366 replies to this topic

[Lukoi Banacek]

Johnny Z, on 03 January 2017 - 11:14 AM, said:

Your entire reply ignores concerns of small groups.

.

My entire reply doesnt ignore small group concerns in the slightest. As I said, small groups have options and tools they can choose to use or not. Choosing not to however, should not mean automatic, additional penalties for those players that choose to play in a larger group.

You can utilize the tools offered (and their are many) or accept that you m8ght face an undertonned, larger group. Really, it seems fair.

Further capping will just subdivide the already small playerbase and potentially drive off even more organized units. Longer wait times due to a spread out population just leads to even worse matchmaking and between that and longer queue times, more and more people will leave the game. Not sure that will help generate buzz or retention.

[1453 R]

Lukoi Banacek, on 03 January 2017 - 12:18 PM, said:

...
The difference here regarding capping group queue is that NOTHING but player choice prevents folks from getting together and forming larger groups and in fact you have a plethora of tools to accomplish just that. So, capping grpup size to cater to a small grpup demograhic is the same as penalizing players for playing builds optimal in this game because frankenmech/LRM/lore build pilots believe its unfair to them. Its not unfair. Its a choice. You choose to not use the tools and build a larger group, or use voip, or build good mechs etc and then folks complain the matches arent balanced.
...

There's a lot fewer tools than you think.

1.) Teamspeak is A.) a horrible program that works poorly and does bad things to your backend when running, and B.) a third-party utility program people pressured Piranha to get in-game VoIP running specifically to avoid the need for.

2.) In-game LFG tool is basic, poorly advertised, difficult to use, and also not actually any different than simply dropping into the game with whatever crew you've got. LFG doesn't magically make you into bestest buddies with your new bros, it just gives you a brand new handful of random strangers to drop with and the flimsy excuse of "you can coordinate builds before you drop!" in place of the expanded tonnage limits of smaller group size. In short: LFG is a joke.

3.) Established groups in this game are vicious in their discrimination against typical solos. I know - [RANDOM GROUP] once invited me to apply for a slot with them after a match where one of their senior members was impressed with my work in the game and willingness to communicate therein. I figured "You know what? Why not. Let's see how it goes." [RANDOM GROUP] proclaimed themselves a casual, fun-loving, freewheeling group that only rejected folks if they were obviously cancerous - the application process was a formality more than anything.

So, of course, I was summarily rejected. "Too weird" was the verdict - people figured I was some kind of creeper for injecting some comedy into my application. And this was supposed to be one of the loosest groups out there that still qualified as a group.

There's no such thing as a casual drop-whenever-with-whatever group. Not in MWO.

* * *

You can keep claiming that it's obviously their own decision if a pair of buddies isn't willing to bend over backwards over a spike pit filled with tigers to find more players to group with...but you'll continue to be mistaken. And if you don't think the stompmongering is hurting player retention, you're incredibly mistaken.

Capping group size isn't the fix, but the fact that a fix is needed should not ever be in doubt.

Edited by 1453 R, 03 January 2017 - 12:34 PM.

[Lukoi Banacek]

RestosIII, on 03 January 2017 - 12:23 PM, said:

I have no idea how getting a 2 man group into QP would penalize the 6-8 man groups in group queue. I'd like to hear you explanation as to how it does penalize them though.

Oh I misunderstood. You want add 2 man groups to solo QP.

If thats the case, you will just piss off all of the soloists who dont want groups of any size in the solo queue at all, since again, that will become yet another scapegoat for bad games. Additionally, how did we decide 2 is ok? Why not 3 or 4 like Barantor's example? See my previous comments as to how this hurts the game.

As to how it hurts groups in group queue.....longer wait times drive away more players, further spiralling the exodus out of control.

[Dirus Nigh]

I am tired of people complaining like the OP. Learn to communicate with your full team and work together. Look for more people to play with. There are several team speak servers you can go to with your friends and find more people. MWO is a game for teamwork, please get that through your head.

[RestosIII]

Lukoi Banacek, on 03 January 2017 - 12:32 PM, said:

As to how it hurts groups in group queue.....longer wait times drive away more players, further spiralling the exodus out of control.

