1142 replies to this topic

[Wintersdark]

I honestly can't tell if I'm just not being clear enough, of if you're deliberately misreading what I write, and what my intentions are.

Kjudoon, on 04 September 2015 - 10:55 AM, said:

Wintersdark, as someone who's been here longer than me, how can you say that 4man limit is horrible? If you ignore all the improvements to the game, and the obvious flaws to the 5+ groups in group tier, I guess it could be seen that way. But now, hey, CW covers all that, and VOIP covers the rest. Then again, I did not mind the 4man limit because I knew about sync dropping and played with it. I had fun for a period with the 5+, but quickly noticed the larger the group the worse the matches became.

I hated the 4-man limit. Detested it. As a primarily solo player, my group play is almost always just joining existing groups of friends from several different units. This did mean I'd often be in a spot that I'd be the "fifth man" - I'd join a group of, say, 3 players from a unit, then a 4th from their unit would want to join. Further, as my play time was (and is) often interrupted, having to come and go a lot in a 4-man cap means I must be the 5th man, as it's hardly fair to bump someone else out of a group, take their place for two drops, then leave the group to go take care of my kids or whatever.

The 4-man limit sucked.

BUT! As I (thought I) clearly said in my last post, I DON'T OBJECT TO A 4MAN LIMIT IN THE GROUP QUEUE IF AND ONLY IF CW IS A VIABLE CHOICE FOR PLAY. It's not right now. It perhaps could be, but it isn't right now. I'll get back to this again in a moment.

Quote

You also don't seem to realize (or are choosing to forget) there is NO matchmaking in CW. It's supposed to be first come first serve, and only balancing chassis of dropdecks in a team, not against opponents and the larger groups get preferential treatment.

No, there is no ELO in CW. Matchmaking is the process of putting a match together - there is matchmaking in CW, it's just team vs. team in first come-first served (basically). When I discuss matchmaking above, I'm not discussing skill levels at all, I'm purely discussing TIME.

It takes a LONG time to get a match in CW, sometimes a very long time, depending on faction/current activity. If you read my posts above, I fully understand why that is, and how it could be fixed. The key point, though, is CW as it currently stands is absolutely not a viable group-queue alternative for larger groups. Your cbill income per overall hour spent in game(not just in match) is abominably low, wait times approach 20mins on a good day, with longer matches too. If you're not in a 12 man group, matchmaking times skyrocket upwards. I've had a lot of days trying to play CW (and I *like* CW's game modes and maps) where it's taken an average of 40 minutes between matches given people being reasonably prompt readying up again. That's just too long. Not all of us can just spend an evening playing continuously.

Quote

So I'm not seeing reason for complaint towards the change.

So, is anything above unclear to you?

1) CW, as it currently stands, is totally not an adequate substitute for the group queue for larger groups (remember, "larger groups" is not synonymous with "organized teams" - the majority are simply random friends grouping together)
2) I don't object to a 4 man limit in the regular group queue if #1 above was not a thing. I'd be sad that it meant 5+ player play was entirely removed from skill-based matchmaking, but I'd accept it as a necessary evil.

Thus:

3) Because #1 is true, simply capping the group queue at 4-man max is a terrible idea.

Edited by Wintersdark, 04 September 2015 - 11:28 AM.

[Wintersdark]

MischiefSC, on 04 September 2015 - 10:38 AM, said:

1/1/1/1 is what keeps group/solo queue from being a tonnage war. It used to be and it sucked salty walnuts. If you want that experience I suggest you take a pair of walnuts, then put both of these walnuts in your mouth. That's what that experience feels like.

Don't use 1/1/1/1 in this post, use 3/3/3/3. 3/3/3/3 is a good thing, and keeps the weight classes (relatively) evenly represented in games. It is, indeed, better than the old weight class matching. Nobody liked 8 assaults vs. 8 assaults (though I suppose it'd be heavies today).

1/1/1/1 for a 4 man group, however, is very different from 3/3/3/3 for a team.

1/1/1/1 in a 4 man group means you can't coordinate well with your lancemates anymore, and would severely impact the fun of group play.

