540 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

Craig Steele, on 27 January 2014 - 05:37 PM, said:

4 screenshots is a good enough sample size for PGI though? (21/1)
.

Uhm no, they just gave those examples because they were submitted so they responded, in public fashion, to show that the players how were championing those screenshots so they used those as specific EXAMPLES, they did not base their entire decision on 4 screenshots (unlike the community here seems to do)

Ghogiel, on 27 January 2014 - 06:21 PM, said:

Actually yes. Yes it did. Prior to MM1 ALL premades were in the same queue. MM1 changed that and created the split the queue for 8man premades.

Premades were never pulled out of the queue from pugs completely. Show me where that happened.

In other words?
[Citation Needed]

If I'm wrong I'm wrong but I don't believe I am in this case

[Craig Steele]

Sandpit, on 27 January 2014 - 06:34 PM, said:

Uhm no, they just gave those examples because they were submitted so they responded, in public fashion, to show that the players how were championing those screenshots so they used those as specific EXAMPLES, they did not base their entire decision on 4 screenshots (unlike the community here seems to do)

Ha ha ha ha, That wasn't my read of Pauls comment. I got the impression his post on that subject was we are standing by MM "as is" cause it works and these 4 screenies selected by the community are proof (albeit the ELO's which form the basis of his view were not released so we just have to take his word for it)

But to come back to the point. If you are arguing that small samples are "specific EXAMPLES", why can these posters here not have their "specific EXAMPLES" treated with the same seriousness that PGI showed those 4 screenies?

[Ghogiel]

Sandpit, on 27 January 2014 - 06:34 PM, said:

Premades were never pulled out of the queue from pugs completely. Show me where that happened.

In other words?
[Citation Needed]

If I'm wrong I'm wrong but I don't believe I am in this case

I don't think it is a relevant point since no one claimed that happened.

Edited by Ghogiel, 27 January 2014 - 06:50 PM.

[Solis Obscuri]

Nick Makiaveli, on 26 January 2014 - 10:39 AM, said:

Seriously? First off, you are wrong. I was in some 10-12 games last night.

Second, once a team gets a numerical advantage, it's almost certainly going to steamroll from there. I mean if you are outnumbered 2-1 what do you expect? So the score may start out 1-2 but if it hits 7-3 you can pretty well bet it will end in something like 12-4.

This is almost identical to my experience lately. Seems to be working ok IMO.

[Nick Makiaveli]

Craig Steele, on 27 January 2014 - 03:23 AM, said:

Poor OP,

expresses a personal opinion that is affecting his desire to spend time / money on the game and gets smashed.

Nice one community, PGI set the standard I suppose. They have made it clear it's their game and their doing it their way and if you don't like what they're doing when they do it you can shove off.

Hard to fault the sheep for following the leader.

You seem to fail to realize some of these people have no actual argument, they are just whining.

Craig Steele, on 27 January 2014 - 05:49 AM, said:

@ Joseph, absolutely. Weight Limits is a terrible idea. Weight balancing is what is required. Let people pick whatever mech they want, but have MM put the teams together so the overall tonnage is roughly equal.

Which would likely lead to longer waits for matches, unless they have it expand the limits to get matches. Which would pretty much defeat the purpose.

Nightcrept, on 27 January 2014 - 05:54 AM, said:

and yes to me generally games worse then 12-6 have usually been bad or frustrating games.

Why? Because you didn't win? Didn't score kills? What?

I have fun almost every match because I love playing "live" BattleTech. Sure I get pissed sometimes, a PUG won't get out of my exhaust pipe when I am trying to back up, or some jackass rips half my Locust's leg armor off trying to run me over in the spawn, but that's not the games fault. Yes it's disheartening when I see a wall of Assaults come over the hill, but think of all c-bills to be made in salvage if we win!!

Point being, find a way to have fun. You guys are all about the win. No win, no fun. How sad that must be. As Sandpit said, most of the time when I drop in a pre-made we are just having fun. Sure we do training drops that are sirius biznus, but mostly its about just running mechs around the battlefield.

Mudhutwarrior, on 27 January 2014 - 10:44 AM, said:

You left out the biggest one. Voip is overpowered when compared to the keyboard. I can think of several instances every match where I could have communicated if I didn't have to stop to type.

Funny how you guys always miss the most powerful tool in the game pugs dont get.

