1142 replies to this topic

[Jman5]

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 think one of the problems people had with the voting system were those times that you kept getting the mode you didn't want again and again and again. Oh sure statistically, it was working fine, but the perception from the player experiencing this, made it seem like his vote didn't matter.

I wonder if there would be some way to encourage the matchmaker to avoid putting a player in a vetoed game mode back to back. Or at least create some sort of resistance. So every time a player gets stuffed into a game mode he didn't want, you make the vote requirement higher.

Basically we need to find some way to prevent the player from rage quitting because he got Assault mode 3 times in a row.

[MischiefSC]

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.

Is group queue 4man only right now? Would explain why CW is filling up. So the point is to say that if you want to play in a group, an actual team, your only option is CW?

Can you appreciate how that's going to work out?

This will last until people get bored with CW. Can we wait to do this regularly until CW is better? I get that end of the day what we apparently need is a pug solo queue and a pug-with-friends queue and CW for unit play but currently CW is lacking. Can turning the group queue into pug-with-a-couple-friends wait until the CW fix?

[bar10jim]

HerHareHair, on 04 September 2015 - 12:05 AM, said:

What's so hard with a single queue? MM has bigger player base, but also needs to worry about group composition on both sides (e.g. make sure it's 6+6x1 vs 5+2+5x1 for example). The overwhelming (compared to group queue) number of solo players will be able to pad any odd group composition. And duo-queuing with a friend will no longer end up in him giving up on this game...

This is the quickest way to kill the game. Using Solo players as fodder to sacrifice on the altar of group play will kill off all of the casual players. This is the reason I no longer will play as a 2-man group. You are simply there to be fed into the sausage machine.

[MischiefSC]

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

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.

So you would all but have a nervous breakdown if you end up in a Skirmish match (which is functionally identical to Assault) but don't understand what the issue with 4man group limits was?

I don't mind groups moving to CW - if CW was worth playing for the time. Generally it isn't. Take the new Forest Colony and River City maps and swap them with Emerald Taiga and Vitric Forge, make winning/losing worlds relevant, give significant bonuses to faction membership, etc. etc. and then sure.

Right now? Groups with 50 or 100 or 200 players are going to be told they have to only play with 3 other friends? That'll go swimingly. We split into pug/group queue for a reason - most the teams left. There really weren't any teams still in MW:O before they split the queue again. They were all elsewhere. Given that now they can go to a variety of new games out there it's even more of an issue. Currently MW:O has some team play functionality that is hard to get elsewhere. Remove that?

[Rebas Kradd]

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

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.

Russ, how would you feel about just throwing one of the current gamemodes out and replacing it with a new one for a while? It would give activity a good jolt, thus helping the queues, and I don't know if anyone is really all that attached to either Conquest or Assault.

Hell, even just a fourth gamemode might pull enough people back in to avoid hurting the queues, if it were good enough. A lot of people step away from the game purely because it's monotonous. A fifth, I can see that hurting.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 04 September 2015 - 12:39 PM.

[MischiefSC]

I have no issue at all with game mode voting or buckets or whatever. Don't care, have it all checked. The real issue is Conquest; it requires a different mech setup. How about a 4 mech drop deck you can pick in the lead up to the drop, after game mode is selected?

That lets you switch gamemodes on the fly without being stuck in a bad mech.

[gloowa]

Russ Bullock, on 03 September 2015 - 02:52 PM, said:

Well this is precisely what 1/1/1/1 is across the board.

So your just saying to keep all group sizes as it is now but put the 1's throughout.

This could be a viable first option but it sounds many dislike that aspect as much as anything.

Yes, but on the other hand, let's face it. people who form a 3 man and take 3 heavies or 3 assaults know it perfectly that they just forced 3 other people to play lights or mediums. I don't like selfish people.

I do however recognize the argument of specialization. Someone early in the thread said this would kill any notion of creating a specialized lance. More on that at the end of the post.

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.

This is simplest and i think most effective way. Just let players select modes they want to play MOST, rather than those they want to play ONLY.

Now back to the main argument. I kinda dislike the 4 man only idea. Rather than going for heavy artillery, maybe you could make changes step by step and see if maybe one of less restrictive changes helps situation enough?

So far in this thread i saw some very good ideas, which could be implemented one by one as long as further improvement is needed:

1) Gamemode preferance being a tip, rather than obligation for the matchmaker.