I totally get how 1/1/1/1 would lead to obtaining 3/3/3/3 more readily, I understand all the matchmaking benefits of it, but 1/1/1/1 forced on a 4-man group would suck.

Also: It would REALLY mess things up for new players. You can group with your friends, but only if your friend chose mechs of different weight classes?

I imagine it takes the average new player a fairly long time to build a stable of mechs encompassing multiple weight classes, particularly if they're interested in getting their doubled basics and speed tweak (which are highly necessary for effective play).

3/3/3/3: Not perfect, but better than the old weight class balancing.
1/1/1/1: Horrible.

[Kaptain]

Limits of 4 will drive people away, as it did before. 1/1/1/1 is also a bad idea. The entire point of grouping up is to work together. All 4 classes have (or should have) different roles.

Does the new system keep track of performance in different classes or chassis? I suspect it does not and this I believe is part of the problem. I'm an assault pilot. I'm good in heavies, ok in mediums and worst in lights. Now if the match maker does not keep track of my performance at-least by class if not by chassis its going to punish my team every time I have the go fast urge or decided to grind out more experience on my mediums. I suspect this holds true for most mech warriors.

[Russ Bullock]

well looking at MM command center it looks like the last 24 hours have gone fairly well for the group queue at least from a wait point stand point.

After the Labor Day weekend I will talk with Neema regarding some of the tweaks we have been discussing.

Question: if we went back to a game mode voting system - how would you do it differently than last time? You might need a review or dig up old posts to remember. But in short it wasn't top voted mode that you got but that mode if it had 80% of the vote had an 80% chance. So you could still get one of the other modes including for example a 5% chance for one of them.

Again this would be great because it would open the door to adding more game modes, something w have been adverse to doing as it would create more buckets.

[Peiper]

DO NOT limit queue size to 1-4 again, ever, please. That sucked worse than getting stomped by the big teams because my friends wanted to play TOGETHER and they could not. I do miss the days when solos dropped with groups, though, because we could meet and watch and recruit new players for our team.

Matchmaker, ideally, should make it so solo players and/or lower level players do not have to fight the better/more organized players. That's part of the point. Let's give this new matchmaker a chance before we jump to too many conclusions. Russ can manipulate the perameters allowed.

I would still like to see battle value of mechs play into it, though, and have matches of similar battle value and pilot skills than tonnage and pilot skills. Tonnage does not make a mech as great as hardpoints and available technology.

[Wintersdark]

Russ Bullock, on 04 September 2015 - 11:49 AM, said:

well looking at MM command center it looks like the last 24 hours have gone fairly well for the group queue at least from a wait point stand point.

After the Labor Day weekend I will talk with Neema regarding some of the tweaks we have been discussing.

Question: if we went back to a game mode voting system - how would you do it differently than last time? You might need a review or dig up old posts to remember. But in short it wasn't top voted mode that you got but that mode if it had 80% of the vote had an 80% chance. So you could still get one of the other modes including for example a 5% chance for one of them.

Again this would be great because it would open the door to adding more game modes, something w have been adverse to doing as it would create more buckets.

I would prefer game mode simply being random, to be honest.

Mind you, I personally like the more underplayed game modes more (such as Conquest).


I'd like to see fully random game mode selection...

...Then more game modes!


For all the same reasons as we have random maps now.

Edited by Wintersdark, 04 September 2015 - 11:51 AM.

[Kjudoon]

You explained your position well Wintersdark. It seems the problem is that what a lot of large group players want is CW, and they don't like what CW is, even though it is what they wanted... for now.

[Peiper]

Russ Bullock, on 04 September 2015 - 11:49 AM, said:

well looking at MM command center it looks like the last 24 hours have gone fairly well for the group queue at least from a wait point stand point.

After the Labor Day weekend I will talk with Neema regarding some of the tweaks we have been discussing.

Question: if we went back to a game mode voting system - how would you do it differently than last time? You might need a review or dig up old posts to remember. But in short it wasn't top voted mode that you got but that mode if it had 80% of the vote had an 80% chance. So you could still get one of the other modes including for example a 5% chance for one of them.

