864 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

justcallme A S H, on 14 June 2018 - 07:09 PM, said:

Mischief dude, I like you, but lately you are sooo far off the planet it is getting silly. I have won more games in a 4-man (against 8mans) in GroupQ than I have lost... By a very long margin.

I often lose more games in a 8man+ because of tonnage to better 4-mans. You gotta be super organised for 8man+ and be able to win. I mean I've done that plenty as well but what you have said there is just plain off the marker dude, way way off.

Sarcasm. It was sarcasm. I thought the all caps would make that clear and, well, thew hole rest of the post. In fact right under that I said

Quote

Except that being in a smaller group gives such a tonnage advantage that some teams try to split up and sync drop in smaller groups.

I've been arguing in this whole thread that small groups do great in group queue - better than big groups and that playing in big groups isn't as fun specifically because of changes that were made to make group queue more 'casual and a buddy or two' friendly. Which didn't work, though it did get less people playing in the group queue.

Which, ironically, has eliminated any potential for a skill based matchmaker which results in the bads getting farmed.

It's not that I'm saying crazy stuff lately - just that I clearly need to use a 'sarcasm' tag I think.

[Bishop Six]

LordBraxton, on 14 June 2018 - 08:24 PM, said:

Haha yes.

I play games with my IRL friends, Ive had around a dozen mates try MWO. They get stomped in the group queue, doing 100 damage while I do 600, and when I explain to them that the enemy team literally had top tier competitive players on it and the only way to play with people in their skill level is to play ALONE....

Well lets just say none of my friends play MWO.

This game has catered to no-friends old dudes for too long

The most fascinating thing in the world of internet ist the FACT, that no matter what a game developer will do, there are ALWAYS these dudes with rare cases who say: "Ha! EXACTLY that point was the most important point for me, im out, BG!" muuuuuhhh.

Its really fascinating. I read here some weeks ago about a guys "who really like MWO" but Solaris-Map sucks so he is out....

And its always the fault of other people and there is NEVER a possibility to get rid of these certain problems by looking for a solution by yourself. IMPOSSIBLE!!!

Edited by Bishop Six, 15 June 2018 - 12:16 AM.

[a le Roi]

Grus, on 14 June 2018 - 10:34 AM, said:

DO random 12 people use in game VOIP to coordinate who doing what and starts sure. Does it happen all the time no, and not to any really effect. Now throw in a 2 man team that KNOWS each other's build, how they play, and can predict what they will do in X situation without saying a word.. with 10 other players that will follow thier lead/meat shield..and you want to throw that aganced a complete random group of 12 people who have NO idea what the other 11 people on their team are packing, let alone thier skill level...

It's asking them to just get murderd... imho...

Your argument is based on two assumptions:

1) That only one of the teams gets a pre-made group and the other is only randoms.
A: There's no reason for this to happen consistently.

2) That two pros/veterans (or just two guys with mics) finding themselves randomly in the same match and in the same team never coordinate ad hoc.
A: This of course is false, because it happens all the time. And a 2-person ad hoc team can be just as or more effective than a 2-person pre-made team.

3) That MM doesn't give any regard to player skill.
A: Yes, the MM is broken, but there is an attempt to match players with players of more or less equal skill level. If you assume that it doesn't work, then you won't need 2-person teams to get horribly unbalanced matches. Just a single pro in a game full of casual players will tip the balance massively.
----------------------

In a recent GQ match I played my team had a full Lance from the same Unit, while the enemy team had no more than 2 players from any given Unit. The Lance played a coordinated and planned game from the start. By all of your arguments our team should have stomped the enemy because of the advantage given to us by having a coordinated 4-person pre-made group in our team while the enemy had none.

We didn't stomp the enemy. In fact the enemy team stomped us.

Small pre-made groups can of course influence battles. But so can ad hoc cooperation, which happens all the time. The latter can easily overpower the influence of a single 2-man or 3-man team on the other side.

Besh, on 14 June 2018 - 12:30 PM, said:

Really, not wanting to talk down on you, but this has all been discussed time and again, and again, and again, and then again over the Years .

The most important thing to keep in mind really is : It once was like that . Premade Groups of 4 were able to drop into a Match against 8 randomly assorted Players . I did not go very well . That is why Qs got split into Solo and Group .

So limit it to 2- or 3-man groups.

