864 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

Dogstar, on 01 July 2018 - 01:14 AM, said:

Obviously matchmaking will need to be revised to account for duos ...

If PGI still has to fix the matchmaker in the solo queue anyway, then they might as well fix the darned thing in the group queue itself.

This is why some doubt the very motives of people asking for duos in the solo queue.

Edited by Mystere, 01 July 2018 - 01:13 PM.

[S O L A I S]

Dogstar, on 01 July 2018 - 01:14 AM, said:

If, as you say, there is such a gap between the lowest teir 1 and the highest what difference does adding duos make? Does it somehow make the top tier 1s even more unbeatable? Top players are, by their very nature, rare, that's why they are the top 1%, 0.1%, or even 0.01% because they're already better than the other 99% of players.

Does a duo of 99% of other players even vaguely compare to a top player in performance? Highly unlikely becasue the force multiplier for a duo is nothing like the hyperbolic factors given in this thread. It's maybe 10-20% better _at most_. Maybe a pair of top 5% players might equal one top 1% player but I doubt it, even so that still leaves 9/10 duos as no better than any single player on the team.

So as far as I can see the objection to them consists of some bizarre fantasy that duos will somehow outweigh all the other players in the game, despite it being totally invlaid. It's a fallacy, completely and utterly and everyone objecting to it is either afraid that they will personally lose out to one or that other people will have fun - either way it's a losers viewpoint.

Obviously matchmaking will need to be revised to account for duos, but an average tier 1 is little better than an average tier 3, especially when you realise that tier is not equal to skill!, so yes averaging a tier 1 and a tier 5 to tier 3 is probably a good idea! It's also a given that duos would have to be limited in some way, either via mech class or mech tonnage.

You say for some reason that the concern of two people swaying the game is invalid. What do you have that backs that up? Considering one Emp guy can do it, again groups of two you think wouldn't be a problem?

The other issue that refuse to wrap your head around is what adding duos would do to matchmaker. Have you asked Paul on his thread if it would be considered?

Either way it is not going to happen or even worth considering.

[Imperius]

Solo queue is like playing against AI on super super easy. I avoid it like the plague.

[Soulless86]

I was thinking about this last night, I want to play with my Bro who is fresh but queuing in Group play just lead us to continually be stacked against 8 strong unit teams that rolled over our teams. It's frustrating when trying to get a new player to learn the ropes with a friend when they don't get a lot of time to learn with similar skill level players.

And if you say 'Just get him to play solo' that sorta defeats the purpose of playing together, and is unfriendly towards new players.

If there was a larger player base I'm sure group wait times would be faster, but at the moment it's treble the time you have to wait for regular solo QP.

MWO needs newer players otherwise the player base will continue to slowly dwindle; I joined because of BattleTech however their seems to be a subset of players who're not only hostile to new players but don't want the game to change in anyway that will upset the Status Quo.

Quickplay in Overwatch allows groups and solo players and the results aren't always determined by the groups, it's match making does attempt to get similar amounts of grouped and solo players in matches for both teams, but that is obviously helped by having a much lager player base.

Edited by Soulless86, 01 July 2018 - 09:31 PM.

[Wil McCullough]

Soulless86, on 01 July 2018 - 09:25 PM, said:

I was thinking about this last night, I want to play with my Bro who is fresh but queuing in Group play just lead us to continually be stacked against 8 strong unit teams that rolled over our teams. It's frustrating when trying to get a new player to learn the ropes with a friend when they don't get a lot of time to learn with similar skill level players.

And if you say 'Just get him to play solo' that sorta defeats the purpose of playing together, and is unfriendly towards new players.

If there was a larger player base I'm sure group wait times would be faster, but at the moment it's treble the time you have to wait for regular solo QP.

MWO needs newer players otherwise the player base will continue to slowly dwindle; I joined because of BattleTech however their seems to be a subset of players who're not only hostile to new players but don't want the game to change in anyway that will upset the Status Quo.

