831 replies to this topic

[El Bandito]

Sedmeister, on 13 September 2018 - 05:38 PM, said:

I say no for the following reasons. There has been a significant change in the player population. The skill level and build quality of mechs in QP has deteriorated in the last 12 months.

In a team of 12, if there are one or two poor builds and/or one of two low skilled players, the large number of players means that the combination of better skills/builds has some chance of carrying the team. So 2 out of 12 like 16%.

If you reduce the team to 8 players the one or two poor builds/skilled players now becomes closer to 25%. It is harder to carry that kind of handicap.

12 players make it that little bit easier.

Except more players per team = more potential scrubs per team. There are 3-4 baddies in 12v12 as opposed to 1-2 in 8v8. 12v12 DOES NOT offer advantage in that regards.

I really wish people can realize the fact that % wise baddies will remain the same. In fact 12v12 are likely to have more baddies % wise since MM is harder pressed to fill out the teams in 12v12, and is more likely to find complete scrubs to round up the roster.

I personally rather carry 1-2 scrubs than 3-4 scrubs in SQ. Which means 8v8 has my vote.

Edited by El Bandito, 28 September 2018 - 02:58 AM.

[RJF Volkodav]

Make players count dynamic i.e. 8v8, 9v9... 12v12 and return matchmaking by ELO. That could greatly help for both SoloQ and GroupQ and make matches much more interesting along with reducing wait times.

1) Try to match 12v12 according max ELO diference.
2) Reduce size to 11v11 and try to match teams according max ELO diference.
...
5) Reduce size to 8v8 and try to match teams according max ELO diference.
6) Increase max ELO diference and go to p.1

Edited by RJF Volkodav, 28 September 2018 - 03:54 AM.

[NocturnalBeast]

RJF Volkodav, on 28 September 2018 - 03:53 AM, said:

Make players count dynamic i.e. 8v8, 9v9... 12v12 and return matchmaking by ELO. That could greatly help for both SoloQ and GroupQ and make matches much more interesting along with reducing wait times.

1) Try to match 12v12 according max ELO diference.
2) Reduce size to 11v11 and try to match teams according max ELO diference.
...
5) Reduce size to 8v8 and try to match teams according max ELO diference.
6) Increase max ELO diference and go to p.1

Yes, this is a good suggestion, similar to how Blizzard does "Flex Raids" in World Of Warcraft.

[Dungeon 206]

PGI.

the state of QP games now is revoltingly bad.
looking at dmg scores and match scores in a tier 1 game is truly shocking half the time.
i can only imagine its because the MM frequently opens up to include players from tier 4 and 5 because of low numbers.
while this results in less wait time, its NOT enjoyable to play at all (which is why so many players have left in the first place!!)
its not just weapon imbalance that ruins the game. its also the quality of the teammates.
no one like playing with team mates who have a vastly different skill level.


here are 2 solutions:

1. Short Term Solution - Change QP to 8v8.
this reduces the need for the MM to open up to more tiers, and thereby reduces the player skill imbalance.

2. Long Term Solution - Reset tier system according to skill / match score.
We've been asking for this for a LONG time already.
Reset the Tier system and make it so that the system can move you up and down tiers based on your average match score.
when match score becomes constant, thats the right tier to be in.


PLEASE PGI.
its a really horrible experience to play QP most days now.
So many players, even pros, have left.
FIX THIS

[justcallme A S H]

El Bandito, on 28 September 2018 - 02:54 AM, said:

Except more players per team = more potential scrubs per team. There are 3-4 baddies in 12v12 as opposed to 1-2 in 8v8. 12v12 DOES NOT offer advantage in that regards.

I really wish people can realize the fact that % wise baddies will remain the same. In fact 12v12 are likely to have more baddies % wise since MM is harder pressed to fill out the teams in 12v12, and is more likely to find complete scrubs to round up the roster.

More players or potential for average players means little.

It's simple to look at. If there are 1-2 good players per match in 12 v 12 (which is about the norm), it's actually harder to carry as the good player has to do MORE to have a GREATER affect on a match.

8 v 8 - means a good player will have more effect on a match, not less. Their damage output requirement is less over time.



12 v 12 would be find IF and I say IF - PSR is actually fixed and teams are balanced based on ELO. Rather than have say HammerColeman & Myself on the same team constantly - ie 2 nights ago we were same team a lot - resulting in piles of 12-2. If we are against each other the potential for a closer match is higher. Granted it wont always happen because people with 170 average match score make it into Tier 1 when they should never make it past Tier 4 - but that is the 2nd part that needs addressing.

Either way 8 v 8 is not going to improve match quality.

[El Bandito]

justcallme A S H, on 25 October 2018 - 05:16 PM, said:

More players or potential for average players means little.

It's simple to look at. If there are 1-2 good players per match in 12 v 12 (which is about the norm), it's actually harder to carry as the good player has to do MORE to have a GREATER affect on a match.

