212 replies to this topic

[Bobby Bang]

I really enjoy the 12v12 madness on the huge maps. If the matchmaker could occasionally throw us into a major engagement of 24v24 it would be amazing. But that would probably dim the lights on the west coast.

[Vlad Ward]

We'd really need infinite respawns so players aren't sitting there waiting for those bigger matches to end.

[Leone]

But we wouldn't hafta wait. We can always leave match an get a new one.

~Leone.

[justcallme A S H]

Lockheed_, on 08 June 2021 - 05:05 PM, said:

I'd be so down with 24v24, even 16v16 would be amazing! It would also create much more balanced matches, the more players the smaller the impact of really good or really bad players.

There is no chance the engine will be able to handle that.

FPS would mega crap the bed more than it does for many users.

[justcallme A S H]

Lonewolf71, on 08 June 2021 - 08:55 AM, said:

I honestly believe everyone in this thread has a good point, and all I wanted was an 8vs8 option added to the game.

I mean there are good/bad/incorrect points in many threads. I don't think this thread is immune like any other.

The perfect example is claiming that COVID is sole reason the population has climbed month-on-month for 9 months (and not Cauldron/PGI investment) - despite most of the majority of the Western World being out of lockdowns for 6-7 months. There is no disputing it - it's just wrong.

Lonewolf71, on 08 June 2021 - 08:55 AM, said:

I mostly want 8vs8 back just for the fun of it,

It's been long thought that 8v8 in GQ would work with a OPT-In scenario for SOLOs. Maybe limited to 4mans as well (although jury is out still I think). Certainly a topic that I think a number of people wished saw more discussion back 14 months ago or so. There is merit there and if the Qs are split I hope the discussion is had in more detail.

You'd also thing 8v8 GQ should give the MM and easier job for group matching provided the population is there which I'm not sure it is, yet.

For SoloQ - that's definitely debatable especially with the larger maps that have come over time due to 12v12 being the forefront as well. One player also would have far more impact in a 8v8, a single player taking out another has a solid effect and the game in 8v8 vs 12v12 was quite different with different tech, weapons and other things all existing then vs now - lots to consider there.

[YueFei]

Vlad Ward, on 08 June 2021 - 05:40 PM, said:

We'd really need infinite respawns so players aren't sitting there waiting for those bigger matches to end.

I think it'd be funny to have an FFA infinite respawn mode that you screw around in while waiting for a real match. The FFA infinite respawn mode would not award XP or C-Bills or achievements or anything.

Just something to mess with instead of staring at the screen waiting for a match.

[Dogstar]

I think the only way to sensibly integrate 8x8 play would be to mix it into the soup queue as a different type of 'map' or mode. The whole match maker, map voting, and lobby badly needs to be revised anyway and has done for a very long time.

Most other games like MWO don't waste time by having a 90 second lobby screen or a 30 second map voting screen all of which take time away from actually being able to get into the match and play so map voting could be entirely removed and replaced with randomised maps, modes, and mech numbers (4x4, 8x8, 12x12, 24x24). Different sizes of maps (or redrawn boundaries at least) would be fun for different sizes of battles too.

[Mochyn Pupur]

Vxheous, on 08 June 2021 - 05:07 AM, said:

Except they havent, because population has been steadily rising

I might question this - how much of this population increase is down to second/third accounts being made to allow "experiments" in how tong it takes to level or just accounts to allow higher tier players to have fun farming easy matches under a pseudonym?

How many of the players are older ones whose PSRs have been reset and having to start afresh?

It would be good to know how many of these "new" players are just that - new to MWO in its entirety.

[justcallme A S H]

PeppaPig, on 09 June 2021 - 12:59 AM, said:

I might question this - how much of this population increase is down to second/third accounts being made to allow "experiments" in how tong it takes to level or just accounts to allow higher tier players to have fun farming easy matches under a pseudonym?

How many of the players are older ones whose PSRs have been reset and having to start afresh?

It would be good to know how many of these "new" players are just that - new to MWO in its entirety.

