795 replies to this topic

[PapaBear14]

Trauglodyte i posted on another thread an idea i had i don't know how it would be recieved or how easy it would be to implament but here goes. Players could group into anysize group that they would like and enter the regular que there they would stay untill another group of the same size joined the search. Only after both teams were found then you would start pulling in PuGs to start filling in the rest of the team. That way if there is a longer wait time for larger groups like i think i have heard PGI say somewhere they would be the only ones that would have to be in the long wait. I dont think any solo player would complain about playing against a large group if they had one on their team as well. This would also test whether the wait times would be long for larger groups without forcing solo players to get trapped in a que waiting for another team. I dont know what do you think just my two cents.

[Amsro]

Stunner, on 07 April 2014 - 02:16 PM, said:

The op is assuming that the match maker will put the two groups together. They have already said that only one 4 player group will be on each side. The other team will have to be a 3 person group or less. Also it's possible for the 4 man to get a "no match found" if they are in a decent bracket and trying to take assualts and no one in their bracket is queing assaults. I plan on staying in smaller mechs to get into matches quicker than those that insist on dropping in assaults.

You are assuming the OP was assuming to drop in 2 groups. When in fact it is, One 4 man + 3 Solo (up to a max of 8 solo).

Reread the OP.

[Roadbeer]

Stunner, on 07 April 2014 - 02:16 PM, said:

The op is assuming that the match maker will put the two groups together. They have already said that only one 4 player group will be on each side. The other team will have to be a 3 person group or less. Also it's possible for the 4 man to get a "no match found" if they are in a decent bracket and trying to take assualts and no one in their bracket is queing assaults. I plan on staying in smaller mechs to get into matches quicker than those that insist on dropping in assaults.

No, the OP clearly is not assuming that, in fact the OP specifically said that the others who would be part of the 7 will be "Solo".

As for the rest, I haven't a clue as to what you're blathering on about.

Edited by Roadbeer, 07 April 2014 - 02:42 PM.

[Deathlike]

Dawnstealer, on 07 April 2014 - 06:46 AM, said:

A player's ELO is also specific to the mech they're running, though, right? I mean, I'm great in my Wolverine, but my KDR in my Locust is abysmal.

There's Elo for "each weight class" a player takes. So, your light mech Elo is different from your assault mech Elo. However, your Elo in a Jenner/Raven/Firestarter is literally the same as your Elo in a Locust.

Trauglodyte, on 07 April 2014 - 12:01 PM, said:

I'm a little late to the conversation but here is my view on things:

- Sync dropping for the sake of playing with friends is ok. Doing it to be l33t c00l makes you a douche. 12 mans exist for the later part is under utilized because no-skill ******* don't want competition, they want PUG stomping pats on the back.

TBH, there aren't that many "pug stomping groups"... even I had a small chat with "the Lords" in a game, and they haven't been playing MWO (who wouldn't be bored if every game is ggclose?).

I've also played 12-mans, and usually you know clearly whether you are overmatched or "simply better" than your opponent. In 12-mans, you know if what your team sucked or not. There is no in between (well, there can be close games), no excuses, and no BS (outside of ridiculous differences in tonnage, but there's no limit...).

Quote

- Mechs of all weight classes exist and enforcing their use is a fine way of making sure that they're played. It isn't elegant and it will be gamed but the % of players doing so won't be drastic.

PGI would have to provide more mechbays for free to make this viable. Remember that this issue does affect the new player to a degree (telling them to go the 3 variant route limits their options, and not eliting the mech does tend to hamper overall potential).

Quote

Personally, I don't think anything that PGI does will ever be perfect. It is up to us to police things and up to PGI to enforce some semblance of law prohibiting PUG stomping. If they don't, CW (if it ever releases) will just be a waste.

Seriously, that's not that much PUG stomping. There's a lot more MM trolling that goes on.

Edited by Deathlike, 07 April 2014 - 02:29 PM.

[Mystere]

Koniving, on 07 April 2014 - 02:21 PM, said:

Nope, not even there.


2:18. Planetary defense laser cannons fire upon dropships.
Dropship Blackhammer is destroyed. One of the mech pods break up on entry, destroyed before reaching the planet.

