Jump to content

Queue Combo Is Killing This Game.


141 replies to this topic

#1 Bigbacon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 2,989 posts

Posted 16 July 2020 - 05:52 AM

I like this game, been playing for years now but recombining the queues has absolutely killed the MM and the game is so lopsided now it isn't fun.

Soon as the other side has a group its game over almost always unless they are some kind of troll squad.

you need to either limit groups to 2 people OR limit group tonnage so that they can't all go in assaults and destroy the MMs chance at a decent game.

not that you care, because this game is dead to you.

Edited by Bigbacon, 16 July 2020 - 05:52 AM.


#2 Aidan Crenshaw

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Mercenary
  • The Mercenary
  • 1,899 posts

Posted 16 July 2020 - 05:59 AM

Group tonnage and weight balancing are not connected. You can run 3 lights and end up in a team that has more weight and/or assaults than the OpFor.

#3 OneTeamPlayer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 390 posts

Posted 16 July 2020 - 05:59 AM

Funny thing is that we were given the opportunity to vote on a complex algorithm that most people didn't understand when we "voted" on the PSR change, but we weren't given the opportunity to vote on whether or not Solo and Group queue should be merged, a change of which every gamer understands the ramifications.

Solo players didn't want the change, the best of group players didn't want the change, honest average group players didn't want the change.

Group players make up less than 10% of the population.

So obviously it was logical that we'd get this merge that most people said was a bad idea then deal with three months of the the worst MWO gameplay seen in ages for the benefit of <5% of the game most of whom hit the queue, saw themselves still losing to elite groups (instead of stomping on solo players like they expected) and left immediately leaving the rest of us to deal with the mess they championed.

#4 Kiran Yagami

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 1,596 posts

Posted 16 July 2020 - 06:19 AM

View PostBigbacon, on 16 July 2020 - 05:52 AM, said:

Soon as the other side has a group its game over almost always unless they are some kind of troll squad.


It's still over, only now the premade has guaranteed their team's loss instead of guaranteeing a win. The premades too often dictate the outcome of the match, and I say that as someone who only plays in premades anymore.

View PostAidan Crenshaw, on 16 July 2020 - 05:59 AM, said:

Group tonnage and weight balancing are not connected. You can run 3 lights and end up in a team that has more weight and/or assaults than the OpFor.


Yes, it is. Just because you can end up a team with more tonnage doesn't mean you will. If you drop with 4 lights, odd are very high your team will be light on tonnage. Of course group tonnage weight and weight balancing are connected. How could they not be?

Edited by Kiran Yagami, 16 July 2020 - 06:20 AM.


#5 OneTeamPlayer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 390 posts

Posted 16 July 2020 - 06:24 AM

View PostKiran Yagami, on 16 July 2020 - 06:19 AM, said:

Yes, it is. Just because you can end up a team with more tonnage doesn't mean you will. If you drop with 4 lights, odd are very high your team will be light on tonnage. Of course group tonnage weight and weight balancing are connected. How could they not be?


Agreed, and it's wild to see people claim group tonnage and weight balance are unconnected when we rarely saw slightly unbalanced matches before (more than 1 extra assault or light on a side) let alone the 9 assaults versus 2 foolishness Baradul saw in one of his videos and players are seeing every day now in solo queue.

Some of these changes are indefensible and have an obvious source, i just can't fathom what is gained by refusing to acknowledge the root of the issue?

#6 GARION26

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Giant Helper
  • 88 posts

Posted 16 July 2020 - 06:26 AM

View PostKiran Yagami, on 16 July 2020 - 06:19 AM, said:


It's still over, only now the premade has guaranteed their team's loss instead of guaranteeing a win. The premades too often dictate the outcome of the match, and I say that as someone who only plays in premades anymore.



Yes, it is. Just because you can end up a team with more tonnage doesn't mean you will. If you drop with 4 lights, odd are very high your team will be light on tonnage. Of course group tonnage weight and weight balancing are connected. How could they not be?


Because there are 8 more slots in the drop to balance tonnage.
4 Assaults in one group, none in the group they are matched against then the rest of the opposing force can have more tonnage.