You really think a population increase of over 120% from Feb 20, is partly due to Alt accounts?

You only have to look across the various mediums

• Facebook groups
  
• Reddits
  
• Discords
  
• Steam Forums
  
• These forums
  
• Twitch Streamers (many new players, many returning)

etc etc to see how many have returned. Even looking at my own friends list the returning players is extremely evident the amount of people coming back is definitely NOT related to a mass influx of "high tier players" farming on Alts...

Come on man.

[Gagis]

Alt farming has never been particularly popular.

[Storming Angel]

Lockheed_, on 09 June 2021 - 01:08 AM, said:

I never considered that, but that's a good point. I have no issues with the game currently on my laptop, I could see 16v16 work but 24v24 would probably set it on fire.

16v16 will be fine too be fair, the number of polys and effects increasing isn't that much. You will just need bigger maps otherwise, playing frozen city classic would be hilarious, but will have people backing into each other and probs block them.

Dunno about 24v24, could do 20v20 instead. But then im not sure how they coded the game in terms of objects not being in visible view (i.e are they globally rendered at max detail or are they only rendered within a certain distance, view, quality etc.).

Could open up for some new games modes or allow for the expansion of previous ones if needed (For example assault and conquest, could have some added features that changes the way the objects look or what you have to capture depending on map and maybe randomisation as well. Instead of being these drill things or satellite dish could add other things to them as well what those would be i have no clue.)

[justcallme A S H]

Storming Angel, on 09 June 2021 - 01:25 AM, said:

16v16 will be fine too be fair, the number of polys and effects increasing isn't that much.

16v16 is a 33% increase on what was already a 33% increase going to 12v12... That is huge to hike.

Missiles already tank FPS massively due to the polycount actually. It is why you can go from 90FPS down to 30FPS if a match has a reasonable amount of missiles (ATM, MRM, SRM, LRM, SSRM). You increase that any further for many people the game will become unplayable right then and there.

Let alone the MM issues trying to fill/balance larger teams etc.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 09 June 2021 - 03:08 AM.

[Dauntless Blint]

12v12 solo

8v8 group + solo opt ins

please, thanks.

[KodiakGW]

Lonewolf71 said:

1623171348[/url]' post='6409706']
*snip*
Population is still too low, and allowing people to play with their friends needs to ALWAYS be an option, as has been discussed here, to get more people to play the game, and keep player retention.

Not to single you out, but I could spend hours pulling quotes from all the defenders of not doing anything to current quick play for that reason. Which is reminiscent of “stay the course, thousand points of lights.” So I ask one simple question.

What is the population number we need to reach to consider separating the queues?

A number have said they would be for separation, a 8v8 group queue, when population is big enough. We are back to numbers we haven’t seen since early 2019. Evidently that is not good enough. What is? 30k, 35k, more? Please let us know what is the magical number we need to get to so I don’t have to continually experience what happened to me in April. I want to try out some builds, and level mechs, which I would never impose on friends. Trying to do that in the current Soup Queue is infuriating.

if it is 30k, fine. We are close to that. I will group up with the few friends I see are active, take an already leveled assault or Night Gyr to use max tonnage, and deal with Soup Queue to help player numbers. But, I want to see posts from everyone this month who has said “not enough population” backing the idea to split queues when we hit 30k. I seriously doubt we will get to 35k or more without a seriously big change. Fixing prior bad decisions alone won’t get us there. Which includes bad original map design.

in the meantime, I just purchased a number of Warhammer themed games on the deep discount Steam sale. Maybe watch B33f, if he decides to stream again. Let me, and the others who have posted about not/stopping playing, know what the number is.

Edited by KodiakGW, 09 June 2021 - 04:34 AM.

[Storming Angel]

justcallme A S H, on 09 June 2021 - 02:23 AM, said:

16v16 is a 33% increase on what was already a 33% increase going to 12v12... That is huge to hike.

Missiles already tank FPS massively due to the polycount actually. It is why you can go from 90FPS down to 30FPS if a match has a reasonable amount of missiles (ATM, MRM, SRM, LRM, SSRM). You increase that any further for many people the game will become unplayable right then and there.

