212 replies to this topic

[justcallme A S H]

Vlad Ward, on 09 June 2021 - 12:57 PM, said:

I don't really see him saying that? Or do you mean to say that the consensus you're talking about may happen before we actually have a high enough population to support a standalone group queue with a functional matchmaker?

I can absolutely see that. Heck, you have people already saying that our numbers are good enough now because GQ existed in 2018. It doesn't seem to matter whether or not GQ was good in 2018, just that it was tolerable enough.

Honestly, the in-group/out-group hostility here is mind-boggling, particularly given how one-sided much of the anger seems to be.

When's the last time you heard someone dunk on solo players for playing solo?

I have said it in the past as have others.

GroupQ was definitely not alive enough in 2018. Even go back to 2017 - just 1-2 high skill groups in GQ was enough to quite literally empty the queue in an hour even in NA prime. I know this because I was in some of these groups.

Streamers and causal units would last max 60-90mins and you could see them on discords, streams etc all breaking groups and then sync dropping in SoloQ which leads to the spiral death if population. What's to stop that happening all over again? It's a huge question to address.

Additionally for around 12hrs in every 24, you could not get a match in GroupQ (2017). I know this because I'd stream it constantly. Even on a Fri/Sat, just after US peak you could sit there for 45mins and not get a match. We did it so many times you'd probably call us all insane.


So yes some greater research and data needs to be looked at before a proper decision can be made. To me that seems like common sense yet to others that seems completely foreign, why?

Edited by justcallme A S H, 09 June 2021 - 05:26 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

KodiakGW, on 09 June 2021 - 07:49 AM, said:

Consider, as to investigate

Consideration =/= investigation.

You investigate/research and them make decisions taking that information gathered into consideration to form your outcome/response.

I mean I've asked you twice what should the decision be based on and you can't even answer that simple question.
Sounds like you just want to complain about SoupQ and offer up nothing to the discussion.

[KodiakGW]

justcallme A S H, on 09 June 2021 - 05:24 PM, said:

I mean I've asked you twice what should the decision be based on and you can't even answer that simple question.
Sounds like you just want to complain about SoupQ and offer up nothing to the discussion.

You’ve already explained that any information besides just player population is only accessible by PGI and won’t be shared. So whatever I say should be used will be met with “we don’t have access to that info.” So again I ask what would be the population number that the Cauldron would feel emboldened to ask for that info, and feel the information would be pertinent to making a decision. So, to think it is time to consider splitting the queues.

Anomalocaris has put pretty well why trying to dispute this further is a waste of time until we get that number, and can help to achieve it.

Edit: I just noticed you liked a post where it said that the population would need to be much higher, and even then a bad decision. So we have our answer. Population will never be high enough to consider splitting the queues. Enjoy!

Additional Edit because other thread was closed because I was accused of misrepresenting. I am not

https://i.imgur.com/v7WOGvi.jpeg

Seems to me exactly what I represented.

Edited by KodiakGW, 17 June 2021 - 08:21 AM.

[justcallme A S H]

3rd time you won't answer. Either that is because I am right and don't want to agree or you don't understand.

KodiakGW, on 09 June 2021 - 08:37 PM, said:

and won’t be shared.

Once again, I never said that.

PGI might well share the data. They have before - SOURCE

I am hopefuly that PGI when have engineers/available resources they will again provide some information to the community and open a discussion about it. Given PGI's approach has been very open the last 9 months I am a bit more hopeful than usual.

[Khobai]

The problem is any population number they give will be one they make sure is unobtainable. Because they dont really want separate queues.

Waiting for the population to hit X before splitting the queues is effectively the same thing as never splitting the queues.

[Gagis]

Group Queue was definitely not alive in european prime time in 2018. We'd have to look further back than that, probably much further.

Or reduce it to 8v8 and let groups of one launch to fill the gaps.

[Khobai]

I dont see why there cant be dynamic game sizes where it tries to fill 12v12 but only does an 8v8 if it cant fill a 12v12 within a certain period of time.

Lockheed_, on 09 June 2021 - 09:17 PM, said:

how do you know that? got a source?
what business goal would that be based on and how would that fit in with their current efforts to cater to the community, a community where the majority wants separate queues?
waiting for the population to hit a number that makes separate queues sustainable is the only way to ensure to not repeat another exodus of players who do no longer find any matches for their groups and can't play with their buddies anymore.

because at a certain point people will just reluctantly accept mixed queue. maybe weve already reached that point. but I dont think were ever going to see separate queues again unfortunately. I think its poison not to have separate queues unfortunately but even I can see the writing on the wall.

the business model is one based on this game being in maintenance mode with the assumption the player base will continue to dwindle after the fluke influx of players due to covid ends. I dont believe PGI wants to go back to separate queues because its easier for them just to force people to swallow the poison pill of mixed queue.

Edited by Khobai, 09 June 2021 - 09:34 PM.

[Leone]

Because we've two queues sitting mostly unused and PGI has made the sane decision to work on the game more rather'n try an further split the player base.

~Leone.

[Vxheous]

Khobai, on 09 June 2021 - 09:25 PM, said:

I dont see why there cant be dynamic game sizes where it tries to fill 12v12 but only does an 8v8 if it cant fill a 12v12 within a certain period of time.



because at a certain point people will just reluctantly accept mixed queue. maybe weve already reached that point. but I dont think were ever going to see separate queues again unfortunately. I think its poison not to have separate queues unfortunately but even I can see the writing on the wall.

the business model is one based on this game being in maintenance mode with the assumption the player base will continue to dwindle after the fluke influx of players due to covid ends. I dont believe PGI wants to go back to separate queues because its easier for them just to force people to swallow the poison pill of mixed queue.

