540 replies to this topic

[Willard Phule]

Mudhutwarrior, on 17 February 2014 - 04:47 AM, said:

I don't. I think when it comes to video games its mainly people just wasting time disconnected from reality. Meanwhile the world is falling apart and everyone wonders where civil society has gone.

Not to say there are not good people here just that the worst amongst us attempt to dominate that space bringing the level of play into the gutter. The devs should be aware of this and work to moderate that from happening. PGI does not do well with that and complicates the challenge more than corrects it. So focused on adding features and mechs they loose the bubble of what a good match consists of. If you think its bad now wait until they bring CW in with the terrible imbalances that exist now. They don't tweak fast enough to keep it consistent and let little issues grow into greater problems. Add in their bunker mentality and its quagmire unlimited.

Back when it was simpler it was easier for them to get a handle on things but now its pretty much out of control. The Nerf apocalypse is coming with CW. The writing is on the wall.

Unless PGI sets up the lobby system so that once you've joined a Lobby, you're trapped in it, you SHOULD still have the option to leave before the game launches....at least, that's the way the lobby system used to work with the other MW titles.

Why did I bother to mention that? Because, if you join a lobby that's horribly lopsided with either weight or indicators that the people playing aren't noobs (founders tags, lobby has a unit's name, etc)...you can just leave before the stomping begins.

As for Elo...look, all I can say is that it really shouldn't apply HERE. Elo is a system designed to rate people for Chess.

How does Chess differ from MW:O?

Chess is a game for two people sitting across from one another, taking turns and making moves. Both guys start the game with the same number of pieces, just different colors. There is is time taken between moves to allow for contemplation. Although I'm sure it has happened on occasion, very rarely do you ever end up in a situation where you're about to take the other guy's Queen and all of a sudden....someone wearing a similar T-shirt to yours runs in and snags it right before you do. Granted, it's a crappy thing to have happen, but at least the guy that ran in gets his Elo bumped up, right?

MW:O is a constant action game between 24 people of varying skill levels, internet connections and mechs. Supposedly, our Elo is based on how we have performed in any given one-on-one combat (not w/l or k/d). If this is the case, someone else could have cored you out and I jumped in and finished the job, then MY Elo has the possibility of getting a boost...not the guy that did all the work. This means that if I want to increase my Elo, I shouldn't concentrate on "getting better" as has been said in every Matchmaker thread, I should concentrate on "kill stealing." Let the rest of my teammates do all the work, rush in and deliver the killing blow.

But, what about my Win/Loss ratio. Doesn't count for Elo, right? ESPECIALLY with how broken the MM is. What about my K:D ratio? That's only an indicator of how you've done overall..it doesn't express how many of those kills were of a lower Elo than you and, therefore, didn't apply to your imaginary Elo rating.

Again, it's a mess and needs an overhaul. But, who's gonna do it? The developers at PGI? Beyond their abilities. (Programming a Ham and Cheese sandwich is beyond them, but that's neither here nor there). Some 3rd party company going to program it for them? How many mech sales would they have to hold to come up with the funding for that?

Nope, it's broken and it's going to stay that way. Accept this as fact. In fact, don't believe anything they say, either, because they can't...CAN'T...back it up with anything that even remotely resembles fact.

Nice roflstomp. GG Close. Blame the matchmaker.

[Willard Phule]

Joseph Mallan, on 17 February 2014 - 05:11 AM, said:

Its called attrition. Your team kills one of my team mates, now two of you can teamup on a second. That guy goes down under combined fire and nuw three of you can gang up on a third.

Ok, so, in this scenario....who's Elo increases/decreases as the case may be? According to what we've been told already, the guy that lands the killing blow does. So...unless you're all being nice and taking turns, the dude who's sitting back and watching you dish out 700+ points of damage a round, then waiting for the opportune moment finishes him off. That's who.

Joseph Mallan, on 17 February 2014 - 05:11 AM, said:

It is the natural progression of how fighting is supposed to work.It is not unnatural. In fact it is exactly how it is meant to work.

Absolutely. And in the case where reward needs to be given for accomplishing a task, it should be given to the TEAM and not the INDIVIDUAL....especially in MW:O, which everyone keeps hyping is a "team game." I am not referring to Cbill rewards but the entire Elo concept. But, whatever.

Joseph Mallan, on 17 February 2014 - 05:11 AM, said:

I don't type GG myself, If you won and you GG I am cool with it. If you rolled us... Well we did not give you a good game so I don't see a reason to try and make YOU feel better... You already won!

