213 replies to this topic

[Eisenhorne]

Khobai, on 27 September 2018 - 09:27 AM, said:

I dont believe thats necessary. just limiting group size and having a matchmaker that puts an equal number of good (or bad) players on both teams would be fine.

That's the thing though... its not like we're doing this in a large group. We're generally a 4-5 man, and we usually win. If the group gets any larger, it's because newer (less skilled) people joined into the group, and our win ratio goes down drastically. Even with a 4-5 man, we're waiting a minute or two for a group to be found. That's a first-available match, not a skill matched game. So it would probably double the waiting time or more, trying to find a best-fit group.

Large groups (which I consider 8+ people) aren't the boogeyman you think they are. I think Vxheous was making the same point, that mid sized to small sized groups (~4 people) have a massive impact on their team, and there just aren't many groups like that running around that play at the same time, that will fit together on different teams. If you have a 9 man team of low to mid skilled players, a 3 man of new players, a 4 man of extremely good players, and an 8 man of low to mid skilled players, how do you possibly skill balance those groups? You either put the 9 + 3 vs the 4+ 8, and the 9 + 3 are slaughtered because of skill imbalance, or you deadlock waiting for another group to join to hopefully balance out the skills, and someone has to wait longer.

Also consider that PGI has no provision for actually doing skill based matchmaking for teams. They've never discussed it, it doesn't even look like its on their radar. Even the new FP Matchmaker is looking like it just matches largest teams vs largest teams, then inserts highest skilled solo players as needed, not factoring in skill of groups.

All this is to say I don't think skill based group matchmaking is possible, so then the only way to "balance" it is disallow grouping entirely, because even 4 players have a massive impact if they're actually good at the game.

[Khobai]

Eisenhorne, on 27 September 2018 - 09:44 AM, said:

All this is to say I don't think skill based group matchmaking is possible, so then the only way to "balance" it is disallow grouping entirely, because even 4 players have a massive impact if they're actually good at the game.

um you add up the ELO of all players in the group and divide that by the number of players the group to get the average ELO of all players in the entire group. then you match them against a same sized group with similar ELO. why is that so hard?

the only real problem is the low number of good players available. to solve that problem, those players need to be forcefully divided evenly between both teams, instead of being allowed to stack on one team.

so the matchmaker should first try to place your group on the same team against a same-sized group of similar ELO. if it cant do that, it should break up groups and put players on separate teams as needed to ensure the game is as balanced as possible. So it might break a large group into two smaller groups and place them on opposite teams instead of allowing a stacked team.

you might not always be able to play with your friends that way, but at least the teams would be better balanced, which is the truly important thing.

and if you want to play with larger groups theres always comp play and faction play. so its not like youre being denied your only avenue for playing in larger groups.

remember what this thread is about: making group queue more receptive to small casual groups. the best way to do that is to prevent team stacking and ensure better balanced teams.

Edited by Khobai, 27 September 2018 - 10:04 AM.

[Eisenhorne]

Khobai, on 27 September 2018 - 09:27 AM, said:

why is your need to play with friends, and "stomp group queue", more important than other peoples' need to have a balanced game?

that sounds exactly like elitism.

having teams be as balanced as possible should take priority over all other considerations.

Literally the only reason anyone plays group queue is to play this game with friends... otherwise there is solo queue. Put this another way... why is the new player's desire for a balanced game greater than my desire to play with my friends? We've both got an equal right to enjoy this game, don't we? What's 'elitist' about wanting to play with the same people I've been playing with for a long time?

If balance is the only priority, literally the only solution is to get rid of group queue entirely, because it's never going to be balanced. If you prevent the top tier from grouping up at all, you'll have a similar problem with the bottom tier forming large groups and acting as "poison pills" for their teams, so the moderately skilled players who get stuck with those bottom tier groups are dragged down. There's always going to be performance outliers that drag down or drag up their team's performance, unless you literally close group queue to anyone outside the middle 50% of skill.

Khobai, on 27 September 2018 - 09:52 AM, said:

you might not always be able to play with your friends that way, but at least the teams would be better balanced, which is the truly important thing.

That seems to be important only to you. Not to me. I don't care about that. The only reason to play group queue is to play with friends. Why is what you want more important than what I want?

Khobai, on 27 September 2018 - 09:52 AM, said:

um you add up the ELO of all players in the group and divide that by the number of players the group to get the average ELO of all players in the entire group. then you match them against a same sized group with similar ELO. why is that so hard?

Good question. Why is that so hard? Ask PGI, they've got no interest in doing it for faction play, where it might actually work, since they can add solo queue players in as required to fill in gaps and balance groups with very different ELO ratings.

Edited by Eisenhorne, 27 September 2018 - 10:00 AM.

