795 replies to this topic

[RG Notch]

Mystere, on 10 April 2014 - 09:21 AM, said:

Of course I can blame whining. It seems to be an effective way in compelling developers to make changes to existing game features. Just look at how Mass Effect 3 was butchered because people did not like the original ending.

That's what happens when developers do stupid things, people complain and get them fixed. then the bad devs have a hissy fit and quit making games, sounds like addition by subtraction and what needs to happen here.

[Roadbeer]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 April 2014 - 09:25 AM, said:

I didn't see x=? in that... You sure you were talking algebra?

Yeah, Pretty sure

[Mystere]

Roland, on 10 April 2014 - 09:33 AM, said:

The original ending for Mass Effect 3 was terribad. Easilly the single worst aspect of the entire, otherwise brilliant, series.

That does not change the fact that whining on a massive scale triggered the change. And note that not everyone agreed with the whiners.

Also, do you remember the original Fallout 3 ending? That felt like a cold steel dagger thrust right into the heart. I did not go to the internet and whine about that either.

[Joseph Mallan]

Roadbeer, on 10 April 2014 - 09:43 AM, said:

Yeah, Pretty sure

Ugh! That was way to much science for one day!

[Amsro]

Almond Brown, on 10 April 2014 - 06:05 AM, said:

Curious. You want to have the game allow my Team of 3 to be able to play against only another Team of 3, selected from the Universal queue and then drop us as a 6? (or any additive value <=12)?

Is that it?

Not quite, I would imagine the matchmaker would put you on opposite sides of the match. Since 3 is a small number likely there would be 2 teams per side, your 3 man + another 6 man + 3 solo. This would be the same for both teams.

In the team que, mech balance aren't of much concern, good players are good in ANY mech. Again using the new (not patched in yet) Elo "buckets" to keep the skill level close.

And all the while there is a solo only que. And if PGI's #'s are right the Solo que will be the busy one, I suspect this to be untrue.

[o0Marduk0o]

Mystere, on 10 April 2014 - 07:29 AM, said:

Hold a second! I thought the problem being addressed by 3/3/3/3 is the endless stomping PUGs are being subjected to by predominantly assault/heavy teams. I thought the main problem was the weight imbalance between teams.

Uhm, 3/3/3/3 is not being added to reduce stomps. Stomps don't happen because one team as less total weight. Often enough the team with less tonnage wins. The total weight is just one factor.
The issue is, that many players tend towards heavier mechs which leads to one-sided lance/company compositions. There is no good mix of all weight classes.
Weight class limits can change this, while tonnage limits alone would mostly only lead to assault/light teams.

Edited by o0Marduk0o, 10 April 2014 - 10:03 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

What would happen for all those complaining if both teams and PUGs only dropped in Heavies and Assaults when they introduce the change?

[Mystere]

o0Marduk0o, on 10 April 2014 - 10:01 AM, said:

Uhm, 3/3/3/3 is not being added to reduce stomps. Stomps don't happen because one team as less total weight. Often enough the team with less tonnage wins. The total weight is just one factor.
The issue is, that many players tend towards heavier mechs which leads to one-sided lance/company compositions. There is no good mix of all weight classes.
Weight class limits can change this, while tonnage limits alone would mostly only lead to assault/light teams.

Huh?! ... Huh?! Huh?! ... and triple huh?!

Weren't people endlessly whining about endlessly being stomped precisely because of the overabundance of heavy/assault mechs on the enemy team? As such, what you said above, especially the third sentence, is news to me.

So again, huh?!

Edited by Mystere, 10 April 2014 - 10:41 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Mystere, on 10 April 2014 - 10:41 AM, said:

Huh?! ... Huh?! Huh?! ... and triple huh?!

Weren't people endlessly whining about endlessly being stomped precisely because of the overabundance of heavy/assault mechs on the enemy team? As such, what you said above, especially the third sentence, is news to me.

So again, huh?!

For the record the same people also probably complained that there were to many Lights, Streaks were touching them inappropriately, and the sky has fallen and it can't get up.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 10 April 2014 - 10:53 AM.

[o0Marduk0o]

Mystere, on 10 April 2014 - 10:41 AM, said:

Huh?! ... Huh?! Huh?! ... and triple huh?!

Weren't people endlessly whining about endlessly being stomped precisely because of the overabundance of heavy/assault mechs on the enemy team? As such, what you said above, especially the third sentence, is news to me.

So again, huh?!

