1142 replies to this topic

[Anunknownlurker]

If you bring in the max group of 4 then is there a way of incorporating the normal map rotation in the CW aspect of the game? In that way the bigger groups could sign up for a one-off fight on a normal map, i.e. a fight without respawn, as well as the current CW maps.

Just a thought

[GI Journalist]

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

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.

Lily from animove, on 04 September 2015 - 05:53 AM, said:

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.

Fundamentally, matchmaker would match Recon, Fire and Assault lances for the group queue the same way it matches Light, Medium, Heavy and Assault mechs for the solo queue. The group queue matchmaker would show the percentage of Recon, Fire and Assault lances currently being fielded, and teams could make decisions to control a different kind of lance to reduce their wait times.

Ideally, a Recon, Fire and Assault lance face off against another evenly matched Recon, Fire and Assault lance. However, just like the current matchmaker has a release on weight classes to speed matches in the solo queue, the group queue could have multiple lances of the same type facing off against each other if no other opponent is available.

Let's say more Assault lances are fielded than anything else. They might have longer wait times or when a wait time limit is reached, group queues might start looking less than Ideal.

Ideal:
 
BLUE	  vs.   RED
Recon		  Recon
Fire		  Fire
Assault	  Assault
 
Less Ideal:
BLUE	 vs.	RED
Fire		   Fire
Assault		Assault
Assault		Assault
 
Or:
 
BLUE	 vs.	RED
Recon		 Recon
Assault		Assault
Assault		Assault
 
 
Your Worst Fears Realized:
 
BLUE	 vs.	RED
Assault		Assault
Assault		Assault
Assault		Assault

Nonetheless, this way players will be able to form lances according to Role Warfare rather than using an undesirable 1/1/1/1 format, and the matchmaker only needs to sort through the three kinds of pre-formed four-person teams.

[Jalthibuster]

Just leave it as it is...but add an opt-in/-out check box for solo players to drop in group queue. Should make up for the odd number groups.

[Lily from animove]

GI Journalist, on 04 September 2015 - 08:03 AM, said:

Fundamentally, matchmaker would match Recon, Fire and Assault lances for the group queue the same way it matches Light, Medium, Heavy and Assault mechs for the solo queue. The group queue matchmaker would show the percentage of Recon, Fire and Assault lances currently being fielded, and teams could make decisions to control a different kind of lance to reduce their wait times.

Ideally, a Recon, Fire and Assault lance face off against another evenly matched Recon, Fire and Assault lance. However, just like the current matchmaker has a release on weight classes to speed matches in the solo queue, the group queue could have multiple lances of the same type facing off against each other if no other opponent is available.

Let's say more Assault lances are fielded than anything else. They might have longer wait times or when a wait time limit is reached, group queues might start looking less than Ideal.

Ideal:
 
BLUE	  vs.   RED
Recon		  Recon
Fire		  Fire
Assault	  Assault
 
Less Ideal:
BLUE	 vs.	RED
Fire		   Fire
Assault		Assault
Assault		Assault
 
Or:
 
BLUE	 vs.	RED
Recon		 Recon
Assault		Assault
Assault		Assault
 
 
Your Worst Fears Realized:
 
BLUE	 vs.	RED
Assault		Assault
Assault		Assault
Assault		Assault

Nonetheless, this way players will be able to form lances according to Role Warfare rather than using an undesirable 1/1/1/1 format, and the matchmaker only needs to sort through the three kinds of pre-formed four-person teams.

the format does not matter, step away from your ideal examples, because reality in this game is not ideal. Thats the reaon why none of the MM will ever statisfy matchqualuity and waiting times togther unless you have a massive aount of players online in the queue. This is not LoL.

so hwo do you matchup
assault
assault
assault
recon
recon
recon

Or how would you you matchup:

assault
assault
assault
assault
fireline
recon

?

both only possible matchups in these two settings would not be balanced anymore.
Further, your gamestyle implies that a lance of 3 lights and a medium is "recon" style, which does not have to be true, since 3 sniper ravens are completely different from 3 FS9's. So the role you see is not the role in reality. Same with mediums, as if 2 CDA's and 2Dragons equalise 2SCR's and 2 Timberwolves. They both have by tonnage a big difference and also by their roles. (or take 2 IFR's and two MDD's isntead the CDA/DRG).

