1142 replies to this topic

[Rayne Vickers]

Evex, on 04 September 2015 - 07:06 PM, said:

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.

Because people whined so hard and fast, and they caved and removed it before the poll time was even up.

[Tarl Cabot]

For testing, lets talk about the PSR and group queue.

What about putting in an additional variable to a group's PSR that reduces the the PSR the smaller the group or increases the PSR as group size increases?

The above will not really matter if there are not many groups but during the peak hours it would put more separation between the smaller and larger groups.

The thought here is that the larger the group dropping, likelihood that they will drop against a larger unit instead of several smaller units.

I would also lock up the servers, or limit the servers that can be unselected to only 1 out of the 3.

The only issue would be still those units who opt out of game selection. That would still need to be either hard set or reduce current 3 to 2. Quitters are going to quit, regardless of what is done but reducing the number of people who can drop into combat each drop to a low number will likely have a much greater impact than locking down the type of combat available and the servers.

Group queue

• reduce game mode from 3 to 2 permanently
  
• 2 out of 3 game mode selection (prefer this route, as it would allow more games modes but simply allow only 1 mode to be opted out)
  
• 2 out of 3 servers requirement selected / only one server can be opted out.
  
• Do not reduce group size to four - possibly reduce to max 8
  
• Add positive or negative modifiers to group PSR based on group size.

[Coolant]

I like the 4-man....before I was against it because we always seemed to have 5-6 on comms and didn't want anyone left out. Well, now we're lucky to have 3 on at one time, so my unit no longer needs more than 4 man.

[Jonathan Paine]

I don't think the player skill system can handle big, skilled pre-made teams. So I fully support limiting the group queue to 4-man teams max.

Here are the problems with great 12-man and the player skill system.
1. Very few great 12-mans which leads to:
2. Mismatch of 12 great and coordinated players versus random groupings, which leads to:
3. Stomp - but a stomp where each great player gets a 12th of the spoils (1-2 kills tops, moderate damage), which leads to:
4. Low skill rating for the great team (after all, they are splitting spoils with 11 other great players)
5. If they keep playing together, the rating system will see them as an average team, and pit them against random groups of average players, which leads back to #2.

Player skill rating is potentially great for pugging, but horrible for groups - with smaller groups, player skill will work out better, since a great 4-man will get up to 3 kills each on average, which leads to really high player skill rating and subsequently being matched against better players.

EDIT:
Definitely keep 4-12 groups in CW though. CW is a different beast to handle. I want pugs, 2-4 mans and up to 12 man CW.

Edited by Jonathan Paine, 04 September 2015 - 08:35 PM.

[Kiriesani]

If you reduce the group size down 4 or nothing I will be done with this game.

I don't usually make posts like this. I'm not a forum warrior. But this is happening. I am advocating for my entire unit and all of my friends who don't post in the forums.

TLDR At bottom

A little history for your consideration.

Praetorian Legion was built on the 4 people a group lance system. It worked great, because that was the system, and everything was generally fine. Once they tried to get into twelve mans, not to mention big groups in the group queue, the entire unit fell apart. You could argue that the unit was ready to fall apart anyway but the point still stands. How many of you have seen Praetorian Legion in the group Queue?

The same goes for all units made after the group queue change. We've all been built with the fact that we can bring anyone to play, 2 to 12, into the group queue to play together. If you suddenly reduce the group size down to four I suddenly can't bring all the rest of my friends to play together. Suddenly cliques will build in units. Things will fall apart. I know this will happen I've seen it happen before.

Unless you give us options other than community warfare, which at the moment is broken and otherwise a pain in the ass, none of us are going to play anymore. At least speaking for my unit.

I don't see why we have to punish 10-20% of the population because the other 80% doesn't like playing in or just doesn't play in big groups. Same thing with the PSR system and people waiting for 30 minutes to get a match. Those top players shouldn't be punished for being good at the game. It's ********. They have to fight someone. Their dollars aren't worth less than everyone else's because that's how they like to play or how good they are.

