163 replies to this topic

[RavenKnight86]

NO NO NO. It's solo queue for a reason. Inserting any premade group into a solo environment fundamentally gives an advantage to the premade group. Also the idea of matching a 2 man against another 2 man is almost as absurd as you can't guarantee a skill parity between the two 2 man's. We already have the academy, testing grounds, and private lobbies for newbs to get broken in, we don't need to insert a ez, seal clubbing mode in for them too. Cause if this was to pass I may as well just get a buddy and trounce all the poor pugs every game.

[Mystere]

Prosperity Park, on 04 October 2016 - 11:45 AM, said:

The OP proposal would work just fine with the following thought-out caveats:

- Groups can be 2 man; no 3 or 4 man groups.
(There has never been a time in MWO history when 2-man-only groups were allowed in the solo queue, so STOP referring to anything that pertains to 3-4 man groups. You're just making a fool of yourself)

- A 2-man group of different tier'd players would have to be MM'd at the higher of the 2 tiers to prevent the seeding of Low-Tier matches with top-tier players.

- Both teams MUST have an equal number of 2-man groups before they are allowed to drop.

- MatchMaker will always search for a matching 2-man group BEFORE seeding a 2-man group into a drop bucket. This is to prevent matches in the formation stage from being hung-up while the MM waits for a second 2-man group to arrive.

- 2 man groups drops in the Solo Queue count as "Private Matches" in terms of event scoring.


There. I dare any sane person to argue with that.

This sane person says population issues would either mean long wait times or always wide open release valves. I am not even talking about the unrest such a move would cause.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Mystere, on 04 October 2016 - 03:09 PM, said:

This sane person says population issues would either mean long wait times or always wide open release valves. I am not even talking about the unrest such a move would cause.

The only people who would see any kind of "longer wait time" would be people in 2 man groups...
I stated explicitly that matchmaking sessions would not be held for a second 2-man to show up and balance an existing 2-man that was already seeded into the bucket.. 2-mans should never be bucketed until they are paired, (1 for each team) then MM takes place as normal to get 20 more solos.

There should be no furor if you know that all 2-mans are balanced in both quantity (same no. on each team) and Tier (top tier player from any 2-man represents both men in the group -> impossible for Tier1 player to drop in tier 5 match).

Edited by Prosperity Park, 04 October 2016 - 03:23 PM.

[SmokingPuffin]

Mystere, on 04 October 2016 - 03:09 PM, said:

This sane person says population issues would either mean long wait times or always wide open release valves. I am not even talking about the unrest such a move would cause.

I think the main losers on this proposal are the larger groups in the group queue. Group queue population is already quite low, and if there are fewer twos in the group queue the matchmaker will have an even harder time making 12v12s. I think you would have significant pressure to change how group queue works if you move the 2s into solo queue.

I think solos would see no change in queue time. I think duos would see improved matchmaking speed, whether they queued in solo or group queue.

[Chados]

Just no. Groups should be in the group queue.

[Idealsuspect]

Prosperity Park, on 04 October 2016 - 11:45 AM, said:

The OP proposal would work just fine with the following thought-out caveats:

- Groups can be 2 man; no 3 or 4 man groups.
(There has never been a time in MWO history when 2-man-only groups were allowed in the solo queue, so STOP referring to anything that pertains to 3-4 man groups. You're just making a fool of yourself)

- A 2-man group of different tier'd players would have to be MM'd at the higher of the 2 tiers to prevent the seeding of Low-Tier matches with top-tier players.

- Both teams MUST have an equal number of 2-man groups before they are allowed to drop.

- MatchMaker will always search for a matching 2-man group BEFORE seeding a 2-man group into a drop bucket. This is to prevent matches in the formation stage from being hung-up while the MM waits for a second 2-man group to arrive.

- 2 man groups drops in the Solo Queue count as "Private Matches" in terms of event scoring.


There. I dare any sane person to argue with that.

Blablabla
Stop with your hope about if PGI can code this or if PGI will know why they have to code this.
You see i did argue agaisnt this ( TY to PGI reputation )

And funny thing lots of people who say 2' won't unbalance solo queue QP but in same time they argue both teams need to have one 2' in each side... huh very unlogical but it doesn't surprise me

For finish 2 last points:

• If people wan't a 2' queue and i can understand this, i don't see any problem with this but we all know it will only make all queues more longer and not provide a good experience anyway.
  
• PGI did gave to 2' a significant tonnage advantage if thoses 2' don't wanna play QP groups queue coze it's too hard ok they may go play FW... There they will find some solo pugs to carry or/and farm >>> HF

[Suko]

Idealsuspect, on 04 October 2016 - 03:31 PM, said:

Blablabla
Stop with your hope about if PGI can code this or if PGI will know why they have to code this.
You see i did argue agaisnt this ( TY to PGI reputation )

And funny thing lots of people who say 2' won't unbalance solo queue QP but in same time they argue both teams need to have one 2' in each side... huh very unlogical but it doesn't surprise me

For finish 2 last points:

• If people wan't a 2' queue and i can understand this, i don't see any problem with this but we all know it will only make all queues more longer and not provide a good experience anyway.
  
