425 replies to this topic

[Sjorpha]

Regarding split queue:

I don't see any magical design that would make a split queue work without huge wait times.

The problem with a strict solo/group spit is that some solos are really needed to make the building of teams in FP work, most groups are not nice even 12s or numbers that add nicely together to 12, so a few solos are almost always a part of the teams. Strict group/solo split works in quick play because there is a lot more people playing there, but even then wait times in group queue are very painful a lot of the time.

So the reason I'm guessing PGI went with trying the Unit/nonunit model in phase 3 was precisely to allow for some solos in the "group queue" (one man units) bacause they understood that it would never work with only groups.

I want the pugstomps to stop as much as anyone but I simply do not see a model presented here that wouldn't result in either a dead solo queue like PGIs model led to or a dysfunctional group queue because there are no solos to oil the team building machinery.

I have an alternative solution though:

What I would like to see instead of a split queue is a mandatory amount of grouped up players in each team. Each team should have a group of at least 4+ or two groups of 3+ or whatever configurations seem reasonable as the minimum, and then solo pugs should be used to fill in the gaps and complete the teams.

So pure solo pug teams should never constructed. This would increase the chances of some coordination in every team since the largest group on the team naturally feel responsible for calling the match, and solos could still play and have a better experience because they would always run alongside at least one group that they could look to for direction. Worst case the group doesn't communicate a lot but then at least the pugs can tag along with the group best they can.

I think this would improve match quality by a mile and keep wait times acceptable most of the times.

[PFC Carsten]

Leggin Ho, on 10 June 2017 - 05:49 PM, said:

You can post your faction rank, means about as much as the Tier system, that you have played enough drop at some point to get the points for it, my point since you missed it is that if you don't play the mode you sure do like to complain about it, are there things in FP that drive me nuts, yep sure are but I did not take the weak way out and stop playing to come here and play "Forum Warrior" online, I've ran PL leagues as well as other ladders and seen just what your asking for happen and it drives players away because when they get their "safe" space the hard reality is that there are still sharks there better then them so they leave anyway.

I'd love to see Mischief's idea put in so you can watch them run from there after still getting face stomped by un-tagged folks and alt account so please get PGi to so that with the QP maps.

You tried to discredit my opinion based on that I do not appear in the current Faction Play Leaderboard.
I explained to you why that is the case.

And yes, I wholeheartedly agree with you that points do not say anything about someone's ability to be a functioning and precious part of the team. Even guys with sub-1 KDR can be very valuable in teamplay. The more I think about it, the more I am confused why people would look up other peoples stats in the leaderboards.

Oh, and talking of terribads, who "ruin" your faction play: Just came from a match with someone from the renowned unit [EV...] ruining a QP match with his LRM80-SNV.... spreading damage left and right to no effect.

Edited by PFC Carsten, 11 June 2017 - 04:30 AM.

[MischiefSC]

MadBadger, on 10 June 2017 - 06:45 PM, said:

A couple of points:

-"Put FP content into solo QP" seems to ignore the fact that dropdecks are a part of many FP map designs, and building/managing drop decks is a fairly important part of FP.

-"They already did a solo queue, it failed, etc etc". The 'Keep FP pure" crowd somehow gets it wrong time after time, that they didn't implement a solo queue, they implemented a unit tag/no tag queue. They then cancelled it in less than a week, while having several other issues ongoing (player dissatisfaction over Long Tom's, queues also split into a totally new Scout mode, etc.) Then they ran the event after re-merging the queues. This wasn't an experiment, it was an embarrassment.

All the reactionary rhetoric and hair splitting over (frequently incorrect) issues won't do a thing to help FP become more viable. Some changes might not work out, but one thing is fairly sure: no change means things stay the same, ie., a fairly empty 'end-game' mode.

"Re-coding FP into a decent mode with better maps and real strategy and wonderful features like they promised us" isn't an option. They didn't do it then, they aren't going to do it now.

Either we try to get behind some sort of change that at least has a chance, if run with a few FP events in series, of bringing some new blood into the mode, or you can all sit back and watch your 'end-game hard mode' die a lingering death.

Last thought: there's a reason you don't train minor leagues by sending them up against triple-A teams. There's a reason you don't match lightweights against heavyweights in boxing. We need the simplest possible solution to 'make matches somewhat more fair' in FP or basically forget about it. Anything more complicated isn't likely to be given even a half-azzed shot by PGI.

So you opt into the 'FW' QP. The point is that it isn't part of the regular FW, it's not impacting planets and it's mixed IS/Clans. This gives it the MM, fast queue times and solves a ton of issues for puggles.

