1142 replies to this topic

[PyckenZot]

I have actually been a long standing proponent of only allowing small groups in public queue. Look at most, if not all, other MO shooters. Random drops occur with small groups or PUGs only. And the CW is for companies. That is the way it should be. Currently group drops in public are just good for the K/D ego of roflolstompers.

On the possible return that CW has too low a population, I always reply that around 100-200 peeps play CW at a given time when I'm online. I'm guessing that could be doubled if one would prohibit seal clubbing in public games.

Edited by PyckenZot, 08 September 2015 - 04:51 AM.

[slide]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 08 September 2015 - 12:48 AM, said:

Slide, good to see you out in your 9xMPL HBK-4P this weekend ... you caught me out of position a couple of times while I was solo grinding XP for my BNCs and made me pay for it.

Whilst I would like to take credit you must have me confused with someone else. I don't even own a 4p Hunchie anymore and I can't remember the last time I took a Hunchie out.

If we must have a group of 4 (not that advocate it at all) I would prefer to see a tonnage limit similar to what we have in CW where the lance has a limit of around 240 tonnes. It gives people the opportunity to run similar/complimentary builds to practice tactics or for training. 1/1/1/1 pigeon holes people into disparate mechs that won't necessarily work well together. If people wanted they could take 3 mediums and an assault. Which would arguably work better than 1 from each weight class. At the very least we would see fewer assaults and top end heavies than we do now. 60 tonne average per player in a lance would work well, I think.

I may have come across anti - good/meta players. That is not my intent. Everybody good, bad and in between should be able to play at the level they wan't. But if we must mix the good with the bad (due to low population) we have to find a way to account for skill and balance the match. Stomps by highly skilled teams, as sure as the sun rises in the east, chases new/less skilled players away, often permanently. I have experienced the despondency on TS after 3 or 4 games of that, the tension and frustration is palpable. And I am sure we have been as guilty as anyone of doing it to players below us in the skill chain too.

It has to stop.

No matter where you are in this game (skill wise) you have to be able to win some matches and lose some matches and most importantly have fun. The vibe I get from the forums is that top teams aren't having fun clubbing seals anymore (hence why many no longer play CW). The seals certainly don't enjoy the experience and anyone in between is the meat in the sandwich having a result go either way depending on who they get teamed up with, their input having little bearing on the outcome.

Handicapping experienced teams is not a punishment for being good, it is a recognition of their skills and an opportunity for a greater challenge. Most experienced players will have a good number of mechs to choose from. It is easier to take tonnage (or BV preferably) away from them, than it is to give less experienced/newer players a bonus which they may not be able to take advantage of.

[BattleBunny]

DeRazer, on 08 September 2015 - 01:31 AM, said:

Do people really wait for 20 mins+ and if so what sort of groups are they in?

Not anymore. Before the matchmaker was loosened up me and my buddies would wait 30 minutes for a match sometimes, depending on the time of day. I would say some of those buddies are definite tier 1 players, which was the problem I suspect.

But now that the matchmaker is more forgiving for the group queue the wait times have decreased to very acceptable levels.

I hope they leave it like it is right now and never touch the group matchmaker again.
I rather play 6 matches in half an hour, and maybe have one good one out of those 6, then wait 30 minutes for one match that MIGHT be a good one.

Edited by BattleBunny, 08 September 2015 - 05:52 AM.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

slide, on 08 September 2015 - 05:27 AM, said:

Whilst I would like to take credit you must have me confused with someone else. I don't even own a 4p Hunchie anymore and I can't remember the last time I took a Hunchie out.

Hmm ... coulda sworn it was you ... gonna have to go back and check my screenshots now ... yep, it was Sleek, not Slide ... my bad.

Quote

... 1/1/1/1 pigeon holes people into disparate mechs that won't necessarily work well together.

I would personally rather think that people with different types of playing styles working together could figure out how to make it work and work very, very well ... but, for the most part, you're right. 1/1/1/1 is too restrictive. My problem with 240 (or some other arbitrary tonnage limit) is that it would encourage teams to bring four of the exact same 'mech ... boring and would inevitably lead to the power creep problem we have now. (Clan 'mechs were goign to do that anyway, but that's a different discussion.)

Quote

... Everybody good, bad and in between should be able to play at the level they wan't. But if we must mix the good with the bad (due to low population) we have to find a way to account for skill and balance the match. Stomps by highly skilled teams, as sure as the sun rises in the east, chases new/less skilled players away, often permanently. ...

Concur. Completely.


If I took any of your quotes out of context and mixed up their meaning, I'm sure it was my fault. Good discussion.