I am tired of game screwing the low % players because it makes the game slightly better for the majority like many games do. Just because 10-20% of the time people get emo because 1 in 5 games they get stomped doesn't mean that matchmaking is broken or that elo was broken. Those groups and the high tier players need to fight SOMEONE. Just because they're better doesn't mean they should have to wait for 15-45 minutes for a match or be stuck in a DEAD CW map if we reduce group sizes. I shouldn't have to say, "Sorry, Jim, we can't play with you, because CW is stupid and we can't have more than four players."

If you absolutely have to change how groups work you need to have some compromise. Solo Queue needs to be some rendition of 1-4 players. Group Queue needs to be 4,6, or 8 players, and CW needs to be solo and 8+ groups.

I feel like that's a compromise I can deal with rather than destroying what we've been enjoying for a year because SOME NGNGTV and emo players on the forums are angry they got stomped or don't like/have more than a few friends to play with. Honestly half of these people have no idea what's going on ANYWAY because a couple of months ago I was still seeing people thinking that there were GROUPS in the solo queue. Teamwork is obviously OP and needs to be removed from the game or shoved into the game mode no one wants to deal with. Right. Never mind that some people have fun that way.

It's bad enough they initiated PSR before the game was clearly READY for it. It's bad enough that instead of saying sorry some of you are waiting for a really long time to play, we'll revert it until we figure this out, they're sticking with it. You don't take something that isn't working and keep changing stuff until it does. You save the state of the game, slide in a new system, and if it doesn't work that badly you take it out and continue to work on it or you do some kind of testing.

The fact that I can get in a locust in solo queue and get 700+ and 7+ kills in half of my matches or more already shows that PSR is broken in general for how it works. Doesn't matter if I'm one of the best locust pilots in the game... what happens when I get in a _good_ mech?

I have quite the host of things I'd love fixed in the game the same as anyone. And I'm not going to include them all here but getting rid of big group sizes like people have been talking about ruins the game for me, my unit, and a lot of my friends. It's bad enough they've devoted resources to PvE content that I have no intention of ever touching.

It's also time for management to get their act together. This game has been washing back and forth on ideas and balance and quirks since they left IGP. First we want all IS mechs to be unique, then we want them homogenized, then we want a complete re-balance. First we put a lot of work into community warfare, then we leave it alone when it's got the most problems it's had since we opened it, and just let it flounder around with out any mention of what we're doing to fix it. It's time to get a little transparent and let us see some numbers or %s on what other people are doing so we can give you the help you clearly need making important and good decisions for the game. Checking or unchecking assault DOESN'T MATTER because no one wants to play assault. I'll get one match a night with all three checked on assault. That's in 4-6 hours. There's no reason to make it a voting system/preferences system when no one wants to play that game mode. Show me proof that checking that box would matter. Show us some transparency and some forethought into your changes, show us some of what you're working on, and stop bouncing around like a kid who hasn't had their ADD medication.

And all of that is meant as constructive criticism not an insult. PGI has some amazing people working for it, I love their game, and I've never had a single problem with a person working there.

*****

TLDR

1. Removing large groups is unacceptable.
2. The 10% of the game who enjoy big groups shouldn't have their fun taken away. They're as important as everyone else and their money and support means just as much. In fact a lot of us are buying just as many packs or more.
3. PSR is broken. Go back to Elo, fix PSR, then put it back in at STEAM launch when there's more players to make it work or when it's working as intended.
4. Management needs to improve. I don't feel like you know what you're doing. This is not meant as an insult. It's simply what it looks like from someone who's been watching this game with my eyes against the screen for over a year. Have some meetings, get your **** in order, and do what's best for EVERYONE not just the vocal minority.

This forum is moving quickly. If you like what I'm saying quote and repost or click the like button.

Thank you for your time. I appreciate anyone and everyone that took the time to read this post I spent so much time on. I probably wont be back, I don't really like forums, but I couldn't let what people are talking about come to pass without my hand raised in the air in protest.

