864 replies to this topic

[Kroete]

Lykaon, on 25 June 2018 - 11:24 PM, said:

Casual players do not want to be challenged they want to be mute and unfocused and want opposition to be as disorganized as they are.

How dare they?!?!
Stupid, stinking, bad pugs want even matches?


For real or are you stoned?



Edit:
About queuetime,
if there are not enough players for gp,
play some other mode.

You cant expect that 90% of the players (pugplayers) suffer because 10% special snowflakes want them to play their game. Their are reasons most players play pugplay and groups (even 2) are not one of that reasons.

Edit2:
Groups are the main reason they play pugplay,
if i think about it twice and from the other side.

Edited by Kroete, 26 June 2018 - 12:24 AM.

[Vxheous]

Lykaon, on 25 June 2018 - 11:24 PM, said:

What will happen if this is ever allowed into the solo queue is they will be given some sort of handicap (tonnage restrictions likely or artificial PSR increase)

Tonnage restrictions are already what makes larger groups in group queue "not fun" or creates cheese type large group tactics (12 man 50 ton crab rushes, or 50 ton nova rushes, or Quickdraw IV-4 spam + filler piranhas/fleas, or annihilators + piranha/fleas). If you were to add in 2 man tonnage restrictions for solo play, it would create the exact same problem now. Bad 2 man groups that can't handle playing in group queue, would also be unable to handle being tonnage handicapped in solo queue, thus "not fun".

As to your second suggestion, PSR increase, how do you propose to artificially increase a two man made up of two max tier 1 players (max tier 1 is just a skillbar, we all know that).

[Lykaon]

MischiefSC, on 25 June 2018 - 10:54 PM, said:

Except that all the top performing players have sided with the 'it's a terrible idea' part of it.

So your position is that all the people who play comp and invest the most effort of everyone in this game into playing the best possible opponents they can get are.... just not wanting a real challenge?

People are opposed to 2player groups in QP specifically because we know, from experience in the game, that it skews the game in favor of 2mans. As such we then have to either play in 2mans in QP and play with an advantage that we don't want because it dilutes the fun and challenge of the game and is less fun for everyone else or we have to play in an environment that is inherently unbalanced and dilutes the value of everyone who isn't in the 2man.

If QP players wanted to 'rise to the challenge' they would play in group queue or FW. Some do - by choice. They can also choose to play in QP in the most casual possible environment.

Also you're just trying to shift the focus away from exactly why 2mans in QP are being asked for.

It's so that people who do poorly in group queue in a 2man because they make bad choices can hopefully get a bit of an advantage by grouping up against pug teams.

Your argument is that you think the solo players in QP are 'up for the challenge'.

Wow, that's so noble of you. So bold and respectful of you to volunteer the bulk of the player population to take a disadvantaged situation in QP so that a small handful of people can get an advantage and hopefully win more so they feel better.

Why exactly are we asking to put 2mans in solo queue?

If it's the 'wait times' why not address wait times for everyone? Why is this solution coincidentally only aimed at low performing players in small groups?

If it's not wait times then why, exactly, is there a need to put groups back in QP?

I don't recall saying anything about the top skilled comp players even giving a crap about what happens in a solo + small group queue. I assumed they would continue to play at a comp level and occationally screw around in a "solo" drop.You know kinda like they do right now.


I pointed out that Waaay waaay back when the queue was seperated to begin with it was to afford casual players with easier opposition.

Rather than improve an individual's ability to compete (VOIP/PSR/ELO or whatever) the groups were simply removed.

This had several detrimental effects on the core of a community (player units) by removing the units from their recruitment pools.Solo players were no longer playing with units and finding they may wish to join a unit. New players also had a lessened access to experienced mentors.This was the beginning of the slow bleeding to death of the founding player units that should have been the foundation of a great community. Lacking the easy access to replace lost membership these units figuratively bled to death.

I do not think this was a good choice for the long term health of the game.

The choices made by PGI improved match quality for the casual solo player while degrading the quality for the grouped players.

Solos got to play in a sandbox without fear of needing to be inovative or even have a plan other than kill the "red bots" They don't even use the in game VOIP all that much.

The solos got easier opposition to fight,They get to freely select what mech they want to use and have a match maker that attempts to match player skill levels,mech weight classes and overall creates matches quicker for solos than groups.

Groups got several iterations of a group queue all being some odd compromize or another. There was the group queue where if you had 11 players you couldn't drop (no solos to fill the 12th slot) or if you had 9 players you waited a small eternity as well as if you had 3 players the 12 player only group queue ...etc.

