1142 replies to this topic

[Russ Bullock]

vortmax, on 03 September 2015 - 02:04 PM, said:

And yes, solo queue has been fantastic. Most matches are at most 12-7, with many being 12-9 or closer. Yes there were a few "rolls," but those are much lower than before PSR.

I agree

[Suko]

Russ, since you seem to be reading these posts, could you remind us of the numbers you mentioned a few months back in a town hall on grouped players vs solo? I think if people understood just how few people play in 4+ size groups, it could help them see that there is a large majority of the player base being affected for the the game quality of a very small minority of the population.

Edited by Suko, 03 September 2015 - 02:56 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Can we have a poll between hard soft game mode select and 1/1/1/1 4-man cap?

I'd FAR rather have soft game mode select (and then open the possibility for more game modes!)

[SkyHammyr]

Quote

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

I run gaming nights every Thursday with three other guys.
We play MWO quite often on those nights.

We each have enough mechs in our stables to support 1/1/1/1.

We can do this easily. No sweat.

But, to be honest, I'm not sure how it would make games better. It would surely make the wait times less. But, you're still gonna have bad matches because nobody uses VOIP (and they especially wouldn't use VOIP if they're on their own comms).

[Russ Bullock]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 03 September 2015 - 02:09 PM, said:

I Really, considering how many variables the MM has to juggle, I'm surprised by how short the waits are (relative to how long they could be) and how good the games are (relative to how stompy and one-sided they could be). In the event that you can't solve the 3 issues I listed above, better to leave the group queue where it is than to alienate paying customers by changing something controversial. That said, whatever you do, do it well before the Steam launch. You don't want to be making radical changes to mm functionality after the Steam release.

A reasonable man with largely my own conclusions echoed here.

[Pjwned]

First, I just want to say that it's nice to see some serious discussion going on about something like matchmaking, and that the purpose of the discussion is to really listen to community feedback. I also mostly agree that the solo queue is in a pretty good place with the new PSR system that PGI has clearly put at least some effort into, and I also agree that improvements to the group queue should not come at the detriment of the solo queue, especially considering that would ultimately be a short-sighted, self-defeating solution.

That said...

Why would MWO go back to max group sizes of 4 again? So many people clamored to have bigger groups so that they could play with their 5+ groups/units/friends/whatever, and it was supposed to be such a big deal to remove the 4-man limit after finally making a true solo queue for solo players to enjoy without worrying about facing off with 4-man groups of light mechs (or whatever else) in the otherwise solo player queue.

Would you just say that you were wrong about removing the 4-man limit and go back to the way it was? I don't think that's the answer at all, and in fact that sounds like the complete opposite direction of how group matches should be handled, because there are other ways of addressing the group queue.

I posted my thoughts elsewhere about what to do with group queue, and I still stand by what I said:

Pjwned, on 31 August 2015 - 03:54 PM, said:

There are 3 things that could be done to make group queue less bad without eliminating the solo queue, which is a terrible idea and Russ has already commented on Twitter that he doesn't want to screw up the solo queue just because group players (who are a minority) are not happy.

1. As already mentioned, allow solo players to opt into the group queue if they wish.

2. Get rid of 3/3/3/3 in the group queue, it doesn't even do its damn job of ensuring 3/3/3/3 teams (unless it's two 12-man groups facing each other, which is rare) so really all it does is annoy people and make the match searching process take forever.

3. Change the game mode preferences to allow people to queue for modes they don't prefer but would still play if the matchmaker found something ideal for you; an outline of how this would work is in the spoiler.

Spoiler

Pjwned, on 20 February 2015 - 11:49 AM, said:

I like the way it is now where players cannot pick & choose maps but they can pick game modes, but I would like to see a more flexible system for game mode choice if it meant better quality ELO matches. All that PGI would need to do is change game mode selection a little bit to include a 3rd option which would basically amount to "not preferred" but still willing to play the mode.

A few examples should make it clear if it's not already:

Player A: Prefers any mode, which would generally give them the best wait times for matches
Result: Conquest

Player B: Prefers Skirmish & Conquest, will not play Assault
Result: Skirmish

Player C: Prefers Skirmish, does not prefer Conquest, will not play Assault
Result: Skirmish

Player D: Prefers Skirmish, does not prefer Conquest, will not play Assault
Result: Conquest because the match was ideal for ELO and/or could not find a better match for Skirmish

Player E: Prefers Skirmish, does not prefer Conquest & Assault
Result: Assault because the match was ideal for ELO and/or could not find a better match for Skirmish

Player F: Prefers Skirmish, will not play Conquest & Assault
Result: Skirmish no matter what

Just like how it is now nobody is forced to play modes they do not want to play at all, but instead of either all or nothing players could choose to weigh down 1 or 2 modes that they are still willing to play if it means better match quality for ELO.

