1142 replies to this topic

[Zeus X]

Small idea.

Put in the BV system, to account for skill raise the BV stats based on that person K/D along with PSR.
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Battle_Value

[Wintersdark]

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.

Yes perhaps removing all odd sized groups would help - although the group size of 3 would be tough to get rid of.

I asked about this earlier in the thread. I'd FAR rather have open group sizes (or at least >4) and game mode voting or even random than losing larger groups and particularly having hard 1/1/1/1 restrictions. In a 4 man group, 1/1/1/1, youd struggle to function together. Blah.

Game mode is, by far, the lesser of the evils here.

[Xenishi]

No. Simply. Leave it as is or make a ranked queue. I'll consider leaving the game if 4 man queue returns. Make the queue numbers even (4, 8, 10, 12) but if I see 4man max queue and have to deal with sync drops again I'll leave the game. The problem is bad play styles when playing as a group. You're not going to solve anything by going back to 4. All these complaints were there before, but then we had to sync drop on top of it.

I can't believe this community. They compain they want tactics but when it requires you to play as 12, they just won't joing a community and drop together. Have 6 friends who play Steiner? Go to the Steiner hub? 14 guys who rotate, find the communties. Have mixed 4 mans just means you have 3 personalities. I would rather 8 and be the 4 out and jam with them then go back to those days. Solo queue but with 4 mechs...That won't solve a thing.

Edited by Xenishi, 03 September 2015 - 05:57 PM.

[OakenBearclaw]

beerandasmoke, on 03 September 2015 - 05:37 PM, said:

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.....

I'm curious what reason you think that is; that all solo players follow and that's why they play solo. I highly doubt there is a single, unifying reason. Also, I want to clarify that 3 would be the MAXIMUM group that would be allowed to play with/against largely solo players. The big strength of large groups is that you have the majority of forces working together; 3 isn't a big enough number for that strength to really come into play.

as far as the new player experience, that is precisely why I'm suggesting this model - so new or casual players can play with their friends without being thrown to the sharks. I play with my girlfriend all the time, and we get thrown into the group queue. An arbitrary game limit to get good enough for group queue, however, I feel is a bad idea. People new to the franchise as a whole are NOT going to be ready for the shark tank after 100 games - I know I wasn't. Most competitive players (The people who typically form 12-mans) have matches clocking in the thousands or tens of thousands.

Regardless, If you still think 3 is too many, I could see a 2-man restriction. However, I believe a blue post earlier in the thread that stated that 3-mans are difficult to work with in the group queue, which is one reason I elected to suggest that as the cutoff. Another reason is that 4 IS too many, as that now encompasses 1/3 of a team.

[beerandasmoke]

Marked, on 03 September 2015 - 05:49 PM, said:

I'm curious what reason you think that is; that all solo players follow and that's why they play solo. I highly doubt there is a single, unifying reason. Also, I want to clarify that 3 would be the MAXIMUM group that would be allowed to play with/against largely solo players. The big strength of large groups is that you have the majority of forces working together; 3 isn't a big enough number for that strength to really come into play.

as far as the new player experience, that is precisely why I'm suggesting this model - so new or casual players can play with their friends without being thrown to the sharks. I play with my girlfriend all the time, and we get thrown into the group queue. An arbitrary game limit to get good enough for group queue, however, I feel is a bad idea. People new to the franchise as a whole are NOT going to be ready for the shark tank after 100 games - I know I wasn't. Most competitive players (The people who typically form 12-mans) have matches clocking in the thousands or tens of thousands.

Regardless, If you still think 3 is too many, I could see a 2-man restriction. However, I believe a blue post earlier in the thread that stated that 3-mans are difficult to work with in the group queue, which is one reason I elected to suggest that as the cutoff. Another reason is that 4 IS too many, as that now encompasses 1/3 of a team.

Personally I wouldnt be upset if 2 mans were to be allowed in the soloque as long as there was only one per side. As a longtime soloplayer though Im pretty sure the vast majority of the soloplayer base would be deadset against it. Also by Russ comments he probably wouldnt be too keen on the idea as well. Thats why I suggested it just for new players. The matchmaker would be much better allowing for a more pleasant experience for a new player. Also you could sell it the soloplayer base who make up the majority of the players as improving new player experience. I think it would be a win for new players and solos would find it tolerable.

[Kang The Conqueror]

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+

The issue here in my mind is the lack of incentive players have to join units and play as actual teams. Thats why you see so few large groups in Group Queue and such a paltry CW population. Being in a unit and playing in a team has no in game benefit. There needs to be a financial or prestige based incentive to draw players into groups. Group queue and especially CW will continue to suffer as long as MWO remains a primarily solo player game.

This is an online multiplayer game. It's time to start dangling the carrot so that players more willingly join and play within units. This is a retention booster too. Half the reason folks stick with a game is due to social connections they've made within the community and the shared goals that drive unit players forward. Without a solid incentive for group play, the game has a very transient user base. Fix that issue and the group MM and CW population problems will clear up.

[Taaarkus]

4 man 1/1/1/1 - give it a go

[Gas Guzzler]

Please do not take away groups over 4. Seriously, it made this game like 10 times better when you decided to reintroduce groups of all different sizes.

[Sigilum Sanctum]

The Near Perfect Killing Machine, on 03 September 2015 - 05:59 PM, said:

The issue here in my mind is the lack of incentive players have to join units and play as actual teams. Thats why you see so few large groups in Group Queue and such a paltry CW population. Being in a unit and playing in a team has no in game benefit. There needs to be a financial or prestige based incentive to draw players into groups. Group queue and especially CW will continue to suffer as long as MWO remains a primarily solo player game.

