864 replies to this topic

[Tetatae Squawkins]

Vesper11, on 25 June 2018 - 11:53 AM, said:

and instead of shooting everything down think how it could be improved instead.

I reject the assertion that this is in any way an improvement.

[Vesper11]

Tetatae Squawkins, on 25 June 2018 - 12:18 PM, said:

I reject the assertion that this is in any way an improvement.

What you did is "shooting everything down" not "how it (play-with-friends mode gameplay) could be improved", try again please.

[Tatula]

Disclaimer: I don't have a personal stake in this topic. I'm OK with the current QP solo queue (where I play 99% of the time). I'm also OK with the current GQ where I play with a few friends from time to time. I would not mind if PGI allowed duos into the QP queue, as long as it is limited one duo on each team. If possible (that's a big IF with PGI), average out the duo's tiers to place them properly in the queue (i.e. a tier 1 and a tier 5 averaged to a tier 3, etc.). I also would not mind if PGI allowed solos to opt-in to the GQ. They actually already allow this with the LFG feature, but it's basically dead because very few teams actively look for an additional player. I think this will speed up the wait time in the GQ because it can just stick a solo player wherever needed.

This thread started out as a wait time issue but has now included improving the new player experience as a topic. So let's try to answer the two questions:

1. How to improve wait time?
- Allowing solos to the GQ?
- Letting small teams into the QP queue? (I personally don't care for this. A duo per team is OK. A team of 3 or 4 is too much.)
- Loosen the MM some more?

2. How to improve NPE?
- Allowing duos in the QP queue? This will actually hurt the wait time in the GQ since it will be taking players who would normally have to play there unless PGI also allows solos to opt-in to the GQ to make up for the loss, but there is no guarantee that solo players will opt-in. I would personally, but probably not 100% of the time.
- Better MM in GQ so new players won't get matched up with comp players? We can only wish.
- Allowing a non-participating player to spectate a player by invitation. This was something I suggested earlier in this thread. Currently, this can only be done by a participating player who is dead. It shouldn't be too hard to allow a non-participating player outside the match to "coach" another player through private VOIP. This will not affect the balance of the team since the participating player still has to move and aim by himself, but having someone he knows and trusts to tell him don't go to Epsilon by himself, or go push with the rest of the team, or keep an eye on the mini-map for that enemy light who's hunting the assaults. Helpful info like that only comes with experience.

[Cloves]

Aloha, on 25 June 2018 - 01:04 PM, said:

- Allowing a non-participating player to spectate a player by invitation. This was something I suggested earlier in this thread. Currently, this can only be done by a participating player who is dead. It shouldn't be too hard to allow a non-participating player outside the match to "coach" another player through private VOIP. This will not affect the balance of the team since the participating player still has to move and aim by himself, but having someone he knows and trusts to tell him don't go to Epsilon by himself, or go push with the rest of the team, or keep an eye on the mini-map for that enemy light who's hunting the assaults. Helpful info like that only comes with experience.

Yes, since they have shown with solaris they can allow spectating from outside matches, I feel this should be an easy add to help out the NPE.

[MischiefSC]

Dogstar, on 25 June 2018 - 06:46 AM, said:

I've already made some sensible arguments but the same few players keep repeating their 'it'll destroy QP' adage whilst offering nothing other than personal opinion. I got tired of that and decided to point out how unreasonable they are being.

So no it's not ad hominem, it's frustration at people who are so stubborn that there has to be some underlying personal reason for their opposition - I assume they got gibbed by a 2-man at some point and are now unreasonable

Nope. I've been the 2man though. It's boring and makes everyone unhappy with the experience.

The problem is that you're pushing an idea that hurts the vast majority of the population under the false assumption it'll help bad players in a 2man maybe win some more.

That's why the objection. It's not just a bad idea it's a terrible one that's incredibly selfish and requires the complete denial of how the game currently works and the sum total experience and historical data of how the game has played with anoy sort of teams mixed with pugs.

Yes, it sucks to lose a lot. When you're on the low end of the skill curve because you're new or just don't/won't improve you're going to lose an atypical percent of the time. There are two possible solutions. Improve (git gud in meme argot) or do something to increase the population so much that even the minority below median population segment is so thick it can fill matches 24x7. That's uncommon in games with 100k+ active players.

