1151 replies to this topic

[pbiggz]

Solahma, on 03 September 2015 - 03:21 PM, said:

We didn't have CW back then though...

CW is an empty queue. That is not a valid substitute.

[jay35]

jay35, on 03 September 2015 - 03:08 PM, said:

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.

Oops, "removing the only good way for units to play CW together in public" should be "removing the only good way for units to play MWO together in public". Fixed.

TexAce, on 03 September 2015 - 03:16 PM, said:

- Remove game mode selection in group queue.

- Don't enforce 1/1/1/1, they cant really work in lances at all.

- Remove odd groupings above 4 (so no 5/7/9/11).

- Don't enforce max groups of 4 (although I would like it). Sync dropping would definately come back, and everyone coming from steam will feel the pain and be dissapointed right at the beginning.

- Dont touch solo queue, its perfect.

- Embrace the LFG more! Its too hidden. Make it open from the start, so people have a lobby!

- Add options to only play 4 or 8 man matches, not always 12.

- Always match group-combinations exactly. So 4+6 can only play against 4+6. OR use PSR wisely.

- Open up all game modes in CW so 12 mans can do what they want there.

A lot of these are good suggestions.



I'm okay with removing game mode choice in group queue for now (something I was formerly very opposed to) because it's not like we're getting any new game modes anytime soon other than the team deathmatch ones we have now.
But if and when they actually deliver real diverse game modes, and they keep your suggestion of not allowing users to select the game mode they wish to play, then they need to provide a way for players to designate one mech per game mode so they are dropping in a mech appropriate for whichever game mode they end up in. Because when we have real game modes with diverse roles and specific functions, we'll need that. And players designating appropriate mechs allows them to alleviate the matchmaking issue without taking away the ability for players to be relevant to whatever mode is presented without sacrificing the quality of the gameplay dynamics unique to each game mode nor reducing the mechlab to a pointless endeavor if we can only ready one mech and half-arse it in every mode.

Edited by jay35, 03 September 2015 - 03:27 PM.

[JohnnyWayne]

Russ Bullock, on 03 September 2015 - 03:17 PM, said:

Very roughly but looking at Match Maker Command Center right now:

Perhaps 22% of the games are group queue and about 75% of those games are groups of 4 or less.So around 5-6% of MWO matches have groups of 5+

Just to mention it - you realize that these 5-6% are more players than it seems, because well in group it counts 1 but in numbers its at least 5. Just to mention former critic on such statements. Not that I'd defend bigger group sizes....

[Appogee]

How about this... What if you dynamically adjust CBill reward multipliers, in order to incent players to create group sizes and Mech weight class distributions that the matchmaker ideally needs to create evenly-matched teams ?

Edited by Appogee, 03 September 2015 - 03:27 PM.

[Pjwned]

Russ Bullock, on 03 September 2015 - 02:46 PM, said:

I really want to avoid this - it will only degrade the solo queue experience at least by some amount.

I'm really not understanding how this would degrade the solo queue, so would you care to elaborate on this?

The best that I can come up with is that there would be some players pulled out of the solo queue so that there are less players in the pool, but that wouldn't have much of an effect surely unless solo players were gobbled up too quickly...?

[Suko]

JohnnyWayne, on 03 September 2015 - 03:24 PM, said:

Just to mention it - you realize that these 5-6% are more players than it seems, because well in group it counts 1 but in numbers its at least 5. Just to mention former critic on such statements. Not that I'd defend bigger group sizes....

Isn't it 24 plays per game, no matter what? I don't think that affects the numbers he's giving.

[Mogney]

Russ Bullock, on 03 September 2015 - 03:17 PM, said:

Very roughly but looking at Match Maker Command Center right now:

Perhaps 22% of the games are group queue and about 75% of those games are groups of 4 or less.So around 5-6% of MWO matches have groups of 5+

5% is not a small number, and we are not really into primetime yet.

I think removing game type choice for the group queue is worth considering.