Now we have a group queue were there is no match maker to speak of and if you are in a large group you can't freely select a mech of choice it must fit the tonnage restrictions.Overall a lesser quality of game play with fewer freedoms and options.

And because of this neglect in favor of appeasing the casual gamers small groups and newer players in groups are in a shark tank with no match maker building a balanced game for them.So they are looking for an answer.


Again I do not think these choices were good for the game's long term health.


it is my stance that the choice to seperate the queues back then was a mistake and that other measures should have been taken to encourage organized play in the general populous rather than make it easier for players to play poorly and make low skill play the "norm" and organized play a cobbled together mess of half measures and bearly functioning bandaids to attempt a semblance of balance for grouped players but failing at every turn.


Claiming to be opposed to the 2 player groups in a mixed queue because of it skewing or having already been tried is not taking into account when you aquired that data.

Was it before we had in game VOIP?
Was it before PSR?
Was it before we had other core mechanics in place like Ghost heat/quirks/skill tree?

This is like saying that because someone attempted a transatlantic flight in a 1918 Bi-plane and crashed we shouldn't try in today . It's a different game today with vastly different tools at our disposal.


To clearify what my argument is it is as follows.

POINT one: the seperation of the queues to begin with was to make it easier for solos. Solos now claiming that 2 player teams wishing for an easier time are instead wanting to "seal club" or abuse them (the solos) are basically hypocrates.

POINT two: the reason lower skill small groups may be having difficulty in group queue is because the group experience has been gutted to serve the casual solos. There is no match maker to speak of in the group queue and it's because of the original seperation in the queues and the choices made to dedicate effort towards solo casuals and halfarse the groups that we even have this question before us now.

POINT three: Most of the reasons given to oppose the idea are actually excuses with little to no merit or bearing on the actual issue as it is today.

3a: "a couple of 1% awesome players would own" ...reality is this is such a rare outlier it would have next to no impact in the grand scheme of a players stats. They would see this opposing them so rarely that it would not have a measurable impact.

3b: "we tried it before and it was a disaster" That was before many of the features we have now existed so our current game is very different from that time when we did try it before.

3c: "we tried it before and it was a disaster" was it really? or are we counting on confirmation bias as facts? The last iteration of the mixed queue had groups limited to one per team and group size of 4 max. we also had 12 player teams then so doesn't this mean that 2/3 of a group were pugs? so every time a group won a match 2 puggies for every one grouped player also won. How can it be possible that solos were always the victims? the numbers just don't play out.


And to answer your closing questions....

The complete pandering to casual solos at the expense of game quality for grouped players has resulted in a group queue experience that is a shark tank for lower experienced players in small groups.

These players feel they are struggling and are clearly not getting enough enjoyment out of the game. I can't blame these players for wanting an experience more like the solo queue. Afterall the solo queue has a match maker and it is less of a "shark tank" than dropping in the group queue.


I my self however find the current group queue very survivable and do play in small groups of 2-4 players regularly and during East cost NA weekend prime time.

I would not be interested in 2 player groups in a solo queue for myself and in fact I would quickly oppose the idea if two player groups could not opt out of solo queue and were not allowed in the groups queue. I like it here I like sharks.


As for "rising to the challenges" I believe many of the solo player base are capable and skilled and would not actually experience any real measurable difference if the queue included 2 player groups of a similar skill level to the solo players present.

I don't think 2 out of 12 players grouped will be the major factor in match outcome it will be the TEN solo players that retain the most influence on the outcome.

The few players who possess the capacity to be a driving influence in a match are so rare as to be outliers in the grand scheme and will have no measurable effect on the average solo player. Also,those players are likely to be the very players who would dedicate their time to other pursuits than solo queue drops with a partner making their appearances even rarer still.

[Lykaon]

Vxheous, on 26 June 2018 - 12:27 AM, said:

Tonnage restrictions are already what makes larger groups in group queue "not fun" or creates cheese type large group tactics (12 man 50 ton crab rushes, or 50 ton nova rushes, or Quickdraw IV-4 spam + filler piranhas/fleas, or annihilators + piranha/fleas). If you were to add in 2 man tonnage restrictions for solo play, it would create the exact same problem now. Bad 2 man groups that can't handle playing in group queue, would also be unable to handle being tonnage handicapped in solo queue, thus "not fun".

As to your second suggestion, PSR increase, how do you propose to artificially increase a two man made up of two max tier 1 players (max tier 1 is just a skillbar, we all know that).

