1579 replies to this topic

[Gagis]

People are frustrated because this highlights some of the long-standing issues with Player Skill Rating.

The change still appears to be a net positive and a step in the right direction, even though PSR issues are getting glaringly obvious.

[Dee Eight]

Ratybor, on 02 May 2020 - 10:51 PM, said:

Each new match day only makes me state again and again that now I'm getting best experience and most interesting matches since I don't know when. Much less NASCAR, more coordination, tighter scores, unusual tactics. And I am solo now 'cause my friend has just renewed his subscription in a MMORPG. I just don't get it why others are frustrating.

So much fun!

Less nascar would be the fact that without tiers, you're getting more genuinely new players... who haven't yet defaulted to nascar as their movement path.

[X Player]

FRAGTAST1C, on 02 May 2020 - 07:34 PM, said:

Can you just STOP with the "I played a few matches"; "I played for half-a-day"; "I had my personal experience revived after playing some matches" when there is more than 40 HOURS OF ACTUAL VIDEO EVIDENCE proving how bad the match quality has been since this change?

So there is only one opinion valid anymore because someone captured all the bad matches he had? I don't think so. I got stomped in a single match yesterday and it wasn't bad because it was the exception and not the rule. Most matches I had were ending in a 12:8-kinda fashion and that is fine by me. Even though we were sometimes pitted against teams of 6+ assaults, the matches almost always were close.

I won't shut up just because someone is butthurt about a change that was made with good intentions. I stopped playing a good while ago because it wasn't possible to either find a match with a group of less than 4 or get stomped by 12 mans on the other team. As these problems are now seemingly gone my friends and I can finally see if we want to start playing regularly again.

[Brom96]

Truth is that NASCAR is down. However, I cannot say that the quality of the matches has improved, quite the opposite. People are pulling weird tactics, often divided in small groups, usually pairs, doing their stuff, endangering the rest of the team or speeding away if they are in lights to die alone.

Conquest is shot. Either the drops are wrong, with a lot of assaults, or they do stupid thing, like half of the team capping on small map, Canyon, for instance. Enemy, of course, just murderballs the rest of the team and sweeps the floor with the rubble that's left. And let me talk about the number of times I saw assaults capping. As if they don't know how to play it. I guess the group guys are unaccustomed to usual tactics on some maps.

[Nesutizale]

Some thought about solo Q and teams. Is solo Q even truely solo? We play 12v12 as a team. The better team wins.

Going in saying "I want to be alone" in a 12 man team just calls for getting shot. Only those who show at least a bit of coordination will win.

Haveing small groups in those 12 man teams change a bit of the dynamic by haveing at least that part of the team working together and to my experiance other players follow that, conciousely or not. The positive thing here is that it leads to more teamplay in a teamplay game.

To me that is a very positive change, bringing the teamplay into a teamgame...omg how dare they do that.
Do people have to adapt to that? Yes. Will everyone like that? No.

For all those who want solo...go play solaris that is for solo players. All other modes are teamplay modes.
Games like World of Warships & Tanks all allow small teams and it works very well.

----

A point that I can totaly agree on is that we will need a reset of the PSR and a rework or even replacement for that system to get matches that are more evenly in the overall skill level of teams.

Problem is, not matter the system, people of the top 1% will allways be a problem as long as the number of players isn't high enough to have constantly those 1% in their own corner. So those players playing the game will allways result in an unbalance and a stomp. There is hardly any way to prevent that except to have enough 1% players.

----

PS: A lot of the problems I read here are related more to
A) PSR beeing sh....
B] Tonnage / Mechloadouts not beeing taken into account
C) Uneven distributen of teams

then they are truely the problem of 4 people playing together as a team.
I think part of the problem is that we don't have the numbers of players to the MM to balance things. We would need PGIs numbers to see if that is true.
The other the PSR system itself.

Edited by Nesutizale, 03 May 2020 - 02:35 AM.

