5 replies to this topic

[Gulinborsti]

After playing about 1600 PUGs I'm getting slightly pissed of getting stomped by premade 4 or sync dropped 8 groups. PUG players are not as bad as their reputation on the forums and I had a lot of really good matches without any external comms. But pure PUGs can't compete with organized premades.

If PGI plans to retain new and casual players then something has to be done about the match making queue.

The solution is simple:

8 groups: already covered, they got their own queue
3-7 groups: the match maker needs to put those to a separate queue
1-2 players/groups: pure PUG queue

Problem solved, no more stomping.

Edited by Gulinborsti, 12 January 2013 - 07:44 PM.

[DR CUBE]

I think this makes a lot of sense. As a new player in the past week, I have had quite a bit of frustration walking into my first matches to only get slapped down in the first 5 mins by a more experienced player.

Balancing matches based on player experience would be a benefit. Even if balancing based on the team would be nice - say 2 high experienced players, 4 mid-level players, and 2 noobs per team.

[Gaan Cathal]

Gulinborsti, on 12 January 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:

After playing about 1600 PUGs I'm getting slightly pissed of getting stomped by premade 4 or sync dropped 8 groups. PUG players are not as bad as their reputation on the forums and I had a lot of really good matches without any external comms. But pure PUGs can't compete with organized premades.

Synch-dropped 8-mans aside, I have to disagree with the bolded quote. I have just enough RL mates who play MWO to run a 4-man with almost all of us on (and no, we can't make an 8). This means I PUG to varying degrees, from full blown lone-wolfing to a full lance drop, and I have seen plenty of times when a well coordinated full or near-full PUG (i.e. maybe a pair or a trio) has ripped apart an opposing team. An early advantage in terms of quick high-value kills, or focusing a full team on fragmented opponents has a huge effect in MWO, and doesn't require voice comms to achieve.

Good or average synch-droppers are a problem (the latter depending on the quality of the PUG, the former not so much), but there the problem is the avoidance of a game mechanic and it does come with it's own issues (50-50 chance they'll be opposed etc). Bad synch droppers (and I think this may be the majority) are generally not even that much better for the VC. Last night there were at least two instances the same team of squarkers (sqwarkers?) were taken to pieces by a 4-man/pugger combo that coordinated and piloted fairly well.

My opinion as regards the synch-dropped 8-man issue is not so much that the voice-comms is an issue, but the coordination of mech loadouts. As long as you bother to use the communication tools you are given as a PUG, the advantage of voice-comms isn't insurmountable by any stretch. The advantage of having eight coordinated mech fits against a more cobbled-together team is far more significant IMO. The solution there, of course, is to try and stop synch-dropping. Which is more or less impossible, although it is obviously less practical at high-population times.

Perhaps if the matchmaker prioritised 4-man groups+randoms for each time, the problem would be alleviated - i.e. if 4+4+3+2+1+1+1 are pulled into a match, the matchmaker force-assigns to a 4+3+1 vs 4+2+1+1 pattern by assigning groups to alternate teams in descending order of size. How well this would work as an adjustment to the current algorithm, I don't know.

[MechMacaw]

Yes, its rediculous if you have ever played World of Tanks, imagine 15 player platoons... it would be horrible

[Gulinborsti]

Gaan Cathal, on 13 January 2013 - 06:35 AM, said:

This means I PUG to varying degrees, from full blown lone-wolfing to a full lance drop, and I have seen plenty of times when a well coordinated full or near-full PUG (i.e. maybe a pair or a trio) has ripped apart an opposing team.

Sure, I also had several games like this. But on the long run unorganized pure PUGs don't stand a real chance against coordinated drops of experienced teams.

Gaan Cathal, on 13 January 2013 - 06:35 AM, said:

Perhaps if the matchmaker prioritised 4-man groups+randoms for each time, the problem would be alleviated - i.e. if 4+4+3+2+1+1+1 are pulled into a match, the matchmaker force-assigns to a 4+3+1 vs 4+2+1+1 pattern by assigning groups to alternate teams in descending order of size. How well this would work as an adjustment to the current algorithm, I don't know.

I guess this comes rather close to my suggestion and it might serve if the matchmaker was adjusted to work as you described.
As long as there are eg. 1x4 group + 4x1 players on each side I could agree with it.
The only thing that should never happen is any number of premades (2x4, 1x4, 2x2,...) against 8 solo players.

I played some 4 and 8 groups and I hope I will have more time to focus on this in future. But then I'd wish for a challange and also fight against organized groups rather then having shallow victories on pure PUG groups.

Edited by Gulinborsti, 13 January 2013 - 11:03 AM.

[Aleric]

I have to agree with Gulinborsti.

I cant tell you have many timesI come into a match and have a DC and one person AFK making it 6 v 8 and those never win.