Let alone the MM issues trying to fill/balance larger teams etc.

Is there a way to get an internal fps counter? I don't really notice any lag even with lots of missiles flying around, the only noticeable lag i get is whenever i drop in Solaris city, after a few secs it clears up and goes back to normal, playing on 1920x1080p on high settings (a few very high) atm.

I think on my old pc i was getting over 60fps if not more even with missiles in the air.

What is the total pop for mechwarrior anyways? I know on steam its under 3k (Unless that changed). Have no clue for non-steam users.

I'm guessing most don't play on mid or high end pc's.

[justcallme A S H]

There are plenty of programs that can measure/log FPS.

As for population (10 games played or more) and other stats:
https://leaderboard.isengrim.org/stats

KodiakGW, on 09 June 2021 - 04:33 AM, said:

What is the population number we need to reach to consider separating the queues?

Without PGI supplying a lot of data around groups like:

• Group sizes
  
• Time zone/population distribution
  
• Group tier average
  
• Individual player tier (within group)
  
• What is the split? 8v8 or 12v12?
  
• Is the MM going to be updated.
  
• If 6 - is it going to remove averaged Tier or not?

I can't see how picking a number without any investigation is going to be a particularly smart approach.

That is just some things I thought of quickly too. I'm sure there is more that would help make a decision.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 09 June 2021 - 06:10 AM.

[KodiakGW]

So I guess the argument has changed from “population too low” to “depends on metrics and decisions that PGI won’t share.” Just like the metrics they would share for all of their weapon balancing and quirk adjustments. Oh well.

[Vlad Ward]

KodiakGW, on 09 June 2021 - 06:35 AM, said:

So I guess the argument has changed from “population too low” to “depends on metrics and decisions that PGI won’t share.” Just like the metrics they would share for all of their weapon balancing and quirk adjustments. Oh well.

The crux of the argument is still "population too low." There's just no shortage of difficulty in determining the inflection point where population is high enough.

Mathematically, a Group Queue has a higher population : match quality ratio than a solo queue or mixed queue. This means that to achieve equivalent match quality in group queue you need a higher population than in the solo queue.

If we assume that the population of 25,000 active players in solo queue provided sufficiently high match quality, then a Group Queue is going to require >25,000 participants. If we then also assume that only <=20% of players are dropping in groups at any given time, that's a minimum total player population requirement of >125,000 players in order for a Group Queue to have match quality equivalent to the pre-soup solo queue.

Splitting the queues at even 40,000 total player pop with an 80/20 split means only 8,000 players in the Group Queue - a population level where even solo queue would feel terrible.

In general, players who aren't solo-only are more likely to be tolerant of lower match quality because they're more emotionally healthy, well-rounded individuals with friends and things - but there are limits to what people will put up with.

Edit: Of course, none of this is to suggest that only 20% of players drop in groups. The average player drops both in groups and solo depending on how many of their friends are online.

Edited by Vlad Ward, 09 June 2021 - 06:47 AM.

[justcallme A S H]

KodiakGW, on 09 June 2021 - 06:35 AM, said:

So I guess the argument has changed from “population too low” to “depends on metrics and decisions that PGI won’t share.” Just like the metrics they would share for all of their weapon balancing and quirk adjustments. Oh well.

Where did the argument change? The core issue is - population is too low. That is completely unchanged.

Then the question gets asked to that core issue - when is population no longer too low?

To come to an informed solution/conclusion you need to look at everything on the table. Data, stats, historical information etc.

One key one was GroupQ was dying back in 2017 where it was ~35k players in a 12v12 format. If it goes back to 8v8, without data how can anyone hope you make an informed decision?


I mean what do you think a decision should be based on if not data and information?

[KodiakGW]

So it has now become "population is still to low for us to gather information, which only PGI has, that they won't provide to make a decision." Which brings us back to my question:

When will population be large enough? Large enough to ask PGI to provide the information needed to make the informed decision.