864 replies to this topic

[Haipyng]

Nightbird, on 15 June 2018 - 10:39 AM, said:

What you actually want is fair teams, not 2-3 player teams in QP Solo queue. If you agree, bump my thread here: https://mwomercs.com...-dynamic-teams/

It's a clever idea and yes at it's base I think that is what most people want and has the potential to deliver some great games in QP. I wish we could try it. I don't think GP actually has had a MM that does any sort of filtering, except for 3/3/3/3 back in the day or tonnage restrictions now.

I don't think GP has the population to do what you propose, just like we don't have the population to make a 3rd small group restricted QP queue either. It seems we are just plain locked into a population spiral with what we have got.

Edited by Haipyng, 15 June 2018 - 11:01 AM.

[a le Roi]

MischiefSC, on 15 June 2018 - 10:19 AM, said:

Every other team based game has the exact same issues. The solution is a higher population.

No, they don't, because every other game allows two or three buddies to play as a group in games with random mixed teams. Not just against other groups.

MischiefSC, on 15 June 2018 - 10:19 AM, said:

I've always been in favor of letting solo players drop in GQ. However there's not going to be groups in the solo queue. It's been done and why it's a terrible idea has been repeatedly explained.

As many have testified here in this very thread, no, it has not been done. What was allowed were 4-man groups in a time before everyone had in-game VoIP. And even then the groups were not matched against equal groups in the other team.

2-man or 3-man groups that are balanced on both sides have not been tried. It's time for MWO to try them.

[MischiefSC]

East Indy, on 15 June 2018 - 10:41 AM, said:

There are many singular players with one friend they'd like to introduce to MWO — but most don't bother because the only venues for two players are dominated by zero-error-margin, meta-heavy play.

As a result, the best source for new players remains untapped.

Limit to two-man parties, and balance parties between teams. *

Ultimately, group queue and faction play should be consolidated. Group queue, which long-preceded "community warfare," is a playground for stat-padding and without any connection to the war map, diverting from MWO's original premise.

* Despite what you may remember pre-2014, mixed groups and singles were never balanced in size or number.

Mixed group and singles tried to put teams on each side and it was max 1 team on each side. It was still a total mess.

Two good players dropping together on purpose in a team will roflstomp other teams that don't have two equally good players the great majority of the time. Since you have no way of ensuring two equally balanced teams of 2 in terms of skill you'll get one team with 2 goods and one with 2 bads and it'll be absolute crap.

Quit trying to break the game to give yourselves an advantage you have not earned. It's not going to work anyway because all you're doing is magnifying the effectiveness of good players and doing nothing to help bad ones or new ones.

What you need is a coop PvE environment to train new players. That's what we've always needed, it's what we've always asked for. We get MW5, apparently. Any PvP environment is going to favor experienced players over new ones. Just like every other game. Google '(insert game of choice, WoT, War Thunder, etc al) Matchmaker Broken' . See the pages and pages of similar complaints?

That's because it's always the same issue. 'I can't get my new player friends into the game'. Really. That's terrible! What with everyone here having sprung fully formed from the forehead of Zeus with complete and skilled up mechbays of 100+ mechs nobody can IMAGINE what it must be like! Tragedy! Horror!

The largest population this game had was actually when the MM and new player experience was worse than it is now. Yes, NPE is always important but these threads are never about that. They're about people upset at losing and wanting the game changed to let them do what they're already doing but win more. It's wanting to change the game to give them an advantage they haven't earned.

As such they get slapped down. Every prior attempt in this direction (oh the casuals will flood the group queue! Just limit big team tonnage! Huh... really...) has failed and failed completely because the idea is one that is inherently flawed.

If you want more balanced matches you need enough population to provide that. If you want to win more, get better at the game than you are currently. You want to win in a group, play as a group. You're in a team of 12 every match. Act like it. Nothing in the matchmaker will ever, in any way, account for failures in that department.