I wasn't recommending any of this I just know that it is likely to occur because of how things generally go down around here when it's about groups and puggies.

The puggies get absolute freedom and the groups get tied down with some silly half measure restriction that creates more issues than it solves.

That was sort of my whole point of the post.


There really seems to be some sort of issue with comprehending intent within context around here.

Edited by Lykaon, 26 June 2018 - 01:03 AM.

[Mech Walesa]

Haipyng, on 14 June 2018 - 06:41 AM, said:

Totally known and asked for many times and spoken out against just as many times. It might be a few more against it depending on the stack of players on the forum and whether you want small groups of 2, 3, or 4 in solo. It's rather a moot issue for me at this point, as anyone I could interest in playing with me, got seal clubbed in GQ several times over and decided against playing further.

this is why 2 of my friends decided NOT to play mwo.

[Dogstar]

Lykaon, on 26 June 2018 - 01:03 AM, said:

There really seems to be some sort of issue with comprehending intent within context around here.

It's willful that's what it is. Some people on here are deliberately misinterpreting what others say in order to 'win' the thread regardless of reason. It's beyond a joke frankly.

[Kroete]

Lykaon, on 26 June 2018 - 01:03 AM, said:

The puggies get absolute freedom and the groups get tied down with some silly half measure restriction that creates more issues than it solves.

You should also tell why they get some restictions:

The groups had also absolute freemdom,
they choosed to stomp pugs instead using the new groupqueue.
Then the groups were restricted to 4 mans in pug play or play groupqueue,
they desided to split to 4 mans to stomp in pug queue.
Then the groups get banned of the qp.

Small groups come up with beeing in an disadvantage,
pig give big groups restrictions.

Dont blame the pugs for the group restictions,
they were well earned or demanded by small groups!


Just look at the cw-queue,
there you can also see what happens when pugs meet groups,
the queue is dead, no real development, not enough players.

Most players just want to play big stompy robots,
just casual pug fun in some spare time.

And dont miss: We are talking about 80+% of players if we talk about pug players.

Edited by Kroete, 26 June 2018 - 01:29 AM.

[MTier Slayed Up]

Lykaon, on 26 June 2018 - 12:41 AM, said:

I don't recall saying anything about the top skilled comp players even giving a crap about what happens in a solo + small group queue. I assumed they would continue to play at a comp level and occationally screw around in a "solo" drop.You know kinda like they do right now.

Point is, unless you want a duo of EmP players...Or numerous other people to duo that are exceedingly good at the game who can shift the balance to whichever side, your experience in group que is going to be largely the same as in "NotSolo" que. It's an incredibly bad idea because the ques don't separate the slightly above average from God Potato.

Even then, lets say you're Tier 1 and you want to bring in a new buddy who's Tier 5, taking a trial mech, couldn't find the R key to save his life. He will still get stomped. Badly. You may do good. Him...Not so much. Sounds fun, right?

Lykaon, on 26 June 2018 - 12:41 AM, said:

I pointed out that Waaay waaay back when the queue was seperated to begin with it was to afford casual players with easier opposition. Rather than improve an individual's ability to compete (VOIP/PSR/ELO or whatever) the groups were simply removed.

Geeze, it almost sounds like folks want to avoid being stomped altogether whilst at the same time, be able to play with their buddy and stomp others. What a vicious cycle. "I'm tired of being stomped so I want to stomp others, except with friendship!".

Have you guys considered trying to join a unit? New players being introduced into a unit and trying the whole team work thing in QP and what have you will probably be a way funner experience than duoing and hoping your team aren't window licker careerists.

Lykaon, on 26 June 2018 - 12:41 AM, said:

This had several detrimental effects on the core of a community (player units) by removing the units from their recruitment pools.Solo players were no longer playing with units and finding they may wish to join a unit. New players also had a lessened access to experienced mentors.This was the beginning of the slow bleeding to death of the founding player units that should have been the foundation of a great community. Lacking the easy access to replace lost membership these units figuratively bled to death.

So...No and no.

Peoples interests change. Units come and go. Every game that has groups or units or clans and what have you will come and go. Folks will gradually get tired of MWO and move on to other things. The "recruitment pool" is already stagnant. Once again, we're not seeing a huge influx of new players suddenly flocking to this big stompy banana peel lazor fest randomly. One way or another, units are going to lose members or fall apart entirely. Everything is just an eventuality.

