Jump to content

Improving The Group/ungrouped Matchmaking


15 replies to this topic

Poll: Improve the group/ungrouped MatchMaking (2 member(s) have cast votes)

Limit the maximum top group size difference to

  1. 0 (same size) (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  2. 1 (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  3. 2 (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  4. 3 (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  5. 4 (1 votes [14.29%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.29%

  6. 5 (1 votes [14.29%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.29%

  7. 6 (1 votes [14.29%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.29%

  8. 7 (1 votes [14.29%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.29%

  9. 8 (1 votes [14.29%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.29%

  10. 9 (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  11. 10 (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  12. 11 (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  13. 12 (no limit on top group size difference) (1 votes [14.29%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.29%

  14. Whatever provides the best matchmaking (1 votes [14.29%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.29%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Humble Dexter

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 958 posts

Posted 23 March 2020 - 02:38 PM

Limit the size difference of the top group from each queue to a certain amount of players.

If that size difference limit was set to 4 players, that would mean :
- A 4man group can always launch.
- A 8man group can't launch unless there's a 4+ man group queued against it.
- A 12man group can't launch unless there's a 8+ man group queued against it.

If that size difference limit was set to 8 players, that would mean :
- A 8man group can always launch.
- A 12man group can't launch unless there's a 4+ man group queued against it.

This doesn't prevent 12man groups from completely bypassing any form of matchmaking, by filling it's team up to the top with nothing but hand-selected top players...

But it does guarantee it is at least matched against a (same or smaller sized) group, that is a whole lot more likely to provide the minimum amount of audio leadership and group cohesion it's side requires, to make that kind of group match at least remotely fun and playable for the ungrouped players dragged into it.

Because the problem is that there are plenty of groups available, but the current matchmaker is programmed to throw them straight into the next match before another group gets a chance to queue up against them.

And introducing a limit to the "biggest group" size difference allowed, would certainly introduce a missing minimum match balancing feature where there is none, while increasing the amount of popular group vs group matches at the expense of less unpopular group vs ungrouped matches.

Also a bonus could be added to incentivize grouping, such as a +1% bonus Cbills per grouped player, for each player in a group.

Put together these two features could greatly increase the amount and quality of group vs group play, without making the matchmaking as ridiculously unfair to ungrouped players as it is now.

Edited by Humble Dexter, 23 March 2020 - 02:51 PM.


#2 Hazeclaw

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,974 posts
  • LocationTrue North Strong and Free

Posted 23 March 2020 - 03:05 PM

this will increase wait times, and do pretty much nothing to improve match quality

your assumption that group size automatically equates to group strength is incorrect

some of my favorite types of games is playing with a strong 4man against a bad 12man

I have to ask, if you're so against big groups ruining your fun, why don't you play solo qp?

#3 Humble Dexter

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 958 posts

Posted 23 March 2020 - 05:55 PM

Thank you for your answer.

View PostHazeclaw, on 23 March 2020 - 03:05 PM, said:


this will increase wait times, and do pretty much nothing to improve match quality

It will sometimes increase wait times, specially for the biggest groups, in exchange it will definitely make it more likely for a group to stay long enough in the queue for another group to show up.

Ungrouped players will vastly benefit from getting an ungrouped vs ungrouped match while that first group waits for a second group to show up.

Grouped players will benefit from replacing their empty stomps with a proper group vs group challenge, because no guts no glory.

View PostHazeclaw, on 23 March 2020 - 03:05 PM, said:

your assumption that group size automatically equates to group strength is incorrect

The facts are that a big group with no group strength will quickly disband after losing only a match or two.

So as far as quantity goes, my assumption that group size equates to group strength is pretty much spot on.

Exceptions to that rule do not change the rule.

View PostHazeclaw, on 23 March 2020 - 03:05 PM, said:

some of my favorite types of games is playing with a strong 4man against a bad 12man

In that case, what you want is a minimum top group size difference of 8, that does allow 4man vs 12man, while also skipping all the 0man, 1man, 2man and 3man vs 12man matches, which does in fact increase the occurrence of a 4+ man vs a 12man match.

In which case the ungrouped players can still count on that 4man to carry them.

View PostHazeclaw, on 23 March 2020 - 03:05 PM, said:

I have to ask, if you're so against big groups ruining your fun, why don't you play solo qp?

Two reasons :
- No decks.
- No Loyalty points.

