1142 replies to this topic

[HerHareHair]

What's so hard with a single queue? MM has bigger player base, but also needs to worry about group composition on both sides (e.g. make sure it's 6+6x1 vs 5+2+5x1 for example). The overwhelming (compared to group queue) number of solo players will be able to pad any odd group composition. And duo-queuing with a friend will no longer end up in him giving up on this game...

[Pat Kell]

Just my 2 cents, please do not put in the 4 man max rule. Not going to explain why as I am sure that someone in the last 15 pages has posted exactly what I would...just putting my vote out there. Please don't do it.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Quote

If on the other hand you are unsatisfied with the quality of the games, here is what we are going to do.

- Shift back to a maximum group size of 4 or less.
- Each group needs to be created in a 1/1/1/1 fashion.

No.

A million times no.

Everyone hated the four player group limit. When there was talk of changing it it was essentially impossible to find someone who would argue for keeping it.

The more you limit the group mixture options, the less players are going to want to play, because a game with more random 'fairness' that allows the player more agency is always going to feel better to the player than a game with less random 'fairness' that restricts agency.

Even the 1/1/1/1 idea is unpleasant.

If you feel you absolutely must restrict 'mech weight class selection, then you'll have to be very careful and it would be better to start with more flexible limitations ('no weight class with more than two more 'mechs than the weight class with the least 'mechs', for instance, resulting in up to 0/0/2/2 or 2/0/1/1 spreads, but not 0/0/1/3 or 0/0/0/4) and no group size limitation (hence my wording on the example- it allows seven-player groups, which could be as even as 1/2/2/2 or as unbalanced as 1/1/2/3, but would have to have one 'mech in each weight class. Similarly, eight-player groups could get as far as 1/1/3/3 but no further.)

Frankly, I don't feel that the current state of the 'mech quantity balance warrants any change right now. If you're worried because your team doesn't have a light, then teach yourself to pilot a light. If you're worried that the enemy team won't have any lights, practice anti-heavy/anti-assault strategies.

A lot of the perceived supremacy of heavy and assault 'mechs is just that- perceived. This comes in part from having large numbers all over the place and deriving your value of your performance from those numbers.

Your Dire Wolf may have put out 1100 damage, but that doesn't mean much if the team you're on didn't win and you may have helped cause that by hanging back and firing from out of reach instead of drawing attention off of squishy teammates. High alpha strike numbers look really great on paper and in theory, but are not absolutely necessary to good performance in the game- otherwise dual-ERLL Ravens wouldn't still be so popular.


Essentially, if a player is bothered by the opposing team having lots of 'mechs in a certain category, but is

• Trying to take 'mechs in that category themselves.
  
• Not willing to help alleviate this perceived imbalance by changing what they pilot to adjust the overall balance in queue of 'mech categories.

then it most likely means either one of two things-

• the game balance itself needs adjustment (tip: game balance always needs adjustment. If you think you've got a game to a point where no more adjustment is needed ever, then either you have a completely stagnant playerbase or you're wrong.)
  
• or the player in question is whining because a random advantage fell in the favor of the other team and they don't want to give up the chance of having that advantage for themself, even if doing so would help prevent that random advantage happening to anyone.

It doesn't even matter if the category is weight bracket or anything else that could be used to categorize 'mechs.


The former is best fixed by balance changes, the latter is best fixed by somehow incentivizing the less popular categories (whatever they are) with either an increase in performance (balance change!) or an increase in reward. Not by the universal penalty of restricting player agency.

Edited by Quickdraw Crobat, 04 September 2015 - 12:23 AM.

[HadleyHope]

I have to agree that PSR does seem to be working for the solo queue, and that should only get better once CW matches do not update it!

Things that should not change:

• Allowing choice of server to play on, you should not force someone for example in Europe to play on the Oceanic server.
  
• Limit group sizes to 4.

My choice for changes:

• ​Make the game mode choice a vote preference rather than yes/no.
  
• Only allow groups of 4, 8 or 12, you cannot have 2-3 if we settle for just even number groups and I don't think it is to hard for units to wait until they have 4, 8 or 12 to group up. Odd numbers can always drop for one or two CW matches.

Other:

I am not sure about the solo opting into the group queue, though I would enable that option myself, would it be possible for example to only enable that type of option for a tier 3 or better player?

Edited by HadleyHope, 04 September 2015 - 12:23 AM.

[Daelen Rottiger]

Is anyone even interested in what skill level 150 or 400 means????

[xe N on]

IMO it is not a bad idea. However, units that want to play with 8 or 12 man will suffer. They still can go CW, however, not every one likes CW.