[a le Roi]

MischiefSC, on 15 June 2018 - 11:26 AM, said:

Two good players dropping together on purpose in a team will roflstomp other teams that don't have two equally good players the great majority of the time. Since you have no way of ensuring two equally balanced teams of 2 in terms of skill you'll get one team with 2 goods and one with 2 bads and it'll be absolute crap.

If you insist that team balancing is impossible, you will get unbalanced team no matter what. Whether you allow 2-man teams or not is entirely insignificant when one competent T1 player in a T5 match will completely dominate the field.

But of course there's no reason to resign ourselves to that. Player and team balancing can and has been done.

MischiefSC, on 15 June 2018 - 11:26 AM, said:

Quit trying to break the game to give yourselves an advantage you have not earned.

You aren't even listening. This isn't about getting an advantage.

It's about being able to actually play the game with a friend without A) spending 75% of your game time waiting, and B) being thrown into matches with 6-man groups of Tier 1 pros.

Edited by a le Roi, 15 June 2018 - 12:31 PM.

[Ronan]

Let me also add: no.

[Gwahlur]

I totally see where the "please allow 2 man groups in qp" crowd is coming from, I was in the same boat when I started playing and wanted to convince a friend to join me. Naturally, as 2 noobs we get WTFPWNED in group queue, and sync dropping is a pain and unreliable. Needless to say, I couldn't convince him to join.

I absolutely believe mwo is missing out on potential players due to how small groups work atm.

I also ofcourse see the potential for abuse with 2 good players groupdropping in qp.

Maybe there could be a noob flag on new accounts that allows them to 2 man in qp, a flag that would get dropped after so and so long/so and so many games, or after getting higher match scores than is reasonable for noobs.

Edited by Gwahlur, 15 June 2018 - 01:27 PM.

[dario03]

I think 2 during long wait times would be fine. Also allow solo players to opt in to group play.

[Blindbeard the Pirate]

Mystere, on 15 June 2018 - 04:24 AM, said:

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>

If you can find some metrics on a few players like that who aren't non-contributing factors on a team, I might recant that statement. I'd prefer empirical evidence to the anecdotal. You can make hypothetical excuses for that single large laser spider or the medium that got a few lucky arty kills and then died by walking out into a firing line, but they're not the ones doing the work unless they're actively scouting and playing to roles that feel all but abandoned in modern quick play. There are certain play mechanics that should be rewarded more than they are now, honestly closer to how they were before, like coordinated NARCing and actually running anti-missile weaponry.

As it is, most functional builds are going to get that in 3-4 hits, tops, even on a light built purely for support. Two seconds of sustained fire from a few machine guns and some pulse lasers. Much less a medium, I can do that in two alphas on any functional mech that can kite or poptart. Even exceptionally COLD builds can do that. You played in the early seasons, you've probably had your face torn apart by a yen-lo-wang or centurion a few times, much less the oxide. So, with that said, damn straight that's exactly what I think. If you can't do more damage than that or ENABLE more damage than that you're effectively giving the other team an advantage on player count. If you're one of those players who's only success is scratching paint every few minutes and you're not particularly new, rethink your choices and try to find a bracket where your mech of choice is actually effective, even if only moderately in the face of newer alternatives.

If we're in the realm of hypotheticals, I also think that lights need a small multiplier to their score even with the best backstabbing and leg eating builds, while heavies and assaults need a small penalty on it.

[Mystere]

Ulriya Sykora, on 15 June 2018 - 03:01 PM, said:

If you can find some metrics on a few players like that who aren't non-contributing factors on a team, I might recant that statement. I'd prefer empirical evidence to the anecdotal. You can make hypothetical excuses for that single large laser spider or the medium that got a few lucky arty kills and then died by walking out into a firing line, but they're not the ones doing the work unless they're actively scouting and playing to roles that feel all but abandoned in modern quick play. There are certain play mechanics that should be rewarded more than they are now, honestly closer to how they were before, like coordinated NARCing and actually running anti-missile weaponry.