I'm fine with group vs group, I'm fine with ungrouped vs ungrouped... my issue is with grouped vs ungrouped, which the broken MatchMaker does a better job forcing then avoiding.

And if that's the case, I should just make a feature request about reducing the amount of unpopular grouped vs ungrouped stomps in favor of increasing the amount of popular group vs group and ungrouped vs ungrouped matches.

That would make a lot more sense, then someone telling me to go play a game mode that provides neither the decks nor loyalty points that I'm fond of.

Edited by Humble Dexter, 23 March 2020 - 08:04 PM.


#4 Hazeclaw

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,974 posts
  • LocationTrue North Strong and Free

Posted 23 March 2020 - 08:16 PM

You just have to live with the reality that quickplay is the mode favoring solo play (with everything that comes with that) and FP is the mode favoring group play (with everything that comes with that).

You want FP to be turned into a mode favoring solo play, just stop. That is not what FP is for.

#5 Humble Dexter

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 958 posts

Posted 24 March 2020 - 06:36 AM

View PostHazeclaw, on 23 March 2020 - 08:16 PM, said:

You want FP to be turned into a mode favoring solo play, just stop. That is not what FP is for.

No, I clearly stated it's the pointless group vs ungrouped stomps that bother me, and not the group vs group matches.

So again it's about having less group vs ungrouped stomps, in favor of more group vs group and ungrouped vs ungrouped matches.

My favorite FP matches are the ones that end with 47-48 or 48-47, my most pointless FP stomps are the one where the broken MatchMaker did such a bad job that the losing team couldn't even permakill a single enemy player.
This has everything to do with wanting to introduce a minimum amount of team balance where there is none, and nothing to do with wanting to transform anything into solo play : Group vs group is fun, let there be more, which is precisely what this feature request aims to achieve.

#6 Hazeclaw

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,974 posts
  • LocationTrue North Strong and Free

Posted 24 March 2020 - 07:24 AM

You're literally asking to introduce a condition where larger groups will be left in the que waiting, while solos will get into drops more, and if there aren't enough solos and small groups to fill both teams, both the large group and their mixed opponents will be waiting in que rather than playing. I get you're trying to stick it to the scary 12man, but thankfully at this point PGI won't make any changes like this whether it was a popular idea or not.

#7 Humble Dexter

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 958 posts

Posted 26 March 2020 - 03:01 PM

A situation where groups are more likely to get a worthwhile challenge then being called farmers, and where ungrouped players are more likely to get a match then get stomps that will make them quit MWO early, for the day or forever.

What's the point of speeding up matches if you rush them so badly they're totally mismatched and downright better off not being played ? Well the point would be farming I guess, but is that what MWO is all about ?

#8 justcallme A S H

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2019 Referee
  • CS 2019 Referee
  • 7,514 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, AU

Posted 26 March 2020 - 03:46 PM

lol what kinda pants on head crazy idea is this now?

"Limit the top group".

And how in the mother of the cosmos is that going to be worked out, exactly?


No wonder all you do is LRM 24/7, the most simple way to play.

#9 Hazeclaw

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,974 posts
  • LocationTrue North Strong and Free

Posted 26 March 2020 - 07:40 PM

View PostHumble Dexter, on 26 March 2020 - 03:01 PM, said:

A situation where groups are more likely to get a worthwhile challenge then being called farmers, and where ungrouped players are more likely to get a match then get stomps that will make them quit MWO early, for the day or forever.

What's the point of speeding up matches if you rush them so badly they're totally mismatched and downright better off not being played ? Well the point would be farming I guess, but is that what MWO is all about ?


The problem with your idea is that it won't, large groups of bad players still get wrecked by small groups of strong players. You're just going to lock groups out of the only remaining way to play group pick up games.

The reason FP is fairly playable right now is because you can get games reasonably quickly, if you go to groups waiting 30+ minutes for a game the reality is that people will go sync drop qp, there are not enough solos to create drops in FP. I'm sorry nobody wants to play in a team with you because of your playstyle, but FP is the pickup team game environment in mwo, stop trying to turn it into solo play because you play solo.

#10 Humble Dexter

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 958 posts

Posted 28 March 2020 - 09:42 PM

View PostHazeclaw, on 26 March 2020 - 07:40 PM, said:

large groups of bad players still get wrecked by small groups of strong players.

Large groups that get wrecked by a small groups of strong players are short lived, very short lived, a complete non-issue considering how fast they disband after just 1 or 2 defeats.

View PostHazeclaw, on 26 March 2020 - 07:40 PM, said:

there are not enough solos to create drops in FP.

