1142 replies to this topic

[Lily from animove]

Cashel, on 04 September 2015 - 04:44 AM, said:

Firstly - thank you to Russ and the developers assuming that you're taking the time to read the feedback given here. Please consider acknowledging again further down in this thread that people who can affect changes are reading this to give us, the generally silent generally enjoying the game for what it is players, some hope.

The group queue has been broken since the PSR changes. I played that mode exclusively until the changes and when I suddenly got 20+ min search times for 80% of my games - all of the players I play with either moved to CW with me if they were in the same faction we were or went to pugging. So current group queue stats are likely missing all the players who are regularly there.

There are two elegant and simple solutions that should both be considered to enhance both the current problem with the group queue and also the new player experience.

This first part has been articulated very nicely by Tarogato and discussion can be read here..

https://www.reddit.c...ion_suggestion/

It's simple and I don't know why more people haven't come up with it or put it forward.

• 
  
  Only allow groups of 4, 8, and 12. Multiples of a lance. Limit them by 3/3/3/3.
  
• 
  
  (if necessary) Introduce "Duo queuing". When two players group up as a pair, they are sent into either solo or group queue depending on their PSR. High PSR? Group queue - they get paired with another duo queue pair and make up a full lance. But if they are low PSR? (i.e., somebody trying to bring their brand-new friend into the game for the first time) Solo queue instead, where they have can have a more forgiving experience instead of the shark ^meta infested waters that is the group queue.

This way there are only four (4!) different types of puzzle pieces for the matchmaker to fit together instead of what we have to deal with currently: ten (10!). It solves the problem of units and TS servers (people like u/Cashel_MWO ) who are very interested in playing in large groups like 8 and 12 while also making the matchmaker happier. If we reduce the group queue to ONLY groups of four, then we are alienating a significant number of people. Entire units left the game in the past when group queue was limited to four only because they could no longer play as a unit in MWO. Sure, CW exists now and it didn't then, but for most people it does not suffice. For them it doesn't exist as an option because they don't enjoy playing it. I don't think Phase 3 is going to bring anything groundbreaking enough to bring units back to CW that are already bored of it.



The other portion of this change needs to address the current New Player Experience (NPE) because if you're looking at making changes, this is a great chance to make the right one. Thus I suggest the Mentoring idea, as follows.



Allow a 2 man group into the solo queue when they make a 2 man group and choose an option of 'Mentor' when launching the game.

The player who has chosen 'Mentor' will have that flagged on the match summary screen so other players can see that there is a mentor in the game. The mentor & newbie would be dropped into a tier 4 solo queue game. This is important so that there are no instances of tier 1 players pairing up to farm new players for easy wins - or if it is occurring that it's easy to see and social pressure will be applied. You could also further reduce the potential for abuse by making the KDR and win/loss ratios of the mentor & mentored not affected by a 'Mentor' game for people attempting to raise their tiers.

Prior to the group queue changes, bringing a friend along for a match had a decent chance of seeing them chainsawed by a team comprised of more experienced players and them quitting due to the learning curve difficulty. Having the ability to bring a friend along for an easier first time experience = player retention = more $ for operational costs/development + more playerbase = quicker searches = win for all.

this is a solution at all, sure some peopel won't like it vecause of onl beign 3 people or being 5 or 6 or 7. But the MM can't sort out the weird happening on the field, espeically not when there are 4 grps of 3mans waiting only in heavies and assaults.

also i am not sure if it is sololy PSR to blame. people slowly figured out now there are EU, US and OC servers. This divided a lot of the playerbase form the same pool into subclusters. and now think abotu it, if MOW has like 4k palyers online at the same time. and 16% paly grp queue thats 640 palyers divided into 3 servers, into various groupclusters and various invalid mechsetups. that cant work ever.


@Russ, can you make a lance event again? I would liek to see how this impacts on the groupque.

[TWIAFU]

Daelen Rottiger, on 04 September 2015 - 03:14 AM, said:

Let me get this straight..... So we are thinking about limiting options and restricting the players choice because the player base is so low that the MM has problems in creating balanced matches?

Where's the failure ?!

Forgot the part where the Group Queue has to be changed based on opinions from people that do not play in group queue.