[MeanMachinE]

FRAGTAST1C, on 03 May 2020 - 01:48 AM, said:

[Redacted]

Problem with twitch streams is that they represent only a certain portion of the player base. The error is the same as if you would go to Disneyland and ask people if they like amusement parks. Unfortunately watching the streams does not give us the whole picture. But PGI will can see the stats and how the change has gone through as a whole after this month.

[Alreech]

Brom96, on 03 May 2020 - 01:43 AM, said:

Conquest is shot. Either the drops are wrong, with a lot of assaults, or they do stupid thing, like half of the team capping on small map, Canyon, for instance. Enemy, of course, just murderballs the rest of the team and sweeps the floor with the rubble that's left. And let me talk about the number of times I saw assaults capping. As if they don't know how to play it. I guess the group guys are unaccustomed to usual tactics on some maps.

So the same problem of Conquest on small maps that was critizised when the Conquest Mode was introduced in 2012 reappeard ?
How unexcpected...

Has nothing to do with Group & Solo play, because in either type of Quickplay you do the murderball on small conquest maps or lose.
Same with assaul or skirmish on small maps: don't do any kind of other things like murder ball (no flanking, ect...) just brawl it out.

[Mcgral18]

I decided to play an evening of MWO after a 6 month break
Grouped up with unit fellows, perfectly capable pilots, and played 15 rounds together
We won 14


We did not meet any top tier teams over the evening (beyond NA prime time)
There were a few close matches (12-9+), the loss being ~12-6, not a stomp
Some groups of Clam Riflemen, but I didn't bother to get any screenshots
The majority were in the stomp territory of 12-4(-)


This doesn't seem ideal

I'll agree with the idea of a solo player opt-in, for players who choose to be among the groups, but not to force everyone in that feeding frenzy


I did not get to test the 8 VS 8, but both ideas together seems like an ideal solution of fast matching

This is ignoring the issue of the experience bar being used as a matchmaking tool, its current form will not make for good matching

[Alreech]

Anomalocaris, on 02 May 2020 - 10:24 AM, said:

Without matching by skill and particularly paying attention to groups, it will be impossible for PGI to eliminate this problem with tonnage, etc. They might be able to mitigate it by going down to 2mans, but even then high skill 2mans will dramatically shift the odds in favor of their team. Regardless, Russ has basically said skill matching really isn't an option at this point and its not high on their list of things to try. Which dooms this merged queue attempt to failure.

Skill match making in groups can't work if the matchmaker doesn't have enough groups of the right size to set up a match.
What's a thing PGI was told over and over again and now finally admits.


Reducing group sizes to a value the matchmaker can use better is IMHO the first step for skill matchmaking with groups.
5 & 6 player groups just work in 1 combo in 8 vs 8 match making: 5+3 & 6+2. 7 doesn't work at all.
9 & 10 player groups just work in 1 combo in 12 vs 12 match making: 9+3 & 10+2. 11 doesn't work at all.

So if 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 group sizes are a problem for fast match making why not reducing the group size to 1 -4 Players:
1 Player minimum size would allow Solo Players to opt into group matches.
4 Players maximum would allow to use variable match sizes to speed up match making and to balance group tier:

• 4 vs 4 on small maps
  
• 8 vs 8 on all maps
  
• 12 vs 12 on big maps.

Group Tier can created by the avarage or median tier of the players in group


Example 1:
1x Tier 1, 2x Tier 2, 1x Tier 3
Median: Group Tier 2
Average: Group Tier 2

Example 2:
3x Tier 1,1x Tier 3
Median: Group Tier 1
Average: Group Tier 2 (1,5)

Example 3:
3x Tier 3,1x Tier 1
Median: Group Tier 3
Average: Group Tier 3 (2,5)

Groups of the same tier should balanced between the teams.
So if for example one Tier 1 an two Tier 4 groups are in the match makers queue both Tier 4 groups will be sent into a 4 vs 4 if not a second Tier 1 - 3 group arrives in a sensible time to set up a 8 vs 8 match.

If that works other stuff like how players Tiers are calculated can - and should - be improved.