In fact there is.

And when it's the case, and the MatchMaker gets to choose between launching an ungrouped vs ungrouped or a grouped vs ungrouped match, it will systematically throw the ungrouped team under the grouped truck, and leave the second ungrouped team in the queue so a second grouped team can queue up and come stomp it too. A complete waste of two matches.

#11 Hazeclaw

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,974 posts
  • LocationTrue North Strong and Free

Posted 29 March 2020 - 09:39 AM

nope, groups get to play first in FP, that's how it should be, you're more than welcome to go play QP if you're looking for solos vs solos gameplay

#12 Humble Dexter

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 958 posts

Posted 29 March 2020 - 12:31 PM

View PostHazeclaw, on 29 March 2020 - 09:39 AM, said:

nope, groups get to play first in FP, that's how it should be, you're more than welcome to go play QP if you're looking for solos vs solos gameplay

So again it's about quantity vs quality : It's about providing more high-end group vs group matches to groups.

Which does have the positive side-effect of providing more ungrouped vs ungrouped matches to ungrouped players, making it more likely they manage to stay in MWO long enough to improve and end up joining a unit and fight in groups too...

And less likely they just give up early on and go play another MMO that isn't almost entirely made of one-sided stomps instead, such as... every highly successful WMO-like game out there (War Thunder, World of Tanks...).

I'm sure groups of old players are happy to be stomping helpless new players all day long... it's the retention rate of new players that PGI should be worrying about.

#13 Swamp Ass MkII

    Member

  • Pip
  • The Blood-Eye
  • The Blood-Eye
  • 15 posts

Posted 30 March 2020 - 10:15 AM

Even a good group of ungrouped played can kick the snaught out of a group of grouped peeps, simply because they decide they had enough and actually start talking to one another. Lol j/s...

#14 Hazeclaw

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,974 posts
  • LocationTrue North Strong and Free

Posted 01 April 2020 - 10:07 AM

View PostHumble Dexter, on 29 March 2020 - 12:31 PM, said:

So again it's about quantity vs quality : It's about providing more high-end group vs group matches to groups.

Which does have the positive side-effect of providing more ungrouped vs ungrouped matches to ungrouped players, making it more likely they manage to stay in MWO long enough to improve and end up joining a unit and fight in groups too...

And less likely they just give up early on and go play another MMO that isn't almost entirely made of one-sided stomps instead, such as... every highly successful WMO-like game out there (War Thunder, World of Tanks...).

I'm sure groups of old players are happy to be stomping helpless new players all day long... it's the retention rate of new players that PGI should be worrying about.


Yup, there is a mode that provides group vs group drops, and there is a mode that provides ungrouped vs ungrouped drops, everything working as intended. I'm glad you agree no change is needed

#15 Humble Dexter

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 958 posts

Posted 01 April 2020 - 01:59 PM

There's no shortage of players in QP...

There's just a shortage of group vs group matches in FP, because the FP MatchMaker won't match two groups unless they manage to queue up less then ~2 minutes from each other, which they typically don't.

#16 Barjona

    Rookie

  • Big Brother
  • 4 posts
  • LocationMonaca, PA

Posted Today, 05:30 AM

A group of my Marine Corps buddies and I came back to hype up for Mechwarrior 5, to see if we were all willing to buy it, and tried queuing up for a group of 2 and a group of 3. Neither one worked, and we got depressed. We were able to sync queue, but it wasn't the dynamic we were going for. Now we're not sure if we want to buy Mechwarrior 5. The trailers are always better than the game, so we're worried if it's worth it now. Especially since Mount and Blade 2 is out in EA.

If games are still running, you need to give them basic support. Ensuring that basic game play features are working needs to be part of basic support. Without that happening, it makes one (or a group) wonder if in the new games are being supported, bugs are being squished, or customers are being heard. Then you come on the forums, and see the same request of basic game play support going unheeded for MONTHS upon MONTHS, and all you can do is grimace and shake your head. Does not set a good outlook, Piranha. I for one, will spend my $40 on Mount and Blade, where I KNOW they're supporting their game, and wait to see if you fix your own issues. Differences between game types, I know. But MWO still generates money through MC, hero mechs, etc.... That means it's still a current game that needs current support.

Honestly, instead of limiting by number, limit by tonnage. "Your X person group cannot exceed XXX tons." 75 tons per person or so.

Edited by Barjona, Today, 05:30 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users