*edited for errors and spelling*

Edited by Kiriesani, 04 September 2015 - 07:54 PM.

[Suzumiya Haruhi no Kerensky]

longer queue times

[Kjudoon]

Ugh. Large groups are not being punished...


:::takes victim card away:::::

You have your ultimate game mode in CW. No it is not perfect yet. Makes me wish PGI would give some hints of what theyre gonna do but that usually ends badly. The tryhard pro wannabe teams are wrecking the group queue because they are not getting satisfaction in CW most often caused by wait times. Forcing all large groups will incease populati9n there and help alleviate that problem while continuing to mix in small groups and solos. This is not a punishment.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

AH Vulture Vlad, on 04 September 2015 - 05:40 PM, said:

</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.

Yes, and you can put 5 and 7 man groups together to make a 12, or 6 and 6, but who do you put together with the 8s, 9s, 10s, and 11s?

[Wibbledtodeath]

Main issue with group play currently is it often = quick death and bad play experience for small groups. This makes keeping enthusiasm of new players up very difficult.
New player experience needs to be a focus before STEAM. That means support for smaller groups while maintaining a good PUG experience

Would it be possible to allow small groups (1-3 players) in 'solo' and bigger groups to remain with group? It is a risk but if we trial this prior to steam and it does not break PUG play it may be a solution everyone can be happy with.

@kiriesani- Your experience is not unique- but not the majority one either, and if you don't think PGI got PSR on target the first time what makes you think a blind stab at it after STEAM launch will provide a better result than fine tuning the system using data collected? And why return to ELO when the data does not support its validity? Not that I didn't enjoy slaying 8 opponents in the days of bad match making but your argument makes no sense

PSR has made PUG play SO much better for me and my buddies (who are of wildly differing skill levels) with possibly the exception of my friend who is brand new and has not learned to walk and shoot at the same time yet. Lovin this game Russ.

Edited by Wibbledtodeath, 04 September 2015 - 09:56 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Kjudoon, on 04 September 2015 - 06:20 PM, said:

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.

No, we have a group queue. CW is not team hardcore mode; it's a very incomplete beta that involves both pugs and teams. I know, I pug in it regularly. We already have the group queue - you're wanting to break the group queue because it's not casual enough.

Again, this is very simple. If PGI has no interest in a e-sports aspect to the game or being friendly to competitive teams or even just casual teams (as in more than 4 players) that's fine - they need to say so. They're saying the opposite, but then turning the only group queue that's consistently functional into a pug-with-friends queue. We already know how a 4man cap works in MW:O - the groups go away.

I don't play in competitive tier, I play with friends. Amazingly I've managed to get more than 3 friends though. I can think of over 1,000 players off the top of my head who are in groups bigger than 3. I'm betting there are more than 3 people who're going to have issues with a 4man cap (since we already did that) than will have an issue with voting for game mode.

[MischiefSC]

Rayne Vickers, on 04 September 2015 - 07:00 PM, said:

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.

Awesome. I'll make a list of all the terrible ideas that we've gone through, from bleeding for medicine to the humors model of food, to various social ills we've moved beyond and see if I can get support for those since society has changed so much since then.

That argument is so bad I don't even know where to begin. It's really simple -

1. Do many players have more than 3 friends or people they like to play with?

2. If you tell people they can't play with their friends, will they consider that a good thing or a bad thing?

3. How many people play CW, for any reason?

Why is everyone treating this like it's rocket science? 4man cap kills groups. Why?

Because, and I'm making this big and bold because it seems to fly right past people, if you can't actually PLAY WITH YOUR GROUP then why does it exist?

CW is not a replacement for group queue. CW is barely a replacement for eating paint chips right now. There are more people pugging in CW or playing in groups less than 4 than there are 5+. Anyone who does or has played CW would know that.

4man cap in group queue makes it not group queue. 4 players is not a 'group', it never was hence when it existed before the groups left. It's pugging with friends. Having the game pre-assign you a trial mech of the appropriate size if it can't find you a match would help matchmaking as well that doesn't make it a good idea.

