1142 replies to this topic

[0111101]

I read the OP from Russ. I read the replies ITT from the players. I'm not sure which of those two unsettled me more, but my jimmies are rustled. Please don't break the game.

To those of you advocating the 4-man restriction in group queue that Russ put forward and citing CW as the place to go for large group play, consider the following: the Battle of Tukayyid burned most players out of CW. Until CW is drastically changed (read: improved) I don't see most of the 'big scary 12-mans' jumping back into it.

Sure, there are some dedicated groups that still focus on CW but they're the minority. A lot of the players I know see no reason to return to the game mode despite us being in the midst of a 'new' CW beta. So if you devs decide to restrict group queue to a 4 player maximum there had best be something grand put out for CW alongside that change as a replacement, or your player base is going to drop.

Edited by 0111101, 04 September 2015 - 04:31 PM.

[Rayne Vickers]

bar10jim, on 03 September 2015 - 10:08 PM, said:

I no longer have a regular 2-man tag team. After being fed to the same 10-man 3 games in a row (twice against, once with), my running buddy quite playing the game. As did his son, who can no longer drop with dad. The removal or ALL groups from the solo queue did good things for the solo queue but it banished casual 2-man teams to purgatory. I've tried to get friends to play this game, but by necessity we have to drop in the group queue. Nice place for a noob to discover a reason to never play again. Let us not forget that initially we were told that 2 and 3 (and possibly 4s) would be allowed in the solo queue. I can see keeping the 3s and 4s out, but this game now has no place for 2s.

I have to say, this is a similar problem to what I have. I regularly team with one of two others that I play with (one more than the other). We all know what we're getting into when we do, dropping into the "deep end" of the group queue as a two has known disadvantages (and sometimes, advantages). It's OK most of the time, but is a lot of why sometimes one of us (usually me) will utter: "Y'know, you're probably more likely to get your doubles if you drop out and run solo". We hate to say it, but sometimes it is what it is. When we were in beta, we had a 4 man set to go, but one of the 3 of us doesn't play anymore (I'm trying to bring her back, but at this point I told her to wait for the re-balance) and the other only infrequently, so mostly it's the other two of us. The Solo Queue is a godsend when you're alone, but a curse (as is the current Group Queue ) when you're 2 or 3.

[1453 R]

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.

Speaking for me and my two buddies I group-queue with, we already flip game mode selector to 'All'. So far as I'm concerned, game mode going from hard lockout to a soft 'preference' system - essentially identical to what we had before, maybe with some tweaking or whatever to fix whichever issues the loudmouths had with it - would be the blind-stupid-obvious first step in easing MM restrictions, especiallyif it allows the addition of more game modes.

Seriously, Everybody Else - this is the least impactful thing they could change, and it also opens up the possibility of new content in the form of more game modes. You can play with whoever you want, you get more control over what you pilot, and you get Shiny New Gametypes to play. How is this remotely a bad thing?

[Fire for Effect]

ugrakarma, on 04 September 2015 - 03:15 PM, said:

For 12DG, 228 and other bloated units.

It actually did not work altogether, match quality was worse and they had a massive loss of players...

[Kjudoon]

I keep seeing the wilful or ignorant fib that 4man caps did not work. This is a FALSEHOOD. They worked fine.

What did not work was the 12man only queue. Why? Pathetically low interest in 12man play except by the very small competitive community who needs it to function. I know because i used to do 12mans. What we also discovered in the 12man queue was that tryhards who couldnt compete with the really good teams... Just like now in CW got sick of losing 98% of their games and cried for this to be fixed. They were given 2 solutions.

Roadbeer and other forum warriors championed the elimination of the 4man cap so that great unsatisfied middle of 5 to 10 man teams had the ability to play together. What did we learn there? The larger the group the worse the skill imbalance even after VOIP came about. This now gave the second and third tier tryhard teams who werent tournament level players but still good enough to push around casual players had their romper room. This created an absolute abomination once CW failed in cataclysmic fashion and the small casual player quit playing with friends.