Then again, technically the enemy there is a Clan Smoke Jaguar force. So maybe.
So there's this for Inner Sphere related dropship 'targeting'. The mercs are evidently afraid of Kurita destroying their dropship. Dropship weapons get disabled. The dropship commander panics, abandoning troops.

Jumpships, not dropships.

[Koniving]

Mystere, on 07 April 2014 - 02:29 PM, said:

Jumpships, not dropships.

Misread.

Forgot...and actually terrified at this.
Jumpships from what I read can carry up to 4 dropships...
Then from that MW3 video, each dropship had 6 lances of 4 mechs each.

o.o

O_O

(O)_(O)

I'm scared.

[Kaldor]

o0Marduk0o, on 07 April 2014 - 01:56 PM, said:

The data is correct but you read wrong. It says 84% of DROPS are solo drops, not 84% of player base drop solo. This is a huge difference. Actually 2/3 of player base drop solo not factoring in 12-man drops.
But one can say that the amount of premade players would rise if bigger groups than 4 were allowed.

Not sure whether we need 12-man random queues with private matches being added.
What we certainly need are...
1) pure-solo queues and...
2) 2-11(12)-man queues with one premade per side and if possible same number of premade players on both sides.

Close enough for PGI "math" imo

But seriously, Id even be happy if they just increased the group size max to 8. BUT BEWARE THE EVIL PREMADES COMING TO FARM THE PUGZ!!!

[That Dawg]

Will ELO realize that thing called "ECM" needs to be spread out too??
JUST left a battle, FOUR ECM mechs on their side, none on ours. We got Lrm'd, very hard keeping locks on them
weight was ok more or less about the same heavies/assaults, but that ECM imbalance, not the first time I've seen it

[WarHippy]

Roadbeer, on 07 April 2014 - 02:08 PM, said:

Yeah, that's what I mean. I know that the removal of groups was kind of a big deal, I just don't remember if the meltdown was going to OB, Consumables, impending changes to groups or something else.

So many threadnaughts and so little learned.

It was removed in October of 2012. Groups were limited to 4 on Nov 6th 2012 patch, and double heatsinks were introduced in the patch that removed the counter from what I can find so far.

[Roadbeer]

ThatDawg, on 07 April 2014 - 02:33 PM, said:

Will ELO realize that thing called "ECM" needs to be spread out too??
JUST left a battle, FOUR ECM mechs on their side, none on ours. We got Lrm'd, very hard keeping locks on them
weight was ok more or less about the same heavies/assaults, but that ECM imbalance, not the first time I've seen it

Nope
and there are plenty of ECM threads around still, go cry in one of those.

[Bhael Fire]

Roland, on 06 April 2014 - 09:24 AM, said:

If pgi wanted to address this, they would just set up the system with two queues, a solo queue and an unrestricted one, where groups of any size could play.

So much THIS.

While I still think 3/3/3/3 will be better than what we have now, they really need to have an unrestricted groups 2-12 queue and a solo-only queue. They have not offered a sufficient explanation as to why they aren't implementing it this way — because sorry, most groups don't complain about getting stomped...that's a solo player thing (a well-founded complaint, but still mostly one exercised by solo players).

[no one]

Koniving, on 07 April 2014 - 02:13 PM, said:

But I'll tell you right now. I've talked several times with someone in development.

How do you manage that? I mean, getting them to talk back.
Sort of like talking to the dead, it's that last bit that's tricky.

Quote

"Ghost heat is here to stay. Period."

Sure, I don't hold out too much hope, but that could have just been "their position at the time".
*fingers crossed*
Plus there's nothing saying they couldn't try out a heat system like it with the Clans, since they use separate tech.

Quote

I said give PPCs a charge up.
Bam, 4 weeks later, Gauss Rifles get a charge up instead.

Hrrgh, seriously? Well at least the mechanic's in the code now, PPC+Capacitor being a thing in canon that could happen and all. Really, It's the discharge that's silly. Lots of people would be fine with it if the Gauss kept a charge and only generated heat / exploded while charged. That's how PPC+Cap work, anyway.

Well good luck to you in your endeavors to brighten the dark future of Battle-tech.

[AEgg]

Bhael Fire, on 07 April 2014 - 02:38 PM, said:

So much THIS.