[Kiriesani]

Wibbledtodeath, on 04 September 2015 - 09:28 PM, said:

PSR has made PUG play SO much better for me and my buddies (who are of wildly differing skill levels) with possibly the exception of my friend who is brand new and has not learned to aim and shoot at the same time yet. Lovin this game Russ.

@kiriesani- Your experience is not unique- but not the majority one either, and if you don't think PGI got PSR on target the first time what makes you think a blind stab at it after STEAM launch will provide a better result than fine tuning the system using data collected? And why return to ELO when the data does not support its validity? Not that I didn't enjoy slaying 8 opponents in the days of bad match making but your argument makes no sense

Main issue with group play currently is it often = quick death and bad play experience for small groups. This makes keeping enthusiasm of new players up very difficult.
New player experience needs to be a focus before STEAM. That means support for smaller groups while maintaining a good PUG experience

Would it be possible to allow small groups (1-3 players) in 'solo' and bigger groups to remain with group? It is a risk but if we trial this prior to steam and it does not break PUG play it may be a solution everyone can be happy with.

I say go back to Elo because on elo people didn't have to wait 6+ minutes for a match, much less 20+, like I know quite a few people have had to. When a lot of comp groups that are probably T1 are having huge wait times it's broken. At least they didn't have to wait so long. I personally don't even have those waits. I just think it's wrong. And a "blind stab" doesn't count when they've tried it once before. I feel like once there's a population boost maybe PSR would work better for those players. My friend's list has been completely vacant of most higher "tier" players since a couple of days after PSR.

All in all you shouldn't remove big groups because some people occasionally get stomped just as much as you shouldn't remove high skill players because they occasionally stomp you. Honestly Solo queue is a complete joke for me. It might have close games but it's only close games because I just happen to get 3-8 kills a match and have to carry as hard as humanly possible. I don't think that's very right either because not everyone can do what I can. Not to mention that the other day we had a group of four I was in that consistently won every single match we had for a couple of hours. Sure, I'd have also like to not have to bring my best mechs and A game during that time, but it's not very fair for me to ***** at PGI because they're not giving me competent team mates.

For the record big groups don't always win either. Even a 12 man of high tier players can screw up. I've had a 12 man of our best KFC totally screw up and lose to a bunch of groups that are no bigger than 4 from what it appears. And honestly who is anyone else to say "You're not allowed to have a big group, even if it's fun, because occasionally you crush someone smaller." You also have every opportunity to form up your own unit or be part of a unit that has big groups just as easily as anyone else. In fact my unit takes absolutely everyone regardless of skill.

I absolutely think the new player experience is a must. I don't think new players should be allowed to come up against huge groups either. But that's as easy as adding a variable to their account that ticks off once they're "ready" for that. It's not letting them into community warfare until they're "ready" for it. Or just letting them decide when they're ready for it. This game is absolutely brutal to a new player. However you also have to consider that MOST of the people coming off of steam are going to be solo players for a while.

[Kjudoon]

Mischief youve been hanging with the wrong people. When the 4man cap was in effect the FWLM and Seraphim were buzzing. Even now many of the groups are 3 to 6 man affairs with most seeming to be just lances. Been that way all through the time i was there but recently the pattern of solo dropping has returned because those not playing cw cannot get decent matches in the group queue or quit a lot early from horrid gameplay.

But to claim that this indicitive of PGI not caring about esport is ludicrous. You have private matches which is the heart of tournament play not the public queues. I would love fo see a few opinions on this from tournament teams on how important the 12man limit is to their game and bearing in mind that represents only a few hundred players good enough to play at such a degree.

I dont play in the group tier with my friends let alon CW because the experience is flat out crap right now. The problem has not changed and that is group psr averaging. The larger the group the bigger the possible mismatch. Russ himself showed the average mismatch and compared to the solo queue it is about 200% greater and we all know what stinkers those matches can be at times. From tier 5 confirmed to seal clubbing cesspool.

