31 replies to this topic

[Yellonet]

One of the things that bother me with MWO currently is that you always have to exit the match after i ends, join the queue and wait and then play with a new bunch of people.

In (I'm now, once again, going to compare with Counter-Strike) CS:GO when a (casual = QP) match ends you can just stay on the server to keep playing once a new (or the same) map has been chosen.

In MWO it's rare to find yourself with people that communicate and play well helping each other and so on, so it's really a shame that you can't continue playing with the team.

After a game if you wanted to keep playing you would just have to wait a while for any empty "seats" to be filled and then get to chose map and mode again. This should give you shorter wait time and a better game experience as people would tend to stay if they've gotten a good team together.

How about it PGI?

[Coolant]

I like the idea...i don't think it will happen, but I like it

[AlphaToaster]

At one point in the past, after a game, players were told we would have the option to remain with that group for the next game. Not sure if that team would stay in the solo queue, or if a group would then be formed and the group moves to the group queue.

This was supposed to give a way for pug teams that win, a chance to stay together. By the time it made it live, the player lobby ended up only being for private matches.

Having visible servers that populate like CS:GO, would go a long way towards more evenly matched games. Players would be able to pick where they played. Move from tougher to easier servers depending what mech they want to play.

Have a PSR rating for a server with some kind of modifier for the player. Teir 1 server, Teir 1 player would be a 1:1 ratio of rating/xp/cbills earned.

But if a Teir 1 player dropped to a Teir 3 server, it would be a 1:3 ratio, they would get 1/3 the rewards.

Likewise if a Teir 3 player, joined a Teir 1 server, they would be at 3:1 the earnings.

Block off Teir4/5 from Teir1 the same way it is now. Allow players from Teir 3/2 to play up or down if they chose modifiying their winnings.

Basically make it so it's not as rewarding to be in a server below your rating unless you're getting torn up trying to level a new mech.

Add to that, the servers give rewards based on their teir. So some kind of multiplier for winnings so people want to be in teir 1 if they can.

At the beginning of the game, players grind out enough Cbills to buy 3 mechs so they can master them. By the end of the game, players are grinding out Cbills for modules and things to equip on the mechs. Because of this, PGI can offer a boost to teir 1 earnings to help with that infinite Cbill grind and give a reason to advance other than the better quality of matches. (which is hit or miss anyway because of bracketing 1-3 together which diminishes the reward in the first place)

Edited by AlphaToaster, 08 July 2016 - 12:30 PM.

[Deathlike]

Unless the game is close, most landslides tend to not want to be repeated again... usually by the side that loses.

You can't make the potatoes fry themselves... again.

[Jables McBarty]

+1

Only issue would be if you want to go rebuild or skill a mech or swap mechs, but if you just don't exit, you go right back into the loop.

Maybe make people opt-in at first? But yeah, it's absurd to exit a game, not change anything, requeue up. And half the time you see 3-6 of the same people again depending on time of day.

Deathlike, on 08 July 2016 - 12:28 PM, said:

Unless the game is close, most landslides tend to not want to be repeated again... usually by the side that loses.

You can't make the potatoes fry themselves... again.

I'm less concerned with having the same exact same team than with reducing queue times--rather, time that I'm spending exiting, then queueing back up. So maybe if 12 of the 24 stay on, they all become part of the same team, then the MM just finds a new team of 12 to match up.

[Yellonet]

Deathlike, on 08 July 2016 - 12:28 PM, said:

Unless the game is close, most landslides tend to not want to be repeated again... usually by the side that loses.

You can't make the potatoes fry themselves... again.

Yeah, the losers would likely not stay, but the winners likely would, then they just have to wait for new enemies to get in on the server.

[NoiseCrypt]

IMO this is a bad idea. You would basically be allowing groups into the solo queue. And I don't believe that it will work with the MM anyway.

[Yellonet]

NoiseCrypt, on 08 July 2016 - 01:23 PM, said:

IMO this is a bad idea. You would basically be allowing groups into the solo queue. And I don't believe that it will work with the MM anyway.

Moving groups in solo? Eh.... no?

[C E Dwyer]

Yellonet, on 08 July 2016 - 01:28 PM, said:

Moving groups in solo? Eh.... no?

He's correct, just like people sync drop now on a count down
all you have to do is get enough sync'd and you have in effect a group on TS in solo queue

[TLBFestus]

I'm afraid that that would simply act as a Darwinian multiplier, allowing the good groups to continue to roll over the weaker ones.

Face it...you win...you want to stay....you lose you roll the dice again. Eventually over the course of several matches there would be a tendency for "super PUGs" to evolve and it would begin to resemble the good old days when they were allowing 12 mans to **** and pillage the queue.

[Yellonet]

Cathy, on 08 July 2016 - 01:30 PM, said:

He's correct, just like people sync drop now on a count down
all you have to do is get enough sync'd and you have in effect a group on TS in solo queue

OK, but that's not a reason to not make this idea happen, but a reason to stop synch dropping.