Quickplay in Overwatch allows groups and solo players and the results aren't always determined by the groups, it's match making does attempt to get similar amounts of grouped and solo players in matches for both teams, but that is obviously helped by having a much lager player base.

It is also helped with a game format that incorporates respawn.

Mwo's matchmaker doesn't seem to work anywhere else but in quickplay.

For duos to be included fairly in quickplay, the matchmaker needs to work.

If the matchmaker worked in the first place for groups, you would't be having this problem in the first place.

That is one of the elephants in the room the "pro-duos-in-qp" crowd keeps ignoring.

The other elephant is that the matchmaker CANNOT work the way the game is set up. And there are two reasons for this:

1) we do not have a zero-sum psr system. Almost everyone except the truly bad will bubble up to t1 eventually. Which means that lopsided stomps will happen more often than not because even if there's an equal balance of tier between teams, skill level can be extremely lopsided.

2) we do not have actual balance between tech bases and weight classes. A pilot in a clan assault will perform a lot better than the same pilot in an inner sphere light even if he's equally skilled in both mechs. The matchmaker cannot account for that. A bad t1 player in an is light appears the same as proton in a mad cat ii. Until tech and weight classes are balanced, you're going to get lopsided stomps. This however, will never be fixed because a significant portion of the playerbase in general DEMANDS this imbalance. The player base HATES that lights can take out assaults. A significant portion of the playerbase also play clan and want to keep to "lore" and have clan robots be better than inner sphere robots in every way that counts.

Long story short-
No amount of improved npe and assorted headscratching will solve your problem.your problem is a result of a combination of cockblocks, both from pgi and the playerbase, none of which are going away.

[Dogstar]

S O L A I S, on 01 July 2018 - 07:21 PM, said:

You say for some reason that the concern of two people swaying the game is invalid. What do you have that backs that up? Considering one Emp guy can do it, again groups of two you think wouldn't be a problem?

The other issue that refuse to wrap your head around is what adding duos would do to matchmaker. Have you asked Paul on his thread if it would be considered?

Either way it is not going to happen or even worth considering.

You know I put plenty of reason explaining why, almost all of the time, adding duos would not have an impact, but you are choosing to ignore it because either you're incapable of understanding or just can't refute it.

You've undermined and undervalued your opinion with this repeated lack of attention, so as far as I'm concerned you're not worth debating with any more.

New player experience could be vastly improved by adding duos to the _quick play_ queue. The code changes required are relatively small thus would be inexpensive and the 'downside' of 'top player duos rampaging through matches' is so unlikely to affect anyone that it might as well not exist.

[Chortles]

Soulless86, on 01 July 2018 - 09:25 PM, said:

I was thinking about this last night, I want to play with my Bro who is fresh but queuing in Group play just lead us to continually be stacked against 8 strong unit teams that rolled over our teams. It's frustrating when trying to get a new player to learn the ropes with a friend when they don't get a lot of time to learn with similar skill level players.

And if you say 'Just get him to play solo' that sorta defeats the purpose of playing together, and is unfriendly towards new players.

If there was a larger player base I'm sure group wait times would be faster, but at the moment it's treble the time you have to wait for regular solo QP.

MWO needs newer players otherwise the player base will continue to slowly dwindle; I joined because of BattleTech however their seems to be a subset of players who're not only hostile to new players but don't want the game to change in anyway that will upset the Status Quo.

Quickplay in Overwatch allows groups and solo players and the results aren't always determined by the groups, it's match making does attempt to get similar amounts of grouped and solo players in matches for both teams, but that is obviously helped by having a much lager player base.

