1142 replies to this topic

[Sigilum Sanctum]

I still think the best decision for Russ would be to sit on this until Phase 3 drops.

[627]

limiting to 4man should be the very last option imho.
Everything else I'm fine with.
Actually, I don't even care if I can select game modes. Sure, you could make "preferred modes check box" but in the end, MM should decide this if that helps match qualitiy. That is really easy to swallow.

Same with drop limitations, be it 4x1 or weight or whatever. Sure, 4x1 won't let you drop with 2 heavies anymore, sad, sure. But not the end of the world.

But a 4man limit... To be true, I haven't played with larger groups the whole year, mostly it was only 2-3. and getting stomped by a big group is no fun, I think we can all agree with this. Limit of 4 would be good for small groups like mine.

And still I'm against it. Sure, we have CW and even private matches to play with larger groups, but that needs even more time to get and to play a match.

Limiting to 2,3,4,6,8,10,12 on the other hand would be ok I think if that helps matchmaking in any way.


One last thing I want to add is "feeled" wait times... You know, like a loading bar for the level.
Would be nice if we could get some info from the matchmaker so you can guess how long it takes. (Counter to next release valve, hown many players it has found right know and so on, just something that isn't a spinning wheel to lighten up the wait times).

[Daelen Rottiger]

I am more interested in what skill level 150 or 400 means?!

[Kotzi]

Never cap group size. Just get rid of 3/3/3/3.

[Not A Real RAbbi]

Well, straight up NO to the 4-man limit.

It's bad enough trying to sync-drop a pair of 12-mans (never mind private lobbies). Now imagine that two teams, say [QQ] and [CI], want to square off. That's SIX (6!!!!!!!) dudes trying to sync by all hitting the LAUNCH button at the exact same time, and hoping that MM straightens it out. Never mind, that I'm sure no one will think to have MM look at the tags and try to put 4-mans with 2 or more of the same tag together with other 4-mans with the same tags. Nah. You'd have 2 [CI] and one [QQ] on one side, and a {CI], [QQ], and [228] on the other, and it'd take the whole weekend to run a best-of-five 12-man comp that way.

Or, is that what we want? You'll HAVE to drop in private, no XP and no C-Bills to be had, in order to work that out? Neat feature, costs IRL money. I see...

And again, I have no problem with y'all trying to make a buck on the game, at least make payroll and the utility bills every month. Got it.

NONETHEFREAKINGLESS, 4-man only is not cool.

I say drop the separation between solo and group queue, and allow the groups to be filled with solo players. If the comp tryhards are all worried about getting stuck with a PUG in a junk trial mech, then they had better bring their own 12 to the match (preferably 12 FROM THEIR ROSTER, but not naming names here).

Sorry. Got confused, thought this was reddit. Won't happen again.

Seriously, 4-man limits are crap.

1/1/1/1 is a neat idea on the surface. Consider, then, that those are likely going to be your four lances in match. Now, dig through your Battletech and Mechwarrior lore, and tell me how often a 12-mech company takes three lances of four mechs, each with a light and an assault and a heavy and a medium. G'head. I'm not going anywhere for the next 40 years.

But we're STUCK with that, last I heard, once matchmaker sticks us in a match. Sure, I can figure out who I'm buddied-up with, regardless of whether he's blue or green on the map. But it still bugs the s**t out of me.

I'll live with the 190-second average search time, or whatever. Leave it as is.

And try to listen a little less to the tryhard D-bags. Vocal minority, squeaky wheel, etc. They often embarrass me...

[eddieb]

I'd prefer a slightly higher limit of 6-8. Also making the game mode select a soft select option would be preferable to group size limits of 4.

[Kinesotu]

if you are looking solution for the large steam player base of new pilots not rage quitting on their first few drops then i have 4 solutions. MWO does need a larger player base and steam can definitely help with this.

1 - leveling system for the player
example: players level 1-10 play against each other
11-20
21-29
30+ (prestige+) you get the idea

2 - spectator - allow people to spectate/watch a match being played with open voice comms and can see ingame text. of course have a delay... 3mins seems popular.

3 - promote streamers - they make videos, teach people to play, and generally promote your game. they should be rewarded. i regularly stream myself for funzzz not for my livelyhood. honestly, i have directed more players to smurfy, metamech, mwo forums, or simply teach them basic things like how to get out of 3rd person view (F3).

