366 replies to this topic

[Dimento Graven]

RestosIII, on 13 January 2017 - 01:15 PM, said:

Maybe I don't want to group up with people who scream about participation awards

I did not scream it, I scorned it.

Quote

or that someone who doesn't want to play with a group of 6+ is a potato.

I didn't say that I said that groups don't want potatos in with them.

But let's not let facts get in the way of a good 'fit throwing'.

[1453 R]

Dimento?

I'm glad you can always find a 12-man group any time you want from the thousands of folks on your friends list, but Resto and I've already covered the plight of the Introverted MWO Player earlier in the thread. Please find those posts and check them out before you continue to snap at us, if you would?

[Dimento Graven]

1453 R, on 13 January 2017 - 02:15 PM, said:

Dimento?

I'm glad you can always find a 12-man group any time you want from the thousands of folks on your friends list, but Resto and I've already covered the plight of the Introverted MWO Player earlier in the thread. Please find those posts and check them out before you continue to snap at us, if you would?

All it takes is moderate effort to find people to play with and as long as you're not playing at potato level ALL the time you play, you'll be accepted.

When I'm in the mood for large groups and not enough of the friends on my friends list is online or willing, there's plenty of public VOIP servers out there to hit up and find more folks.

I will, however, admit that most of the time I prefer smaller groups, but I'm certainly NOT going to use my preference for playing in a smaller group, or the fact that a well organized large group is a deadly force, as an excuse to nerf the options for people who prefer to play in large groups.

Edited by Dimento Graven, 13 January 2017 - 02:43 PM.

[RestosIII]

Dimento Graven, on 13 January 2017 - 02:42 PM, said:

When I'm in the mood for large groups and not enough of the friends on my friends list is online or willing, there's plenty of public VOIP servers out there to hit up and find more folks.

Playing with randos/=/fun in my book. Especially when VOIP is involved. Unlike OP's stance, I still think Group Queue should have the larger groups and they should go back on the tonnage changes that just came out, but I still want an option for 2-mans that isn't "go as Assaults or else you're wasting tonnage and making your team worse off."

[Quicksilver Aberration]

RestosIII, on 13 January 2017 - 02:49 PM, said:

but I still want an option for 2-mans that isn't "go as Assaults or else you're wasting tonnage and making your team worse off."

So what is a viable option (and no, solo queue isn't an option) then? I'm pretty sure the answer you will always come back to is that this game needs a larger population to do anything.

[Dimento Graven]

RestosIII, on 13 January 2017 - 02:49 PM, said:

Playing with randos/=/fun in my book. Especially when VOIP is involved.

...

You get to meet the most interesting people that way...

[RestosIII]

Dimento Graven, on 13 January 2017 - 02:51 PM, said:

You get to meet the most interesting people that way...

"Meeting people" isn't on my list of reasons to play a F2P Mechwarrior title. I have a group of friends, and I feel way too weird playing in a group with anyone outside of that set of friends. I already dislike PvP titles because of all the ******** I have to deal with in public matches, so I really don't want to stick my neck out and deal with ******** in a group.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 13 January 2017 - 02:51 PM, said:

So what is a viable option (and no, solo queue isn't an option) then? I'm pretty sure the answer you will always come back to is that this game needs a larger population to do anything.

If you're going to just off-handedly throw out my only option I can think of outside of a painfully complex mentorship program I planned out a few months ago but then realized would be way too much work for most titles to add at this point, especially one made by PGI, then I have no clue.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

RestosIII, on 13 January 2017 - 02:57 PM, said:

If you're going to just off-handedly throw out my only option

I'm throwing it out because then you will get solo-queue enraged and it has the largest population so it would probably be against PGI's best interest to upset those players.

RestosIII, on 13 January 2017 - 02:57 PM, said:

then I have no clue.

And now you have realized what some of us already knew, there is no really good solution to this other than trying to get a larger population. If our population were better solo queue and group queue could be one like it is in Overwatch and the matchmaker just tries to matchup like-sized groups. We could also support a ranked queue for those who want to play in a srsbzns queue.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 13 January 2017 - 03:02 PM.

[Deathlike]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 13 January 2017 - 02:51 PM, said:

So what is a viable option (and no, solo queue isn't an option) then? I'm pretty sure the answer you will always come back to is that this game needs a larger population to do anything.

