90 replies to this topic

[g4borg]

SilentScreamer, on 20 October 2017 - 05:58 AM, said:

Allowing solo players to join the group queue would decrease match making time but degrade match quality. Not a good tradeoff in my opinion.

this is totally a virtual fear tbh. you can just as mcuh get a duo of uncoordinated players. or even a whole sack of potatoes.
if it is an opt-in option you have to activate in a drop down, you have a good filter
i think if someone chooses to get into group q, he or she knows what to expect.
especially if the choice also means, he or she does not get into solo Q with it.

simpler solution would be to allow single user groups to queue.

Edited by g4borg, 23 October 2017 - 05:35 AM.

[50 50]

Even with this marvellous new NBN network (Bull$h!t) here to improve the connection to the servers, Europe is still a poor connection. Even Oceanic didn't get that much better really.

Anything that helps improve wait times is a good thing so I'll vote yes for it.

Not sure that will really work as the reason for the split in the first place was so solo players didn't have to mix with groups, particularly large groups.

Could suggest two other possibilities.

Combine the queues again but limit group sizes.

Or....

Allow matches to start with less numbers. ie. If after a short period of time the match maker can't get a 12 v 12 together, let it default to 8 v 8. If the situation/participation is really bad, then let it wait a short period and drop to 4 v 4.
Don't need separate queues, just flexibility in the match maker and we have the functionality to start a match without a full team in the private lobby already.
If we can't get 4 v 4 then we are stuffed.

Edited by 50 50, 24 October 2017 - 01:33 PM.

[Liveish]

So to recap - Seems pretty positive to do this

Limiting it at the start to 2 people per team.

[Kamikaze Viking]

Problem:- During times of Low Population (primarily AP, for now) Group queue times are excessive.

Its clear that the current system does not work once the number of people actively queueing (per 5 minutes) drops below a certain threshold.

Players get frustrated and play something else. Or even quit MWO altogether
$$$$ The BOTTOM LINE is that this lowers PGI's income.$$$$

**Note: People who are in timezones of high player popluation or choose to not opt in should be completely unaffected by this system.


Proposed solution:- A Check box option to queue for solo and group queue at the same time.
Such that when you click 'Quick play' you are most likely to get a Solo Q game, but you might fill in a slot in a Group Q game that has been waiting a long time (eg 3+ minutes)



Maximum of 1 solo player per team (some others have suggested 2, but I don't think its needed, or will create any additional benefit, Edit: please comment if you can think of why it would help to have 2-3 per team)
Priority on solo q, unless there is a requirement for a filler player to kick off a group q match that is otherwise stuck waiting.

Primary Reasoning:-
When the population is extremely low then you have to work with the quality of player or size of group you have. There are no others, so Tier based matchmaking is irrelevant (within this limited scope context).

This is about best effort for the Matchmaker at minimizing wait times. There are situations where there are definitely enough groups/players in a queue to get a match or even 2 matches simultaneously, but if the group sizes cant be resolved into groups of 12 then people get stuck and you get people waiting in queue. This has the side effect of them giving up and quitting or sync dropping. Limited Solo's opting in to group q 'should' help that specific problem.

Many people ask me, But why not use LFG? Because LFG means you join a group, then matchmaker is required to do the jigsaw puzzle to fit groups together. By allowing solo's it would fix the problem of 23 people sitting stuck in group q for ages. An LFG based solution wouldn't help with this problem.

Ive had players worried about stomps offering alternate suggestions where it limits the max group size that a solo could be dropped in with as they are worried about skill disparity. As mentioned earlier this is an edge case where skill disparity is less important than getting a game in the first place. The whole point is that adding restrictions limits the effectiveness of this tool to create matches in a timely manner. If this is being done to reduce queue times then it wouldn't help much if restricted. 2 years ago when there was enough population and I wanted Opt in for different reasons would have agreed with this persons suggestion.

Other Nice things:-
When i first wanted this option 3 years ago it was because i wanted to learn from my betters but didn't know where to find groups. (kinda like LFG but different). This allows the Quick play button to also introduce people to group play without being socially intimidated or being restricted by group tonnage rules. As well as saving the time it takes to find and arrange a group, and select mechs that fit the tonnage restrictions.

Sometimes i wanna play quick games, but im not in the mood for getting fully involved in group comms, Yet the quality of group q games is so superior to solo games in low population times (tier 1 and 5 in the same game) so I'd prefer to fill a slot in group q.


Pro/Cons:- New players opting in.
Pro - they might learn fast, Con - might get rekt. But restricting this (eg minimum tier, or cadet games finished) would be counter to the primary problem, so best to have a warning and let people self select.

I'm sure i'll think of more later. But i think this is fleshed out enough for people to understand what I'm aiming at and make comments without missing the point or wasting time making suggestions that are out of scope for this problem.

Edit: this was prompted by a discussion in the following reddit thread https://www.reddit.c...nd_searched_in/

Edited by Kamikaze Viking, 12 December 2017 - 02:38 AM.

[The Basilisk]

>Pro:
-- Lesser waiting times for a minority of players.

>Cons:

-- Solopuggers get into group queue and expect "coordination" aka getting told what to do aka "learning from groups"
This is not the case. Most GQP Groups have their ingame Voice and chat shut down and will coordinate via teamspeak or similar devices.

-- Players expect a higher niveau in group queue. That is complete BS.

