61 replies to this topic

[Jman5]

Mystere, on 13 January 2017 - 12:33 PM, said:

What about finally allowing solos who are inclined to do so into the group queue?

This.

Before the argument PGI made was that it would hurt the matchmaker for solo queue. However since at least December, the matchmaker seems much more flexible. Allowing group queue to pluck a maximum of 1 solo player per team into the group queue would improve the MM speed, improve tonnage, improve skill disparity, and allow for 11-man groups. Since you're only bringing in a maximum of 2 players per game, it would have a neglible impact on the solo queue.

[Racerxintegra2k]

MGA121285, on 13 January 2017 - 12:40 PM, said:

1st) Sorry for off-topic but WOOOHOOO! 1st reason to log on site and in game after 'new year vocations challenges' ends!
2nd) As for me - keep 2-man groups as less restricted is great thing! And overall idea of lower group power is good....Now just split queues for FP(CW) for two (single-player and 2-man groups and others) and it will be done, if we are talking about group balance.

P.S. Groups wins not by tonnage but via coordination, that's why lower tonnage per member is good.

It takes a long time for a group to acquire enough coordination for a group of mediums to beat a group of assaults/heavies. Not all groups are good, nor do they aspire to be much more than friends getting together to play the game in the same TS channel. These players are the ones that are being hurt by this. Casual players with friends, way to try and break up the bonds of friendship PGI.

[C E Dwyer]

P

Bud Crue, on 13 January 2017 - 12:06 PM, said:

I believe this is yet another effort to drive groups to CW. Its the only thing I can think of to "justify" this.

More likely to drive teams into other games I think you mean. Many groups of people hang together and form friendships that evolve into multiple platforms.

Pointless changes, further evidence P.G.I don't understand their game, don't care about quality, and continue to listen to the people that are incapable of socialising, and only want to play their way, and then scream until the games made easier and easier until it is.

[Mystere]

MGA121285, on 13 January 2017 - 12:40 PM, said:

2nd) As for me - keep 2-man groups as less restricted is great thing! And overall idea of lower group power is good....Now just split queues for FP(CW) for two (single-player and 2-man groups and others) and it will be done, if we are talking about group balance.

Any form of matchmaking -- unless it's a player-controlled activity in a broad campaign system -- is the last thing I want to happen.

I'd prefer Sol going supernova first. <shrugs>

Edited by Mystere, 13 January 2017 - 12:49 PM.

[Void Angel]

Colonel ONeill, on 13 January 2017 - 11:28 AM, said:

Why? The tonnage for bigger groups was already low. I expected the opposite.

To be fair, a lot of the problem was that smaller groups had such a tonnage advantage that the coordination advantage of larger groups wasn't enough to keep pace. It could be that whatever metrics they're looking for (diversity of tonnages, etc) is where they want it to be in larger teams, and they feel that the possibility of your 10-man running into three pairs of Kodiaks on the enemy team was the root of the tonnage balance issues in group queue.

In other words, if they're happy with the results of large-team tonnages, it makes sense to address the problem by reducing the proportional tonnage advantage of smaller teams.

[Void Angel]

Mystere, on 13 January 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

Any form of matchmaking -- unless it's a player-controlled activity in a broad campaign system -- is the last thing I want to happen.

I'd prefer Sol going supernova first. <shrugs>

Not to mention that Faction Play's actual gameplay needs work, the testing of which benefits greatly from not splitting the player base - which we have been told by PGI isn't big enough to sustain two separate queues. So focusing on tertiary issues like who's playing against whom in Faction Play is kind of shortsighted: after all, if we get enough players actively playing, we can split the queues - but if the population is too low, it's not an option.

PS: Bad news - the sun isn't massive enough to go supernova. Sorry.

[Peiper]

Need to go back to 3/3/3/3. This won't solve the 12 man groups going up against a dozen assault mechs in 2 man groups, will it? 3/3/3/3 will enforce variety, which should be the goal, I think.

[Lucius Dominus]

Prosperity Park, on 13 January 2017 - 12:28 PM, said:

Group play is the only way we can bring a friend into the game for a First Time Experience with a buddy.