Edited by Lily from animove, 04 September 2015 - 08:12 AM.

[Hann Solo]

I support this idea.

[Jello2142]

konokoni, on 04 September 2015 - 07:02 AM, said:

To throw my opinion in on this topic:

When you implemented a separate solo queue along with an unrestricted size group queue, your stated intent was to improve the single-player experience while also allowing increased flexibility for groups, without unduly impacting balance and wait times.

I think it's safe to say that your goal was achieved in the solo queue. Skill levels seem comparable between teams and close games are not uncommon. Ace pilots and less skilled individuals alike are evenly distributed. Even the lack of coordination inherent to the solo queue can almost be considered a feature: there is less coordinated fire and more latitude for small mistakes. As such, games last a bit longer and there are more chances for comebacks. Overall, I agree that it's as good as it's ever been.

Unfortunately, the group queue experience has suffered greatly. Large groups wait for an extended period of time, only to fight a motley collection of small groups that can't compete with the coordination and build synergy a 6-12 person group brings to the table. Most such matches are over before they begin; large groups are vastly more effective at staying together and focusing fire than collections of small groups. Stragglers in the small group team are picked off and their surviving teammates begins their inevitable slide down the slippery slope that defines a no-respawn gamemode.

For every "close" game in the group queue (say, losing team kills 6 enemies) there are two or three stomps (losing team kills fewer than 3 enemies). It's not fun for small groups and I imagine it must get old even for large groups. I am also not too keen on suggestions that groups be allowed in multiples of four (4/8/12). This would require people to pad out their groups (what are five friends supposed to do?) and would not solve the issues mentioned above in regards to balance between larger groups and collections of smaller groups.

As such, I definitely support reducing max group size to four in the group queue. Large groups losing the ability to drop together is a small price to pay to vastly improve match balance for (what I assume to be) the majority of the game's population. Of course, I lack the playerbase metrics that you have access to; perhaps 5-12 man groups are the lifeblood of the group queue and restricting their drop options will scare them away. If so, then perhaps you should weigh the voices of people arguing against this limitation more heavily. Let your quantitative analysis color how you interpret the playerbase's qualitative impressions.

I am less enthusiastic for the 1/1/1/1 restriction within a group. However, in the interest of closer matchmaking I would accept it if it were to come to pass. Would 2/2/2/2 be an acceptable middle-ground? Or would it have no appreciable effect on matchmaking quality?

As always, thank you for taking the time to collect the community's thoughts on this matter.

I don't know who you are or what you do for a living but this has got to be the best post I have read in a long time. Very informative and you were able to voice not only your concern but add some ideas. Bravo sir!

[GrimmwolfGB]

Going back to max size of 4 is a terrible idea.

[Death Proof]

I've seen this suggested by others and I agree:

- Set group sizes to a 4, 8, or 12 hard limit. That is, your group must consist of 1, 2 or 3 lances. Don't have enough friends to form full lances? Get more on TS. It's easy.
- Each lance must consist of a light, medium, heavy, and assault. "But my friends wanna play with our Dire Wolves" Tough sh*t...flip a coin or take turns. Game balance trumps your entitlement.
- Let MM decide on the size of the match; 4v4, 8v8, or 12v12 based on available players in the queue. This will help with wait times exponentially and create variety in matches.
- By default, MM will try to match equal-sized groups first, then the "release valves" kick in, puzzle-piecing groups together.
- Finally, get rid of game mode options; it's all team death match anyway in pub matches. lol

/gamebalancenazi

[Big Tin Man]

There is a constant theme running here about CW being a ghost town, and not a realistic option for group play. But as memory serves, every weekend/weeklong CW event had good populations with low wait times. Heck, one comstar dispatch got LIAO to show up. They never show up. The reason: people had incentive to fight in the form of rewards, since the earnings per hour in CW surpassed group queue. So how about this:

DOUBLE CW REWARDS UNTIL PHASE 3 LAUNCHES. C-Bills, XP, LP, all doubled. If that's not enough, triple them. Then see what happens with the group queue. Big groups may turn to CW, while small groups stay in group queue for fear of the 12 man reaper. Reassess and make another course correction after a month, minimum.