Instead of changing the GROUP queue based on SOLO players, why not force everyone that plays in group queue to be in a group?

Get ready for sync dropping fun!

Edited by TWIAFU, 04 September 2015 - 04:57 AM.

[GoodTry]

I would love to have the option to play in group queue as a solo player. Really, I don't care about what queue I'm in, as long as the games are balanced.

As far as a solution, I like the proposals to limit it to 4/8/12 man groups. As far as balancing mech sizes, that seems tough. I'd love to see a lobby system where people can select mechs in the lobby, with a strict 3/3/3/3 limit.

I also think that we have to get rid of the game mode checkboxes. They are stupid and pointless. All of the game modes are very similar anyway. I think that, like others have mentioned, we should get rid of the game mode checkboxes and implement a lobby voting system for game modes. That way, no one can legitimately complain.

We should swap the game mode checkboxes for a "group queue" checkbox, so solo players can opt in to the group queue.

Edited by GoodTry, 04 September 2015 - 05:08 AM.

[Brizna]

The separation of the player queue in two queues is an over reaction to coordination being OP in this game. Sure that last bit is true but there are other ways to deal with that than spliting an already small queue in two.

1) Merge both queues.
2) Start MM by finding two similarly sized and skilled groups.
3) Fill up the rest of the team with smaller groups AND solo players of similar skill trying to balance the size of those groups in both team.

Because the main group is where coordination is most important and both teams have similarly sized and skilled main battle groups bot groups should be reasonably balanced.
And since the queue is larger and provides for single player to round uneven numbers MM should have a much easier time finding the right stuff for a good match.

[GoodTry]

Brizna, on 04 September 2015 - 05:07 AM, said:

The separation of the player queue in two queues is an over reaction to coordination being OP in this game. Sure that last bit is true but there are other ways to deal with that than spliting an already small queue in two.

1) Merge both queues.
2) Start MM by finding two similarly sized and skilled groups.
3) Fill up the rest of the team with smaller groups AND solo players of similar skill trying to balance the size of those groups in both team.

Because the main group is where coordination is most important and both teams have similarly sized and skilled main battle groups bot groups should be reasonably balanced.
And since the queue is larger and provides for single player to round uneven numbers MM should have a much easier time finding the right stuff for a good match.

I don't think that we should eliminate the solo queue entirely. I remember back when groups were matched with solo players. Everyone would always complain and wonder if they got stomped because they got matched against a group. Now, with 12 man groups, it would be even worse. I think that the solo queue is the best thing going for this game right now, and they shouldn't kill it in attempting to fix the group queue.

[StalaggtIKE]

Russ Bullock, on 03 September 2015 - 03:43 PM, said:

As you can see I am willing to try and keep the any group size thing around a while longer if we make a few other changes.

1) possibly allow solo's to opt in - so long as it doesn't pull to many solo queue should still perform well.
2) game mode selection likely needs to be random or the voting we once had. In other words all three available - this becomes even more important and would actually encourage us to add a 4th mode.
3) This one is your home work : reduce the jig saw pieces by allowing more restrictions in group creation - something better than the 3 of any weight class we have now - atm too many groups of 2, 3 and 4 ALL contain 3 heavies and so on. Go with 2 max until you slip into groups 9+?

Stepping away for the time being.

Yes. This is worth trying.

[Lily from animove]

GoodTry, on 04 September 2015 - 05:10 AM, said:

I don't think that we should eliminate the solo queue entirely. I remember back when groups were matched with solo players. Everyone would always complain and wonder if they got stomped because they got matched against a group. Now, with 12 man groups, it would be even worse. I think that the solo queue is the best thing going for this game right now, and they shouldn't kill it in attempting to fix the group queue.

this, catering the low part of the games population by sacrificing the majority of palyers is a bad choice if you want to keep your game running.

we should make this again

http://mwomercs.com/...s?t=201411group

and see how proper population will affect the grp queue.

then make a lance challange again

http://mwomercs.com/...lance-challenge

both challanges will be interesting, since one rewards a bit by staying in a true lance, doing the jigsaw reduction, and the other is a full sized chaos it allows (but tonnage restrictions)

Edited by Lily from animove, 04 September 2015 - 05:19 AM.

