1911 replies to this topic

[Cimarb]

Stealth Raptor, on 09 August 2014 - 06:49 PM, said:

I have a question about unit names. As i have heard Canon unit names have been reserved by pgi. My unit has represented one of the canon units throughout many previous mechwarrior games, and we want to make sure it isnt taken. my question is with CW phase 1 coming out, are the canon unit names being saved, and if so can we get a list so we can know to grab it if it is available? We really dont want to lose the opportunity to grab our proper name if it will become available

I do not think Karl is able to keep up with this thread lately, but that question really is not anything he could answer anyways. From what we have been told, though, canon unit names will not be allowed.

I have been bugging Russ and Bryan about this all week, but we are supposed to get "more details" after the patch on the 19th. I am not holding my breath for it, but hopefully they will deliver.

[SnagaDance]

I wonder what the rationale is behind keeping those canon units under their wing. Will they be able to actually do something with them?

I'd rather see groups of players take these names to greatness (or not) than to see them collect dust and us 'enjoying' a host of units like the 'Wolf Hounds', 'Kell's Dragoon's', the 'Ninja Commandos', '9th Spirit Regiment', 'Epsilon Light Horse' etc. etc.

[Jody Von Jedi]

Is Karl on vacation?

It's been a while since he posted to this thread.

July 25th was his last post.

[Steinar Bergstol]

SnagaDance, on 11 August 2014 - 03:28 AM, said:

I wonder what the rationale is behind keeping those canon units under their wing. Will they be able to actually do something with them?

I'd rather see groups of players take these names to greatness (or not) than to see them collect dust and us 'enjoying' a host of units like the 'Wolf Hounds', 'Kell's Dragoon's', the 'Ninja Commandos', '9th Spirit Regiment', 'Epsilon Light Horse' etc. etc.

See the problem with allowing canon unitnames to be used by player run units is this: What makes player A's unit which has been using the name in multiple games for many years any more deserving of the name than player B's unit which has also been using the name in multiple games for many years? Or player C's unit? Or Player D and so on throughout the rest of the alphabet? Because, believe me, that's would be the situation if it was allowed. And we would still end up with half a dozen variants of Wolf's Dragoons, Kell Hounds and so forth, just one of them for no valid reason other than being the early bird getting to claim they're the "real" unit.

This is why assuming one will get to play a canon unit or character in a multiplayer game is a bad assumption and why it is often (I'd even say usually) forbidden by the rules of most games.

Edited by Steinar Bergstol, 11 August 2014 - 05:36 AM.

[Cimarb]

I just want some DETAILS! Come on PGI, talk to us....

[Rebas Kradd]

Jody Von Jedi, on 11 August 2014 - 05:24 AM, said:

Is Karl on vacation?

It's been a while since he posted to this thread.

July 25th was his last post.

He's been working weekends for a while. I'm perfectly happy to just let him be.

[Lexx]

Steinar Bergstol, on 11 August 2014 - 05:32 AM, said:

See the problem with allowing canon unitnames to be used by player run units is this: What makes player A's unit which has been using the name in multiple games for many years any more deserving of the name than player B's unit which has also been using the name in multiple games for many years? Or player C's unit? Or Player D and so on throughout the rest of the alphabet? Because, believe me, that's would be the situation if it was allowed. And we would still end up with half a dozen variants of Wolf's Dragoons, Kell Hounds and so forth, just one of them for no valid reason other than being the early bird getting to claim they're the "real" unit.

This is why assuming one will get to play a canon unit or character in a multiplayer game is a bad assumption and why it is often (I'd even say usually) forbidden by the rules of most games.

Yes, I think this is the reason. I play an online Star Wars mod for Freelancer and in that game they do not allow you to name your character after any of the Star Wars canon names.

I think there are going to be some really upset units out there when they find out they have to stop calling themselves the "Black Widow Company", or the "Black Thorns" or "Eridani Light Horse" or any of the dozens of other canon unit names I have seen identifying themselves in matches.

