1142 replies to this topic

[White Bear 84]

Im going to go for option 3.

Limit the group size to 6 and up to 4.

6 gives larger groups the change to drop but is far from being a 12 man coordinated team to being acceptable dropping against groups of up to 4.

Say 6, 2, 2, 2 - 6, 6 - 6, 4, 2 - 6, 3, 3 - 3, 3, 3, 3 etc etc you get the idea...


Support opt in for the higher tier players.

Edited by White Bear 84, 03 September 2015 - 05:03 PM.

[CykloneJack]

please no 4 mans. I have more than three friends and having to split up huge groups for this is going to be..... well a moot point for units that are bigger than 4 people.... no?

[MandyB]

Groups of 4 sound great, for 12 mans we always have CW and private matches

[OakenBearclaw]

So, here's my idea that I'm going to pitch.

Groups of 2 and 3 actually get filtered to the solo queue - I believe this will not be a significant enough group size to cause any rolls, and since it's the solo queue, solo players will easily fill in any gaps, so the wait time should not increase. 4 3mans vs 12 pugs is the worst case scenario here - and from my experience, I believe that would be okay. I'd like to hear additional opinions on that. (I don't know much about syncdropping, could that be an issue?)

Groups of 4-12 form the group queue - possibly with opt-ins from the solo queue to fill gaps has has been discussed prior, including groups 2-3 if the leader opts in.

Groups of 8 or fewer are restricted to 2/2/2/2, while groups of 9-12 are restricted to 3/3/3/3. a 6 man group for example, could run 2 assaults, 2 heavies, and 2 mediums, allowing smaller units more flexibility. The only weight disparity possible here would lead the side with multiple smaller groups with a weight advantage, as their selections are more flexible individually. In this way, multiple smaller groups vs fewer larger groups would be self-balancing, in a sense.

In my personal experience, a solution similar to this might be viable.

[Zfailboat]

unfortuantley you only have 1 real option.

you need to move teams back to 4 man max team. This is because although your "Average" is 190 seconds. Try playing during Aussie prime time and that average blows out to 600 seconds which is to much.

In fact our team has had to start trying to sync drop as solo's just to get matches because 1 hour of play time for 2-3 matches isn't enough.

[Vlad Ward]

We have never had a united queue with integrated VOIP.

I think this would make a difference.

Changes in group PSR weighting could also help correct for innate teamwork advantages (teamwork OP). A large group of Tier 2 players may be treated as Tier 1, for example.

[Krivvan]

I still say they need to implement game mode (and map) lobby voting. It gives even better matching results than the game mode preference option like before since it cares first only on putting together a good match.

Lobby voting is also a very important psychological distinction from choosing preferences beforehand. Before you may deselect skirmish but when you get it you blame the matchmaker and game. With a lobby vote the reason for the map and mode choice were the other players in the game.

The illusion of choice is more important than actual choice. This is a thing where PGI has to do what needs to be done rather than what some of the community want. It'd be better for them too in the long run but they're too stubborn to understand, which is even more ridiculous considering how almost identical the game modes are. I'd rather they get the rare game that they like somewhat less than severely gimp the entire matchmaker just for their stupid a stubborn preference.

This opens up so many more things too. All those people who want more game modes? We can't have them until we remove pre-lobby game mode selection and potentially replace it with lobby votes. Games like Halo and GTA V with way, way higher populations do lobby voting and don't allow players to veto any game modes they want in matchmaking for this reason. Even dedicated server browser games keep everyone on a server and do map/mode voting. Why the hell would MWO with a far smaller population allow it?

Let's do what we needed to do ages ago and remove game choice before we deal with other group restrictions.

[Better Call Saul]

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+

Then just restrict it to 4 man groups, the stats indicate low impact. Gather more stats to show this, to show users.

There is too much choice 2 types of game CW or Public Queue

Then Solo or Group Que and then people choose their favourite server.

Yes regional servers are great, but something has to give.

[Tarogato]

Krivvan, on 03 September 2015 - 05:08 PM, said:

I still say they need to implement game mode (and map) lobby voting. It gives even better matching results than the game mode preference option like before since it cares first only on putting together a good match.