[HadleyHope]

Quickdraw Crobat, on 04 September 2015 - 12:32 AM, said:

....well, heck, why hasn't this post been liked more? This should totally be a thing.

Thinking about it surely there is also a sort of restricted option already to allow solo players in the group queue, which is looking for group?

[GI Journalist]

Most of us seem to agree that 1/1/1/1 is a poor requirement for groups of four.

Why not match lances by their roles, rather than trying to spread out the weights?

Require each team of four to build one of the following:

Recon Lance: 3/1/0/0

Fire Lance: 0/2/2/0

Assault Lance: 0/0/1/3

Then match up teams using the same types of lances on each side, with one of each type being the prefered distribution.

This would have the added benefit of incorporating more BattleTech lore into the game by organizing the lances into easily recognizable formations.

Edited by GI Journalist, 04 September 2015 - 05:28 AM.

[Widowmaker1981]

1/1/1/1 and 4 man max is utter and complete bull****.

i could MAYBE accept 4 man max, but 1/1/1/1 needs to F RIGHT OFF. So two buddies cant both run Banshees, or lights, or shadowcats together? NO.

we dont need 3/3/3/3, we dont need 1/1/1/1 just drop the whole idea and let the teams compose how they will.

[HadleyHope]

Kjudoon, on 04 September 2015 - 12:59 AM, said:

Forcing all modes is an absolute "No Go" for this game ever since they created Skirmish mode. Now the TDM freaks have their mode, and really should be forced to stay there or have TDM play in other modes so deincentivized they'd never want to step into another mode.

With the removal of turrets from Assault, apart from the spawn locations there is now no real difference between Skirmish and Assault, sure you can try and base cap... good luck with that, so you might get a Skirmish drop once in a while it really is not going to make a difference to the type of people you will face across the map.

[Chimperator]

Widowmaker1981, on 04 September 2015 - 05:25 AM, said:

1/1/1/1 and 4 man max is utter and complete bull****.

i could MAYBE accept 4 man max, but 1/1/1/1 needs to F RIGHT OFF. So two buddies cant both run Banshees, or lights, or shadowcats together? NO.

we dont need 3/3/3/3, we dont need 1/1/1/1 just drop the whole idea and let the teams compose how they will.

yeah 4 dires everywhere !

[Maver0ick]

MischiefSC, on 03 September 2015 - 11:09 PM, said:

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.

The last time max 4 limit was introduced, it killed my old unit. We had been growing steadily up until max 4 limit was put in place. 5th player never stayed around.

[Di Tar]

Leave group on 2,4,5,10,12. And the most important groups of 5 and 10 will be available only clans. Simplify the selection. And even with the size of the groups is convenient to go to the format 10 (clan) x 12 (IS).

Edited by Di Tar, 04 September 2015 - 05:42 AM.

[BattleBunny]

Cashel, on 04 September 2015 - 04:44 AM, said:

The group queue has been broken since the PSR changes. I played that mode exclusively until the changes and when I suddenly got 20+ min search times for 80% of my games - all of the players I play with either moved to CW with me if they were in the same faction we were or went to pugging. So current group queue stats are likely missing all the players who are regularly there.

Quoted for truth. This fact is very important. I have been playing the group queue for 90% of the time I played during the last year. I absolutely love it. I play it with my unitmates and with friends from different units and factions. Big groups and small. But when the search times increased I stopped playing group queue and so did many many others. Current data on the group queue should be given a long time to accumulate , with matchmaker being very liberal to shorten search times to get these players back in business. Otherwise the data will be incomplete and misleading.

Edited by BattleBunny, 04 September 2015 - 05:47 AM.

[grayson marik]

Well, instead of the big gun of going down to 4 * 1/1/1/1, it would just be enough to try a smaller step first and just kick those odd number groups from the queue 3, 5, 7, 9

This should already improve things noticeably, without restraining players choice to much.

I am voting for a small step approach!

First eliminate odd number groups

If not good enough, set max. group size to 6

If not good enough, set max. group size to 4

If not good enough, enforce 1/1/1/1

All sets of settings with a week duration to collect data and to check back with the players.