The issue with imbalanced weights is because the matchmaker algorithm is going through the following steps in descending priority
1. Group vs non group - it always tries to match a group against another group so both drops have a group
2. PSR - it tries to balances PSR
3. Tonnage matching
4. Wait time

You could make tonnage the primary criteria and it would have better tonnage matching but worse group vs non group and potentially worse PSR matching.
You could make wait time the primary issue - and it would do very little balancing if there isn't an easy fit immediately in the pool of players looking for the game.

Prior to the merge Tonnage matching was the second criteria I suspect after PSR matching. It's dropped down because another criteria was added ahead of it.

Really PSR matching IMO means more then tonnage. Team of 12 assault Tier 5's is probably not going to do anything against a team of true Tier 1 mediums.

I'd suggest that PSR should be a more important criteria in the matchmaking algorithm then it is currently. Elite groups can be somewhat balanced by elite solos. Elite groups aren't really balanced by Cadet groups.

Edited by GARION26, 16 July 2020 - 06:31 AM.


#7 Willard Phule

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,651 posts
  • LocationThe Omega Company compound on Outreach

Posted 16 July 2020 - 06:40 AM

View PostGARION26, on 16 July 2020 - 06:26 AM, said:

I'd suggest that PSR should be a more important criteria in the matchmaking algorithm then it is currently. Elite groups can be somewhat balanced by elite solos. Elite groups aren't really balanced by Cadet groups.


But...both Cadets and Elites are Tier 3. How is that supposed to help?

#8 Kiran Yagami

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 1,596 posts

Posted 16 July 2020 - 06:51 AM

View PostGARION26, on 16 July 2020 - 06:26 AM, said:


Because there are 8 more slots in the drop to balance tonnage.
4 Assaults in one group, none in the group they are matched against then the rest of the opposing force can have more tonnage.

The issue with imbalanced weights is because the matchmaker algorithm is going through the following steps in descending priority
1. Group vs non group - it always tries to match a group against another group so both drops have a group
2. PSR - it tries to balances PSR
3. Tonnage matching
4. Wait time

You could make tonnage the primary criteria and it would have better tonnage matching but worse group vs non group and potentially worse PSR matching.
You could make wait time the primary issue - and it would do very little balancing if there isn't an easy fit immediately in the pool of players looking for the game.

Prior to the merge Tonnage matching was the second criteria I suspect after PSR matching. It's dropped down because another criteria was added ahead of it.

Really PSR matching IMO means more then tonnage. Team of 12 assault Tier 5's is probably not going to do anything against a team of true Tier 1 mediums.

I'd suggest that PSR should be a more important criteria in the matchmaking algorithm then it is currently. Elite groups can be somewhat balanced by elite solos. Elite groups aren't really balanced by Cadet groups.


The matchmaker doesn't balance the tonnage. It fills slots. Sometimes there's 8 assault pilots waiting to drop, sometimes there aren't. I've seen teams with 10 assaults, but that was only because there were two different 3 person premades in it, all playing assaults. I've seen teams with 6 lights, but that was only because there was a 4 man in it all playing lights. You're smoking crack if you think the two aren't connected.

#9 Brauer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • 716 posts

Posted 16 July 2020 - 06:55 AM

View PostGARION26, on 16 July 2020 - 06:26 AM, said:

Prior to the merge Tonnage matching was the second criteria I suspect after PSR matching. It's dropped down because another criteria was added ahead of it.


So we now have evidence of huge tonnage/weight class disparities in matches (which did not exist before the group and solo merge) AND you just pointed to a reason why groups are related to tonnage disparities. And yet somehow groups aren't the reason for that disparity?

It doesn't really matter if the issue is that the matchmaker gives weight-class balance a lower priority now, or the issue is that groups aren't factored into weight-class balancing. The fact remains that in old solo QP you never saw a weight class disparity, but now weight class disparities are the norm and the disparities are often huge (like 2 assaults vs. 9 assaults).

