83 replies to this topic

[Zylo]

Shootu, on 07 December 2012 - 01:40 AM, said:

This thread isn't intended to be another PUG vs Premade argument. I'm also aware that PGI has plans to incorporate skill level and other factors into the match maker. My intentions here is to simply show that 4 man groups in a PUG match with 8 man teams is far too large a percentage of the overall team and has a huge influence on the outcome of a given match. It simply isn't a fair playing field and in the end I believe we need a fair playing field to retain players.

First some background. Some friends and I came over to MWO from WOT. I had over 17,000 matches in WOT when I made the move. What we found puzzling in MWO was the size of the groups allowed based on the team size. At the time there was no limit which seemed a bit extreme to us based on our experience in WOT. Now of course groups are limited to 4 but that is still extreme when one group can compose 50% of the overall team.

For those that don't know much about WOT, each team is 15 players and the maximum group size in a PUG match is 3. So at most one group can compose 20% of the overall team. We found that even at 20% of the team we could consistently run 60-70% win rates while grouped. On the rare occasion two of our groups were on the same side of the same match our win rate was easily 90+% and even then we only composed 40% of the overall team.

I believe there are lessons to be learned in this that apply to MWO. In fact, my play experience has shown the same percentages apply to MWO. When we group up with 3-4 players we have a 70%+ win rate. Some nights we never lost a match. When I play solo my win rate is 30-40% if I run during peak US hours. My win rate is higher if I play solo during non-peak hours. My assumption is that is because I'm facing less groups during non-peak hours.

So in the interest of fair play, fun, and player retention I would like to see MWO get closer to the total team percent of a group in WOT for PUG matches. Even with only two players in a group, that group will be 25% of the overall team which is probably too much but it is certainly more fair than 50%.

Now for those that will undoubtedly not like this idea please explain what the downside is to capping PUG groups at 2. 8 vs 8 premade matchups are now in the game so there is an avenue for a more competitive game. I can't see any reason for the "need" for 4 man groups in PUG's unless I simply want an advantage over random competition.

Edited: fixed a typo: none peak changed to non-peak.

I think the real fix would be limiting matches to a single pre-made team on each side in a match.

There were many matches where I was running a small group of 2, 3 or 4 in random matches. I would mention that I was in a group on TS and was heading to a specific location. Many times there was another pre-made group on the same side. I know at least a few matches ended up with 4 from Hell's Ponies and 4 from Black Wolves on the same team, totally by chance.

I don't know if there were any pre-made groups on the other side but it seems strange that there were many times that 2 groups of 4 ended up on the same side.

[Shootu]

Zylo, on 07 December 2012 - 09:28 PM, said:

I think the real fix would be limiting matches to a single pre-made team on each side in a match.

There were many matches where I was running a small group of 2, 3 or 4 in random matches. I would mention that I was in a group on TS and was heading to a specific location. Many times there was another pre-made group on the same side. I know at least a few matches ended up with 4 from Hell's Ponies and 4 from Black Wolves on the same team, totally by chance.

I don't know if there were any pre-made groups on the other side but it seems strange that there were many times that 2 groups of 4 ended up on the same side.

Yeah others have mentioned it and I'm not opposed to trying it. My main concern with it is that the rest of the team is pretty much at the mercy of whatever 4 man group they get matched with simply because that group composes 50% of the overall team which essentially determines the match. Once player skills are factored in it should be balanced out though assuming they find a way to do that.

One "group" on each side is still better than what we have now though so it would be an improvement.

Edited by Shootu, 07 December 2012 - 09:38 PM.

[Kenshar]

-1 from me!

This is a team tactical game. Dropping with units is a big part of the game. If you are having problems in a game with pugs vs 4 man premades maybe it is time to either A. Start speaking up in matches and organize your group with a game plan.... or B. Find some people that you enjoy playing with. This is not Call of Duty. One person is not the focus of the game. Team experience has always been the name of the game when it comes to Mechwarrior. Catering to individuals over teams has never been the case of any MW game and I hope it doesn't become the case now.

[Shootu]

Kenshar, on 07 December 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

-1 from me!