The other solution was private lobbies which required 2 people in 24 to have premium time. This was and still is used to great success by competitive teams and tournaments. This is something many players are too cheap or too egocentric to think they should pay for.

So lets stop with this false statement that it was 4 man group limitations that ruined the group instead of dissatisfied gamers wallowing in their own self interest to use the solutions given to them in the forms of private lobbies and CW or their own part in creating the mess both cw and group queue have become: a seal clubber paradise.

CW needs fixing to be worthwhile. This is an incontrovertable fact. Pgi needs to make it a longer process that burns out people less and have real meaning to these groups. Properly designed it should be a shining jewel instead the clinker we have now. That just like a steam release increasing population will help a lot of woes too. But without the proper protectionnfor new and casual players... It will be a death sentance.

[Lazor Sharp]

"The issue here in my mind is the lack of incentive players have to join units and play as actual teams. That's why you see so few large groups in Group

Queue and such a paltry CW population. Being in a unit and playing in a team has no in game benefit. There needs to be a financial or prestige based

incentive to draw players into groups. Group queue and especially CW will continue to suffer as long as MWO remains a primarily solo player game.

This is an online multiplayer game. It's time to start dangling the carrot so that players more willingly join and play within units. This is a

retention booster too. Half the reason folks stick with a game is due to social connections they've made within the community and the shared goals that

drive unit players forward. Without a solid incentive for group play, the game has a very transient user base. Fix that issue and the group MM and CW

population problems will clear up. "

This ^^^^^^^ So, So much this.....!!!!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Russ,

I am so glad to see you here posting and interacting on the forums, vs. twitter {ugggg}........ Ya'll have been doing a great Job lately....!!!!

Another player in this thread, stated that PGI had treated units and groups like a Red Headed Step Child, (with the 4 man cap = the prime example) till the solo and 2-10-12 group size change.. and I totally agree... MWO is a TEAM Based Game, NOT A SOLO Game, and everything possible should have been done from Day ONE, to encourage players to join units and play this game as a TEAM...

So what PGI's attitude on this subject has reaped, is that the Solo-Rambo-Moron-CoD mindset has taken hold hold in far greater numbers of players than would have happened if PGI had made better decisions regarding giving major incentive's to solo / casual players to join units and play as a TEAM, in a TEAM game from Day ONE.....

Does the NFL or NBA TEAM Based games have a Solo Q....??? NO they don't.......!!!!!!!!!!!!

While i realize that a Solo \ Casual only Q is much needed, for many, many reasons, stated in many, many threads, the very fact that the Solo / Casual Q is so much a larger % than the Group/CW Q's as you have indicated, mean's a total Fail, in making a TEAM Based Game, being played by Units of any size playing as a TEAM......!!!!! We should have % numbers of total players playing 4 to 12 man groups all the time in group Q or CW Q, at a much higher % rate, with the Solo / Casual Q a much smaller total % rate, than you have indicated.....

I feel that this issue is the single biggest problem facing this ONLINE MULTIPLAYER Game.....!!!! Give Players a reason for being in a unit, and playing as a TEAM, in a TEAM Based Game, instead of going Solo-Rambo-Moron-CoD all the time......

(i know quite a lot of solo / casual players know how to play as a team, but you are few and far between when i play solo.....)

(I also realize that the Solo / Casual players will most always out number the unit players in most any online game, just because)

BUT, turn this trend around in this MW ONLINE MULTIPLAYER Game.....!!!! By giving players many, many good reason's to find and play in a unit as a TEAM..!!!!! And more tools to make this happen easy... Then, Most of the current problems will work them selves out, and not be problems any longer.......

Then a 4 man cap will be totally unnecessary......

The next big problem, is the NEW Player Experience..... The new tutorial with AI will help with this, but will not be able to take new players to the next level. The 2-3 man experience in group Q is a big problem with training new players. What is needed here is PvE missions, with a 4 Man Co-op, so green players can learn to enjoy the game, and play in a enviroment that is not the Shark Tank that the group Q currently is for 2-3 mans....