GG Close. Matchmaker is working fine. Better luck next time.

Edited by Willard Phule, 17 February 2014 - 05:20 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Willard Phule, on 17 February 2014 - 05:19 AM, said:

Ok, so, in this scenario....who's Elo increases/decreases as the case may be? According to what we've been told already, the guy that lands the killing blow does. So...unless you're all being nice and taking turns, the dude who's sitting back and watching you dish out 700+ points of damage a round, then waiting for the opportune moment finishes him off. That's who.

The winning team. Doesn't matter if you personally kill 11 enemy players. If you lost the match your Elo drops. I don't like it, but that is how it works.

Quote

Absolutely. And in the case where reward needs to be given for accomplishing a task, it should be given to the TEAM and not the INDIVIDUAL....especially in MW:O, which everyone keeps hyping is a "team game." I am not referring to Cbill rewards but the entire Elo concept. But, whatever.

Not sure what you are saying here. If I do most of the work I get the kill. If I come by and do 5%-25% of the work I get an assist. That is awards working as intended... isn't it?

Quote

GG Close. Matchmaker is working fine. Better luck next time.

Depends on what you want from the game I guess. I want to have no idea what will happen when I get released to wage simulated war on you and yours. Your side could be 12 Whispys and Khobias 0-12 stomp and I get 200 damage... GG. Or I could drop against 6 boots a 4 man and 2 disconnects 10-3 win GG. Balance. Combat should not be a known result. We should never know that the other team is "just as good as we are". The two "best" pro football teams met in the superbowl and it was obvious that one team should not have been there that day!

[Nicholas Carlyle]

It's all about fun. Fun is what makes games thrive.

If people have fun stomping and being stomped. The game will be a success.

But based on the boards and from in-game chat, I don't think the majority care for stomps one way or the other.

So the onus is on PGI to figure out a way that games are more competitive. In my opinion, what you are looking for is 65-75% of the games ending some what close (12-7 or higher), and 25-35% of games ending in what could be considered a stomp (12-6 or lower).

[Willard Phule]

Joseph Mallan, on 17 February 2014 - 05:34 AM, said:

The winning team. Doesn't matter if you personally kill 11 enemy players. If you lost the match your Elo drops. I don't like it, but that is how it works.

That is absolutely NOT how it's been described to me, nor is it how it's described by the developers elsewhere in the forum. If your personal Elo changed with a team win/loss, then there absolutely WOULD be validity to all the complaints about how the matchmaker is purposely putting them on teams expected to lose after they've had a win.

The way I've seen it explained over and over and over again is that your Elo goes up or down based on whichever individual you defeated (ie: killed). If their Elo is better than yours, then there is a maximum increase of up to 50. Again, this is all based on the "kill," not on the team's effort to "win or lose."

Joseph Mallan, on 17 February 2014 - 05:34 AM, said:

Not sure what you are saying here. If I do most of the work I get the kill. If I come by and do 5%-25% of the work I get an assist. That is awards working as intended... isn't it?

Yes, you get the assist. You get cbills. Cbills don't effect your Elo or what sort of match you are placed in (the point of this thread). Unfortunately, since YOU did not defeat the person you did all the work on, YOU don't reap the benefit of an increased Elo and the possibility of getting out of the queue filled with brand new players (in theory).

Joseph Mallan, on 17 February 2014 - 05:34 AM, said:

Depends on what you want from the game I guess. I want to have no idea what will happen when I get released to wage simulated war on you and yours. Your side could be 12 Whispys and Khobias 0-12 stomp and I get 200 damage... GG. Or I could drop against 6 boots a 4 man and 2 disconnects 10-3 win GG. Balance. Combat should not be a known result. We should never know that the other team is "just as good as we are". The two "best" pro football teams met in the superbowl and it was obvious that one team should not have been there that day!

Agreed, however....there are different "skill levels" to even football. The "Superbowl" is a game played by the best two PROFESSIONAL football teams. You would never expect to see the winner of the Rose Bowl go against whoever won the Super Bowl for the title of "best football team, period." College vs Professional......or, since we have 5 year olds playing MW:O, you wouldn't expect to see a PeeWee team play against the Seahawks, they'd be outclassed. (But...now that I think about it....with the whole win/loss thing, there's a good chance that the quarterback on the PeeWee team would have a higher Elo than the professional...if football used Elo.....and then, conversely, it WOULD be an even match by PGI standards. Hey, thanks for the analogy!)