Changing the game to try and advantage bad players vs mediocre or "bad but not quite as bad" players to artificially inflate their odds of winning is a terrible, terrible, selfish idea. That's why it's getting the resistance it is. The same with some of the truly terrible weapon changes PGI has put forward.

Putting forward a selfish idea that makes the game less fun for everyone else while advantaging a small group and then saying the people advocating for everyone else are trying to push a personal agenda is also why you're getting so much resistance. Intentionally or not that's incredibly dishonest.

[Chortles]

Vesper11, on 25 June 2018 - 11:19 AM, said:

Let me turn it 180: The people who oppose this are loners who have no friends. The opponents never ask themselves how it affects the players who prefer to play games with friends.

I'd rather people stopped portraying others in a way they can easily refute or deny that the current state of GP is anything but bad.

What's wrong with being a loner? Do you want these players to have a poor experience just so you and your one friend can finally win some matches? Group queue is already functioning as intended. If you prefer to play with your friend, all you need to do is group up and do so. Suggesting to allow duos to play in solos defeats the purpose of solo queue. You complain that group play is bad, yet here you are trying to ruin solos.

If duos in solos are allowed, how many people are going to jump from group queue into solo queue in hopes of easy wins for leaderboard stats? If there are more duos in the line than solo games, will they allow multiple duo groups in the match? This will just become group queue with some punching bags. The actual group queue will be empty except for some dedicated large groups (a complaint that supporters make about current group queue). When you finally have another friend to join, you now have a three-man. You'll be unable to join duo queues and end up in a group queue that is now populated with more large groups. Then people will go on the forums and demand three-man to be allowed in duo queue and the cycle continues until solos and groups are completely merged.

What happens when a Tier 1 and Tier 5 groups up? Will they average out to Tier 3? That sounds like seal clubbing for that Tier 1.

[Vesper11]

Aloha, on 25 June 2018 - 01:04 PM, said:

This thread started out as a wait time issue but has now included improving the new player experience as a topic. So let's try to answer the two questions:

1. How to improve wait time?
- Allowing solos to the GQ?
- Letting small teams into the QP queue? (I personally don't care for this. A duo per team is OK. A team of 3 or 4 is too much.)
- Loosen the MM some more?

2. How to improve NPE?
- Allowing duos in the QP queue? This will actually hurt the wait time in the GQ since it will be taking players who would normally have to play there unless PGI also allows solos to opt-in to the GQ to make up for the loss, but there is no guarantee that solo players will opt-in. I would personally, but probably not 100% of the time.
- Better MM in GQ so new players won't get matched up with comp players? We can only wish.
- Allowing a non-participating player to spectate a player by invitation. This was something I suggested earlier in this thread. Currently, this can only be done by a participating player who is dead. It shouldn't be too hard to allow a non-participating player outside the match to "coach" another player through private VOIP. This will not affect the balance of the team since the participating player still has to move and aim by himself, but having someone he knows and trusts to tell him don't go to Epsilon by himself, or go push with the rest of the team, or keep an eye on the mini-map for that enemy light who's hunting the assaults. Helpful info like that only comes with experience.

1.
- While you or some other people might want into GQ, I bet that vast majority will stay away from it due to balance issues, 2man boogeyman pilots will agree with this too.
- I'm okay with this too.
- MM already doesn't exist in GQ, it's full hobo mode, scrapes whatever players it can get without bothering with weight or whatever and gets them into battle.
2.
- It WILL hurt the GQ, this is probably the only reasonable argument against 2man in QP that is not subjective snowballing boogeyman.
- You can't do anything about MM in GQ, GQ population is too low. Maybe if MM/PSR got completely overhauled and people started playing GQ more, then there could be some adjustments to GQ MM, but not before that.
- I'm all for spectating friends.

MischiefSC, on 25 June 2018 - 01:22 PM, said:

Nope. I've been the 2man though. It's boring and makes everyone unhappy with the experience.

The problem is that you're pushing an idea that hurts the vast majority of the population under the false assumption it'll help bad players in a 2man maybe win some more.

You've been 2man when 4man were allowed. You found it boring.
It is a false assumption that it's easy victory that The Vast Majority is after. Vast majority wants to enjoy games sometimes alone and but often with friends too without trying too hard and wasting their already limited time on waiting in queue.

