6 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

So I'd like to have discussion about anything BUT LRMs. (feel free to try and hijack the thread with them but I'm pretty good at hitting the report button to keep my threads on topic and you wouldn't be the first to attempt "making a name for yourself" by trying to crash my threads so feel free but be forewarned)

Obviously my biggest gripe with the game currently is the upcoming launch module. Now lets do a little history review. This is a lengthy post and contains links and a lot of information from previous CC posts so if you're a TL;DR, don't bother.

New CW Launch Mechanics

http://mwomercs.com/...-launch-module/
The new cycle is much more user friendly, allows players to continually play against each other if they choose, allows them to rejoin matches and game instances if they crash out, and allows the matchmaker to fill in missing spots as players leave, or quit the game.

Ok so let's look at this. So you join a lobby, you can stick with the same group of players you were randomly pitted with as your team. One of the main reasons group limits claim to be remaining is because it's "unfair and imbalances games too much" So will someone please explain to me how, if this is true, PGI expects this system to work any differently.
If I find a pug team I like playing with and we plan to stick together what is the difference in that 12man jumping on a TS server and becoming an "premade" by using TS and just playing through several matches again, then rinsing and repeating.

This also fails to explain how (since it's universally accepted we don't have "huge" player population here) that after a month or two you don't get to know the majority of players in your faction and just jump on TS whenever you get enough players together on the same team. So even if we "pug" and drop solo, what's to stop us from joining a TS server after we get to know one another? This is especially true when it comes to small units and Mercs.

here's another question. How the hell is this going to stop mercs from doign exactly what PGI is claiming will happen if they allow premades to jump into a game with no group limit?

Project Update: Lobbies

Community Warfare
Engineering is currently working on the new Lobby system required for faction matches. This is no small feat as a Lobby is a completely new state of the game in which players are not just sitting in the UI/Front End and they are not connected to a dedicated game server. It is essentially a game state in which players can communicate together and prepare before dropping into a match. This game state will eventually allow us to have players reconnect to lobbies from which they have accidentally been disconnected from. This is also the game state in which players will be able to vote on game modes/maps prior to the match starting (pending final design). Lobbies will eventually be used for private matches that you've hear of from Bryan's earlier posts. More details to come as development is moving forward but I thought I'd update you with this exciting new feature in the works right now.

Ok so we have a reaffirmation that we have lobbies players can rejoin and after each match they can stick with that lobby if they want to. Most of what they're doing sounds VERY similar to how Black Ops works. You join a lobby and you can stick with that lobby and players until you choose to exit and search for a new one. You can also map vote and majority wins whether that be remap or the map currently up.
So please, again, someone explain to me how this prevents the above scenario and doesn't completely destroy the "premades are "op" and therefore we can't allow them to mix with gen pop" because I'm failing to see how the "vision" coincides with what they've stated.

2013 State of the I.S.

http://mwomercs.com/...e-inner-sphere/

Next we should discuss a refresher on what Community Warfare really means, it has evolved to mean a lot of things, but for most it boils down into being able to compete directly with other units for possession of territory. This roadmap just shared with you does incorporate a significant amount of Community Warfare functionality in systems like UI 2.0, achievements, and the launch module. This will allow players to have any size groups 2-12 which are completely balanced via weight tonnage limits; including clan mechs balanced via both weapon design and tonnage restrictions. Players will also have the lobby like system and of course private matches allowing the first major layer of Community Warfare and competitive play. For many merc units out there in MWO land this is significant news that by the month of April they will be able to have competitive play with other merc units.

I bolded and underlined the the most important part for me. Now keep in mind this is posted this past December about 4 months ago (December 16 to be exact directly from Russ). Again, it shows and reinforces the notion that paying customers are going to get this. This wasn't an isolated "Well me might do this in the future", this was a repeated announcement of core fundamental features that MANY paying customers spent money in good faith on. So again I ask, how (even WITH group limits) does ANY of this STOP people from teaming up on TS after joining a lobby and figuring out who the rest of their team is??? Please PGI, I really want to understand your recent decisions.

On December 2 we got this from Paul
http://mwomercs.com/...date-dec-22013/
Community Warfare:
The first set of features for Community Warfare have been broken down and reviewed by engineering. The systems engineers have a roadmap and schedule in which they will start addressing the needs of all new systems required by Community Warfare and are working on the core layout for faction/unit gameplay. What this sums up is… engineering has done all project management breakdowns and specs for the upcoming feature and code clean-up and preparation is being worked on in a special new branch build (much like PTS). Some of the core new features, like database sharding for improved load handling, have been completed and are in that branch now.

We will update as each feature of Community Warfare enters development so you will know what order to expect things to start appearing. Right now all development is heavily, under the hood.

Another feature that will be updated is the Match Maker. A full analysis has been performed on the current system and fixes/updates are now planned. This is not a trivial update and may be included with the release of Phase 1 Community Warfare. Tonnage limits, grouping, Elo calculations are all reliant on these changes and we will fill you in with more detail, as these tasks move into production.



So again, I'd like to know how any customers are supposed to expect such a drastic change in philosophy when it comes to premade groups 5-11?

"Surprising" Stats

http://mwomercs.com/...93-feb-27-2014/

I'm not going to quote this one because it's just too long. Everyone should know the basics of what it says anyhow. NOW we get told we're going to have permanent group limits? 3-4 months after clan packs were announced??? After big purchases were made? Again, show me how this launch module (and any company that regularly checks its metrics is "surprised" by stats like this) prevents ANY of the situations I laid out earlier in this post.



So now we have a recent timeline of the group and launch module fiasco. Now in the name of "balance" 5-11 mans are prevented from dropping into games but we have lobbies that keep a team together if they want to stick with their teammates? So then they can just jump on TS and become a "premade" using voip?