Lobby voting is also a very important psychological distinction from choosing preferences beforehand. Before you may deselect skirmish but when you get it you blame the matchmaker and game. With a lobby vote the reason for the map and mode choice were the other players in the game.

The illusion of choice is more important than actual choice. This is a thing where PGI has to do what needs to be done rather than what some of the community want. It'd be better for them too in the long run but they're too stubborn to understand, which is even more ridiculous considering how almost identical the game modes are. I'd rather they get the rare game that they like somewhat less than severely gimp the entire matchmaker just for their stupid a stubborn preference.

This opens up so many more things too. All those people who want more game modes? We can't have them until we remove pre-lobby game mode selection and potentially replace it with lobby votes. Games like Halo and GTA V with way, way higher populations do lobby voting and don't allow players to veto any game modes they want in matchmaking for this reason. Even dedicated server browser games keep everyone on a server and do map/mode voting. Why the hell would MWO with a far smaller population allow it?

Let's do what we needed to do ages ago and remove game choice before we deal with other group restrictions.

I don't think that would fly over very well. It's basically how the "soft voting" worked last time PGI played with the game mode selections. People "voted" to get only conquest, but got thrown into skirmish matches because that's what everybody else was choosing. They flipped their shjt over that. I don't think sugar-coating it is going to help.

[ShinVector]

This changes will benefit small groups.

Tier1 players will be forced to fight each other.
Sync dropping will probably not work out as well as people think.

They can always revert the changes if the group population grows enough.

Edited by ShinVector, 03 September 2015 - 09:14 PM.

[mr bear]

Well...
If memory serves me right, we had a cap of 4 players a long time ago for group drops. So going back to that idea is nothing new.
As for 1/1/1/1, again nothing new there since that was the norm as well when the drop size was capped at 4.

Frankly, I do not mind going back to it just so that PGI can get data and see how much of an improvement there is.

For Science!

[Sigilum Sanctum]

Tarogato, on 03 September 2015 - 05:16 PM, said:

I don't think that would fly over very well. It's basically how the "soft voting" worked last time PGI played with the game mode selections. People "voted" to get only conquest, but got thrown into skirmish matches because that's what everybody else was choosing. They flipped their shjt over that. I don't think sugar-coating it is going to help.

I stopped posting for that week because the forums were nothing but immature drivvel. It was honestly embarassing. Until the player base grows significantly we might be stuck with these issues.

[Sereglach]

1. I COMPLETELY AND OVERWHELMINGLY support the dumping of groups larger than 4 for the group queue. If units are actively -and wish to actively- field larger than 4 person teams . . . then they have CW for that. After all, the big push for CW was unit warfare . . . that's where units should be duking it out with other larger teams. Most groups of casual friends are 4 or less . . . and groups of "casual" friends that are larger than 4 are already basically organized units . . . albeit small units.

2. I concur and express that I feel this game has far too many options for players to mess with the matchmaker. Personally I LOVED it when the game mode selections were soft "preference" selections, instead of hard limiters. Those were some the absolute best quality matches I've ever played in (the MM now is really awesome, too, for making good quality matches . . . especially for solo queue).

3. My only concern with the 1/1/1/1 fashion is handling oddball group compositions and their weight classes. What happens when the two-man on one team is a heavy and assault but the two-man on the other team is a light and medium? Maybe sticking with tonnage limits is the better option? Possibly consider implementing one change and then push for the other? This may need more batting around, but as long as edge cases can be handled, reliably, then I think it'll be fine.

[Zordicron]

I don't group, well I mean my Bro finally re-downloaded MWO(he played back before Pheonix, finally came back) so while we havent dropped as a 2 man yet, we likely will. I would like to point a few things out, as a pug looking through the window at the gnashing teeth and other angry debates going on with group lately-

We had a 4 man limit before. People were mad.
We did not have CW before, when people got mad about 4 man limits.
No one here knows the actual population of MWO, compared to any other point in it's history.
We do not know the population % split between pugs and group.
We do not know how a change to max group would improve the game, nor how improving it would affect population %


I would go on with these points-
My Bro and I have NOT dropped in group, BECAUSE neither of us have any desire to run into a 10-12 man unit of tryhards. if the changes to group would improve match making quality, it would be a HUGE BOON for us. Now, I do not know how representative the two of us are, but I have to think, IN ALL LIKELYHOOD, there are A LOT of players that would "LFG" and make a small group to drop in IF they werent going to be slapped in with 4 other tiny groups against a 12 man MEGACORP seal clubbing lulz unit.