[a le Roi]

MischiefSC, on 14 June 2018 - 01:36 PM, said:

Group queue has been nerfed so hard for mid to large groups that most don't play. In fact it was a factor in a lot of people quitting MWO entirely because if you had more than 5 people who were willing to put up with you then you all had to take mediums to play together.

This was done so that the casual +2 friends crowd could do better in group queue.

The result was the casuals taking 3 bad lights or mediums, shorting their team needed tonnage and still being bad at the game.

You do realize that that is an argument for allowing the casual 2- or 3-man groups to play QP outside of the group queue, right?

What you are saying is that those casual small groups do not do well in GQ and ruin the experience for the rest as well. So why would you want them in GQ rather than in mixed matches with solo players?

Bishop Six, on 14 June 2018 - 02:15 PM, said:

Op are you member of an unit and if yes how many members has this unit if i may ask?

No. Because I play casually solo or with a friend. As do my friends.

Ulriya Sykora, on 14 June 2018 - 02:20 PM, said:

I've got one friend who only plays well past prime time where there's only typically one very large group stomping the few smaller ones, and 10-45 minute queues. I've got two friends who were interested in the game, but can't function when dragged into teams that are primarily tier 1, both of which gave up because of the lengthy queues. I have several who have quit due to the queues and massive shift in game balance toward enormous alpha boats, because they couldn't have a game last more than a minute or two despite waiting for half an hour.

Faction play is basically a corpse most of the time unless you join a unit specifically for that, solaris is largely inactive, and don't get me started on scouting because even the fundamentals of scouting barely apply to the rest of the game unless you somehow find yourself in an isolated brawl (which if you did, would likely be your light or medium against an assault, not another light or medium). Where are my options to bring more players to the game and let them have an experience which is remotely enjoyable? How am I going to teach them anything without making a separate tier 5 account and ruining a bunch of newer player's days?

I'd be entirely down for groups of two at most going into solo or small group QP. Yeah, sure, it would effect balance if both people are in voice. If we had accurate PSR balancing based on normalized match score on a per weight class basis, you would find that it likely wouldn't matter having a duo or two in there, as long as the match maker prioritized putting small groups on opposite teams so it wasn't just one side like that. It's not like you're both suddenly drop callers, and it's mostly going to punish people who are already making poor choices anyway.

You said it so much more eloquently than me, but I agree with all of this. Every word.

[a le Roi]

Besh, on 14 June 2018 - 02:25 PM, said:

In GroupQ, MM does not balance by Tiers .

Also, read MIschief's post above . The Game has bled a LOT of Players over the Years because of "trying to cater to Casuals" .

As for new Players in general: it is brutally hard . It is totally different from any other Shooter . It can not be picked up within a few Games . Thats just how it is - for most people at least. People are willing to stick thorugh that, or not . You can not reasonably expect for the Game to be changed so the people who hop on for a Game or 2 on 3 nights a month have it easier...they won't, ever, get any good at this Game if they do not devote significant time and effort into it .

Sorry to trash your elitism, but all of that applies to more popular multiplayer shooters as well. Like War Thunder and World of Warships, and even more so to actual multiplayer sims, like IL-2.

None of those games have taken it as an excuse to shaft casual players or prevent casual players from playing together with their friends.

[a le Roi]

MischiefSC, on 14 June 2018 - 04:13 PM, said:

Except group queue is fun for small groups. It was always fun for small groups. It also used to be fun for big grouos. That's why group queue has a way bigger population then. I have fun in group queue, especially in groups under 6.

People act like "git gud" is an insult or brush off. It's not. It's a solution and one everyone who is beating you at the game has already adopted. If you're frustrated at losing quit trying to get the game changed to make doing whatever you're doing that's losing suddenly work better. Get better at the game.

Group queue is fun for smaller groups. You can have great fun in a 2-6 man. Max your tonnage and make sure you're using in game comms. If it looks lime a 12man on the other side, great! You've got a 200-300 ton advantage. Good players are not complaining that group queue is no fun for small groups because they still win plenty in group queue. The only problem with running a smaller group in group queue is when you drop alongside a 3man who all took lights and mediums and don't coordinate with the team so you're down tonnage and useful teammates.

There is no game mechanic changes that make up for poor choices in the mechlab and the match. There's no fair and balanced fix that lets people who don't want to get good at the game play against people who do and not get smashed.

You're always in a team of 12 on either side. No communication or coordination is available to one side and not the other. The only side restricted from what they bring is the side with the bigger premade.

Stop the special pleading. Play the game by the same rules everyone else does, use the same tools everyone else gets and win or lose based on your ability and willingness to do so effectively.

