1142 replies to this topic

[FoXabre]

Wintersdark, on 08 September 2015 - 05:45 PM, said:

This has been brought up and addressed in this thread already.

Short form:

In theory it's awesome, but you're fudging what's really hard as "easy", calling your thoughts "specific" when they are in fact very general.

It's hard to get good values for things. It's not impossible, but it's very hard. Sure, you could compare, say, weapons very easily, but how do you value a given rating worth of weapons vs. a given rating of armor? How do you value base chassis before weapons? Hardpoint locations substantially impact mech effectiveness; mechs are not just bags of hardpoints. What about defensive factors? Hitbox sizes? Keep in mind, you can't just say "pixels in size" or such, because the formula for geometry needs to be balanced vs. weapons vs. engines vs. modules etc.

Then you fall into triage: Is it worth trying to make that work (with absolutely no garauntee of success) vs. just moving on with other things?

Thank you for your post. Again I must apologize for not reading the whole thread.

My choice of words may have not been the best suited as I was in a sort of "spew everything before I forget" moment.

I believe that this system is easy in that, once it is entirely conceived, the future of using it will be so. You have brought up points that I did not originally consider.

In regards to hard points, they themselves mean nothing. Only when a weapon is placed within it does it now have value, which then would be that of the weapon itself. There is value in the location of that hard point, I do agree. One would consider a weapon placed in a hard point based higher on the Mech as more valuable than that of one placed lower. I'm certain that a modifier based on a relative scale factor can account for this.

Defensive factors are those I had not really considered. Quickly thinking on this, scale of front and side versus, armor and tonnage come to mind as factors to process a value. Unfortunately hit box size is something I cannot attempt to consider without inside information from the devs. However, if this information is obtainable, the same thinking can apply. Essentially comparing hit box to armor and tonnage.

Now again, this is just my quick thought, I will have to put it down to numbers to see how this works.

My thought is to use the numbers we have to work out a solution. Try to produce an algorithm that uses these values in a logical way to provide a value that makes sense to compare against.

There definitely seems to be a lot to consider for this to work, but I believe it is worth trying. There is never guarantee of success in anything, but I certainly will not give up at the chance of potentially coming up with the solution to the match maker problem.

(My feeling is that too many systems in MWO were drawn up quickly to get it up and running without much consideration to the future of those systems. Hence why we have had to have a rewrite of several systems multiple times [Looking at you UI]. We need to spend the time to make something work right while considering the future changes to the game.)

It will take me a bit of time to come up with my algorithms as I'm quite busy with work lately. I do wish to post something that shows examples of the system to get some feedback.

Thank you again Wintersdark for your input. I sometimes get blinded by myself thinking I have the greatest idea. I hope no one is offended by this and I, in no way, mean to trample over anyone else's ideas or thoughts.

I look forward to further feedback.

[Acierocolotl]

My thought is simply to address simpler bottlenecks in getting matches going. Earlier, Russ had written that most of the 2-4 man groups had stacked themselves to the limit with heavy mechs. Conversely, my recollection of checking the mech weight distribution suggested that lights and assaults were typically around 15-25%, and mediums and heavies were around 23-30%--with, of course, very wide margins of error.

It feels like, then, that the average mech data might cross both solo and group queues? Is that data in fact isolated on a per-queue basis? If not, more accurate information might encourage some groups to choose less-represented weight classes.

[Tarl Cabot]

What would it look like if PSR was completely removed from the group queue but instead have the larger groups seed the drop deck first?

Or have it set so a group of 8/9/10/12 have an option to drop only against those major size groups. For each drop they would have to deselect it to drop in the regular group queue?

Or reduce the max group queue to 8 or 9 and leave the 12unit drops for the CW.

[Kjudoon]

Lazor Sharp, on 08 September 2015 - 01:09 PM, said:

"60-75% of the players of the game play in the Solo Queue," I don't want to ignore this Fact....!! I am pointing it out....!!!!! And asking, why is it this way, in a Team Based game......????? I ask Why has PGI not fleshed out the Unit aspect in a team based game more so than what has been done. I am asking what can be done to make this Team based game more friendly to the solo ppl, and the 2-3 mans friends, so that they are having FUN as a unit, running 6+ PPL every night, not 2-5 ppl every night.........

A Team Based Game with this % of Solo & Small groups.....? Why O Why is it this way, and what can be done about it, Or does anyone want to do any thing about it.....?????