Anything that makes 2-man groups more viable against premades is good for the New Player Experience, and thus in the game's best interests.

If you are tired of your team being mauled by 2 man's, then play Community Warfare where team size has no effect on weight.

Amen

or PGI could setup a private lobby queue.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Peiper, on 13 January 2017 - 01:05 PM, said:

Need to go back to 3/3/3/3. This won't solve the 12 man groups going up against a dozen assault mechs in 2 man groups, will it? 3/3/3/3 will enforce variety, which should be the goal, I think.

yea, but supposedly it would restrict players and teams in a never really proved sorta way.

I would go back to sandpits, fallacious threads but I don't want a migraine

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 13 January 2017 - 01:31 PM.

[Mawai]

Consider this from a larger perspective ...

When you drop in a large group in the group queue do you usually win? If you win 30 out of 40 matches ... losing 10 matches because the other team has more tonnage and perhaps better aim than average ... then you realize it is NOT balanced right?

Now consider that PGI can collate all of the following data
- win/loss rate by group size and actual group tonnage over every group queue match ever made. This will generate a series of curves showing win/loss as a function of group size and tonnage.

So ... what happens if PGI then looks at these curves and picks the tonnage for each group size where the W/L fraction = 50%. This gives the tonnage as a function of group size that will on average give a 50/50 change of winning under average conditions. A good, well coordinated group will win more often ... a not so good group will win less often.

PGI could extend the analysis looking at the average group size and tonnage distribution on the opposing teams correlated with the W/L data. This would give information on the effects of coordination (group size) and opposing tonnage. It could give information like how often a 5 to 7 man group actually faces another 5 to 7 man group.

Anyway, most of these statistics could be generated by data mining match results with appropriate scripts that would likely take less than a week to develop. Hopefully, PGI has done something like this to come up with the new group tonnage numbers. (On the other hand, from experience, I don't have that much faith in PGI actually doing some sort of analysis to figure something out when they can talk about it and come up with some numbers based on how they "feel" and "feedback" from whoever shouts loudest on twitter ).

[Racerxintegra2k]

Mawai, on 13 January 2017 - 01:39 PM, said:

Consider this from a larger perspective ...

When you drop in a large group in the group queue do you usually win? If you win 30 out of 40 matches ... losing 10 matches because the other team has more tonnage and perhaps better aim than average ... then you realize it is NOT balanced right?

Now consider that PGI can collate all of the following data
- win/loss rate by group size and actual group tonnage over every group queue match ever made. This will generate a series of curves showing win/loss as a function of group size and tonnage.

So ... what happens if PGI then looks at these curves and picks the tonnage for each group size where the W/L fraction = 50%. This gives the tonnage as a function of group size that will on average give a 50/50 change of winning under average conditions. A good, well coordinated group will win more often ... a not so good group will win less often.

PGI could extend the analysis looking at the average group size and tonnage distribution on the opposing teams correlated with the W/L data. This would give information on the effects of coordination (group size) and opposing tonnage. It could give information like how often a 5 to 7 man group actually faces another 5 to 7 man group.

Anyway, most of these statistics could be generated by data mining match results with appropriate scripts that would likely take less than a week to develop. Hopefully, PGI has done something like this to come up with the new group tonnage numbers. (On the other hand, from experience, I don't have that much faith in PGI actually doing some sort of analysis to figure something out when they can talk about it and come up with some numbers based on how they "feel" and "feedback" from whoever shouts loudest on twitter ).

This would make sense if all groups of the same size also had the same level of Coordination and skill. Groups vary as much if not more than individuals in ability.

[BluefireMW]

Peiper, on 13 January 2017 - 01:05 PM, said:

Need to go back to 3/3/3/3. This won't solve the 12 man groups going up against a dozen assault mechs in 2 man groups, will it? 3/3/3/3 will enforce variety, which should be the goal, I think.

hey Russ won't do the group weight limit as it should be, then we go back to something he likes.. .
It's just not working because Russ doesn't want it to work.
Group weight was not his child and he didn't ever liked it.
But in the rest of the world of Battletech and Mechwarrior it worked well to restrict 2 Players to 120t.
Tournaments always had that to make sure, that you can use 2 mechs with all possible tonnage values.
And it's simple to calculate that so 1 Player=60t.