I keep suggesting an intermediate queue which primarily is of 2-4 mans. I suspect this is the most common size in the group queues.

That's the best you can do without fracturing things further.

Edited by Deathlike, 13 January 2017 - 04:47 PM.

[1453 R]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 13 January 2017 - 03:01 PM, said:

...
And now you have realized what some of us already knew, there is no really good solution to this other than trying to get a larger population. If our population were better solo queue and group queue could be one like it is in Overwatch and the matchmaker just tries to matchup like-sized groups. We could also support a ranked queue for those who want to play in a srsbzns queue.

We keep going 'round this circle, Quick.

if I want to drop with a single buddy, I am LEGALLY REQUIRED to pilot a Kodiak, according to this thread/the forums. Doing anything else is T8 literal-living-****, actively-asking-the-enemy-to-beat-us horrible taterness. If I breach my contractual obligation per the ToS to pilot a Kodiak in absolutely every single duo drop I ever make, I'm supposed to hereby and forever relinquish my right to get irritated over constantly taking it in the asspipe from BGSC teams out farmin' up thesselves some experience for the Skilltree 1.0 reset in a few months.

Why is this fair, exactly? I get that any possible solutions would be tricky and potentially difficult to implement, but the continual "don't even try, the only answer is an Overwatch-sized population, until we get that it's your job to be the butt end of the queue for all the rest'a us sans lube" approach is horsesh!t.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

1453 R, on 13 January 2017 - 04:54 PM, said:

Why is this fair, exactly?

Why is it fair that you get the chance to take 2 Kodiaks into solo queue and stomp away? Again, the least worst option is to be unkind to 2 man groups that don't want to take tonnage than to allow 2 Kodiaks to be able to run rampant and coordinated in solo queue.

Deathlike, on 13 January 2017 - 04:47 PM, said:

I keep suggesting an intermediate queue which primarily is of 2-4 mans. I suspect this is the most common size in the group queues.

That's the best you can do without fracturing things further.

Pretty much but then you take out necessary filler for teams larger than 8 but less than 12. Really an adaptive queue would probably be best, but that would most likely take a bit of effort to figure out a good algorithm let alone tune it appropriately.

[Deathlike]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 13 January 2017 - 05:05 PM, said:

Pretty much but then you take out necessary filler for teams larger than 8 but less than 12. Really an adaptive queue would probably be best, but that would most likely take a bit of effort to figure out a good algorithm let alone tune it appropriately.

Well, the intermediate queue should exist - but 2-4 mans SHOULD be able to be pulled for the bigger group queue (for teamsize construction).

Ideally, every so often (like a 1 out of 4 chance - though the real probabilities will be different I'm sure), a small group will be paired with bigger groups, but primarily it's all smaller premades fighting each other.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Deathlike, on 13 January 2017 - 05:19 PM, said:

Well, the intermediate queue should exist - but 2-4 mans SHOULD be able to be pulled for the bigger group queue (for teamsize construction).

Ideally, every so often (like a 1 out of 4 chance - though the real probabilities will be different I'm sure), a small group will be paired with bigger groups, but primarily it's all smaller premades fighting each other.

Like I said, really this just needs an adaptive matchmaker not so much a separate queue, which would also allow us to have 11 mans.

[Deathlike]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 13 January 2017 - 05:37 PM, said:

Like I said, really this just needs an adaptive matchmaker not so much a separate queue, which would also allow us to have 11 mans.

That requires PGI to allow solo players to opt-in to such an MM change.

Yet, nothing on that front has even been considered by PGI.

[1453 R]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 13 January 2017 - 05:05 PM, said:

Why is it fair that you get the chance to take 2 Kodiaks into solo queue and stomp away? Again, the least worst option is to be unkind to 2 man groups that don't want to take tonnage than to allow 2 Kodiaks to be able to run rampant and coordinated in solo queue.

Then give it a toggle, or some other means of control. You want to be a duo dropping with Kodiaks? Get into the group queue and be content with being irrelevant. Want to run duos in a different queue? Then split 120 tons, or something similar.

Or, as Deathlike said, adaptive queues. Increase buckets rather than splitting them by tying the bottoms ends of the buckets together.

SOMETHING. Other than "we need food, so jump in Group Queue and get eaten, K?"