As if it'll effect group queue at all. I don't touch groups with a 10 foot pole, and that's entirely because of how the current system works. And the people I'd play with in a group don't even play the game right now because of how garbage the drop system is already. If anyone is dropping in 2-4 man groups in group queue, they're doing more damage to their own team than I'd give as a benefit for doing a 2 man drop in normal QP solo queue.

And 2 is the number I went with because it has the least impact on the match as possible while still allowing the vague concept of "fun" to enter the equation. Because, y'know, that's what some people want when dropping with friends. "Fun". Not a concerted effort to have a well-oiled war machine.

[xTrident]

RestosIII, on 03 January 2017 - 12:23 PM, said:

I have no idea how getting a 2 man group into QP would penalize the 6-8 man groups in group queue. I'd like to hear you explanation as to how it does penalize them though.

What about the three, four and five man groups then? Say PGI changes it and now two-mans drop with soloist as well. Then we'll have complaints from people running three mans essentially saying what would ONE more to our group hurt the solo players if we were to drop with them? Yeah, I'd be okay with two-mans dropping with solo-queue myself but I know there would be further complaints.

I get the complaints anyone would have going up against a full pre-made but it's honestly not been nearly as bad for me and my buddy in group queue after PGI eliminated matching people based on tier. Same when I pug as well. Much better matches.

[Lukoi Banacek]

1453 R, on 03 January 2017 - 12:31 PM, said:

There's a lot fewer tools than you think.

1.) Teamspeak is A.) a horrible program that works poorly and does bad things to your backend when running, and B.) a third-party utility program people pressured Piranha to get in-game VoIP running specifically to avoid the need for.

2.) In-game LFG tool is basic, poorly advertised, difficult to use, and also not actually any different than simply dropping into the game with whatever crew you've got. LFG doesn't magically make you into bestest buddies with your new bros, it just gives you a brand new handful of random strangers to drop with and the flimsy excuse of "you can coordinate builds before you drop!" in place of the expanded tonnage limits of smaller group size. In short: LFG is a joke.

3.) Established groups in this game are vicious in their discrimination against typical solos. I know - [RANDOM GROUP] once invited me to apply for a slot with them after a match where one of their senior members was impressed with my work in the game and willingness to communicate therein. I figured "You know what? Why not. Let's see how it goes." [RANDOM GROUP] proclaimed themselves a casual, fun-loving, freewheeling group that only rejected folks if they were obviously cancernous - the application process was a formality more than anything.

So, of course, I was summarily rejected. "Too weird" was the verdict - people figured I was some kind of creeper for injecting some comedy into my application. And this was supposed to be one of the loosest groups out there that still qualified as a group.

There's no such thing as a casual drop-whenever-with-whatever group. Not in MWO.

* * *

You can keep claiming that it's obviously their own decision if a pair of buddies isn't willing to bend over backwards over a spike pit filled with tigers to find more players to group with...but you'll continue to be mistaken. And if you don't think the stompmongering is hurting player retention, you're incredibly mistaken.

Capping group size isn't the fix, but the fact that a fix is needed should not ever be in doubt.

Citation needed.

Secondly, we can disagree on the usefullness of those tools. I have used LFG to start and grow groups and had great success, both in QP and FP. People use LFG and the chats and actually make groups. Sorry your experience hasnt been the same.

Thirdly, if a fix is needed because small group players are leaving this game in droves (PGI would have the data, you and I certainly do not), capping in the group queue isnt it.

Creating a pure solo, a small group only queue and and an open group queue MIGHT be but as I noted above, I believe it will be exploitable and further fracture an already small playerbase to the detriment of population retention. Its a small, niche game, that struggles to have a large enough population to keep MM ev3n remotely relevent and queue times low enough to be tolerable. Comparing it to much larger games like WoT ignores those very important facts.

[Deathlike]

The fundamental problem with the group queue is that when people do stuff "on their own" instead of helping the group, these people lose far more often than not. It has less to do with skill... rather it's people not willing to work together.

Skill discrepancies will exist and are virtually unavoidable (low population... of players, and particularly of the skilled variety), but ultimately people not willing to work together are the greatest core reason why your team loses.

In a game where teamplay is paramount, those that do their own thing are generally a detriment to the team.