Again this would be great because it would open the door to adding more game modes, something w have been adverse to doing as it would create more buckets.

I am not opposed to voting. I'd rather have a close game than worry about match type. Though taking out a slow, fat assault and getting conquest would still be annoying.

[Zainadin]

As part of a team that rarely ever fields 12 mans anymore, but we have the 11th man problem at least once a week, this seems like a double punishment. First groups are limited to 4 and second we can't drop as the same weight class as a team mate. I see issues that extend beyond just match making and game play.

What happens when a new mech is released? How does a team deal with leveling mechs? What is the point of team tactics? Why not just take out Assault and Conquest too? Each change is causing players to leave, why break the knees of teams/guilds/units by taking away a/the major benefit of being in a unit, group drops.

Why aren't we seeing a division of play style choice. For example;
Hardcore: Group size solo or lance/star, less XP more CBills, Tier ranking, mech repairs cost CBills and season rewards for the player and unit. High risk, high rewards, high prestige.
The Grind: Group size one to twelve, more XP less CBills, less competitive more cooperative. The mode to level a new mech, test a new design, and play with that idiot uncle who draws fire every time. Low risk, learning oriented, group dynamics.

Forcing group size to 4 or 5 players in CW makes more sense than restricting weight classes in the "normal" drop que.

This change is such a bad idea the only reason why we are writing about it is just so PGI can read how bad of an idea it is.

[Peiper]

Kjudoon, on 04 September 2015 - 11:51 AM, said:

You explained your position well Wintersdark. It seems the problem is that what a lot of large group players want is CW, and they don't like what CW is, even though it is what they wanted... for now.

CW will get better. I think they promised us CW Phase III by the end of summer, right? That should bring a few people to it. I do hope they add an economy, supply lines, faction specific differences (mech/tech availablity, etc) and a black market - most especially to get rid of the stupid clan vs. IS tech segregation/imbalance issues. All that should go in before they go to steam. CW is STILL IN BETA remember!

[Kjudoon]

Russ Bullock, on 04 September 2015 - 11:49 AM, said:

well looking at MM command center it looks like the last 24 hours have gone fairly well for the group queue at least from a wait point stand point.

After the Labor Day weekend I will talk with Neema regarding some of the tweaks we have been discussing.

Question: if we went back to a game mode voting system - how would you do it differently than last time? You might need a review or dig up old posts to remember. But in short it wasn't top voted mode that you got but that mode if it had 80% of the vote had an 80% chance. So you could still get one of the other modes including for example a 5% chance for one of them.

Again this would be great because it would open the door to adding more game modes, something w have been adverse to doing as it would create more buckets.

I will be fine with playing skirmish with some fundamental changes to the mode.

- Remove the threats of 'banning for non participation' or griefing for hiding/ambushing and start kicking team traitors or block "all chat" function.

And/or

Enable "eject" in the mode so an obviously lost game can be ended WITHOUT PENALTY.

And/or

Permit surrendering the battlefield by going out of bounds WITHOUT PENALTY.

Otherwise, mode voting creates my instant disco, reload with a new mech and try again to get a mode I will play. Sorry, but forcing me into a detestable game mode is a dealbreaker regardless of the match quality.

BTW, both the eject/surrender options are very lore based as in powering down in battle was a sign of surrender and retreat was always an option for it was better to keep a whole mech than to die foolishly. If you need to incentivize community support, treat any mech that surrenders as a kill bonus for every victorious player. Not to be split, but as a straight up kill.

Edited by Kjudoon, 04 September 2015 - 12:03 PM.

[Trev Firestorm]

If it goes back to 4 max, combine it with the solo queue again. The 4 man max is one of the major reasons a bunch of people I used to play with quit and I've been unable to convince them to rejoin despite this no longer being the case. Also please let solos opt-in to the group queue as it is now.

[Peiper]

Kjudoon, on 04 September 2015 - 11:56 AM, said:

BTW, both the eject/surrender options are very lore based as in powering down in battle was a sign of surrender and retreat was always an option for it was better to keep a whole mech than to die foolishly.