I really wish people would stop bringing up other games in comparison to MWO in that those games have groups in solos, therefore MWO should as well. I've already mentioned how groups can exploit the matchmaker in World of Warships by forcing a solo carrier on the other team while your group has one carrier and two anti air ships. I failed to mention that these types of ship compositions are literally called "Cancer Division". Let's use another Wargaming game as an example: Total War Arena. While each unit has counters, how do solo players counter three players worth of elephants charging at once? How do solo players counter two players with catapults and one with spears while camping a scout tower? Every game with solo queue has the same problem that the players usually will not coordinate with their team, but groups generally communicate and synergize their builds together. Also as a special mention, both of these games have a service cost to deploy your ships and units (repair and rearm, another good mechanic that PGI scrapped). If you are the unlucky solo player that gets focused early by the group on the other team, you can potentially earn negative credits. If you think getting stomped in MWO is bad, then you haven't played any Wargaming game. Hopefully other people will refrain from bringing these up when trying to justify groups in solos.

Now I find it strange why you bring Overwatch into your argument considering the gameplay between both games are non comparable. Overwatch has fewer players per team, has respawns, hero switching mid game, and players can drop in drop out of games. Imagine if Overwatch had MWO mechanics: no respawns, heroes are chosen before queue, and no hero switching. Every duo would choose Pharah Mercy for easy kills and sustainability to the point where the games would become who has the better Pharah Mercy (or someone who can score a sick headshot kill from long range). However, even with its own mechanics, Overwatch still suffers from games being dictated by groups. In MWO, it is common to look for top player names on each team. The same goes for Overwatch, except if you see those names in groups, you know they will be top performers. The reverse holds true: if you can recognize an underperforming group on your team, you are going to have a bad time.

[MTier Slayed Up]

Did you know in Call of Duty, you can switch guns too for moar pew pew?

Apples to Oranges.

[Lykaon]

S O L A I S, on 01 July 2018 - 07:21 PM, said:

You say for some reason that the concern of two people swaying the game is invalid. What do you have that backs that up? Considering one Emp guy can do it, again groups of two you think wouldn't be a problem?

The other issue that refuse to wrap your head around is what adding duos would do to matchmaker. Have you asked Paul on his thread if it would be considered?

Either way it is not going to happen or even worth considering.

I believe you are failing to take into account how uncommon a top 1% player is or even a top 5%.

Maybe we need to clearify what this top 1-5% means.

Is it the top 1% of all players that are currently playing regularly or even semi regularly ( as in currently placed in the top 1-5% on the leader boards on this forums)

Or is it top 1-5% of players that are currently online when the match maker fills it's match. (this is a significant difference over the top 1-5% of all players listed on the leader boards)

Or lastly is it the top 1-5% of players currently in the match being played. (As in the two best players of the 24 currently playing are on the same team and grouped together)


Of these three possible definitions the last holds the most sway as being an impactful variable.

Otherwise the first two definitions would be small sample groups that are likely to equalize as their percentages dictate Ie. 1% of all matches include 1% top quality players therefore 99% of matches do not include top 1% players.

Seems silly to put so much concern on something that will not occur 99% of the time.


The last definition I outlined however could potentially become an issue. But even then this would mean the two best players in the matchmaker bucket must be grouped together first.

And this may be rare enough that it isn't a significant factor in the vast majority of matches. And a similar effect can already happen within the framework of the current match maker.

Since we can fairly assume that top 1-5% placed players will be tier one the match maker concentrates this pool of players already by having the criteria set as it is now (2 steps of tier difference in a given match). The match maker currently only matches tier for tier so a genuinely top 1-5% skill level tier one is valued the same as a tier one player who got there by Lurm-spamming their way up the ranks.

The match maker just grabs X number of tier ones from the bucket and places them on teams. Since the tier rank is the only criteria used a tier one lurm spud would be the same value as the hypothetical EMP player in your post.

Blue team gets a LURM spud Red team gets top 1% EMP dude. And since this does currently happen one could assume it is also possible for Blue team to get 2 X Lurm Spuds and Red team to get 2 X genuine top 1-5% skill level players since the current match maker will green light this as "Balanced" since all 4 players have the same value (tier one)

So since we can assume this issue does already occur since it can occur we need to consider the possible complications of players selecting to make this occur. How frequently would 2 top 1=5% players be grouped together and drop in solo queue and of what percentage does this result in a victory for their teams (certainly not 100% but high) and finally what percentage of total matches does the top 1-5% 2 player group even occur at all.


