1142 replies to this topic

[BluefireMW]

About the Questions:
I don't want to get back to groups of 4 again.
I don't like the 1/1/1/1 thing.

Please think of setting tonnage minimum and maximum for groups!
About 60 tons or less per Player as a avarage.

There was the event with the goal that you get just a reward, if the team is not to heavy.

I never had faster queue than during that event. That event showed it would work.

Please think of it.

Edited by BluefireMW, 05 September 2015 - 01:14 AM.

[monk]

Do not get rid of groups larger than 4. The PR blowback is enough to make it not worth it. My alternate suggestions:

- Group queue allows any group of 2-12.
- Solo players can toggle a box for "Join Group Queue" which will allow them to drop with groups if needed (the system tries to avoid this where possible)
- If 11 man group queues up, we immediately look for a solo drop with the flag for joining group queue.
- Groups have class limits based on size. We limit this to 3 of any class size at a time.
- If MM is struggling to find a match we quickly eliminate game mode preference (first release valve)
- If MM is still struggling to find a match we start pulling in solo players with the join group queue flag. Hopefully this is not necessary very often.

If you want to get more involved, then I'd love to see some evolution in how mechs are selected for a match. Instead of doing mech select before the game is created, we could do if afterwards. For example, players could see the map loading screen where they normally hit ready, and there they would be assigned a weight class. If they don't want their assigned weight class they can click "release class" and it will go to a first click gets it list. Once they have a weight class they can click the mech select button to pick a mech. Their last mech from that class would be the default. All valid mechs would be in their list. If a player does not have a valid mech in their class they can pick from the trial mechs. Once the timer runs down, the map is revealed (I know some people seem to freak out that you could pick a mech appropriate to a map. I think that's silly, but whatever). Bottom line is this system would make match making a lot easier. You'd just have to match up PSR values in groups and group numbers. The actual mech assignements would happen aftwards and therefore wouldn't need to be calculated into the original match making formula. There could also be an option for preferred mech classes (like game mode box toggles). If 3 or less people want your preferred class you could be assigned it at the start. That way players who really can't pilot but one class will have a pretty decent change of getting thier class on a somewhat consistent basis. If you want to get crazy you could even prioritize your class options. (e.g. For me I prefer my 1st choice to be medium, 2nd heavy, 3rd light, 4th assault). MM tries to accomodate where possible.

[monk]

Another option to alleviate MM issue without changing group sizes. I realize this would change the core funcitonality of the game creation process, but it might help solve some otherwise ongoig issues.

MM creates teams based only on group size and PSR. We exclude game mode, and classes. When the two teams are generated, the players see a voting screen for the map/mode. Two options are presented based off the preferred game mode options of the players involved. For example, if 24 players have Skirmish, 12 have Assault, and 6 have Conquest, there is a much greater chance that one or more of the options will be a skirmish map. the second option could also be, but it might not. Players have 10 seconds to vote on the map/mode option they prefer. In the case of a tie, the final pick is random.

Map loads. Instead of the normal ready up screen, players now are assigned a weight class based off their preferred class toggle boxes (just like modes). If a player is assigned a class they don't want, they can release it. Released class options can be taken by any player on their team (which immediately releases their own class). Once you have your class you select a mech from your valid mechs in your stable. This includes trial mechs, so you'll always be able to cover your bases. Once you have your mech selected, you hit ready. If all players are ready, the game launches. Players who don't select a mech are defaulted to the last mech of the class they have they used or if they haven't used any valid mechs in that class, the first valid mech in their stable or the trial options.

You could switch mech selection to before map/mode selection if you want to prevent players from being able to make intelligent choices based on map/modes. Also, we could hide the map/mode results until after mech selections are done if we wanted to make it exciting. You'd have an idea of where you'd be dropping, but not 100% surity.

[monk]

Russ, thanks for being present in here. I realize you have to have excessively thick skin and wade through a lot of bloviation to find the few insights that are probably useful. I hope that. in the end, you realise that someone is going to have to bend. There are WAY too many people in MWO with lines drawn in the sand about this or that feature and how if you change it they are leaving the game. It's pathetic. Regardless, I hope you guys figure out which is the smallest and least valued group and just make the change and see how it goes. If a group of players can only play the game in one or require a very specific set of rules they can already go make private matches. The public game queues need to be designed to be flexible where possible, but functional. Waiting over 20 minutes for matches as I did this last week is both non-functional and clearly not fun. I guarantee that will lose more players to that issue than you will by forcing a few more restrictions on what is and is not an option to players.