4 - use your mwo launcher for more than just launching the game. launcher is windowed which is really nice when im in queue for 5min+. launcher can host links to spectate top tier games. (enhance the learning curve)

BOTTOM LINE: there will be players that have bad connections, bad computers, bad skills... its gunna happen. however, for the new players that have good connections, good computers, and competent gaming skills should be able to watch a few games and be able to get the hang of it in no time. this does not require commentators/shoutcasters, but of course people explaining what is happening, at times, more helpful than not.

imo, the solo vs group queues should matter if there is a large enough player base and there is a leveling system in place for players. best of luck and i hope w/e decision is made causes more players to play mwo.

- kinesotu (been playing since before November 8, 2012, (6500MC) first purchase)

[N0MAD]

Most of whats been suggested, apart from allowing solos to opt into groups, is all about restrictions, restrict group size, restrict game type selection, restrict mech selection, restrict server selection, restrict,restrict etc, etc...
After 4 years you cant cure low pop by putting in restrictions, each restriction will just shed some player or other snowballing the low pop problem.
Even allowing solo into the Q will have an impact on game quality, at least atm you have some semblance of group play, most groups are on coms or know each other, let solos in and you degrade the group play, imagine 2 to 4 solos in a team playing well solo, im sure thats going to increase the quality of the group Q.

PS.
Release valves just makes for bad quality matches, every release valve adds another seal to the slaughter...

Edited by N0MAD, 03 September 2015 - 11:15 PM.

[MischiefSC]

panicbutton, on 03 September 2015 - 08:43 PM, said:

I actually really like this. Other games have similar limitations for good reason. I would, however, like to see the return of a dedicated 8v8 and potentially 12v12 queue. I know the queue times for 8v8 and 12v12 were ridiculous back when it was "12s only" and "8s only", but these matches made up the heart and soul of mwo for me. Groups launched into the 8's or 12's queue with the intention of finding worthy challengers. It's where the 228th's competitive squad started trying to find practice. We have been crushed in that queue by SJR, SWK, HoL, DV8, and others, and we, in turn, have doled out our fair share of skull bashing. It was well worth the wait in queue. This was really the reason I joined a unit, and when 12s could drop against other sized groups... it really made the competition quite bad. Not to say that the smaller teams we faced were bad, but there is a huge advantage gained from being part of a group over size 6. A few other members of the 228th and myself were really disappointed in the "new" queue which supported variable group sizes. We want our old, more challenging (albeit less populated) queue back as much as the folks running small groups want us out of the queue with our 8+ premades.

Fundamental issue with that though -

it's only applicable to top tier competitive teams, which isn't everyone. Not by a big stretch. I'm having a great time tonight in the group queue in a mixed group of people, 7-9 of us at any given time. 4 max? Most of us would be playing a different game. We would not be splitting into 4s, we'd be playing another game.

Really that simple. I get the concept but a 4 player max group queue is irrelevant to me. I'll pug a bit, CW if there's people around for it who want to CW, or I'll play another game. I'm not alone if history is an indicator.

[NeonKnight]

How about we just get rid of the whole SOLO/GROUP split.

the whole argument and reason for splitting the two was the SOLO players complained they had no voice comms and the group players did.

So we split the groups....and group play suffered.

Then finally the golden day arrived and VOIP now exists in the game, and having played on SOLO drops, it is used...to great effect.

So, how about we just get rid of SOLO/GROUP/CW queues and merely have COMMUNITY WARFARE drops and NON-COMMUNITY WARFARE drops. I am quite certain there are no issues in the CW side of the house that a solo player get's stomped in CW.

So again, enough with diluting the player base and make us all one group for NON-CW drops. It was promised, now deliver.

Edited by NeonKnight, 03 September 2015 - 11:16 PM.

[MischiefSC]

I'm all for 1/1/1/1 by the way though. Running group queue tonight and often seeing huge piles of Dires. Nothing like seeing a 4man running 3 Dires and a HBR, then another with 2 Dires and some Scrows, etc.

Remove 1/1/1/1 and it'll be 12 dires. What crap that would be.

[Daelen Rottiger]

Can anybody explain what the skill level differences of 150 or 400 provided by Russ means?

[FREDtheROLF]

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

PLZ JUST DON'T!

Edited by FREDtheROLF, 03 September 2015 - 11:23 PM.