My idea would be to introduce 4 queues:
- single (start at 8-12 players)
- 4 man (start at: 8-12 players)
- 8 man (start at: 8-12 players0
- 12 man (start at: 12 players)

The queue will start with a minimum of 8 players (two lances) but will preferably try to build full 3 lances (12 players).

Single player can choose join to all queues. 4 man can join all but Single queue. 8 man can join 8 man and 12 man. 12 man only can join 12 man.

However, the drop priority is always given the team with the largest size.

With that system, players of smaller groups can decide by their own if they like to play against larger groups. If they want shorter wait times they can queue one tier higher, however with the chance to get a worse play experience.

Edited by xe N on, 04 September 2015 - 12:31 AM.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

FiglioDiBatman, on 03 September 2015 - 02:41 PM, said:

Just allow solo players to opt in the group queue and ease MM to jigsaw full teams.

....well, heck, why hasn't this post been liked more? This should totally be a thing.

xe N on, on 04 September 2015 - 12:28 AM, said:

IMO it is not a bad idea. However, units that want to play with 8 or 12 man will suffer. They still can go CW, however, not every one likes CW.

My idea would be to introduce 4 queues:
- single (start at 8-12 players)
- 4 man (start at: 8-12 players)
- 8 man (start at: 8-12 players0
- 12 man (start at: 12 players)

The queue will start with a minimum of 8 players (two lances) but will preferably try to build full 3 lances (12 players).

Single player can choose join to all queues. 4 man can join all but Single queue. 8 man can join 8 man and 12 man. 12 man only can join 12 man.

However, the drop priority is always given the team with the largest size.

With that system, players of smaller groups can decide by their own if they like to play against larger groups. If they want shorter wait times they can queue one tier higher, however with the chance to get a worse play experience.

...Less so this, but still.

[Kjudoon]

Quickdraw Crobat, on 04 September 2015 - 12:32 AM, said:

....well, heck, why hasn't this post been liked more? This should totally be a thing.




...Less so this, but still.

Been saying that for over a year now.

[Locabiosol]

Quickdraw Crobat, on 04 September 2015 - 12:02 AM, said:

....No, not really. This isn't what you're thinking of.

The 'battle value' that PGI has talked about is a rating for the chassis based on its hardpoints, hardpoint locations, model shape, and engine limitations. It does not rate the value of equipment loaded, because it's meant to give a base point for the value of the 'mech chassis itself so that they can decide what needs how much quirking.

This value does not take into account armor, equipment, modules, et cetera. This is especially relevant because the value of a piece of equipment can vary based on where it's mounted on the 'mech and what other equipment is mounted on the 'mech (if we're going to talk about the overall strength of a 'mech and assign a number to it). Further, basing choices off of that would not take into account pilot value. Thus, it cannot be used as you propose.

Neither does weightclass restiction value loadouts, Armor or anything. 13 Flamer Direwolf without any armor is the same as any other Direwolf, so what is your point here? Your argument is against weightclass restriction, too.

Edited by Locabiosol, 04 September 2015 - 12:37 AM.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Locabiosol, on 04 September 2015 - 12:36 AM, said:

Neither does weightclass restiction value loadouts, Armor or anything. 13 Flamer Direwolf is the same as any other Direwolf. So your argument is against weightclass restircion, too.

Well gee, imagine that.

I wonder why I'm neither dismayed nor surprised.

[Kausteck]

My own opinion. I would gladly give up my freedom to always be able to choose my mech weight class , but to not be able to play with my current set of friends because of group size limitation is unacceptable.

I think forcing a limit to the amount of combinations by restricting available weight classes based on group size is a compromise i would be happy with. i.e. 2/2/1/1 for a group of 6, 1/1/1/1 for a group of 4, 3/3/2/2 for a group of 10.

My group already has to negotiate around the 3 per class restriction , asking us to have a max of 2 per class for a 6 7 or 8 man drop is no trouble at all especially if it will provide better matches.

[TexAce]

Russ Bullock, on 03 September 2015 - 03:28 PM, said:

Just a thought that is just a MAYBE atm.

What if we kept all group sizes, allowed a few solo players.

Then we make game mode random in group queue. If we could do that and limit group queue creation at least some what more, if not 1/1/1/1 than perhaps 2's as some have suggested.

Yes perhaps removing all odd sized groups would help - although the group size of 3 would be tough to get rid of.

All good suggestions, I'm fine with those. BUT, like I said in my post, allow 3-man groups. Only remove odd groups ABOVE 4 mans. So remove 5,7,9 and 11 groups.