Chortles, on 25 June 2018 - 02:12 PM, said:

What's wrong with being a loner? Do you want these players to have a poor experience just so you and your one friend can finally win some matches? Group queue is already functioning as intended. If you prefer to play with your friend, all you need to do is group up and do so. Suggesting to allow duos to play in solos defeats the purpose of solo queue. You complain that group play is bad, yet here you are trying to ruin solos.

If duos in solos are allowed, how many people are going to jump from group queue into solo queue in hopes of easy wins for leaderboard stats? If there are more duos in the line than solo games, will they allow multiple duo groups in the match? This will just become group queue with some punching bags. The actual group queue will be empty except for some dedicated large groups (a complaint that supporters make about current group queue). When you finally have another friend to join, you now have a three-man. You'll be unable to join duo queues and end up in a group queue that is now populated with more large groups. Then people will go on the forums and demand three-man to be allowed in duo queue and the cycle continues until solos and groups are completely merged.

There's nothing wrong with being a loner, I was making example of making wrong/baseless assumptions, I didn't know if you were a loner but I said it because making wrong assumptions is an easy way to continue ones narrative.

Duo into trio and what will probably follow makes sense.
But I want to say the same about 5+ parties in GQ (NOTHING TO DO WITH DUOS IN QP), those don't make much sense if you look at it from "playing with friends" perspective but they do increase queue time, make it much easier to syncdrop and harder to MM/include tonnage. This also makes me think that it wont hurt if GP could start with 11 players in each team because most people probably play in duos and thus making 2 trios will make it easier to syncdrop, having possibility to start with 11 players on each team (with the same chance as 12) will both make it harder to syncdrop and reduce queue times even further!

extra-post-free edit: stop being so dense.

Edited by Vesper11, 25 June 2018 - 02:55 PM.

[Chortles]

Vesper11, on 25 June 2018 - 02:29 PM, said:

There's nothing wrong with being a loner, I was making example of making wrong/baseless assumptions, I didn't know if you were a loner but I said it because making wrong assumptions is an easy way to continue ones narrative.

Duo into trio and what will probably follow makes sense.
But I want to say the same about 5+ parties in GQ, those don't make much sense if you look at it from "playing with friends" perspective but they do increase queue time, make it much easier to syncdrop and harder to MM/include tonnage. This also makes me think that it wont hurt if GP could start with 11 players in each team because most people probably play in duos and thus making 2 trios will make it easier to syncdrop, having possibility to start with 11 players on each team (with the same chance as 12) will both make it harder to syncdrop and reduce queue times even further!

So you want duo groups in solo queues because of sync dropping in group queue?

Since the supporters want to balance this by only allowing one duos per team, that means that there needs to be a queue for duos. Adding another queue to the game only increases queue times. The duo players will complain that queue times are too long. And as I stated earlier, groups in solos will pull players away from group queue which will either make you face against the same players constantly or increase queue times to search for a group size that fits yours.

Edited by Chortles, 25 June 2018 - 02:53 PM.

[barnmaddo]

please no. I already die enough. No need to add groups of OP players to murder me.

[Lykaon]

MischiefSC, on 25 June 2018 - 01:22 PM, said:

Changing the game to try and advantage bad players vs mediocre or "bad but not quite as bad" players to artificially inflate their odds of winning is a terrible, terrible, selfish idea. That's why it's getting the resistance it is. The same with some of the truly terrible weapon changes PGI has put forward.

But isn't this the precise reason the queues got seperated to begin with?

Solo players through the magic of confirmation bias blamed groups for pretty much everything that was wrong with the game back then.

PGI rather than working on balancing the teams with groups included PGI decided they would just make it easier for the solos by reducing the chances of meeting organized opposition.

PGI changed the game to advantage lower skilled players.Rather than learn to organize or insist that PGI develop LFG tools,public VOIP and create a robust player guild system to equalize the level of competion But the vocal puggie community wanted a hand out and be spoon fed easier matches and PGI complied.

Fundamentaly MWo is a team oriented objective based combat game. As such the players that organize and cooperate better gain an advantage. So it stands to reason that the "good" players of MWo possess this skill set and the "bad" players frequently lack this organization or cooperative ability.

Rather than have the "bad" players get better the "good" players were removed so the "bad" players could be more successful playing badly.

Edited by Lykaon, 25 June 2018 - 04:54 PM.