8 v 8 - means a good player will have more effect on a match, not less. Their damage output requirement is less over time.

You do realize that you are agreeing with me with this comment, right? I do want 8v8 because it is easier for me to make more difference.

Edited by El Bandito, 25 October 2018 - 09:11 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

I think it's you who doesn't realise.

Im not agreeing because 1 player making that much difference causes even more imbalance than what we have. Fix what we have (PSR). Dont give us something even more broken.

I mean Paul said it won't happen, so that's good at least.

[Tarl Cabot]

El Bandito, on 25 October 2018 - 09:10 PM, said:

You do realize that you are agreeing with me with this comment, right? I do want 8v8 because it is easier for me to make more difference.

If you play primarily heavies and assaults, quite possibly. It also means if the team ends up with 1-2 potato assaults and you are in a light/med (stats say you rarely do so, if at all) your impact would be less. Lights/Meds usually are dependent on having the heavier mechs being primary targets, of being ignored for longer periods of time until the few times it would seem I had become a deer caught in a spotlight.

I would not mind if they rotated 8vs8 and 12vs12, events or such but to permanently change to 8vs8? iie.

[El Bandito]

Tarl Cabot, on 26 October 2018 - 03:31 AM, said:

If you play primarily heavies and assaults, quite possibly. It also means if the team ends up with 1-2 potato assaults and you are in a light/med (stats say you rarely do so, if at all) your impact would be less. Lights/Meds usually are dependent on having the heavier mechs being primary targets, of being ignored for longer periods of time until the few times it would seem I had become a deer caught in a spotlight.

I would not mind if they rotated 8vs8 and 12vs12, events or such but to permanently change to 8vs8? iie.

1. Lights/Mediums rely on their speed to roll damage and survive. They are far likely to die when there are potentially 12 hostiles aiming them.

2. 12v12 means most potential flanking lanes of current maps can be covered by the enemy team. With 8v8 a team cannot cover most lanes of approach as easily as 12v12, thus allowing Lights/Mediums to better sneak up on the enemy.

Which is why 8v8 is actually good for Lights/Mediums. Just common sense.

[Cherry Garden full of Blue Roses]

Holy ****...
I was explaining few months or earlier, why 8 vs 8 better. And now - I see the history is repeating.
Truly, reading your comments has shown me two ways of thinking. First is to improve gameplay to 8vs8. And people are writing with sense, why. Second is screaming "Stay with the current situation!" just because, like ppl are scared of change or like it'd have negative impact on the gameplay they already knew.

Yeah, stay in your lovely swamp, 12vs12 supporters. All facts says 8vs8 is better, but you just do not want to behold it.

Edited by Cherry Garden full of Blue Roses, 12 November 2018 - 03:49 PM.

[Tarl Cabot]

I wished they would run 8vs8 and 12vs12 alternating weeks for 4 weeks.

Each have their flavor but when it was 8vs8 we did not have PSR in its current setting but Elo.

[Monschtah]

RJF Volkodav, on 28 September 2018 - 03:53 AM, said:

Make players count dynamic i.e. 8v8, 9v9... 12v12 and return matchmaking by ELO. That could greatly help for both SoloQ and GroupQ and make matches much more interesting along with reducing wait times.

1) Try to match 12v12 according max ELO diference.
2) Reduce size to 11v11 and try to match teams according max ELO diference.
...
5) Reduce size to 8v8 and try to match teams according max ELO diference.
6) Increase max ELO diference and go to p.1

I think that would be a good solution for quickplay:
+ Reduced waiting times
+ More variation
+ You can collect data on the performance based on player counts

For me better performance(in 8v8-11v11) and reduced waiting times are most important, as we sometimes wait for 5-10 minutes to jump into the next game (especially in qp-groups unless it is prime time).
I don't see any negative aspects in this - you can get stomped or stomp in any game mode (->scouting), I don't feel a difference in counts between 4v4 and 12v12.

[Honeybear454]

I know I'm over reacting, but when I first read this topic back in June I voted no and promptly stopped playing til about a week ago.

I've no desire to see smaller groups in quick play til I start seeing an actual effort to see changes made that will push the majority of the playerbase to move into fp as that should the main focus of the game. Just one man's opinion, and I don't expect anyone else to agree with it.

As it stands, my only complaint about the game is the lack of incentive for solo players to join faction play. Which was the main draw for me when I first started playing.

[D V Devnull]

*facedesk*

Does somebody REALLY have to keep this thread running with a discussion that's already a proverbial "beaten and dead horse"?!?!? Paul Inouye (and the rest of the Balancing Team) should have ALREADY set things up so the Player Base itself had an active choice between 8v8 and 12v12 in the MatchMaker. This action would have long since fixed the problem and allowed each and every person to just pick and go launch! It's basically a known fact that choices are better than ham-handed changes anyway!