[TheSilken]

I like the 4 man group size but not 1/1/1/1. We have new players on our team and they only have 1 or 2 weight classes available to play. This 1/1/1/1 idea would make things more difficult for them if they want to play alongside us. I say set it to 2/2/2/2 that way you can do a maximum of 2 for a mech class so that its easier for everyone.

[Jello2142]

DruggedHippo, on 04 September 2015 - 07:02 AM, said:

I agree with this. Don't take away the ability to field larger groups. If you destroy the ability for teams with more than 4 pilots to practice together on the group queue, then you destroy a significant portion of the competitive potential of that game mode. Yeah, it sucks to get stomped every now and then by a 12-pilot group but, honestly, it is a great learning experience to see how they play and organize themselves.

Problem is getting stomped every now and again can in reality be getting stomped 14 out of 20 drops with your friends. I highly doubt anyone enjoys losing 12-anything lower than 4ish .

As far as it being a great learning experience I will have to disagree with you there as well the best way to learn is to be a part of the 12 man drop as the 11th guy. Next best way to learn is to be on the losing end of a 12 man match by losing 12-8+ were the battle lasts more than 5 minutes and you can actually participate then spectate after death. In the end it really only takes a few runs with or against one to get the general idea as to what make that machine well oiled not a high rate of stomps.

Furthermore wouldn't a unit get better practice against a team of equal organization and skill? I can't help but think a unit rolling over drop in 5 minutes with 0 deaths teaches you anything at all...

MWO is in a weird place when it comes to match making. It isn't BF4 were you are playing with 32 people per side and a 12 man pre made on your side is damn nice but the carry is a lot harder against 32 (with respawns)

Perhaps the best solution for those wanting to run 8 or 12 is to have an official ranked/ladder system built into the game. Separate queue entirely, not CW, that tracks teams of varying sizes and rates them on W/L.

[L A V A]

Here is the problem:

Proportionally what people want to play doesn't even come close to 1/1/1/1.

We've been through this before and it failed.

Why should it work a second time around?

[Big Tin Man]

Since the topic is back on 1/1/1/1, I threw this idea out there 11 pages back, but nobody was talking about 1/1/1/1:

2-4----------2/2/1/1
5-7---------3/3/2/1
8-10-------3/3/3/2
11-12-----3/3/3/3

The whole idea being to offer some flexibility for groups to play what they want, while trying to fight the natural power creep. I don't think anybody wants to go up against a 12 DWF crew, so something must be done. Groups of 2 under 1/1/1/1 are going to be in an assault and a heavy. Groups of 6 under 2/2/2/2 will run two assaults and two heavies without fail. The heavy and assault slots will almost always be filled because of power creep. Loosening restrictions on the lights and mediums may server to offer groups options while helping MM deal with the power creep bloating.

Heck, after a good night's sleep, I'd even support the following:

2-4----------3/3/1/1
5-7---------3/3/2/1
8-10-------4/3/3/2
11-12-----5/4/3/3

But I may be biased, I remember causing massive rage running a 10 man light swarm with Raven 3L's. I also remember the hell of fighting a 12 man running all AS7-DDC. GG.

Edited by Big Tin Man, 04 September 2015 - 08:51 AM.

[1453 R]

Read the first few pages, saw the usual profusion of "DON'T YOU DARE REMOVE LARGE, AWKWARDLY-SIZED GROUPS! OR MAKE US CONFORM TO 3/3/3/3! OR ELIMINATE MODE/SERVER SELECTIONS! OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT WOULD REDUCE THE UNBEARABLE STRAIN ON GROUP QUEUE MATCHMAKER!"

Allow me to simply quote what I said in another thread on the subject:

1453 R, on 25 August 2015 - 03:00 PM, said:

I'm not sure what everyone here wants Piranha to do about wait times. It's CW all over again.

