo queue is a foundation to build the playerbase. It can't happen if you "nerf groups", when teamwork is the foundation of success.

Edited by Deathlike, 24 August 2015 - 12:28 AM.