[RestosIII]

xTrident, on 03 January 2017 - 12:38 PM, said:

What about the three, four and five man groups then? Say PGI changes it and now two-mans drop with soloist as well. Then we'll have complaints from people running three mans essentially saying what would ONE more to our group hurt the solo players if we were to drop with them? Yeah, I'd be okay with two-mans dropping with solo-queue myself but I know there would be further complaints.

I get the complaints anyone would have going up against a full pre-made but it's honestly not been nearly as bad for me and my buddy in group queue after PGI eliminated matching people based on tier. Same when I pug as well. Much better matches.

Trying to show a relatively new player the ropes in a 2 man group QP? Possible, and might actually be fun. Taking a relatively new player into group queue with a 2-man group? That's torture.

[Lukoi Banacek]

RestosIII, on 03 January 2017 - 12:38 PM, said:

As if it'll effect group queue at all. I don't touch groups with a 10 foot pole, and that's entirely because of how the current system works. And the people I'd play with in a group don't even play the game right now because of how garbage the drop system is already. If anyone is dropping in 2-4 man groups in group queue, they're doing more damage to their own team than I'd give as a benefit for doing a 2 man drop in normal QP solo queue.

And 2 is the number I went with because it has the least impact on the match as possible while still allowing the vague concept of "fun" to enter the equation. Because, y'know, that's what some people want when dropping with friends. "Fun". Not a concerted effort to have a well-oiled war machine.

I have fun soloing, playing with 1-2 others or playing in a large group. The larger group doesnt require us to go to basic training or some other militant experience you seem to be worried about.

And again...you went with two due to its minimal impact. Die hard solo fans will complain about that impact no matter how little your perception of it is, because in their mind it is unfair. As of others have noted, whats the arbitrary # that magically fixes these things that makes all parties happy? There isnt one.

Folks who argue for THEIR arbitrary line in the sand fail to recognize it will be perceived as unfair to someone else potentially. You cannot please everyone.

[1453 R]

Lukoi Banacek, on 03 January 2017 - 12:39 PM, said:

...
Thirdly, if a fix is needed because small group players are leaving this game in droves (PGI would have the data, you and I certainly do not), capping in the group queue isnt it.
...

They're not leaving the game - they're not getting into it in the first place, because being New Guy trying to run with an experienced mentor (i.e. the strong majority of how people often get into multiplayer games in the first place) is literally the worst possible way to play MWO.

You don't have the 'Mechs you need to take advantage of the tonnage boost for small-grouping, and you routinely run into 8-12 player warbands you stand precisely zero chance against. The rest of the group will no doubt screech at you for Dragging Them Down because it's surprisingly simple to identify new players in trial 'Mechs in this game, and also it's extremely difficult to actually enjoy yourself when you're being mercilessly shredded by 12-man Cheetah packs backed by a lance of Kodiaks.

Yes, a fix is needed. No, "UZ LFG MOAR!" isn't it. LFG is a joke, and you shouldn't need to spend an hour pre-drop preparing to have fun in this or any other game.

[xTrident]

1453 R, on 03 January 2017 - 12:31 PM, said:

There's a lot fewer tools than you think.

1.) Teamspeak is A.) a horrible program that works poorly and does bad things to your backend when running, and B.) a third-party utility program people pressured Piranha to get in-game VoIP running specifically to avoid the need for.

Horrible program that works poorly? I've been using TS well over a decade without any issues ever. What problems are you talking about?

[Lukoi Banacek]

RestosIII, on 03 January 2017 - 12:40 PM, said:

Trying to show a relatively new player the ropes in a 2 man group QP? Possible, and might actually be fun. Taking a relatively new player into group queue with a 2-man group? That's torture.

QP does not mean solo play. It means quickplay. There is a solo option and a group option in QP. You might have less of these problematic moments in debates if you were more clear.

If we let two man teams (or three or four) because they wont hurt as much, ardent solo players will complain just as loudly that it is unfair for them to be there.

[Lukoi Banacek]

1453 R, on 03 January 2017 - 12:45 PM, said:

They're not leaving the game - they're not getting into it in the first place, because being New Guy trying to run with an experienced mentor (i.e. the strong majority of how people often get into multiplayer games in the first place) is literally the worst possible way to play MWO.