This is an online multiplayer game. It's time to start dangling the carrot so that players more willingly join and play within units. This is a retention booster too. Half the reason folks stick with a game is due to social connections they've made within the community and the shared goals that drive unit players forward. Without a solid incentive for group play, the game has a very transient user base. Fix that issue and the group MM and CW population problems will clear up.

This entire post makes absolutely zero sense. Please elaborate.

[Krivvan]

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.

Doesn't matter. It's necessary to remove pre-launch game mode selection somehow. The way soft-voting was done last time was quite different than lobby voting. Before it felt out of your control because you just set a preference and the game gave you something else. With lobby voting, you can see exactly what the votes were and feel like you actually had a voice rather than the matchmaker ignoring you.

[Spurowny]

you want to eliminate variables?

Get rid of assault mode.

with or without the turrets it is a ****** game mode, take it out of the mix until you finish the redesign you mentioned.

Do not restrict group sizes, that just sucked before, and will result in the return of the sync-drop.

[Zolaz]

Battle value over 1/1/1/1. Assign a value for the pilot and the mech then set up teams with those numbers. It really isnt that difficult. [Redacted]

[FunkyLilElf]

I am very against limiting group sizes to 4 players. It would remove the single largest reason that I play this game. It has nothing to do with trying to stomp groups made up of smaller groups or solo droppers. Those games are not fun for either side. However, those games are not really the norm.

Please don't flame me for this, but I think people are also frankly exaggerating the number of times that they run into matches containing large groups. If large groups only make up about ~5% of the drops, then people cannot actually be 'always' or even consistently hitting those groups. I think it would be hasty, and inaccurate to make decisions off of that feedback.

The idea of separate queues for ranked and casual (for lack of better terms) has merit, though I worry about the population numbers to support that move.

I would absolutely take longer wait times to drop against more reasonably skilled opponents when I am dropping with my teammates. But please, please do not limit the group sizes to 4 players. And limiting those to 1/1/1/1 for example would be even more frustrating. I think that there would be a loss of population if you put such heavy restrictions on matches.

[zolop]

Can someone make this very clear...


This is only for the quick matching rules, not for CW groups right? If not I think this should only be done to non-CW groups. I would not like to see limiting group sized in non_CW groups, but honestly PGI would probably do it anyways.

and agree...

Spurowny, on 03 September 2015 - 06:12 PM, said:

you want to eliminate variables?

Get rid of assault mode.

with or without the turrets it is a "bad" game mode, take it out of the mix until you finish the redesign you mentioned.

Do not restrict group sizes, that just sucked before, and will result in the return of the sync-drop.

Edited by zolop, 03 September 2015 - 06:19 PM.

[Livewyr]

If I recall correctly, the group queue was created because the 4man limit in the "pug" queue was too restrictive on players who wanted to play with 5+ players...

[cSand]

Had some great matches back in the 4 man limit days. Granted, when you had 5 guys it was abit of a bummer butnot a day ender.

I'd be up for that just to see how it goes even for awhile. Big groups gonna hate it but as long as you still allow large groups in CW, and maybe even add some of the group queue gamemodes (or some variation) to CW, then everyone should be happy right?

I'm certainly seeing a few names here against the idea who roll solely in large steamroll group.. methinks somepeople may be afraid of not winning every match

Edit:
Would also like to add that the solo queue is just great right now, and should defintiely be left alone.

Edited by cSand, 03 September 2015 - 07:00 PM.

[Igor Kozyrev]

I'm not fancy of the idea that all groups should be 4 man. I'd like it to be 4,8,12. 4x1 rule seem totally reasonable, In addition to that I'd be more than okay if gamemode selection in the group queue wouldn't been a hard selection as it is now.

[TheMadTypist]

Quote

This currently has created the best feeling public matches in MWO we have ever had, very happy with this and even at the lowest population point of the day with current settings it should hold up fairly well.

I agree with this. Best solo experience in this game yet is right now. It's been pretty great- there are still rolls, still matches where I do poorly, but now it never feels like the matchmaker's fault.

Quote

I am loathe to do anything to the Solo queue that will degrade it to any degree, I feel group queue needs to solve it's own problems not join or take players from the solo queue.

Well dye my beard and call me Daniel Bryan because YES! YES! YES! YES! So glad the Devs get that the pug experience shouldn't be sacrificed!

[HUBA]

I see many people "vote" for a 4/8/12 group size and thats what I also would suggest but only when there are not enough people in the queue. Next state could be 3 and 6 and then 2 and 5 maybe also 9 and 10. On the other hand I guess the groups from 2-5 and especially 2 and 3 are very common and cut them out wouldn't help.

If the queue has not enough player force the group size to an even number (2,4,6,8,10 or 12) so a group has to drop at worst one player but no group is really excluded you just have to rotate one player. Also what might help, show how likely it is for the specific group sizes to find a match (just showing the percentage of the groups might not help because for example a high rate of 6 is good but a high rate of 5 might bring some trouble)

But there is also an other point in the OP, soften the class restrictions. This could help to buff the small teams against a full group. Maybe this could be optional (checkbox: allow relieve or wait for class match) or also as note before MM like "Waring: low queue, class match might not active"

[Threat Doc]

You need to expand the game modes available, then have maps that are at least objective-based combat, if not objective-based completion.

Recon, small skirmish, large skirmish, raids (resources), escapes, and then planetary fights. But, as I said in another thread, yesterday, it is a START, and only a start.