Edited by Dr Tachyon, 03 September 2015 - 03:28 PM.

[Scandinavian Jawbreaker]

Well, I like challenge. I enjoy the solo queue alot at the moment, in fact so much at the moment I prefer to play solo.

I also like playing in smaller groups, but when playing in smaller groups I really dislike facing 8-12 man groups and that happens too often. It is surprisingly easy to just roll over the enemy team with that huge group dedicated to shooting at the enemy. And that's what I don't like... Getting rolled or roll over. I find it extremely boring and unsatisfying. Back when it was groups of four I probably enjoyed the game most. If the MM is released too much these rolls start to happen on more regular basis and that's a bad thing for the quality of matches which I value more.

Then again big units need to have their playground... But truth be told - are there that many big units that field a huge group that often. For me the playground is player run leagues but I guess CW is not an option for the rest at it's current state.

[Russ Bullock]

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.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

I'm curious if there is any possibility for allowing Tonnage to make up the teams in Group Queue, as an alternative idea?

For example, instead of having one of each class in the 1/1/1/1 setup, what about tonnage allotments per player? So that the max tonnage is 720 for a 12 man (which is 60 tons per player with this example). (795 Tons is what is/was possible now with 3/3/3/3).

Whatever value works best should be applied if this sort of idea could work, but such a setup could allow for a bit more flexibility for players that favor certain mechs over others while still making players to make some trade-offs to drop together.

And if solo players could be allowed to opt-in to the group queue, maybe allow a max number of solos per side, say one to three solos max per side, when they select that option. So it would provide players dropping solo that opt-in more opportunities to drop into a match with the default Solo Queue still being available for that solo player, and if there is a group that needs a single player for an odd numbered group could fill that need with up to a max of three solos per side possibly.

[Shredhead]

East Indy, on 03 September 2015 - 03:17 PM, said:

Is this about appraising a game mode or unit continuity?

First, I'm sure the players regularly in Community Warfare agree with you a little, since it's far from perfect, but not entirely — or else they wouldn't play.

Second, what if PGI offered, through CW, the same or a similar experience with game modes as in solo queue and group queue, but for premade groups? You'd have game modes you like plus the ability to drop with 5 or more. Sound fair?

That would be something else entirely. Yes. Current CW though is not even an option for many people.

[JohnnyWayne]

Suko, on 03 September 2015 - 03:27 PM, said:

Isn't it 24 plays per game, no matter what? I don't think that affects the numbers he's giving.

It is because we are not talking about groups sizes per match but the general number of groups and their sizes out there.

pbiggz, on 03 September 2015 - 03:23 PM, said:

CW is an empty queue. That is not a valid substitute.

Guess why its empty? Rather go pug stomp with shorter wait times.

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.

For me there was are reals difference between pre and after real solo queue being around. It really limited my performance solo when I had to compete with groups, it was insane the game felt like PVE for 3 weeks after that.

Solo should be opt in only, I sure as hell wouldn't use it. I also don't like to have to play against bigger groups when Im in my regular 2 man tag team. I'm a limit to 4 would make the game better for me, having to fight these large groups really drives me away of MWO recently...

Edited by JohnnyWayne, 03 September 2015 - 03:32 PM.

[Maerawn]

Just give us persistent lobbies... so that once we find a group we can keep playing until we want another group and use match maker to fill the holes created when people leave..

[Tarogato]

Allowing solo players to opt-in to the group queue is something I'd like to see experimented with. Simply allow the matchmaker to also build 11-player games and grab an opt-in solo player as necessary.

Edited by Tarogato, 03 September 2015 - 03:31 PM.

[Appogee]

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

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.

I think that is the best suggestion so far.

Please also consider my idea about dynamically incenting people to take whichever weight classes are most needed by the matchmaker.

[Russ Bullock]

JohnnyWayne, on 03 September 2015 - 03:24 PM, said:

Just to mention it - you realize that these 5-6% are more players than it seems, because well in group it counts 1 but in numbers its at least 5. Just to mention former critic on such statements. Not that I'd defend bigger group sizes....