Lykaon, on 26 June 2018 - 12:41 AM, said:

The choices made by PGI improved match quality for the casual solo player while degrading the quality for the grouped players.

Solos got to play in a sandbox without fear of needing to be inovative or even have a plan other than kill the "red bots" They don't even use the in game VOIP all that much.

Okay, so how's that different in group que? No one hardly uses VOIP either...Units that tend to drop in QP communicate through Discord, TeamSpeak or another 3rd party source.

In solo, you're just rolling the dice and just wanting to play the game without the hustle and bustle. There's nothing stating that you need to be innovative, creative, or even have a plan. Just drop, press W and have fun. Most people seem to have fun, minus the few keyboard warriors raising a stink about stuff (like QP for example).

Lykaon, on 26 June 2018 - 12:41 AM, said:

The solos got easier opposition to fight,They get to freely select what mech they want to use and have a match maker that attempts to match player skill levels,mech weight classes and overall creates matches quicker for solos than groups.

Groups got several iterations of a group queue all being some odd compromize or another. There was the group queue where if you had 11 players you couldn't drop (no solos to fill the 12th slot) or if you had 9 players you waited a small eternity as well as if you had 3 players the 12 player only group queue ...etc.

Now we have a group queue were there is no match maker to speak of and if you are in a large group you can't freely select a mech of choice it must fit the tonnage restrictions.Overall a lesser quality of game play with fewer freedoms and options.

1. Are you suggesting we should be limited to our mech selection in solo que to mimic QP? Lol...Of course solo is easier, the match making isn't perfect, but a T5 isn't going to go up against someone like Bear_Cl4w their first game. That's kind of the point.

2. There's really no possible way, given the current player pool, to dig through QP to find an exact same 12 man team with the same mixed bag of tiers. Or a QP consisting of purely T1 players vs T1 players. The tonnage restriction needs to be there unless you want to see a lance of the same mechs with the same builds rolling all over you.

I'm really not seeing any merits or even a point to this biography?

Lykaon, on 26 June 2018 - 12:41 AM, said:

And because of this neglect in favor of appeasing the casual gamers small groups and newer players in groups are in a shark tank with no match maker building a balanced game for them.So they are looking for an answer.

See above.

Lykaon, on 26 June 2018 - 12:41 AM, said:

it is my stance that the choice to seperate the queues back then was a mistake and that other measures should have been taken to encourage organized play in the general populous rather than make it easier for players to play poorly and make low skill play the "norm" and organized play a cobbled together mess of half measures and bearly functioning bandaids to attempt a semblance of balance for grouped players but failing at every turn.

Your stance is convoluted though. You want match making to work, but you don't want to be stomped with your friend or whatever, but you want solo to not be solo so you can allow a duo of comp players to drop in said que to do the stomping, so you get stomped anyways and your friend remains butt hurt. That's basically the gist of it.

I get that you and many others want to drop with your friend, but you're gonna have to roll the dice with QP buddy. Every game is like this when you drop a partner pretty much.

Lykaon, on 26 June 2018 - 12:41 AM, said:

Claiming to be opposed to the 2 player groups in a mixed queue because of it skewing or having already been tried is not taking into account when you aquired that data.

Was it before we had in game VOIP?
Was it before PSR?
Was it before we had other core mechanics in place like Ghost heat/quirks/skill tree?

This is like saying that because someone attempted a transatlantic flight in a 1918 Bi-plane and crashed we shouldn't try in today . It's a different game today with vastly different tools at our disposal.

Okay...So wheres your data to back your argument? Find other games that do this exact practice that you describe, show it that it has a better retention rate compared to MWO.

Lykaon, on 26 June 2018 - 12:41 AM, said:

To clearify what my argument is it is as follows.

POINT one: the seperation of the queues to begin with was to make it easier for solos. Solos now claiming that 2 player teams wishing for an easier time are instead wanting to "seal club" or abuse them (the solos) are basically hypocrates.

Okay...so...no.

You're still going to be clubbed, with or without a buddy. Point being, people wanted as close to a balanced match as possible and PGI is trying to perfect that itty bitty tool. Again, introducing a T5 new player into a T1 game is not the best way to do this and it'll throw that whole balance thing out of whack even further. You're going to get a QP 2.0 stomp basically.

Lykaon, on 26 June 2018 - 12:41 AM, said:

POINT two: the reason lower skill small groups may be having difficulty in group queue is because the group experience has been gutted to serve the casual solos. There is no match maker to speak of in the group queue and it's because of the original seperation in the queues and the choices made to dedicate effort towards solo casuals and halfarse the groups that we even have this question before us now.

