15 replies to this topic

[RagenBull]

I have been playing since closed beta. I have tried all of the different ways matchmaker has worked. From any size team vs random people. People started complaining that 8 man groups where stomping them. So 8 man groups where sent to their own que. Along with this change 4 man groups where the largest groups that could be formed unless you had an 8 man group. At the end of this I saw no change in people complaining about getting stompped by other teams, it was still happening a lot. This change also made me upset because I have about 4-7 friends that are on the game at any given time. Now we have to make two groups instead of just one group. This really takes away from the fun of this game for me since I mostly play because I like team games with friends. Also we are not so hardcore that we like going into the 8 man ques because we just have fun with builds and dont try to make just op builds.

Next along came ELO. This was introduced in an attempt to help keep matchs balanced, and have much more even fights taking place. For some this change was welcome (mostly people with low kill/death ratios). Now they are placed againsts other new player or bad players for the most part. People with great kill/death ratios now find themselves placed with new players to offset their skill when pugging. This is fine and all but im sure it gets very old having brand new player or incompetent teammates every match. I sit somewhere in the middle so nothing to drastic happend to me. I still see many treads about uneven match 8-0 all the time. I must say it still happens to me at about the same rate as before ELO.

All and all I dont care about ELO one way or the other, it has not really affected me. However I must ask the question if ELO works so well then why must we still have groups sizes. If I get a groups of 6 going then shouldnt ELO match us against 6 equally skilled players? Anyway having group sizes takes away from being able to play with friends and does not prevent uneven matches from happening.

Please let me know what you guys think about ELO and teams sizes and why you feel that way.

[Viper69]

Last night I had one battle that was 3v5 and I was on the 3 side. I dont know what causes it but it was on a double XP night surely there are people with crap Elo ranks like me to fight.

[RagenBull]

ya i mostly see this when tournaments are going on but yes this has happend to me as well

[Urdnot Mau]

where are the high alpha cheese build players saying they only care about winning and pug stomping ?

[Lefty Lucy]

Poll is flawed. As both a PUG and 4-man player, there have been *less* one-sided battles. However it is absolutely incorrect to say there are "never" one-sided battles. No match making system in the world can eliminate one-sided battles entirely.

[Lefty Lucy]

RagenBull, on 29 March 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:

Also we are not so hardcore that we like going into the 8 man ques because we just have fun with builds and dont try to make just op builds.

You know that feeling when you go up against a team, and you know you have zero chance from the beginning because they've given themselves the advantage of using powerful mechs, and you have chosen not to use that advantage?

That is *exactly* what it was like trying to PUG in the days of 8 mans in the PUG queue, only the advantage was voice coms and getting to pick your team mates. It wasn't fun for anyone but people who like their games on easy mode.

[Child3k]

I think limiting group sizes for the random game is a must. Even if the issue was exaggerated in the past, with a (hopefully) growing player base it is inevitable. A full team coordinated through voice-chate gains an absolute unbeatable advantage over an uncoordniated random team. So yes - I think we need a group size cap. Espacially when PGI ups the team size to 12.

But I can understand, that playing only as a group of 4 is not enough for a lot of players. Solution is not the removal of the group size cap - it would be an integrated lobby which would enable the players to do custom matches. Maybe even with tweaks, like: Limiting team tonnage, excluding certain weapons or mechs from the match, setting win-conditions ...

For your other point about:

Quote

All and all I dont care about ELO one way or the other, it has not really affected me. However I must ask the question if ELO works so well then why must we still have groups sizes. If I get a groups of 6 going then shouldnt ELO match us against 6 equally skilled players?

With ELO you only get a rough skill-based match - it doesn't consider voice or anything. So what I'm trying to say is: 8man-groups consisting out of mediocre players almost every time beat a random team of 8 better players.

So - I think ELO helps. But it needs to be tweaked quite a bit. And I'd really like to know my ELO-Rankings for the different weight classes (just in the private stats - doesn't have to be on the in-game scoreboard) - that would make it easier to judge if it works.

Edited by Child3k, 29 March 2013 - 01:06 PM.

[RagenBull]

Lefty Lucy, on 29 March 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

You know that feeling when you go up against a team, and you know you have zero chance from the beginning because they've given themselves the advantage of using powerful mechs, and you have chosen not to use that advantage?