You mistake "Team based" for "Group based". The two have never been the same thing. Every single match is a team based game. A team made up of random members. This is not the same as a group which are people who chose to be together.

The problem remains PSR averaging. There is no way of completely curing this.

[Rayne Vickers]

Lazor Sharp, on 08 September 2015 - 01:09 PM, said:

"60-75% of the players of the game play in the Solo Queue," I don't want to ignore this Fact....!! I am pointing it out....!!!!! And asking, why is it this way, in a Team Based game......????? I ask Why has PGI not fleshed out the Unit aspect in a team based game more so than what has been done. I am asking what can be done to make this Team based game more friendly to the solo ppl, and the 2-3 mans friends, so that they are having FUN as a unit, running 6+ PPL every night, not 2-5 ppl every night.........

A Team Based Game with this % of Solo & Small groups.....? Why O Why is it this way, and what can be done about it, Or does anyone want to do any thing about it.....?????

You're either deliberately trolling, or missing the point (I'm beginning to think, purposefully). My point was, BECAUSE that's a fact, it behooves PGI to cater to that larger segment of their population. That may be WHY "nothing is being done about it". They're working on improving things, but it stands to reason that you'll improve stuff for your majority first, unless it's "low-hanging fruit" and easy to accomplish, We've gone over a lot of things in this thread that can be done to "improve 2-3 man play" the problem is, it's at the expense of 5+ man play.

[Wintersdark]

FoXabre, on 08 September 2015 - 05:06 PM, said:

Warning... Wall of text! (Man this seemed shorter when I was typing it)

Spoiler

I want to preface this by saying I have not read every comment in this thread and so sorry to anyone who may have suggested this before me. As well, you may read this as somewhat negative but let me assure you this is simply my passion as I want nothing more than for the game to succeed. Without further adieu, allow me to proceed.

I feel that limiting the match maker in ways such as 4 man groups or 1/1/1/1 is only making the job of putting a match together needlessly complicated. Firstly, preventing other interested folks from playing in a group of friends larger than 4 is just not acceptable in my books. This is just too big a negative factor to even consider.

Secondly, I cannot see how combinations like Locust/Cicada/Dragon/Awesome is well balanced against Firestarter/Shadowhawk/Thunderbolt/Atlas. I'm not saying matches are always this disparate in terms of tonnage, but the point is that there are many factors as to how "good" a Mech is that is not taken into consideration by the current match maker. There are obvious benefits to be had of a Firestarter that a Locust will just never have.

This brings me to what I believe is the ultimate fix for the match maker. I believe that a Battle Value "table top"-like system would make life much easier for the match maker. If values were assigned to each weapon, system and Mech, the system simply has to gather a group of players with similar BV to each other.

My specific thoughts on how the system works are as follows:

BV of a weapon is calculated based on all statistics (Damage, heat, duration, cooldown, tonnage, slots, ammo/t etc).
BV of a Mech is calculated based on the total BV value of weapons, systems, engine, armor, tonnage, etc.
BV of a player is calculated based on the total BV value of the selected Mech, PSR, and whether or not they are in a group (BV modifier for those in a group to represent the significant coordination)

The matchmaker now takes the BV of all available players and groups and tries to fit them into a match of near even BV value (or a steadily increased margin as time passes).

The benefit of this system is that all factors are considered to attempt to produce the most enjoyable game possible.

I'm working on some specific examples with appropriate BV calculation algorithms to further promote the ease of use of a system like this but I hope those that read this can understand what I'm trying to explain.

Especially to the Devs, this system will make life so much easier. When using the algorithm, if you make a change to weapon damage or range, the BV is automatically recalculated based on the change. No further adjustments needed. But! If you need to, just have a modifier field to compensate for any discrepancies in the perceived effectiveness of the weapon. Just as the BV modifier for those in a group to show the additional effect of teamwork in a group will allow those that are matched against them to have the benefit of either a) more powerful Mechs skilled players (based on PSR BV modifier) or c) another group (based on group BV modifier).

In my mind this is so simple for me to see the benefits. Perhaps I am blinded by this so please let me know what you think and whether or not my logic is flawed. I am sure there are those of you who will not waste time in doing so

Apologies for the wall of text but thank you very much for taking the time to read my rant. And thank you Russ and crew for taking the time to discuss this with your community!

I don't want to diminish the concept here, but its been well discussed. It's a good idea, but its not going to happen for a couple reasons.