Once again, the match maker that will take an indefinite amount of time to find the percectly balanced match for a grouped match is not possible and likely never will be.

Lykaon, on 26 June 2018 - 12:41 AM, said:

POINT three: Most of the reasons given to oppose the idea are actually excuses with little to no merit or bearing on the actual issue as it is today.

But you didn't raise any points that have any merit either! You HYPOCRATEAL!

Lykaon, on 26 June 2018 - 12:41 AM, said:

3a: "a couple of 1% awesome players would own" ...reality is this is such a rare outlier it would have next to no impact in the grand scheme of a players stats. They would see this opposing them so rarely that it would not have a measurable impact.

Wrong

Lykaon, on 26 June 2018 - 12:41 AM, said:

3b: "we tried it before and it was a disaster" That was before many of the features we have now existed so our current game is very different from that time when we did try it before.

What features? Describe them and why they make a meaningful impact now.

Lykaon, on 26 June 2018 - 12:41 AM, said:

3c: "we tried it before and it was a disaster" was it really? or are we counting on confirmation bias as facts? The last iteration of the mixed queue had groups limited to one per team and group size of 4 max. we also had 12 player teams then so doesn't this mean that 2/3 of a group were pugs? so every time a group won a match 2 puggies for every one grouped player also won. How can it be possible that solos were always the victims? the numbers just don't play out.

What numbers? What...Where??? Did you just pull this out of thin air?

Lykaon, on 26 June 2018 - 12:41 AM, said:

And to answer your closing questions....

The complete pandering to casual solos at the expense of game quality for grouped players has resulted in a group queue experience that is a shark tank for lower experienced players in small groups.

These players feel they are struggling and are clearly not getting enough enjoyment out of the game. I can't blame these players for wanting an experience more like the solo queue. Afterall the solo queue has a match maker and it is less of a "shark tank" than dropping in the group queue.

I'm seeing a pattern...You're repeating everything to get a point across but it's not working.
See above, answered it.

Lykaon, on 26 June 2018 - 12:41 AM, said:

I my self however find the current group queue very survivable and do play in small groups of 2-4 players regularly and during East cost NA weekend prime time.

I would not be interested in 2 player groups in a solo queue for myself and in fact I would quickly oppose the idea if two player groups could not opt out of solo queue and were not allowed in the groups queue. I like it here I like sharks.

Wut?

Lykaon, on 26 June 2018 - 12:41 AM, said:

As for "rising to the challenges" I believe many of the solo player base are capable and skilled and would not actually experience any real measurable difference if the queue included 2 player groups of a similar skill level to the solo players present.

Except a week of this being introduced, folks will still complain about match making and getting stomped and that their friend left because of it.

Rinse and repeat.

Lykaon, on 26 June 2018 - 12:41 AM, said:

I don't think 2 out of 12 players grouped will be the major factor in match outcome it will be the TEN solo players that retain the most influence on the outcome.

Tell that to the folks that can pull in 4 kills in solo que reguarly whilst getting 700-1k damage in a game. Imagine if two players of the same caliber we're to be on that team. That sounds fun.

Lykaon, on 26 June 2018 - 12:41 AM, said:

The few players who possess the capacity to be a driving influence in a match are so rare as to be outliers in the grand scheme and will have no measurable effect on the average solo player. Also,those players are likely to be the very players who would dedicate their time to other pursuits than solo queue drops with a partner making their appearances even rarer still.

Wrong.

Felt like I read a court issued paper.

TL:DR - Your experience will remain unchanged.

Edited by DrtyDshSoap, 26 June 2018 - 02:45 AM.

[MTier Slayed Up]

Dogstar, on 26 June 2018 - 01:13 AM, said:

It's willful that's what it is. Some people on here are deliberately misinterpreting what others say in order to 'win' the thread regardless of reason. It's beyond a joke frankly.

It's also you folks being obnoxiously stubborn without seeing the faults and cons in allowing duo's into solo. Two way street there, bucko.

[Mystere]

Vxheous, on 25 June 2018 - 07:34 PM, said:

There are good players in QP solo queue, but the best ones are generally comp players that choose to play solo queue, like Proton or Writhen when they stream.

And this is why the only Solaris mode I ever wanted was a no-holds-barred winner-takes-all last-man-standing 24+ free-for-all.