2) And i like this the most: instead of 1/1/1/whatever, why not make it "X tons average, +-Y tons max", meaning, average group tonnage can be from, say 50 to 70 (if X is 60 and Y is 10). For all groups. That way, all the groups you have registered for matchmaking, are balanced in terms of equipment by default. you can take any two 2mans and any 4 man and they will have roughly equal equipment.
This also allows more flexibility in terms of group composition, retaining the possibility of specialization mentioned earlier. Some may even look at it as an relaxation of restrictions over then x/x/x/x system. Only problem i see is for 2mans. 2mans will be effectively locked into light-assault or medium-heavy compositions.
Also, this way is more similar to the weight restriction system used by CW, making it all look more homogeneous.

3) If previous 2 don't yield expected results, adding a restriction to groups of even numbers of players? I know there are probably lots of 3mans but it's still less restrictive than having 4 mans only, wouldn't you agree?

[edit] can't spell similar :/

Edited by gloowa, 04 September 2015 - 12:44 PM.

[Kaptain]

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

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.

Yup.

[HydroSqueegee]

im on the fence. after getting my balls kicked over and over by large groups, i almost feel like they should play CW if they want to stomp. Leave the regular group queue for guys that just want to have some fun and play with buddies. But at the same time, it sucks if we have 5 or 6 guys on and have to make separate groups. I'm not so sure about 1/1/1/1 either.

but then again, this crap sucks too and seems to be happening a lot more lately.

yes, by all means, take all the Assaults

Edited by HydroSqueegee, 04 September 2015 - 12:53 PM.

[jss78]

Chimperator, on 04 September 2015 - 03:54 AM, said:

Just bring back the max. 4 and the 12 only group queues and get back to the gamemode voting system for more balanced games and quicker matches.

I kind of like this suggestion. Speaking as someone who doesn't presently play group queue, I would probably play there if I didn't have to face 12-mans (or close to 12-mans). I expect there are others in solo queue who feel the same, so you might get some new population into group queue. I have nothing against 12-mans as such, but i think ideally all they should ever be facing is another 12-man. Any other matchup is simply not a great one.

That said, I think the large-group players have a reasonable expectation to have someplace to play, and if there isn't sufficient population to sustain a separate 12-man queue, then they'll have to be kept in the group queue as now. CW isn't really an answer, as I understand it's quite dead, and it's only one game mode anyway.

[Kjudoon]

MischiefSC, on 04 September 2015 - 12:35 PM, said:

So you would all but have a nervous breakdown if you end up in a Skirmish match (which is functionally identical to Assault) but don't understand what the issue with 4man group limits was?

I don't mind groups moving to CW - if CW was worth playing for the time. Generally it isn't. Take the new Forest Colony and River City maps and swap them with Emerald Taiga and Vitric Forge, make winning/losing worlds relevant, give significant bonuses to faction membership, etc. etc. and then sure.

Right now? Groups with 50 or 100 or 200 players are going to be told they have to only play with 3 other friends? That'll go swimingly. We split into pug/group queue for a reason - most the teams left. There really weren't any teams still in MW:O before they split the queue again. They were all elsewhere. Given that now they can go to a variety of new games out there it's even more of an issue. Currently MW:O has some team play functionality that is hard to get elsewhere. Remove that?

Everybody has their deal breakers.
Skirmish mode is one of mine.

I'm sorry but the large group agonies are just crocodile tears to me.

[Taelon Zero]

Id rather drop PSR and 3/3/3/3 entirely to speed up matches. Other than haveing waited over 20 mins to give up and sync drop a few times. Getting even more 12 - 0 stomps.

[Tsula]

Please do not go back to 4 man max size group and limit 1/1/1/1 class. I am a member of C4 "Asaru" co leader of unit already posted many of the main concern for the unit.

I am a Sergeant and in charge of a lance cutting the group to 1/1/1/1 would kill our lance make up and also have a ripple effect thru out the unit. I don't play much and really don't have much time to play, but it is nice to be able to join fellow group mates in matches despite the size and not have to solo if I am odd man out at 5 or what ever. yes we can't get 11 to work but normally we run any range between 5-10 normally sometimes larger or smaller. My lance runs meds and we train and work together this would have us now out of our play style, and would effect bigger drops for us in our unit everyone knows Chaosfire is a med fast heavy Striker/ Srimisher. And take other mech they normally run.


Sadly you have added VOIP and its a great tool but barely used all groups of all sizes any faction can use it to work together but choose not too in either ques solo or group.

Cutting to 4 man really and 1x4 is basically going back to what you all had on your plate before, and a lot of people spoke then.

yes I know MM has a hard time line all the puzzle pieces together yes wait times and skills level is not great but lets not go back to what was so hard fought over you will lose people over this. the game has grown and is in a far better state then what it was a year ago. Doing this will leave a sour and bitter taste in ,any players mouths, and the adage goes "fool me once shame on me, fool me twice shame on you, and well third time is good bye.