As it is, most functional builds are going to get that in 3-4 hits, tops, even on a light built purely for support. Two seconds of sustained fire from a few machine guns and some pulse lasers. Much less a medium, I can do that in two alphas on any functional mech that can kite or poptart. Even exceptionally COLD builds can do that. You played in the early seasons, you've probably had your face torn apart by a yen-lo-wang or centurion a few times, much less the oxide. So, with that said, damn straight that's exactly what I think. If you can't do more damage than that or ENABLE more damage than that you're effectively giving the other team an advantage on player count. If you're one of those players who's only success is scratching paint every few minutes and you're not particularly new, rethink your choices and try to find a bracket where your mech of choice is actually effective, even if only moderately in the face of newer alternatives.

If we're in the realm of hypotheticals, I also think that lights need a small multiplier to their score even with the best backstabbing and leg eating builds, while heavies and assaults need a small penalty on it.

What in Hades' name are you blabbing about? I specifically said:

Mystere, on 15 June 2018 - 04:24 AM, said:

... a player who consistently kills ...

As for a good metric, nothing beats W/L over the long term. Even a player who only serves as team mascot but still has a high W/L must be doing something right.

[Blindbeard the Pirate]

Mystere, on 15 June 2018 - 04:09 PM, said:

What in Hades' name are you blabbing about? I specifically said:

As for a good metric, nothing beats W/L over the long term. Even a player who only serves as team mascot but still has a high W/L must be doing something right.

You may have said that but can you name any, or find many via either leaderboards or jarl's list with anything resembling those statistics over a sizable number of games? And if you can, how much of a statistical outlier are they?

[Mystere]

MischiefSC, on 15 June 2018 - 10:19 AM, said:

letting solo players drop in GQ.

This! A thousand time this!

East Indy, on 15 June 2018 - 10:41 AM, said:

There are many singular players with one friend they'd like to introduce to MWO — but most don't bother because the only venues for two players are dominated by zero-error-margin, meta-heavy play.

Private lobbies are free. Pairs can always practice 1v1 before swimming in the shark tank.

[Mystere]

a le Roi, on 15 June 2018 - 11:18 AM, said:

As many have testified here in this very thread, no, it has not been done. What was allowed were 4-man groups in a time before everyone had in-game VoIP. And even then the groups were not matched against equal groups in the other team.

I don't know who you've been listening to, but there used to be a single QP queue. Full teams could and did drop against skittle teams.

[Appogee]

It's a terrible idea, for all the reasons stated by all the people on the prior 8 pages.

Join Group Queue if you want to play in a group. Don't try to make Quick Play worse for soloists.

[MischiefSC]

a le Roi, on 15 June 2018 - 12:30 PM, said:

If you insist that team balancing is impossible, you will get unbalanced team no matter what. Whether you allow 2-man teams or not is entirely insignificant when one competent T1 player in a T5 match will completely dominate the field.

But of course there's no reason to resign ourselves to that. Player and team balancing can and has been done.



You aren't even listening. This isn't about getting an advantage.

It's about being able to actually play the game with a friend without A) spending 75% of your game time waiting, and being thrown into matches with 6-man groups of Tier 1 pros.

Except it is about getting an advantage. I play in a two-man on many nights. I don't spend a long time waiting, though it does happen sometimes and I'm as likely to be on a team with good players as against a team with good players. If I've been smart with our mech choices and tonnage we have a significant advantage in a 2+4+6 team vs a 10+2 team. We've got about 130 more tons available to play with; that's enough for 3 more assaults on our team vs heavies/mediums on theirs.

We can all play the game. We're all playing the game. Do you think that every 2-6man in group queue just loses most the time? Who do you think is beating you?

You find a solution that doesn't involve messing with solo queue in any way save letting people volunteer for group queue and sure. That'd be great. Otherwise you're going to need to play by and with the same standards as everyone else and not try to screw the game up for any other player segments so that you can win more without doing what everyone who is winning more is already doing.