And this is my point. I'm willing to bet that you've been playing the MW series of games for quite some time. I've been playing since MW2, myself. We're both familiar with not only mech movement, but also the weapon systems and tactics. Heck, I've been playing tabletop for going on 30 years now. Yep, we know what we're doing.

Bob here just started playing yesterday. He still doesn't know how to get out of 3PV or to even move forward real well. He's a danger to himself and others.

So, why is Bob in a match with us, as opposed to being in a match of other novices.....the "peewee" team, as it were? Why isn't he grouped with people of a similar experience level, thus encouraging him to learn at his own pace and become a better player?

Because PGI has decided that A ) the Elo concept works well in this environment, B ) beginning players should have a mid-range Elo that they didn't have to work for and C ) we're not all that concerned about keeping new players for around longer than it takes for them to buy a couple of Hero Mechs. Give us your money then get lost, we don't care about you.

Edited by Willard Phule, 17 February 2014 - 06:36 AM.

[Willard Phule]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 17 February 2014 - 05:40 AM, said:

It's all about fun. Fun is what makes games thrive.

That's kind of the point, isn't it? To take that a step further, how much fun is it to join in a game you know nothing about, but all your friends tell you it's awesome, only to find out you simply cannot compete? With today's generation of 'instant gratification' and 'everyone's a winner' attitudes, I'm betting their attention span isn't good enough for them to simply wait for PGI to fix the problems.

Nicholas Carlyle, on 17 February 2014 - 05:40 AM, said:

...based on the boards and from in-game chat, I don't think the majority care for stomps one way or the other.

Although the majority of complaints revolve around the whole concept of the "stomp," I think it goes deeper than that. Attrition does happen and should be expected to. If you have 1/3 of your team (an entire lance) just wander off and get smoked, you should expect to lose....you're only at 66% efficiency once both teams clash. It's that whole "Battle Loss Grouping" referred to in every BT novel. On the other hand, if both teams are at 100% but one is full of inexperienced players, it comes as a surprise to them that they lost 12-1 and doesn't seem fair. And, if the winning team wasn't full of new players, it really isn't fair.

Nicholas Carlyle, on 17 February 2014 - 05:40 AM, said:

So the onus is on PGI to figure out a way that games are more competitive. In my opinion, what you are looking for is 65-75% of the games ending some what close (12-7 or higher), and 25-35% of games ending in what could be considered a stomp (12-6 or lower).

Again, the concept of a "stomp" really can't be expressed in simple numbers. Sure, 12-1 or 12-4 or whatever is pretty indicative of a stomp, but there have been plenty of matches that end that way that were well fought....it was simply a bad selection of mechs for a given map.

When you get stomped, you can FEEL it...even if the end score of the match doesn't express it. When you get stuck on a team with 4 Trial Stalkers in 3PV that don't know how to lock a target, let alone set their weapons groups....when you end up with 4 Atlas D-DCs on your team backed up by 6 Heavy/Assault brawlers....when the other team simply rolls over you and you end up as the last guy, struggling to stay alive....you just FEEL the stomp. Even if the scoreboard doesn't express it.

[Craig Steele]

Willard Phule, on 17 February 2014 - 06:33 AM, said:

The way I've seen it explained over and over and over again is that your Elo goes up or down based on whichever individual you defeated (ie: killed). If their Elo is better than yours, then there is a maximum increase of up to 50. Again, this is all based on the "kill," not on the team's effort to "win or lose." (1)


Because PGI has decided that A ) the Elo concept works well in this environment, B ) beginning players should have a mid-range Elo that they didn't have to work for and C ) we're not all that concerned about keeping new players for around longer than it takes for them to buy a couple of Hero Mechs. Give us your money then get lost, we don't care about you. (2)

(1) I'd be interested in your source cause it makes a mockery of MM. Devs had said over and over that MM is a team average ELO not individual. But for your system to work they must have the capability of making one to one match ups (otherwise how could they track who killed who). I suspect something is distorted tbh and the ELO adjustment is based one whether the team with the higher ELO wiins or looses. Higher ELO and win, all members get nothing, higher ELO and loss, all members drop a notch. Inverse for low ELO team.