Trying to make a lightweight division in FW is essentially just watering down the game mode to be QP anyway. Why screw up FW when you can just add the content to QP? One isn't really more difficult than the other.

[Scyther]

@MischiefSC:
That pretty much works out to a selectable 'practice' FP mode. It could be done for C-bills / Exp rewards but no loyalty points, which should mean you wouldn't even need to be in a faction to do it. Since it's just IS vs Clan it would depend on your drop deck not faction. You could set up a drop deck of each and drop for either side (in QP mode) just by selecting the proper deck.

(Edit: reread your 'mixed IS/Clans' comment, which I misread first pass. While I don't see any reason not to do it, it would lead to some interesting drop decks. OTOH, it wouldn't really be training players for actual IS vs Clan mechanics. I think it would be better, if it were ever to be done, to leave it as IS vs Clan and you just select your drop deck like you currently select a mech, then hit 'Faction Play Training' button.)

I think that would be a worthy option to try, although I suspect that 'in effect' it would end up splitting both the solo QP and regular FP queues.

In the long run it would probably lead to players being less 'newbie' when entering FP, and also potentially providing a 'recruiting ground' for unit-FP players and up-and-comers to meet and evaluate each other. So can't see how it would have any 'bad' effects aside from possible queue attrition.

(As far as coding goes though, I honestly don't see PGI putting in the effort to create a separate, drop-deck, FP mode without FP rewards for QP practice.)

Edited by MadBadger, 11 June 2017 - 07:58 AM.

[Insanity09]

The current group queue does not allow solos, at all. That's why no group size of eleven can drop, there would be no way to fill in the last spot. If there was a group/solo queue spilt, there would most definitely need to be a FW specific LFG list. (the faction chat is not a suitable method there)

You do present an interesting idea, Sjorpha, but I'm not certain how useful it would be. I'm sorry to fault find a creative solution, but...

Would each team need comparable group involvement? I.e., if team A has a group of 8, team B must have a group of 8? (or perhaps 2 groups of 4? a 6 and a 2?)
If yes on that, it would certainly be a step towards leveling the playing field. However, I'd expect wait times to be horrendous, as the matchmaker struggled to put equivalent teams together.
If no, then you might have teams of 4 grouped with 8 solos matched against a 12 man, which is really no different from now, so all the benefit is lost.

Assuming yes to the issue above, if your suggestion could be done without a large impact to wait times, then I'd say it would be worthwhile to try. (many people seem to be worried about this, based on a number of posts in this thread and elsewhere).

But then, I want to try something to get the population up for longer than the duration of an event.

[naterist]

Allow me to break it down. There is neither enough people, nor enough willpower, to get a que consistently filled with top teir players all in groups. More emphasis on willpower there. A magic que made up of the units playground will never work. The closest i think youll find is mrbc, MAYBE, and thats a huge maybe, comp que will turn out to be something closer to that, but i doubt it.

So what is the solution? Well its the same as any other problem. First stop it from getting worse. That means splitting the ques. After that you need to worry about making it better, which means doing all the cool stuff to help it be more interesting. So how does splitting ques do that?

1st- it slows or stops people from leaving (it also sets up for part 3 of problem solving

2nd- you improve the deficiencies in fw so that people show up continuously and are atracted

3rd- you set up an in game mechanic that helps a)keep up a flow of heads, then allows people to make the shift from solo que to a grouped que and get them joining units, and you make that an ingame process.


Yall wanna skip part 1 and forget about 3, but thats a surefire way to fail. Also, you want people to just inherently join units and whatnot, but when grouping up requires 3rd party software to be effective, then it just isnt going to happen in the numbers you want/need. Cap the problem, then fix its underlying issues. Dont do it backwards.

[Deathlike]

naterist, on 11 June 2017 - 12:51 PM, said:

Allow me to break it down. There is neither enough people, nor enough willpower, to get a que consistently filled with top teir players all in groups. More emphasis on willpower there. A magic que made up of the units playground will never work. The closest i think youll find is mrbc, MAYBE, and thats a huge maybe, comp que will turn out to be something closer to that, but i doubt it.

So what is the solution? Well its the same as any other problem. First stop it from getting worse. That means splitting the ques. After that you need to worry about making it better, which means doing all the cool stuff to help it be more interesting. So how does splitting ques do that?

1st- it slows or stops people from leaving (it also sets up for part 3 of problem solving

2nd- you improve the deficiencies in fw so that people show up continuously and are atracted

3rd- you set up an in game mechanic that helps a)keep up a flow of heads, then allows people to make the shift from solo que to a grouped que and get them joining units, and you make that an ingame process.