[Summon3r]

first off, thanks for the post and details, also much appreciate asking the communities input on this.....

I am 110% for going back to group que max 4

i personally would like to see the ability to drop 2 mechs of the same class in a lance (but maybe that doesnt work well for MM?)

most fun i have or have had in MWO are in small group play.

[Mawai]

mrpetzold, on 03 September 2015 - 01:59 PM, said:

Some middleroad as Suko proposed is acceptable. Groups of 2, 3, 4, 8 and 12 allowed. To allow 8 and 12 will maybe even make LFG-function see some love again. During the low-population hours a 5 minute wait is atleast acceptable for me. After 5 minutes maybe the hardchoiced modes should be made into a preference rather then a choice. Regarding weightclass-restriction. A 1-1-1-1 might be a bit restrictive. Perhaps a 2-2-2-2 would work better (so in a 4 man you can run 2 assaults a heavy and a medium f.ex). With only one of each class the reason behind grouping up in the first place might be unnecassary since there is often big differences in the roles of the different weightclasses which lead to the group being unable to cooperate properly.

The first problem with limiting groups to 2-3-4-8-12 is the fact that matching 3 man groups will require either all 3 man groups or a minimum of two 3 man plus a 2 man and a 4 man or (2 x 2man). If you then add on the requirement of weight class matching, it would be my guess that it would be even harder to form a balanced match for these folks than it is now.

In addition, the coordination advantage available to a 12 man with all on coms is significant. Against an 8+4 team they will have an advantage and against any other opposing team distribution they will have an even greater advantage. Sure they still might lose but on average a 12 man on coms that is actually playing to win has a significant edge.

Limiting the queue to 2 or 4 man groups will likely improve the "balance" but this will be at the expense of flexibility. The players will not be able to form groups that correspond to availability but will have to pick and choose who gets to go in what group. This is certain to be irritating to some fraction of the player base.

In my opinion, there is no ideal solution. Part of the problem is that the matchmaker really doesn't have enough data to properly balance a match. The PSR score by itself is completely insufficient since mech tonnage and loadout are extremely significant factors. Someone who has high PSR from playing his Assaults, or Timberwolf will likely not play the same when leveling up their Locust ... but the matchmaker does not currently take this into account.

The bottom line is that each mech really needs a battle value rating of some sort calculated based on tonnage/weapon loadout/engine size and type/modules. This then needs to be combined with a pilot rating composed of two factors ... a number based on prior performance in similar mechs (like PSR or Elo by weight class) plus a factor based on the XP or sklill unlocks achieved for the mech they are using. Stir all this together and you should get a reasonable estimate of the expected performance of the specific pilot in the specific mech. This value could then be used for match making.

Utilizing such a system might allow the matchmaker to discard the exact weight class matching since it doesn't really work that well anyway (e.g. 3 dire wolves are the same as 3 awesomes).

However, such a system would be substantial work and PGI doesn't have that many developers so my guess is that it won't happen (even though their mech balance pass would be an ideal opportunity to evaluate capabilities and implement such a system.)

[wmusil]

I don't always drop in groups, but when I do, it is almost never four. Stay thirsty my friends ...

BIG EDIT, My answer was to a different question.

Now, the premise is , leave it as is, or ... make it 4 man or less with 1/1/1/1 class beaks, forget about the 4 or 12 as in the past. I can see where that would make MM infinitely easier for PGI, and would still allow the large 12 mans to attempt to sync drop. My guess is that the MM would often keep those 12 mans from doing so.

In the past, we spent, and wasted much time trying to sync drop. We almost never has 12 anyway For us at least, it became much more frustrating than solo pugging. Now at least, when our schedules allow, we can group up, we can all play. And it has slowly helped with recruiting. We are a group that will be harmed by any change away from what we have now.

And I don't want to call out any of the teams that can bring 12 or more all the time. Big groups will get bored as everyone else. We just can't put all 12 mans in a box, as they will wait forever, we also cannot simply say, 12 mans are banned, and so is sync dropping. If we do, what is the point of a team that has more than three or four players. Is a team of more than three or four players that prolly wont sync with their group a team?

The ability to play as a unit has helped. if we go back to 4 mans or less, many of the smaller groups like ours won't fare well. prolly wont effect the big groups at all in the long run, but many of the groups that cannot muster a 12 man, might just go away. The three man merc core will be fine, the small teams of 14 or so that cannot play at the same time will disappear.

Edited by wmusil, 08 September 2015 - 10:47 AM.

[Rayne Vickers]

Lazor Sharp, on 07 September 2015 - 09:11 AM, said:

Why O Why, cant these 2-3 Friends, join a like minded unit, and play with some other Vets, and possibly make new friends and learn the ropes, while not being Stomped so much in 2-3 Friends HELL.......