Yes its more than 5% of players - hard to say for sure but as the groups get bigger the % gets smaller. Somewhere between 6-10% perhaps

[PharmEcis]

Russ Bullock, on 03 September 2015 - 03:08 PM, said:

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.

While I agree with what Bunny has stated, I'm concerned by your comments. Why am I concerned? Simple. Your replies in this thread show me that you already have a formed opinion. Those who have trashed or disparaged what has occurred you have basically belittled. Those who make comments that support your opinion are praised. That's not right. As the owner of the gaming company responsible for a franchise that is basically revered by many you should be a little more neutral in these matters. You have asked for a response to your post. People are giving you those responses. Take the blinders off and take people's statements for what they are.

Look into my account. I am one of your whales. I've spent in excess of a thousand dollars on a game that (lets be real here) is not complete. The promises we were given for CW many many moons ago still have not yet been met. 90 days right? I'm not here to rub salt in a festering wound. You know your failures just as we know them. We know you are a small outfit and we "hope" you are doing the best you can. I believe you are under the circumstances. I honestly believe you guys bit off more than you could chew and have been playing catch up for a long time. You are getting close.

Limiting groups to 4 or less is not the answer in any way shape or form. Period. There have been a plethora of topics and discussions on what could be done to improve the MM. There are at least 10 different ideas in this thread already.

Your best bet is to leave the group queue MM as it sits RIGHT NOW. Finish CW and THEN revisit the group queue problems. Why? Because I would love to play CW all the time but right now I have absolutely no incentive to do so. I like the 30 minute matches. A lot of the rest of us do too but CW right now is pointless so we don't do it. Instead we beat the snot out of teams that haven't put in the time or money to get gud as we have.

Fixing CW is your answer. Those large groups would flock to CW and eradicate all this bitching and moaning because in reality I think that is what many of us really want to play, you just haven't given us a single reason to do so. Instead we are simply paying money to beta test this game for the last 3 years for you.

[Vlad Ward]

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.

I would be happy with this.

I care far less about how many bases are on the map than I do about having roughly equitable skill ratings on either side of the team.

Scaled 3/3/3/3 (1/1/1/1, 2/2/2/2, etc based on size) makes sense.

It's just important to keep in mind that the vast majority of units use group queue as a training/practice ground. League matches don't take place in CW format. Restrict their ability to group effectively (can't use private lobbies without either a full 24, or a scheduled opponent), and it will become far more difficult to support player-run leagues.

Edited by Vlad Ward, 03 September 2015 - 03:37 PM.

[coe7]

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.

What if the solo player is dragged into a match where your side is playing so called "fun mechs" half drunk when he just wanted a solo drop with less likely of ending up with odd setups or large group dedicated to brawl or LL stuff, with his completely incompatible mech to tactics chosen? If I select solo, I want solo. I really do. There needs to be some remote place to level up funny mechs, solo que its somewhat possible. Being dragged to fill up a group que with a commando is really really aggravating.

Light lance and heavy lance selection would fix pretty much all problems, player size 2-3 or 4, lances 2/2/0/0 or 0/0/2/2 selection that I posted earlier here:

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4665055

Edited by coe7, 03 September 2015 - 03:34 PM.

[Monitor 1001]

Fierostetz, on 03 September 2015 - 03:21 PM, said:

From my perspective, forcing people to do things makes them complain. Positive reinforcement gets them treats. Which one quells the complaining more efficiently

Very true. What about having the option to drop into some sort of an 'unlimited' zone where there are NO rules whatsoever? You can run any weight class, any skill level, any group size, any game mode, and you get paid a bit extra to do so. This would be a true test to see what the playerbase wants!

Those who want all the structure of 3/3/3/3 and 4 man max groups could do their thing, and the rest would have the FREEDOM to choose what they want. The Devs would find out real fast what players gravitate towards.

Edited by Monitor 1001, 03 September 2015 - 03:35 PM.