#10 GARION26

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Giant Helper
  • 88 posts

Posted 16 July 2020 - 07:03 AM

View PostKiran Yagami, on 16 July 2020 - 06:51 AM, said:


The matchmaker doesn't balance the tonnage. It fills slots. Sometimes there's 8 assault pilots waiting to drop, sometimes there aren't. I've seen teams with 10 assaults, but that was only because there were two different 3 person premades in it, all playing assaults. I've seen teams with 6 lights, but that was only because there was a 4 man in it all playing lights. You're smoking crack if you think the two aren't connected.


With respect I'd suggest you reread what I wrote.
It's matching group vs non group before PSR which is before tonnage.
It's not a group of 4 assaults that throws the matchmaker off tonnage balancing it's that the matchmaker is balancing tonnage as it's third criteria.

You could as I point out just balance on tonnage as the primary.

PGI based on input from this players on this forum felt groups vs non group was the biggest worry so they balanced based on that as the primary matchmaker criteria. I think it's the wrong choice. There are others who feels to have any group on one side but not the other would be the most imbalancing thing so they pushed for group vs non group being the primary matchmaking criteria.

If you feel tonnage is more important then group status or PSR we could ask them to balance primarily on tonnage. You'd get better tonnage balancing but not as good on the other issues.

PSR is all tier 3 to start but people have started to gravitate to their natural tier by now particularly those playing lots of games (i.e. the players most likely to be seeking a matchup for matchmaker.) You can see angst about this on the FB group and here when someone doesn't understand what it means to have their PSR drop. That will provide better differentiation over time. While tier is 'lumped' int 5 groups PSR is actually a more granular score that isn't transparent to the player.

Edited by GARION26, 16 July 2020 - 10:52 AM.


#11 HimseIf

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • @ui_title_%s_Rank_2
  • 267 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationAotearoa

Posted 17 July 2020 - 05:01 PM

I actually like the combined queue.

#12 OneTeamPlayer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 390 posts

Posted 17 July 2020 - 05:33 PM

View PostHimseIf, on 17 July 2020 - 05:01 PM, said:

I actually like the combined queue.


Are you an exclusively solo player or would you happen to play in groups sometimes?

#13 Monkey Lover

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 7,593 posts
  • LocationWazan

Posted 17 July 2020 - 07:08 PM

Almost never see us fight another team without a group. Both sides have them. Just because everyone doesn't have the same tag doesn't mean they're not there.

#14 morosis

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 37 posts

Posted 17 July 2020 - 11:36 PM

i miss being able to track meaningful stats about my performance as a solo player against other solo players.

i think it was an underestimated draw of this game. knowing if youre improving, understanding which chassis you are able to contribute in.

bring back the solo queue please.

#15 Flyby215

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Devoted
  • The Devoted
  • 857 posts
  • LocationThunder Bay

Posted 17 July 2020 - 11:49 PM

That an "op in" or "opt out" option was considered not viable due to the belief that not enough players would opt in, was crushing. That's a straight up admission that they knew most solo queue players did not want a mixed queue, but decided to do it anyway. They knew... Posted Image

#16 martian

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 2,315 posts

Posted 18 July 2020 - 03:47 AM

View PostFlyby215, on 17 July 2020 - 11:49 PM, said:

That an "op in" or "opt out" option was considered not viable due to the belief that not enough players would opt in, was crushing. That's a straight up admission that they knew most solo queue players did not want a mixed queue, but decided to do it anyway. They knew... Posted Image


This is nothing new:

Some time ago it was possible for the players to select what game mode they wish to play: Skirmish, Assault or Conquest.

The players refused to play Conquest, so PGI has forced Conquest on them anyway and took away the freedom to check their preferred game mode.

Russ Bullock thinks that this is a sound business policy. Posted Image

#17 C E Dwyer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,188 posts
  • LocationHiding in the periphery, from Bounty Hunters

Posted 18 July 2020 - 06:34 AM

Unchecking conquest, simply proved, MWO, was not a thinking persons Shooter.

The Dev Team simply took away the option to hide the fact, that most players were incable of shooting and thinking at the same time.