People whined as well about teams with almost only lights. Following your logic, having only assaults and heavies leads to a win. Teams with much ECM win against teams without ECM. But this is not the case.
High tonnage and bad skill/teamwork is worse than lower tonnage and better skill/teamwork.
Skill/teamwork makes the difference.

Every scrub can do more damage with a heavier mech (more armor, more time to do any damage), so people choose assaults/heavy. This doesn't make those mechs better in general.
The problem we have is, some weight classes are less popular because more speed doesn't always make a difference. More armor/pinpoint-alpha is the key and assaults/heavy are made for this. Limiting the number of them makes smaller mechs more attractive. Many players only play assaults because they think choosing something else is subpar.

Edited by o0Marduk0o, 10 April 2014 - 11:16 AM.

[RussianWolf]

Roadbeer, on 09 April 2014 - 04:28 PM, said:

Actually, the term was "Launches" which is very coy and smart of them to use that term. Because if they're counting launches as "The press of the Launch button" then there is only 1 launch for a 12 man, 1 Launch for a 4 man, 1 launch for a 3, a 2 and most specifically 1 launch for a solo.

In the Launch Module thread, someone broke those numbers down, and I think it came out to where actually something in the low to mid 40% of the "Players" were grouped, but using the term "Launches" makes that number look much lower in the interest of not having to create something that they don't feel like figuring out.

"Why can't we have a solo queue" was the cry a year ago. "Well, because most people group"
"Why can't we have a group queue" is the cry now, "Well, because most people are solo"

See what happens there, they don't have to do any work, they just had to change the term Players to Launches and that massages the stats nicely.

EDIT: The Maths

4% 4 Man = 16%
4% 3 Man = 12%
8% 2 Man = 16%

That means that 44% of players are in groups, not counting the 12 players, which, lets say they're a full 1% that means another 12% in the 12p queue, bringing us to... wait for it 56% of the players are grouped, which tracks with the data a year ago.

So, you can take it that their decisions have destroyed the group queue and that's why 84% of the players are solo, or you can take it that they've massaged the numbers and in truth over 50% are in groups, and they don't want to put the effort in to making a group queue.

Personally, I believe it's both. and that they've destroyed the playerbase with many horrendous decisions and that there just isn't the population to support splitting the queues again. Which is going to make Community Warfare suck even harder. But their decisions regarding groups have damaged the group population as much if not more than anything else.

Close to my reading on it. But 4% 4 mand would be 16 people in 100 launches, not 16%. So you'd wind up with 84 launching solo and 56 launching in groups of 2-4 & 12. or about 140 people dropping per 100 launches. 56/140= 40% launch in groups. 60% launch as solo.

[RussianWolf]

o0Marduk0o, on 10 April 2014 - 11:15 AM, said:

People whined as well about teams with almost only lights. Following your logic, having only assaults and heavies leads to a win. Teams with much ECM win against teams without ECM. But this is not the case.
High tonnage and bad skill/teamwork is worse than lower tonnage and better skill/teamwork.
Skill/teamwork makes the difference.

Every scrub can do more damage with a heavier mech (more armor, more time to do any damage), so people choose assaults/heavy. This doesn't make those mechs better in general.
The problem we have is, some weight classes are less popular because more speed doesn't always make a difference. More armor/pinpoint-alpha is the key and assaults/heavy are made for this. Limiting the number of them makes smaller mechs more attractive. Many players only play assaults because they think choosing something else is subpar.

I wish I had recorded the round where I was last on my team in my COM-2D against three mechs. Orion, Locust and Catapult. I The Pult went to protect his base, and I had a devil of a time getting enough separation between the other two to kill them. I ran out of time and we got a tie before I could finish off the Pult.

[Sandpit]

I'm personally going to game this SHIT out of this launch module every chance I get. There's a LOT of options for players to work this system (perfectly within the rules btw) and screw with the MM and I will be working every single one of them. I'm sick and tired of premades getting blamed for MM, roflstomps, NPE, etc.

Want someone to blame? Blame PGI.

They really seem to be completely oblivious and/or ignoring the root problems, "fixing" crap that doesn't need to be fixed and resolves NOTHING to alleviate the above mentioned issues.