Gwahlur, on 15 June 2018 - 01:26 PM, said:

I totally see where the "please allow 2 man groups in qp" crowd is coming from, I was in the same boat when I started playing and wanted to convince a friend to join me. Naturally, as 2 noobs we get WTFPWNED in group queue, and sync dropping is a pain and unreliable. Needless to say, I couldn't convince him to join.

I absolutely believe mwo is missing out on potential players due to how small groups work atm.

I also ofcourse see the potential for abuse with 2 good players groupdropping in qp.

Maybe there could be a noob flag on new accounts that allows them to 2 man in qp, a flag that would get dropped after so and so long/so and so many games, or after getting higher match scores than is reasonable for noobs.

So if I make a smurf account and drop with someone like Proton do we get to drop in QP in that model?

Again - quit trying to make cases for 'well, this guy doesn't have to play by the same rules and gets an advantage' crap up. It's terrible and it never works.

Petition PGI to make a coop environment for playing vs bots. That's what MW5 is, maybe they'll do it for MWO. Nobody gets to PvP with an advantage in a PvP game though. That's a terrible idea.

[justcallme A S H]

a le Roi, on 15 June 2018 - 10:13 AM, said:

I am not creating these topics weekly.

That other people are requesting the same thing on a continuous basis should maybe alert you to the fact that there is something that needs fixing.

That's the thing - There is nothing to fix. Just because you think something is wrong does not mean it actually exists.

What you silly people keep proposing will actually cause problems but you are all just flat out too silly to comprehend this... Which is quite interesing because it really is a very, very basic concept to grasp.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 15 June 2018 - 05:05 PM.

[VitriolicViolet]

what really sticks out is that one of the things your complaining about, the fact that 2-3 man teams have to face 6-8 man teams and that this is unfair as the larger side has more advantage, is exactly what you want to implement in solo q.

ie 'its not fair my 2-3 man has to play against a larger group due to the advantage it gives them, so i want my 2-3 man put in solo q so i dont have a disadvantage'.

Which will inevitably result insolo q suffering the exact problem you have been complaining about.

[Haipyng]

MischiefSC, on 15 June 2018 - 04:38 PM, said:

Except it is about getting an advantage.

Again - quit trying to make cases for 'well, this guy doesn't have to play by the same rules and gets an advantage' crap up. It's terrible and it never works.

Why is it you always go right to the assumption that someone is trying to get an unearned advantage over you, no matter who mentions it? Do you just assume that everyone is looking to screw you over somehow? Is that actually how you think about playing? It's not a healthy worldview to have. I mean seriously, there is no grand conspiracy to screw over QP. People are searching for a way to make things a little better in MWO, not rip you off or ruin your QP fun.

I still have yet to see anything that even hints that a pair of players dropping into the same game tier as they are ranked in QP is going to significantly screw anything up more that already happens with the random grouping of a couple of players that know each other or sync drop into QP now.

Our two theoretical God Level players are only likely to affect the outcome of the match if their team does not die by the 3 player margin that seems to be the limit at which it becomes very hard to come back from and their team effectively defends allowing our God Level Tryhards to do their thing. Our Godly dynamic duo is also unlikely to carry the team all on their own and almost never rescue that team if they are down by 3 or 4 players no matter how godlike their playing prowess is. You are also assuming that the other team does not get their own set of Godly MW Gamers, either by another very small group or chance. It is still a team game, solo QP or not, and you are not going to win it or lose it all on your own or with a buddy every time. Finally, the masses are the ones that are going to use it most. The bulk of our population is in the average to good players, not the Godlike players.

We have never tried adding single two mans groups to QP, why is there this almost rabid fear to try it? Even in a PTS?