While I still think 3/3/3/3 will be better than what we have now, they really need to have an unrestricted groups 2-12 queue and a solo-only queue. They have not offered a sufficient explanation as to why they aren't implementing it this way — because sorry, most groups don't complain about getting stomped...that's a solo player thing (a well-founded complaint, but still mostly one exercised by solo players).

You can't do 3/3/3/3 with arbitrary group sizes. With a limit of four, it's not so hard to match up groups, since you can only completely fill one weight class (although lots of three assault groups is still a problem, since it leaves you with lots of unfilled games). With a group of six, that pretty harshly narrows who else can fit into the match. Whether a strict 3/3/3/3 composition is good is another matter (Personally I'd prefer a +1/-1 variation on it). But 3/3/3/3 doesn't work with arbitrary group sizes.

The size of the playerbase is another issue. Those that drop 12v12 aren't going to be in the general queue anyway, so thats no big loss. At best, two separate queues would give randoms longer wait time for the same thing we have now. At worst, either the solo only queue would die off or the group queue would, as people leave it for the queue with shorter wait times.

[Koniving]

no one, on 07 April 2014 - 02:53 PM, said:

How do you manage that? I mean, getting them to talk back.
Sort of like talking to the dead, it's that last bit that's tricky.


Sure, I don't hold out too much hope, but that could have just been "their position at the time".
*fingers crossed*
Plus there's nothing saying they couldn't try out a heat system like it with the Clans, since they use separate tech.

Hrrgh, seriously? Well at least the mechanic's in the code now, PPC+Capacitor being a thing in canon that could happen and all. Really, It's the discharge that's silly. Lots of people would be fine with it if the Gauss kept a charge and only generated heat / exploded while charged. That's how PPC+Cap work, anyway.

Well good luck to you in your endeavors to brighten the dark future of Battle-tech.

They talk back in twitter, reddit, etc. Definitely won't have a meaningful conversation on twitter though. You'd have better luck asking one for an interview at one of the podcasts other than NGNG.

I agree the discharge is silly. Truth be told what I actually asked for was a delay in firing for a 'charge up effect', not something you had to physically hold yourself and could cancel out or discharge if you held it too long. The conditional explosion could get exploited a bit, though. I should also point out that it could have been coincidence, 4 weeks after I mention it in feature suggestions as a way to fix the PPC + Gauss setup, Gauss Rifles get the charge mechanic. There wasn't any direct contact at the time.

I do remember around the same time, being so proud that another suggestion -- splash damage -- was mentioned by Russ himself (with a different figure) on an NGNG podcast (between 30 and 40, think it's 38). But I know that for the same reason splash damage was 'makeshift' removed for missiles, it could not be made possible to work for PPCs without making them worse instead of better (as CryEngine multiplies damage values with splash, not divides from a set amount of damage).

(On that topic: Pre-splash damage removal. SRMs did less than 2 damage per missile. Recording starts just before I fire my first shot. Watch how rapidly this stalker is fried.)

After splash damage was removed (at the time, SRM damage was also dropped by a decimal point too).

And this is now current SRM 2.0 per missile damage.

And because Streaks are 100% bull accurate no matter what the conditions and do EXTRA damage and NOT impeded by ghost heat, here's what the flamer stalker is now. Streaks.


And thank you. Doubt I'll have any luck though, nobody knows me outside of the MWO forum.

Edited by Koniving, 07 April 2014 - 03:10 PM.

[Whatzituyah]

I would say this much everytime I play the game I somehow yet no matter how much fun it is always have a face thats the angriest one I have not that I am already angry.

I am mature enough not to curse much about it I try to roll with it but it feels like the game isn't worth trying to play but yet you always feel like its going to change because you don't know how it would be like in the future I already moved on to different stuff but I come back time and again to play a little just for those little C-Bills.

Also thanks Nikolai Lubkiewicz I hope you really come up with a great solution it will help the community, the game, and the players please keep doing the job your on and try to make a good reasonable profit but aswell as keep the costumers happy!

Edited by Whatzituyah, 07 April 2014 - 03:17 PM.