I'm glad we can't use canon names because it causes people to actually use their brains and imaginations to come up with something original. It's far too easy to just copy something popular without having to give it any thought.

I used to play sailing and pirate RPG type games online and it really irked me how every other player's ship I sailed past was named "The Black Pearl".

[Cimarb]

While I agree to a point, there are a lot of units out there that have put decades into those units on their own. We will have to wait and see how granular this restriction is, but especially for Clan units, who do not have eight billion mercenary units and four billion "loyalist" units, this is a difficult situation. We cannot make up some weird unit name, as there is no room for it in the Clan hierarchy. House units even have this problem (though to a far lesser degree).

On top of that, it will still happen. For instance, Bravo Whiskey Charlie will probably be just fine, as it is not "the Black Widow Company", but it does not take a lot of brains to see the connection. You will also have "Red Widow", "Dark Grey Widows", "B1ack W1d0w Company", and all sorts of other variations as people are forced to stop using the canon names.

It is a difficult situation for PGI, and I hope they do this pre-registration in a logical manner that allows us to be happy with our units as well as maintain lore.

[Heffay]

Dear Mr Berg,

Recently there was a post from ...Niko(?) where they mentioned they were spinning up a few more servers to deal with capacity issues that were manifesting as more rubber-banding or latency issues. Something like that.

How much spare capacity do you have? Do you spin up a new blade & ESX host and start off another instance? Is this capacity standing by as needed, or do you Autodeploy game servers?

Just curious as to the underlying architecture and what degree of automation there is around dealing with capacity issues. Thanks!

Love,
Heffay

[CyclonerM]

Lexx, on 11 August 2014 - 11:01 PM, said:

Yes, I think this is the reason. I play an online Star Wars mod for Freelancer and in that game they do not allow you to name your character after any of the Star Wars canon names.

I think there are going to be some really upset units out there when they find out they have to stop calling themselves the "Black Widow Company", or the "Black Thorns" or "Eridani Light Horse" or any of the dozens of other canon unit names I have seen identifying themselves in matches.

I'm glad we can't use canon names because it causes people to actually use their brains and imaginations to come up with something original. It's far too easy to just copy something popular without having to give it any thought.

I used to play sailing and pirate RPG type games online and it really irked me how every other player's ship I sailed past was named "The Black Pearl".

It is not about immagination, at all.

There are already TONS of merc units in MWO with non canon names, rather they have cmore typical "gaming clans" names.

They are fine, because in the Inner Sphere there are many unregistered merc units, often consisting of a single lance or so.

But what i do not want is an Inner Sphere with ONLY this kind of units. I want to recognize the canon FRR and FedCom units in our invasion. Otherwise, it is not the Inner Sphere.

Besides, many units have had their names trough several past MW games, leagues and tournaments. Now PGI says we cannot have our names? I hope there will be at least the chance to join one as a loyalist as per their original plans.

I understand the names of the characters: i would not call my character "Phelan Kell" or "Aidan Pryde" because i want to create my own legend, and have my own character. However, i wish to see my character (and thus, myself) immersed in the Inner Sphere, in the lore of BattleTech. If we just take the 'Mechs and the weapons and throw them in context with very little to share with the BT Inner Sphere, this is not a BattleTech game in my opinion.

[Noesis]

Tags > Names and will show affiliation anyhow.

[Lexx]

CyclonerM, on 12 August 2014 - 06:56 AM, said:

It is not about immagination, at all.

There are already TONS of merc units in MWO with non canon names, rather they have cmore typical "gaming clans" names.

They are fine, because in the Inner Sphere there are many unregistered merc units, often consisting of a single lance or so.

But what i do not want is an Inner Sphere with ONLY this kind of units. I want to recognize the canon FRR and FedCom units in our invasion. Otherwise, it is not the Inner Sphere.

