795 replies to this topic

[Wintersdark]

Adiuvo, on 06 April 2014 - 11:01 AM, said:

You're underestimating the amount of people in the middle bracket.

No. I'm not. The population is irrelevant; though the populations may be equally distributed - that is, bucket limits determined by 1/3's of the population, not thirds of the ranking. Regardless, it doesn't matter.

What matters is that it'll be easier than it is now to sync drop, and its not terribly hard right now. This isn't opinion, its simple, clear math.

[anonymous161]

Roland, on 06 April 2014 - 10:06 AM, said:

On some level I want to start playing again when they implement this, just to break the system and show them how terrible it is.

But on another level, I don't give a crap.

I suspect that by the point this is actually implemented, I'll have fully transitioned to star citizen.

Yeah dude as much as I find this game to be pathetic attempt to keep the franchise alive, star citizen is gonna be a joke, just look at how much you have to spend just to play the basic game man, if you really want to have fun with it you will have to put down entire pay checks...I rather suffer the stupid stuff in this game, than make some guy rich for no reason. At least this has some history.

[Adiuvo]

Wintersdark, on 06 April 2014 - 11:08 AM, said:

No. I'm not. The population is irrelevant; though the populations may be equally distributed - that is, bucket limits determined by 1/3's of the population, not thirds of the ranking. Regardless, it doesn't matter.

What matters is that it'll be easier than it is now to sync drop, and its not terribly hard right now. This isn't opinion, its simple, clear math.

...sync dropping is reliant on a low population. If there is not a low population there are too many options for MM to pull from to make dropping with your friends reliable.

[Roadbeer]

Adiuvo, on 06 April 2014 - 11:01 AM, said:

You're underestimating the amount of people in the middle bracket.

Be that as it may, those populations are split into 3 game modes. Which adds in another known variable to game the matchmaker.

Right now, when attempting to sync, we'll try a variety of modes, say, a couple on Assault, and if we're not even matched in the same game, we'll head over to Conquest. once we start seeing each other on OP4, we know we're in the right cycle and it's a matter of time until we're on the same match ~20% success rate.

Remove two other variables, Guesstimating your Elo bracket in a weight class and knowing what weight class you're going to need to fill the team composition, even raising the odds to 40% or 50% gives double the chances of what is experienced now.

[Adiuvo]

Darth Bane001, on 06 April 2014 - 11:08 AM, said:

Yeah dude as much as I find this game to be pathetic attempt to keep the franchise alive, star citizen is gonna be a joke, just look at how much you have to spend just to play the basic game man, if you really want to have fun with it you will have to put down entire pay checks...I rather suffer the stupid stuff in this game, than make some guy rich for no reason. At least this has some history.

You only have to pay ~$30 to get the game. The ships people buy can be obtained through playtime just fine. People only spend that amount of money because they want to support development.

[Adiuvo]

Roadbeer, on 06 April 2014 - 11:11 AM, said:

Be that as it may, those populations are split into 3 game modes. Which adds in another known variable to game the matchmaker.

Right now, when attempting to sync, we'll try a variety of modes, say, a couple on Assault, and if we're not even matched in the same game, we'll head over to Conquest. once we start seeing each other on OP4, we know we're in the right cycle and it's a matter of time until we're on the same match ~20% success rate.

Remove two other variables, Guesstimating your Elo bracket in a weight class and knowing what weight class you're going to need to fill the team composition, even raising the odds to 40% or 50% gives double the chances of what is experienced now.

At this point with your percentages it's just conjecture. Due to the majority of the game's population sitting somewhere around 1300 coupled with the inability for high Elo players to pull 1300 ranked people in their games, I really don't think this will be a problem for the majority of the game's populace. If you're in a higher Elo bracket you'll get pushed in by the same people as always anyways, syncdrops or not. If you're in a lower Elo bracket, then I really doubt syncdropping will effect results much.

[CMetz]

Well, the main problem with ELO is that everyone starts at a preset point on the scale, identified as the place where your wins and losses are equal and against equal rated players. This is the exact situation that a new player falls into by statistics. The second problem is that it bases everything off of win/loss ration and doesn't take into account KDR or avg damage numbers. Is it a perfect system? No. Does it work? Yes, to an extent.

Am I worried about everyone being in Jenners, Shads, Cataphracts and Highlanders? Not in the least, because it won't happen.