[Tatula]

Lykaon, on 25 June 2018 - 04:53 PM, said:

But isn't this the precise reason the queues got seperated to begin with? Solo players through the magic of confirmation bias blamed groups for pretty much everything that was wrong with the game back then. PGI rather than working on balancing the teams with groups included PGI decided they would just make it easier for the solos by reducing the chances of meeting organized opposition. PGI changed the game to advantage lower skilled players.Rather than learn to organize or insist that PGI develop LFG tools,public VOIP and create a robust player guild system to equalize the level of competion But the vocal puggie community wanted a hand out and be spoon fed easier matches and PGI complied. Fundamentaly MWo is a team oriented objective based combat game. As such the players that organize and cooperate better gain an advantage. So it stands to reason that the "good" players of MWo possess this skill set and the "bad" players frequently lack this organization or cooperative ability. Rather than have the "bad" players get better the "good" players were removed so the "bad" players could be more successful playing badly.

Whoa! I think you are overgeneralizing here. There are plenty of good solo players in the QP queue who can organize a bunch of pugs to cooperate successfully. I for one, don't play in the GQ very often because of my unpredictable RL schedule. The QP queue allows me to jump into a match whenever I want without having to group up. Sure, they don't train as a team like the comp groups, but there are plenty of "good" solo players.

[Vxheous]

Aloha, on 25 June 2018 - 05:23 PM, said:

Whoa! I think you are overgeneralizing here. There are plenty of good solo players in the QP queue who can organize a bunch of pugs to cooperate successfully. I for one, don't play in the GQ very often because of my unpredictable RL schedule. The QP queue allows me to jump into a match whenever I want without having to group up. Sure, they don't train as a team like the comp groups, but there are plenty of "good" solo players.

Do you even know how comp groups train? Group queue is not training for comp groups, it's casual play whatever we feel like to fill the tonnage mode.

[Tatula]

Vxheous, on 25 June 2018 - 05:59 PM, said:

Do you even know how comp groups train? Group queue is not training for comp groups, it's casual play whatever we feel like to fill the tonnage mode.

All I am saying is that there are good players in the QP solo queue. Do you disagree with that?

[Vxheous]

Aloha, on 25 June 2018 - 07:14 PM, said:

All I am saying is that there are good players in the QP solo queue. Do you disagree with that?

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.

Edited by Vxheous, 25 June 2018 - 07:34 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Lykaon, on 25 June 2018 - 04:53 PM, said:

But isn't this the precise reason the queues got seperated to begin with?

Solo players through the magic of confirmation bias blamed groups for pretty much everything that was wrong with the game back then.

PGI rather than working on balancing the teams with groups included PGI decided they would just make it easier for the solos by reducing the chances of meeting organized opposition.

PGI changed the game to advantage lower skilled players.Rather than learn to organize or insist that PGI develop LFG tools,public VOIP and create a robust player guild system to equalize the level of competion But the vocal puggie community wanted a hand out and be spoon fed easier matches and PGI complied.

Fundamentaly MWo is a team oriented objective based combat game. As such the players that organize and cooperate better gain an advantage. So it stands to reason that the "good" players of MWo possess this skill set and the "bad" players frequently lack this organization or cooperative ability.

Rather than have the "bad" players get better the "good" players were removed so the "bad" players could be more successful playing badly.

Except good players play in solo queue?

Edit -

To clarify, good players play in QP. However they do so with the reasonable expectation that nobody starts in a premade, specifically because teamwork is really strong. This lets the already struggling MM at least go high/low to get an average.

Edited by MischiefSC, 25 June 2018 - 08:09 PM.

[Lykaon]

Aloha, on 25 June 2018 - 05:23 PM, said:

Whoa! I think you are overgeneralizing here. There are plenty of good solo players in the QP queue who can organize a bunch of pugs to cooperate successfully. I for one, don't play in the GQ very often because of my unpredictable RL schedule. The QP queue allows me to jump into a match whenever I want without having to group up. Sure, they don't train as a team like the comp groups, but there are plenty of "good" solo players.

I don't think I over generalized anything.

Let's take two hypothetical players for an example.

Both of them are tier 2 both have similar solo queue performances and both are "good" players by any measure in the solo queue.

But one of the players also knows how to manuver in a group call targets and cooperates well within a group the other does not practice this skill set and lacks experience in performing within this sort of situation.

Of these two players the one that also knows how to play in a group as well as solo is difinatively a better player because they can do everything the other guy does AND knows how to operate cooperatively within a structured group.