As it was stated, and frankly obvious to any logical thinker, 12 man itself isnt the issue, some units are simply average, 12 man or not as individuals. BUT, there is an extremely hard to quantify aspect of having 12 guys(or 8 or 10) that have dropped a bunch of times together and know each other, basically, they have practiced together. This is something of an advantage that no puggy group can have. It is the main reason the "boogeyman" exists, hyperbole and all. SOMETHING has to change in order to get small groups to "dive in" like my little two man group. Russ is suggesting this, as it most likely is the easiest algorithm change to make with immediate results.

Here is where I would go with this-
CW needs to be the 12 man vs 12 man area. I mean, it is already, and Russ and crew looks to be trying to make alternative game modes within CW to accomodate the "not 12 man" players so they can participate. This is a good idea on their part, rather then try to figure out a way to bust up the corps on the one part of the game that is 100% about big units, they are adding options for smaller units. GOOD.

With that in mind, I feel a change to group(non CW) NEEDS to happen. What i would like to see, is for Russ to add OPTIONS for 12 mans to participate in group, much like he did with 4 mans in CW(coming up soon I guess). Perhaps 4 mans is max size in group, BUT maybe we need another version or something where 12 mans can play other large groups. Wait times would be worse with no other changes. BUT, IMO, UI updates to the LFG, or even a new LFG specifically tuned for the large groups to organize a matches, chat channels, whatever.

So, breakdown of points in easier to follow form:
CW should remain the 12 man playground, with added options for small groups coming soon.

Group needs a change, I am OK with 4 man max, so small groups are attracted to it with the "boogeyman" removed.

ADDITIONAL options for group, so 12 mans(I would say 6 mans too, 2 groups of 6 vs 12, or 6+6 vs 6+6) so 12 mans arent frozen out into CW only. This means there needs to be AWESOME UI tools so players can form these larger groups if they want, or the 12 man players can chat to each other at the least. Allow the players to organize these large groups more easily in game. Basically, we need the opposite of what is in the pipeline for CW(the 4 man drops) for group, so 12 mans can also play non-CW matches.




Now, that all said, I do not know where Russ/Paul are going with the game say a year from now once all the old maps get the dropship treatment. Are we going to combine CW and normal modes some how? IMO, while SOMETHING needs to happen in group now, IMO the only reasonable option is to add another "group" section for large groups, basically splitting group. Now we have another "bucket". So, should we? Are we going to end up combining a bunch of buckets later anyway after map updates? THAT is what Russ/Paul need to look at, the plans for like next year. If there is a "master plan" in place, they need to be forward about it and let us know the changes to group are temp, or part of a plan, or whatever- even if the current, short term solution is to add another bucket that will be removed later.

PGI guys, COMMUNICATE!! whatever happens with this, let us know timeframes, plans for the future, etc. And, bottom line, don;t leave the 12 mans out in the cold, don;t just say "well ya got CW". Don;t take a short cut. Make some new options for them to participate in group, even if it is in a different bucket then the small groups, and give them tools to organize to do it.

[beerandasmoke]

Im going to let the group guys and Russ decide on whats best. The only thing Im going to add to the discussion is that I have serious doubts that the majority of soloplayers would choose to drop in group as an option. I just dont see that being an option for the matchmaker when its forming groups. I mean why would soloplayers who can get decent balanced matches choose to drop in a que where they may be facing a massive mismatch? Weve already tried that in CW and it wasnt a fun option for even good soloplayers. The answer is probably most wont and will choose not too check the option.

[Sigilum Sanctum]

I like how people constantly say large groups can use CW but fail to acknowledge CW is a lifeless husk until Phase 3 drops.

[Kill Dozer]

Don't go back to a 4 man limit, even now some of the best games I get are when we cobble together a group from several units and get a night of playing in.