Besides, many units have had their names trough several past MW games, leagues and tournaments. Now PGI says we cannot have our names? I hope there will be at least the chance to join one as a loyalist as per their original plans.

I understand the names of the characters: i would not call my character "Phelan Kell" or "Aidan Pryde" because i want to create my own legend, and have my own character. However, i wish to see my character (and thus, myself) immersed in the Inner Sphere, in the lore of BattleTech. If we just take the 'Mechs and the weapons and throw them in context with very little to share with the BT Inner Sphere, this is not a BattleTech game in my opinion.

I agree that if PGI doesn't handle the unit name issue very carefully they are going to really upset a lot of the playerbase.

Upsetting the players seems to be one of the things PGI is good at. After every patch, I come on the forums and I see players complaining about something they did to "balance" the game. While it's true you can't please all of the people all of the time, I really think PGI could have done a better job pleasing most of us. Some of the changes seem to cater to a select few whiners while punishing the majority of the playerbase.

With their track record, I wouldn't be at all surprised if PGI didn't care how many of us they upset and just said no canon names period, or even something that resembles one. They will probably also insist on strict approval of all names and unit logos we submit to them.

I agree this is going to destroy immersion if Clan and House units have to pick goofy names like "The Big Blue German Fist" for a Steiner unit if they want to get PGI to approve it.

It's going to be interesting to see how PGI chooses to handle this, since they said we will be able to create our units later this month. PGI seems to be full of surprises, often times changing their minds at the last minute and doing things that no one expected. Unit creation is something they should be very careful about, or else they might lose a significant portion of the playerbase. I can see entire units quitting the game as a group if they tell us we have to change our names and stop using a unit name some groups have used since the days of MechWarrior 2.

[Gyrok]

Karl, I have a question about the IS versus the Clans data...if you could oblige me that would be great.

1.) What was the ELO predicted win % for the Clans in those matches?

2.) What is the acceptable variance of a standard match for prediction versus outcome in your ELO algorithm?

I would like to know this, because if ELO predicted a 90% win ratio for the Clans based on ELO alone, then all is right in the world, and clan mechs are well balanced.

[CyclonerM]

Noesis, on 12 August 2014 - 07:25 AM, said:

Tags > Names and will show affiliation anyhow.

True, but for me the name matters. Opinions.

[Cimarb]

Gyrok, on 12 August 2014 - 07:40 AM, said:

Karl, I have a question about the IS versus the Clans data...if you could oblige me that would be great.

1.) What was the ELO predicted win % for the Clans in those matches?

2.) What is the acceptable variance of a standard match for prediction versus outcome in your ELO algorithm?

I would like to know this, because if ELO predicted a 90% win ratio for the Clans based on ELO alone, then all is right in the world, and clan mechs are well balanced.

I would like more info about that test too. For instance, I think the average Elo of individual players, as opposed to a team, is very important. All we keep seeing is "the average Elo was 40-50 points", which is great until you realize that Team A had an individual Elo range of 1500 (all very high and very low Elo players) and Team B had an individual Elo range of 5 (all mid-Elo players).

[Heffay]

Cimarb, on 12 August 2014 - 08:02 AM, said:

I would like more info about that test too. For instance, I think the average Elo of individual players, as opposed to a team, is very important. All we keep seeing is "the average Elo was 40-50 points", which is great until you realize that Team A had an individual Elo range of 1500 (all very high and very low Elo players) and Team B had an individual Elo range of 5 (all mid-Elo players).

You're never going to let Elo go, are you?

Of the tens of thousands of matches per day, how often do you think the variance in Elo range between two teams is going to be significantly different? You're arguing it should be dumped because one match in 10,000 might meet this criteria, and replace it with a system that will have even more problems?

[Cimarb]

Heffay, on 12 August 2014 - 08:06 AM, said:

You're never going to let Elo go, are you?

Of the tens of thousands of matches per day, how often do you think the variance in Elo range between two teams is going to be significantly different? You're arguing it should be dumped because one match in 10,000 might meet this criteria, and replace it with a system that will have even more problems?