Why O Why can't you stop making the same post over and over in this thread? We get it, you don't like people running solo and small groups. The data doesn't back up your assertions. Regardless of what you *want* MWO to be that *isn't* what it is, now. Unless you want to be Batman and "give this game what it needs and deserves" then you're going to have to accept it the way it *is* and work within those confines, that seems to be what PGI's doing.

Edited by Rayne Vickers, 08 September 2015 - 11:01 AM.

[valt901]

I like dropping with large groups. If that means i get 228 or EMP so be it. Maybe hell will freeze and we'll kill one of them. Anyway those matches don't last long and you can move on. So leave it the way it is. That's my vote.
Remember one other thing. That means only 2 man or 4 man can drop, no odd numbers. This will turn many big units into a big mess as people try to make three or four 4 man groups. People will be shut out of playing because they can't get into a 4 man because there are already 2 of them going and not enough players on to make another so they will say screw it and leave.

Edited by valt901, 08 September 2015 - 11:27 AM.

[Namicus]

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.

This nails it.

I'd be interested in an update regarding % population that play in larger group sizes. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say most people playing this game play solo or perhaps in groups of two (or no larger than 4). I'd also be willing to bet that those who play in smaller groups are as fed up as I am with playing the group queue as it is now due to large coordinated groups rolling over you after waiting so long to get a game started.

I used to play with a buddy a couple times a week but after getting stomped so many times by large coordinated groups it just wasn't fun anymore. Our gaming sessions would inevitably become a *****-fest that the group queue has to go back to groups of four at most. Now we play maybe once a week or every other week and within a half hour we are reminded why we don't play more often. But I'm heartened that Russ is seemingly putting this on the table again.

And one last thing before I'm done my rant. I've actually spent probably around a thousand bucks on this game and my buddy spent around 500, so it's a stretch to say it's only the big group players supporting the game as some have mentioned in earlier posts. I'm sure there are other small group players who think like I do and have skin in the game. Hence my original thought that I'd like to know player percentages to help set some of that context against so much rhetoric.

Keeping fingers crossed for 4 person group limits.

Edit - I should have read a few more posts before posting. Super interesting that only about 6% of matches are groups of 5+. Some commentor's rhetoric would have one believe it was the complete opposite.

Edited by Namicus, 08 September 2015 - 12:07 PM.

[Lazor Sharp]

LOL, Nope, never said I did not like Solo's or 2-3 mans.... My whole point is, this is a Team based game, and these friends would have more fun dropping with vets in their unit in 6+ mans and learning the ropes from the vets, vs getting stomped in 2-3 Friends Hell, over, and, over, again, that I have been hearing so much about on the forums.....

I think Armondo said it best lately.... playing Solo in a Team Based Game = oxymoron
playing newbie 2-3 man Pug simi solo in a Team Based Game = oxymoron

I play solo Q sometimes when it suites me, our unit plays 2-3 mans a lot, since RL keeps some of the regulars away at times.
but we are not newbies and mostly do ok as 2-3 mans..... I do much prefer that we have 5+ players playing though.
some times we go to one of the TS severs and just hang out in the looking for group room till someone invites us to their room....

but I guess coordinated team work is totally OP.......LOL

[Rayne Vickers]

Lazor Sharp, on 08 September 2015 - 12:01 PM, said:

LOL, Nope, never said I did not like Solo's or 2-3 mans.... My whole point is, this is a Team based game, and these friends would have more fun dropping with vets in their unit in 6+ mans and learning the ropes from the vets, vs getting stomped in 2-3 Friends Hell, over, and, over, again, that I have been hearing so much about on the forums.....

I think Armondo said it best lately.... playing Solo in a Team Based Game = oxymoron
playing newbie 2-3 man Pug simi solo in a Team Based Game = oxymoron

I play solo Q sometimes when it suites me, our unit plays 2-3 mans a lot, since RL keeps some of the regulars away at times.
but we are not newbies and mostly do ok as 2-3 mans..... I do much prefer that we have 5+ players playing though.
some times we go to one of the TS severs and just hang out in the looking for group room till someone invites us to their room....

but I guess coordinated team work is totally OP.......LOL

Let me be clear. I'm not a "newbie" either. As I've said before, I've been in the game since beta, and am "decent" (probably a tier 3 is my guess). My friend and I do *OK* in the group queue most days dropping as 2 (better with 3, but we get that rarely). But it's not great by any means, especially during big event weekends or seemingly, whenever we desperately need doubles for something. I play solo when it suits me as well (as does my friend). But acting as if 2-3 people isn't a "team" in a "team-based" game is kind of silly. "Small Squad" (2-4 man) tactics are just as important as large group tactics, to the point that my Unit specifically practices Lance Combat fairly often. It's disingenuous to say or assume otherwise.