[Phoolan Devi]

Anomalocaris, on 27 April 2020 - 12:23 PM, said:

Because they just said they like it. You said "if you don't try it you can't say it didn't work". That bothers me.

It bothers you because he is right! You can't judge about something you haven't experienced.

.....and,as it looks, it works just fine!

[IshanDeston]

Horseman, on 02 May 2020 - 12:11 PM, said:

Also, what else do you expect them to do? Stop playing? Throw matches on purpose?

To stop playing during this test period is the only way PG will revert their decision of this combined que. The player population, using steam charts, seems to be stable this week compared to where it was the week before. Thus whatever metric you want to use, at the very least the change has no impact on the number of people playing, and thus there is no reason for PG not to stick with this change and try to tweak it instead.

Of course, the concerning bit is the number of people that posted in here saying they dragged a friend into the game and yet we are still at the same numbers as the week before the change. Which suggests that the new people this change has brought in is outweighted by the people that stopped playing already.

Horseman, on 02 May 2020 - 01:40 PM, said:

I would and I'd be happy to. Probably a number of other players from the higher side of the performance spectrum also would, hoping for a more competitive environment than the regular solo queue.

I am all for an opt in option, as it would allow me to opt in when i feel like it. For all i case the option can be opt-out by default, as long as i get the choice.

Dee Eight, on 02 May 2020 - 05:54 PM, said:

Why is it the 8v8 group queue got only a couple day test but us solo jocks are made to suffer for a 4 week test ?

Because PG counts on you not taking a break from the game for the duration and believe if they just say that its a 4 week test we will stop complaining and just 'eat Sh♥♥' at the end of this, so they won't need to change it back. Its just long enough to hope for the complaints to stop and you to just accept it. Or so the hope, i am sure.

They are well aware that the community didn't want this change, thus the long adaption period, hoping for people to just accept it.

Dee Eight, on 03 May 2020 - 12:40 AM, said:

Less nascar would be the fact that without tiers, you're getting more genuinely new players... who haven't yet defaulted to nascar as their movement path.

Nascar is what happens when there is no coordination because flanking right is the only option, since you can't flank left, due to the lack of cover and risk of being cut off from the team, and taking a stand is also out of the question, because you cannot rely on your stranger teammates. This leads to a natural right move motion for both teams. Nascar is an emergent property of the map design in this game and not a "default" position of players.

[Alreech]

SolahmaWarrior, on 02 May 2020 - 03:36 PM, said:

I'd give it a shot, just to hopefully experience some good team coordinated matches. I've only done solo, rarely do Faction. Don't belong to any group, so... (and I don't have the time or the steady, predictable schedule to join a group)

That's the reason things like "Lobbys" for player who are not in a Unit to group up haven been one of the most wished improvents for MWO.
LFG came to late.

PGI payed a lot of money to Microsoft for a Mechwarrior license with all this Battletech lore and designed the main selling point around that lore (matches between opposite factions) and then their marketing told most if the MWOs player base that faction warfare is only for the lucky few who have the time to play in big organised groups.

Small hint: if you force many of your players to play Solo because you tell him your main selling point is not for them you doing it wrong.
One more reason for variable match sizes in group matches PGI ignored since beta in 2012.

And without playing in a Unit or faction with the same Cameo, Colors and Decals, why buying MCs for that stuff?

[Alreech]

After action report, Day 3 of the "Solo Quickplay Apocalypse by Groups"

Dropped with 3 friends yesterday 22.00 - 24.00 CET.
Corsair: 4x AMS, 4x Large Pulse
Highlander: (not fully skilled & not a "MRM-Meta one trick pony")
ECM Enforcer: LB-10-X AC, Med Lasers (pretty standard).

Got stomped on Frozen City Conquest:
Reason: not telling the team via VOIP to form up a murder ball.

Got not stomped on Polar Highlands Assault despite most of our teams doesn't have had LRMs.
Reason: telling the to defend the Base & to set up firing line on the hill on Grid XY.
Giving the Team AMS & ECM Support.
12:3 win, and the 2 death on our team were caused by players left the ECM/AMS screen to far (killed by an all-LRM Nova Cat)

Lost on Polar Highlands Assault despite telling to set up a firing line:
Players lost patience and spread out too much / left AMS & ECM screen and get killed.
After the Corsair went down the team was quickly destroyed by LRMs.