(2) I'm not quite as cynical but I get your point and its hard to disagree, new players are in the deep end in a lot of ways.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Willard Phule, on 17 February 2014 - 06:52 AM, said:

That's kind of the point, isn't it? To take that a step further, how much fun is it to join in a game you know nothing about, but all your friends tell you it's awesome, only to find out you simply cannot compete? With today's generation of 'instant gratification' and 'everyone's a winner' attitudes, I'm betting their attention span isn't good enough for them to simply wait for PGI to fix the problems.



Although the majority of complaints revolve around the whole concept of the "stomp," I think it goes deeper than that. Attrition does happen and should be expected to. If you have 1/3 of your team (an entire lance) just wander off and get smoked, you should expect to lose....you're only at 66% efficiency once both teams clash. It's that whole "Battle Loss Grouping" referred to in every BT novel. On the other hand, if both teams are at 100% but one is full of inexperienced players, it comes as a surprise to them that they lost 12-1 and doesn't seem fair. And, if the winning team wasn't full of new players, it really isn't fair.



Again, the concept of a "stomp" really can't be expressed in simple numbers. Sure, 12-1 or 12-4 or whatever is pretty indicative of a stomp, but there have been plenty of matches that end that way that were well fought....it was simply a bad selection of mechs for a given map.

When you get stomped, you can FEEL it...even if the end score of the match doesn't express it. When you get stuck on a team with 4 Trial Stalkers in 3PV that don't know how to lock a target, let alone set their weapons groups....when you end up with 4 Atlas D-DCs on your team backed up by 6 Heavy/Assault brawlers....when the other team simply rolls over you and you end up as the last guy, struggling to stay alive....you just FEEL the stomp. Even if the scoreboard doesn't express it.

You talk a lot, but don't really say very much.

I get what you are saying, yes stomps will happen. And yes, sometimes a 12-7 game is still a stomp.

You are missing the essence of it though.

Just as an example and response to one of your points, if one team has 4 Trial Stalkers in 3PV, well sure as crap the other team should have similar.

If not, there are only two possible reasons. One is the matchmaker sucks or the population is terribly small.

[Iskareot]

I had 19 in a row this weekend. I think they tweaked the MM or ELO system for the weekend with the double XP event.

It was horrid, something was not right for sure or they were testing something. I took some screen shots ... ONE drop -which I have somewhere... was no joke 8 Atlas's and 4 mediums I think.

We had half that weight. It was a slaughter , I think it was over in like 3 mins. I just sat in amazement. I have to say this weekend seemed so imbalanced it was just rare and odd.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Iskareot, on 17 February 2014 - 07:14 AM, said:

I had 19 in a row this weekend. I think they tweaked the MM or ELO system for the weekend with the double XP event.

It was horrid, something was not right for sure or they were testing something. I took some screen shots ... ONE drop -which I have somewhere... was no joke 8 Atlas's and 4 mediums I think.

We had half that weight. It was a slaughter , I think it was over in like 3 mins. I just sat in amazement. I have to say this weekend seemed so imbalanced it was just rare and odd.

I'd imagine it has to do with the recent sale, the double XP weekend, and it being a 3 day weekend for a lot of people.

Plus so much snow in the States causing people to stay in.

[Willard Phule]

Craig Steele, on 17 February 2014 - 06:53 AM, said:

(1) I'd be interested in your source cause it makes a mockery of MM. Devs had said over and over that MM is a team average ELO not individual. But for your system to work they must have the capability of making one to one match ups (otherwise how could they track who killed who). I suspect something is distorted tbh and the ELO adjustment is based one whether the team with the higher ELO wiins or looses. Higher ELO and win, all members get nothing, higher ELO and loss, all members drop a notch. Inverse for low ELO team.

http://mwomercs.com/...79-matchmaking/

Scroll down to the bit with the blackboards on it.

Now, granted, this is OLD information but....from how I understand it....the only thing that has changed is 8 man to 12 man.

It references BOTH how it works to build a team (with everyone's average Elo score) and how you can increase your personal score (by defeating a higher ranked player).

So, herein lies my confusion.

Is it based on a "Team Win?" Because, if this is the case, then all the complaining about "The Matchmaker is trying to ruin my Elo" has some basis in fact. Paul specifically stated that the matchmaker puts together one team that is "favored to win" and one that isn't.

This is a quote from Paul on that string:

Some people also asked to have the description simplified. Here's the summary:

• The Match Maker uses a scoring system to determine if your team is more likely to win or lose based on your team's average Elo rating.
  