My point also was that, according to Russ and the data he's shared, 60-75% of the players of the game play in the Solo Queue, to ignore that just because you *want* it to be something else is kind of self-defeating, especially if you're a business trying to keep the game's lights on (PGI).

[Lazor Sharp]

"60-75% of the players of the game play in the Solo Queue," I don't want to ignore this Fact....!! I am pointing it out....!!!!! And asking, why is it this way, in a Team Based game......????? I ask Why has PGI not fleshed out the Unit aspect in a team based game more so than what has been done. I am asking what can be done to make this Team based game more friendly to the solo ppl, and the 2-3 mans friends, so that they are having FUN as a unit, running 6+ PPL every night, not 2-5 ppl every night.........

A Team Based Game with this % of Solo & Small groups.....? Why O Why is it this way, and what can be done about it, Or does anyone want to do any thing about it.....?????

Edited by Lazor Sharp, 08 September 2015 - 01:48 PM.

[Thumper3]

First, I am encouraged and happy to see Russ actually off twitter and in the forums! LOL

Maybe I am old fashioned, but forums are the place for discussions and deep thoughts........short messages fired off a thumb keyboard are for tweens and vapid dregs of society.


The biggest key point here so many are failing to get are that Russ is not asking for what we would want in a perfect world so he can get out his wand and make our dreams come true.

In a perfect world 4 man limits would be non-existent.....and we'd find matches in less than 2 minutes.....and the matches would be equally matched and fun drawn out slug fests of punch and counter punch.

But that is not the game we have.

We have a team based game where the vast majority of players (as reported by Russ)......don't play in teams.

Is it mind boggling? Yes

Is it ridiculous? Yes

Is it the reality we have? Unfortunately yes.


MM needs players to work it's magic, you can't give it a complex set of formulas and requirements to filter and then throw a mere 100 players at it. It will whir and smoke and churn for a while before exploding and just dumping any 12 people against any 12 people and then go curl up in the corner.

4 man limits are not good, but what do we expect them to do? People cry about wait times....they offer a suggestion to fix.......people cry about the fix........at some point the tears must stop and an understanding of reality must be accepted.

I remember the dark days of 4 man limits, perhaps allowing as someone suggested 4, 8, and 12 instead of just 4 or 12 would help while still not being perfect. But again, at this point and time perfect is not an option.

I do want to throw my support behind the Opt-In suggestion where Solo's can go into the group que. I know there are many team players like myself who still sometimes PUG just to level mechs or for whatever reason but are not quivering balls of fear when it comes to facing off against a skilled team. I have no issue filling an open slot and following a team's plan when running solo and would, in fact, prefer it over standard Solo. I don't think that allowing this option would hurt the Solo que significantly as you think Russ, unless you think that a large majority of solo players would prefer to play in the group que. Which if that were the case.......wouldn't they be in a group already?

4 man group and mech class forcing should be last resort, but should be accepted by the community as a possibility if they continue to cry about wait times.

Try allowing the Opt-in feature first, see if that is the magic bullet solution that balances both ques before taking drastic measures and rolling back the game.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Suggestion

Allow tier 1 and tier 2 pilots from solo queue to fill out the difficult to match group sizes in group queue. I mean it's not like getting a great solo pilot is going to hurt the group and the tier 1 pilots will probably appreciate the challenge.

[DemonRaziel]

Jman5, on 03 September 2015 - 01:59 PM, said:

With regards to chassis limits, what about a dynamic limit.

• Group size 2-4: 1/1/1/1
  
• Group size 5-8: 2/2/2/2
  
• Group size 9-12: 3/3/3/3

This would help alleviate the mech mismatching.

I'd go with a 1 up on each grup size:

• Group size 2-4: 2/2/2/2
  
• Group size 5-8: 3/3/3/3
  
• Group size 9-12: 4/4/4/4

A group of 2 could bring whatever, which I believe is fair, other groups will have to split into 2 weights at least.
You still leave some options to groups of any size, but impose some limitations at the same time.

[XxCulannxX]

I don't think it is the PSR that is the issue, or even weight restriction. Group ques that end up in a roll is usually due to the fact that one side has a larger group. A 10 man and 2 man vs 4 3mans will generally end up a win for the 10 man team even if "skill" was the same on both sides. The choice is do we want group que rolls for the sake of large than 4 man groups or do we want some balance in the group ques. We can't have both, simply choose one and quit crying about it.