This is a team tactical game. Dropping with units is a big part of the game. If you are having problems in a game with pugs vs 4 man premades maybe it is time to either A. Start speaking up in matches and organize your group with a game plan.... or B. Find some people that you enjoy playing with. This is not Call of Duty. One person is not the focus of the game. Team experience has always been the name of the game when it comes to Mechwarrior. Catering to individuals over teams has never been the case of any MW game and I hope it doesn't become the case now.

WOT is also a team based tactical game and it doesn't have this sort of imbalance built into it's PUG matches so I respect your opinion but we will have to agree to disagree on this.

[Quantum Prime]

Meatball095 has the right idea.

That's just matchmaking. Don't break teams down further, match them with other teams. Add PUGS to fill. Simple, easy. I'm not for making everything exactly equal in skill until the end of night - don't be extremist - this IS an issue. 4 man groups DO have a significant advantage. It makes sense. But capping them is not the answer. Matchmaking is.

Communication is huge in MW. We need more OF IT.

Edited by Quantum Prime, 07 December 2012 - 10:30 PM.

[Willie Sauerland]

Shootu, on 07 December 2012 - 09:42 PM, said:

WOT is also a team based tactical game and it doesn't have this sort of imbalance built into it's PUG matches so I respect your opinion but we will have to agree to disagree on this.

Well, there is something to be said here in that this isn't WoT. This is Mechwarrior where a Lance is 4 mechs and dropping as a Lance makes sense. I mean, I understand what you are saying and trying to do, but I think some other things need to be changed over how big a premade can drop with a group of PUGs. For example, things like a proper tutorial to get new players up to speed. And then, like I said, communication needs to be greatly improved.

However, dropping as a Lance isn't the broken part. There are other things which are more broken for inexperienced players...

Edited by Willie Sauerland, 07 December 2012 - 10:32 PM.

[Kenshar]

Yeah this isn't world of tanks. World of tanks is based on this... not the other way around. World of Tanks is also pay to win... would you like that also?

Edited by Kenshar, 07 December 2012 - 10:50 PM.

[Zylo]

Shootu, on 07 December 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

Yeah others have mentioned it and I'm not opposed to trying it. My main concern with it is that the rest of the team is pretty much at the mercy of whatever 4 man group they get matched with simply because that group composes 50% of the overall team which essentially determines the match. Once player skills are factored in it should be balanced out though assuming they find a way to do that.

One "group" on each side is still better than what we have now though so it would be an improvement.

The same could be said of the 4 random players on a team if there is a pre-made team of 4 on each side. If equal skill pre-made teams are present on each side the outcome of the battle could depend on which team had 4 random players who were willing to work as a team of 8.

Even a single good player can organize 7 random players to defeat a team with a pre-made group on the other side. It's not all about the presence of a pre-made group determining the outcome of a battle but rather which team is able to stick together and work as a team.

I found when I do drop alone that TAG works great to get the 7 other random players shooting at the same target. Considering that it still allows missiles to hit an ECM protected target (if the player using the TAG is outside the ECM bubble) it's a very easy way to organize a team of random players.

Just tell the team of random player to watch for the TAG icon and focus fire on that target. If you kill the enemy ECM mechs first using this tactic it's often an easy win.

Edited by Zylo, 07 December 2012 - 10:56 PM.

[Elizander]

I don't really mind 4-man groups in pugs (and I have been 100% pugging since Open Beta started) but it would be nice for the game to make sure (and them to tell us) that -each- team gets a 4 man group (or close!) if one has it. It would also be great if the game literally prevents more than 1 group to be put with another.

Perhaps (for friendly team mates only), the game can mark premades with a different color so people instantly know they are with a group.

Edited by Elizander, 07 December 2012 - 11:43 PM.

[Shootu]

Quantum Prime, on 07 December 2012 - 10:29 PM, said:

Meatball095 has the right idea.

That's just matchmaking. Don't break teams down further, match them with other teams. Add PUGS to fill. Simple, easy. I'm not for making everything exactly equal in skill until the end of night - don't be extremist - this IS an issue. 4 man groups DO have a significant advantage. It makes sense. But capping them is not the answer. Matchmaking is.

Communication is huge in MW. We need more OF IT.

Meatball has a very well thought out idea that I would certainly be willing to try. There is also another thread in the suggestions forum that does a group by group compare in the match maker and then adds as necessary. His idea is also certainly worth trying. It's Beta so now is the time to try these things.