The issue is not that group matches are not fun or that I don't do well enough in them.

The issue does not resolve itself by me getting better at the game, because that was never the issue.

The issue is that group queue waiting time for a 2-man team is often 10-15 minutes and often more. Even worse in FP.

So the option is to play solo, trying to play with a friend by drop syncing, or waiting with a friend rather than playing. Are you starting to see why the game struggles at attracting more players that would reduce wait times for all?

[a le Roi]

justcallme A S H, on 14 June 2018 - 06:54 PM, said:

And it was basically a week since this topic came up last.

Seems it's weekly appearance is right on cue.


Will not happen, ever. So stop posting about it.

Maybe that should rather be taken as a sign that it is a much-needed feature?

[a le Roi]

Vellron2005, on 14 June 2018 - 10:54 PM, said:

I suggested having 2-man groups in Solo Que just a couple days ago..

Sorry I missed that post.

[Blindbeard the Pirate]

a le Roi, on 15 June 2018 - 02:03 AM, said:

The issue is not that group matches are not fun or that I don't do well enough in them.

The issue does not resolve itself by me getting better at the game, because that was never the issue.

The issue is that group queue waiting time for a 2-man team is often 10-15 minutes and often more. Even worse in FP.

So the option is to play solo, trying to play with a friend by drop syncing, or waiting with a friend rather than playing. Are you starting to see why the game struggles at attracting more players that would reduce wait times for all?

The same thing that currently goes on with matchmaking could honestly be implemented for small groups. If your group of 2 can't find a game after, say, 5 minutes, release the restriction to match it solely with the group queue playerbase and allow it to match with the solo queue group, balancing it so that it heavily or entirely takes the higher player's PSR. It would be a simple fix for the queues.

[a le Roi]

MischiefSC, on 14 June 2018 - 06:55 PM, said:

Even two mans in pug queue would screw balance in pug queue and screw up matchmaking in pug queue and screw up wait times in pug queue. Population imbalance in 2mans would be an issue, effectively representing tier/matchmaker value would be an issue.

Every other game manages to do it without encountering debilitating imbalance issues. Why is that?

MischiefSC, on 14 June 2018 - 06:55 PM, said:

Rather than dragging the problem to QP, just take bigger mechs and work on communication and winning and you'll win more. Like everyone else does.

This isn't about winning or losing. Not for me, anyway. It's about being able to play with a friend or two without having to spend 75% of our time waiting in queue.

The choice then isn't between "hey let's get better and join units" or "let's play solo". The choice is between "let's play solo" and "let's play something else".

Either way, group queue isn't getting more population.

Wil McCullough, on 14 June 2018 - 09:49 PM, said:

Unfortunately opening qp up to 2 man groups also opens the doors to duos of good players to also come in and smash these new player duos. Hard. We had this before. It was not a fun experience. That's why pgi split the queues.

Why would the MM pair a bad 2-man group against a good 2-man group?

That would be a match-maker problem, not a problem with allowing 2-man groups.

Edited by a le Roi, 15 June 2018 - 02:19 AM.

[a le Roi]

Mister Glitchdragon, on 14 June 2018 - 09:53 PM, said:

Note that the op hasn't chimed in since about page two, either. I don't know if these people really want this or its just a troll move.

Silly me for sleeping and doing other things with my life. We casual players tend to be like that, though.

We also keep the game populated.

Mister Glitchdragon, on 14 June 2018 - 09:53 PM, said:

Anyway, I'll see y'all next week.

If your response to a constantly requested feature is to dismiss it, maybe you should reconsider your position.

I get it. 4-man team in a pre-VoIP era were causing stomps so they were moved to a separate queue.

But maybe, when repeated requests make plain that it created another issue in its place, it would be time to revisit that decision. Or to try something new, like allowing 2-man or 3-man teams mixed with solo players. Especially when the original conundrum no longer exists now that everyone has in-game VoIP. And especially when the original fix actually did not work all that well, as we still have stomps.

Burying your head in the sand won't make the problems go away and it isn't a way to develop a game to make it better.

[TWIAFU]

Jon Gotham, on 14 June 2018 - 07:01 AM, said:

Odd question, why do we have a solo mode in a game designed to be a team game? Only reason logically is people want to kill other people but NOT want to teamwork?
I've never understood the big drive to play solo, online..in a multiplayer game.

If you want to super solo, surely you'd play singleplayer games? Isn't the main draw the other people?