Once these 2 things are worked out, then MWO PvP/PvE will attract many more new players, and entice some old ones to come back.....

Edited by Lazor Sharp, 04 September 2015 - 08:15 PM.

[WarOrk]

As a Founder and active player ever since early Beta, I definitely feel that GROUP QUEUE is as bad now as it ever has been as far as equality, while SOLO QUEUE is about as good as ever.

This past week alone I've dropped with friends in groups of 2-4 people almost every night and have been in drops with mostly other small groups (2-4 max) going up against numerous 12-man teams and uncountable hordes of 8+man teams. Even if our skill levels are equal, the sheer coordination, experience and communication of an 8-12 man will overwhelm multiple 2-3 man teams 90% of the time. The number of 12-0 or maybe at best 12-3 games has been unbelievable. It has been terrible.

After about 8-10 drops we give up, but I stick around and solo for another 4-5 drops and am enjoying in general fairly fun matches where it is quite frequently about 12-7 or closer and even better, it takes a while to end the match versus a frustrating 12-0 steamroll that lasts as long as the time spent waiting in queue to find the terrible match.

I think the most frustrating is that I used in-game chat to express my observations and concerns, only to be trolled and told to shut up and "get better" or quit the game by those same 12-man steamrollers. I'm not here to toot any horns (mine certainly isn't that good) but I feel that a 1.3 K/D ratio over thousands of matches (I am 1.6 in the archive) puts me at least above average and thus I feel I can speak decently for a fairly large representative body of players.

While I enjoy the company of my teammates in my unit, I simply cannot find any joy in grouping with 2-3 of them at a time knowing that the vast majority of our drops will result in being steamrolled by large 8-12 man coordinated teams.

So - along with my observation / concern, I would happily support the proposal to limit groups to 4. I'm OK with accepting the 1/1/1/1 as a side-effect of eliminating the 8+ groups but would prefer not to be limited.

As an alternate proposal, how realistic would it be to set the game as you suggest, but then run occasional (and optional) 12-man events like your ongoing/cycling special events?

What about keeping 12-man groups in CW, but limiting PUG drops to 4-man teams maximum? That almost fits more with canon... treat PUG drops more like fights on Solaris IV and CW is the story line where large house units coordinated attacks and defenses of planets?

[Cael Rhythyr]

Quote

we already had 2 of your 3 ideas and it did not work....what is an 8-11 person group supposed to do in your field of ideas by the way?

</p>
Well, since I only had 2 suggestions, makes me wonder if you even read the post.  Quite simple actually, if you're in a group of 4 or less, you are in one queue;  if you are in a group of 5 or more, you are in a different queue.......there's your 8-11.

Edited by AH Vulture Vlad, 04 September 2015 - 05:40 PM.

[Mechammer555]

I am a usually a solo pug, but I sometimes play with my two sons. Since we cannot form a 12 man qroup, and occasionally get stomped, I think that no one else should be able to form a 12 man group either.
/sarcasm

Edited by Mechammer556, 04 September 2015 - 05:48 PM.

[MischiefSC]

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

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.

Fair enough - admittedly though I consider your heart felt rage over Skirmish (dropping/suiciding/etc) to be pretty silly.

So the question is, where do things give? Bluntly almost every unit out there is more than 4 people. 4man only limitation isn't 'groups'. It's 'pug with friends'. There are no 4 player average cap units, not that you can really call units.

Game modes? Hard to say. If there's give there overall in the community and it gets us new game modes I'd be all for it. I absolutely don't get your 'let me eject with no penalty'. Suiciding or walking out of bounds doesn't have a penalty either. You're dead. Why does it matter how that happened?

[Kjudoon]

Vlad, the solo/lance/company queue idea i proposed about 14 months ago Or so has been considered one of the best solutions save for one glaring problem... Too small of a player population. The best temporary solution without creating a new bucket is to use the CW as the large group queue. Once the population rises then you can create the company queue with allowing opt in for the players from lance or solo queue to fill it in. This can only work with a LOT more players.

