864 replies to this topic

[MTier Slayed Up]

19 pages in, there's nothing to be said that hasn't already been said. Let this thread die, the change won't happen, and it shouldn't.

Edit - 20 pages now.

Edited by DrtyDshSoap, 19 June 2018 - 01:32 AM.

[Blindbeard the Pirate]

Vxheous, on 19 June 2018 - 01:20 AM, said:

"pro" teams of 8+ must be a subjective thing, because I can count on one hand how many remaining large groups that play in group queue that could actually be ascribed to. Most large groups in group queue are average at best at this game, and get easily rolled by 4mans + other small groups simply due to tonnage differences. You understand that when multiple small groups drop against a large group, there is often a 200-350 ton difference in weight on the drop, meaning if the team with the multiple small groups aren't stupid and get picked off, they can easily attrition the other team?

Should you actually run into a large group in group queue that is actually really good, take your loss, and queue again. Chances are you won't see them again for the rest of the night unless you're playing during a low population time.

For quick reference:
2 - 200t - 100 per player
4 - 280t - 70t per player
12 - 600t - 50t per player

4s tend to be ideal from a performance perspective, you get a couple of good heavies or assaults and someone who can shred armour. By 12s you're getting light and medium rushed, which is a lot harder to pull off against any half-way decent team of players, and only gets worse if they recognize it and start running pinpoint builds that can instakill something 40t and below.

[TWIAFU]

Mystere, on 18 June 2018 - 08:30 PM, said:

Well, since you put it that way, I can argue that adding duos into the solo queue is like pissing petrol into a fire.

We all see what happens teamwork players into a queue with and against non-teamwork players.

[Haipyng]

I agree with others, I think everything that can be said has been said about the subject.

I'll sum up and leave it here.

You can't deny that the real fix is a GP MM with QP like filtering or some other system like Nightbird suggests. Unfortunately I can't find anything officially discussed from PGI that even acknowledges an issue with, or any work to be done on GP MM, just QP MM. Some may argue that we have to fix solo queue MM first, however after several years and multiple new game mode releases, we have seen nothing except a tonnage handicap to balance GP. I think it is reasonable to assume they can't, or for whatever reason, are unwilling to do something with it. If you have information otherwise please link it, I tried to find something last night and failed.

If the GP Queue is getting thin as it looks like it is (and only PGI knows for sure, all we can tell is the overall population is down and the number of games being played is down in general, across GP and QP) even a fixed GP MM may not have the population needed to actually balance the game. Hopefully a balanced GP MM would bring people back in to play. I don't know.

If you play off North American Prime Time hours there is a wait to get into GP and there is little that will fix this short of adding players. I think most everyone agrees adding Solo's to GP is a good idea, although I have some doubts that this will lead to a large enough influx of players to GP given the number of people that are concerned with balanced game play, but some action is better than total inaction.

Adding Duos to QP is a half measure, but it should be fairly simple to do using the current QP MM and setup and one would think attainable for PGI to do, even if they can't make a balanced GP MM. It also doesn't require a built up GP population to work. I have to acknowledge that the concerns about unbalancing are genuine, although I don't think they are likely to be as huge as other think they will. I am not convinced that 4 mans on voice comms, the other team without comms, and the broken MM of old is the same thing as 2 mans, with everyone on comms, and the current matchmaker. As much as people howl about "yes it is", the fact is we have never actually tried 2 mans, with everyone on voice comms, and the current matchmaker. It's all conjecture on both sides. I think it's worthy of testing or trying barring actually fixing the GP MM. We just have to agree to disagree and with a roughly even split so far I don't think it will go anywhere.

The fact is the population is in decline. This thread is just one perspective on helping the game along, however continued inaction changes nothing and does nothing to reverse or halt the decline. Yes PGI should evaluate our options, but also make a choice based on the best information available and take action. More mech packs and game types doesn't seem to be doing the trick.