Really? How about we aren't wasting time talking about something that doesn't exist in game. Or we are tired of telling people like to **** about it since you can dl TS the same as we did.

Do you really think that VOIP will make a damn bit of difference? How about we pass a law that all players are equal in skill? That should solve the problem right?

Mudhutwarrior, on 27 January 2014 - 11:14 AM, said:

Comms and speedy intel are at the core of every military unit. Except here there is no reason for them.

Give em up if they are not important to you then.

Really they do take people for {Surat} most often.

Are you really this dense? Comms are also useful to chat with and joke around with friends. Comms and Intel are only useful if people listen and use the info. Putting random people into groups and giving them comms won't make them a team.

Nightcrept, on 27 January 2014 - 11:55 AM, said:

The problem is in your get better or suck it up attitude.

As You yourself say winning is fun. By using a proper MM and elo type system players can be matched by skill allowing more balanced games then just throwing them to the wolves and saying suck it up.

First that pretty much sums it up. Add in give useful and intelligent feedback and that's the only choice you have short of quitting.

Please explain what a "proper" Elo system is? The game already uses a Elo system. Which isn't perfect since this is a team based game and not a solo one.

The MM has in-coming changes.

So we circle back around to you. Change you. Learn to have fun in other ways. Or don't and quit.

I'm sure you are going to focus on the quit part. I've offered comments and advice. In the end whether or not you have fun is on you. You can have fun playing MWO or you can complain about how bad it is.

[Sandpit]

Craig Steele, on 27 January 2014 - 06:41 PM, said:

Ha ha ha ha, That wasn't my read of Pauls comment. I got the impression his post on that subject was we are standing by MM "as is" cause it works and these 4 screenies selected by the community are proof (albeit the ELO's which form the basis of his view were not released so we just have to take his word for it)

But to come back to the point. If you are arguing that small samples are "specific EXAMPLES", why can these posters here not have their "specific EXAMPLES" treated with the same seriousness that PGI showed those 4 screenies?

What I'm saying is thsoe small examples lead to thread titles like this and they are not all inclusive. They were used as examples to show the "I'm being forced to play against high elo players and MM is making me lose and other such stuff"
Then Paul said "Uhm sorry but you're wrong. I'm looking at the FACTUAL data as opposed to your perception of no data and the elo scores are not off"

[Ghogiel]

Sandpit, on 27 January 2014 - 07:08 PM, said:

What I'm saying is thsoe small examples lead to thread titles like this and they are not all inclusive. They were used as examples to show the "I'm being forced to play against high elo players and MM is making me lose and other such stuff"
Then Paul said "Uhm sorry but you're wrong. I'm looking at the FACTUAL data as opposed to your perception of no data and the elo scores are not off"

All he did was average the teams Elo rating and compare them.

He never said anything about the amount of Elo divergence of the players in those matches.

Instead of getting 4-20 failed to find matches in a row, those high Elo players are now finding matches. There are 2 possible reasons for that
1: Large player base increase
2: High Elo rated players are getting into matches with lower rated players.

imo low Elo players are certainly being matched with higher Elo players more, with a larger average Elo divergence between the players in those matches since they expanded the thresholds.


Paul never said anything about players being wrong about them "being forced to play against high elo players" because that is exactly what happened before, and happens even more now.

[Sandpit]

Ghogiel, on 27 January 2014 - 07:22 PM, said:

All he did was average the teams Elo rating and compare them.

He never said anything about the amount of Elo divergence of the players in those matches.

Instead of getting 4-20 failed to find matches in a row, those high Elo players are now finding matches. There are 2 possible reasons for that
1: Large player base increase
2: High Elo rated players are getting into matches with lower rated players.

imo low Elo players are certainly being matched with higher Elo players more, with a larger average Elo divergence between the players in those matches since they expanded the thresholds.


Paul never said anything about players being wrong about them "being forced to play against high elo players" because that is exactly what happened before, and happens even more now.

I find that interesting. How do you know you elo? I'd like to know mine as well

[Deathlike]

Ghogiel, on 27 January 2014 - 07:22 PM, said:

All he did was average the teams Elo rating and compare them.

He never said anything about the amount of Elo divergence of the players in those matches.

Instead of getting 4-20 failed to find matches in a row, those high Elo players are now finding matches. There are 2 possible reasons for that
1: Large player base increase
2: High Elo rated players are getting into matches with lower rated players.

imo low Elo players are certainly being matched with higher Elo players more, with a larger average Elo divergence between the players in those matches since they expanded the thresholds.