And i guess the reason now the tonnage is going down, is, that it is time for the good ones to leave this game and let it the people who are so bad, that they are not able to match anything, that can shoot straight,

The Players who like this game initially have put the money into the game and are not willing to do so anymore. New Players, are possible willing to pay something.

[Toaster Repair Pony]

Peiper, on 13 January 2017 - 01:05 PM, said:

Need to go back to 3/3/3/3. This won't solve the 12 man groups going up against a dozen assault mechs in 2 man groups, will it? 3/3/3/3 will enforce variety, which should be the goal, I think.

Keep that 3333 crap away, FAR AWAY!

That was the most annoying match making PGI had thus far.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Toaster Repair Pony, on 13 January 2017 - 01:49 PM, said:

Keep that 3333 crap away, FAR AWAY! That was the most annoying match making PGI had thus far.

I actually agree but actually will go into more depth than just a eww response. The MM would never really gotten 3/3/3/3 right most of the time simply because of the nature of the algorithm. Its way to difficult to match perfectly all of the time, or even as close as possible that strict standard. Given if the allowed no room the MM would take forever to find matches.

what if you had a group of 7? imagine finding other groups to fill that 12 all the while matching the tonnage. What a mess

[MovinTarget]

Jman5, on 13 January 2017 - 12:44 PM, said:

This.

Before the argument PGI made was that it would hurt the matchmaker for solo queue. However since at least December, the matchmaker seems much more flexible. Allowing group queue to pluck a maximum of 1 solo player per team into the group queue would improve the MM speed, improve tonnage, improve skill disparity, and allow for 11-man groups. Since you're only bringing in a maximum of 2 players per game, it would have a neglible impact on the solo queue.

Can't wait for 8 solo kodiaks and a 4 man to face a 12man with a 500-600ton advantage...

[Crockdaddy]

Prosperity Park, on 13 January 2017 - 12:28 PM, said:

Group play is the only way we can bring a friend into the game for a First Time Experience with a buddy.

Anything that makes 2-man groups more viable against premades is good for the New Player Experience, and thus in the game's best interests.

If you are tired of your team being mauled by 2 man's, then play Community Warfare where team size has no effect on weight.

One of the more fail posts I've read in a while.

[Gas Guzzler]

Crockdaddy, on 13 January 2017 - 02:19 PM, said:

One of the more fail posts I've read in a while.

Should we do some more Dragon Slayer carrying in a 2-man this weekend?

[Crockdaddy]

MovinTarget, on 13 January 2017 - 02:10 PM, said:

Can't wait for 8 solo kodiaks and a 4 man to face a 12man with a 500-600ton advantage...

When low on tonnage and in a bigger group just go full fast brawl. Typically you will win most matches. Use some cover work as a team. Plenty of options. I do admit it does sometimes make it nearly impossible to beat large groups of assaults when run by a competent OPFOR ... but it can be done most of the time.

[MovinTarget]

Crockdaddy, on 13 January 2017 - 02:31 PM, said:

When low on tonnage and in a bigger group just go full fast brawl. Typically you will win most matches. Use some cover work as a team. Plenty of options. I do admit it does sometimes make it nearly impossible to beat large groups of assaults when run by a competent OPFOR ... but it can be done most of the time.

I'm not saying its ubeatable, I'm questioning that if that happens.... would it be working as intended?

[Cy Mitchell]

Crockdaddy, on 13 January 2017 - 02:31 PM, said:

When low on tonnage and in a bigger group just go full fast brawl. Typically you will win most matches. Use some cover work as a team. Plenty of options. I do admit it does sometimes make it nearly impossible to beat large groups of assaults when run by a competent OPFOR ... but it can be done most of the time.

Watched a stream of a 12 man GB unit (ARC, I think) do this against 2,3,4, 5, 6 player groups over and over a couple mornings back. I think they went 5 straight GP wins before finally loosing their first match. They ran all Mediums and were always at a huge weight disadvantage. Pretty sure much of it is on Youtube somewhere now.