[Shootu]

Willie Sauerland, on 07 December 2012 - 10:30 PM, said:

Well, there is something to be said here in that this isn't WoT. This is Mechwarrior where a Lance is 4 mechs and dropping as a Lance makes sense. I mean, I understand what you are saying and trying to do, but I think some other things need to be changed over how big a premade can drop with a group of PUGs. For example, things like a proper tutorial to get new players up to speed. And then, like I said, communication needs to be greatly improved.

However, dropping as a Lance isn't the broken part. There are other things which are more broken for inexperienced players...

I agree there is a cannon based reason why drops make sense for groups of 4. Unfortunately that seems to be a greatly imbalanced mechanic in the current game design simply because the teams are not large enough to accommodate it. If the teams were made up of at a minimum of 20 players then group size of 4 makes perfect sense to me. Unfortunately right now it is extremely imbalanced. The development team has made changes to cannon values in order to limit or reduce imbalances in several cases already and I believe this situation also applies.

To your point, I have no problem looking at other viable options to see how they work out. This is a beta after all so multiple options should be tried to see which works best. I do not claim to have the "best" answer. What I do claim is that the game mechanic I'm suggesting is in place in a very large scale game and it works much better than what we have now.

I also realize this isn't WOT but similarities between them are undeniable. Additionally, if this game is half as successful as WOT has become on a global scale PGI could afford to have a real mech built to take to game conferences. I would like to see them achieve that and the only way to do that is to give players the feeling they are on a level playing field and their efforts make a difference in the match.

Kenshar, on 07 December 2012 - 10:49 PM, said:

Yeah this isn't world of tanks. World of tanks is based on this... not the other way around. World of Tanks is also pay to win... would you like that also?

Troll posts are pointless Kenshar. If you have nothing to add to the discussion please move along.

[Shootu]

Zylo, on 07 December 2012 - 10:54 PM, said:

The same could be said of the 4 random players on a team if there is a pre-made team of 4 on each side. If equal skill pre-made teams are present on each side the outcome of the battle could depend on which team had 4 random players who were willing to work as a team of 8.

I completely agree with this. In fact, I could easily see when skill based matching is added it could actually reverse the current situation and skew it the other way. 4 man groups could very well be at the mercy of whatever randoms they get matched with.

[Shootu]

Elizander, on 07 December 2012 - 11:43 PM, said:

I don't really mind 4-man groups in pugs (and I have been 100% pugging since Open Beta started) but it would be nice for the game to make sure (and them to tell us) that -each- team gets a 4 man group (or close!) if one has it. It would also be great if the game literally prevents more than 1 group to be put with another.

Perhaps (for friendly team mates only), the game can mark premades with a different color so people instantly know they are with a group.

I would also like to see a marker showing who is grouped on the score screen. In WOT, they have a number to the left of the name of the player so if you see three 1's then those players are all in a group together. If you see two 2's then those two players are also in a group together but obviously different from the first group etc.

It makes knowing where a group is going much easier whether they say anything or not.

Edited by Shootu, 08 December 2012 - 09:29 AM.

[AndyHill]

MWO is actually similar to WoT in many, many ways. They also resemble each other quite a bit on the battlefield and I agree completely with the OP. The 3-man platoons in WoT could be real game changers even though the maximum number was 15 tanks in each team. With 8 players per team the number would have to be 2 - you can still take a friend with you, but you're not quite as dominant a force as 4 or even 3 would be. When the number goes up to 12 or more, you can consider adding 3 person groups.

This is a team based game, which is why it's important to give bigger groups options to fight each other, not random players. And actually, being a team based game refers to the two so called teams in each match, not to your ability to drop together with a number of your friends.

[Shootu]

AndyHill, on 08 December 2012 - 10:21 AM, said:

MWO is actually similar to WoT in many, many ways. They also resemble each other quite a bit on the battlefield and I agree completely with the OP. The 3-man platoons in WoT could be real game changers even though the maximum number was 15 tanks in each team. With 8 players per team the number would have to be 2 - you can still take a friend with you, but you're not quite as dominant a force as 4 or even 3 would be. When the number goes up to 12 or more, you can consider adding 3 person groups.