Conclusion:
If you play in group, use VOIP to tell your team what your group will be doing ("We doing the murder ball, form up in...").
If parts of your Lance are not in your group use the Squad Leader menue to give orders, and follow them.

[Thorqemada]

An what is this hate of Nascar?
Nascar is the only way to battle that is akin to modern mobile Warfare where agressive flankingmaneuvers decide who wins and who loses.
It is only that the Maps are so small that every movement will end in a circle bcs there in no space to move in any other way.

Taking a "strong" Position and fighting the static Trench Warfare WWI style works only in the modes that have no tactical objecitves and probably that is why Conquest is not that popular - that is a mode that forces you to move on most Maps when the opfor does not want WWI Warfare.

But it is all a sign of the "land of milk and honey" Syndrom where the roasted birds fly into your mouth instead of away.

But i believe in the end, with this merged Q Experiment, you will see some Hawks coming back but many Doves fly away!

[Larsh]

FRAGTAST1C, on 03 May 2020 - 01:48 AM, said:

[Redacted]

Can't dispute live footage. I've been watching many of the streamers to try to get a solid idea of the playerbase.

One thing I will mention though, is that some here are mentioning the most top viewed streamers. Have you had a chance to view the other streamers that may get 1 or 2 views the whole night? They may not be the best quality, or may not know how to interact with a full audience, but it may be a good idea to get their insight as well.

Side note, B33f's Mushroom lance was funny, cause memes. Reminds me of some the dumb **** my group used to do.

But, it is extremely hard to state facts if the video feed is from those with the most views. We can say it happened, sure, but what about the other streamers, or those that don't stream? For those that don't stream, it makes for a hard bargain because they can't back up their experience with video evidence. Also, what percentage of the player base is a streamer? Probably not that large.

That's why we need to add a poll to the in-game splash screen. Because, as far as we've gone in this thread, I think we can say that all "facts" are now coming from personal experiences. This goes for the elite players, as well as those that are not. I'm not saying you're wrong, but we need to define what facts are being recorded, and at what frequency.

If it were me, I'd place a poll on the in-game splash screen that has something like this:

ALERT
For the remainder of the month, PGI will be implementing a change in the matchmaker system to merge group queue and solo queue together. This is being done as a test to see if this will resolve group queue search times. We will be monitoring these changes, and will be making tweaks to this system as needed.

Please fill out this survey once a week for your input.

* To unlock survey you must complete 40 matches during the week. Survey will refresh each week on Sunday (At Insert Time) *

1. What is your overall experience of merged Group and Solo Queue?

✅Strongly Dislike ✅Dislike ✅ Neutral ✅ Enjoy ✅ Strongly Enjoy

2. What item do you think could be changed to better MWO?

✅ Ton restrictions ✅ Player Skill Rating ✅ Both

Edited by GM Patience, 04 May 2020 - 02:58 PM.

[Alreech]

FRAGTAST1C, on 03 May 2020 - 04:39 AM, said:

[Redacted]

That was a reply to a player who complained about forced to playing solo.

I you want to read something about a working match maker, merging solo players in groups and why group sizes have to reduced to make balancing in group play possible read that:

Alreech, on 03 May 2020 - 03:50 AM, said:

Skill match making in groups can't work if the matchmaker doesn't have enough groups of the right size to set up a match.
What's a thing PGI was told over and over again and now finally admits.


Reducing group sizes to a value the matchmaker can use better is IMHO the first step for skill matchmaking with groups.
5 & 6 player groups just work in 1 combo in 8 vs 8 match making: 5+3 & 6+2. 7 doesn't work at all.
9 & 10 player groups just work in 1 combo in 12 vs 12 match making: 9+3 & 10+2. 11 doesn't work at all.