Since MWo is a cooperative team based game the players that perform best as team mates are better players if all other factors are aproximately equal.


You say the following and I agree...


"There are plenty of good solo players in the QP queue who can organize a bunch of pugs to cooperate successfully."


Yet somehow it is a given "fact" that solos can not handle having a few as two organized players of aproximately equal skill to their own in opposition to them because of all the "seal clubbing" and "pug farming" that is obviously the reason why 2 player groups should NOT be allowed into the solo queue...right?

Otherwise what is the opposition to the idea of small 2 player groups being added to a combined QP queue?


So one could conclude that either there are plenty of solo players who are a match for group oriented players or Group oriented players are so superior in skill and ability that any solo player will be "seal clubbed" and "farmed" by as few as two grouped players.

It can't be both so...

I am in the camp that believes that solos are not 100% grade A spuds and can rise to a challenge. The people who are opposed to 2 player groups are probably not all that interested in challenges and just want diluted opposition without fear of having to face any actual organization.

While they may be capable they are unwilling.


Every time a player launches a QP match they have joined a group of 11 other players with a common goal. That group has VOIP and has the means to play in a more organized manner yet they don't.

Why is that?

Edited by Lykaon, 25 June 2018 - 10:43 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Lykaon, on 25 June 2018 - 10:29 PM, said:

I don't think I over generalized anything.

Let's take two hypothetical players for an example.

Both of them are tier 2 both have similar solo queue performances and both are "good" players by any measure in the solo queue.

But one of the players also knows how to manuver in a group call targets and cooperates well within a group the other does not practice this skill set and lacks experience in performing within this sort of situation.

Of these two players the one that also knows how to play in a group as well as solo is difinatively a better player because they can do everything the other guy does AND knows how to operate cooperatively within a structured group.

Since MWo is a cooperative team based game the players that perform best as team mates are better players if all other factors are aproximately equal.


You say the following and I agree...


"There are plenty of good solo players in the QP queue who can organize a bunch of pugs to cooperate successfully."


Yet somehow it is a given "fact" that solos can not handle having a few as two organized players of aproximately equal skill to their own in opposition to them because of all the "seal clubbing" and "pug farming" that is obviously the reason why 2 player groups should NOT be allowed into the solo queue...right?

Otherwise what is the opposition to the idea of small 2 player groups being added to a combined QP queue?


So one could conclude that either there are plenty of solo players who are a match for group oriented players or Group oriented players are so superior in skill and ability that any solo player will be "seal clubbed" and "farmed" by as few as two grouped players.

It can't be both so...

I am in the camp that believes that solos are not 100% grade A spuds and can rise to a challenge. The people who are opposed to 2 player groups are probably not all that interested in challenges and just want diluted opposition without fear of having to face any actual organization.

While they may be capable they are unwilling.


Every time a player launches a QP match they have joined a group of 11 other players with a common goal. That group has VOIP and has the means to play in a more organized manner yet they don't.

Why is that?

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?

[Radbacker]

"Cough" sync-drop "cough"

Not that my opinion would matter if you look at my stats I'm the very definition of a Terri-bad

[Kroete]

Lykaon, on 25 June 2018 - 10:29 PM, said:

I am in the camp that believes that solos are not 100% grade A spuds and can rise to a challenge. The people who are opposed to 2 player groups are probably not all that interested in challenges and just want diluted opposition without fear of having to face any actual organization.

You twisted something around,
the 2 mans want diluted opposition by wanting to fight against unorganized soloplayers as a group.
The pug players want to play against other pugs, preferably against players with the same skill.

[Lykaon]

Kroete, on 25 June 2018 - 10:56 PM, said:

You twisted something around,
the 2 mans want diluted opposition by wanting to fight against unorganized soloplayers as a group.
The pug players want to play against other pugs, preferably against players with the same skill.

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.

The "2 mans" who think that they will have an easier time in a solo queue have diluted themselves if this is what they think will happen.

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) Their team will be composed of mostly solos and as such the solos will have the largest influence on match outcome and finally both teams will have a group in them so there will be opposition forces with the potential for increased organization and cooperation.

Easier matches may be what they think they want but this is not the reason why I think the idea is worth exploring.


And as for pug players...that is what I said basicaly.

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.

Edited by Lykaon, 25 June 2018 - 11:26 PM.