There can be only one. <maniacal >

[Mystere]

Lykaon, on 25 June 2018 - 11:24 PM, said:

The only reason I feel combined queue is a good idea is eventually it may be a neccessity. As a population dwindles the wait times on seperated queues may become an issue.So a compromise may need to be explored eventually.

Then explicitly call for the unification of the 2 queues, not join the call for having duos drop in the solo queue. <shrugs>.

Lykaon, on 26 June 2018 - 12:41 AM, said:

POINT two: the reason lower skill small groups may be having difficulty in group queue is because the group experience has been gutted to serve the casual solos.

I think you meant "casual groups". Otherwise, it makes no sense.

Edited by Mystere, 26 June 2018 - 06:55 AM.

[Lykaon]

Mystere, on 26 June 2018 - 06:49 AM, said:

Then explicitly call for the unification of the 2 queues, not join the call for having duos drop in the solo queue. <shrugs>.



I think you meant "casual groups". Otherwise, it makes no sense.

<sigh> there is that failure to grasp intent of meaning through interpreting context again. It's endemic it seems.

Overall my opinion (as I feel was very clearly stated) is splitting the queues before exploring other means of balancing the experience for various players was a HUGE mistake and lead to a whole slew of problems we have today including low population,under developed faction warfare and an overall lesser quality of matches for group queue players.

But I fear to address a unified queue would require time travel,that ship has sailed the mistakes were made and have already caused their wounds.



And I meant casual solos other wise it really makes no sense...

I mean read it with "casual groups" instead of "casual solos"

"The reason lower skill small groups may be having difficulty in group queue is because the group experience has been gutted to serve casual groups"

Now that really doesn't make sense since it is directly contradictory.

My point (that was missed) was PGI has opted to spend resources on improving solo queue match making while pretty much ignoring groups queue match making. The focus on solo casuals has neglected the groups and disproportionatly effects lower skill/tiered small groups.

Thus..."the group experience has been gutted to serve the casual solos"

[KHETTI]

"Me and my buddies can't compete in the group queue, we refuse to play in a larger group, pug lives don't matter, therefore we should be allowed to stomp them in solo queue!"- every (supposed)casual group ever.

It seems to me the only problem here is casual groups who WERE catered to on numerous occasions, but continued to choose eze mode when it was available.
I distinctly remember when group queue was being implemented, all the "BYE PUGS, WE WON'T MISS U" threads, less than a week later the same scrubs were back to stomping randoms and crying about comp groups stomping them in GC.
Atleast be honest about your entitlement, i F**king hate liars.
One last thing, go play WoT or WoWs, WG makes games specifically for casual (crutch) gamer groups, you will fit right in.

[Kroete]

Lykaon, on 26 June 2018 - 02:48 PM, said:

My point (that was missed) was PGI has opted to spend resources on improving solo queue match making while pretty much ignoring groups queue match making. The focus on solo casuals has neglected the groups and disproportionatly effects lower skill/tiered small groups.

Thus..."the group experience has been gutted to serve the casual solos"

The money goes, where the players are.

That we get a new solomode (years too late and not like we wanted it),
but no improvement on cw or gp says all about it.

[Lykaon]

Kroete, on 26 June 2018 - 01:20 AM, said:

You should also tell why they get some restictions:

The groups had also absolute freemdom,
they choosed to stomp pugs instead using the new groupqueue.
Then the groups were restricted to 4 mans in pug play or play groupqueue,
they desided to split to 4 mans to stomp in pug queue.
Then the groups get banned of the qp.

Small groups come up with beeing in an disadvantage,
pig give big groups restrictions.

Dont blame the pugs for the group restictions,
they were well earned or demanded by small groups!


Just look at the cw-queue,
there you can also see what happens when pugs meet groups,
the queue is dead, no real development, not enough players.

Most players just want to play big stompy robots,
just casual pug fun in some spare time.

And dont miss: We are talking about 80+% of players if we talk about pug players.

That's an interesting narrative. I especially love how you villanized the grouped players and applied a sinister motive to them playing a game.

I also loved how you made reference to a time before the current situation to draw attention away from how things are now.

Today,in the game we play now and not 3+ years ago we have the following....

Solos get a match maker that attempts to balance teams on pilot PSR as well as mech tonnage.

Groups do not have a matchmaker to speak of it's basically whatever vs whatever (meh...who cares they're just grouped players not the cherished puggie 80+ %)

Solos when selecting a mech can opt to pilot any mech they desire.The match maker the solos have will work them into a match.