This is a team based game, which is why it's important to give bigger groups options to fight each other, not random players. And actually, being a team based game refers to the two so called teams in each match, not to your ability to drop together with a number of your friends.

Needless to say I agree with you.

Edited by Shootu, 08 December 2012 - 11:29 AM.

[Socket7]

With this idea I'd be unable to play with 2 friends at the same time.

I know many people on the forums don't HAVE 2 or more friends, but I don't think that's a good reason to limit groups to you and 1 buddy.

The problem is when you get a 4 man group and a 3 man group on one team, and a bunch of newbies/pugs on the other. One side is always going to steamroll the other.

This is most prevalent on Friday nights, when the big teams are doing 8 man battles. They end up being stuck a man short, and drop into pug matches instead. Slaughter fests ensue. You end up with highly trained battle hardened guys who are ready for a seriously hard match requiring massive amounts teamwork and skill. They are matched with people who are not yet used to torso twist. Why do you think founders and experienced players have been running around with machine guns and flamers on their mechs as of late?

The good news is that the matchmaker isn't finished. It's in phase 2 and PGI is still collecting data on how it's working in order to make further revisions. Changes will be made and the situation will improve. I seriously doubt that 2 man groups only will be part of it.

Edited by Socket7, 08 December 2012 - 11:32 AM.

[Willie Sauerland]

Except for one minor problem. This game isn't WoT, even if they do have some facsimile of similarity.

I understand the issue here and I also understand that PGIGP can and has altered the game from canon. However, there is absolutely no reason to break up a Lance. Again, as many other posters have put into these forums, the PUG system in itself is not broken. What is broken is the inability to communicate effectively with each other and a lack of effective tutorials/training scenarios for new players.

To be sure, I have seen many PUG matches where a premade team with 4 PUGs was dominated by 8 man PUG team with no premades. Why? The 8 man PUG team communicated (albeit not as effectively as it should have been) in the chat and the 4-man premade didn't communicate with their PUGs at all.

As it is, I see no reason to alter the 4-man premade drops. Difference of opinion perhaps, but I think the community will agree this game is not WoT nor should it be....

Edited by Willie Sauerland, 08 December 2012 - 11:40 AM.

[AndyHill]

This game is not WoT, but if you want to, I can list a long line of similarities. I like many people have a lot of experience in WoT, unlike MWO it's not a new game and since they are so similar, it only makes sense to learn from WoT's good and bad sides.

[Socket7]

Integrated voice chat could go so damn far in equalizing the playing field between PUGs and Premades.

It's incredibly hard to call targets in the chat box while in a firefight. Most PUG drops I'm in suffer from a lack of informational awareness more then lack of skill.

[Shootu]

Willie Sauerland, on 08 December 2012 - 11:39 AM, said:

Except for one minor problem. This game isn't WoT, even if they do have some facsimile of similarity.

I understand the issue here and I also understand that PGIGP can and has altered the game from canon. However, there is absolutely no reason to break up a Lance. Again, as many other posters have put into these forums, the PUG system in itself is not broken. What is broken is the inability to communicate effectively with each other and a lack of effective tutorials/training scenarios for new players.

To be sure, I have seen many PUG matches where a premade team with 4 PUGs was dominated by 8 man PUG team with no premades. Why? The 8 man PUG team communicated (albeit not as effectively as it should have been) in the chat and the 4-man premade didn't communicate with their PUGs at all.

As it is, I see no reason to alter the 4-man premade drops. Difference of opinion perhaps, but I think the community will agree this game is not WoT nor should it be....

Thanks Willie. Yeah we simply have a difference of opinion. I contend that 50% of a team composed by one group is simply too much to allow for an even playing field. You contend that communication is the key to the whole thing. Regardless of WOT comparisons being liked or not they do have better means of team communication in their matches via various commands built into the interface. They do not have total random team voice communication as you mentioned in your previous post. They tried it in test and deemed it to be too chaotic and open to trolling / grieving. The percentages I've mentioned in my original post is already using considerably more communication that we currently have in MWO PUG's which is why I do not believe that simple comms is going to resolve the issue. I believe the issue is bigger than that.

In the end I believe we are on the same page though. We simply want the PUG experience to be more balanced and that is the overall point of my post. How we get there will always be debatable.

Edited by Shootu, 08 December 2012 - 12:36 PM.