You don't have the 'Mechs you need to take advantage of the tonnage boost for small-grouping, and you routinely run into 8-12 player warbands you stand precisely zero chance against. The rest of the group will no doubt screech at you for Dragging Them Down because it's surprisingly simple to identify new players in trial 'Mechs in this game, and also it's extremely difficult to actually enjoy yourself when you're being mercilessly shredded by 12-man Cheetah packs backed by a lance of Kodiaks.

Yes, a fix is needed. No, "UZ LFG MOAR!" isn't it. LFG is a joke, and you shouldn't need to spend an hour pre-drop preparing to have fun in this or any other game.

Actually group play at the 12v12 level or having a mentor take you into the solo queue, neither of these are great fixes to the horrible new player experience in this game. Co-op training grounds would he a great idea, coupled with a more robust training tutorial, and additional less threatening modes to earn money in (like a 4v4, 6v6 before 12v12 progression) potentially.

That doesnt mean adding small groups to the solo queue is even remotely the answer however, for the reasons already repeatedly listed.

Real mature all caps there btw. Demonstrates the credibility of your argument pretty well lol.

[1453 R]

xTrident, on 03 January 2017 - 12:46 PM, said:

Horrible program that works poorly? I've been using TS well over a decade without any issues ever. What problems are you talking about?

Difficult to install (like seriously, what? What? At what point does a modern program have installation issues?!), prone to sudden inexplicable crashes/failure, consumes a surprisingly heavy bandwidth load, unintuitive and ugly interface.

Vent? I can do. Mumble? I can do. Discord? I can do. Teamspeak screws with me every g'damned time. It's infuriating.

[MischiefSC]

RestosIII, on 03 January 2017 - 11:55 AM, said:

Maybe we don't want to "engage with the community", but just play with 1 friend without getting turned into target practice for a group on TS comms that have the coordination of a flight control tower?

I spent the first 2 years I played on MWO playing mostly from work and, obviously, unable to use a mic. I did listen though.

More to the point though I sought out other players and grouped up.

There's no way for the system to seperate two guys wanting to derp around from two people who know how to play and like winning more than losing.

Pretending that getting coordinated with a team is like running specops or flight control is silly.

It's also silly to say that there needs to be special limits to prevent anyone more competitive than you are (however competitive that is) from playing in groups bigger than however many friends you're playing with (however many that is) in whatever queue you're wanting to play in (where that is).

There are team limits. It's 12 per side. Every match, every drop, you're dropping in a 12man team. How willing (or unwilling) someone is to play with their team and how many of them.

MWO does not have an option other than private matches and scouting to play with less than 12 people. It's a consistent problem that people drop in matches and don't want to play with their team who have to play with you regardless.

[Barantor]

Lukoi Banacek, on 03 January 2017 - 12:18 PM, said:

So again you pick a rather arbitrary # of four stating that it just "works." CoD and BF seem to work with no min/max groups....does that mean it translates here? Maybe, maybe not, but it doesnt make the justification any less arbitrary and anecdotal.

It doesnt adress the fact that soloists will complain about facing four mans. And while I too want to bring in and retain as many chads, jims, johns etc the arbitray 4 man limit you espouse means I cannot bring in and retain Tim, Tom, Larry and Zeke really.

I'm not talking about soloists going against four mans, I'm talking making the group queue 4 man tops. Soloists would still have solo queue with no changes. This is moving groups bigger than 4 to faction warfare which is where everyone says 'end game' is supposed to be.

4 man is my pick because it fills a lance, a designation already in the game as is. Four people have been an industry norm since back when Gauntlet was in the arcade, it's a fair number.

Lukoi Banacek, on 03 January 2017 - 12:18 PM, said:

Any group size in solo queue will be complained about. Any size group mixed in solo queue will he exploited by some crew that wants to take advantage of clubbing seals. Two man, four man, six man. Doesnt matter. This is why I am not a fan of adding groups, no matter how small, to the solo queue currently. If the game had a larger playerbase where MM could function effectively and use not only tieriing but group sizes as well in setting up teams, then I would argue that solo queue should go away entirely but thats all hypothetical at this point.

The difference here regarding capping group queue is that NOTHING but player choice prevents folks from getting together and forming larger groups and in fact you have a plethora of tools to accomplish just that. So, capping grpup size to cater to a small grpup demograhic is the same as penalizing players for playing builds optimal in this game because frankenmech/LRM/lore build pilots believe its unfair to them. Its not unfair. Its a choice. You choose to not use the tools and build a larger group, or use voip, or build good mechs etc and then folks complain the matches arent balanced.