Grouped players have tonnage restrictions based on group size frequently preventing players from using the mechs they desired to use.If you love assault mech but also love being in large groups ...well tough nuggets you can't have both after all you are not among the cherished 80+% of the casual solo players.

Player created units that require players to exist have been isolated from their primary recruitment pool,the solo players.There is no means of casual interaction between teamed up groups and solos to facilitate recruitment like we had years ago. It's no coincidence that the player units and backbone of faction warfare are dwindling. It's because the units that drive the community have been strangled to death.

The reason small groups are currently at a disadvantage is that the solo queue has a working match maker and developer attention to improve the game play experience while no such effort has been applied to group queue. The result is a shark tank for groups favoring experienced players and large groups.

Splitting the queue was a mistake to begin with especially before any real effort was made to level the playing field.

There are so many current issues that can be traced back to that single choice.

Kroete, on 27 June 2018 - 03:23 AM, said:

The money goes, where the players are.

This is probably putting the cart before the horse. What you see now is the result of neglecting group oriented players. They simply left leaving the casual solos as a majority.

Instead of fostering community organized units and grouping it was easier to code for solo players.

The reason for splitting the queue and then the subsequent focusing on solo queue is a simple matter of it was the easiest thing to do.

Puggies crying up a sh*tstorm on the forums again....capitulate to their demands rather than put in some work to build a game that accomidated all players.

Now we have a seperated queue and the simple fact of the matter is it would now take two different methods to balance a match maker for each queue. PGI doubled their work load rather than fix one queue they instead split them,fixed solos and neglected groups.

it wasn't about where the players were it was about money though. A poor decision that saved money that day but probably cost more in the end.

[Kroete]

Lykaon, on 27 June 2018 - 06:31 AM, said:

That's an interesting narrative. I especially love how you villanized the grouped players and applied a sinister motive to them playing a game.

I also loved how you made reference to a time before the current situation to draw attention away from how things are now.

I just told you the history behind the split and restictions
and that they were a reaction of the actions (and demands) of the groups.
No sinister motive applied, just facts about this case.

About the matchmaker:
Making a working matchmaker with two teams of 12 is easy,
if you have the same basics for each player (same model, same weapon, same options).

But we have 20.-100 ton mechs, different hardpoints and weapons and loadouts,
even if you would be able to use some model to find the dinamic battlevalue for each mech based on its loadout, you still need to match 12 different skills with 12 different battlevalues. and then build a second team with the same overall score. And thats only for pug matches, if you put groups in it, and i hope we dont disagree that groups have an advantage over pugs players, you need a third system to valuate the groupstreght against groups (with different teamnumbers) and pugs.

You need 3 systems (Battlevalue, individual skill and groupstreght) working together before the matchmaker can even start its work and two of them are more difficult to develop then the matchmaker itself.

The matchmaker pgi has build is more like a memory-cards-game,
but you are wanting a 3 dimensional go game with modified rules using chess-men and chess-moving-rules and some w20 dices mixed in.

Edited by Kroete, 27 June 2018 - 07:19 AM.

[Lykaon]

KHETTI, on 26 June 2018 - 03:02 PM, said:

"Me and my buddies can't compete in the group queue, we refuse to play in a larger group, pug lives don't matter, therefore we should be allowed to stomp them in solo queue!"- every (supposed)casual group ever.

It seems to me the only problem here is casual groups who WERE catered to on numerous occasions, but continued to choose eze mode when it was available.
I distinctly remember when group queue was being implemented, all the "BYE PUGS, WE WON'T MISS U" threads, less than a week later the same scrubs were back to stomping randoms and crying about comp groups stomping them in GC.
Atleast be honest about your entitlement, i F**king hate liars.
One last thing, go play WoT or WoWs, WG makes games specifically for casual (crutch) gamer groups, you will fit right in.

Let's put this out there shall we.

Back in the olden times when all players were in one queue there were no restrictions or very few. No matchmaker and PSR.we didn't have VOIP as a built in feature,quirks or skill trees or even ghostheat reigning in those 6+ PPC one shot one kill mechs.

The game as a whole had not matured and little had been done to build a balanced match maker or intergrate tools to improve grouping and player organizing.

Pretty much everything the groups and units did to perform as groups and units required third party software and organizing OUTSIDE of the game it's self.

PGI created the enviorment the players played in and some capitalized on being organized.It is no suprise that many players enjoyed winning and took steps to improve their chances of winning. It is also no suprise that the majority of players prefered winning and earning c-bills over challenging pursuits against equally organized players.