I'm going to be as brief as I can as this has already been discussed many times (,its not a new concept) and its not really relevant to the thread.

*) Its hard. I understand that the initial response is "everything worth doing is hard" but in game development, hard = expensive, in terms of devhours. That cost has to be weighed against potential gains. The difficulty is less the problem than the cost, when I use "hard" in this context I mean both.

*) Let's assume it's successful, and we get appropriately BV scored chassis. This is not a forgone conclusion! It's highly likely efforts to balance the different factors would fail and they'd give up, or any number of other failure cases. But we'll assume, moving forward, that they're successful.

*) Go back to the subject of this post. The fundamental problem with matchmaking in MWO is simple. It's not that mech strength is variable, its not that player skill cannot be adequately tracked. BV is solving a downstream problem (reducing mech strength delta between teams) just like Elo>PSR is attempting to solve player skill delta between teams. The fundamental problem in MWO's matchmaking is neither of these. They contribute, but they're branches on the tree. The roots? Inputs.

*) No matter how well the matchmaker can match mechs and skills, we'll still have poor matchmaking, particularly in the group queue. The OP covers this: If there are not enough correctly sized groups containing the correct skills/weight classes/battle values/whatever else, no amount of detail will help. And there is not.

*) This is why PSR is only 5 tiers, with a 2 tier matchmaking spread. This is why they want to reduce to 4 man groups, to remove hard game mode select. The more detail restricting team creation, the poorer the resultant teams will be, because there simply aren't sufficient inputs (players queueing concurrently) to support it. No, a Dragon is not a Thunderbolt. Everyone knows this. PGI knows this. They've stayed with weight classes, however, because they are a broad 4-bucket sorting system, not in spite of it.

---

Battle value would solve a problem, but not this problem. Thus, they cannot afford to invest that substantial development cost into a system that may be entirely useless even if implemented correctly. What good is it to know you need a 2250BV T4 player, if there isn't one there anyways? Or a 5 man group with an average BV of 1900 and T1?

You'd have to open release valves all the time, and the whole system may as well not even be there (as people have argued with Elo and such as well in the past - hell, the group queue now is essentially entirely random.

[sycocys]

Don't limit group sizes, all that does is jerk around players/units that have supported the game for years.

Here is what I propose:

First get rid of game mode select. Server select is understandable because of ping, mode select with 3 modes just doesn't work well.

Get rid of group queue entirely.

Groups are forced to the 1/1/1/1 per lance AND only 1 active ecm per group - chosen at random, all others disabled for the duration of the match.

MM/PSR matching is based on the highest player's value.

Groups larger than 4 have 1 consumable slot disabled.

Groups larger than 6 have 2 consumable slots disabled.

Groups 6+ Have non-assisted (tag/narg) lock sharing disabled similar to next group.
Groups 8-12 have target info sharing and lock sharing disabled UNLESS one player has command console equipped and the rest have a C3 systems item equipped - just make a new item for this 1.5-2 tons and 1 crit slot for information sharing in groups.

Balance groups by making their game less arcade, more MW/BT and more challenging basically.

You also have drop shipping in - you could stagger lance drops by PSR rating in groups 8-12.

Edited by sycocys, 09 September 2015 - 02:57 AM.

[Jon Gotham]

Kjudoon, on 08 September 2015 - 08:36 PM, said:

The problem remains PSR averaging.

With all due respect, the number one issue with MWO is and always will be the players themselves. Last three pages alone of this thread confirmed it for me.
I had a look at WoT forums last night, only whining I saw on there was about arty(predictably) had to actually use forum search to find anti group/teamplay threads. Same on WT forums too. Both similar games yet different communities.....
Why are premades and groups even an issue in MWO?
Same predictable voices on these forums over and over and over, same horrid agenda chipping away at groups and social play. Odd thing is, they have already won-we have a solo only mode in an MMO (!?) with said solo attitude bleeding over into group play-especially into CW which essentially poisons the game mode.
Not seen this in WoW,WoT or WT lately....heck or even SWTOR pvp warzones....in one WZ there I get more teamwork and match chatter than I have seen in months here.

MWO players are the authors of their own demise in many respects.
Why?

[Greyhart]

ok 1st it is good that the devs are raising the issue and discussing it. People may not agree and someone has to make a decision.

My understanding is that the group queue is hard because of the mix of group sizes and then getting balance of mechs.