"Not being able to choose which modes I play is UNACCEPTABLE(!!!)"

"Not being able to choose which regional server I play on is UNACCEPTABLE(!!!)"

"Not being able to play with any number of buddies from two to ten in the group queue is UNACCEPTABLE(!!!)"

"Not being able to play whatever 'Mech I like is UNACCEPTABLE(!!!)"

"Not getting a perfectly even PSR match-up is UNACCEPTABLE(!!!)"

"Not being able to... ....is UNACCEPTABLE(!!!)"

"All these long wait times are UNACCEPTABLE(!!!)"

Hint for you, bros - the more often you use that word, the harder it is for the game to do its job.

I play with my brother and our buddy from time to time, a small 3-man group. We coordinate our 'Mech choices so we're each in a different weight class, we enable all three game modes, and we normally play in both NA and EU servers (unless the EU servers are being a pain to Maker, at which point we'll flip the EU servers off and just deal). We average two to five minute waits for matchmaking, usually closer to two than five.

Do we end up getting rolled? Sure, but that's the nature of MWO. The basic, fundamental structure of this game encourages snowballing and landslide victories, and all three of us get that. Sometimes you're the boot, and sometimes you're the weasel. But acknowledging that there's only so much the matchmaker can do to accommodate you and taking basic steps to work with the system can cut your wait times dramatically.

Or, to put it shortly: if things start being ACCEPTABLE(!!!) to you, you'll get a whole helluva lot more matches. It's not like the other game modes don't always devolve into Skirmish anyways, or like the 60-ping difference between NA and EU for most average folks is crippling.

Furthermore, for all the "let solos pug in group queue!" tomfoolery?

Remember: Russ specifically stated that he DOES NOT want to take players away from the solo queue. Shoring up the group queue's weaknesses at the cost of turning the solo queue into a desolate wasteland is not an acceptable solution.

Acceptable solutions include giving up some choices in return for quicker, better matches, or accepting that if you want to play Conquest UND ONLY CONKVEST, in a 9-man group, on the EU servers only...well then, you're going to have to wait a while for that one, singular match you're willing to play.

[Big Tin Man]

1453 R, on 04 September 2015 - 08:50 AM, said:

Furthermore, for all the "let solos pug in group queue!" tomfoolery?

Remember: Russ specifically stated that he DOES NOT want to take players away from the solo queue. Shoring up the group queue's weaknesses at the cost of turning the solo queue into a desolate wasteland is not an acceptable solution.

I can't believe that the MM problem would affect solo queue AT ALL, if implemented correctly. Set the logic in the group MM to only pull from solo queue if unable to make a match after 5+ minutes, or whatever the last relief valve is to open, and only take a couple solo's per match (max 6?). Just make adding solo's into group the absolute last resort of MM and see what happens. With the speed that solo queue matches are made, I think it will be a rare thing, and not impact solo very much at all.

The sole idea of allowing solo's to opt into the group queue was to eliminate the 20+ minute waits for the unicorns that only want to play conquest only on the oceanic server at 9 am Sydney Time on a Wednesday.

Edited by Big Tin Man, 04 September 2015 - 09:06 AM.

[Wintersdark]

1453 R, on 04 September 2015 - 08:50 AM, said:

Read the first few pages, saw the usual profusion of "DON'T YOU DARE REMOVE LARGE, AWKWARDLY-SIZED GROUPS! OR MAKE US CONFORM TO 3/3/3/3! OR ELIMINATE MODE/SERVER SELECTIONS! OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT WOULD REDUCE THE UNBEARABLE STRAIN ON GROUP QUEUE MATCHMAKER!"

Allow me to simply quote what I said in another thread on the subject:

Indeed, something has to give. This is totally inevitable, we simply do not have the population in the group queue to have the extreme restrictions on the MM that we currently have.

Absolutely something MUST give

Quote

Furthermore, for all the "let solos pug in group queue!" tomfoolery?

Remember: Russ specifically stated that he DOES NOT want to take players away from the solo queue. Shoring up the group queue's weaknesses at the cost of turning the solo queue into a desolate wasteland is not an acceptable solution.