Lots of Units are just mechs and beer groups chatting and doing drunken brawler on fun builds.
Others will go to group queue to test group strategies or group loadouts....since you do not know what you will get as solo in GQ you will get much more unstable matches as before.
Again other groups will go to farm and stomp the living sh.. out of others knowing full well what they have to expect in GQ. They optimize group size (averange tonnage) and loadouts to make maximum profit or get event goals.
If you drop with those as solopug you will be ignored at best or deliberately led to sloughter at worst.

[Kamikaze Viking]

The Basilisk, on 12 December 2017 - 01:31 AM, said:

>Pro:
-- Lesser waiting times for a minority of players.

>Cons:

-- Solopuggers get into group queue and expect "coordination" aka getting told what to do aka "learning from groups"
This is not the case. Most GQP Groups have their ingame Voice and chat shut down and will coordinate via teamspeak or similar devices.

-- Players expect a higher niveau in group queue. That is complete BS.

Lots of Units are just mechs and beer groups chatting and doing drunken brawler on fun builds.
Others will go to group queue to test group strategies or group loadouts....since you do not know what you will get as solo in GQ you will get much more unstable matches as before.
Again other groups will go to farm and stomp the living sh.. out of others knowing full well what they have to expect in GQ. They optimize group size (averange tonnage) and loadouts to make maximum profit or get event goals.
If you drop with those as solopug you will be ignored at best or deliberately led to sloughter at worst.

thankyou for your comment. But most of your reply is out of scope of this problem.

[xRatas]

Put the glorified XP bar to function and use high tier players to fill up group queue when needed automatically. (Anything that reduces unnecessary player options is good for low population matchmaking, only split the player pool as little as possible.)

Might mean less experienced players in solo queue but then again even greater chance for them to end up in low tier matches. On the other hand, I think for example Wargaming has managed to do quite ok by simply balancing the skilled and unskilled players between the teams instead of trying to shove all with equal skills to same match.

Edited by xRatas, 12 December 2017 - 04:14 AM.

[1 21 Giggawatts]

There is nothing to lose by implementing this. Seriously as the current system stands you just cannot get regular drops in group queue midweek any time from around midday UTC. Wait times of 10 minutes are not uncommon - and for my friends that is too long and we will play something else instead.

Please think about implementing this to save group queue for our time zone.

"Yet the quality of group q games is so superior to solo games in low population times (tier 1 and 5 in the same game) so I'd prefer to fill a slot in group q."

Yup - if I have to continue to drop solo q its not going to hold my interest - it really is a joke during low population times..

[Maelstrom238]

I completely support this idea as the group Q takes so long (I have waited 20+ minutes at times) during the OC play times. I am all for just merging solo and group permanently (If needed).

Edited by Maelstrom238, 13 December 2017 - 03:23 PM.

[Liveish]

Lets do it then

It does not affect anyone that does not want to do it

[LowSubmarino]

God....

I'd love that. Id join group q all the time.

Sadly. you cant.

[Liveish]

Hello PGI,

Russ said he would look into this, Any updates?

[HGAK47]

I would happily tick all boxes and be available as cannon fodder for all matches!

[Liveish]

HGAK47, on 04 March 2018 - 10:15 AM, said:

I would happily tick all boxes and be available as cannon fodder for all matches!

Thats the way

Edited by live1991, 05 March 2018 - 03:28 PM.

[Nesutizale]

In addidition I would like to see 2 player "groups" to be able to play in single Q.

[Liveish]

Hello PGI,

Russ said he would look into this, Any updates?

[Cloves]

As an "opt-in" feature, I see no downsides. Helps out the group que, especially in OC. If you are "tiered out" of your local QP que, you can step up and include yourself in the GP. I think most folks that are against this are not OC players, and never have a big wait in QP. It's not like folks are asking to take their groups into QP, it's the opposite. This is not done for an advantage, it's done to be able to play the game in a timely fashion.

[50 50]

I do support this idea but fear it is not going to adequately fix the ability to get a match.
Case in point last night where we had a reasonable size group going and did get a mix of matches.
In some instances there was a significant wait.
Other times we got a few simultaneous drops.
Seemed like there were perhaps 36 players and we were rotating opponents each match with a wait in between.
Then, almost suddenly.
Not a single drop at all and we had to disband the group and solo drop.
This is on a Friday evening in Oceanic in what I would consider prime time.

Right at the moment there are far too many modes and far too many queues across multiple servers dividing up the population.
There is no flexibility in the match maker to cater for this.

So, yes. I completely support the option to allow a player to opt into group queue but feel that it actually needs three changes.

• Combine group and solo queue again so we have a greater concentration of players in the quick play mode in a single queue.
  
• Limit groups to a single lance of 4 players. This is to provide that compromise of having large group rolling through the queue swatting the solos but still being able to group up. We had the combined queue before, let's just cap the groups to a lance.
  
• We need flexibility in the team sizes. now maybe this is an alternative to recombining the queues, but we have to have some way of getting a game if there is not enough players around. Therefore, in combination with limiting groups sizes, allow matches to start with team sizes of 4, 8 or 12 players on either side. I don't actually care about the match earnings with reduced team sizes but if that needs to be adjusted, ok.

Edited by 50 50, 13 July 2018 - 08:02 PM.

[Liveish]

[88.67%] say yes....... How about it PGI ?

[Mr Andersson]

I fully support this. I even made a thread about it a few weeks ago (but without the poll).

There is a possibly negative side effect, though, which is a lower quality of matches in group queue. But I think that is a small price to pay if it means you can actually get group matches outside of the "hot" hours of the day.