Good points!

[Kjudoon]

Been saying what Trev said for over a year now. Opt In solos to the group queue while maintaining the lance size limit. CW, big group territory and anyone who wants in.

[Peiper]

Trev Firestorm, on 04 September 2015 - 12:00 PM, said:

If it goes back to 4 max, combine it with the solo queue again. The 4 man max is one of the major reasons a bunch of people I used to play with quit and I've been unable to convince them to rejoin despite this no longer being the case. Also please let solos opt-in to the group queue as it is now.

As a solo player, I would WANT to play in team queues for two reasons. 1. To have the team experience. 2. To find the right team to join.

Kjudoon, on 04 September 2015 - 12:02 PM, said:

Been saying what Trev said for over a year now. Opt In solos to the group queue while maintaining the lance size limit. CW, big group territory and anyone who wants in.

No, going back to 4 man only will destroy the community like it did the first time they did it.

[Kjudoon]

Peiper, on 04 September 2015 - 12:04 PM, said:

As a solo player, I would WANT to play in team queues for two reasons. 1. To have the team experience. 2. To find the right team to join.



No, going back to 4 man only will destroy the community like it did the first time they did it.

As someone who played in that era,

One, no it did not destroy community. I was there, playing in groups. Wasn't a REAL issue.
Two, this ignores three significant changes from when the lance limit was in effect.

1. VOIP: eliminates the advantage of sync drops for anyone who chooses to use it. SO it doesn't matter if 3 lances drop together, you will be forced to coordinate and use the tools at your disposal because they have zero advantages that they would not have in the large group CW queues: hours of practice time together coordinate/tuned builds...

2. CW: You don't want to be stuck playing just in lances, or try to sync drop because you might face each other instead of playing with each other? Go play CW and quit being a weenie. I love failed sync drops about as much as functional ones. It's sibling wrestling time.

3. Private Lobbies: But if you are here to practice and become competitive, CW is your home. If you're doing it for tournaments, do like the other competitive teams and start setting up skrimmages in Private Matches. That's what it's there for.

The solutions are there. The problem seems to be more that the 5+ers don't like the solutions they got.

Edited by Kjudoon, 04 September 2015 - 12:12 PM.

[Zainadin]

OH, PLEASE ,PLEASE, no voting again, or refund the cbills for the capture accelerators. The module becomes totally useless in a skirmish fight, and if the the turrets hadn't been removed assault mode also. Why build a Spider 5V for fast capping if it is just going to find itself in a death match? Not that* the match score rewards anything other than damage now.

Edited by Zainadin, 04 September 2015 - 12:18 PM.

[DONTOR]

I'm all for the lance max size group. groups of four, for more even matches!

[MischiefSC]

CyclonerM, on 04 September 2015 - 10:51 AM, said:

If you are talking about me, i just said i want to drop with my unit mates, i hate Dire Wolves and would take a Gargoyle over 70% of the times lol.

Btw, we already have 3/3/3/3, so it is not like we can bring 12 Assaults anymore, even if we wanted.

Was someone else. The point though is that it needs to actually be 3/3/3/3, which having a 4man require 1/1/1/1 would do. THe other day the group queue would regularly have a side with 4 or 5 Dires in it.

[Pjwned]

Russ Bullock, on 04 September 2015 - 11:49 AM, said:

well looking at MM command center it looks like the last 24 hours have gone fairly well for the group queue at least from a wait point stand point.

After the Labor Day weekend I will talk with Neema regarding some of the tweaks we have been discussing.

Question: if we went back to a game mode voting system - how would you do it differently than last time? You might need a review or dig up old posts to remember. But in short it wasn't top voted mode that you got but that mode if it had 80% of the vote had an 80% chance. So you could still get one of the other modes including for example a 5% chance for one of them.

Again this would be great because it would open the door to adding more game modes, something w have been adverse to doing as it would create more buckets.

I still think that if people do not want to play a certain mode then they should be allowed to avoid it completely, and there are ways to work around that (which I've already posted) to try before you remove that choice.

Edited by Pjwned, 04 September 2015 - 12:22 PM.