Triordinant, on 05 September 2015 - 08:42 AM, said:
1. Solo Queue - it stays exactly the way it is, no changes. PGI is unlikely to change it because it's MWO's best performing queue of all time, according to Russ Bullock. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
2. Small Casual Group Queue - this is where new players group up. It's also where veterans can train newbies and where current players can introduce their friend/sibling/spouse/coworker/etc. to the game. Group size limited to 3. PGI could put a limit of only one Tier 1 or Tier 2 player per group (the Trainer) if they wanted.
3. Unit Queue - this for the minority of MWO players who like to organize, train and compete. Group size 4 and above. It could even be the CW queue after they fix CW.
I've considered this (small group and unit queue), and it's an appealing answer in many ways, except it brings us back to problem one.
We'd be continuing to subdivide the player base, and that would make it harder and harder to find matches. Maybe if solos were allowed to "fill in" on #2 and #3 it would bridge that problem, but I'm a bit iffy on that. (I like letting solos in, but to play filler for two separate group queues would likely be too much for that to fix.) The only way I could see this working is if most of the other "walls" are torn down (mode selection, class restriction and so forth.)
On a deeper note, I think that people need to step back and consider something. Most of the people who are being very loud here are insistent on having the play of the game on their terms, even if it hurts other groups.
Those who prefer big groups are often saying something which can be translated as "I want to play in big groups, and if small group people don't like it, they need to grow up... or go get friends!"
On the other hand, those who prefer small groups are pretty much saying "break up the big groups so that we can have fun, and if it takes away from the fun of big group guys, well that's just too *blip* bad."
In other words, people are arguing on the basis of saying "I want the rights of my kind of players to be elevated above the rights of those who prefer the other."
As long as both sides come into the debate with that kind of mindset and focus, than threads like this will continue to generate more heat than light.
Quite frankly, both groups of players have legitimate points of view. It's asking a great deal of people who have played this game using large scale groups to abandon that style of play. Yes, it will drive some of them out of the game, and reduce the interest of others.
On the other hand, it also is asking a great deal of people who prefer to play only with close friends to be the sacrificial lambs of the group queue, and to say "well, go make more friends."
The goal should not be to elevate the small over the big, or vice versa, but to find a way where everyone gets something, even if nobody gets everything.
[ETA: Just so that people have a sense of where I tend to land in the question. Personally, I'm a small group player. Generally, I'll play with 1-2 others, and honestly dislike teaming up in a formed team setting with people I don't know. There are reasons for that, and part of that is probably my own personal neuroses, but in the end, I find "get more friends or deal with the pain" to be a pretty glib and obnoxious answer.
On the other hand, I certainly see that telling people who have played in groups of 5-12 for well over a year "sorry, your preferred style of play must die," is pretty obnoxious as well. Maybe we'd have been better off if they'd never lifted the cap past 4, but that is water under the bridge at this point.]
Edited by Enaris, 05 September 2015 - 09:17 AM.