• PGI did gave to 2' a significant tonnage advantage if thoses 2' don't wanna play QP groups queue coze it's too hard ok they may go play FW... There they will find some solo pugs to carry or/and farm >>> HF

Your posts are difficult to read and I have NO CLUE what point you're trying to get across. [Redacted]

Edited by draiocht, 04 October 2016 - 05:27 PM.
unconstructive

[Xmith]

Suko, on 04 October 2016 - 12:37 PM, said:

I was playing then. No one EVER complained about the 2-mans. It was the 6 - 8 man teams playing against complete PUG teams. Also, no tier system and the matchmaker was in its infancy back then. To compare the two is invalid. I'm not going to claim that the PSR system is working, but if you think 2 people on one side (especially if they have a tonnage handicap) are going to completely dominate a 24 man game, you're kidding yourself.

Also, as was said in the OP, why not try it for a month and see? If SOMEHOW it is a horrible mess, just revert to the old system. However, I suspect it would be a crazy success and will make a lot of people happy and those who are freaking out will realize it's actually not a big deal (just like 3PV. Remember that?).

You really never knew how many on your team was grouped up on coms unless they happen to mention that they were. It was rare for a pre-made to announce their existence. Therefore you just didn't really know how many were on your team. Void wasn't activated at the time. The pre-made problem back then would not exist in today's game because of the use of voip.

2-man teams are caught between a rock and a hard place right now. I've always thought no vocal communication with the remaining 10 on your team can handicap the team in general, not to say voip in pug matches are ideal but in this case no vocal, only chat is not the best for team spirit.

I vote no to two teams within one.

Edited by Xmith, 04 October 2016 - 03:47 PM.

[Deathlike]

I had suggested something before but at this point.. I'm not even sure if it's doable or if I even give a damn about it...

What really needs to happen is having three queues...

Solo queue (as is)
Group queue (as is, except limited to 5-12mans, with at most 1 2-4 man, plus solos that opt-in)
"Casual" queue (2-4 mans, plus solos that opt-in)

This would allow for smaller groups to fight amongst each other, while occasionally filling in for gaps where a larger group needs a smaller group (for math reasons).

This would also involve incentives... either a % (like 10%-20% C-bill bonus) or a flat rate (+50k C-bills regardless of result) or both for solos you "opt-in" to being part of bigger queues (most structure) and smaller groups to opt-in for the larger group queue.


This still won't fix skill disparities or the MM constraints (because that's a core population issue), but the ability to practice working with others is a sorely missing skill that is devoid in many group queue matches (not just solo queue).

Then again, PGI doesn't give a damn, and it's anti-Paulconomy, so I dunno what to tell you.

Edited by Deathlike, 04 October 2016 - 03:48 PM.

[MechaBattler]

Just limit it to only up to two 2-man teams. That way they can't have too strong an influence on the match. I'd be find with that.

[Felicitatem Parco]

MechaBattler, on 04 October 2016 - 03:50 PM, said:

Just limit it to only up to two 2-man teams.

That's the only thing being discussed in this thread. All the banter about 3,4 man teams rae off-topic.

[Void Angel]

Suko, on 04 October 2016 - 08:15 AM, said:

I know this is just going to generate a whole bunch of salt and anger from some, but I have to throw it out there.

When the suggestion comes up to let two man groups participate in the quick play queue, there are opinions that fly from all angles. Some say it will destroy it, others say it will give new players a chance to play with a friend without getting stomped in group queue.

Personally, I would like to see two mans have the option of playing in the quick play queue. I would like to see PGI add this option for a one month patch cycle. Let's test it for a month and see what happens. Even if two-man groups do sway the outcome of a quick play match, it can't be so bad that it would ruin quick play for the single month it would be testing.

My suspicion is that if you have a two-man team on each side that there will be literally no difference in the quality of a quick play match. However, the benefits of allowing 2-man's to play in an environment not as hostile as the group queue is an incredibly good thing for new players.

Tldr= Let two man groups play in the quick play queue for one month and let's get some data and see what the result is. If it is positive, let's keep it. If it is not, let's get rid of it.

We... did?

[His Holiness Pope Buster]

Suko, on 04 October 2016 - 08:15 AM, said:

Tldr= Let two man groups play in the quick play queue for one month and let's get some data and see what the result is. If it is positive, let's keep it. If it is not, let's get rid of it.