Yall wanna skip part 1 and forget about 3, but thats a surefire way to fail. Also, you want people to just inherently join units and whatnot, but when grouping up requires 3rd party software to be effective, then it just isnt going to happen in the numbers you want/need. Cap the problem, then fix its underlying issues. Dont do it backwards.

Splitting very little to create even fewer players does not solve what you think would solve.

As soon as there's a moment of queue struggles is when said solo queue will self-empty due to wait times (usually on the side, IS or Clan that has less active players).

Even the flawed experiment in Phase 3 is the hint, and it's not like you made CW/FP more attractive in a very significant manner on that idea alone. The idea on its own merits works better if there was a healthy system in operation.... but that's not the case.

Edited by Deathlike, 11 June 2017 - 06:09 PM.

[James Argent]

If people are going to 'self-empty' a solo queue, they'll have to group up. To do this on a regular basis would require communication and adherence to teamwork so that they can remain in the group. Heck, after a while they might even join a unit! How is this a bad thing to everyone who keeps saying that PUGs are terrible because they don't group up, communicate, and use teamwork?

[Husker Dude]

Sjorpha, on 11 June 2017 - 04:09 AM, said:

I have an alternative solution though:

What I would like to see instead of a split queue is a mandatory amount of grouped up players in each team. Each team should have a group of at least 4+ or two groups of 3+ or whatever configurations seem reasonable as the minimum, and then solo pugs should be used to fill in the gaps and complete the teams.

I feel like my idea is a step beyond this, but I question whether it could work based on the existing population:

Force having a full 12-man group to drop.
Many/most units aren't able to field a full 12 pilots at the same time to drop, so they'd be forced to pick up new players from the LFG pool. This ensures that new players are dropping with at least the semblance of an existing team and get acclimated to what they're supposed to do and not do, and would hopefully increase recruitment by units. It would also give solo players in excess of filling out existing groups the incentive to start their own networking with other players to ensure a drop, though based on Phase 3 when all solos just sat in defense queues unopposed, I'm sure this part is pipe dream-ish
In the event that a player is excessively un-mutual in his team play, they'll become increasingly unlikely to be picked up by groups.

Edited by Husker Dude, 12 June 2017 - 09:22 AM.

[MischiefSC]

naterist, on 11 June 2017 - 12:51 PM, said:

Allow me to break it down. There is neither enough people, nor enough willpower, to get a que consistently filled with top teir players all in groups. More emphasis on willpower there. A magic que made up of the units playground will never work. The closest i think youll find is mrbc, MAYBE, and thats a huge maybe, comp que will turn out to be something closer to that, but i doubt it.

So what is the solution? Well its the same as any other problem. First stop it from getting worse. That means splitting the ques. After that you need to worry about making it better, which means doing all the cool stuff to help it be more interesting. So how does splitting ques do that?

1st- it slows or stops people from leaving (it also sets up for part 3 of problem solving

2nd- you improve the deficiencies in fw so that people show up continuously and are atracted

3rd- you set up an in game mechanic that helps a)keep up a flow of heads, then allows people to make the shift from solo que to a grouped que and get them joining units, and you make that an ingame process.


Yall wanna skip part 1 and forget about 3, but thats a surefire way to fail. Also, you want people to just inherently join units and whatnot, but when grouping up requires 3rd party software to be effective, then it just isnt going to happen in the numbers you want/need. Cap the problem, then fix its underlying issues. Dont do it backwards.

Actually if we were doing as well as MRBC we'd be in a good place. 78 teams of 8 signed up this seasons. That would be 26 teams per cycle (euro/na/oceanic), 13 on each side. And that's just the people in teams who signed up for MRBC.

I want to be clear here, there's absolutely more than enough players in teams in MWO who like teamwork gameplay to fill FW. No question. There's just no good depth or purpose to draw people to FW for more than a bit more complex version of QP. You fix that, you give FW the depth and purpose it was supposed to have and you'd fill FW up with unit players.

[Scyther]

I honestly don't see how 624 people signing up for comp play means there are "absolutely more than enough team players to fill FW"? Or to encourage PGI to add depth/purpose to FP?

Comp play isn't faction play. Comp players are playing to compete against other comp teams for potential prizes, recognition, and high level challenge. It's apples and oranges.

I'd love to see FP get developed more, but without any way to attract and retain new players it's a niche of a niche. You can afford development for 'niche-squared' clients if you're selling Ferraris. Not so much if you're selling subscriptions.