I have been here since well pretty much the whole time. Back in those days it was the player run units who were pushing the community to embrace challenging competition. I was a member of one of the largest player units of that time and we as a unit regularly would organize to battle against other units or even other players within our own unit because it was more challenging.

And my unit wasn't a rare example it was the norm. Big units wanted to fight other big units.Small units wanted to become bigger,alliances and rivalries were formed and we enjoyed it while we awaited "COMMUNITY WARFARE" since it wasn't in game yet we made our own version of it.

Large units were building a culture of true competiton and we wanted more units in the mix we just wanted more "community warfare"

Time marched on and "community warfare" still had not materialized. We only had one queue as a casual outlet and more than a few were becoming frustrated by PGI's foot dragging when it came to building community grouping tools,adding VOIP adding LFG tools or even a method of in game recruitment for membership that didn't rely of posting on the forums (reaching a small percentage of active players) or spamming the quick play queue with text adverts (annoying to many players).

Momentum dropped and many of the units were just playing in the quick play queue because it was easier than e-mailing other units or posting on their third party forums requests for matches.The lack of in game organizational tools was a problem units were starting to feel the effects of.

This lead to the quick play queue having smaller groups of very well organized and trained unit members.These players trained to compete in an arena of equal levels of organization on each team and well,to put it bluntly Puggies sucked in compareson.

The Puggies did not have the same tools at their disposal.They had no VOIP they didn't have a pre match lobby to select complimentry battlemech builds and above all they were frequently out class in skill due to no match maker.

So instead of ...

Adding in VOIP
Building a match maker
Instituting some sort of battle value and PSR system to rate pilots and mechs
Including a pre launch lobby to communicate with your team BEFORE the game and make a plan.
Add in Looking For Group tools
Support unit recruitment within the game it's self

We got...

Seperate the pugs from the groups and then do most of the stuff we should have done before seperating the queue but only for the Solo queue and neglect the groups and units.



Do you want me to be 100% honest?


There is no difference in motive between being in a small group and not wanting to be thrown to the wolves in a match makerless group queue and being a solo player who fears increased difficulty by adding in small groups to the solo queue.

The solos want to keep their easy mode.

The small groups want to taste that sweet sweet easy themselves.

[Kroete]

Lykaon, on 27 June 2018 - 07:11 AM, said:

The small groups want to taste that sweet sweet easy themselves.

This quote says anything about you and your motivation.
Not even matches, just easy stomping and farming pugs,
we dont need such players!

Edited by Kroete, 27 June 2018 - 07:29 AM.

[Lykaon]

Kroete, on 27 June 2018 - 06:52 AM, said:

I just told you the history behind the split and restictions and that they were a reaction of the actions (and demands) of the groups. No sinister motive applied, just facts about this case.

Actually...you didn't.

You clearly flavored the posting with well seeded negative terms like "stomp" and "banned" classic buzzwords used by the puglords of old.


the real reason for the split was.... it was easier to split then than fix it properly.

IGP was the publisher as well and may have had some impact on the decision.Perhaps PGI wasn't buggeted enough to apply development to a proper quick play queue with proper intergrated grouping tools and a match maker.


What no one seems to want to address is that the last time we had small groups and solo together we also didn't have.

PSR
Matchmaker
VOIP
LFG tool
Ghostheat (this actually maters ...figure it out)
Quirks (also matters...think about it)
Skill trees (yep this matters too)


So many variables have changed yet all the opposition wants to mention is a 3-4 year old game build.



And here is the kicker...I really don't care about small groups in the solo queue for myself I wouldn't use it.

I just find the near total lack of most of the arguments here to actually contain an argument funny and annoying.

[Zibmo]

Lykaon, on 26 June 2018 - 12:41 AM, said:

snip

While I agree with a lot of the things you are saying, I think there is a huge hole in PGI's strategy. Namely, the complete and utter lack of anything remotely resembling community tools. Chat is pertinent ONLY in combat or in units. And to get to the unit chat, you have to select it (with an annoying blinking icon to tell you somebody somewhere said something). There is no persistent world because they haven't created the tools, even for players, to create one. If you want it, you have to use external websites, chat servers and so on.

The failure to join units is not a player created problem. It is entirely based on PGI's lack of community vision.

Is there a Looking for Unit tool in the game? How about the ability to whisper or privately chat with someone? In fact, I get notifications to "add friends" and there isn't even a note attached as to whether they want to be my friend, or just want to get me into a chat to vent at me.