[MischiefSC]

Again -

There are two sets of players here. One is the pug player. Pug solo, pug with friends. That's your 4 or less group.

The other are the teams - they want to play with groups of people, friends on a team.

If MW:O is going to be a team game it needs to have options for team players. If it's a pug only game then quit trying to say it supports teams or has aspirations of e-sports and such. You're not going to make an e-sport game designed around the pug experience and you're not going to have a pug-friendly game if you're building toward an e-sport environment.

4man caps is pug-with-friends. It's not a team. There is no real team play there and you're going to get matches that play like pug matches, just like when you have a couple small groups together in CW or group queue.

It also functionally eliminates any point to being on a team aside from CW; which is currently in a terrible state. Fix CW, make it team friendly and have a purpose etc etc and then turn group queue into pug with friends queue.

[Rayne Vickers]

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.

That sounds like a good starting point, Russ. Might need to end up tweaking the percentage numbers as you go (but should always have SOME chance of the other modes, even if just 5-10%). But other than that, it seems solid to me.

[Kjudoon]

Mischief,

Try going out of bounds as the last survivor of a failed derpball. You will quickly learn the truth of it. If i kill 2 to 4 mechs or rack up 600 damage and can step out of bounds i get nothing. This was supposed to stop suicide farmers to which i agree. That said when a match is lost and you are facing 6+ mechs alone it is better to walk off and cede the field to the superior opponent. This is honorable AND lore based.

But the modern gamer mentality has little to no concept of honor. Even the Great Hunt spared the last creature alive. Modern gamers it seems dont even want to do that. If it was conquest or skirmish just go shut down and let them win. In skirmish... If i am going to be forced to play you bloody well give me the same l3vel of option to say the field is yours or i will not play it. Its bad enough that i have to play any mode that is nothing short of gladiatorial nauseating stupidity. If i enjoyed that id be playing it in other games.

Ultimately this is tk tide me over till we get PvE campaign modes so i can leave PvP behind except for some occasional variety.

Again Mischief.

You got your team hardcore mode. Its called community warfare. I am sorry its broken but its no reason to wreck the group queue for casual players because your desired game mode is a pile of hippo droppings.

[Heuvadoches]

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.

Absolutely not. Non starter. Removing the choice of game mode removes me from the game.

[IlKhan Prepaid Kerensky]

I think that any player that gets too high in the skill ranking should be temp banned for one month so they can "cool off" to keep them from beating up us regular old gamers too much.

[thinkn bout thos Beans mans game]

Prepaid Lenin, on 04 September 2015 - 06:38 PM, said:

I think that any player that gets too high in the skill ranking should be temp banned for one month so they can "cool off" to keep them from beating up us regular old gamers too much.

I apploid that statement

[Kjudoon]

NH. Locking the tiers so onlh those of the same tier can fight each other will do the trick.

[Rayne Vickers]

To all of those saying "we tried the 4 man max cap and it didn't work" that's either misinformed or blatantly disingenuous, because it's been so long ago (during beta) that the game has changed massively since then. We need to *try* it to see if it works *now* or not, then go from there.

[Evex]

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.

I don't think reducing or limiting group size is the way to go. If the matchmaker is having problems with 3/3/3/3 due to people only playing heavy and assault mechs. Then reducing that number won't help things because its still going to be heavies and assaults before anything else is filled out. It might be better to go with a straight tonnage limit like community warfare uses. In CW the tonnage limit for a player is 240, so with 12 people that's 2,880 tons. I know PGI tried a tonnage limit weekend and it brought along good matches, similar to PSR, and similar to the time matchmaking choice was removed. I'm not even sure why the matchmaking decision was reversed after only less then 24 hours.

Edit:

On the cocnept of the odd man groups. The group of 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 mans. We could pull from solo que, or even the looking for group que to even these groups out to even numbers, so match maker has an easier time.

Edited by Evex, 04 September 2015 - 07:24 PM.