[Quicksilver Aberration]

1453 R, on 13 January 2017 - 05:45 PM, said:

You want to be a duo dropping with Kodiaks? Get into the group queue and be content with being irrelevant.

So how do you enforce that then in a fair way?

1453 R, on 13 January 2017 - 05:45 PM, said:

Or, as Deathlike said, adaptive queues. Increase buckets rather than splitting them by tying the bottoms ends of the buckets together.

Splitting the buckets results in longer search times which means people will leave because we already play enough of the waiting game, the last thing we need is to turn YET another queue in Faction Warfare (aka Waiting Warfare).

1453 R, on 13 January 2017 - 05:45 PM, said:

SOMETHING. Other than "we need food, so jump in Group Queue and get eaten, K?"

Or just git gud so you aren't food for group queue. I play in pairs often and never run into the same issues you guys do, and no I don't take a Kodiak to do it either. Big groups aren't the end all be all of group queue, since those players have to be good to make up for their lack of tonnage.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 13 January 2017 - 06:39 PM.

[MischiefSC]

1453 R, on 13 January 2017 - 02:15 PM, said:

Dimento?

I'm glad you can always find a 12-man group any time you want from the thousands of folks on your friends list, but Resto and I've already covered the plight of the Introverted MWO Player earlier in the thread. Please find those posts and check them out before you continue to snap at us, if you would?

I rarely find 12, even in FW. There was a time.though when I could get 5-9 together and we would go play. However given that we're punished for playing together most of us go play something else. So less total players.

It's an incredibly stupid idea and an example of how PGI just gets less people to play instead of fixing the issue. It's absolutely not going to help small groups at all in any way. Bad players will still get crushed by the good players who, when they play, will be in smaller groups with more tonnage.

The problem is that there are too few people in group queue to match to skill level. This will serve only to reduce that total, conversely increasing the prevalence of wide skill gaps.

If you want to pug, go pug. If you want to play in a group, play group queue. The group queue is mixed groups- if there were more players then you could have a better split for skill level and an PSR value bump to large groups. However we don't, so it's pretty open. Tonnage limits like this however are just saying that if you play with friends you don't get to play what you want.... so you don't play.

Less players, fewer people to build groups, higher skill gap, worse experience. Those needs players and casuals will still get crushed 100% as often. This has 0 impact on that.

[Wil McCullough]

i've been pretty adamant in this thread about keeping ANY form of groups out of solo queue, because SOLO queue.

i'm changing my stand, though.

i'll be fine with duos in "solo" queue if there were severe restrictions.

1) weight restrictions like 120 tons, total. want to bring a kdk/uv? your partner has to drop in a locust.
2) altered priority in matchmaking. the matchmaker will prioritize solo players over duos in putting together teams. if possible, duos will only drop in solo games if there's also another duo in the other team.

sound fair?

[Aescwulf]

How about leave solo q alone and have groups as unrestricted with the 12man tonnage limit you can't field assaults some heavies some mediums and a couple of lights.

So far I've seen on here is that people moan when there isn't a limit and moan when there is a limit.

[Mystere]

MischiefSC, on 13 January 2017 - 06:59 PM, said:

I rarely find 12, even in FW. There was a time.though when I could get 5-9 together and we would go play. However given that we're punished for playing together most of us go play something else. So less total players.

I wonder if PGI is oblivious to this happening ... or simply just don't care one bit.

MischiefSC, on 13 January 2017 - 06:59 PM, said:

It's an incredibly stupid idea and an example of how PGI just gets less people to play instead of fixing the issue. It's absolutely not going to help small groups at all in any way. Bad players will still get crushed by the good players who, when they play, will be in smaller groups with more tonnage.

The problem is that there are too few people in group queue to match to skill level. This will serve only to reduce that total, conversely increasing the prevalence of wide skill gaps.

If you want to pug, go pug. If you want to play in a group, play group queue. The group queue is mixed groups- if there were more players then you could have a better split for skill level and an PSR value bump to large groups. However we don't, so it's pretty open. Tonnage limits like this however are just saying that if you play with friends you don't get to play what you want.... so you don't play.

Less players, fewer people to build groups, higher skill gap, worse experience. Those needs players and casuals will still get crushed 100% as often. This has 0 impact on that.

Where have you been? People will not stop complaining until they are guaranteed victories 100% of the time.