• If the Match Maker determines that you're going to lose, but you actually win, then your Elo score is going to go up and the enemy's score is going to go down.
  
• If the Match Maker determines that you're going to win and you actually win, then your Elo score isn't going to change very much (if at all). The same applies to a prediction of loss and you actually lose, your score may drop but it will be slight.
  
• The more games you participate in, the more accurate the Match Maker becomes and you will start seeing that you are playing against people of relative equal skill.

If it's not based on Team win but based on individual performance, why are the experienced players being put into matches with brand new ones? That doesn't make sense, does it? If I have a 1.4 k/d ratio and a new player as a 0 (because this is his first game), how on earth could it possibly be considered "equal?"

That's all I'm getting at here, man.

To use that AWESOME football analogy with PGI's Elo rules applied....

You have the #1 Professional Quarterback in existence. He's got an Elo rating that is based on his lifetime performance (he won some, he lost some, but now he's on the top of the heap). He's got a Football Elo rating of 2200.

Now you have Junior Mechsales...the quarterback of his PeeWee team. He's only been playing for this season, but his team won the neighborhood championship. He's got a Football Elo rating of 1500.

Since the matchmaker is allowed to pick teams +/- 1400, putting these two against each other is PERFECTLY BALANCED.

What's wrong with this scenario? The "New Guy" starting off with a rating that puts him in the match range of the Professional. PGI starts new players off at 1300....which means that with the +/- 1400, they're eligible to play with people in the 2700 range.

Perhaps they need to start newer players off at a lower score as opposed to tweaking the search range. Dunno. That would certainly keep the newer players together but it would screw the experienced players in trying to find a match.

And therein lies yet another problem. Why do the guys with the 2500+ Elos have such a hard time finding a match? Once upon a time, this place was FILLED with people that were part of the Closed and Open Betas. You couldn't swing a cat and not hit 20 of them.

Where have they gone? Elsewhere, that's where. They got sick and tired of all the promises made and broken, problems with the game never getting fixed....PGI paying more attention to dragging in more new, inexperienced people to shell out cash to the beast than the people that TOLD THEM WHAT WAS WRONG and in some cases, HOW TO FIX IT.

By ignoring it's community, PGI has virtually guaranteed stagnation for this game. As they move forward at a snail's pace, trying to put a band-aid over sucking chest wounds, the community continues to dwindle.

Edited by Willard Phule, 17 February 2014 - 07:59 AM.

[Ngamok]

MischiefSC, on 17 February 2014 - 12:10 AM, said:

My best build, honestly?

TrolLocust. I sold all but the V because, well, Locusts are trash and I was an absolutely *idiot* for buying the Overlord package but why not.

I too sold the Locusts but the V. But I found the SHDs, TDRs, and BLRs, all fun. And some of the WVRs and GRFs.

[Rebas Kradd]

Willard Phule, on 17 February 2014 - 07:56 AM, said:

Where have they gone? Elsewhere, that's where. They got sick and tired of all the promises made and broken, problems with the game never getting fixed....PGI paying more attention to dragging in more new, inexperienced people to shell out cash to the beast than the people that TOLD THEM WHAT WAS WRONG and in some cases, HOW TO FIX IT.

By ignoring it's community, PGI has virtually guaranteed stagnation for this game. As they move forward at a snail's pace, trying to put a band-aid over sucking chest wounds, the community continues to dwindle.

People are leaving because of the lack of Community Warfare for the most part. And every mech sale thread has a ton of people who are continuing to support the game financially and are completely oblivious to any of your complaints. Probably because they're happy with the game.

In my last 19 games, I've had only three stomps.

[Willard Phule]

Rebas Kradd, on 17 February 2014 - 08:10 AM, said:

People are leaving because of the lack of Community Warfare for the most part. And every mech sale thread has a ton of people who are continuing to support the game financially and are completely oblivious to any of your complaints. Probably because they're happy with the game.

In my last 19 games, I've had only three stomps.

Don't misunderstand, I'm hooked and ain't going anywhere. Stomps or no stomps. I'm just explaining why the system in place is completely inadequate.

If I lose 5 games in a row due to stomps, I play a different mech...there are trends that happen in these matches, after all. As long as I average 150k-200k cbills per match, I'm good.

[Joseph Mallan]

Dam good post Willard!