This seems like the ideal solution to me, and if it had been done this way the last time PGI interfered with game mode choice there would have been much less of a shitstorm I imagine.

All of these ideas are sensible and practical and would almost certainly see an increase of players in the group queue as well as better quality matches in the group queue.

Putting even more restrictions than there are already in the group queue will just result in it becoming a ghost town, so even if some people would like to see max groups of 4 with 1/1/1/1 (which I bet most people would change their minds about in short order) it wouldn't really matter much since the group queue would be even more dead than it is now.

[SpartanOfValor]

If we are going to change group sizes, I would reccomend a 2-3 be Solo/mixed group queue only. and Solo players have the CHOICE to opt out of this queue just like we do for gamemodes/servers. On;y problem with this is we might see 2-3 man sync drops.

For group queue, 4/8/12 may be a cool idea, with 1/1/1/1 and 2/2/2/2, and 3/3/3/3 respectively. an 8 and a 4 man can beat a 12, they just have to play together, and play well. 12 mans are not invincible.

[Deathlike]

Homeless Bill, on 03 September 2015 - 02:38 PM, said:

Just do it. Community Warfare is where big groups should be pushed towards, and although as a mode it's not up to snuff quite yet, that's what the aim should be. Group Queue should be focused on making quick, competitive matches instead of catering to every option players want.

The only time that would be acceptable if and only if CW was designed well and populated. Failing that, "neutering" the group queue does not solve what it intends to solve.


I'm not willing to go back to the 4-man premade max days... this game can't take that kind of player hemorrhaging again.

I'll "tolerate" the 1/1/1/1 system, but remember that this game does't promote role warfare sufficiently enough where 1/1/1/1 becomes a palatable option in general. The Light+Heavy rates are proof of concept since whenever MM queue stats were put up.

Edited by Deathlike, 04 September 2015 - 12:09 PM.

[East Indy]

xX PUG Xx, on 03 September 2015 - 02:53 PM, said:

it was one of the most unpleasant factors of being in a Unit and simply not being able to group up with however many friends we wanted.

This is PGI's to make or break, but in that case a fifth guy would mean the party leader says, "All right, we're switching to Community Warfare," and have a similar experience because everyone else with 5+ has switched to CW for the night.

[Solahma]

Russ Bullock, on 03 September 2015 - 02:57 PM, said:

A reasonable man with largely my own conclusions echoed here.

Maybe we should be keeping group-queue the same and testing this 4-man 1/1/1/1 thing for a Solaris competitive queue

[Appogee]

Russ, respectfully, my experience in the Solo Queue doesn't seem to be as positive as you or others are stating.

I find that, just like under the Elo system, I am dropping with a couple of good players, and a lot of inexperienced ones. The idea that this creates an 'average skill level' for the matchmaker just doesn't seem to work out. Stomps remain the most common outcome.

I don't know how to solve it. I appreciate that low player population is the root cause. I am just passing on my experience.

[coe7]

This is, kinda the crux of group MM issues, happened 22 days ago.

http://i.imgur.com/ip63Iea.jpg

Huge tonnage difference, match was decided before Tiers even kicked in.

865t 4A+5H+2M+1L vs 665t 1A 5H 2M 4L


What I suggest is following, that will remove tonnage differences and make tiers truly kick in group MM. Why like this, Ill explain at the end of the post.

Max group size in MM is 2,3 or 4 players. Each group can choose between either light or heavy lance type.

Light lance group is 2/2/0/0
Heavy lance group is 0/0/2/2

Show % of each group type searching for a game.

Queue search is lights or heavies, meaning that team of 4 must take 2 light and 2 medium or 2 heavy and 2 assault depending what group lance type they want to drop. Then show % of splits searching. So you would end up with situation where you only need to match 1 lance of the light group and 2 other lances can be from heavy set. Or wise versa depending on situation.

Match could be example 2lances of heavy mechs (2 heavy 2 assault x 2) and one set of light lance (2 light 2 medium) vs similar lance groups.

Sometimes you might even drop into games where you have 2 light lances and only one heavy lance. Or 3 heavy lances.

This will also encourage lance group play, lights and mediums play well together. Same for heavies and assaults. Group of 2-3-4 friends can choose what to drop and play wide selection of tactics within these two lance types, that allow more variety.

Problem with 1-1-1-1 is that, 1-1-1-1 can not play together in lance style. In my suggestion of 2/2/0/0 and 0/0/2/2 we allow light rushes, brawls, snipers, medium range, support lights, etc, etc work together. 1/1/1/1 split can not really work as lance is intended to work at high level of play. This would work great with tier setup as well.