[Jables McBarty]

Eisenhorne, on 26 September 2018 - 09:55 PM, said:

Lol I would rather this game die than bottom feeding solo trash kill groups. This game was sold to me as a team based mech shooter, not a solo game. If it's so far perverted from that purpose, let it die. Garbage players should either improve or go play something else and stop complaining on the forums about how unfair things are.

If I can't have it *breaks toy* no one can.

Lol.

[Khobai]

Eisenhorne, on 27 September 2018 - 09:57 AM, said:

That seems to be important only to you. Not to me. I don't care about that. The only reason to play group queue is to play with friends. Why is what you want more important than what I want?

Because wanting balanced teams isnt a selfish motivation. Having balanced teams benefits the game as a whole. And it makes the group queue more receptive to players of all skill levels.

Wanting to play with friends and stomp group queue is entirely selfish. And it doesnt make the game better. It creates a toxic environment for casual group players. Telling someone they need to GIT GUD in order to play a game is a toxic attitude.

Edited by Khobai, 27 September 2018 - 10:26 AM.

[Eisenhorne]

Jables McBarty, on 27 September 2018 - 10:14 AM, said:

If I can't have it *breaks toy* no one can.

Lol.

I just don't like the idea that what I want is unimportant because people who suck at this game can't be bothered to improve, and instead of learning how to play they simply want everyone else to be brought down to their level.

Khobai, on 27 September 2018 - 10:19 AM, said:

Because wanting balanced teams isnt a selfish motivation. It benefits the game as a whole.

Wanting to play with friends and stomp group queue is entirely selfish.

Fine, if you want to balance the teams by breaking up groups, why not break up the "poison pill" groups of extremely bad or new players, to compensate for the actually skilled players? The biggest problem with group queue balance IMO are the mid to large sized groups of these players who don't take their allocated tonnage, bring bad mechs, and every person in them does sub 100 damage. Break those groups up instead.

Edited by Eisenhorne, 27 September 2018 - 10:25 AM.

[Khobai]

Eisenhorne, on 27 September 2018 - 10:20 AM, said:

I just don't like the idea that what I want is unimportant because people who suck at this game can't be bothered to improve, and instead of learning how to play they simply want everyone else to be brought down to their level.

but why is what you want more important than what other people want? especially if what you want is purely selfish and asking for balanced teams isnt really selfish because its a reasonable expectation for any game to have balanced teams.

[Y E O N N E]

Khobai, on 27 September 2018 - 09:18 AM, said:

that is not elitism. do you even know what the word means? lmao.

elitism is when you think youre better than everyone else and because you think youre better youre entitled to certain things.

I know complex subjects give you difficulty, but the definition is exactly applicable because these players do, in fact, see themselves as better specifically because they "don't play meta", unlike "those tryhards" ( ironically, the term "tryhard" is supposed to refer to somebody doing all of the things good players do but still doing poorly because they don't actually understand the theory or how to apply it). They believe their poorly built 'Mechs have a right to perform as well as "tryhard" 'Mechs that are built optimally within the ruleset provided. They believe they should be able to sit in the back with their LRMs and get a similar result for less effort.

So, yes, elitism. "You play meta and I don't, therefore you are a trash tier tryhard" and "waaah that Light 'Mech dun killed my big stompy bracket-built, lore-based Assault, nerf it nao!" go hand-in-hand. Those players are complete garbage to the core of their existence because they fundamentally refuse to take responsibility for themselves.

Quote

people who want balanced teams and a reasonable expectation of winning are not elitists.

You have exactly the same tools available to you that anybody else does. You can better yourself and find some better friends and meet the challenge head on, or you can come on here and kvetch about it and be justly mocked for your willful ignorance. If you can't find decent friends to drop with, maybe try being less of an unlikeable blunt.

[Eisenhorne]

Khobai, on 27 September 2018 - 10:23 AM, said:

but why is what you want more important than what other people want? especially if what you want is purely selfish and asking for balanced teams isnt really selfish because its a reasonable expectation for any game to have balanced teams.

Fine, if you want to balance the teams by breaking up groups, why not break up the "poison pill" groups of extremely bad or new players, to compensate for the actually skilled players? The biggest problem with group queue balance IMO are the mid to large sized groups of these players who don't take their allocated tonnage, bring bad mechs, and every person in them does sub 100 damage. Break those groups up instead. Boom, balanced. If the new players / bad players want balance, then fine, they can be the ones who can't play with friends.

[Khobai]

Eisenhorne, on 27 September 2018 - 10:27 AM, said:

Fine, if you want to balance the teams by breaking up groups, why not break up the "poison pill" groups of extremely bad or new players, to compensate for the actually skilled players?

I already said it should work both ways.

Break up the large groups of good players as well as the large groups of bad players.

That way you prevent both extremes: teams filled with good players and teams filled with bad players.

But make no mistake, both are problematic.