[-Natural Selection-]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 07 April 2014 - 03:13 PM, said:

Thanks for raising these concerns.
I feel it's important to note that assumptions regarding how ELO functions should be taken with a grain of salt. We keep the nature of this system mostly under wraps to prevent it from being manipulated.

That said, we do appreciate that players have concerns regarding how the launch system may be manipulated in it's presented form, especially with current player experience in sync dropping in the less popular group queues.

Our hope is that this system will also address the issue of sync-dropping, but we won't know for sure and make the appropriate corrections until it's in internal or public testing.

Thanks for your understanding and keep the constructive feedback coming!
It may prove useful in these testing phases.

Can ya make it so* we don't have to sync drop or try to manipulate the system? that may an easier solution, just saying

Edited by Dozier, 07 April 2014 - 03:19 PM.

[Koniving]

Hey Niko! Name change + promotion and/or job change. Glad to see it. Thought that name was familiar (all your old posts changed names).

Please send a copy of my page 6 post to the Devs? (The Community Warfare scenario one)?
Thanks (even if you don't do it).

[Roadbeer]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 07 April 2014 - 03:13 PM, said:

Thanks for raising these concerns.

You're welcome

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 07 April 2014 - 03:13 PM, said:

I feel it's important to note that assumptions regarding how ELO functions should be taken with a grain of salt. We keep the nature of this system mostly under wraps to prevent it from being manipulated.

That would be true, if it wasn't completely spelled out in Paul's CC post about the Launch Module



Both of those images clearly show 3 Tiers of Elo, or "Buckets" if you like.

Quote

Upon clicking Launch, the player is bucketed into one of 3 tiers based on their Elo score. 0-1000 = Tier 1. 1001-1500 = Tier 2. 1501-2800 = Tier 3. (Keep in mind, these thresholds will be tuned as we monitor games being played.)

This isn't "under wraps", it clearly states what the Elo ranges are. Now, what your personal Elo is remains a mystery, it's really not that much of a stretch to take a moment to figure out where you're at based off of those you're playing with/against. Especially when you're presented with data that has been given to us in the past.

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 07 April 2014 - 03:13 PM, said:

Thanks for your understanding and keep the constructive feedback coming!

I try, but I'm blocked by Bryan on Twitter and Russ doesn't answer me anymore

Thanks for chiming in Niko

Edited by Roadbeer, 07 April 2014 - 03:29 PM.

[Roadbeer]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 07 April 2014 - 03:32 PM, said:

I was referring to the ELO score processing equation itself. Unless that one slipped out while I was in cryo. >.>

Ahh, ok, fair enough. Yeah, the processing is still a mystery (or sorcery) So, how we get our Elo is largely unknown, but where we are in an Elo tier is easy to figure out.

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 07 April 2014 - 03:32 PM, said:

As to where the feedback can go: Here please!

Coming soon:
Why you're probably wrong: Launch Module Edition.

Edited by Roadbeer, 07 April 2014 - 03:39 PM.

[Koniving]

Roadbeer, on 07 April 2014 - 03:26 PM, said:

I try, but I'm blocked by Bryan on Twitter and Russ doesn't answer me anymore

Thanks for chiming in Niko

Russ is a businessman. Bryan is part designer, but he's also a super visor in my opinion. Paul oversees most things including ELO.
Simply separating grouped and solo play is a lot easier and less expensive. Groups of various sizes against groups of various sizes. Solo play with the 3/3/3/3 thingy.

Of course, because Paul gets the most negative feedback, if I were him I wouldn't really want to check my inbox either.

The most genuinely read feedback is in the patch feedback. Devs you'd never even heard of, and the well known devs, both show up in there quite frequently.

Besides, Twitter doesn't allow enough words to give anything meaningful.

For this topic, there's here too.
After all Niko is actively monitoring it, collecting important and valid points and compiling it for a weekly meeting (if I recall roughly how part of the job works).
We'll likely see it appear in a Vblog explanation or a big post.
If we're really lucky, it could influence possible decision changes.

I don't mind this 3/3/3/3 thingy for the random public matches to fill stuff in.

But I absolutely do not want to see this 3/3/3/3 system in merc or faction loyalist group warfare (aka the community warfare aspect for large groups). The notion itself makes it impossible to be "Liao."

Edited by Koniving, 07 April 2014 - 03:41 PM.