So if 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 group sizes are a problem for fast match making why not reducing the group size to 1 -4 Players:
1 Player minimum size would allow Solo Players to opt into group matches.
4 Players maximum would allow to use variable match sizes to speed up match making and to balance group tier:

• 4 vs 4 on small maps
  
• 8 vs 8 on all maps
  
• 12 vs 12 on big maps.

Group Tier can created by the avarage or median tier of the players in group




Example 1:
1x Tier 1, 2x Tier 2, 1x Tier 3
Median: Group Tier 2
Average: Group Tier 2

Example 2:
3x Tier 1,1x Tier 3
Median: Group Tier 1
Average: Group Tier 2 (1,5)

Example 3:
3x Tier 3,1x Tier 1
Median: Group Tier 3
Average: Group Tier 3 (2,5)

Groups of the same tier should balanced between the teams.
So if for example one Tier 1 an two Tier 4 groups are in the match makers queue both Tier 4 groups will be sent into a 4 vs 4 if not a second Tier 1 - 3 group arrives in a sensible time to set up a 8 vs 8 match.

If that works other stuff like how players Tiers are calculated can - and should - be improved.

Edited by GM Patience, 04 May 2020 - 03:00 PM.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

It has been years since I have played, I'm going to come back with this change. For so long I've been unable to get friends into this game since if you're getting a new player and bringing them along you get stuck in group queue with huge wait times only to get stomped on by a 12 man, now they can finally get pulled into the game with a small group of friends and experience a proper match. Thank for you this, though I feel it is extremely late.

I was even talking just today with a friend about how nice it would be to have a system where there's a limit of a squad of 4 in the match and one on each side so the groups don't stomp so hard and at least have an opposing group there too. It also opens up random players to potentially working with some more coordinated teams that is just impossible with a totally random team.

[Horseman]

X Player, on 03 May 2020 - 01:36 AM, said:

I won't shut up just because someone is butthurt about a change that was made with good intentions.

Remind me what is the road to hell paved with?

X Player, on 03 May 2020 - 01:54 AM, said:

As you said yourself T1 or whatnot doesn't mean anything anyway, so why would I care if my opponents are T5 or T1? Doesn't make a difference.

There is a difference in that while T1 is a mixed bag, T5ers are either complete newbies or simply so bad they can't pull ~170 MS average (which is the lowest we know gets a player to T1 eventually) for any length of time.

IshanDeston, on 03 May 2020 - 04:02 AM, said:

To stop playing during this test period is the only way PG will revert their decision of this combined que.

PGI won't revert the decision if nobody is complaining about it. And if we all left, the casuals would be left playing casuals so nobody would be complaining and the change would stay.

Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood, on 03 May 2020 - 05:11 AM, said:

I was even talking just today with a friend about how nice it would be to have a system where there's a limit of a squad of 4 in the match and one on each side so the groups don't stomp so hard and at least have an opposing group there too. It also opens up random players to potentially working with some more coordinated teams that is just impossible with a totally random team.

Reality is that those groups of 4 will have a major impact on their team's performance simply because they a concentration of either skill or **** (depending on who the group consists of).

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

Horseman, on 03 May 2020 - 05:21 AM, said:

Reality is that those groups of 4 will have a major impact on their team's performance simply because they a concentration of either skill or **** (depending on who the group consists of).

The same would happen with randoms. A good player or two getting put on one team while potatoes get put on the other leads to an obvious win unless the matchmaker's changed significantly in the time I've been gone. The main difference with small groups being allowed in is MWO finally having some way to introduce friends into the game that has been sorely lacking since its introduction.

[Phoolan Devi]

Zoolder, on 02 May 2020 - 08:14 PM, said:

I did read it, I thought group queue might have still existed just with larger groups.

In that case I'm not really in favor of the change, I play with a group of 6 - 8 people and we all stopped playing months ago because we couldn't get in any games. We were hoping to come back and try out the changes and under 4 it works nice but there needs to be something for large groups, we want to play the game together not just queue and hope we're in the same game (likely against each other).

Faction Warfare is always there.