Paul never said anything about players being wrong about them "being forced to play against high elo players" because that is exactly what happened before, and happens even more now.

QFT

[Craig Steele]

Nick Makiaveli, on 27 January 2014 - 07:05 PM, said:

You seem to fail to realize some of these people have no actual argument, they are just whining.



Which would likely lead to longer waits for matches, unless they have it expand the limits to get matches. Which would pretty much defeat the purpose.


Point being, find a way to have fun. You guys are all about the win. No win, no fun. How sad that must be. As Sandpit said, most of the time when I drop in a pre-made we are just having fun. Sure we do training drops that are sirius biznus, but mostly its about just running mechs around the battlefield.



Really? How about we aren't wasting time talking about something that doesn't exist in game. Or we are tired of telling people like to **** about it since you can dl TS the same as we did.

Do you really think that VOIP will make a damn bit of difference? How about we pass a law that all players are equal in skill? That should solve the problem right?




Are you really this dense? Comms are also useful to chat with and joke around with friends. Comms and Intel are only useful if people listen and use the info. Putting random people into groups and giving them comms won't make them a team.




So we circle back around to you. Change you. Learn to have fun in other ways. Or don't and quit.

What you seem to fail to realize is that whether they are whining or not, he is entitiled to an opinion the same as you are. Just because its different to yours that doesn't mean it should be disregarded or ridiculed.

Exactly how will weight balancing create longer wait times. It still gets the 24 players and then adds up the weight, divide by 2 and throws groups / solos on one side or the other around that number. Its not going to be perfect balance, but after 24 allocations I imagine most games will be within 35 / 50 tons or so (a mech)

I can only speak from my personal view and it is certainly not about the win. I have had some very enjoyable games that I lost and I curse we didn't take our chances. IMO though, enjoyable games are a rarity. Most games I feel little engagement and no sense of satisfaction. Its often a smashed scoreline against a lopsided tonnage but there other reasons too.

I suspect given your tenure you know that Voice Comms was one of the benchmark offerings PGI offered many months ago, it got significant PR exposure. I'd submit that PGI think voice comms are a significant enhancement to the enjoyment of the game. You may have a view that it will not make a difference, I (and PGI) seem to disagree.

Comms are just a tool for PGI to provise immersion. Some people will use it for social sure (press mute if thats not your thing). The goal for PGI though should be to provide a game that appeals to a wide base, not just your tastes (or mine, or his, or hers). They provide a game currently that lacks flexibility and options and many players seem to be expressing that they want more from the game.

Personally, I have spoken with the two strongest tools I have, my time and my money. PGI don't see either of those anymore. It's a personal choice, its not for everyone. I keep an eye on whats going on as I am a BT fan for a long time but yeah, it is what it is.

Sandpit, on 27 January 2014 - 07:08 PM, said:

What I'm saying is thsoe small examples lead to thread titles like this and they are not all inclusive. They were used as examples to show the "I'm being forced to play against high elo players and MM is making me lose and other such stuff"
Then Paul said "Uhm sorry but you're wrong. I'm looking at the FACTUAL data as opposed to your perception of no data and the elo scores are not off"

Umm OK. I'm sorry but I just don't get the argument. But I suspect it's a reflection on me not you

To me whats good for the goose is good for gander. If PGI can wave 4 games and argue a point, I don't see why a community member cannot. Personally I would much rather PGI waved more compelling arguments. I'm not saying four is are strong argument, just that they seem to think its enough when it suits them.

[Deathlike]

Sandpit, on 27 January 2014 - 07:26 PM, said:

I find that interesting. How do you know you elo? I'd like to know mine as well

Even if you don't know your exact ELO value, you can judge from the play (if you even have that skill, not everyone is good at this) from your team, relative to the mechs on the field (especially if you see trial mechs being run). Plus, it shows up when you see the same few faces in the next couple matches.

For instance, if I see the LORDS in a match, I know exactly what I'm going to get, regardless whether they are on my team or not and regardless of a win or loss.

Trends happen for a reason.

[Ghogiel]

Sandpit, on 27 January 2014 - 07:26 PM, said:

I find that interesting. How do you know you elo? I'd like to know mine as well

Ask IGP employees over drinks and they will tell you.