No anger here just a little puzzled. You didn't explain what your issue was with playing in a two person group in the group queue. The extra tonnage your two man brings to a group queue team is a big advantage.

[Ghogiel]

His Holiness Pope Buster, on 04 October 2016 - 06:05 PM, said:

No anger here just a little puzzled. You didn't explain what your issue was with playing in a two person group in the group queue. The extra tonnage your two man brings to a group queue team is a big advantage.

It'll be the same issue solo players would be having if they play against 2mans...

[Mystere]

Suko, on 04 October 2016 - 03:39 PM, said:

Your posts are difficult to read and I have NO CLUE what point you're trying to get across. [Redacted]

And people should stop insulting ... ahem, I meant ... commenting on other people's English. Otherwise, I'd insult you if you do not speak fluently in 4 or more languages. <shrugs>

Edited by draiocht, 04 October 2016 - 07:15 PM.
Quote Clean-Up

[draiocht]

Okay, folks. Remember to keep it courteous in here.

Everybody can contribute, so long as it's constructive.
If one needs clarification from somebody, simply request so~

[RussianWolf]

SmokingPuffin, on 04 October 2016 - 03:23 PM, said:

I think the main losers on this proposal are the larger groups in the group queue. Group queue population is already quite low, and if there are fewer twos in the group queue the matchmaker will have an even harder time making 12v12s. I think you would have significant pressure to change how group queue works if you move the 2s into solo queue.

I think solos would see no change in queue time. I think duos would see improved matchmaking speed, whether they queued in solo or group queue.

This brings up an point....

if 2 mans are in the solo queue, then 10 man's can no longer work in the Group queue. So Group becomes 3-9+12

Edited by RussianWolf, 05 October 2016 - 12:40 PM.

[Chagatay]

Instead of more buckets or allowing two man groups in solo, why not just tighten the screws on the group matchmaker.

Large group matching
8-12 must face a 8-12 team on opposite side (max two groups, 1 large group per side, group # not enforced)

Medium group matching
5-7 must face 5-7 opposite side (group # enforced, up to 2 medium groups per side)

Small group matching
2-4 (no grouping limit, group # enforced)

So for a Large group:
8+4 v 12 (valid)
8+2+2 v 12 (NOT valid)

Medium group
5,7 vs 6,6 (valid)
5,7 vs 5,4,3 (NOT valid)
5,4,3 vs 6,4,2 (valid)
7,3,2 vs 6,3,3 (valid)
5,3,2,2 vs 6,2,2,2 (valid)
6,2,2,2 vs 6,4,2 (NOT valid)

Small group any combination allowed as long as number of groups per side is the same

[Deathlike]

Chagatay, on 05 October 2016 - 01:49 PM, said:

Instead of more buckets or allowing two man groups in solo, why not just tighten the screws on the group matchmaker.

Large group matching
8-12 must face a 8-12 team on opposite side (max two groups, 1 large group per side, group # not enforced)

Medium group matching
5-7 must face 5-7 opposite side (group # enforced, up to 2 medium groups per side)

Small group matching
2-4 (no grouping limit, group # enforced)

So for a Large group:
8+4 v 12 (valid)
8+2+2 v 12 (NOT valid)

Medium group
5,7 vs 6,6 (valid)
5,7 vs 5,4,3 (NOT valid)
5,4,3 vs 6,4,2 (valid)
7,3,2 vs 6,3,3 (valid)
5,3,2,2 vs 6,2,2,2 (valid)
6,2,2,2 vs 6,4,2 (NOT valid)

Small group any combination allowed as long as number of groups per side is the same

Large groups are uncommon. Sure it's not like you're asking for 12v12 matches, but the reality is that group sizes fluctuate at certain times of the day, and the longer a unit's members is online, they are more likely to shrink as well.

If you're in a smaller unit, you would not regularly construct 8+ mans, and see how rare that is in general... unless you were in a bigger unit.

[Chagatay]

Deathlike, on 05 October 2016 - 01:57 PM, said:

Large groups are uncommon. Sure it's not like you're asking for 12v12 matches, but the reality is that group sizes fluctuate at certain times of the day, and the longer a unit's members is online, they are more likely to shrink as well.

If you're in a smaller unit, you would not regularly construct 8+ mans, and see how rare that is in general... unless you were in a bigger unit.

Yes, they are uncommon. Ideally, the matchmaker would construct larger groups first out of the pool of candidates. Of course, if no opposing team is present, they will wait until one is available. Maybe add a 10m kickout timer (might already exist as failed to find a match is an known error message).

Not sure if the group matchmaker even uses tiers at this point so you would need to add that as a criterion as well in the above example (average of Tiers between participants or whatever). Either way, I believe this sort of solution would make 2-man teams happier.

Edited by Chagatay, 05 October 2016 - 02:13 PM.