That is *exactly* what it was like trying to PUG in the days of 8 mans in the PUG queue, only the advantage was voice coms and getting to pick your team mates. It wasn't fun for anyone but people who like their games on easy mode.

I see what you are saying but my point of creating a limit of 4 man teams has done nothing to stop that one sided battle. Look posts are still all over with pictures of 1 sided battles. I would rather play with my friends have stomps happen to me then not play with all of them and still have 1 sided fights.

EDIT also if i only have 7 friends on we cant play 8 mans anyway unless we pick up a pug, so its very lame.

Edited by RagenBull, 29 March 2013 - 12:22 PM.

[Lefty Lucy]

RagenBull, on 29 March 2013 - 12:21 PM, said:

I see what you are saying but my point of creating a limit of 4 man teams has done nothing to stop that one sided battle. Look posts are still all over with pictures of 1 sided battles. I would rather play with my friends have stomps happen to me then not play with all of them and still have 1 sided fights.

I disagree. I think that since the 4-man limitation and ELO the game has become much more playable as a PUG, and much more challenging as a 4-man. Before ELO I'd get in a 4-man with my friends and basically never lose. Maybe 1/10 games, and 90% of the time we were just shooting the breeze on coms. Now we actually have to put effort into 4-mans. If anything, these changes have re-enforced the importance of team play.

Edited by Lefty Lucy, 29 March 2013 - 12:24 PM.

[RagenBull]

Lefty Lucy, on 29 March 2013 - 12:23 PM, said:

I disagree. I think that since the 4-man limitation and ELO the game has become much more playable as a PUG, and much more challenging as a 4-man. Before ELO I'd get in a 4-man with my friends and basically never lose. Maybe 1/10 games, and 90% of the time we were just shooting the breeze on coms. Now we actually have to put effort into 4-mans. If anything, these changes have re-enforced the importance of team play.

Right but here you have said its elo that changed uneven matches, since you played 4 mans both times. Like i said in my post if elo is working right why does it matter how many people i have in my party since they will match me against even skilled players?

[Dishevel]

Urdnot Mau, on 29 March 2013 - 11:56 AM, said:

where are the high alpha cheese build players saying they only care about winning and pug stomping ?

What makes a player running say a SplatCat only care about winning.
I have every Catapault and Every Hunchback. I have a YLW, 3 Stalkers and JM-6A.
I run them all. I like most of them. When I run my A1 80% of the time it is some form of Splatcat.
I love running it that way. With JJ or without, with Art or without. Sometimes I even run it with 6xSRM2s with Art.
It is a blast to run. Even when I die early.

The A1 is a **** mech if it is not min maxed. As an LRM boat it is no fun and can not even carry a tag.
As a mixed LRM/SRM or LRM/SSRM it is bad and no fun.
As an SRM/SSRM fast boat it is FUN TO PLAY.
So go ***** about cheese to the French.

[Child3k]

RagenBull, on 29 March 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:

Right but here you have said its elo that changed uneven matches, since you played 4 mans both times. Like i said in my post if elo is working right why does it matter how many people i have in my party since they will match me against even skilled players?

I gave you a reason.

[Dishevel]

Teamplay is OP.
PGI must nerf teamplay.
Damned Cheeseteamers.

[Training Instructor]

Poll should ask "What makes the game more fun?"

Fun is an irregular adjective, in that it only has one syllable, but follows the grammar rules of 2+ syllables adjectives, requiring the addition of the comparative "more" or the superlative "most", rather than doubling the consonant and adding -er.

[Hammerfinn]

Viper69, on 29 March 2013 - 11:05 AM, said:

Last night I had one battle that was 3v5 and I was on the 3 side. I dont know what causes it but it was on a double XP night surely there are people with crap Elo ranks like me to fight.

RagenBull, on 29 March 2013 - 11:35 AM, said:

ya i mostly see this when tournaments are going on but yes this has happend to me as well

This happens when a player deletes a map from his game files so he doesn't have to play on it. The MM still leaves the slot "full" but the player doesn't load into the map, meaning you get a "full" team of less than 8. I would imagine it was night maps, or hot maps, or large maps, or whatever map isn't optimized for the mech they want to play. It sucks, but it has NOTHING to do with Elo.

[Teralitha]

Both hard fought battles and playing with friends in those hard fought battles.