My concern with 1/1/1/1 or limits like it is if the MM splits the group into different lances, which I see going on now. I think smaller group drops run similar tonnage so they wont get split up on the drop.

I don't have an easy answer to your problem but the two ideas above definitely aren't the solution you need.

[Tarogato]

Sereglach, on 03 September 2015 - 05:22 PM, said:

then they have CW for that.

... :

Sigilum Sanctum, on 03 September 2015 - 05:29 PM, said:

I like how people constantly say large groups can use CW but fail to acknowledge CW is a lifeless husk until Phase 3 drops.

This. A lot of units don't want to play CW because they consider it trash. Mine is one of them. Unless CW is completely overhauled, I won't be playing it regularly anymore. If group queue is limited to only groups of 4, then many units would have nothing left. I for one would probably quit at that point.

[beerandasmoke]

Marked, on 03 September 2015 - 05:06 PM, said:

So, here's my idea that I'm going to pitch.

Groups of 2 and 3 actually get filtered to the solo queue - I believe this will not be a significant enough group size to cause any rolls, and since it's the solo queue, solo players will easily fill in any gaps, so the wait time should not increase. 4 3mans vs 12 pugs is the worst case scenario here - and from my experience, I believe that would be okay. I'd like to hear additional opinions on that. (I don't know much about syncdropping, could that be an issue?)

Groups of 4-12 form the group queue - possibly with opt-ins from the solo queue to fill gaps has has been discussed prior, including groups 2-3 if the leader opts in.

Groups of 8 or fewer are restricted to 2/2/2/2, while groups of 9-12 are restricted to 3/3/3/3. a 6 man group for example, could run 2 assaults, 2 heavies, and 2 mediums, allowing smaller units more flexibility. The only weight disparity possible here would lead the side with multiple smaller groups with a weight advantage, as their selections are more flexible individually. In this way, multiple smaller groups vs fewer larger groups would be self-balancing, in a sense.

In my personal experience, a solution similar to this might be viable.

Theres no way thats going to happen. They vast majority of the players in this game play solo for a reason. Take that away and your going to be dealing with pitchforks and torches.

However I do worry about the newplayer experience and dropping them in the sharktank of group. Weve all seen the threads where a player says he tried to introduce a friend and he ragequit after 1 night of being sealclubbed over and over.

What if we opened up solo to new players to drop in a 2 man only, with their choice of friend for their first 100 games? After they have those 100 games in they have to drop in group. I dont think that would skew the matchmaker too bad in solo since one player would be new and you could sell it too solos as helping the game by increasing playerbase. This would make newplayers transition into the game much easier and might get them hooked enough to want to stay. Just a thought though.....

[50 50]

Last night when trying to get group together, we had 2 or 3 players and experienced some quite long wait times.
It was very quick dropping solo so we ended up disbanding the group so the players could get into the matches, get some experience and c-bills.
It's good to hear that there is some improvements in the wait times with the changes just made so hopefully I'll be able to experience that tonight. (Currently at work, but know what I'd rather be doing!!)

I've had no experience with the earlier limitation on the group sizes so can't comment too much on that however I do understand the reasoning for it.
I also understand the reasons against it.
As a member of a growing unit we are trying to get more players in and get bigger groups together.
There is a lot of enjoyment in having more players in your group and it's very social. Often we try and group up with players from other units and we are all starting to get to know each other.

@Russ
Something that may be worth considering when looking at smaller group limits is to think of them more in the lance and company structure.
So the initial start point is for players to create a lance, but then have the option to form up to a company of three lances.
Having the option to launch the lances individually or as a company would allow players a bit of flexibility while still allowing these larger groups to get together.

I would also consider changing the 1/1/1/1 structure to a drop limit in tonnage like we have for both the CW drop decks and the private matches.
If a lance had a minimum and maximum limit, and a full company also had a minimum maximum limit would that make it simpler for match making purposes?
While this could mean that a company end up with more of a particular weight class I don't see that as being much of a problem, considering it happens now anyway.
It may also allow for some customisation for events where we could have an 'Assault' weekend, or 'A bit of Light madness' where the drop tonnage for the lances/companies are adjusted accordingly.
This may also help with integrating and standardising the system with CW.

Just a thought.