The game needs to do a better job of balancing out the average skill level of both teams.

Eisenhorne, on 27 September 2018 - 10:27 AM, said:

Boom, balanced. If the new players / bad players want balance, then fine, they can be the ones who can't play with friends.

again with the elitism...

you are no more entitled to play with your friends than a bad/new player. the game should indiscriminately break up whatever groups it needs to in order to balance both teams.

if it needs to break up a group of good players it should do that. if it needs to break up a group of bad players it should do that. if it has to break up both a good group and a bad group and put half of a good group and half of a bad group together on each team, it should do that. whatever groups it needs to break up to make two balanced teams should be broken up.

the reasonable expectation that both teams should be as closely balanced as possible should absolutely take precedence over your selfish need to play with your friends.

Edited by Khobai, 27 September 2018 - 10:48 AM.

[Eisenhorne]

Khobai, on 27 September 2018 - 10:29 AM, said:

I already said it should work both ways.

Break up the large groups of good players as well as the large groups of bad players.

That way you prevent both extremes: teams filled with good players and teams filled with bad players.

But make no mistake, both are problematic.

I mean... don't you see a problem with this? Under your method, literally half the population of the game (the top 25% and the bottom 25%) who play "group queue" to play with their friends, don't get to play with their friends. What's the point of group queue if that's the case? I'd rather they just get rid of it, instead of just breaking up groups.

[KingCobra]

MechaBattler, on 25 September 2018 - 01:23 PM, said:

I lamented to my brother the other night that the game wasn't very friendly to casual small groups. We had a mutual friend who we would have invited to play with us. But queuing with just 3 people, with one being completely new, does not seem like a good idea in Group Queue. I know I've seen posts by others over the years with the same sentiment. Of inviting friends to have some fun and then getting rolled by a larger coordinated group.

Being able to casually play with friends is probably the best way to encourage new players to join. But we really don't have that option in this game. MW5 will have the option for coop and that's nice. But we could really use an option for MWO.

Thoughts? Ideas?

Well its going on what 7 years for me being with this game and I can tell you I myself have been frustrated about PGI and there game design's for MWO for a long time now just after closed beta 5 years ago many players could express there ideas for the game and PGI seamed to listen to a few good ideas.

One of those good ideas was to put a check box system like we had for maps and game mode which I think was a huge mistake taking out in favor of the horrible vote system we have now for map and game mode choices.

But back to what was a great idea which was to put another check box system in the battle launcher UI for small group play you could check 2V2-4V4-6V6 in there check box spot and it would match you up with players checking there choice as well.

And I know the QP MM would have had to match up more games per blade server but it would have been worth the cost and effort so more players would have stayed and played and payed into MWO.

But sadly I think nothing much development wide will be done to MWO before it is taken offline due to lack of new players. Its the same as with the original CW many old players wanted a split for solo CW and premade group CW it was never done so over time that game mode has all but died off.

Also you look at Solaris I personally was so excited to play that game mode but when I looked at how it was set up so only a few OP chassis ganked everyone else I said this is just not worth my time of effort playing.

But don't feel to bad others for 7 years have tried to help PGI and the devs with great ideas and failed only to uninstall the game or linger on hoping it would turn around before it is to late and there comments are no longer welcome in the community and they go silent .

[MechaBattler]

Well the reason I found it so lamentable. Is that I still enjoy playing the game. The combat is fun. But it's hard to introduce people to the game because of the learning curve and deficit in equipment and funds for new players. Though the MechWarrior Academy does help with that as both learning and providing initial funds. But the mechlab alone presents a hurdle. And generally people want to play with their friend who introduced them. Not grind out 25 battles solo. But jumping into group queue with a trial mech sounds pretty rough.

[Khobai]

Eisenhorne, on 27 September 2018 - 09:44 AM, said:

I know complex subjects give you difficulty, but the definition is exactly applicable because these players do, in fact, see themselves as better specifically because they "don't play meta", unlike "those tryhards"

um no. not a single person thinks that way. nobody thinks not being a meta tryhard makes them a better player, since becoming a better player requires being a meta tryhard. refusing to become a meta tryhard definitely doesnt make you a better player or more entitled to anything, and nobody thinks that. thats not elitism.

simply wanting balanced teams with an equal number of good players on both teams is not elitism by any definition.

Eisenhorne, on 27 September 2018 - 09:24 AM, said:

I mean... don't you see a problem with this? Under your method, literally half the population of the game (the top 25% and the bottom 25%) who play "group queue" to play with their friends, don't get to play with their friends. What's the point of group queue if that's the case? I'd rather they just get rid of it, instead of just breaking up groups.

no I dont see a problem with it. because group queue would first try to match your group up against a group with similar average ELO. it would only break groups up as a last resort if its unable to find another group with similar ELO.

and you would rather get rid of group queue entirely rather than have a group queue with balanced teams, even if you sometimes cant play with your friends? lmao... what?!