This would give just one month of testing and would then enable players to vote for a final set of group queue rules.:

- No restrictions
- No odd numbers
- No odd numbers, max size 6
- No odd numbers, max size 4
- No odd numbers max size 4, 1/1/1/1

Edited by grayson marik, 04 September 2015 - 05:49 AM.

[Tarl Cabot]

On PSR what is the min/max, so we can make sense of the PSR gap you noted. That would help put in perspective for the range seen in the queues

Cap Group size to a max 8.

Remove game mode selection/opt out.

Another option would be to set group queue to two game modes, removing the mode less used.

The question should be asked, in the group queue, which game mode is opted out the most? Do you have stats on which modes are opt out by choice?

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 04 September 2015 - 06:55 AM.

[Lily from animove]

GI Journalist, on 04 September 2015 - 05:22 AM, said:

Most of us seem to agree that 1/1/1/1 is a poor requirement for groups of four.

Why not match lances by their roles, rather than trying to spread out the weights?

Require each team of four to build one of the following:

Recon Lance: 3/1/0/0

Fire Lance: 0/2/2/0

Assault Lance: 0/0/1/3

Then match up teams using the same types of lances on each side, with one of each type being the prefered distribution.

This would have the added benefit of incorporating more BattleTech lore into the game by organizing the lances into easily recognizable formations.

that gamepaly would be boring because it would mostly consists of assault vs assault lances.
and what would you do if only 5 assault lances are available and one fire lance? this would heavily screw the system.

you guys always give ideal examples, but never try to explain what your MM woudl do if the situation is not at its favour.

so how do you match up 1 recon, a fire lance and 4 assault lances? If the light pilots have skill and coordination they cna rip apart the opponents assaults by simply havign the mobility advanate which the setup of the other team has no proper counter.

[Sleipnir]

I'm cool with limiting the groups to 4 man cap. However I'd prefer a tonnage cap rather than a hard 1/1/1/1 limit.

I think you need to do more to incentivise large group play on the CW side of things. I'm not personally a fan of the invasion game mode. I'd rather see an option to play CW in a series of assault or Skirmish games. Lock the 2 teams in for a series of 3 Assault/Skirmish/conquest matches. You'd probably find a lot of groups would find this a happy alternative if you restrict to a 4man cap in the pug queue.

[Swordlord]

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+

I have no issues with the solo queue as it currently works. Even returning to the game after a 9+ month absence, it seems to be pretty fun and relatively balanced overall.

I have no issue with players wanting a group queue. It's a great way for a larger number of unit-mates to drop together to get some coordinated fighting under their belts. However, form the group drops I've been a part of in the past week, something seems askew.

I dropped with two other unit members last night in probably 12 or 13 matches. Of those matches, we literally faced the same 8+-man group on the opposing force FOUR TIMES. They played very well, in a very coordinated manner, and stomped our "team" every time. I wasn't frustrated with them so much as I was with the consistent way the new system kept pairing our mix & match "team" with ones of 7+-man coordinated drops. We faced another large force in two different matches last night as well, making a total of 6 out of 12 or 13 wherein we fought just two recognizable forces. This flies in the face of your statistics above.

I enjoy the game, except when I am forced by the game system to regularly face a group of coordinated players formed into a single unit. Roll-stomps aren't at all fun for the stomped, and get boring quickly for the stompers. There has to be a GOOD way to allow group matches for everyone - both the casual players and the hard-core competitors. I don't mind competingwith the tough guys, because that's how you learn, but I don't want to consistently face losing battles just because I'm dropping with two or three pals, and MM can't find another team to oppose except a 7+-man (which may speak to population issues within the group queue).

If limiting group size to 4 is a way to go, we should revert back to it.
Implementing 1/1/1/1 wouldn't hamper my ability to play, but it would limit players that don't have access to a large stable of 'Mechs, or those that really, REALLY don't want to play a certain tonnage. I'm not game design savvy, but would it be possible to do a limit of 2/2/1/1, thereby expanding - in a small way - the options for smaller group size?

Edited by Swordlord, 04 September 2015 - 05:55 AM.