Wow, way to jump on the assault wagon, Heff.

In my post, did I say ONE thing about dumping Elo, how Elo was bad, or even have an ounce of argument in my comment? No, I did not.

All I asked/said was that it is very important to know what the variance within the team(s) is.

Go argue with someone that is actually trying to argue. We just want info about it, and that is what this thread is about.

[Heffay]

Cimarb, on 12 August 2014 - 12:13 PM, said:

Wow, way to jump on the assault wagon, Heff. In my post, did I say ONE thing about dumping Elo, how Elo was bad, or even have an ounce of argument in my comment? No, I did not. All I asked/said was that it is very important to know what the variance within the team(s) is. Go argue with someone that is actually trying to argue. We just want info about it, and that is what this thread is about.

It's a leading question. Taken in context we all know you're just looking for evidence that Elo is flawed and you want to bolster your case against it. Taken in context with everything you've said about Elo, it's clear what you are looking for.

How about this: The variance within the team will fall within normal statistical ranges for any game based off of an Elo matching system. The larger the player base, the closer it gets to zero. The existence of statistically negligible deviations from that are irrelevant, since they'll apply to *any* system you implement.

It's math dude.

[Cimarb]

Heffay, on 12 August 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

It's a leading question. Taken in context we all know you're just looking for evidence that Elo is flawed and you want to bolster your case against it. Taken in context with everything you've said about Elo, it's clear what you are looking for.

How about this: The variance within the team will fall within normal statistical ranges for any game based off of an Elo matching system. The larger the player base, the closer it gets to zero. The existence of statistically negligible deviations from that are irrelevant, since they'll apply to *any* system you implement.

It's math dude.

Since you WANT to argue, I am happy to oblige.

You cannot take a large variance within a match - which is where quality happens - and average it to say that everything is ok because eventually things even out.

For example, the quality of a car. If you have one bad part, it can ruin the entire car and kill the person driving it. Just because you have 8,000 other cars that did not kill anyone does not mean that there is not a problem that needs fixed. The recent huge auto recalls were not because every car was breaking down. It was because a handful of people died or had serious accidents that led to the recall of millions upon millions of vehicles. That individual quality gap was so immense that the whole line of cars involved had to be repaired, just like Elo and matchmaker can be improved by finding the "bad part".

If you average everything, everything will eventually average. It is the law of averages. Only by looking at the individual match and variance within the two teams of that match, will you see the issue related to match quality.

You may be ok with winning a match horribly, then losing a match horribly, but I would rather have two very close fights that could have went either way up until the last person fell - THAT is a good match. That happens when the variance in skill between the individual pilots is very low. That means a team of inexperienced players is matched against a team of inexperienced players, a team of average players is matched against a team of average players, and a team of good players is matched against a team of good players. When a team of very high and very low Elo players is matched against a team of average players, THAT is when you are likely to get a bad match, and is happening quite often I would bet.

That all being said, while I highly dislike the entire Elo system, this was not a leading question, at least how you took it. This was trying to get info so we can have the issue of "high+low=/=avg" addressed within the current Elo system. If they want to revamp the whole system afterwards, great, but if we are going to use Elo, I just want them to be looking at the correct data, instead of an average that means very little.

[Heffay]

Cimarb, on 12 August 2014 - 01:12 PM, said:

You may be ok with winning a match horribly, then losing a match horribly

Statistically, the odds of that happening with Elo matchmaking is very low. The vast majority of matches will have everyone roughly in the same Elo range playing in a match where the average spread of both individual Elo scores and team Elo scores is very low.

Just give it up. Elo is a great way to run a matchmaker. Why don't you set up your own simulation with a nice bell curve of Elo ranges, and a few hundred thousand participants and see how often you run into the spread of the player Elo distribution on one team being 1500, and the other team being 5. I'll wait. You're going to have to run the simulation for a good long time.