Willard Phule, on 17 February 2014 - 06:33 AM, said:

That is absolutely NOT how it's been described to me, nor is it how it's described by the developers elsewhere in the forum. If your personal Elo changed with a team win/loss, then there absolutely WOULD be validity to all the complaints about how the matchmaker is purposely putting them on teams expected to lose after they've had a win.

The way I've seen it explained over and over and over again is that your Elo goes up or down based on whichever individual you defeated (ie: killed). If their Elo is better than yours, then there is a maximum increase of up to 50. Again, this is all based on the "kill," not on the team's effort to "win or lose."



Yes, you get the assist. You get cbills. Cbills don't effect your Elo or what sort of match you are placed in (the point of this thread). Unfortunately, since YOU did not defeat the person you did all the work on, YOU don't reap the benefit of an increased Elo and the possibility of getting out of the queue filled with brand new players (in theory).




Agreed, however....there are different "skill levels" to even football. The "Superbowl" is a game played by the best two PROFESSIONAL football teams. You would never expect to see the winner of the Rose Bowl go against whoever won the Super Bowl for the title of "best football team, period." College vs Professional......or, since we have 5 year olds playing MW:O, you wouldn't expect to see a PeeWee team play against the Seahawks, they'd be outclassed. (But...now that I think about it....with the whole win/loss thing, there's a good chance that the quarterback on the PeeWee team would have a higher Elo than the professional...if football used Elo.....and then, conversely, it WOULD be an even match by PGI standards. Hey, thanks for the analogy!)

And this is my point. I'm willing to bet that you've been playing the MW series of games for quite some time. I've been playing since MW2, myself. We're both familiar with not only mech movement, but also the weapon systems and tactics. Heck, I've been playing tabletop for going on 30 years now. Yep, we know what we're doing.

Bob here just started playing yesterday. He still doesn't know how to get out of 3PV or to even move forward real well. He's a danger to himself and others.

So, why is Bob in a match with us, as opposed to being in a match of other novices.....the "peewee" team, as it were? Why isn't he grouped with people of a similar experience level, thus encouraging him to learn at his own pace and become a better player?

Because PGI has decided that A ) the Elo concept works well in this environment, B ) beginning players should have a mid-range Elo that they didn't have to work for and C ) we're not all that concerned about keeping new players for around longer than it takes for them to buy a couple of Hero Mechs. Give us your money then get lost, we don't care about you.

My Elo would be interesting to see then... I have killed Khans and Boots and killed by the same!

Bob is in a match with us for the same reason I, as a Fresh from training soldier went right into a time honored elite Command(5th Marine Regiment) and given a decoration I personally did not earn. And why A fresh from College Draft player plays games with 10-20 year vets. Cause that is how it is done. As a brand new 155lbs wrestler I faced other noobs and state champs depending on what team we were against. I had no idea who I faced, so I faced them with the same intent everytime. I am going to kick their Ash!

The Only competition I ever knew a somewhat fair matching was in martial art tournaments. Yellow belts faced yellow beltsand so forth. But I was a Yellow belt in TKD and earned a Green belt training with a Grand Master in Japan, and a Grey Sash in Wing Chun Do... and my Oponent earned his 1st ever yellow 3 days before. Was that fair? Plain and simple fair is a lie that we tell ourselves.

I have not heard or read so much complaining about "I deserve" in almost 48 years. I drop in a match without Comms, with 11 other random players and I expect a fair chance of winning in a team game? I have handicapped myself twice in one drop and I am to expect fair and balanced?

Your screen name is Phule, but expecting fair and balanced when we knowingly handicap ourselves is the true meaning of you last name sir. I expect nothing what I drop with the Law or alone. Anything I gain I do so on the merits of my Team and my abilities. The Better team always wins. That does not mean I always win, nor does it mean I will lose a close game. That is exactly as I expect things to work.

I expect to lose hard as often as I win Hard, and I wanna win hard every match! So if I stomp 50% of the time I better be stomped 50% of the time for fair and balanced!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 17 February 2014 - 08:22 AM.

[Willard Phule]

Why do you think that Martial Arts tends to put people of an equal skill level together in tournaments? I'm betting a large part of it is to keep their students' interest in the sport so they can progress and keep the tradition alive. At least, I'm thinking that's part of it.

Using your Marine (or my Army) experience is not altogether an accurate analogy...much like the Football one. Yes, there are similiarities but, ultimately, a real military experience with real consequences doesn't exactly match up to a game. If Hadj blows me up, I might not come home. If LTG Blowhard234 of the 193rd Wolf's Brigade Dragoon Clan Shortbus blows me up, I can just disconnect. But I get where you're coming from. Life isn't fair.