They tell you why.

QP is there to hone your skills for CW.

[Wil McCullough]

a le Roi, on 15 June 2018 - 02:18 AM, said:

Why would the MM pair a bad 2-man group against a good 2-man group?

That would be a match-maker problem, not a problem with allowing 2-man groups.

Yes. That would be a mm problem. And mm problems can't be fixed as long as pgi insists that it's an xp bar not a zero sum one. Abd pgi hasn't changed its stance on that since its inception.

As long as it isn't fixed, what you want would break the game for new players. And since pgi will never fix mm, what you're asking for works the opposite of your objective.

What's worse is that i suspect fixing mm isn't within pgi's capabilities. To fix mm, first mech balance must be fixed. In order for a zero sum mm to work, a t(x) player should perform the same whether in an is or clan mech, or in a light/medium/heavy/assault. As long as players demand that lighter mechs should always lose to an assault mech given equally skilled pilots (which low skill lore grognards love to do, loudly), balance will never be achieved.

As far as i can observe, pgi has given up on balance. That's why they're making the next mwo championship is and stock only. It's the only way they can force the top players to use mechs other than clan vomit.

The game is cobbled together with band-aid fixes and it's starting to wear out. We're very far from a situation where putting small groups into qp is even a feasible thing to do.

[Besh]

a le Roi, on 15 June 2018 - 01:52 AM, said:

Sorry to trash your elitism, but all of that applies to more popular multiplayer shooters as well. Like War Thunder and World of Warships, and even more so to actual multiplayer sims, like IL-2.

None of those games have taken it as an excuse to shaft casual players or prevent casual players from playing together with their friends.

It is not about elitism, really. I was merely describing facts of MW:O . Imho, it can not - by its nature - be made to be "easy", or "catering to the casual player"...simply because it is so complex .

Even if one takes the time and effort to start looking into all the complexities and learn as much as possible ( trivia for you: how does heat work ? DONT look it up, answer immediately ! Another one: does Artemis need LoS ? ), that does not mean they will be able to translate that into good Gameplay .

This is more than just a "slap some Guns and Missiles on that Chassis, now run off and kill as many 'Mechs as you can" Shooter . You can take a "Meta" 'Mech/Build, give it to a new/casual/unexperienced Player, and you will see vastly different results....but one thing will be pretty guaranteed : it will not be used with the efficiency and effect as if it was in the Hands of a Player who has had 100s of Matches in that 'Mech . Chances are, a lot of new'/casual/unexperienced Players will have close to no clue how to use it efficiently...

Edited by Besh, 15 June 2018 - 02:42 AM.

[Blindbeard the Pirate]

Wil McCullough, on 15 June 2018 - 02:38 AM, said:

What's worse is that i suspect fixing mm isn't within pgi's capabilities. To fix mm, first mech balance must be fixed. In order for a zero sum mm to work, a t(x) player should perform the same whether in an is or clan mech, or in a light/medium/heavy/assault. As long as players demand that lighter mechs should always lose to an assault mech given equally skilled pilots (which low skill lore grognards love to do, loudly), balance will never be achieved.

As far as i can observe, pgi has given up on balance. That's why they're making the next mwo championship is and stock only. It's the only way they can force the top players to use mechs other than clan vomit.

Oh come now, it's not nearly that complicated of an issue. They already track your average match score. Break it down into individual tiers, say everyone below 180 for a rough tier 5 equivalent, 180-220 for tier 4, 220-260 for tier 3, 260-300 for tier 2 and 300+ for tier 1. After a couple dozen games, people will all filter into their average performance. They already record that data on a per-weight class basis, so take that into account. If you're playing on a light and you don't normally play lights, it'll be reflected in your historical scores. Even if they just wrote an algorithm to amalgamate and use that data, it would reflect far more accurately than our current tier system does. And it could reset every season with the leaderboards, if they so chose.

[Blindbeard the Pirate]

Besh, on 15 June 2018 - 02:39 AM, said:

It is not about elitism, really. I was merely describing facts of MW:O . Imho, it can not - by its nature - be made to be "easy", or "catering to the casual player"...simply because it is so complex

I mean, they might not know how to twist off damage, and guass charging might be awkward for them when they're first playing, but it's not really that the game is super complex. I threw the hellbringer at one of my friends prior to the ERLL nerfs. With a lot of builds, the game is a point and click adventure where your only option is use laser on enemy torso. Sure, they won't know common XL mechs, but most of the complexities of MWO can be summed up as getting used to positioning so you don't over extend when you move as fast as a turtle wearing slug boots.