[Jables McBarty]

TLBFestus, on 08 July 2016 - 01:36 PM, said:

I'm afraid that that would simply act as a Darwinian multiplier, allowing the good groups to continue to roll over the weaker ones.

Face it...you win...you want to stay....you lose you roll the dice again. Eventually over the course of several matches there would be a tendency for "super PUGs" to evolve and it would begin to resemble the good old days when they were allowing 12 mans to **** and pillage the queue.

So only allow these "Super Groups to face off against other super-groups.

Also you'll almost never have a 12-man, and I doubt much more than 4 will stick to the end of the match. Someone always has a bad match, or has to go, or has to skill or rebuild a 'mech or swap chassis.

And you're assuming that the losing team will never want to play either. Whereas there are often three or four people on the losing team that did well, or had fun, or played together well, and might have wanted to group up again.

BUT ABOVE ALL, this is a big way to increase the sociality of the game. Right now, you find you like playing with a fellow PUG, and you want to group up with them. Okay. Send Friend Invite from the End Game screen. Go to MechLab. Click on Social Tab. Look to see if they accepted. Did they? Okay, Create Group. Send Invite. Did they accept? Okay, ready up. Wait for them to ready up. Click Find Match.

^This scenario assumes that at no point did one or the other of you just immediately drop into another match, completely breaking the synchronization between your non-drop times, making it incredibly hard to group up. Then two days later you see this person on your Friends List and say "who is this guy?" and delete him/her.

Instead of that byzantine system of informally grouping, the proposed feature would allow quick groups. Then if after four or five games you find you actually like playing with this PUG, add them to your Friends list.

[Yellonet]

TLBFestus, on 08 July 2016 - 01:36 PM, said:

I'm afraid that that would simply act as a Darwinian multiplier, allowing the good groups to continue to roll over the weaker ones.

Face it...you win...you want to stay....you lose you roll the dice again. Eventually over the course of several matches there would be a tendency for "super PUGs" to evolve and it would begin to resemble the good old days when they were allowing 12 mans to **** and pillage the queue.

I don't think so (at least that's not what happens in CS), sure, the better team may have a few wins, but after a while there would happen to be a good or better team on the other side. With luck you would have two evenly matched teams that whose players would stay for a few matches making match quality go up.

[process]

On the one hand, it would be nice to jump right back into the action after a match, although I'd like to see the teams be reshuffled according to tonnage and previous match score. On the other hand, I don't usually play more than one match per mech per day, since I'm primarily playing to master new chassis.

Also, it could be interesting to have the match restart without having to wait for the empty spots to fill up. So long as the teams are relatively balanced, why not begin the match with less than 12v12?

Edited by process, 08 July 2016 - 01:51 PM.

[Yellonet]

process, on 08 July 2016 - 01:50 PM, said:

On the one hand, it would be nice to jump right back into the action after a match, although I'd like to see the teams be reshuffled according to tonnage and previous match score. On the other hand, I don't usually play more than one match per mech per day, since I'm primarily playing to master new chassis.

Also, it could be interesting to have the match restart without having to wait for the empty spots to fill up. So long as the teams are relatively balanced, why not begin the match with less than 12v12?

Reshuffling teams would destroy much of the idea of a team, no? The good chemistry that built up and the teamplay would be gone.

[process]

Yellonet, on 08 July 2016 - 02:15 PM, said:

Reshuffling teams would destroy much of the idea of a team, no? The good chemistry that built up and the teamplay would be gone.

Well, maybe it's put to a vote in-game. My concern is mostly about team stacking, and the losing team quitting entirely. Besides, even with a structured shuffle you can still expect to end up with some of the same people.

[Mycrus]

Visible servers will just show that not many ppl actually still play...

[Yellonet]

Mycrus, on 08 July 2016 - 05:25 PM, said:

Visible servers will just show that not many ppl actually still play...

I don't want visible servers.

[Navid A1]

Hmm...

Yellonet, on 08 July 2016 - 02:15 PM, said:

Reshuffling teams would destroy much of the idea of a team, no? The good chemistry that built up and the teamplay would be gone.

Reshuffling must be in effect if they do implement that.
Reshuffling does not mean all the good players go on the opposite team. In fact, a more challenging opponent makes the game more enjoyable...
unless...
you just want to club seals and you enjoy it enough so you want to do it non stop.

The good built up chemistry can be pursued in the group queue if its strong enough

[Yellonet]

Navid A1, on 08 July 2016 - 11:41 PM, said:

Hmm...
Reshuffling must be in effect if they do implement that.
Reshuffling does not mean all the good players go on the opposite team. In fact, a more challenging opponent makes the game more enjoyable...
unless...
you just want to club seals and you enjoy it enough so you want to do it non stop.

The good built up chemistry can be pursued in the group queue if its strong enough

It's not about "clubbing baby seals", and if you reshuffle it's almost useless to implement this feature. Even if there's a "clubbing" in the first match that doesn't say anything about how the second match will play, especially if many players leave.