Nothing is getting broken.
Nobody is being punished.
PGI still is focusing on esports.
Keep calm and pewpewdakkadakka.

[MischiefSC]

Kjudoon, on 04 September 2015 - 10:19 PM, said:

Mischief youve been hanging with the wrong people. When the 4man cap was in effect the FWLM and Seraphim were buzzing. Even now many of the groups are 3 to 6 man affairs with most seeming to be just lances. Been that way all through the time i was there but recently the pattern of solo dropping has returned because those not playing cw cannot get decent matches in the group queue or quit a lot early from horrid gameplay.

But to claim that this indicitive of PGI not caring about esport is ludicrous. You have private matches which is the heart of tournament play not the public queues. I would love fo see a few opinions on this from tournament teams on how important the 12man limit is to their game and bearing in mind that represents only a few hundred players good enough to play at such a degree.

I dont play in the group tier with my friends let alon CW because the experience is flat out crap right now. The problem has not changed and that is group psr averaging. The larger the group the bigger the possible mismatch. Russ himself showed the average mismatch and compared to the solo queue it is about 200% greater and we all know what stinkers those matches can be at times. From tier 5 confirmed to seal clubbing cesspool.

Nothing is getting broken.
Nobody is being punished.
PGI still is focusing on esports.
Keep calm and pewpewdakkadakka.

Did you see the group queue population prior to the split of the queues? Remember all the QQ over sync drops?

Private matches.... okay. Good luck with that. Why don't you actually ask around and see how well that's worked so far. Nothing the competitive and group players enjoy like playing for absolutely nothing.

I play in the group queue with friends every night. We rarely win 50%. It's a hell of a lot of fun.

So, does my anecdotal experience trump yours?

We do have telemetry on what happens with a 4man cap though -

population dip, groups depart.

[Chimperator]

Ok,
I read alot posts about 4men queue does not worked back in days... how u guys consider that?
It worked well !
I'm not sure but I guess PGI changed it because people want to stomp/farm pugs... tahts all!
Keep in mind back in days the community was still tinier then today and less units running around!
The community crys and whine about long queue times in the 12vs12 queue and then they sadly changed it.
In my opinion the biggest gamekiller we ever had in MWO because its the biggest unbalance you can have in a multiplayer game....
The matchmaker back in days with max 4. was alrdy nice, specialy on high tier/elo there was everytime a good 4 men group on the otherside and with the new PSR system it should be even better.

Everyone who say something different is just defending his privilege to farming small pug groups!

Don't get me wrong I like to play with my friends too, but overall its good for you but horrible for the community.

Just imagine 2 or 3 guys will see MWO on steam when its released there. They download and want to start playin togehter, after few matches they will face a top tier 6+ group...
Do you think they will play for long time?
Do you think this is good for the future of game?

Seriously guys... think outside the box and start useing your brains!

Some examples:
WoT max 3-4 per group
WT max. 4 players in teams up to 24vs24, and u still can dominate a battle!
and many others...
There is a simple reason for it.., there were also similar discussions in there forums.
But there is a huge difference between them and PGI, they read what people wants and check what they can do to make the people satisfied buuuuttt there developers got balws and does what is good for the a game!

[Timicon]

Personally, I do not know what to be stunned by more - that PGI actually paid attention to all the griping on the forums or that they actually did something about it... maybe a little of both.

[Kjudoon]

Yes mischief. I saw. And i agreed with the split from group to solo queue. I was happy to see the 5plus at that time too because we could now practice for cw in full groups.

But that was because we were ignorant of what was yet to happen or how this was accomplished. Boy did we learn! Elo now psr averaging yielded a witches brew of bad matches. Then cw came and for a time things got better. But then cw flamed out because of the intensity and 24 hour activity. You know back when we had great banter during 2nd Wazan/Phact/Old Kentucky battles. Pandas are still hooked on Arbys horsey sauce. Now with more horses.