The reasoning is that it doesn't happen now. Why would it happen in the future?

The competitive 12-man cue is what it is, and they'll be able to set their rules, etc. in private lobbies however they want with premium time, so why are people concerned with this?

3/3/3/3 isn't perfect, but is there a perfect solution? No.

First- in most of my drops last night I saw a good amount of more competitive games. Could it be coincidence? Yes, but the matchmaker was doing quite well last night.

Second- I'll reserve judgment on 3/3/3/3 until I actually play it.

[-Natural Selection-]

Roland, on 06 April 2014 - 10:54 AM, said:

I'm not clear then on what you are arguing. What I'm proposing would be no limits.

Here is my stand on this in general. I don't see an issue with the game now (except there IS a group limit), and not to speak for the guys I play with but I havnt heard them complain. This is from a vast diversity of skill levels. win some loose some (the 50/50 stats over 15k+ matches tells me we are poisoning the game).

The only thing that remotely seems logical to make a fair game is randomness. From going against premades to being in one. Random weights, skill levels, weapons everything.

I do not agree that separating ques will help, nor will weight balancing. It adds more known variables to generate the outcome desired.

I think the problem is people bitching about everything trying to blame everything about the game to get it catered to their less that adequate drive to do better.

Granted as much as I love the game I hate it. It is nothing like I feel it should be, and trying to dumb down the game to cater to the lesser skilled is plain stupid. I play with friends to learn from the better and help the worse.

I feel the people who scream about fairness nonstop are lazy, unmotivated and even when given what they want will still complain until they are given a 100% win condition. Its pointless to build the game around these players when they will not make an effort to do better on their own.

Sorry if I offend anyone, but Im not here running for Obamas job.

Edited by Dozier, 06 April 2014 - 11:20 AM.

[Roadbeer]

Adiuvo, on 06 April 2014 - 11:16 AM, said:

At this point with your percentages it's just conjecture. Due to the majority of the game's population sitting somewhere around 1300 coupled with the inability for high Elo players to pull 1300 ranked people in their games, I really don't think this will be a problem for the majority of the game's populace. If you're in a higher Elo bracket you'll get pushed in by the same people as always anyways, syncdrops or not. If you're in a lower Elo bracket, then I really doubt syncdropping will effect results much.

I don't disagree that it's completely conjecture, but having said that, every layer of the match maker you expose, you increase the level to game it exponentially.

I'm going to let you in on a dirty little secret. I'm actually glad for this.

Given the changes of the LM, and the lack of implementation for large groups of 5-11 in a free mode, that doesn't require 3rd party software, and rewards me in Cbills, XP or achievements . If there is a way I'm going to continue to play this game, gaming this system is going to be it. Because I'm not doing anything different than I'm doing now in an attempt to play with my more than 3 friends, I'm just happy they've made it easier for me to do so.

Edited by Roadbeer, 06 April 2014 - 11:32 AM.

[Malcolm Vordermark]

Dozier, on 06 April 2014 - 10:33 AM, said:

I know most of these formed groups are going to be more organized, and higher skilled than some of these guys. It will not go well and just turn them off from group drops and more than likely the game all together when they cant play with friends.

Its the same thing that basically happens in 12 mans and why few new groups form up and stay with it.

added: what do you think is going to happen when 4 guys from the new player section form up to try it out and land with more organized groups every match? Back to soloing thus hurting the group aspect of the game and coming here to rage.

Dozier, on 06 April 2014 - 11:19 AM, said:

I feel the people who scream about fairness nonstop are lazy, unmotivated and even when given what they want will still complain until they are given a 100% win condition. Its pointless to build the game around these players when they will not make an effort to do better on their own.

I feel like these points are in contradiction. On the one hand it seems you say your friends will run into more organized groups and lose interest when they get stomped. On the other it appears you say there should be no limits at all and the people who complain are too lazy to learn to play.

No single solution is going to make everyone happy. So we need a compromise somewhere. I don't think 4 man groups in the "solo", "limited", "3/3/3/3" queue is a problem. If you have 5 people in your group I don't think it would be unreasonable to put you in an "unlimited" queue with other groups ranging from 5-12.