Combined que isnt killing the game, allowing groups larger than three isn't helping the situation, but it's not the reason.
There are plenty of groups that, are carried by the solo players.

Only if certain top level players arrive in a group is the MM seriously put out of joint.

It's just an easy target, to blame poor play, and hides the real issues.

like the 12-0 victory I was in last night,

Stomps like that shouldn't be happening, and are happening because of the reset, because you now have alot of T4 T2 T1 players all bunched up in T3 whom like me, will not gravitate to where they should be, for many many months, because they don't drop in enough matches for it to happen.


The new system is a new system.
The Reset is the issue and sadly PGI listened again to the fanatic's, the casual player base were as usual ignored, and now stomps are going to get worse,


It's not the casual players, that drop a few times aday at T3 that are starting to suffer longer waiting times due to the reset, it's the people going up or down rapidly, because they play this for hours a day.

Edited by C E Dwyer, 18 July 2020 - 06:52 AM.


#18 Nesutizale

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Privateer
  • The Privateer
  • 2,956 posts

Posted 18 July 2020 - 07:47 AM

I think of groups as a small problem and with the new PSR system, if it works as intendet in about 3 month (it will take time till it sorted itself) even that problem should minimize itself.

From what I understand, from what Paul posted on twitter, he said something like "and if a group of T1 players brings a long a T5 its their fault that he gets punished" that groups are sorted by the highest tier.

Should this be true then groups would be placed among equals in time. So even if a group is there everyone should be at the same level or at least close by.

I also see small groups as a good way to get people back into the game. FW is dead and to me allways was a dead thing as it dosn't supported small groups. Group Q was also pretty dead with its long waittimes.
I am a 99% solo player and I have no problems with groups so far. Much more problematic is the current "everyone is T3" problem but that will sort itself out over time.

Personaly I say PGI would do well to reduce groups to a number of 3 instead of 4. Currently a team of 4 is influanceing the match by 1/3. Lets reduce that to 1/4 and it shouldn't realy matter anymore even with this mix of tiers.

As for MWOs overall problems. I think there is a lot more to be done. Like improvements to the MM valves, Matchscore points destribution, new maps, getting FW back on the tracks, finding a direction for the gameplay (thinking man shooter / normal shooter / Battlefield like experiance / etc) and I bet you can find more things.

Edited by Nesutizale, 18 July 2020 - 07:49 AM.


#19 Warning incoming Humble Dexterer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 1,072 posts

Posted 22 August 2020 - 03:21 PM

View PostOneTeamPlayer, on 16 July 2020 - 05:59 AM, said:

Group players make up less than 10% of the population.

But in 2020 that same 10% now represent 90% of the population... after it spent years chasing everyone out :)

#20 CT Sparty

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 89 posts
  • LocationQuébec, Québec, CA

Posted 22 August 2020 - 11:16 PM

View PostWarning incoming Humble Dexterer, on 22 August 2020 - 03:21 PM, said:

But in 2020 that same 10% now represent 90% of the population... after it spent years chasing everyone out Posted Image

.. STILL CHASING PEOPLE OUT
even a hardcore pilot who has endured the mistreatment over many years is considering removal
I mean, the IS / Clan weight disadvantage and other game mode insanities over on FP I can deal with
The mish-mash of various level of experience pilots and the ridiculous waiting times over on QP I can deal with
The nerfing down of initial loadouts and invicibility of some light mechs was, up to this day bearable, but we can all witness the trend going south.
Logging on to PGI services, having to wait a minimum of 4min to QP (up to 40min wait times on FP) to get an average in-game experience of 90 seconds in QP when not stormed by fleaocusts (2min per mech on FP av.) has reach a sustainability threshold.
Not enough pew-pew time per hour I'm seated at the computer say I ☼
We had a rough time yesterday on FP Dexter
And I do not believe giving this game additional energy will make it better for the community, we are left to our own devices

Had to vent somewhere, and this thread sounded like a good drop-zone (face to the wall, I need to maneuver 45sec to finally be able to exit it)

https://twitter.com/...9353756677?s=20

Edited by CT Sparty, 22 August 2020 - 11:19 PM.






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users