I am willing to give up choice of game and servers choice thou Oceanic is barly playable for me at 350 to 400 ping. I have NA and EU marked now along with all game modes anyhow.

To those say go play CW sorry I don't have the time nor does it drive my interest because I want more then fighting for a planet to put a tag on. It needs working economy and reason to fight for.
Also I am not a heavy power meta player I play builds to have fun and I do that with my unit or lance mates but that might change if I can not run with how we all play in C4 if you not playing meta CW blows

Please consider taking way the game mode and server choice, and other units and teams using VOIP. I have seen people working on Comms take out larger group of players it takes alot for a smaller groups but if they use tools given thou should have a chance 405 skill difference should be ok weight imbalance don't know how that can change maybe it will with a larger group of groups having all game modes and all servers.

[Tasker]

CyclonerM, on 04 September 2015 - 10:35 AM, said:

But CW is not for new players, you know..

Nothing is for new players. I have never in my life played a multiplayer game that is as punishing and unfriendly to new guys as MWO.

I can't think of any other game that requires someone to grind out cash and XP for the same vehicle three times just to get it up to speed and has as few good resources for new players to learn what's good and what's not. Part of that is because most of the good players are unwilling to share their knowledge, and part of that is because a very vocal segment of the community is dead set on using 'fun' or 'canon' setups that just aren't competitive.

CW is no better or worse than solo or group queue for new guys. They're all a lousy uphill climb.

However, what is bad for new players is being unable to hop into a large group that is capable of carrying dead weight, with tight restrictions on what class of mech the new players can bring. That's why I think 4 person groups with 1/1/1/1 would be a disaster.

[Fire for Effect]

terrible idea, I know many many people who ONLY play this game because of the possiblity to play in large groups.

Again the symptom is being tinkered on, instead on the illness.

Mech in same weight class are NOT equal. So use BV; calculate a BV multiply that with the pilot skill for each mech, see that its equal for both sides.

That artificial weight class limit AND now an absurd group size limit will NOT make the game better. 1/1/1/1 will be the death of the game since there will be absolutely NO synergy for the group; neither speed nor "job" for each mech will have any similarity.
Add to that the fact that most people simply DONT WANT to play a light mech, reasons are not important they dont want that, so forcing them will result in them stopping to play the game.

I remember very well the time when groups and solo queue were the same those solo puggers cried that they get waxed so groups were seperated which was bad for the game, still it has not changed those people that whined still got waxed in the Solo Queue but they ruined the game for small groups. congratulations PGI... annoyed people but no change...

Since large groups seem to be a small minority:

HOW CAN SUCH A SMALL NUMBER OF PLAYERS BE A PROBLEM?

It seems that again people point their finger at something that simply cant be the problem to bully PGI to change something, but it will result in nothing but punishing people that are not involved in the problem.

Large groups are not the problem, the problem is that a cicada is being treated equal to a Stormcrow.

Large groups will always have better equipment simply because, if 12 people look a built or mech someone will have an an idea how to improve it (omg LRM DDC nope get lost come back if you have something that contributes) . This will ALWAYS result in a improvement of equipment, the larger the group you are normally playing with, the better your equipment. (four eyes see more than two...), so those people that are constantly whining should maybe ask if their tools they use for waging war are really top notch and if not if that might be a reason why they lost against a team using top notch mechs.

It is much more difficult to put a nail into a wall if you only have a banana....

Finally use BV times pilot skill as basic matchmaking metric instead of some stupid X/X/X/X absurdity, that way it is finally possible AGAIN to use maybe 5 mediums and that 9th person that wants to join the group can actually play since he has only heavy mechs and otherwise all heavy slots would have been already taken.

3 years ago many people have told PGI to use BV instead of weight for match making.
How about finally doing that?

Obviously noone had thought about the most important problem with X/X/X/X this only works if the usage of each class is equal, but it is not equal and never will be. Next mech that will be released will result in a spike in exactly that weightclass. So forcing people into 1/1/1/1 is incredibly stupid and it solves absulutely no problem except making many people angry and leaving the game.

So PGI stop tinkering with symptoms and get to the core...

Get BV for Group Matchmaking!

If you have finally working AI Mechs and AI vehicles, simply give the team with less BV a few of these AI vehicles...

and yes I know that will result in having disparity in classes on both teams.
and? whats the problem in that?

you dont need equal weight you need equal combat potential!


Well the next mech game is just around the corner, i am very sure if you cannot play in meaningfull groups (and one third of the team is NOT meaningfull!!) many will simply look at heavy gear or return to world of tanks, the fact that you can have a group the size that it is actually possible to make use of coordination is one of the few reasons to stick with this game instead of WoT.

[Tasker]

Actually, Fire for Effect, the reason nobody wants to play a light mech IS important.