And one last thing to contemplate.

If there is only one 2 player group per team per match wouldn't this mean that 10 players on every team that includes a group are solo players?

And if 10 players on a team are not the top 1-5% skill level grouped players and that team wins doesn't this mean that every victory achieved by the top 1-5% skill level group also grants a win to 10 solos.


So if this hypothetical top 1-5% group wins 100 matches they would have beaten 200 grouped players and 1000 solo players.

Conversely this would mean they would have also shared a victory with 1000 solo players.

Since solo players who win equal solo players who lost wouldn't this logicly mean the top 1-5% skill level groups only negatively impact grouped players since there is no pairity in shared victories with grouped players.

Mathematicly the total number of solo players losing equals the total number of solo players winning.This would mean that since it is highly unlikely that any given solo player would consistantly be placed only opposing these hypothetical top skill level players the existance of these players in a shared queue would mathematicly equalize to NULL values for solo players win/loss ratios.

[Wil McCullough]

Lykaon, that's not a very good argument.

Is a duo of two top pilots unfair in qp? Yes. But it's statiatically insignificant like you said.

Is a duo of two pilots getting crushed in gp unfair? Yes. But it's ALSO statistically insignificant. Most duos do okay in group.

So why should pgi risk the potential enjoyment of a statistical majority (the qp crowd) for a statistically insignificant group?

Bear in mind the suggestion is to inject a change into the fairest mode in mwo till date. There is a risk involved. And so far, none of the arguments put forth suggest that the risk is worthwhile.

[Soulless86]

Chortles, on 01 July 2018 - 11:04 PM, said:

I really wish people would stop bringing up other games in comparison to MWO i... etc

I've never played a wargaming game and never will, the real deal is there are so few players. Comparing games match making is more than fine. The argument that they're different games therefore different match making is not valid, OW has better match making and more players. The fact that player of three weeks is playing against players of six years is enough to hammer that home.

Edited by Soulless86, 02 July 2018 - 01:18 AM.

[Lykaon]

Wil McCullough, on 02 July 2018 - 12:56 AM, said:

Lykaon, that's not a very good argument.

Is a duo of two top pilots unfair in qp? Yes. But it's statiatically insignificant like you said.

Is a duo of two pilots getting crushed in gp unfair? Yes. But it's ALSO statistically insignificant. Most duos do okay in group.

So why should pgi risk the potential enjoyment of a statistical majority (the qp crowd) for a statistically insignificant group?

Bear in mind the suggestion is to inject a change into the fairest mode in mwo till date. There is a risk involved. And so far, none of the arguments put forth suggest that the risk is worthwhile.

"Is a duo of two pilots unfair in qp?" no it isn't unless only one team has a duo. If all other critera are valued as equal the match is overall average biased towards fair.


I was neither arguing for nor against I was pointing out that the argument in and of it's self was poorly thought out since ...

1% is by it's nature as a set value opposed by 99%.

for every one top 1% there are 99 lesser quality players. Statisticly of little consiquence and as such not really a valid concern.

So we are to believe the game needs to be shaped specificly to avoid a scenario that will not be impactful?


As to the risk to enjoyment of a statistical majority...I thought I got my point across.

the impact of these hypathetical 1% is effectivley NULL. There will be no measurable impact on solo players due to rareity of the instances occuring at all.

Furthermore, the measurable impact effects the grouped players rather than the solo players because of how group composition works.

let's assume 2 grouped players per team a maximum of one group per team therefore the 10 remaining players per team will be solos.

Red team vs blue team 2 grouped players + 10 solo players verses 2 grouped players + 10 solo players (we can also assume some matchmaker balancing for team tonnage and PSR as well)

Red team wins blue team loses.

2 grouped players win 10 solo players win on red team
2 grouped players lose 10 solo players lose on blue team

Now let's assume red team always includes a pair of 1% grouped players. Red team plays 100 matches and wins every single one ( unlikely but hey let's do this worst case scenario style)

after 100 matches we will have ...