Edited by Haipyng, 19 June 2018 - 11:41 AM.

[Besh]

Haipyng, on 19 June 2018 - 06:00 AM, said:

[snip]

The fact is the population is in decline.

[snippety snip]

Jarl's List would like to have a word with you...

https://leaderboard.isengrim.org/stats

(yes, I know, the Trend leads downwards, but as you can see, player numbers are actually growing for a few Seasons now...)

Edited by Besh, 19 June 2018 - 06:11 AM.

[Vesper11]

Vxheous, on 19 June 2018 - 01:20 AM, said:

"pro" teams of 8+ must be a subjective thing, because I can count on one hand how many remaining large groups that play in group queue that could actually be ascribed to. Most large groups in group queue are average at best at this game, and get easily rolled by 4mans + other small groups simply due to tonnage differences.

Makes me wonder why larger than 4 groups even exist then (and where do people get so many FRIENDS playing MWO with them that 4 people groups aren't enough for them).

Besh, on 19 June 2018 - 06:10 AM, said:

Jarl's List would like to have a word with you...

https://leaderboard.isengrim.org/stats

(yes, I know, the Trend leads downwards, but as you can see, player numbers are actually growing for a few Seasons now...)

And yet GP is less popular~

[Haipyng]

Besh, on 19 June 2018 - 06:10 AM, said:

Jarl's List would like to have a word with you...

https://leaderboard.isengrim.org/stats

(yes, I know, the Trend leads downwards, but as you can see, player numbers are actually growing for a few Seasons now...)

Yep, it was linked to earlier in the thread and I saw it. 'Players by Season' is up and I bet it will be up even more with the launch of Solaris with people coming to see what it is about and dropping for some games in QP or GP. Will they stick around? As I understand it all you need to be counted as an active player is play 10 games. I think 'Average Games Played per Season' is more telling. The trend is down in both, and steeper in Average Games Played when compared to Players by Season. Of course it doesn't tell us what we really want to know, which is what the population looks like in GP versus QP.

Edited by Haipyng, 19 June 2018 - 06:40 AM.

[Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie]

ofc GP is less popular;

rambos are gonna QP, while teamplayers either quit because of qp/current state of gp - or are drawn to FP quite naturally.
GP is just in a bad spot IMO, as -most- people there have a "group", but still wanna solo it out; just with a buddy or 2.

can't bring groups to pure-qp though, makes absolutely NO sense.
if you wanna introduce a buddy, we have lobbies for that. it's a great tool.
after that, GP or -which I prefer- scouting.
some teambuilding shenanigans where you can still pick up the basics over time.

just don't throw them in the sharkpool that is fw, they will have little joy in the beginning.
and no solo-q, as the braindead ramboing there makes many people uninstall right away.
yeah.. that was blunt, so sorry.

Edited by Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie, 19 June 2018 - 06:39 AM.

[a le Roi]

Lukoi Banacek, on 18 June 2018 - 12:09 PM, said:

When do you play that the wait times are so long for GQ? The GQ and FP wait times are in no way similar unless you're playing from AP tbh. I'll be honest with you, I've not seen a ton of evidence that GQ has huge wait times in the NA/EU time frames at all. It's almost as fast as solo queue.

And the population *might* grow, but all of our history here points that will more likely shrink if you add groups to solo queue.

Making the game more accessible to newbies (something I'm a very strong proponent of, the "New Player Experience" aka NPE) doesn't necessarily need come at the cost of pissing off casuals in the solo queue and frankly why should it?

I play solo 90% of the time or more. I play there to play casually and enjoy myself. Why should I have to suffer to let in pairs in your example? And why wouldn't I get one of my like minded buddies (who is also at my skill level, plays competitive play, etc) and go in there and farm some soloists?