That is where the big groups were always supposed to be. Not public queuea. Small groups work best for casual gamers and that is the vast bulk of the population is and who needs to be catered to most. Yes it sucks that the salad days of the not quite competitive but really trying teams control seems to be waning.. But its time to do what is right for the majority of players. If this is too much to ask of these dwindling groups then maybe its for the best to end if solutions provided are not good enough even though they are being worked on. To improve their experience too.

And i dont recall seeing direct causation between 4man cap and loss of group size. Please point me to that data.

[Val_Z]

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.

Others have said it better, but i will be a parot anyway:

Making game mode selection to preferences, instead of yes/no's, any way you do it, is the least impactful solution which will present the most gains.

Also, when you play with friends, you generally want to do the same roles on the battlefield, and go at the same speed. This allows for you to really play side by side with your friends, rather than just dropping into the same match. The whole 1/1/1/1 for small group sizes is a REALLY BAD idea. If anything, open it up to 4/4/4 with one class of 0 allowed in a game.

I also fully support GI Journalist's idea for recon, fire and assault lances. Very clever, and with the right implementation would work well and do wonders for the game.

[Wibbledtodeath]

Kiriesani, on 04 September 2015 - 09:54 PM, said:

I say go back to Elo because on elo people didn't have to wait 6+ minutes for a match, much less 20+, like I know quite a few people have had to. ...My friend's list has been completely vacant of most higher "tier" players since a couple of days after PSR.
All in all you shouldn't remove big groups because some people occasionally get stomped just as much as you shouldn't remove high skill players because they occasionally stomp you. Honestly Solo queue is a complete joke for me. It might have close games but it's only close games because I just happen to get 3-8 kills a match and have to carry as hard as humanly possible. I don't think that's very right either because not everyone can do what I can. Not to mention that the other day we had a group of four I was in that consistently won every single match we had for a couple of hours. Sure, I'd have also like to not have to bring my best mechs and A game during that time, but it's not very fair for me to ***** at PGI because they're not giving me competent team mates....

I absolutely think the new player experience is a must. I don't think new players should be allowed to come up against huge groups either. But that's as easy as adding a variable to their account that ticks off once they're "ready" for that. It's not letting them into community warfare until they're "ready" for it. Or just letting them decide when they're ready for it. This game is absolutely brutal to a new player. However you also have to consider that MOST of the people coming off of steam are going to be solo players for a while.

OK. So your problem seems not to be that PSR is broken (ie the rating method) but that waiting times are over long for top tiers?. If so that's a valid problem, but the logical solution would be to relax the MM rules a bit rather than switch to a ranking system that has no validity re ranking player skill and using that.

Do you really believe that preventing new player from participating in multilayer will enhance their experience and promote new player retention?? Wow. OK.

I suspect your frustration has you tilting at windmills sir. I take your complaints at face value, but the solutions you propose are not likely the fixes you are after. Although I do get that you don't want to lose group choice, and as I am almost always pro choice I agree with that sentiment.

My experience is that myself and my friends want to play together, and when unable to do so effectively the game becomes stale pretty fast for some (not me...always happy in a giant robot) but that we also can't compete against big groups.

Maybe the solution therefore is to relax PSR/ELO- whatever (in fact I have seen some reasonable arguments for not having skill rankings at all) & maybe mission selection in the group queue to allow for faster games with a smaller population subset, while allowing casual gamers to play in small (sub lance sized- hopefully less dominating) but skill matched games in the PUG queue???

The polarising solution does not have to be the only one.

I must say I also like some of the creative solutions around lance types and tonnage rather than weight class alone being proposed to enhance group play.

[Too Much Love]

Impose restrictions on the group size is a bad decision for the nubmer of reasons:

1) Its is a limitation. Enough sad - its bad to make obstacles for the community life.

2) Its a step backwards. Everybody hailed the big groups introduction. Now there are plans to return to 2 years ago state. Why?

1\1\1\1 - is even more awful. Its a team and tactics game. What tactics should we use, if we won't be able to take more than 1 class per match?

Overall, those are bad, bad decisions.