163 replies to this topic

[Chagatay]

MadcatX, on 05 October 2016 - 06:09 PM, said:

Ah I see. You are right that that is a definite issue because there is still a stigma about pre-made boogiemans that will stomp everyone, Although with 2-mans, this is to a lesser degree but the mindset is still there.

It is not a stigma as you put it....it is a demonstrable fact backed even by PGI's internal numbers.

[SmokingPuffin]

Davers, on 05 October 2016 - 04:55 PM, said:

Hey, everything you say is true, but being in a 2 man group is an advantage over solo players. Not a huge crushing advantage, but an advantage nonetheless. And for every 2 man group of new players learning the ropes there will be an optimized 2 man that have played hundreds of games together and know how to move and support each other. As I said in the beginning, the only question is do players feel it Is worth It in order to help the game.

I agree with you too. The perfectly competitive version of the game doesn't mix solos and groups. It's a compromise you make in order to make your game more accessible.

I do think it's possible to write a matchmaker that can support the two new players, the experienced player with a new buddy, and two strong players cases. There is a lot of variability that you can control for when you are selecting 22 other players. Anecdotally, this is simply not a complaint in the WoWS or WoT communities, and they even go to 3 players in groups in their solo-queue-ish experience.

[Pariah Devalis]

Deathlike, on 05 October 2016 - 06:09 PM, said:

I'm not saying the large premade doesn't communicate... in fact I would say that is common.

The difference is that it wouldn't be anything complicated like "regroup with us here", or we'll be attacking X location in 10 seconds.

It's no different from FW/CW in the grand scheme of things.

From the "working with" perspective, I'll make a quick scenario, with a less extreme situation than 10+2:

8 of you in a premade decide to NASCAR. Your slower assaults in the smaller group communicate very clearly that not only will they unable to keep up with the 8, but that the enemy team is going to hit them in moments. The smart and teamwork appropriate thing to do would be for the 8 man to support the slower mechs and possibly set up a firing line on the expected approach of the enemy team. Instead, they ignore the slower mechs on their team because they've already been mentally written off as collateral losses, leave them high and dry, and are now down 1/3 of the team. And a large amount of firepower. The odds of the team winning are now extremely low.

This happens. Constantly. I'm a fan of this example, actually, especially because I'm not an assault pilot. I just keep my head on a swivel and try to look beyond my immediate area of influence to see how the game is likely going to work out. If I see something funky about to happen, I try and communicate it. Most times, the larger groups outright ignore it, and I'm left spending the rest of the game choking back "I told you sos."

From the "working against" standpoint? That one is simple. A large group of people who know how each fight and are experienced with working together on one unified coms system inherently have a better time coordinating with one another and making more accurate judgement calls vs several smaller groups of people. Even if those smaller groups do everything they can to communicate with one another.

Reduced group sizes mitigates both cases tremendously.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 05 October 2016 - 06:22 PM.

[Davers]

SmokingPuffin, on 05 October 2016 - 06:15 PM, said:

I agree with you too. The perfectly competitive version of the game doesn't mix solos and groups. It's a compromise you make in order to make your game more accessible.

I do think it's possible to write a matchmaker that can support the two new players, the experienced player with a new buddy, and two strong players cases. There is a lot of variability that you can control for when you are selecting 22 other players. Anecdotally, this is simply not a complaint in the WoWS or WoT communities, and they even go to 3 players in groups in their solo-queue-ish experience.

Their devs weren't foolish enough to come right out and give the players actual numbers.

I am sure that grouped players have a higher win rate there too. Surely coordinated vehicles and communication don't just give advantages in MWO! But maybe a 10-15% increase in won games don't matter to them. Solo players may not feel that they are losing more than grouped players, and small groups are winning more often so they are happy too. Plus they never had a solo que that was taken away from them either.

PGI created the "boogieman" back in CB, but it was very real. The way their MM was set up it was actually uncommon for groups to face each other- you would literally have to drop with the exact same combination of weight classes. I kid you not when I say I rarely lost more than 1 or 2 matches every 6 or 7 hours of playtime. Add in R&R that only effected pugs, and you can see where the frothing hatred of premade groups come from.