I would solve this problem by removing one of the issues:- the balance of mechs.

Allow a team to enter the group queue with each player having a drop deck of 1 assault, 1 heavy,1 medium and 1 light.

Match the players and then have the MM select the mech to fit the 12 man team.

If someone just wants 1 mech in their drop deck? fine but you'll likely have a longer wait just as if you select 1 server and 1 game mode.

[Kjudoon]

This is the only game I play PvP in and will leave it for a good PvE version of this game without a second thought. The anti group mentality is because of group mismatches. Nobody likes a game where they get put in versus a ringer. How would you feel if you went to play a game with your friends in a neighborhood soccer match against some others only to discover their players included professional soccer players instead of the guys from the pub across the street? You were the better team before, but now... pfft. those pros completely unbalance the game for you and you get stomped.

This is the problem with the group queue, and CW. People have fled CW because they are sick of getting kicked in the teeth time and time again, publically mocked... and there are a lot of threads of it in the CW forums here... treated like dirt then told not to come back till they "L2Pnoob" just because they were not hardcore pros or wannabe pros who take over the field or did not have the time or interest to join into this hardcore culture because they have lives outside the game most, I am willing to bet, don't have much of anything outside the game at this point of their lives.

That is what happened. And there are not enough people in this hardcore/wannabe clique to maintain CW. So they have gone into the group queue to do it all over again because now they 'just want to play' and get mad that the MM gets in their way a little bit with their seal clubbing antics. And so we get whining for bigger and bigger buckets of seals to club because they can't find matches. The threads about long wait times are giving me that impression. People are so sick of being mismatched they have fled into the solo queue so they don't get hit with ringers, get quick matches that are usually quite balanced.

This is not an anti-teamwork position. I see players in the solo queue and pug matches working together all the time. I don't listen to coms because I don't like the noise to signal ratio, particularly the profanity. Lots of great team players in that queue, just as much as their are jerks who wouldn't follow you if you put a gun to their head. What this is, is a rebellion against bad matchmaking. This is why I proposed locking the tiers. You can't play with people or group with them if they are outside your tier as one solution. It's not a great solution but it's a far cry better than what we get with group averaging there where a pair of Tier 1s can group up with six Tier 5s and be matched versus a Tier 4 team and two people just obliterate what's there.

I seem to remember WoT and WT lock the level of your equipment to prevent mismatches that way. The player may be more skilled, but a Tier2 tank is still a Tier2 tank. It's not perfect, but it's better. It's not like some WW1 clunker going up against an Abrams, which is also what we have going on here. Trial mechs versus Direstars and Arctic Cheeters. All this is in response to these mismatches.

So you are right on this major point: The players are their own worst enemy. Particularly those in units abusing the crap out of the flaws in the game so they can 'have a good time' at the expense of other people. It's unethical and that is why something must be done to stop it for the sake of the game. It's been proposed to shut down the mech lab and just force stock builds. Rubbish on that but it does have a point. It's why I wish we had BV used to match individual mech loadouts used with PSR to determine real battlefield value and match by that. Then you wouldn't have much need for weight classes or tiers. All that would sort itself out in one shot.

So let's put this back where it really belongs and stop trying to say 'solotardia is infecting everything', because it's not. People are fleeing from an abuse of the game's design and that's all on PGI for not dealing with the problem faster and earlier if not making it worse. Solutions via game design are required because gamers are not ethical as a whole to police themselves to follow the intent of the game... just what's 'legal'. And as you should well know, what is legal is not always what is right or good.

TL:DR

1. Gamers, typically in groups, are abusing flaws in the game design.
2. Those being abused are retaliating by fleeing all the group/unit oriented options to the safest place possible: the solo queue.
3. Population continues to shrink thanks to a bad game experience, which we are seeing early warning signs of the game's demise unless drastic measures are done to reverse population depletion.

"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo

[DjPush]

PhoenixFire55, on 03 September 2015 - 01:52 PM, said:

Oooook ...



BS.

Quality of the average match in solo queue is still p!ss poor. You still see one team with 2-3 guys doing all the work carrying 9 scrubs who barely know how to walk, while another team has 10-12 "average" players and proceeds to steamroll the former. Is that what you understand as a "quality balanced match"?