~D. V. "Obvious Solution? Make it a choice of 'And/Either/Or' for people... That's what SHOULD have happened." Devnull




(p.s.: Geez... This wasn't "Rocket Science"!)

[General Solo]

I like that idea
Maybe people can vote like for maps and games modes.

[D V Devnull]

OZHomerOZ, on 19 November 2018 - 11:53 PM, said:

I like that idea
Maybe people can vote like for maps and games modes.

I definitely like your addition to my thought. '+Like' to your post, any which way one looks at it.

Maybe you could put a '+Like' on my post? Or have I misinterpreted whose posting you happened to like?

~D. V. "thinking positive, in hope an error wasn't made" Devnull

[G4ost]

There's so many problems with the way QP works and Drops working currently.

This includes sync drops that apparently overwhelm matchmaking priority bumping people that have been in queue regardless of time in queue. While this can either be a good thing or a bad thing depending on which side of this fence you are on. I know for a fact alot of players out there specifically sync drop to either A: Get on the side they want to or B: To get on the other team so they can throw the match in favor of the person(s) they are syncing with.

While sync dropping may be an issue, worth discussing and perhaps even actively being a no-no for the community, its not the #1 issue.

While Yes sync dropping can mean that you have 8 or 9 or sometimes; though rare, more then 9 assaults on one team.

The primary issue is that is allowed in the matchmaking scheme to begin with. I honestly would rather have longer queue's if it meant a balanced team dynamic. Because being in a team with 2assaults vs 11assaults and 1light is by far the worst issue with this game. Second to none even toxicity. Which is by far worse in other games like RB6Siege.

Limiting and mandating each team has currently 4lights, 4mediums, 4heavies and 4assault each and every round should be imho step 1.

Step2 I would think should be refining matchmaking further to be able to include or exclude which Teir players you want to match make with. While I fully expect this to mean vastly increased wait times on queuing. I would think waiting 5-10minutes for a game would be well worth it if I can stay in a group atleast as experienced as I am.

I would go further but my other idea is to continue to add to the matchmaking queuing system by adding these options as toggle-able radio buttons, much like region choice's and to include to be able to choose to group with other players that have VOIP capabilities; But I can also understand why that would not be welcomed, but the reverse is knowing that your group can communicate giving you the Best chances for winning.


The Current Meta regardless of all of the aforementioned issues is "Rotate Right" or to "NASCAR". With the way the maps are all currently designed its begging this to be done. To keep circling a middle ground until a King of the Hill. The Only map that is the least apparent is Polar Highlands with its rolling hills enabling more peak and poptart play styles, though even this map turns into the same king of the hill type of play once a central area that has high ground is found.

So Step 4; instead of constantly fine tunning/tweaking/raging/or nitpicking over alpha damage or heat consistency why not look at the maps that are available to answer these questions as to why these metas keep appearing.

then lastly Step5 and my final suggestion is to play the game you have made regularly. To learn about what you have created and also what if anything is also wrong with it. Issues will after all always pop up but the community mindset typically has a single like minded voice when it comes to things that it doesn't like. Being apart of your own community learning from it and not just participating on the forums can make or break your game.

Edited by G4ost, 23 November 2018 - 11:03 PM.

[Kaptain]

As someone who played since close beta I am %110 for 8v8.

Quicker match making
Better match making (less Tier spread)
Less guns on the field
More freedom of movement
Easier to keep track of enemies
Easier to communicate with your team
Easier to organize 7 strangers vs 11
Better game performance (FPS)

Playing the 4x4 test server games always makes me miss the 8v8 days.

All that said we need an actual ranking system.

[Aldodrem]

I wouldn't mind going down to 8v8 battles if one big problem was addressed first, AFK players. IF they added a proper AFK check system during the MM process than I would 100% okay with 8v8 matches because having an inactive player on a 8v8 would pretty much mean your team lost the battle before it even began.

• You hit the button to start a game and join the MM que.
  
• MM finds the required players and sorts them to teams.
  
• Players while still in the hanger, must acknowledge that a match has been found for them by clicking a ready up button within x amount of seconds.
  
• If a player failed to click ready up they get removed from the que and get one of those messages when they try to find a match again that they must wait x amount of time before finding a match because of their AFK suck.
  
• If a player failed to ready than all players who did ready up will get put back to the searching for game que but with a priority MM (i.e. looking only to find a replacement for the empty slot from the AFK before another server starts a pulling players for a match search).
  
• Once all players readied up than the server loads up the map and the game begins.

Edited by Aldodrem, 03 December 2018 - 12:52 PM.

[Sparky424]

The only way I would want 8v8 is when waiting for a match. Other than that it's a bad idea. Having 12v12 and 8v8 available.

Edited by Sparky424, 24 January 2019 - 09:08 AM.