Groups larger than 4 in my idea would still be able to play faction play to their hearts content. The only thing that prevents that now is if someone you want to group with is clan when you are IS and vice versa.

Lukoi Banacek, on 03 January 2017 - 12:18 PM, said:

So the group of guys that want to play together in a coordinated fashion, that already suffer a significant tonnage penalty, should be further penalized so you can play with your one buddy? Doesnt seem like a great balancing idea in the slightest.

By moving 5+ man teams to faction warfare the only weight they have to worry about is the drop weight each person has individually. If PGI used 4 man groups for group queue then they could balance whatever weight they wanted for that too (I'd say 300 tons or so).

Solo queue can stay solo queue imo, it's the public group queue that needs changes so that small groups can shine.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Bud Crue, on 03 January 2017 - 09:11 AM, said:

Wait...you're complaining about groups, playing as groups in the group queue of Quick play?

I...um...I don't know how to address that.

If you weren't such a brat about it, then you would have commented on the inability of new players to join a 2 man group with their friend who's trying to hook them on MWO for the first time, but have nowhere to get away from 12-man groups.

But, no. No such luck. In the future, it would be nice to see you try supporting the NPE instead of leaving it how it is.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Prosperity Park, on 03 January 2017 - 01:48 PM, said:

But, no. No such luck. In the future, it would be nice to see you try supporting the NPE instead of leaving it how it is.

Limiting group queue to only 4-mans isn't the answer you seek either though. The goal for NPE should never be to sacrifice something for hardcore players.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Barantor, on 03 January 2017 - 01:45 PM, said:

I'm not talking about soloists going against four mans, I'm talking making the group queue 4 man tops. Soloists would still have solo queue with no changes. This is moving groups bigger than 4 to faction warfare which is where everyone says 'end game' is supposed to be.

4 man is my pick because it fills a lance, a designation already in the game as is. Four people have been an industry norm since back when Gauntlet was in the arcade, it's a fair number.



Groups larger than 4 in my idea would still be able to play faction play to their hearts content. The only thing that prevents that now is if someone you want to group with is clan when you are IS and vice versa.



By moving 5+ man teams to faction warfare the only weight they have to worry about is the drop weight each person has individually. If PGI used 4 man groups for group queue then they could balance whatever weight they wanted for that too (I'd say 300 tons or so).

Solo queue can stay solo queue imo, it's the public group queue that needs changes so that small groups can shine.

Ah I gotcha Barantor.

Well, forcing all groups 5+ into FP only leaves alot to be desired as well, since alot of players want to play QP....quicker matches, quicker rewards, no respawn etc. So, I can't really agree with that option either.

And again, 4 is just an arbitrary # selected that you happen to like because it fits lore and has worked in other games. Like I mentioned....no cap has worked in other games as well. Neither is evidence that points towards a solution here.

I personally enjoy QP quite a bit (solo, small group, large group) and it has alot of different nuances across those three portions of the gaming spectrum. Very different experiences.

Really, this entire thread is debating the issue from some wildly different focus items and that's distracting from the ultimate issues at hand.

If you want to change group queue to protect small groups from larger groups, there are tools to grow your group. It wouldn't shouldn't be on the larger groups to be further penalized or cut out to make room for the smaller. And it's going to lead to exploitation anyway.

If you want to change group queue to protect the new player experience well THAT's an entirely different issue altogether. One that I'd argue has less to do with group queue and more to do with how new players are introduced to group QP altogether, which is unfortunately limited by our smaller population base.

If it's the latter, I think a progression that includes a better tutorial, co-op training grounds, mentor observed/advised (not necessarily played with) smaller modes, additional c-bill revenue streams to get more than 1-2 medium mechs into your stable, ramping up to a tiered and tightly controlled 4v4, 6v6 mode before gatewaying a player into "open group queue," is a much better idea than simply capping group queue at four mechs and disenfranchising a large and vocal portion of the player base. Especially considering the exodus of players previously. Capping the group queue at 4 (or 6 or whatever arbitrary #) does not necessarily protect the NPE really.

Edited by Lukoi Banacek, 03 January 2017 - 02:00 PM.