90% of people I've started playing this game with about 3 years ago left the game forever because you did exactly that once before already. NOBODY wants to choose which friends they want to play with and which friends they'll have to pass on. And NOBODY wants to be told he can't play his favorite mech simply because your stupid MM can't balance a match. You do that again, your already low population will become non-existant.

Honestly however, I don't even know why I bother replying at all. You never read your own official forum anyway. Over the span of 2.5 years since the "phase.1" of matchmaker came out there have been hundreds of suggestions on how to make it work properly, all of which were totally ignored.

Wah!!

+1 going back to 4 mans.

[Tarl Cabot]

DjPush, on 09 September 2015 - 05:08 AM, said:

Wah!!

+1 going back to 4 mans.

What is wrong with doing it in steps. dropping to a max 8man would be lesser of two evils, leaving CW/Private matches for the 12man drops. In the end isn't the real issue on whether or not the components of a drop communicate with each other instead of trying to "feel" what the other pieces are going to do?

[Lazor Sharp]

NO!!! I DID Not mix up Teams /Units and Groups kinds of games, and NO!!! I am Not Trolling...... So bottom line, Do we want a Real full Team oriented Game to play, where the vast majority of play, is in 8 to 12 man groups, so the seal clubbing of 2-3 mans is lessened, and the quality of play rises because of ppl are getting better by learning from a crew of vets playing as a TEAM in a TEAM game.....!!!! and so that the MM has Plenty of 8-12mans to chose from so that you get closer to your tier games......

Or do we want a group game, where every one plays solo, or 2-4 mans only in a simi PUGLandia group game, and continue to see the very same BS as we have now...... and invite back the evil sync Droppers to replace the evil 12mans

I and many here, feel that the reason we have as much a anti Social / anti team PUGLandia as we have now, is because PGI has pretty much ignored The Team / Unit based Game Play , and have given little to no support for new and old players to find and play in units as a full 12 mans most of the time.... And just about everything PGI-IGP have done or just Not done what was needed, since Day One, has ran off these team / unit kinds of players, in favor of the PUGLandia type of players


SO, WHAT Do You Want....???? A Real Team / Unit Based Game, or just more PUGlandia for everyone, like it basically is now.......

Edited by Lazor Sharp, 09 September 2015 - 09:40 AM.

[Lily from animove]

kamiko kross, on 07 September 2015 - 03:57 AM, said:

I know you guys are trying your best and it's an insanely difficult job-but you should bear in mind that groupers in games tend to be the long timers who tend to spend the majority of the income.

I doubt the statistics that PGI has would agree with you here. if you really think those 16% groupers do pay the majority of PGi's income.


also the main reason for MWO being solowarriors is simply the lack of a proper chat.

There is no open world chat to find people, you either rely on people online from your friendlist or going to the Forum. Newbies dont to that usually.
The faction chat is pointless, it should always be part of the chatwindow. One of the reaosns why many don't check CW and notice when something relevant is going on.

The chat is the main socialising feature of an Online game, but what we have currently is a simple basicc thing lacking all features a proper chat should have.

Edited by Lily from animove, 09 September 2015 - 07:39 AM.

[Darwins Dog]

As someone who keeps all game modes checked anyways, I would be happy to see the voting system come back. I would also be okay with some limits on composition for smaller groups, though not as strict as 1 per class. Something like a limit of 2 per class for groups less than 6, and then regular limits after that. For a more complex system, maybe something that favors smaller mechs for smaller groups like:

2-4: 2/2/1/1
5-8: 3/3/2/2
9-12: 3/3/3/3

Whatever you chose, I suggest you start loose with the class restrictions and then get tighter. Restrict as little as possible in order to fix the problem.

What sounds least appealing to me is restrictions on group sizes. It's no good to have to exclude players in the unit because the group is full at 4/8/whatever, and it's equally bad to have to break up a team that's working well in order to accommodate players who just arrived.

I don't envy the job that PGI has to do with the system. Everyone wants something a little different. For myself, my priorities are as follows:

1) Well balanced matches
2) Flexible group sizes
3) Short wait times
4) Options for mech selection
5) Options for game mode

[Lily from animove]

Mawai, on 08 September 2015 - 08:02 AM, said:

The bottom line is that each mech really needs a battle value rating of some sort calculated based on tonnage/weapon loadout/engine size and type/modules. This then needs to be combined with a pilot rating composed of two factors ... a number based on prior performance in similar mechs (like PSR or Elo by weight class) plus a factor based on the XP or sklill unlocks achieved for the mech they are using. Stir all this together and you should get a reasonable estimate of the expected performance of the specific pilot in the specific mech. This value could then be used for match making.