MischiefSC, on 15 June 2018 - 04:38 PM, said:

You find a solution that doesn't involve messing with solo queue in any way save letting people volunteer for group queue and sure. That'd be great. Otherwise you're going to need to play by and with the same standards as everyone else and not try to screw the game up for any other player segments so that you can win more without doing what everyone who is winning more is already doing.

Okay, how about this. We say you have proof that two mans are bad for solo QP, we play tested it, whatever. Fine. How about we have a small group QP Queue that lets 2-3 or maybe even 4 man groups drop together. It still has the current QP matchmaking filters (or ideally something better), averages tiers skewing to the higher end of the group to find matches, (or something better) balances tonnage, and keeps the same groups from dropping together on the same team more than once for every 4 games or so. You allow singles in to round out the small groups.

QP isn't touched aside from letting solos play in groups, GP gets to go back to a more balanced tonnage scale for large groups. Small groups get some kind of MM sorting and hopefully a middle ground to play on. The drawback- you will pull players away from those other queues.

If that doesn't work for you, how about offering a "gud" alternative for fixing very small group play, beyond "git gud" and play in GP. Offer something constructive other than shooting down all other ideas. Anything really. I am totally open to hearing about solving the issue presented beyond saying it doesn't exist because it doesn't happen to me.

MischiefSC, on 15 June 2018 - 04:38 PM, said:

So if I make a smurf account and drop with someone like Proton do we get to drop in QP in that model?

As opposed to Tryhards making alt accounts now to club Tier 5 baby eyed seals? How is it different? How is it worse? Why do people even do this or think this way? Does it actually stoke their ego? I dunno.

As for the model I would think that in the two man drop you'd have to put them into the highest tier of the two players to keep it sane.

[Mystere]

Haipyng, on 15 June 2018 - 07:13 PM, said:

Okay, how about this. We say you have proof that two mans are bad for solo QP, we play tested it, whatever. Fine. How about we have a small group QP Queue that lets 2-3 or maybe even 4 man groups drop together.

Doing that effectively kills the group queue.

[Wil McCullough]

Haipyng, on 15 June 2018 - 07:13 PM, said:

Why is it you always go right to the assumption that someone is trying to get an unearned advantage over you, no matter who mentions it? Do you just assume that everyone is looking to screw you over somehow? Is that actually how you think about playing? It's not a healthy worldview to have. I mean seriously, there is no grand conspiracy to screw over QP. People are searching for a way to make things a little better in MWO, not rip you off or ruin your QP fun.

I still have yet to see anything that even hints that a pair of players dropping into the same game tier as they are ranked in QP is going to significantly screw anything up more that already happens with the random grouping of a couple of players that know each other or sync drop into QP now.

Our two theoretical God Level players are only likely to affect the outcome of the match if their team does not die by the 3 player margin that seems to be the limit at which it becomes very hard to come back from and their team effectively defends allowing our God Level Tryhards to do their thing. Our Godly dynamic duo is also unlikely to carry the team all on their own and almost never rescue that team if they are down by 3 or 4 players no matter how godlike their playing prowess is. You are also assuming that the other team does not get their own set of Godly MW Gamers, either by another very small group or chance. It is still a team game, solo QP or not, and you are not going to win it or lose it all on your own or with a buddy every time. Finally, the masses are the ones that are going to use it most. The bulk of our population is in the average to good players, not the Godlike players.

We have never tried adding single two mans groups to QP, why is there this almost rabid fear to try it? Even in a PTS?



Okay, how about this. We say you have proof that two mans are bad for solo QP, we play tested it, whatever. Fine. How about we have a small group QP Queue that lets 2-3 or maybe even 4 man groups drop together. It still has the current QP matchmaking filters (or ideally something better), averages tiers skewing to the higher end of the group to find matches, (or something better) balances tonnage, and keeps the same groups from dropping together on the same team more than once for every 4 games or so. You allow singles in to round out the small groups.