[Deathlike]

James Argent, on 12 June 2017 - 06:07 AM, said:

If people are going to 'self-empty' a solo queue, they'll have to group up. To do this on a regular basis would require communication and adherence to teamwork so that they can remain in the group. Heck, after a while they might even join a unit! How is this a bad thing to everyone who keeps saying that PUGs are terrible because they don't group up, communicate, and use teamwork?

This doesn't even happen regularly in the solo queue in quick play. The trend is very likely to continue if such a queue exists for FP/CW.

[50 50]

Maybe there is an alternative way to do the split queue.

We could slow down the whole attack phase process to a weekly event and set it up so that during the week, Monday to Friday, it's more about scouting and raiding and setting up the mode for the invasion on the weekend.
During the week it could be solo queue only and just on the quick play maps and modes.
The weekends become more of an event where the groups can compete to capture the planets and here it's only group queue and siege mode.

There is still a couple of problems with it, but there are also a couple of advantages.
Would that work?

[Deathlike]

50 50, on 12 June 2017 - 06:38 PM, said:

Maybe there is an alternative way to do the split queue.

We could slow down the whole attack phase process to a weekly event and set it up so that during the week, Monday to Friday, it's more about scouting and raiding and setting up the mode for the invasion on the weekend.
During the week it could be solo queue only and just on the quick play maps and modes.
The weekends become more of an event where the groups can compete to capture the planets and here it's only group queue and siege mode.

There is still a couple of problems with it, but there are also a couple of advantages.
Would that work?

Functionally, it could work... a problem that comes up is the availability of some players to accomplish the main event (not everyone will have weekends free - there surely will be more availability there though) as Scouting compared to Invasion/Siege... but that still doesn't change Invasion/Siege as an undesirable mode. I mean you can set the bribes for the weekends, but it will get tired fast if/when the bribes are pathetic for a particular week.

For instance, the shooting down UAV challenge doesn't interest me at all this week due to the silly requirements involved (is it worth spending time looking to shoot down UAVs instead of shooting mechs - especially 30 of them? Good luck with that).

Edited by Deathlike, 12 June 2017 - 07:44 PM.

[Kin3ticX]

Scout Derek, on 27 May 2017 - 06:18 PM, said:

You see this? This is the result when you combine two premades that are really good against below average pugs. This is the result. It's bad, really bad. I don't like stomping them like that, it's so wrong. I was thinking this the following match after I played it. Absolutely annihilated them, and I felt bad because I knew that some on that side would never return to Faction Play most likely after going into 5 battles like that.


So here's what I think what should be the limit to entering faction play in order to make a better playing field of sorts for both pugs and units (albeit we will have the good units still stomp the pugs, it won't be as bad)


- You must have played for at least 1 month before being able to play Faction Play

- You must own 4 mechs before playing (as in, purchased and in the mech bay, with the new skill tree this should not give people any issues and a chance to actually use mechs they're good at instead of being cheap or new and using champions and gimping their own team)

- You must be Tier 2 at least ( I know I know, this sounds redundant as far as tiers matching up players of similar skill, but this is to prevent those who are still in tier 4 and 5 from entering Faction Play and getting wrecked hard)


I feel like that with the start of this idea, we can prevent crap like this from happening. What say you?

Whats happening is that players are suffering brain failures in what I consider a somewhat easy gamemode full of PvE like targets to farm.

However, PGI has also delivered a lackluster(putting it nicely) CW product in which the original vision was never achieved and then abandoned.

I tend to blame the developer before the player. Healthy community size helps to prevent the talent pool from drying up and we cant get the players because of the niche product and the unpopular status of the mode.

When I say unpopular, I really mean it because it tends to be something you never see on Twitch with more than 10 viewers. Thats not the be all end all but its an indication of something significant.

Edited by Kin3ticX, 12 June 2017 - 08:57 PM.

[50 50]

Deathlike, on 12 June 2017 - 07:43 PM, said:

Functionally, it could work... a problem that comes up is the availability of some players to accomplish the main event (not everyone will have weekends free - there surely will be more availability there though) as Scouting compared to Invasion/Siege... but that still doesn't change Invasion/Siege as an undesirable mode. I mean you can set the bribes for the weekends, but it will get tired fast if/when the bribes are pathetic for a particular week.

For instance, the shooting down UAV challenge doesn't interest me at all this week due to the silly requirements involved (is it worth spending time looking to shoot down UAVs instead of shooting mechs - especially 30 of them? Good luck with that).