[FoXabre]

Warning... Wall of text! (Man this seemed shorter when I was typing it)

I want to preface this by saying I have not read every comment in this thread and so sorry to anyone who may have suggested this before me. As well, you may read this as somewhat negative but let me assure you this is simply my passion as I want nothing more than for the game to succeed. Without further adieu, allow me to proceed.

I feel that limiting the match maker in ways such as 4 man groups or 1/1/1/1 is only making the job of putting a match together needlessly complicated. Firstly, preventing other interested folks from playing in a group of friends larger than 4 is just not acceptable in my books. This is just too big a negative factor to even consider.

Secondly, I cannot see how combinations like Locust/Cicada/Dragon/Awesome is well balanced against Firestarter/Shadowhawk/Thunderbolt/Atlas. I'm not saying matches are always this disparate in terms of tonnage, but the point is that there are many factors as to how "good" a Mech is that is not taken into consideration by the current match maker. There are obvious benefits to be had of a Firestarter that a Locust will just never have.

This brings me to what I believe is the ultimate fix for the match maker. I believe that a Battle Value "table top"-like system would make life much easier for the match maker. If values were assigned to each weapon, system and Mech, the system simply has to gather a group of players with similar BV to each other.

My specific thoughts on how the system works are as follows:

BV of a weapon is calculated based on all statistics (Damage, heat, duration, cooldown, tonnage, slots, ammo/t etc).
BV of a Mech is calculated based on the total BV value of weapons, systems, engine, armor, tonnage, etc.
BV of a player is calculated based on the total BV value of the selected Mech, PSR, and whether or not they are in a group (BV modifier for those in a group to represent the significant coordination)

The matchmaker now takes the BV of all available players and groups and tries to fit them into a match of near even BV value (or a steadily increased margin as time passes).

The benefit of this system is that all factors are considered to attempt to produce the most enjoyable game possible.

I'm working on some specific examples with appropriate BV calculation algorithms to further promote the ease of use of a system like this but I hope those that read this can understand what I'm trying to explain.

Especially to the Devs, this system will make life so much easier. When using the algorithm, if you make a change to weapon damage or range, the BV is automatically recalculated based on the change. No further adjustments needed. But! If you need to, just have a modifier field to compensate for any discrepancies in the perceived effectiveness of the weapon. Just as the BV modifier for those in a group to show the additional effect of teamwork in a group will allow those that are matched against them to have the benefit of either a) more powerful Mechs skilled players (based on PSR BV modifier) or c) another group (based on group BV modifier).

In my mind this is so simple for me to see the benefits. Perhaps I am blinded by this so please let me know what you think and whether or not my logic is flawed. I am sure there are those of you who will not waste time in doing so

Apologies for the wall of text but thank you very much for taking the time to read my rant. And thank you Russ and crew for taking the time to discuss this with your community!

Edited by FoXabre, 08 September 2015 - 05:07 PM.

[Initium Thoth]

I'd prefer the PSR difference to the wait time and keep things as they are currently with groups.
Do folks get ROFLstomped? Yes.
Does changing that fact cost as much as further complicating the matching system? Probably not now, with a core group of players, here because they either just like MechWarrior and/or Battletech. For steam players, whenever that happens, there may need to be different game modes to use as kiddie pools.... a la the dreaded deathmatch, so players can derp around at little cost to find their bearings.

stil...
This situation does make me pine for the days of MW4:Mercs running MW4Monitor for forced team balancing. A couple hundred of maps(sure not all good), over half a dozen game modes(including CTF), as many variants of 'mechs as you can build, community mods to support or participate in... It wasn't a golden-age... but it was easy to get into a game, pick the right variant for the map you were about to play, and balance the tonnage on the teams... probably within a few minutes for experienced players.

[Wintersdark]

This has been brought up and addressed in this thread already.

Short form:

In theory it's awesome, but you're fudging what's really hard as "easy", calling your thoughts "specific" when they are in fact very general.

It's hard to get good values for things. It's not impossible, but it's very hard. Sure, you could compare, say, weapons very easily, but how do you value a given rating worth of weapons vs. a given rating of armor? How do you value base chassis before weapons? Hardpoint locations substantially impact mech effectiveness; mechs are not just bags of hardpoints. What about defensive factors? Hitbox sizes? Keep in mind, you can't just say "pixels in size" or such, because the formula for geometry needs to be balanced vs. weapons vs. engines vs. modules etc.

Then you fall into triage: Is it worth trying to make that work (with absolutely no garauntee of success) vs. just moving on with other things?