[Summon3r]

agree with OP 100%

[Deathlike]

Pariah Devalis, on 05 October 2016 - 06:17 PM, said:

From the "working with" perspective, I'll make a quick scenario, with a less extreme situation than 10+2:

8 of you in a premade decide to NASCAR. Your slower assaults in the smaller group communicate very clearly that not only will they unable to keep up with the 8, but that the enemy team is going to hit them in moments. The smart and teamwork appropriate thing to do would be for the 8 man to support the slower mechs and possibly set up a firing line on the expected approach of the enemy team. Instead, they ignore the slower mechs on their team because they've already been mentally written off as collateral losses, leave them high and dry, and are now down 1/3 of the team. And a large amount of firepower. The odds of the team winning are now extremely low.

This happens. Constantly. I'm a fan of this example, actually, especially because I'm not an assault pilot. I just keep my head on a swivel and try to look beyond my immediate area of influence to see how the game is likely going to work out. If I see something funky about to happen, I try and communicate it. Most times, the larger groups outright ignore it, and I'm left spending the rest of the game choking back "I told you sos."

From the "working against" standpoint? That one is simple. A large group of people who know how each fight and are experienced with working together on one unified coms system inherently have a better time coordinating with one another and making more accurate judgement calls vs several smaller groups of people. Even if those smaller groups do everything they can to communicate with one another.

Reduced group sizes mitigates both cases tremendously.

lol no

NASCAR happens regardless of group size. Only the most disciplined avoid doing all of that, but the majority of players you face will start it regardless of logic.

Again, it has more to do what the most common of things players do, and less so on the group. It's not that the groups wouldn't do this at all... it's that predictable things people do on predictable maps. It's like watching people hold up on the chokepoints on Terra Therma. I know exactly what people repeatedly do... for no discernible reason and fail.

It's not a group issue as that's a player issue.

[Pariah Devalis]

Deathlike, on 05 October 2016 - 06:37 PM, said:

It's not a group issue as that's a player issue.

The difference between an individual and a group is that an individual can make a mistake and the consequences are minimal, while a group is nothing more than a bunch of individuals who can make the same exact mistake and have tremendous consequences. An individual can make all the right choices and have a minimal impact on the overall situation, whereas a group can make all the right decisions and have a sweeping result on the outcome of a situation.

The larger the group, the larger the sway. Pro and con.

My argument, the crux of my argument is that currently the sizes groups can be in the group queue gives those groups too much sway. Interestingly, it parallels how CW's outcome was controlled so totally by a few overly large units. Any given match is too easily controlled by any one large group.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 05 October 2016 - 06:44 PM.

[Deathlike]

Pariah Devalis, on 05 October 2016 - 06:42 PM, said:

The difference between an individual and a group is that an individual can make a mistake and the consequences are minimal, while a group is nothing more than a bunch of individuals who can make the same exact mistake and have tremendous consequences. An individual can make all the right choices and have a minimal impact on the overall situation, whereas a group can make all the right decisions and have a sweeping result on the outcome of a situation.

The larger the group, the larger the sway. Pro and con.

My argument, the crux of my argument is that currently the sizes groups can be in the group queue gives those groups too much sway. Interestingly, it parallels how CW's outcome was controlled so totally by a few overly large units. Any given match is too easily controlled by any one large group.

Large groups still fail when uncoordinated. This has been true time and time again in this game.

The only groups that consistently win regardless of group size (although a factor) are comp level groups. Considering that the majority of players are not comp players, this is far less of an issue.

[Pariah Devalis]

Deathlike, on 05 October 2016 - 06:51 PM, said:

Large groups still fail when uncoordinated. This has been true time and time again in this game.

The only groups that consistently win regardless of group size (although a factor) are comp level groups. Considering that the majority of players are not comp players, this is far less of an issue.

Being uncoordinated is just as much as a problem as being coordinated. You're not disproving my statement. On the contrary, you're supporting it from the negative aspect. A large enough group of uncoordinated people will cost a game at the expense of those others on the team, regardless of how coordinated those "others" are.

Large groups of coordinated players, even non-comp level players, still have a tremendous amount of swing in a game. When the best argument against that is "well, maybe they're uncoordinated," you know that's a terrible defense. Especially since coordinated or not, good group or not, that one specific group still has way too much control on the outcome of the match. Win or lose.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 05 October 2016 - 07:01 PM.