Your premise is reliant on this 2-man group being new players and their buddies, extreme casuals and their buddies, lower skill capped players and their buddies being the bulk of these 2-man teams. That's not what would happen. There would plenty of those, to be certain, but there'd also be absolute tons of super experienced, and sometimes very strong pilots now paired up with similar folk, romping and stomping in solo queue. People will complain about it and people will leave over it. It'll be the "last straw" for many of those folks, because the game is not new and shiny anymore.

Would it be as bad as when there were four mans? Assuredly not, but it'd definitely have a negative impact.

There are ways to improve the game for the NPE that don't involve shafting the solo queue, casual player base etc. I agree, preventing the continued death spiral of playerbase # is important, but what you're recommending will just hasten it.

All of that is a fair concern. A possible solution would be to match 2-man groups with players one tier higher than the highest-rated player in the group would otherwise be matched against. So you get to play with your buddy but you'll also be guaranteed to get into tougher matches (but not against 8-man T1 groups like in GQ).

No easy "farming" that way.

[Vesper11]

a le Roi, on 19 June 2018 - 07:32 AM, said:

All of that is a fair concern. A possible solution would be to match 2-man groups with players one tier higher than the highest-rated player in the group would otherwise be matched against. So you get to play with your buddy but you'll also be guaranteed to get into tougher matches (but not against 8-man T1 groups like in GQ).

No easy "farming" that way.

1. Make a smurf account
2. ...
3. PROFIT!

[a le Roi]

Grimmwold, on 18 June 2018 - 05:40 PM, said:

2 man groups in QP will break QP. No.

Why don't they break any other similar game? Now WoT, not War Thunder, not WoWS, nor AW.*

* Some of those games do have group balance issues, but only when they allow large or multiple groups per match.

[Grus]

a le Roi, on 19 June 2018 - 07:32 AM, said:

All of that is a fair concern. A possible solution would be to match 2-man groups with players one tier higher than the highest-rated player in the group would otherwise be matched against. So you get to play with your buddy but you'll also be guaranteed to get into tougher matches (but not against 8-man T1 groups like in GQ).

No easy "farming" that way.

No, take you and your friend in 2man Solaris...

[a le Roi]

Vesper11, on 19 June 2018 - 07:42 AM, said:

1. Make a smurf account
2. ...
3. PROFIT!

If a T1 player wants to club potatoes all day, what's stopping them from doing it right now by creating an alt T5 account?

Grus, on 19 June 2018 - 08:05 AM, said:

No, take you and your friend in 2man Solaris...

I didn't come to MWO to play 2v2. I'd play FP exclusively if the wait times weren't that long and I didn't have to restrict myself to playing just one side.

[Johnathan Tanner]

a le Roi, on 19 June 2018 - 08:06 AM, said:

If a T1 player wants to club potatoes all day, what's stopping them from doing it right now by creating an alt T5 account?

Because tier-1 is 90% tater making smurf account unnecessary.

[a le Roi]

Wil McCullough, on 18 June 2018 - 08:03 PM, said:

...topping groups up with willing solo players...

This is legit the best suggestion I've seen in the entire thread.

If GQ groups were fixed so you'd always have either 4, 8 or 12 players per group, you could choose which group to form and any left-over spots would be filled with solos.

That should reduce wait times by making it a lot easier to fill even teams. (Also maybe allow 4v4 and 8v8 matches when wait times get long.)

[TheBossOfYou]

a le Roi, on 19 June 2018 - 08:05 AM, said:

Why don't they break any other similar game? Now WoT, not War Thunder, not WoWS, nor AW.*

* Some of those games do have group balance issues, but only when they allow large or multiple groups per match.

Then go play those games. It will break QP and nothing you say about WoT will change that FACT. The MM is not good, and allowing people to BREAK IT by choosing teammates is foolish.

Edited by Grimmwold, 19 June 2018 - 09:17 AM.

[Dogstar]

I must say that the people screaming 'no' repeatedly in this thread don't seem to have much to back it up other than that they don't want it.