Edited by Khobai, 27 September 2018 - 11:06 AM.

[Shifty McSwift]

Eisenhorne, on 27 September 2018 - 09:44 AM, said:

because even 4 players have a massive impact if they're actually good at the game.

Hell 2 well coordinated meta build players will usually have a massive impact in SQ madness.

Eisenhorne, on 27 September 2018 - 10:20 AM, said:

I just don't like the idea that what I want is unimportant because people who suck at this game can't be bothered to improve, and instead of learning how to play they simply want everyone else to be brought down to their level.

Well I'll just point out that's not what I want at all, I want not only better scaling out/differentiation between tiering/matchmaking for the spectrum of skill levels that will come into any game, while also encouraging players toward actual grouping and team strategies to keep them engaged in that aspect of it, and to minimise the eventual toxicity that comes out of constant 24 man deathmatching. Not go the other way and feed into it, the difference in our opinions is my view or system still allows for 90%ers and 99%er brackets to duke it out at their own levels, yours doesn't want to seem to allow and/or accommodate anyone who falls below some banal threshold.

[Eisenhorne]

Khobai, on 27 September 2018 - 10:51 AM, said:

no I dont see a problem with it. because group queue would first try to match your group up against a group with similar average ELO. it would only break groups up as a last resort if its unable to find another group with similar ELO.

and you would rather get rid of group queue entirely rather than have a group queue with balanced teams, even if you sometimes cant play with your friends? lmao... what?!

It's because I can see what would happen. There simply isn't a large enough population to balance, even if it tries to. So it will just always break up my group. This is all completely irrelevant you realize, because there is literally zero chance PGI will ever implement any sort of matchmaking in group queue, even if there was a consensus on how to do it, which there isn't.

[Khobai]

Shifty McSwift, on 27 September 2018 - 10:53 AM, said:

Hell 2 well coordinated meta build players will usually have a massive impact in SQ madness.

and they should be placed on opposite teams in SQ too

group queue is no different. if allowing both those players on one team would substantially unbalance the game it should forcefully place those players on opposite teams to balance the game better. but only if its exhausted all other possibilities for balancing the game.

Eisenhorne, on 27 September 2018 - 11:00 AM, said:

It's because I can see what would happen. There simply isn't a large enough population to balance, even if it tries to. So it will just always break up my group. This is all completely irrelevant you realize, because there is literally zero chance PGI will ever implement any sort of matchmaking in group queue, even if there was a consensus on how to do it, which there isn't.

Oh I completely agree. it will never happen. Its nothing but idealized conjecture.

But its also one of the main reasons why MWO is a failing game. Because of its inability to create balanced teams.

So at this point it only serves as a lesson to future games...

Edited by Khobai, 27 September 2018 - 11:03 AM.

[Kroete]

Eisenhorne, on 27 September 2018 - 10:32 AM, said:

I mean... don't you see a problem with this? Under your method, literally half the population of the game (the top 25% and the bottom 25%) who play "group queue" to play with their friends, don't get to play with their friends. What's the point of group queue if that's the case? I'd rather they just get rid of it, instead of just breaking up groups.

The best and the worst are the cause for not balanced matches.

You have 3 parts in your bellcurve, split it and you will have a small queue for goods,
a small queue for bads and most players in the middle queue.
Causing balanced games for all, but high waittimes for the minority.

Or you need to balance them alltogether, means distributing the problems evenly on both teams,
causing low waittimes and balanced matches for all but the need to split stacked groups.

The question is: Do you want balanced matches and are you willing to wait or split for them?

[justcallme A S H]

Shifty McSwift, on 27 September 2018 - 02:20 AM, said:

I am supposed to know this? All you provided was three screenshots, a link to this gallery and spreadsheet would have been much more effective. Even then if it is all internal games I would still like to see outside averages, and SQ averages and GQ averages. I don't expect you to provide them, I was saying I haven't seen them and would be curious to, not for the purpose of proving a point just to see what the game norms tend to be.

Call me a stickler but I will take data over your assertions any day, and happily, even if its not the result I might want or expect.

Because at some point you're just going to have to accept you're wrong.

There was enough posted about the topic and thus we were there a while ago. You are just being a stickler for the sake of it, no real reason.

You were told stomps happen even against the elite vs the elite. You were shown proof (and there is PLENTY more). It just comes to a point where there is just no point trying to discuss something with an individual who just refuses to accept the fact they are wrong.


Yes we all want even-ish matches. Is it always possible? No.

[Nightbird]

What does even matches have to do with smaller groups anyways? Even matches requires balanced ability between both teams, it requires a match maker that takes more into consideration (and less emphasis on tonnage/class sizes).

Group size is just a scapegoat.