[Werewolf486 ScorpS]

Ghost heat = Band-Aid
Crap Gauss Firing Mechanic = Band-Aid
4x3 (3/3/3/3) = Band-Aid

Broken weapons management = need for Band-Aid

Pisses everyone off, but the only way to fix this is to only allow a certain amount of High damage weapons per chassis and open up type. Don't want PPC's on your Whammy but want Dual Gauss, that's fine. Want to have 5 PPC on a Stalker, to bad you can only have 2 High damage weapons. This would make people have to carry smaller weapons and actually use them, create diverse builds and eliminate boating, super high damage Alpha, and make the game more enjoyable even if you don't want to admit it. Slightly less important is that it would give us a reason for having different Variants instead of being forced to grind 3, you'd actually need 3.

Edited by Werewolf486, 10 April 2014 - 12:34 PM.

[Sandpit]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 April 2014 - 10:53 AM, said:

For the record the same people also probably complained that there were to many Lights, Streaks were touching them inappropriately, and the sky has fallen and it can't get up.

I played a match last night in the trial jenner, my team was way outtonned (300+), me and 2 spider pilots ran off and proceeded to destroy 3 assault mechs and our team won. A good pilot in a light mech is worth 2 poor pilots in an assault mech.

it's more of a matter of people wanting to blame everything but their own personal skills, builds, and tactics which has become the norm around here.
"QQ, this is "op" because I couldn't beat it, PGI needs to nerf it"

AC
Pinpoint
LRMs
SSRMS
Assaults
JJs
premades
MM
Elo
ECM

I could go on but you can look through the forum history and see it. You get a select few that can't deal with LRMs
then you get another select few that can't deal with ECM
then you get a select few that can't deal with something else.

Meanwhile anyone who likes and enjoys challenging game play gets stuck with this

[RussianWolf]

Sandpit, on 10 April 2014 - 12:22 PM, said:

I'm personally going to game this SHIT out of this launch module every chance I get. There's a LOT of options for players to work this system (perfectly within the rules btw) and screw with the MM and I will be working every single one of them. I'm sick and tired of premades getting blamed for MM, roflstomps, NPE, etc.

Want someone to blame? Blame PGI.

They really seem to be completely oblivious and/or ignoring the root problems, "fixing" crap that doesn't need to be fixed and resolves NOTHING to alleviate the above mentioned issues.

I can't believe how borked the MM is these days..... The other night I was in a match where the opposing team had TWO Johnny's and we didn't have any. Everyone knows having even one Johnny makes your team incredibly OP.

[Roadbeer]

RussianWolf, on 10 April 2014 - 12:28 PM, said:

I can't believe how borked the MM is these days..... The other night I was in a match where the opposing team had TWO Johnny's and we didn't have any. Everyone knows having even one Johnny makes your team incredibly OP.

I lol'd

[Mystere]

Sandpit, on 10 April 2014 - 12:22 PM, said:

I'm personally going to game this SHIT out of this launch module every chance I get. There's a LOT of options for players to work this system (perfectly within the rules btw) and screw with the MM and I will be working every single one of them. I'm sick and tired of premades getting blamed for MM, roflstomps, NPE, etc.

Want someone to blame? Blame PGI.

They really seem to be completely oblivious and/or ignoring the root problems, "fixing" crap that doesn't need to be fixed and resolves NOTHING to alleviate the above mentioned issues.

Nah! The main thing I will blame PGI for is it's predilection for caving in to the whiny masses. I still blame the latter for the dumbing down of what could have been a really great game.



Now back to Elder Scrolls Online, a game that does not tell me what army I can or cannot bring to create a trail of death and destruction on my way to sitting on the Ruby Throne.

[RussianWolf]

Mystere, on 10 April 2014 - 12:35 PM, said:

Nah! The main thing I will blame PGI for is it's predilection for caving in to the whiny masses. I still blame the latter for the dumbing down of what could have been a really great game.



Now back to Elder Scrolls Online, a game that does not tell me what army I can or cannot bring to create a trail of death and destruction on my way to sitting on the Ruby Throne.

caving to whiney masses.... we talking about the same people that forced 3PV on us over very strong protests? More like they refuse to listen to the players and are more likely listening to orders from IPG.

Roadbeer, on 10 April 2014 - 12:35 PM, said:

I lol'd

[Mystere]

RussianWolf, on 10 April 2014 - 12:41 PM, said:

caving to whiney masses.... we talking about the same people that forced 3PV on us over very strong protests? More like they refuse to listen to the players and are more likely listening to orders from IPG.

Nah! 3PV was my idea.

<runs for the relative safety of Cyrodiil>

Edited by Mystere, 10 April 2014 - 12:44 PM.