That reason is Streak-SRMs. Being one shot by a Storm Crow who doesn't even need to aim his weapons is not fun, and that's why I don't play light mechs in group queue. Hope this helps.

[Peiper]

Tasker, on 04 September 2015 - 01:25 PM, said:

However, what is bad for new players is being unable to hop into a large group that is capable of carrying dead weight, with tight restrictions on what class of mech the new players can bring. That's why I think 4 person groups with 1/1/1/1 would be a disaster.

It is a good point to note that new players have access to only trial mechs and the one or two mechs - if they've stuck it out - they've bought with C-bills. And they probably bought crappy variants at that. The new player experience is not so friendly, and playing with a team helps cushion the blows, and you get some decent advice for your first builds. That's why solos should be allowed to hit a check box that allows them to drop with teams. None of this 1/1/1/1 bs or 1-4 man groups, though.
And someone argued that max 4 on a team didn't hurt the community. You didn't play with all the little teams over on House Steiner's teamspeak. Population was halved within a couple weeks of trying that experiment. Granted, CW wasn't out then, but if you have 5 people who want to play on a team, and only 4 can, that fifth guy goes and plays somewhere else or stands around waiting his turn to play with his friends. It's bullshizzle.

Tasker, on 04 September 2015 - 01:29 PM, said:

Actually, Fire for Effect, the reason nobody wants to play a light mech IS important.

That reason is Streak-SRMs. Being one shot by a Storm Crow who doesn't even need to aim his weapons is not fun, and that's why I don't play light mechs in group queue. Hope this helps.

That's why battle value can help. People who take crappy mechs will be rewarded for the risk - or - tonnage will mean less than mech effectiveness. With BV, that streak crow will be rated the same as a mech traditionally 10 tons more.

[Fire for Effect]

HydroSqueegee, on 04 September 2015 - 12:52 PM, said:

im on the fence. after getting my balls kicked over and over by large groups, i almost feel like they should play CW if they want to stomp. Leave the regular group queue for guys that just want to have some fun and play with buddies. But at the same time, it sucks if we have 5 or 6 guys on and have to make separate groups. I'm not so sure about 1/1/1/1 either.

but then again, this crap sucks too and seems to be happening a lot more lately.

yes, by all means, take all the Assaults

well you team had pretty bad mechs so you would have lost even in you would have played against 12 solo players that drive the mechs that the enemy team used... I see at least 4 LRM mechs (that did no damage) and 3 mediocre resistance mechs only 3 mechs on your team could have had the potential to be considered good (if they did not choose a nonsense built).

the enemy had 5 top notch mechs and 4 that can be considered good (barring stupid builts of course), assuming equal pilots on both sides you never had a chance.

Tasker, on 04 September 2015 - 01:29 PM, said:

Actually, Fire for Effect, the reason nobody wants to play a light mech IS important.

That reason is Streak-SRMs. Being one shot by a Storm Crow who doesn't even need to aim his weapons is not fun, and that's why I don't play light mechs in group queue. Hope this helps.

Even before streaks few wanted to pilot lights so the reason is not really important. With the advent of streaks even fewer people want to drive a light I think that too...
Fact is few want to do that and forcing that onto every group is definitely not a good idea.

[Helios Norlund]

4 man max teamsize
because bigger teams belong into CW

so u solve two topics at once

make sure there is always enough people wana play CW and solve MM troubles for groups

as a second step u should try make CW more interesting with different types of missions

[Darkblood]

Okay, this game needs to stop going in circles...

We had smaller team caps before, did it work back then? If yes, why did we change away from it? If not, why the hell would it do better now? You guys seriously need to think outside the box instead of going back and forth all the time (same thing with quirks, which are now being rolled back).

My personal experience with this was (back in the time it was around): the smaller team cap was killing the social aspect of the game. The chit-chatter between matches, the coordination during matches, all of these are why people get into TS and form UNITS. You kill that and you are killing units. They were in fact dwindling... I went through two mergers at that time, with small dying groups being swallowed by bigger ones (Warriors of Glory -> Mechronomicom -> Comstar Irregulars).

The moment the cap was removed and we had ANY SIZED GROUPS AGAIN (no point forcing twelve either) a lot of old timers actually came back. There was literal CHEERING in the channels. Now you want to take it away again as a solution.

The match making is working as well as it will for such a small pop, you get stomped by Empyreals and Jaguars now and them, but that´s part of life (those guys need matches, you know). What you guys at PGI should be worrying about is improving new player experience (if the solo matchmaking is fine, that´s where new players go) and adding some motivation to this game (read: FIX CW and make it meaningful). With more people playing the matchmaker will fix itself