[Grifthin]

Question for the devs, how much would removing choice of game type help matchmaking ? I feel that if everyone played all 3 game types matches would be easier to balance.

Edited by Grifthin, 04 September 2015 - 12:43 AM.

[Vellron2005]

I dont know much about matchmaking or anything like that, but I do know this..

REGARDLESS of group size, choice of mech or loadout, I ALWAYS do about half as good (or worse) in the group que as I do in the solo que.

Example: My new Executioner - I will do 400 damage on average in the solo que with it. In the group que, regardless of group size, I will do 200 or less damage with it. This ratio is the same for any mech I choose, and group size..

I have good ping, and am an average player who knows how to play.
Most of my unit teammaes get similar results. (Even when heavily cooperating and focus fireing)

Also, I have noticed that while playing in grop que, I will take down an enemy mech, and the kill will be "scored" by a team mate. Sometimes, this is less obvious, like when multiple teammates all fire on the same target. Sometimes, I clearly have the last shot. This also sometimes occures in CW matches. Don't know if the two issues are conected or not..

Is there anything that can be fixed in the group que to change this? Better match making? Or something else?

Kjudoon, on 04 September 2015 - 12:43 AM, said:

They say lots. I say the instant that happens, I uninstall and walk away. I WILL not play skirmish and will disco every single time. You guys like that toilet, stay in it. I want nothing to do with it.

I don't think such drastic measures would ne needed, but removing that choice for the player WOULD be wildly unpopular.. I mean, players are asking for the choice of map, not just game mode..

Hey, maybe that would help?

CHOICE OF MAP?

[Chuanhao]

Do we want to (For Group Queue)

1) Farming - Play many matches (Prioritise shortening wait times by capping at 4; 1/1/1/1
2) Orgasmic - Play high quality matches (Prioritise shortening skill difference by increasing wait times)
3) My Way or the High Way - Play with anyone in any mech (Prioritise matching by further increasing wait times)

There is no pleasing everyone. I suggest, in terms of loosening of taps, to follow in this order

Mech Type, then PSR.

Firstly, there is no getting round group sizes. It has to be a perfect 12. so we cannot "loosen" group size.

I weigh skills more than mechs. So the matching of mech types between two teams goes first.

Finally, we loosen the skill divide.

How long to wait before each valve is released? That is the sweet spot.

HOW LONG ARE YOU PREPARED TO WAIT?

[Kjudoon]

Vell, were you here when they tried to do mode voting a few months back. My reaction is precisely the community's action. In fact, it was almost a minority who's response was "meh" or supportive of the function. It went into affect, I know of about 20 guys who stopped playing till it was removed. I was one of them. Some said they won't ever play skirmish, others said Conquest was their dealbreaker.

That being the case, you had two groups that teamed up to form a near majority or actual majority of players who said no way PGI put it back. One week later, they did. Ticked off about it, but they did.

Forcing all modes is an absolute "No Go" for this game ever since they created Skirmish mode. Now the TDM freaks have their mode, and really should be forced to stay there or have TDM play in other modes so deincentivized they'd never want to step into another mode.

Choice of map unfortunately, would be an even worse suggestion because people will do the same thing if they have the illusion of choice... which is what it would be due to the fact that most people, although they have a least favorite map, will play them.

[skorpionet]

Hi Russ,

how is possible with PSR in SOLO to play 15 games (and counting) and to win only one? How is possible a match like this:


... and so many stomps....

First days I was a big PSR fan but now.... what's happens? PGI revert back silently to ELO? PSR is bugged or is a lie?

Edited by skorpionet, 04 September 2015 - 01:50 AM.

[Kjudoon]

skorpionet, on 04 September 2015 - 01:00 AM, said:

Hi Russ,

how is possible with PSR in SOLO to play 15 games (and counting) and to win only one? How is possible a match like this:


... and so many stomps....

First days I was a big PSR fan but now.... what's happens? PGI revert back silently to ELO? PSR is bugged or is a lie?

you did well and got into a higher tier. that's the probable conclusion. Ergo, better players, less fun, harder time.

[skorpionet]

About GROUP queue my proposal is to put a checkbox in server / mode selector: "allow GROUP matches" (perhaps only for high tier players).... no more odd problems and more population.

Edited by skorpionet, 04 September 2015 - 01:10 AM.

[PFC Carsten]

Kjudoon, on 04 September 2015 - 01:02 AM, said:

you did well and got into a higher tier. that's the probable conclusion. Ergo, better players, less fun, harder time.

Look again at the picture you quoted and you will see your conclusion is invalid.