[MadcatX]

Chagatay, on 05 October 2016 - 06:12 PM, said:

It is not a stigma as you put it....it is a demonstrable fact backed even by PGI's internal numbers.

When it comes to PGI's internal numbers, they've made plenty of changes to MW:O based on internal numbers that, well, havn't worked out all that well is a bit of an understatement.

The stigma I refer to makes reference more to the "evil premades" and that time before the group queue when you had 2 4-man premades sync-dropping, which was kind of worse.

As for demonstrable facts, in the context of this discussion, the fact of importance for myself is we're getting very little new players as is and based on my attempt to get 3 separate friends to get into this game and having the group queue give them a BAD enough impression to not want to play, that's the demonstrable fact that I doubt is unique to me.

Of course there's folks that say "we'll lose players if they do this". Mind you that generally is said, and I'm sure we lose some, whenever PGI makes any change to the game. Main problem: we've got nobody to replace them. I have seen little effort that was actually successful on PGI's behalf to add things to the game that will bring at least existing players that stopped playing back. The Energy/Power draw system is new, might bring some folks back who left due to low TTK. But that's if it's implemented correctly.

[Deathlike]

Pariah Devalis, on 05 October 2016 - 06:55 PM, said:

Being uncoordinated is just as much as a problem as being coordinated. You're not disproving my statement. On the contrary, you're supporting it from the negative aspect. A large enough group of uncoordinated people will cost a game at the expense of those others on the team, regardless of how coordinated those "others" are.

Large groups of coordinated players, even non-comp level players, still have a tremendous amount of swing in a game. When the best argument against that is "well, maybe they're uncoordinated," you know that's a terrible defense. Especially since coordinated or not, good group or not, that one specific group still has way too much control on the outcome of the match. Win or lose.

I don't see that as the worst problem. When a roll happens, it takes one bad move to cause a cascade effect. It doesn't matter if two teams are evenly skilled or unevenly skilled. It's how fast it happens is different. This would happen regardless of what we'd want. Only when there's a disproportion level of skill where the better team is able to recover from a deficit. On even high skill levels, it's still a roll. When the skill levels are low on both ends, it's mostly random chaotic, and not really good gameplay even if it results in a close game.

Changing that aspect to 4-mans wouldn't change this fact, regardless of your argument. Seen this issue before and after the 4-man to large premade change. The facts don't change the reality. It doesn't make your 4-mans suggestion a better option.

Edited by Deathlike, 05 October 2016 - 07:11 PM.

[SmokingPuffin]

Davers, on 05 October 2016 - 06:34 PM, said:

I am sure that grouped players have a higher win rate there too. Surely coordinated vehicles and communication don't just give advantages in MWO! But maybe a 10-15% increase in won games don't matter to them. Solo players may not feel that they are losing more than grouped players, and small groups are winning more often so they are happy too. Plus they never had a solo que that was taken away from them either.

Some personal experience stories for me:

In WoWS and WoT, each team has an equal number of groups of equal size, and a team is matchmade at the tier of the highest tier ship in their group. No win rate difference is possible.

In LoL, there are duo queues, and they have a sub-50% win rate. They adjust elo for matchmaking for duos to such an extent that only a well-coordinated team on comms can expect to break even.

In Overwatch, which is a 6v6 game, they matchmake groups of 6 in a separate queue of only groups of 6. For groups of 2-5, they guarantee both sides have the same number of groups, although not necessarily the same size, and they adjust elo upwards for bigger group sizes.

In Rocket League, which is just a 4v4 game, they matchmake groups as if every player in the group were equally skilled as the highest player in the group.

Basically, this isn't just a solvable problem. It has been solved many ways in many F2P games. I know the MWO history on this topic is pretty bad, but that's because of poor design decisions in the past that we need not repeat.

[Mystere]

Pariah Devalis, on 05 October 2016 - 05:31 PM, said:

Reducing group queue to a far smaller number, like groups no larger than 4, is a far more hospitable environment both for new users being shown the game by friends, or for smaller sized units.

Have people already conveniently forgotten what happened when that exact thing was done in beta? I suggest people look in the archives to see just how brilliant that idea really was.