If you want to push towards role warfare, 1-1-1-1 is not a lance play set on roles. Its individual effort of people doing what their tonnage allows while talking **** on TS about the workday or girl they met last night. =P

Ps. In group queue allow only server selection, no game mode selection.

Edited by coe7, 05 September 2015 - 01:55 PM.

[GI Journalist]

Groups of 1/1/1/1 won't work for any of the units that have groups of 2 to 12 players cycling through and changing constantly.

We would be forced into CW, which currently lacks the variety of Skirmish, Assault and Conquest. Please expand CW with variant scenarios before considering a 1/1/1/1 four-person public group queue.

[Monkey Lover]

I don't mind waiting 4 limit would hurt a lot of ts servers.

[Tarogato]

Maximum group size of 4: NO. I would probably quit the game at that point.

Can we please have group sizes that are only multiples of four ? It's less jigsaw pieces for the MM and it allows us to have our groups of 4, 8, as well as 12. They all complement each other.

Sorry for the big font, but yeah... strong opinion.

What is the percentage of groups in the queue that are only a pair of two players, btw? If they're a large constituent, we could come up with a different solution for them. I have an idea, anyway.

Edited by Tarogato, 03 September 2015 - 03:14 PM.

[UltraMek]

4 man limit. The good teams can weigh it too far with 6+ players, but 12 good pugs can overcome 4 elites + 8 goofballs

[Kamikaze Viking]

I Zeratul I, on 03 September 2015 - 01:56 PM, said:

Different perspective.

Can we have an option to pug in group queue?

It could decrease wait times and make those gaps easier to fill.

I've suggested this before. I'd love to be able to play solo and fill group slots.
Just having the option to put even a single solo player into each group team would make the group jigsaw much easier to solve.

In relation to the Group Queue here is a Reddit post i put up the other day


"To Everyone saying "oh but my queue times are fine" please note that this problem is primarily complaints from the best players in the game. the 1% at the top, who get locked out from playing aginst tier 4&5's.
As a probably tier2-3 player in Oceanic TZ with all options selected I have no issues most of the time until certain players join the group such as Juju, Odin's Steed and a few other guys who we KNOW are at the top of their game (despite PSR not being public yet). As soon as these people join up, the Queue's blow out immensely.
PGI Please fix this. It cannot be good for publicity to lockout your most dedicated, highest skilled, and Vocal players."

[jay35]

Forcing groups to 4-max with no 8-man or 12-man options means units can no longer play together in group queue. Since there's currently no good alternative (CW is a joke right now), you are removing the only good way for units to play MWO together in public. This encourages further player population attrition since they can go play other games together.

On top of that, forcing the groups (of whatever size) to 1/1/1/1 would mean we might as well just play solo queue if we don't happen to have a set of 4 people to fill one of each weight class. That's just bad every way we look at it. Even if we do 4-max group queue, please don't force it to 1/1/1/1.

Most of the time I play group queue the wait times aren't terrible but there have been a handful of times I've felt the pain others report having, with wait times upwards of 5 minutes, sometimes as much as 10 minutes. That's not cool.

But I'm curious why we didn't have this problem when using Elo. I never had super-long wait times in group queue before the switch to PSR, except maybe in the days/weeks immediately preceding that change simply because player population subjectively feels much lower this summer than it has ever before.

Edited by jay35, 03 September 2015 - 03:22 PM.

[Russ Bullock]

BattleBunny, on 03 September 2015 - 02:28 PM, said:

I've been playing a bit last few hours and the searchtime is definatly improved. Longest search I had in 3 hours of gameplay was 2 minutes and 3 seconds. Thats amazing. Match quality varied a lot. Other then one RRB group we met 4 times, I havent seen many of the same faces. I liked that too. No longer waiting 5+ minutes to see the same faces over and over again. I say stick with the current matchmaking system. finding games quikly is what I want, no more spinning wheel. After the recent searchtimes in the group queue I care less about the quality of the matches. I just want to shoot things and have a beer, not wait forever. Group sizes limited to 4 would be disappointing for me. I enjoy playing multiplayer games with my friends and I enjoy groups of all sizes. Some days small, other days large.

Well here is a valid opinion - looking for more of these.

We are looking to add a short cut to the group queue on the front screen next to the social button.

[ApolloKaras]

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.

So if I understand this correctly...

Stop complaining or we're going to do something that you'll truly hate.

Rather than explore other options THIS is the ONLY option available? Are you kidding me? This is a team friendly game. The 4 man system was fantastic for folks who didn't have a larger unit. You want to play with your 6 friends? Too bad, 1 4 man 1 2 man and hope you sync. As much flak as this caught back in the day and you want to suggest going back to it.

This is a terrible idea.

Edited by Saxie, 03 September 2015 - 03:09 PM.