A huge part of my whole point is the continued sustainability of a game we all love (by "we," I mean those of us that are forever hooked on the Battletech/Mechwarrior thing). Without the "new blood" coming into it...to continue the traditions and lore...it will fade from memory and be a thing of the past.

As a GAME without any form of training, viable tutorials or even an acceptable learning curve, it is destined to do just that. Unless, of course, "The Law" and other organized groups are willing to take on the financial responsibility of keeping MW:O a viable product by themselves...eventually, nobody new is going to want to come play the game and stay with it.

Look around you on the forums. Those of us that post, either positively or negatively, tend to have been around a while. We're hooked, we're passionate about wanting it to stay and we'd like to see the problems get fixed.

Very rarely do you see someone that's been playing for only a week or two post something positive about the game. Most of the time, it's something about getting stomped or not being able to figure out how to make things work or something.

But, yeah, I get it. And I'm not going anywhere either. Doesn't mean I can't exercise the Enlisted Man's perogative of complaining while I get the job done, you know?

Edited by Willard Phule, 17 February 2014 - 08:40 AM.

[Sephlock]

[Sandpit]

Willard Phule, on 17 February 2014 - 08:40 AM, said:

As a GAME without any form of training, viable tutorials or even an acceptable learning curve, it is destined to do just that. Unless, of course, "The Law" and other organized groups are willing to take on the financial responsibility of keeping MW:O a viable product by themselves...

here's the thing

You DO have the Law and just about every other unit out there trying to help new players. We put up guides, tips, threads, TS servers, IRC channels, etc. to help increase the new player experience. You have a select few that like to run around and do nothing but berate those that drop in groups, belong to units, and don't PUG exclusively. So even if it's just 1 new player that listens to that ridiculous propaganda and smear campaign, you have new players that avoid any and all contact with one of the biggest and best resources for learning the game.

[Svidro]

Not sure the guy above read his own linked post but....

"At the start of a match, all player's on ONE team have their Elo ratings totaled and divided by 8 (max players). You may realized that this is simply the AVERAGE of a team's total Elo. Team 1's average and Team 2's average are then used to calculate the probability of win (as per the formulas above). If Team 1 beats Team 2, then the appropriate math as above is applied to each player using the probability score calculated by the team averages."

It's all team, it becomes individual over many many games where you are the only common link. Which is why grouping every drop screws with that last assumption and throws everything a bit out of whack.

Not that this invalidates any of the other comments about people leaving etc.

[Willard Phule]

Sandpit, on 17 February 2014 - 08:45 AM, said:

here's the thing

You DO have the Law and just about every other unit out there trying to help new players. We put up guides, tips, threads, TS servers, IRC channels, etc. to help increase the new player experience. You have a select few that like to run around and do nothing but berate those that drop in groups, belong to units, and don't PUG exclusively. So even if it's just 1 new player that listens to that ridiculous propaganda and smear campaign, you have new players that avoid any and all contact with one of the biggest and best resources for learning the game.

That IS true. Absolutely.

Shame PGI can't set up some sort of "easy to get to" page with links to these groups...which would probably be a great idea. You know...something like the tab/links up at the top (Game, Media, Forums, Community, etc.). Click the link, get some sort of banner-link to a unit that has tutorials, people in their chat to help, etc.

There are a LOT of them in the forum threads but, and I'll use my 12 year old as an example here (though, not a great one), there are a huge number of gamers out there that simply don't bother with forums. If you ever played WoW and surfed theirs....*cringe*. Y'know?

Svidro, on 17 February 2014 - 08:49 AM, said:

Not sure the guy above read his own linked post but....

"At the start of a match, all player's on ONE team have their Elo ratings totaled and divided by 8 (max players). You may realized that this is simply the AVERAGE of a team's total Elo. Team 1's average and Team 2's average are then used to calculate the probability of win (as per the formulas above). If Team 1 beats Team 2, then the appropriate math as above is applied to each player using the probability score calculated by the team averages."

It's all team, it becomes individual over many many games where you are the only common link. Which is why grouping every drop screws with that last assumption and throws everything a bit out of whack.

Not that this invalidates any of the other comments about people leaving etc.

Right, but look in the same post where it talks about "Player A beating Player B." So...is that still a "Team" based thing or is it an individual thing? It's kinda vague.