All that said, I guess you could make a toggle box that says, "I'm stubborn and refuse to compromise. Only let me play if my options are met 100%." If a players demands their exact choices be met, then maybe let them do that. If they have to wait 45 minutes for a match because of it, that would be their problem.

[Kjudoon]

Map loads? You do realize that the reason it is nigh impossible to get a match is there are too many planets to fight over currently dropping the available pool to miniscule levels. Doing the same thing by map in the pqs will be even worse.

Now what i am hearing as i filter out the noise and get to the signal from those who hate this plan is this:

I dont want to play in cw it sucks because nobody will play there even me because I dont like the playstyle. I want to play in the group queue where i can abuse the matchmaker and curbstomp pugs and rarely risk it happening to me thanks to psr and the matchmaker protecting me.

I am sorry but this is precisely why large groups should be in cw only. Most possible matches but they will need to trim down the available battlefields to say 3 since travel is instant and there is no real repercussions. Let it ve a choice of IS V IS. Clan v Clan and IS v Clan. Until individuals are made into assets on the map and it becomes a real persistant universe instead of a fancy epeen board there is no reason for the complexity we have.

[MischiefSC]

Kjudoon, on 05 September 2015 - 01:32 AM, said:

Map loads? You do realize that the reason it is nigh impossible to get a match is there are too many planets to fight over currently dropping the available pool to miniscule levels. Doing the same thing by map in the pqs will be even worse.

Now what i am hearing as i filter out the noise and get to the signal from those who hate this plan is this:

I dont want to play in cw it sucks because nobody will play there even me because I dont like the playstyle. I want to play in the group queue where i can abuse the matchmaker and curbstomp pugs and rarely risk it happening to me thanks to psr and the matchmaker protecting me.

I am sorry but this is precisely why large groups should be in cw only. Most possible matches but they will need to trim down the available battlefields to say 3 since travel is instant and there is no real repercussions. Let it ve a choice of IS V IS. Clan v Clan and IS v Clan. Until individuals are made into assets on the map and it becomes a real persistant universe instead of a fancy epeen board there is no reason for the complexity we have.

Nobody is saying any of that. Making CW function that way would reduce interest in it even more. Players need MORE choices in CW, not less. Also rewards for faction membership, etc. etc.

I'm all for letting group queue turn into pug-with-friends queue, just fix CW first. Make it reasonably profitable for the time invested, make it rewarding, make winning/losing mean something, make faction membership mean something. Until then groups need a fun place to play and group queue is it. There already is a pug queue.

[Kjudoon]

The large groups fun is coming at the expense of everyone else and they are the minority here. The problem is roflstomps scare away new players. New players play solo or in small groups the vast majority of the time. Without new players having a balanced place to form friendships and become interested in being part of a unit large groups do not grow. This is the simple logic of it. If people keep retreating to the solo queue to play because that is the only they find enjoyable then this game will continue to be in a negative growth spiral till all you have left is an echochamber of embittered insular players too small to keep the lights on.

Large groups need to learn to accept that reality and swallow their entitlement this time to give themselves a better future.

[PhoenixFire55]

Richter Kerensky, on 04 September 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:

Uneven matches are a product of how this game works and not necessarily a function of the matchmaker failing. Every time you lose someone you lose firepower and an opportunity for that person to flank an opponent. If a group of 3 splits up from the rest of your unit and blunders into a larger group there's a good chance they'll all die without killing anyone. If your Assault lance is screwing around, or just pants-on-head, and brought LRMs and two medium lasers (for close range punch!) they'll probably contribute nothing and 12 v 9 is a pretty strong advantage.

Sigh ... you are totally missing the point. The point isn't that unbalanced matches happen. The point is that ~60-70% of my solo matches end up like that. Yet I am being told that it is the "best feeling public matches in MWO we've ever had".

P.S. Also, I very much like how posts are getting redacted and deleted without any notice. I guess feedback threads are only for positive feedback nowadays huh?

Lily from animove, on 04 September 2015 - 09:48 AM, said:

Whats wro with it? except the afk's nothing looks totally bad here both sides had quite good damages, and the side with the afk's a bit less.
And its only a selection, hwo about showing us ALL matches to truly show how MM makes also good matches?