200 instances of grouped players winning 1000 instances of solo players winning

200 instances of grouped players losing and 1000 instances of solo players losing.

this would be +200 grouped player victory value and + 0 net solo player loses

now let's think this through a bit more.

Solo players are far more numberous so we can assume the rate of repeated instances of solo players in these 100 matches would be significantly lower than the rate of repeated grouped players.This would mean a larger number of solo players would be instanced within those 100 matches than grouped players on the opposing team.

If anything these stats would indicate that grouped players will be negatively impacted by these top 1% groups while overall the solo population would not see any statistical variance on a whole.


Since the overall argument seems to be slanted towards proving the grouped players would negatively impact solo players I just thought it would be fun to show the likelyhood of these hypothetical top 1% groups actually have a more measurable negative impact on the grouped players.

Edited by Lykaon, 02 July 2018 - 01:51 AM.

[MTier Slayed Up]

But it does matter what game you draw a comparison to.

I mean, you basically killed your own argument with "it has more players".
Nevermind that almost everything on a fundamental level is different.

We simply don't have the numbers to support what you want that OW has. You're only setting up your bro for failure because the matchmaking will not be able to look for the same amount of T5/T4 people, T1 to T3, so on and so forth.
Group que doesn't even have the tier MM.
What you guys are asking for is simply not possible. And never will be.

Case closed.

Time to move on. Live with it. Gg wp, light tap on the booty.

[Lykaon]

DrtyDshSoap, on 02 July 2018 - 01:28 AM, said:

But it does matter what game you draw a comparison to.

I mean, you basically killed your own argument with "it has more players".
Nevermind that almost everything on a fundamental level is different.

We simply don't have the numbers to support what you want that OW has. You're only setting up your bro for failure because the matchmaking will not be able to look for the same amount of T5/T4 people, T1 to T3, so on and so forth.
Group que doesn't even have the tier MM.
What you guys are asking for is simply not possible. And never will be.

Case closed.

Time to move on. Live with it. Gg wp, light tap on the booty.

Hypotheticly. let's assign some criteria to a matchmaker.

Each team is 12 players

group size limited to 2

one group per team

match mech weight classes

match PSR per team

Group PSR is counted as average of the players rounded up ( a tier 2 and a tier 4 would counts as both tier 3)


Problems?

I see that off peak times groups would have long queue times as opposing groups would need to be found before they are matched. This should be an absolute with no exceptions. Actually the grouped players would overall experience longer queue times.

Again I see the negative impact being burdened on the grouped players more so than the solos.


Are you grouped players sure you want this?

[Wil McCullough]

@lykaon

A feature that only allows the top 1% of pilots to duo up and mash spuds in qp will result in a number of stomps so statistically minute that it shouldn't matter either.

That doesn't mean pgi should do that.

Also, better teamwork has an exponential effect on wlr and the resuting kdr.

2 1%ers will wipe the floor as a duo in qp (bring 2 mad cat iis, select a target, target ct. Countdown 3,2,1. Expose. Boom. Boom. Dead mech). But 2 5%ers will also mash taters. Check out my season 11 scores on jarl's. Small group, all brawlers. 8.0 kdr and 5.0 wlr. 2 10%ers will swing matches as well.

You'd be exposing qp players to the smelliness that is actual coordination and a game plan together with meta humping robots.

[Soulless86]

DrtyDshSoap, on 02 July 2018 - 01:28 AM, said:

But it does matter what game you draw a comparison to.

I mean, you basically killed your own argument with "it has more players".
Nevermind that almost everything on a fundamental level is different.

We simply don't have the numbers to support what you want that OW has. You're only setting up your bro for failure because the matchmaking will not be able to look for the same amount of T5/T4 people, T1 to T3, so on and so forth.
Group que doesn't even have the tier MM.
What you guys are asking for is simply not possible. And never will be.

Case closed.

Time to move on. Live with it. Gg wp, light tap on the booty.

It's not an argument and never was I said I'd like this but it's not going to happen.