BS
Period

I've said many times since the announcement that the "new" launch module does NOTHING to prevent, mitigate, or otherwise slow down roflstomps. It does NOTHING to address the NPE, and it sure as heck doesn't prevent people from teaming up on TS after joining a lobby. This isn't going to balance anything. It's the wrong way to go about it and I've shown how PGI has absolutely NO idea how to attack this particular issue.

Now with that said, I'd love to hear from PGI and solo players on just how exactly this "new" launch module prevents "evil premades from ruining" your game...

[SirLANsalot]

There is no stopping people from using a 3rd party thing like TS. However whos to say that BOTH sides aren't jumping into TS during the mapvote time and ready time? If both teams are doing it, then there is no issue to be had.

5-11 man teams were never to be in the lineup for a premade into public ques. Poor wording on PGI's part made it SEEM like that, but it was clarified in a podcast that wasn't going to be the case. We will have you typical 2-4 man public games, and 12v12 public games, with priv matches for anything else in between. Now for CW and planetary conquest (contracts) is still up in the air however.

PGI never said that the new launch module would prevent roflstomps, even with over 80% of the players in this game BEING PUGS and not premade 4 mans, roflstomps still happened! Its called PLAYER SKILL, which ELO has nothing to do with, I can do well over 700 damage and many kills in a game and do very well in pulling my wight. However if I get killed and its down to the last 3v3, the game will generally be lost because the last 3 cannot hit the broadside of a barn (we all have been there watching the last of a match and just facepalming behind the monitor). ELO means jack sh*t in this game.

What the launch module WILL do is balance the game by the NON skill based things a computer CAN calculate. In this case, Mech CLASSES (3,3,3,3) and Tonnage, which will go a long way in balancing the game by mechs, thus making it more of a Pilot Skill thing in who wins. When everyone is on the same playing field in terms of tonnages, then it becomes more of a Skill thing in who wins, rather then just stacking tonnages and just rolling over people with little regard to skill.

Edited by SirLANsalot, 22 March 2014 - 03:50 PM.

[Sandpit]

SirLANsalot, on 22 March 2014 - 03:50 PM, said:

There is no stopping people from using a 3rd party thing like TS. However whos to say that BOTH sides aren't jumping into TS during the mapvote time and ready time? If both teams are doing it, then there is no issue to be had.

You just proved exactly what I was getting at. The new launch module and group limits were implemented to prevent that kind of thing specifically. Straight from the proverbial horse's mouth. So again, how does preventing me from dropping with guys in my unit prevent the situation I laid out above?

[SirLANsalot]

Sandpit, on 22 March 2014 - 03:52 PM, said:

You just proved exactly what I was getting at. The new launch module and group limits were implemented to prevent that kind of thing specifically. Straight from the proverbial horse's mouth. So again, how does preventing me from dropping with guys in my unit prevent the situation I laid out above?

It doesn't because you cannot stop people from using a 3rd party program to communicate better, its best to assume everyone will do it (swap TS addresses after a good match). Unless we get some magical VoIP system into the game.

[Sandpit]

SirLANsalot, on 22 March 2014 - 03:50 PM, said:

PGI never said that the new launch module would prevent roflstomps.

yes, yes they did

Quote

A big problem we had back in Closed Beta was the fact that a 4-man group in an 8-man team could sway the course of a battle drastically. This became less of an issue when we increased the size of teams from 8 to 12. Just because it was less of an issue does not mean it went away completely. Depending on how the match maker assigned groups to teams, it was still very possible to have 2 4-man groups on a single team and various permutations of team size as well. With the release of the Launch Module, we plan on addressing this on a new level.

A group of 5-11 can sway the battle too much in a 12-man team, and groups of 5-11 would have to be matched equally on both teams in order to keep it balanced and to do that would drastically increase wait times for matches to kick off.

http://mwomercs.com/...93-feb-27-2014/


There was no "miswording", the exact term used was "We are temporarily placing limits on group sizes" that is not a "miscommunication" nor is it a "misunderstanding" (other than players misunderstanding that PGI actually meant it when they said it but then changed their position on it)

SirLANsalot, on 22 March 2014 - 03:55 PM, said:

It doesn't because you cannot stop people from using a 3rd party program to communicate better, its best to assume everyone will do it (swap TS addresses after a good match). Unless we get some magical VoIP system into the game.

Which is exactly what I said. It does NOTHING that PGI is claiming they're keeping limits in place for

So in other words, limiting groups does nothing except piss off a lot of players and drive them to play something else

[SirLANsalot]

Sandpit, on 22 March 2014 - 03:59 PM, said:

There was no "miswording", the exact term used was "We are temporarily placing limits on group sizes" that is not a "miscommunication" nor is it a "misunderstanding" (other than players misunderstanding that PGI actually meant it when they said it but then changed their position on it)

Heaven Forbid a COMPANY can change its mind on something.


4 mans have been the norm and will remain so, just with the new 3,3,3,3 setup it will restrict it to 1 "premade" per a side. Even now it dose balance premades, the system sees a group and puts it into a match, and dose the same for the other side. What it doesn't balance is the SIZE of those groups, so a 2 man group is treated like a 4 man still. As I said before, player skill plays more into if a team wins, then anything else.

Until the ELO system has more to work with then just W/L, stomps will always happen regardless of what anything else PGI dose. They can get some systems in to start working on it, like the class balancing they are doing, to get a baseline to work from.

[Sandpit]

SirLANsalot, on 22 March 2014 - 04:09 PM, said:

Heaven Forbid a COMPANY can change its mind on something.

Ok, well GL&GH to you sir. Your disagreement with my post is now well-documented We disagree and I'll leave it at that.