Acceptable solutions include giving up some choices in return for quicker, better matches, or accepting that if you want to play Conquest UND ONLY CONKVEST, in a 9-man group, on the EU servers only...well then, you're going to have to wait a while for that one, singular match you're willing to play.

I still think allowing Solo players to opt into the group queue (that is, you're queuing as a solo player and can be placed in either the group queue OR the solo queue, whichever the MM needs most) would help, without significant harm to the Solo queue if players do not have the option to fully opt out of the solo queue.

1) Small groups.
2) Group composition limits
3) Soft game mode select

Need at least one of the above. IMHO, Soft game mode select is by far the least impactful.

I'd far rather play with my friends in whatever game mode than be forced to have players left alone and unable to participate.

Group composition limits may be required, but I'm strongly against 1/1/1/1. That's just awful, as it practically forces zero cohesion in your lance. I'd far rather see a "Group average tonnage requirement" preventing "extreme" lances, but allowing 4 mediums/4 lighter heavies. Think CW drop deck setup.

[Dnarvel]

So by reading the numbers from Russ, most players are in solo que. So why would taking a few players from solo and letting them go into group que be a bad thing? Could you possibly restrict it by tier, so players in the bottom 2 (or 3) tiers can not join group que? This can help in 2 ways (by my reasoning).

1- It ensures the groups that they won't get a new player who has not played the game much, and would likely follow the larger groups instead of heading off on their own, like what happens int he pug que.

2 - Arguably (I don't have the numbers so cannot confirm), this would alleviate some of the pressure on all tiers in pug que, as by design there are fewer players the higher up in tiers you go. So if they play group que they might get games faster (on the downside if tier 1's don't want to go group que then it takes away from their potential pool of opponents). I'm sure there is a way to limit this somehow, but I am not sure at the moment and will keep thinking on it.

As others have mentioned, possibly instituting a tonnage cap for each group.

For example, 2 players it is 170 tons, 3 players 220 tons, etc, etc. (those are just random numbers, basically preventing an overload of the high tonnage mechs in a group). This would even work in 3/3/3/3 since there is a variety of mechs in each weight class with different tonnages. Using Assaults as an example, if it was limited so that you could not bring 3 100 ton mechs, but only 270 tons total ofr assaults, then you would have a variety of assaults and not the Direwolf/Atlas/Kingcrab deathballs we see now. It would also force use of some of the more neglected chassis in each weight class, as we know groups will min/max to their best effect to try to bring as much firepower to bear as they can. So instead of a group tonnage in a 12-man of "X" tons, you would be only allowed to bring "A" tons of Lights, "B" tons of mediums, "C" tons of Heavies and "D" tons of assaults. Make the tonnages so the max weight of each class cannot be stacked, forcing use of some of the "less desirable" mechs and reducing a bit of the "Long Range snipe and hide" meta we see when groups stack 3 of a specific chassis or mech tonnage for each weight class.

I am not sure how hard it would be to code a tonnage limit for each weight class in a group instead of the group as a whole, but it would make the matches more interesting (IMO at least).

[Death Proof]

Wintersdark, on 04 September 2015 - 09:08 AM, said:

Group composition limits may be required, but I'm strongly against 1/1/1/1. That's just awful, as it practically forces zero cohesion in your lance. I'd far rather see a "Group average tonnage requirement" preventing "extreme" lances, but allowing 4 mediums/4 lighter heavies. Think CW drop deck setup.

yeah that might work better than a strict 1/1/1/1.

[Big Tin Man]

Wintersdark, on 04 September 2015 - 09:08 AM, said:

...without significant harm to the Solo queue if players do not have the option to fully opt out of the solo queue.

I think you may have been the first person to say this (unless it was buried in a wall of text I didn't read). Yes, this is the assumption I was operating under for the whole solo opt in discussion. Your are dropping as a solo in the solo queue, but MM could pull you into a group match if absolutely needed. No option for just being a solo in the group queue whatsoever.

[Richter Kerensky]

Making the largest group size 4 is going to make this game an unholy hassle to play for any unit or anyone with more than 3 friends.