People aren't really asking to cater to the casual player. They'll all have to git gud too. It's just that the current methods of doing that with your friends are highly disincentivizing at certain times of the day and it feels pretty lame to sit there for 25 minutes when you know you'd have had a game in 47 seconds despite it being butts o'clock if you'd just sync dropped.

[Wil McCullough]

Ulriya Sykora, on 15 June 2018 - 02:47 AM, said:

Oh come now, it's not nearly that complicated of an issue. They already track your average match score. Break it down into individual tiers, say everyone below 180 for a rough tier 5 equivalent, 180-220 for tier 4, 220-260 for tier 3, 260-300 for tier 2 and 300+ for tier 1. After a couple dozen games, people will all filter into their average performance. They already record that data on a per-weight class basis, so take that into account. If you're playing on a light and you don't normally play lights, it'll be reflected in your historical scores. Even if they just wrote an algorithm to amalgamate and use that data, it would reflect far more accurately than our current tier system does. And it could reset every season with the leaderboards, if they so chose.

You're talking about a developer who only just managed to get saveable loadouts working.

You may as well be asking for the moon.

[Blindbeard the Pirate]

Wil McCullough, on 15 June 2018 - 03:19 AM, said:

You're talking about a developer who only just managed to get saveable loadouts working.

You may as well be asking for the moon.

You've got a point. I mean, right now half of the clan weapons are nerfed into unusability and half of the inner sphere mechs aren't capable of even mounting a reasonable loadout without continuing to explode with an XL engine, I'm pretty sure I heard nothing positive from anybody I knew about the skill tree and a lot of niche builds have been kicked in the teeth by the backside of the axe blade that was the mobility nerfs. There's a lot of stuff that's honestly due for an adjustment, but... at least... being able to save and share builds a year later is good, right? It means they've touched the tree again technically right?

[Mystere]

a le Roi, on 15 June 2018 - 01:48 AM, said:

You do realize that that is an argument for allowing the casual 2- or 3-man groups to play QP outside of the group queue, right?

What you are saying is that those casual small groups do not do well in GQ and ruin the experience for the rest as well. So why would you want them in GQ rather than in mixed matches with solo players?

I think what you are missing is that when 2/3-mans are allowed, schools of really hungry and really dangerous sharks will also be coming into the kiddie pool. I expect a bloodbath when that happens.

And that's not even counting the fact that the group queue will be starved of small teams serving as fillers for bigger ones.

You might as well re-merge the separate queues.

Ulriya Sykora, on 15 June 2018 - 02:17 AM, said:

The same thing that currently goes on with matchmaking could honestly be implemented for small groups. If your group of 2 can't find a game after, say, 5 minutes, release the restriction to match it solely with the group queue playerbase and allow it to match with the solo queue group, balancing it so that it heavily or entirely takes the higher player's PSR. It would be a simple fix for the queues.

It has been my experience that things are rarely as simple as people think. Otherwise, we will not have 5 years' worth of balancing that has gone full circle many times over.

As I mentioned previously:

Mystere, on 14 June 2018 - 02:47 PM, said:

It's time for MWO to have dynamic team sizes.

Let that triple 4-man team face 36 battle-hardened solo players.

And the first things that need to go are these eSports concepts of "matches" and so-called "balanced" N vs. N drops.

Let us have battles instead, really bloddy battles. <shrugs>

Edited by Mystere, 15 June 2018 - 04:15 AM.

[Mystere]

Ulriya Sykora, on 15 June 2018 - 02:47 AM, said:

Oh come now, it's not nearly that complicated of an issue. They already track your average match score. Break it down into individual tiers, say everyone below 180 for a rough tier 5 equivalent, 180-220 for tier 4, 220-260 for tier 3, 260-300 for tier 2 and 300+ for tier 1. After a couple dozen games, people will all filter into their average performance. They already record that data on a per-weight class basis, so take that into account. If you're playing on a light and you don't normally play lights, it'll be reflected in your historical scores. Even if they just wrote an algorithm to amalgamate and use that data, it would reflect far more accurately than our current tier system does. And it could reset every season with the leaderboards, if they so chose.

Match score?

If we use that metric, a player who consistently kills 3 enemies with "only" 105 points of damage will be ranked lower than a player who can only consistently kill 3 enemies with 1000 points of damage. <shrugs>