Those weren't even afk.
I did three matches yesterday before I gave up. Two of the three you can see here.

Edited by PhoenixFire55, 05 September 2015 - 02:13 AM.

[TWIAFU]

Tasker, on 04 September 2015 - 06:02 AM, said:

4 man group size: limit ability of veteran players to play with friends/unit

1/1/1/1: punish people who haven't been playing for three years


[Redacted]

All brought to you by players that do not play in groups or in Units.

Aren't you excited to have your gameplay and how you like to play, read: with friends and Unit, be limited by players that do not play in a group or Unit?

I know I am thrilled.

This is just going to annoy more of the player base, those that play in groups and units a full 2/3rds of the queues are in support of group and unit play. Will have added benefit of making Groups of friends and Units smaller as they quit due to not being able to play with each other.

At least we will have the fun of sync dropping a whole unit of players in groups of 4 on the same planet.

Again PGI, you are making us choose between friends and the game. Again PGI, you will loose.

[IlKhan Prepaid Kerensky]

If Mechwarrior online was just simply a fun game to play, nobody would be writing thesis statements like this.

Nobody agrees on anything but the word count.

[MasterBLB]

Absolutely NO for this idiocy 1/1/1/1.
Long,long ago in 2013,when I started to play MWO I've played with my friend Spectre in group.We both used Hunchbacks 4SP as it was the only mech we had;and thanks to that group play I've became devoted to the game.
Due to that stupid rule it would not be possible.

And about the matchmaking - in most of my games I got team without even one ECM while the other has 2-4.I think that borked device which influences matchmaker outcome should immediately be removed from the game.

[Redshift2k5]

I've been away for several months, and since I've come back I've just been playing solo. Solo matches feel pretty good, there are some lopsided match results but overall solo matching feels nice. I just don't really have time for grouping, especially not since queue times would take a bite out of my already meagre play time.

Anything that gets matches made faster would be a benefit, having a flexible teamcomp is useless if you can't get into a match.

[C E Dwyer]

limit groups to four comes up again..
limit what mech's people can play again.

Are you wanting the population to dive further, you might as well scrub team play from the standard maps and make it just CW

CW population would grow, initially, and then die out as the IIc's go live, but the over all population will shrink.

I have no R.L friends that play PC or console games, preferring 'healthy' non geek activities like bars and pubs, which I also take part in, and fail dramatically to build any enthusiasm for internet games in them.

But limiting group sizes again, destroys the whole point of a social team based computer game.

I finally joined a unit after two years because pugging was starting to Piss me off, and I was close to quitting the game and spending money on it, now your proposing that I can't play with these people as a group.

I already have grave doubts about the future of this game, with the introduction of the IIC mechs, which I have bought because I thought I'd rather be the hunter than the prey in ordinary drops, while they cause CW to wither and become extinct, because of gross match imbalance.

But seriously with all the other games on the market which don't limit group sizes and in many cases you raid with groups three times this games 12 person limit, what future has it.


limit group sizes to four, and I can't see this game running into 2017 as many that still fund the wages of PGI will simply spend their money elsewhere, steam will not compensate for the loss of players that quit because they can no longer drop as a unit

[Fire for Effect]

ugrakarma, on 04 September 2015 - 02:40 PM, said:

Playing whole evening in the group queue. It's a joke. No matchmaking whatsoever, or so it seems. The solo queue provides much better matches in quality. I understand that people want to play in big groups - that's fine. Ýou really need to look in the mirror to your selfish eyes and think that is it really worth it.

you played in the goup queue? really? with how many people? what mechs were you using? Did you ever play together before? Did you stay until the end of the matches? if not how can you even estemate how the matches were? You wording also tells me that you are very rarely if at all in the group queue so we do you want to destroy something for others that you are not using at all?

Wanting to play in groups is hardly selfish, maybe you should look into the mirror yourself if you have the basic skills necessary to play in a group. If you have not done it before you dont have those skills.

Group queue is also the only place where you try training to play as a group. And yes it needs training simply grabbing 3 people and saying lets drop is NOT enough.

It is impossible to train proper playing play in CW. CW is far to chaotic and weight setup is permanently changing. CW is also boring as hell for "large" groups (more than 3 players).

Edited by Fire for Effect, 05 September 2015 - 05:03 AM.