Deathlike, on 27 January 2014 - 07:30 PM, said:

Even if you don't know your exact ELO value, you can judge from the play (if you even have that skill, not everyone is good at this) from your team, relative to the mechs on the field (especially if you see trial mechs being run). Plus, it shows up when you see the same few faces in the next couple matches.

For instance, if I see the LORDS in a match, I know exactly what I'm going to get, regardless whether they are on my team or not and regardless of a win or loss.

Trends happen for a reason.

Only irrelevant players wouldn't agree that pretty much all LORDs are in the high Elo ranges.

Regardless of whether we know their actual numbers, most decent players know who are the high Elo players.

[Sandpit]

Deathlike, on 27 January 2014 - 07:30 PM, said:

Even if you don't know your exact ELO value, you can judge from the play (if you even have that skill, not everyone is good at this) from your team, relative to the mechs on the field (especially if you see trial mechs being run). Plus, it shows up when you see the same few faces in the next couple matches.

For instance, if I see the LORDS in a match, I know exactly what I'm going to get, regardless whether they are on my team or not and regardless of a win or loss.

Trends happen for a reason.

In other words we don't and one of the things those screenies showed was that a few weren't quite as "elite" as they thought

now granted grouping changes the elo and skews it in my opinion because i averages things. It can be games because of this but again, look at the thread title and tell me that's a true statement

[MischiefSC]

Rough estimate of your Elo -

Count up total matches played in each weight class (light/medium/heavy/assault).

Subtract your losses from your wins for each total weight class.

Multiply that number by, oh, 5 or 10.

Add that number to 1300.

That's an incredibly rough estimate of your Elo in that weight class. Incredibly rough, since you have no way of knowing the k-factor of your wins or losses (balanced games netted you nothing, games you were supposed to win netted you next to nothing, games you were supposed to win but still lost cost you plenty, etc).

Still though, the total number of wins more than losses in a weight class x 5 or so plus 1300 is likely a conservative estimate.

Edited by MischiefSC, 27 January 2014 - 07:43 PM.

[Ghogiel]

Sandpit, on 27 January 2014 - 07:41 PM, said:

In other words we don't and one of the things those screenies showed was that a few weren't quite as "elite" as they thought

Exactly he probably picked screens from irrelevant players who don't really know most of the good players in the game. Just some random 12-0 stomp.

Not to mention again that Paul only averaged the the teams Elo and didn't address the Elo divergence between the players

[Deathlike]

Ghogiel, on 27 January 2014 - 07:39 PM, said:

Only irrelevant players wouldn't agree that pretty much all LORDs are in the high Elo ranges.

Regardless of whether we know their actual numbers, most decent players know who are the high Elo players.

Exactly.

Sandpit, on 27 January 2014 - 07:41 PM, said:

In other words we don't and one of the things those screenies showed was that a few weren't quite as "elite" as they thought

Possibly. I see certain names in the screenshots and I can already tell who won or loss. If I don't recognize the name, then, /shrugs.

Quote

now granted grouping changes the elo and skews it in my opinion because i averages things. It can be games because of this but again, look at the thread title and tell me that's a true statement

It's kinda a true statement, depending on your ELO bracket.

Since, I've been dropping hints in a different thread, here's a good time as any to show what actually happens @ high ELO:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3097250

High ELO = must carry the underhive/newbies to the next level.

[Ghogiel]

This is one might be a good example of teh lulz stacked. If that one was closely matched averaged Elo between the teams I really want to know how low those randoms are on my team to drag the average down so that all those mediums and the 2 trials on the other team get matched to LORDS assault mechs.

[Deathlike]

Ghogiel, on 27 January 2014 - 08:11 PM, said:

This is one might be a good example of teh lulz stacked. If that one was closely matched averaged Elo between the teams I really want to know how low those randoms are on my team to drag the average down so that all those mediums and the 2 trials on the other team get matched to LORDS assault mechs.

gg close

I'm going to guess that's the team in Charlie lance "dragged down your ELO average". Besides... there is like one of them that makes new threads all the time.

It could just be my imagination.

[Mister Blastman]

Ghogiel, on 27 January 2014 - 08:11 PM, said:

This is one might be a good example of teh lulz stacked. If that one was closely matched averaged Elo between the teams I really want to know how low those randoms are on my team to drag the average down so that all those mediums and the 2 trials on the other team get matched to LORDS assault mechs.

Wow

[Deathlike]

Mister Blastman, on 27 January 2014 - 08:23 PM, said:

Wow

Working as intended.

S!