[Suko]

Mystere, on 05 October 2016 - 08:08 PM, said:

Have people already conveniently forgotten what happened when that exact thing was done in beta? I suggest people look in the archives to see just how brilliant that idea really was.

You mean when the max team size was 8 and there was no in-game voip? Hardly a fair comparison. Also, we're talking about a single 2 man team per side, not up to 50% of the team (or all) being comprised of pre-mades.

Edited by Suko, 05 October 2016 - 08:35 PM.

[Davers]

SmokingPuffin, on 05 October 2016 - 07:13 PM, said:

Some personal experience stories for me:

In WoWS and WoT, each team has an equal number of groups of equal size, and a team is matchmade at the tier of the highest tier ship in their group. No win rate difference is possible.

In LoL, there are duo queues, and they have a sub-50% win rate. They adjust elo for matchmaking for duos to such an extent that only a well-coordinated team on comms can expect to break even.

In Overwatch, which is a 6v6 game, they matchmake groups of 6 in a separate queue of only groups of 6. For groups of 2-5, they guarantee both sides have the same number of groups, although not necessarily the same size, and they adjust elo upwards for bigger group sizes.

In Rocket League, which is just a 4v4 game, they matchmake groups as if every player in the group were equally skilled as the highest player in the group.

Basically, this isn't just a solvable problem. It has been solved many ways in many F2P games. I know the MWO history on this topic is pretty bad, but that's because of poor design decisions in the past that we need not repeat.

Where is your source that premade groups using VOIP, something many of the games you list does not have for solo players, do not have a higher win rate? Just put in the link to an official source, if you please.

Based on your examples it's obvious that 2 man groups cannot possibly be suffering in the group que so there is no need to put them in the solo que.

Edited by Davers, 06 October 2016 - 02:15 AM.

[Kotzi]

Been there, done that. People used to group up to club seals. Thats why group and solo queues have been splitt. And it should stay like this. To easy to farm.

[Too Much Love]

MWO community 2013:

- Hey, PGI, why we have groups in quick play matches? It's so unfair. Why can't you separate group and solo queue? Plz make groups stop stomping random people!

MWO community 2016:

- can we at least try having 2 men groups in quick play in solo queue?

[adamts01]

Kotzi, on 06 October 2016 - 02:10 AM, said:

Been there, done that. People used to group up to club seals. Thats why group and solo queues have been splitt. And it should stay like this. To easy to farm.

drunkblackstar, on 06 October 2016 - 02:11 AM, said:

MWO community 2013:

- Hey, PGI, why we have groups in quick play matches? It's so unfair. Why can't you separate group and solo queue? Plz make groups stop stomping random people!

MWO community 2016:

- can we at least try having 2 men groups in quick play in solo queue?

There's a big difference between having a group of 4 in an 8v8 and having a single 2-man in a 12v12. There are quite literally only a handful of god-tier players that could carry every match, and I'd hope the very small community we have left would shame those few in to not exploiting the system. Overall, I think it would help much more than it would hurt. I haven't touched MWO in a while, 4 months or so, this would get me loading it up and playing again with my brother. Both of which were paying customers that have moved on. We've also all seen teamspeak groups split up because they couldn't find matches. I've seen up to 3 from my group on the other team, them in a different TS channel. And guess what happened? My side still won. It happens all the time already. I say give it a shot, see how many players it brings back, I'd be one of them.

[adamts01]

Davers, on 06 October 2016 - 02:00 AM, said:

Based on your examples it's obvious that 2 man groups cannot possibly be suffering in the group que so there is no need to put them in the solo que.

I used to drop in group que and spend a lot of money on this game along with my brother. We always played lights. As soon as the tonnage limits hit we stopped group que. Once you get out of scrub tier, tonnage matters, and our combined 40-70 tons just couldn't carry compared to the 150-200 tons our counterparts brought. He straight up quit the game, I stuck around a few more months before I eventually left to play something more friendly to a 2-man. So now we're throwing cash at other games, running around in a tricked out Liberator on Indar. So there you go, one example a 2-man that was suffering in group que and ended up quitting the game over it.

[Mycrus]

Did i get in b4 mudhut?