[Lykaon]

Wil McCullough, on 02 July 2018 - 01:52 AM, said:

@lykaon

A feature that only allows the top 1% of pilots to duo up and mash spuds in qp will result in a number of stomps so statistically minute that it shouldn't matter either.

That doesn't mean pgi should do that.

Also, better teamwork has an exponential effect on wlr and the resuting kdr.

2 1%ers will wipe the floor as a duo in qp (bring 2 mad cat iis, select a target, target ct. Countdown 3,2,1. Expose. Boom. Boom. Dead mech). But 2 5%ers will also mash taters. Check out my season 11 scores on jarl's. Small group, all brawlers. 8.0 kdr and 5.0 wlr. 2 10%ers will swing matches as well.

You'd be exposing qp players to the smelliness that is actual coordination and a game plan together with meta humping robots.

I am not getting your point.

is it that solo players can't handle losing a small percentage of the time to highly skilled players? A percentage that overall should be so insignificant that it shouldn't impact win/loss ratios at all.

Or is it that the existence of any groups at all will be so offensive that regardless of the likelyhood of having a NULL impact on the solo player's win/loss ratio that we should consider confirmation bias a valid point of supporting an argument?

Essentially my counter point would be, That when you and your partner "smash taters" your team wins as a result. Since your team includes 10 solo players this equalizes the value of solo player loses. 10 solos win for every 10 solos that lost.

Since you will not have the same 10 solo players losing against you every time but instead likely encounter and entirely different set of of solos on your team and opposed to you that every win your group earns is a win for 10 solos that are highly unlikely to be the same 10 players from any previous instance that you won.

This has a diffusing effect on the impact on win/loss ratios experienced by solo players as a result of your groups fairly reliable winning streaks.

And since your group I assume would be tier one your opponents would be limited to tiers 1-3 elliminating your group's exposure to a significant portion of the "vast majority of solo players" making your actions 100% irrelivant to those players since your group can not be opposed by any players in the 4 and 5 tier brackets and the tier 3 bracket will be diffused into the tiers 4 and 5 brackets meaning the frequency of tier 3 players encountering tier 1 grouped duos is less than tier 1 and 2 solos.

I would further counter argue that since the majority of solo players opposing coordinated duos in meta humping robots will be tier one and two and they themselves should by the virtue of game play experience not be estranged from the concept of utilizing coordination and also piloting meta humping robots that the overall impact would be reduced.

it's not like the matchmaker will put a duo of top skilled players in meta humping robots into a tier 4 and 5 match (that would be idiotic). They would instead likely be paired against another duo of similarly PSR tier in meta humping robots with tier 1 and 2 players who are already well aquainted with the concept of meta builds and cooperation.



The irony is that I have already stated that 2 player groups in a solo QP queue would likely have no measurable impact on solo player's win/loss ratio but could have a measurable impact on other 2 player group's win/loss ratio.

My arguments if anything point out a failure to balance for the two player groups instead of granting an advantage the groups seek they may be asking for essentially be dropped into a more concentrated shark tank.

Statisticly the solo players will not see a significant change in win/loss ratio but the small groups may very well be impacted by the hypithetical top tier skilled duos they will be paired against because of the concentration of exposure groups will have to each other.

[Wil McCullough]

No my point is that if it's such a statistically insignificant group, why should pgi (or everyone else) bother?

The idea revolves around pgi somehow moving mountains to get matchmaker to work. And the only benefit to that is seen by an extremely small portion of the playerbase. Everyone else either doesn't see a benefit (group queue folks) or see a very small drop in gameplay quality (quickplay pilots).

That's not a feature. That's an unfair advantage. It's like two college-aged basketballers demanding that they get to compete at high-school level because they get thrashed at.college level. And it's ok because 99.99% of the country's teams wouldn't play against them anyway. Plus they're not very good players so what's wrong? That's your argument in a nutshell. That it's ok to give a select group of players an advantage because they're bad.

It's not ok.