[Neput Z34]

My only suggestion would be, is to replace 1/1/1/1 or 3/3/3/3 with some other mechanic to limit tonnage on the field.

Current rule of threes only encourages to people to play meta / heaviest mechs in their weight class. If you are bringing any thing else you are less beneficial to the team, at least the way I see it.

Edited by Neput Z34, 05 September 2015 - 05:12 AM.

[thinkn bout thos Beans mans game]

PhoenixFire55, on 05 September 2015 - 02:08 AM, said:

P.S. Also, I very much like how posts are getting redacted and deleted without any notice. I guess feedback threads are only for positive feedback nowadays huh?

Turns out the spirit of Nico still haunts this world, and the general populace no longer cares

[thinkn bout thos Beans mans game]

Russ and Bryan triumphantly looking over the charred remains of a once great IP

[Fire for Effect]

Rayne Vickers, on 04 September 2015 - 07:00 PM, said:

To all of those saying "we tried the 4 man max cap and it didn't work" that's either misinformed or blatantly disingenuous, because it's been so long ago (during beta) that the game has changed massively since then. We need to *try* it to see if it works *now* or not, then go from there.

I was there and it did not work in the least, it was horribe each time someone came and wanted to play you had to rearage the groups. MM was horrible. It did not work. Even during the absurd Lurmpocalypses we lost not so many players as during the first weeks of that absurd experiment. And dont have illusions this game is still in Beta...

The game has only changed in small things such as weapon balance new mechs new maps but this is at a completely other layer and that layer has not changed.

and again:

ACCORDING TO DATA LARGE GROUPS ARE A SMALL MINORITY HOW CAN SO FEW PEOPLE BE A PROBLEM?


The problem of the match maker is that it uses weight classes instead of combat potential to match.
That is simply the completely wrong mechanic!
Not weight class but combat potential kills mechs.
Of course you can try to game the system but its infinitely better than stuffing a cicada and a stormcrow into the same bucket and saying yes these are equal.
Use Mech BV times pilot ability to match; so what if one side has 2 heavy mechs more... Matches can finally be fascinating again if the enemy brings 5 lights or no lights to the battlefield.

Coolant, on 04 September 2015 - 07:29 PM, said:

I like the 4-man....before I was against it because we always seemed to have 5-6 on comms and didn't want anyone left out. Well, now we're lucky to have 3 on at one time, so my unit no longer needs more than 4 man.

so just because you personnely have no change at all; you want to sour the game for others?

Edited by Fire for Effect, 05 September 2015 - 05:15 AM.

[Fire for Effect]

Neput Z34, on 05 September 2015 - 05:00 AM, said:

My only suggestion would be, is to replace 1/1/1/1 or 3/3/3/3 with some other mechanic to limit tonnage on the field.

Current rule of threes only encourages to people to play meta / heaviest mechs in their weight class. If you are bringing any thing else you are less beneficial to the team, at least the way I see it.

Again this problem can be circumvented completely by getting rid of that weight centric view and instead using combat potential, if you bring a really bad mech great somebody else can bring a heavy hitter.

[TheStrider]

Wow, long thread. PGI has their reading work cut out for them...

Going to reiterate my comments to Twitter. I didn't finish reading the thread so I'm just putting in my thoughts.

Last night was the first time in a long time that our 2 man team had a good night in Group queue. Wait times were fast, stomps weren't overly often, and we were on both sides of the coin enough not to start whining. Only time we stepped away for 5 minutes was when we faced a 8 man BMMU squad 2 games in a row, who were running nothing but high end meta.

Large groups are a problem. Whenever I see them, they're essentially 'pug stomping'.

Could we not tighten up the match maker in regards to group matching? Say +/- 2 players. So if you run in an 8 man, you must be matched vs a 6-10 man team.

The cost to running around in a 'stomp mode' sized team is longer wait times. You want shorter wait times, break up your death squadron.

Some seem to claim they are practicing - how is it practicing when you are stomping unorganized teams? You want to practice, do it among your own team or find another unit to spar with. THAT is practice. You don't see MLB or NBA teams 'practicing' vs high school teams.

I would also agree with the sentiment that even sized teams may help the Matchmaker out.



Lastly - we did an event a while back where the larger the group the more restrictive the tonnage. I thought it went well, would that not be a decent option?