I've played a lot of WoT which can have up to three or four three man 'platoons' in the 'solo' queue and it really doesn't benefit that side.

There isn't much wrong with having small lances be hosted in the general quick play queue instead of the group play queue, in fact it would probably improve quick play a lot.

If you think that giving 'top players' the ability to group up in the solo queue would make any difference to how hard they carry then you're an idiot and for anyone else it really doesn't matter but does have the benefit of giving current players an opportunity to play with their friends without getting stomped by 12 man teams.

But hey, just keep screaming no like a toddler, I'm sure that's the only thing PGI will listen to.

Edited by Dogstar, 19 June 2018 - 09:40 AM.

[Bud Crue]

Dogstar, on 19 June 2018 - 09:38 AM, said:

I must say that the people screaming 'no' repeatedly in this thread don't seem to have much to back it up other than that they don't want it.

It isn't even that those of us opposed don't want it, its more that it will never happen even if we do. PGI has been clear on this both in words and deeds. Solo Queue exists for individual players and Group Queue exists for groups. They are not going to do some sort of hybrid Solo Queue + because they already did and it failed. Moreover, Faction Play in its historical form shows the folly of this via every "groups stomping pugs" thread ever. Allowing groups, even small groups into the solo queue would have folks up in arms for the same reasons. PGI knows this and also knows well enough not to allow yet another queue to suffer the horror of true team play (the suffer and horror crack is sarcasm).

Dogstar, on 19 June 2018 - 09:38 AM, said:

I've played a lot of WoT which can have up to three or four three man 'platoons' in the 'solo' queue and it really doesn't benefit that side.

Great.

Dogstar, on 19 June 2018 - 09:38 AM, said:

There isn't much wrong with having small lances be hosted in the general quick play queue instead of the group play queue, in fact it would probably improve quick play a lot.

A 4 man of 228 or EMP or EON or even some of the less well known but still dedicated units in Group Queue can and often do dominate the match and that's in a mode were everyone is familiar with team play and dropping with like minded individuals. Let such "small lances" into solo queue and it would be a massacre. This is not a matter of debate. It's a fact of the game and it can be observed every night in GQ.

Dogstar, on 19 June 2018 - 09:38 AM, said:

If you think that giving 'top players' the ability to group up in the solo queue would make any difference to how hard they carry then you're an idiot and for anyone else it really doesn't matter but does have the benefit of giving current players an opportunity to play with their friends without getting stomped by 12 man teams.

No one is asserting that the mere fact of allowing "top players the ability to group up in the solo queue" would somehow impact their desire to "carry". Rather, folks who are opposed to the groupification of the solo queue are simply pointing out that if such "top players" can already perform above par in the other modes as a group, then allowing them the opportunity to do so in the solo queue is a guarantee that they will do so there as well. For every "I just want to play with my buddy" that such a system would allow it would allow an equal sized number of "top players" to come in and clean house. It seems obvious that no sane person would want that and yet here we are. It's as if the seals are now asking, no begging, to be clubbed by "top players".

Dogstar, on 19 June 2018 - 09:38 AM, said:

But hey, just keep screaming no like a toddler, I'm sure that's the only thing PGI will listen to.

Lets hope so for the sake of those who play the solo queue.

[Tatula]

Vesper11, on 19 June 2018 - 07:42 AM, said:

1. Make a smurf account 2. ... 3. PROFIT!

I don't get this PROFIT part. The profit only goes into the smurf account, basically every restart from scratch. Doesn't sound very enjoyable. Took me a long time to this account to what it is today. I actually do have a couple of alt accounts I use for testing, but I have no desire to play them because my favorite mechs and all my XPs and GXPs are here.

[Mystere]

Vellron2005, on 18 June 2018 - 10:52 PM, said:

I also see nothing wrong with qroup Q being limited to groups of 4 ...

I do and it is based on history. There was a mass exodus of group-oriented players when the group queue was limited to a maximum of 4-person teams.