There's certainly the option to dangle the carrot and try to bring more players into the mode like we do with the various weekend and leaderboard challenges.
However, if we simply had the format that during the week it's about the lead up, we get players fighting on different maps and modes and let that build up towards the weekend where that focus changes to the capture of the planet... or planets.
There doesn't need to be additional rewards for playing, but having the lead up and then the final fight creates a different structure to the mode. We know that come the weekend, it's time for planetary conquest.
It might be that the capture of the planet runs for the weekend and not just the smaller attack phases so more players have a chance to participate.

The good bits:
1. We get the solo v solo queue during the week that might help with player involvement.
2. All the players that don't like siege can play during the week and get used to drop decks and the longer game on modes they will be familiar with.
3. The big groups that love siege and fighting in the big groups have a weekend where they know that's what they will get.
4. Neither side is excluded from playing, but have the choice to knowingly participate or stay clear.

The bad bits:
1. It's a quick change to the format and doesn't really address the depth or appeal of the mode or fix some of the other issues like spawn camping or wait times.
2. There is the potential for sync dropping which could see one side get hammered, but if there are more games going and more players, the sync dropping gets harder. (I don't really have a problem with sync dropping mind you, I think it could be something that the call to arms could be used for to bring in more allies.)
3. Still not using a match maker, but I think we should ditch that idea in favour of visible lobbies and an open system anyway.

That's the line of thought.... I feel we could do so much better though and if we really want the mode to grow and become more popular, we need more drastic changes not 2 minute quick noodle fixes.

[Willard Phule]

Funny thing is, there's a way to throttle the new players coming into FW that actually makes sense....but PGI refuses to do anything about it.

The first, and most obvious, is to make the tutorial MANDATORY before joining. You simply can't queue up until you have the appropriate achievement. Yeah, I know, the tutorial is basically useless....but, it does teach you how to move forward and how to fire your weapons. And, believe it or not, at maximum potato level...even that's an issue.

The second is only allowing mechs you own. No trial mechs. And even though that would actually boost sales of mech packs, they still resist it.

Yeah, I know...population. But would you rather wait an extra 5-10 minutes for a match (we're already waiting 20+) consisting of people that at least have a clue or would you rather take your chances of dropping into yet another potato harvest? Personally, I'd rather just wait.

[James Argent]

Synch-dropping is not as big a deal as people make it out to be. Honestly, I hardly ever hear complaints about seeing two or three opponents from the same unit in a drop. It's when there's six or more that people start saying something. Because as is gleefully pointed out here at every opportunity, teamwork and communication tend to degrade with fewer people from the same group. Nobody's completely immune from that even with a big name unit tag. So good luck synch-dropping six into a solo queue...and if you can manage it, well played. It still won't be a ten to twelve man, and it won't happen every time.

[Deathlike]

50 50, on 13 June 2017 - 01:51 AM, said:

There's certainly the option to dangle the carrot and try to bring more players into the mode like we do with the various weekend and leaderboard challenges.
However, if we simply had the format that during the week it's about the lead up, we get players fighting on different maps and modes and let that build up towards the weekend where that focus changes to the capture of the planet... or planets.
There doesn't need to be additional rewards for playing, but having the lead up and then the final fight creates a different structure to the mode. We know that come the weekend, it's time for planetary conquest.
It might be that the capture of the planet runs for the weekend and not just the smaller attack phases so more players have a chance to participate.

The good bits:
1. We get the solo v solo queue during the week that might help with player involvement.
2. All the players that don't like siege can play during the week and get used to drop decks and the longer game on modes they will be familiar with.
3. The big groups that love siege and fighting in the big groups have a weekend where they know that's what they will get.
4. Neither side is excluded from playing, but have the choice to knowingly participate or stay clear.

The bad bits:
1. It's a quick change to the format and doesn't really address the depth or appeal of the mode or fix some of the other issues like spawn camping or wait times.
2. There is the potential for sync dropping which could see one side get hammered, but if there are more games going and more players, the sync dropping gets harder. (I don't really have a problem with sync dropping mind you, I think it could be something that the call to arms could be used for to bring in more allies.)
3. Still not using a match maker, but I think we should ditch that idea in favour of visible lobbies and an open system anyway.

That's the line of thought.... I feel we could do so much better though and if we really want the mode to grow and become more popular, we need more drastic changes not 2 minute quick noodle fixes.

The thing is, it is far easier to see people going to solo for Scouting instead of continuing to attempt dropping for Siege/Invasion if the wait is too long.

Basically, the outlet for solos as currently constituted is Scouting (and scouting has flaws, but not as egregious as Invasion/Siege is).

[A Cultist]

The poor online of FP made many experienced players reject it in favour of quick play. random players will learn that being in a unit is a key to victory, is that bad?