This is why a few of us doubt the motives of the idea because it's definitely not altruistic. The fact that the idea is really easy to abuse doesn't help.

Edited by Wil McCullough, 02 July 2018 - 03:05 AM.

[Lykaon]

Wil McCullough, on 02 July 2018 - 03:04 AM, said:

No my point is that if it's such a statistically insignificant group, why should pgi (or everyone else) bother?

The idea revolves around pgi somehow moving mountains to get matchmaker to work. And the only benefit to that is seen by an extremely small portion of the playerbase. Everyone else either doesn't see a benefit (group queue folks) or see a very small drop in gameplay quality (quickplay pilots).

That's not a feature. That's an unfair advantage. It's like two college-aged basketballers demanding that they get to compete at high-school level because they get thrashed at.college level. And it's ok because 99.99% of the country's teams wouldn't play against them anyway. Plus they're not very good players so what's wrong? That's your argument in a nutshell. That it's ok to give a select group of players an advantage because they're bad.

It's not ok.

This is why a few of us doubt the motives of the idea because it's definitely not altruistic. The fact that the idea is really easy to abuse doesn't help.

Actually the "nutshell" of my argument isn't an argument at all it's a statement that I think I may have discovered a flaw in the small group idea in that there is NO advantage to the small groups at all in large samples.


Serioulsy does anyone actually read a whole post before typing their own?

There are a few flaws present.

One: that solo players would likely see any decrease in win/loss ratios. I think this would not be the case at all so it's not looking like a valid argument yet so many people want to stick to it and hammer away at it.

Also if those two college ball players are playing on the level of the highschoolers what is the actual difference? I mean statisticly would it matter if all things were equal if two of the players were a bit older? or if every game the two college twits played the other team also had two college twits of aproximate equal skill to the opposing college twits ?

Over all this is a poor platform to stand on since it's not a solid argument.

Two: I have outlined two highly likely events that are BAD for small groups. YES THIS IDEA IS BAD FOR SMALL GROUPS!

Read this again...

THE IDEA OF SMALL GROUPS IN THE SOLO QUEUE IS BAD.

But not for the reasons people think.

the bad part is

1: longer wait times for small groups in order for a match maker to fairly accomidate groups the wait times for groups will likely be longer in "solo" than "group" queue.

The diffusal of 2 player groups across the "solo" and "group" queues will increase queue times for groups in the "solo" queue AND groups in the "group" queue. It is also highly likely that the waits for solos will increase while the matchmaker accomidates small groups into the "solo" queue.

NOBODY WINS!

2: The concentration of 2 player groups in the "solo" match maker bucket and I assume a need to match groups with opposing groups would increase a duos chances of repeated encounters with a superior duo group.

The concept is as follows....

there are X number of tier appropriate groups in the buckets to make a match. Let's say X = 4 groups. All 4 groups are tier 1 but only one group is composed of really high skill players. The other three groups are "average" tier ones. Each of the three average tier one groups has a one third chance of being paired against the very skilled group.

Assuming the average group loses to the skilled group we can also assume one third of their experienced losses are from being opposed by an "unfair" pairing with a higher skill duo. Let's assume the remaining two thirds of the average group's matches are balanced providing a 50/50 win/loss ratio. The total losses would be heavily infuenced by the existance of the high skill duo. This would mean that the existance of high skill groups would cause a negative trend in average group win/loss ratios but not likely to have an impact at all against the solo players ratios.

While the overall large number of groups playing in the group queue should diffuse exposure to consistantly facing out right superior foes because larger sample groups naturally tend towards the median.

Simplified: small groups in the group queue will have a greater chance of having a possitive trending win/loss ratio due to being in a large pool of players that diffuses exposure to the smaller percentage of really good players.

Edited by Lykaon, 02 July 2018 - 03:53 AM.

[Vesper11]

Chortles, on 01 July 2018 - 10:16 AM, said:

angry mech pilot noises

Here, a perfect one for you https://www.wikihow.com/Calm-Down

Edited by Vesper11, 02 July 2018 - 03:53 AM.