This system still has the same issue, because me in mech X is the same calculated value no matter if I drop in a grp of 2, 3 6, or 12. But the way how teamwork in relation to playerskill exponentially raises the chances is hard, if not impossible to define. And so your PSR + BV calculation will just give MM a different set of "impossibel to match" scenarios as it yet has. The issue is always the 12 man, especially when all 12 are good and skilled pilots. There hardly ever be a proper set of opponents available form the rest waiting. And even if, they will hardly have a chance due to the group synergy the 12 man has.

Edited by Lily from animove, 09 September 2015 - 07:41 AM.

[Darwins Dog]

Lazor Sharp, on 09 September 2015 - 07:17 AM, said:

SO, WHAT Do You Want....???? A Real Team Based Game, or just more PUGlandia for everyone, like it basically is now.......

I want a game that people play and support, so that I can keep playing it too. It could be like you say that no one plays in teams because PGI has ignored or not supported teams and units. On the other hand, it could just be the case that most players don't want to play that way. My guess is that it's a little of both. I'd be all for more incentives to play in a team, and more tools to make that happen, but there will always be people who want to play solo.

Any system that brings in more groups needs to not alienate solo players. Driving away any players will only hurt the game as a whole. You clearly have your vision of what MWO should be, just remember that not everyone shares that vision.

[Lazor Sharp]

yes, i agree, there are always going to be that sub set of solo only players, that are that way for the many reasons stated elsewhere........ I also think that Full on Mission/Campaign/4man CooP PvE, would allow a portion of that sub set of players to play the way they like, and make them and several other subsets of players happy......... Like training your friends, and not being in 2-3 Friends Hell, Shark Tank

and if all the 2-3 mans are getting ran off to the SAFETY of Solo Q, Then, If ya cant Beat a Bigger Unit, Join a Bigger Unit.......!!!!! LOL......

[Lugh]

Clay Pigeon, on 04 September 2015 - 03:04 PM, said:

Retroactively cap unit sizes instead. Max pilots per unit == 100.
Freeze new invites to the units over the cap, and display offline timers so the people with the power to remove from unit can remove inactives.

While this will help with CW ghost drop zerg rushes, it won't really help much with group queue pubscrub games, but who cares about those? The only way to fix them is to increase player count, which means more content, and maps that don't always involve ring around the rosie around the citadel/tryhardmountain/mount doom/the caldera in autistic valley. Why make a map 100% larger if everyone just circle jerks around the obvious terrain feature?

Sure because having a unit of 500 broken in to 5 100 member sub groups Like CWI 1, 2,3,4,5 is so user friendly and people Just LOVE it when you add WORK to a game.

If you had any patience whatsoever you could move the action anywhere you wanted.

Edited by Lugh, 09 September 2015 - 09:04 AM.

[Sgt Hoax]

Right now, I find solo que more fun than group queue. I feel penalised for playing with my friends and clan mates. I also find that matches are usually closer in solo queue, while in group queue, I find it very rare to have a good match.

I feel part of the problem here is not group queue itself, but rather small groups. Two friends who group up for some casual games, and 8 unit members dropping together are placed into the same pool. There is a massive difference in the group queue when one side is made up of 1 or 2 groups, and the other side is made up of 4 or 5.
Small groups should be placed in the solo queue, as well as group queue. A group of 3 or less should be prioritised for the solo queue, and pitted against another group of the same size (but not necessarily weight). If the matchmaker needs to fill out a group deck then pull them into group queue, but otherwise I believe the experience for small, and large groups, will be improved by removing them from the more competitive group pool.

Lastly, the maximum group queue should not be 4, with a deck layout of 1/1/1/1. A group limit of 4 is too limiting, especially to smaller units or off-peak time zones. Our unit routinely has 4 - 5 members on during AUTZ, if group size is reduced to 4, what are we supposed to do? Draw straws to see who we leave behind? However at the same time I also do not think that the current max size of 12 is conducive to good gameplay. Perhaps instead the max group size for group queue should be 8, with a 2/2/2/2 format?


...honestly the only thing I am confident of right now is that the word "queue" has lost its meaning for me right now. I find myself sitting in front of my computer at 3:30am, repeating the word "queue" to my dog. I need sleep before I completely loose what remains of my sanity.