[Kjudoon]

unFearing, on 03 September 2015 - 10:19 PM, said:

4 man max is fine but don't make it 1/1/1/1. can't practice training an apprentice in a particular weight class while receiving support from teammates in other weight classes. make it be limited to 2 max per weight class but still 4 people max per group, so in the case of 4 persons:

1/1/1/1,
2 pilots in one class, 2 pilots in another
2 pilots in one class, 1 pilot in another, 1 pilot in another.

I do believe that training time in the public queues is a passing era in an effort to move it into the private matches... where it belongs and PGI makes money.

At least that's a subtle undercurrent I'm seeing form.

Edited by Kjudoon, 03 September 2015 - 11:26 PM.

[VXJaeger]

So far soloqueue has served me well, actually better than ever. It's even enjoyable to play solo now, when 12-0 stomps have pretty much disappeared.
Group queue is just always 12-man deathball BS.

[Nerdboard]

I do not like the idea of being forced to split if the groups become larger than 4. This should be optional for 4man groups to not que up against larger ones. But I would still like to be able to play as a larger unit.

I am absolutely fine with the 1/1/1/1 or something in that direction.

[Wintersdark]

1/1/1/1 may sound appealing, but it's awful if you want to play together. Forcing each for man to be one light, one medium, one heavy, and one assault? Look, I want to see decently even representation in matches as much as the next guy, but if you make groups play like that, you're basically saying:
"Ok, you can play with your friends, but only 3. And you're playing in the same match with them, but you're going to be playing in totally different mechs, at different speed bands... so basically, you're only barely playing with them at all.


I don't have a lot of horses in this race. I rarely play in established groups, but I do really enjoy getting a pile of friends together playing - people from all sorts of units and such, with people coming and going along the way. We could never do that in the 4 man days of old, and this would end it.

I just think - as much as I totally understand not enjoying being rolled by 12 mans - that going back to a 4 man limit would have profound impact. It may well make match quality better, I don't dispute that. But taking away "Fun Playing With Friends"... that's bad.

It'd be ok, if CW was more viable. But as it stands, it's just not. It takes too long to get matches (when you can in the first place!) with upwards of 1/2 hour between matches searching/building teams/etc. Just not practical for getting an impromptu group together and having some fun.

[Locabiosol]

We will have the BV system soon^™. This gives every Mech a numerical value for it's strength, wouldn't it? Great!
So let's assume a Metawhale get's 1000BV, a TDR 750BV, a Hunchback 500BV and a FS9 250BV.
Now give the group for every player who joins the group 500BV for the groups BV pool.
You want to drop a Whale in a 4 man? Great! Just sacrifice the 1000BV and go Dire, Hunch, 2x FS9. Go two TDR? 2xTDR + 2FS9. TDR + 2 Hunch + FS9...
This leaves you with a great way to restict 0/0/#/# style groups without taking away the option to do a Hunchbro drop (I would cry if we can not do this anymore ). The maximum amount of Whales would be 4 since four whales are 4000BV. This would leave you with 2000BV left for 8 guys wich would all have to take a FS9 then.
I mean the restrictions to weightclasses are dumb anyway. What's the difference between a Cicada and a Jenner anyway? 5 tons? This would automaticly boost the validity of low tonnage (assume lower BV) mechs in a given weight class.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Locabiosol, on 03 September 2015 - 11:52 PM, said:

We will have the BV system soon^™. This gives every Mech a numerical value for it's strength, wouldn't it?

....No, not really. This isn't what you're thinking of.

The 'battle value' that PGI has talked about is a rating for the chassis based on its hardpoints, hardpoint locations, model shape, and engine limitations. It does not rate the value of equipment loaded, because it's meant to give a base point for the value of the 'mech chassis itself so that they can decide what needs how much quirking.

This value does not take into account armor, equipment, modules, et cetera. This is especially relevant because the value of a piece of equipment can vary based on where it's mounted on the 'mech and what other equipment is mounted on the 'mech (if we're going to talk about the overall strength of a 'mech and assign a number to it). Further, basing choices off of that would not take into account pilot value. Thus, it cannot be used as you propose.

[Deathlike]

Here's a dumb question... why isn't a tonnage limit enforced?

Back when that was in "exploration" (tonnage limits instead of the 3/3/3/3 system), people were ready to conform to it.

Sure it won't have a perfect tonnage distribution (nothing ever will), but it's an intentional team handicap that wasn't fully restrictive (taking 2 Stormcrows for instance would not break the system, unless it was 1/1/1/1).

I feel like that was a time that something as simple conceptually like that wasn't fully looked into.