232 replies to this topic

[KinLuu]

Player A: Assault plox
Plaber B: <instalocks D-DC>
Player A: I CALLED ASSAULT FIRST!!!!111
Player C: <instalocks 733C>
Player C: lul get reckd Player A
Player A: What the... I am off
Player A has left the lobby.

[Devil Fox]

So I have a number of issue with these latest command chair posts, particularly the public system matchmaking. The issues and questions I have revolve around very basic concepts that currently DO NOT work as intended in the current game...

1) ELO, why is the ELO of a player still be utilised in a pool of players, particularly when the player can take any mech he wants via dropship. Doesn't that then invalidate the players ELO because of possibly more then 2 weight classes? What mechanics will be put in place to help high ELO player actually get games in a reasonable time (or will we still continuously get 'Failed to find a match' for a 1/5 of our gaming?).

I find using a system based on ELO within a system is just the worst move you could do, it feels like it will eventually lock this game out for higher and lower ELO player in the long term with long match finding times, or a worst ingame experience then already occurs.

2) Tonnage limits, why are they so small?! What are the base tonnages you are expecting to be taken, in terms of weight classes? What happens if players don't have machines that fit the tonnage restriction, or noobs want to take up all the tonnage? What happens if you're team isn't ready by the end of the 60sec and still exceeds the tonnage limit?

Seriously all you've given the forum user is a guild-line of the process that you might be implementing, you havn't discussed ANY form of serious long-term considerations or limitations of the various components. Particularly how you will be dealing with any of the apparent limitations and roadblocks that users can face or throw into the mix.

3) The voting... what do you mean by match selection? Do you mean map selection? Do you mean the the team compositions? WHAT are you voting on? Unless you use specifics or explain what a match is in terms of players and game assets then it's just confusing and wrong.

But paying MC for a shuffle feels like you're leading it to the group composition match ups, don't like how good the enemy team is? Pay MC and draw a new opponent... or select a new map...

I question this entire process, what we still need is UI2.0... but the state that was in last preview was a horrid and shocking state of half-baked concepts, and trying to erase the lessons learnt from UI1.5. If these moves degrade my play experience either as a solo player or in a group then I think this game will have finally died. That's another point... what happens to the (since you ain't gonna incr it) 4man group?! No mention of how groups will fit under the current system you're proposing, nor what their options will be come regards tonnage limits, ELO calculations, etc...

Edited by Apostal, 02 December 2013 - 02:54 PM.

[Rina Fujimoto]

I like the idea that you get a bonus for readying up quickly but uh...PGI, you really need to wrap your head around the fact that people really don't want to wait 2 minutes every time they try to play a match, c-bill earnings are reduced enough as they already are, and some of us have pretty busy lives, that's 2 minutes out of an 8 minute match I could have spent playing with my premium time rather than waiting 2 minutes for someone who's alt tabbed to ready up or someone with c-bills out the *** who just really doesn't give a {Scrap} about a 10% c-bill bonus for readying up within 6 seconds.

[Flying Blind]

I'd like to see the bonus timer be individual. If I click ready with in the first 6 seconds I would like the full bonus while a team mate took the whole time and he gets 0%. This still rewards the quick and encourages quickness without giving anyone a troll button. I know several players who are awash in. Cbills and would enjoy taking the bonus away from others.

[fil5000]

KinLuu, on 02 December 2013 - 02:50 PM, said:

Player A: Assault plox
Plaber B: <instalocks D-DC>
Player A: I CALLED ASSAULT FIRST!!!!111
Player C: <instalocks 733C>
Player C: lul get reckd Player A
Player A: What the... I am off
Player A has left the lobby.

ATLAS OR FEED

Edit: The sheer number of people asking for the cbill bonus to be based on them as an individual rather than on the team serves as a good example of why selecting mech tonnage in game won't really work - no one has any confidence that the rest of their team will act with anything other than their own interests.

Edited by fil5000, 02 December 2013 - 02:56 PM.

[Deathlike]

Flying Blind, on 02 December 2013 - 02:54 PM, said:

I'd like to see the bonus timer be individual. If I click ready with in the first 6 seconds I would like the full bonus while a team mate took the whole time and he gets 0%. This still rewards the quick and encourages quickness without giving anyone a troll button. I know several players who are awash in. Cbills and would enjoy taking the bonus away from others.

This is the new standard mechanism for trolling.

I like how this idea was fully thought out.

[New Day]

Here are a few of mine mech tonnage woe haikus (thank Militant_Monk from reddit for the idea):

The Atlai taken
Majestic Locust remains
A glorious death


The Assaults taken
The filthy Americans
Fornicate this ping


In Australia stuck
My Cheeselander untouched
The lone Locust waits

Edited by NamesAreStupid, 02 December 2013 - 03:06 PM.

[Felio]

Aware, on 02 December 2013 - 01:35 PM, said:

If you are the last person to select your mech, what happens when you don't have a mech that fits in the remaining tonnage?

Mawai, on 02 December 2013 - 01:50 PM, said:

b ) as someone mentioned .. what if the last person does not have a mech that fits in the tonnage
c) what if no-one has mechs that will fit in the tonnage limit? (It is easy to imagine everyone bringing an assault and heavy since they only start with 2 slots).