QP isn't touched aside from letting solos play in groups, GP gets to go back to a more balanced tonnage scale for large groups. Small groups get some kind of MM sorting and hopefully a middle ground to play on. The drawback- you will pull players away from those other queues.

If that doesn't work for you, how about offering a &quot;gud&quot; alternative for fixing very small group play, beyond &quot;git gud&quot; and play in GP. Offer something constructive other than shooting down all other ideas. Anything really. I am totally open to hearing about solving the issue presented beyond saying it doesn't exist because it doesn't happen to me.



As opposed to Tryhards making alt accounts now to club Tier 5 baby eyed seals? How is it different? How is it worse? Why do people even do this or think this way? Does it actually stoke their ego? I dunno.

As for the model I would think that in the two man drop you'd have to put them into the highest tier of the two players to keep it sane.

Mischief did propose the only feasible solution - git gud.

Every other proposed solution involves breaking the game for others. Basically, people who feel 2mans don't belong in gp are tired.of getting smacked by large teams. So now they want to drop down to qp and be the large team that smacks others.

The idea reeks of "let's solve my problem by making it someone else's problem".

[MischiefSC]

Haipyng, on 15 June 2018 - 07:13 PM, said:

Why is it you always go right to the assumption that someone is trying to get an unearned advantage over you, no matter who mentions it? Do you just assume that everyone is looking to screw you over somehow? Is that actually how you think about playing? It's not a healthy worldview to have. I mean seriously, there is no grand conspiracy to screw over QP. People are searching for a way to make things a little better in MWO, not rip you off or ruin your QP fun.

I still have yet to see anything that even hints that a pair of players dropping into the same game tier as they are ranked in QP is going to significantly screw anything up more that already happens with the random grouping of a couple of players that know each other or sync drop into QP now.

Nice ad hominem.

Everyone else is already playing in small groups in GQ. I've pointed that out repeatedly. They're doing so and pointing out that you have better games in GQ in a 2-4man than you do in a 6-12man. That's exactly the point - you're not saying 'small groups can't win in GQ' because we know that is false, teams made of smaller groups win all the time. 12 skilled players will win more by breaking into 3 groups of 4 or 2 groups of 6 than dropping in 12 and all taking mediums.

The entire basis of your point is false - that small teams can't play in GQ. The problem is that small groups of players who don't communicate well with their team or otherwise perform below average struggle in GQ. That is a problem created by low population meaning no real matchmaker available, not a game design issue. You do not get to punish other players either in solo queue or further shafting GQ players to improve your odds of winning, which is also what you're talking about. It's not that you can't get matches - unless you are somehow missing all the drops everyone else is getting. The basis of your complaint is that you want to win more when playing with 2 or 3 other people.

As to how groups of players in solo queue works, we we have already had that game experience for YEARS prior to the queue split for group/solo. We know exactly and precisely how that works and looks and plays like.

There's no rabid fear - there's knowledge and experience in addition to recognizing exactly what's going on.

There is absolutely zero reason to even suggest this aside from wanting to win more than you are currently. None. Nothing. This isn't about New Player Experience because there are other, better suggestions for that. That's just the 'someone think of the children' excuse. As pointed out before the biggest population this game ever had was when the NPE was 100x worse than it is now.

You know what made it worse? Groups in the pug queue.

These threads get jumped on because nobody is fooled by the source of it. Someone loses a lot in GQ because GQ, by its very nature, rewards teamwork, coordination and good choices in mechs. Because you're dropping with a group you're preselecting your teammates - if you're not that good and they're not good enough to carry you then you're reducing the odds of someone on your team being good enough to carry you. If you all need carried then it takes a lot of good players to drive a win while carrying you. That is not a game design problem it's a player behavior problem. Quit trying to change the game instead of your behaviors.

The request, the entire request, is I want to play in a group against pugs, with a matchmaker to ensure those pugs are as bad as I am, but I'm in a group. FFS how can anyone take that seriously without seeing immediately what it is? Not understanding how badly that will turn out?