PGI is unable/unwilling to code a dynamic team size into the game.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

8vs 8 better as 12 vs12 ...4vs 4 better as 8vs8,the personally Factor higher ...Oh well, make Arena 1 vs 1 ,and when you loose 1 vs AI ,and when you now Lost a match again , search a better Game for you.What we wiill 12 or 8 Solos vs 12 or 8 Solos ...
Im will play Baseball/Scoccer/Teamsport whatever ,and thats without a Group/Friends/Teamplayers in the Team, so thats im can handle and win the Match alone?

Quote

[color=#959595]Group players are being selfish[/color]

soloplayers narcisstic ?

Im love KOOP and Teammatches Matches with 4 Players, one AFK, one DC and on to dump to understand Teamplay ...and now you alone aganist 44 enemys, thats great fun

Edited by MW Waldorf Statler, 10 June 2021 - 02:33 AM.

[Vlad Ward]

Khobai, on 09 June 2021 - 09:25 PM, said:

I dont see why there cant be dynamic game sizes where it tries to fill 12v12 but only does an 8v8 if it cant fill a 12v12 within a certain period of time.

If they had the engineering resources to develop dynamic game sizing, they may as well spend them on improving the ungrouped gameplay experience (eg adding Mech Select to the lobby, adding secondary balancing to the MM).

[Storming Angel]

Vlad Ward, on 10 June 2021 - 05:38 AM, said:

If they had the engineering resources to develop dynamic game sizing, they may as well spend them on improving the ungrouped gameplay experience (eg adding Mech Select to the lobby, adding secondary balancing to the MM).

Well im pretty sure they have programmers otherwise how else did they code MW5:M? They just seem unwilling to do anything remotely basic to fix their game which is oddly weird for a game dev.

If they dislike the engine and game that much, develop MWO-2 on the cryengine 5 and then just simply not repeat the same things they did and pick a different time period and time line.

[justcallme A S H]

Storming Angel, on 10 June 2021 - 05:59 AM, said:

Well im pretty sure they have programmers otherwise how else did they code MW5:M? They just seem unwilling to do anything remotely basic to fix their game which is oddly weird for a game dev.

If they dislike the engine and game that much, develop MWO-2 on the cryengine 5 and then just simply not repeat the same things they did and pick a different time period and time line.

PGI have stated multiple, multiple times since Sept '20 they have no available engineers that are CryEngine capable to work on MWO.

[Storming Angel]

justcallme A S H, on 10 June 2021 - 06:05 AM, said:

PGI have stated multiple, multiple times since Sept '20 they have no available engineers that are CryEngine capable to work on MWO.

So how in the ruddy hell do they lose all of their programmers for CryEngine 3 with this game?

[Captain Caveman DE]

Storming Angel, on 10 June 2021 - 06:11 AM, said:

So how in the ruddy hell do they lose all of their programmers for CryEngine 3 with this game?

you don't find too many people speaking ancient babylonian fluently either, right?

though I'm sure they could find somebody if they actually cared (read: pay accordingly). but caring and PGI, let's say it has been a problem for years.

[Vlad Ward]

Storming Angel, on 10 June 2021 - 06:11 AM, said:

So how in the ruddy hell do they lose all of their programmers for CryEngine 3 with this game?

Engineers with arcane skills become extremely expensive as supply dwindles and demand never really goes down (because companies don't often completely recode their applications in new languages).

[Dogstar]

Any software developer worth their salt is capable of learning a new language/framework. I'm one and I have done it throughout my career. Software development never stands still so if PGI say 'we can't get someone' what they really mean is 'we won't pay someone'

PGI won't pay to improve this game, and until they do nothing will change.

[justcallme A S H]

Dogstar, on 11 June 2021 - 12:56 AM, said:

Any software developer worth their salt is capable of learning a new language/framework.

Yes anyone can learn new code, concepts and methods. That is rather simple.

The question is - what is good for their career and what is not.

Rewind 6+ years in the market at the time for the favoured engines, coders and similar. Why would you continue to invest your time in learning and upskilling in something losing significant market share?

Let alone MWO being in a very, very old engine.


That there tells the story there and good or bad, it's what we have.

[Khobai]

Dogstar, on 11 June 2021 - 12:56 AM, said:

Any software developer worth their salt is capable of learning a new language/framework. I'm one and I have done it throughout my career. Software development never stands still so if PGI say 'we can't get someone' what they really mean is 'we won't pay someone'

PGI won't pay to improve this game, and until they do nothing will change.

its not that they wont pay someone. its that they cant pay someone lol.

there are tons of games running on engines older than MWOs. often proprietary engines that have to be learned from scratch like the despair engine used by world of tanks. they still manage to hire engineers. because its a successful game that can afford to do so.

MWO screwed up its chance at being a successful game now they dont have the revenue to hire anyone to fix it. thats what they meant when they said the game is in maintenance mode: that theyre not really going to spend anymore money on developing it and theyre basically just going to pay to keep the servers running at this point. its not even worth putting money into MWO at this point anyway. its a bad investment.

it would be better to spend any money secured from investors/publishers on developing MWO2 on the unreal engine if theyre even interested in keeping the mechwarrior IP going at all.

Edited by Khobai, 11 June 2021 - 02:05 PM.

[Vlad Ward]

Lockheed_, on 11 June 2021 - 02:19 PM, said:

and yet they just hired a new level designer this year and a community manager end of last year

Not to throw shade on either of them, but niche engineers are more expensive than CMs and LDs