Everyone will always have a mech that fits the limit. We all have access to trial mechs.

[mp00]

Methinks the tonnage limits are for the number of mechs each player chooses "Players can bring up to [8] BattleMechs with them to battle." Plus and remember anything in [is subject to change]

[White Bear 84]

NamesAreStupid, on 02 December 2013 - 03:06 PM, said:

Here are a few of mine mech tonnage woe haikus (thank Militant_Monk from reddit for the idea):

The Atlai taken
Majestic Locust remains
A glorious death


The Assaults taken
The filthy Americans
Fornicate this ping


In Australia stuck
My Cheeselander untouched
The lone Locust waits

[Dymlos2003]

Why are you guys complaining over a minute or two? We already do this in LoL or DOTA.

I swear you guys just complain about everything. Sure people are going to be idiotic and pick assaults without talking to the team. Well report him or ask PGI for a rep system.

All these problems you guys are complaining about are because of the PLAYERS (Yourselves). Must show how ****** you guys are.

[anubis969]

Felio, on 02 December 2013 - 03:10 PM, said:

Everyone will always have a mech that fits the limit. We all have access to trial mechs.

Except you don't have access to your entire 'mech collection in the lobby. You only have the 'mechs you preselected. So for example a player could load their drop ship like this:



Thereby forcing their team into letting them take an assault. Of course this throws up another problem; what happens if it's literally impossible for your team to be bellow the max tonnage because too many people take an all assault drop ship?

[soapyfrog]

Apostal, on 02 December 2013 - 02:51 PM, said:

1) ELO, why is the ELO of a player still be utilised in a pool of players, particularly when the player can take any mech he wants via dropship. Doesn't that then invalidate the players ELO because of possibly more then 2 weight classes? What mechanics will be put in place to help high ELO player actually get games in a reasonable time (or will we still continuously get 'Failed to find a match' for a 1/5 of our gaming?).

They should ditch Elo for matchmaking and focus on balancing pre-mades and getting the otnnages into the right ballpark.

The current system otherwise is fine for public matches, and they should not be messing with it. If anything is going to cause a serious bleed of players, it's going to be 2 minutes of useless ******** before you even get to play, and not being able to play the mech you want on top of it.

[anubis969]

dymlos2003, on 02 December 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

Why are you guys complaining over a minute or two? We already do this in LoL or DOTA.

I swear you guys just complain about everything. Sure people are going to be idiotic and pick assaults without talking to the team. Well report him or ask PGI for a rep system.

All these problems you guys are complaining about are because of the PLAYERS (Yourselves). Must show how ****** you guys are.

No we are complaining about a proposed system that will play into the hands of the small minority of players that through their stupidity, selfishness or malice ruin things for everyone else.

Do you not remember when they first introduced the ready button and all the grief that caused? What they are proposing here will be ten times worse.

Edited by anubis969, 02 December 2013 - 03:33 PM.

[Dymlos2003]

anubis969, on 02 December 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

Except you don't have access to your entire 'mech collection in the lobby. You only have the 'mechs you preselected. So for example a player could load their drop ship like this:



Thereby forcing their team into letting them take an assault. Of course this throws up another problem; what happens if it's literally impossible for your team to be bellow the max tonnage because too many people take an all assault drop ship?

Pretty sure that's where the whole tonnage limit to your dropship comes into focus.

anubis969, on 02 December 2013 - 03:28 PM, said:

No we are complaining about the small minority of players that through their stupidity, selfishness or malice ruin things for everyone else.

Do you not remember when they first introduced the ready button and all the grief that caused? What they are proposing here will be ten times worse.

Grief? I saw idiots be idiots and whiners be whiners. Then people got over it

Edited by dymlos2003, 02 December 2013 - 03:29 PM.

[soapyfrog]

dymlos2003, on 02 December 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

Why are you guys complaining over a minute or two? We already do this in LoL or DOTA.

This is not LoL or DotA where the matches last 45+ minutes and you respawn when you die.

[Felio]

My guess is they haven't figured out yet what to do if teammembers cannot reach an agreement on mechs. That little detail is most conspicuously absent.

There's this well-documented problem of "diffusion of responsibility," closely related to the bystander effect. Why should it be my responsibility we get that 10% bonus? Anyone else could switch just as easily as me.

You could punish me if I don't. But there's no way for the system to know who's being a jerk about it, not reliably, so you can't really punish anyone.

[100 Tonne]

does that mean once the 12 people have formed a group that you can stay as that group for as many drops as you want? Or do you have to go through the making of the group every map/drop?

[Tyr Gunn]

fil5000, on 02 December 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

On what are you basing that?

480 is exactly 2/3's of 720(the proposed limit for 12 mans). 2/3's of 12 is 8. This still fits in the 240(1/3 of 720) max tonnage per lance formula. It's just poorly articulated by Bryan and not proofed by anyone.

Edited by Tyr Gunn, 02 December 2013 - 03:36 PM.

[Flying Blind]

Deathlike, on 02 December 2013 - 03:00 PM, said:

This is the new standard mechanism for trolling.

I'm afraid you are exactly right. I mean we already have those lovely people who constantly take command, resign, and take it again just so they make everyone hear the beep-beep noise. How could those people resist taking money away from us?