As someone who usually drops by myself I would like to have both options. A queue where I know the matches will be a little more even and I wouldn't mind joining the other as cannon fodder if there was an increase in hazard pay for the lone wolf. I think that works much better than saying 4 man groups and lone wolves are covered. Everyone else, sorry.

[TexAce]

Still dont get why they didnt go with a simple tonnage limit

[Roland]

Darth Bane001, on 06 April 2014 - 11:08 AM, said:

Yeah dude as much as I find this game to be pathetic attempt to keep the franchise alive, star citizen is gonna be a joke, just look at how much you have to spend just to play the basic game man, if you really want to have fun with it you will have to put down entire pay checks...I rather suffer the stupid stuff in this game, than make some guy rich for no reason. At least this has some history.

You realize that in the actual game you aren't going to have to pay for ships, right? Those costs currently are basically part of the crowd funding effort.

Although, honestly, if you want to get in the alpha you can buy one of the cheap packages for like 20 bucks.

There are only like 3k slots left in the alpha though, having sold packages to nearly half a million players already, so you better hurry if you want in early.

[East Indy]

Roland, on 06 April 2014 - 09:59 AM, said:

You aren't realizing that the additional condition here is really just an additionally exposed parameter for the matchmaking algorithm. If you launch with certain mechs, you will then KNOW that the matchmaker is going to be looking for VERY SPECIFIC mechs to fill the rest of the team.

Very specific 'Mechs to fill any team. You're suggesting every player launch creates a new lobby — when what's going to happen is solo friends will be yanked to fill open slots in other matches, especially if they're lighter. There aren't ways to get around that without drawing attention and being punished.

And that's assuming PGI takes no preventative action (what if the matchmaker sometimes de-prioritized solo players from other solo players launching within 5 sec. of each other, sometimes 10 sec., and sometimes not at all?) or corrective action (sort players on one another's friends lists within certain timeframes, launching within seconds multiple times a session).

Of course, Marduk set it all straight earlier. Still, after reading pages 2, 3 and 4, wondering why you guys aren't accepting matchmaking principles in place almost universally for about a decade, I now see this is basically pretext for demanding separate queues.

[-Natural Selection-]

I

Rouken, on 06 April 2014 - 11:48 AM, said:

I feel like these points are in contradiction. On the one hand it seems you say your friends will run into more organized groups and lose interest when they get stomped. On the other it appears you say there should be no limits at all and the people who complain are too lazy to learn to play.

No single solution is going to make everyone happy. So we need a compromise somewhere. I don't think 4 man groups in the "solo", "limited", "3/3/3/3" queue is a problem. If you have 5 people in your group I don't think it would be unreasonable to put you in an "unlimited" queue with other groups ranging from 5-12.

As someone who usually drops by myself I would like to have both options. A queue where I know the matches will be a little more even and I wouldn't mind joining the other as cannon fodder if there was an increase in hazard pay for the lone wolf. I think that works much better than saying 4 man groups and lone wolves are covered. Everyone else, sorry.

I see what you are saying, and in some cases do argue with myself. But you have to understand, while personally I will probably roll with the punches and adapt to whatever changes are made or find a work around. I also am trying to look at it from point of some of the people I play aside who will not come on here to speak or adapt and just walk away.

The later conversations on here swayed more towards the solo-group drops (being the cause of these changes) which is why it is kinda bouncing back and forth in tone.

While I agree allowing larger groups is punishing in the right hands. Not all groups wanting larger drop premades are focused on that.

Honestly it really is a no win situation because you cannot account for the motives of every group dropping. Which is why I feel that the only way to account for that is pure randomness in every match.

Edited by Dozier, 06 April 2014 - 12:09 PM.

[Roland]

East Indy, on 06 April 2014 - 12:03 PM, said:

Very specific 'Mechs to fill any team. You're suggesting every player launch creates a new lobby — when what's going to happen is solo friends will be yanked to fill open slots in other matches, especially if they're lighter. There aren't ways to get around that without drawing attention and being punished.

And that's assuming PGI takes no preventative action (what if the matchmaker sometimes de-prioritized solo players from other solo players launching within 5 sec. of each other, sometimes 10 sec., and sometimes not at all?) or corrective action (sort players on one another's friends lists within certain timeframes, launching within seconds multiple times a session).

Of course, Marduk set it all straight earlier. Still, after reading pages 2, 3 and 4, wondering why you guys aren't accepting matchmaking principles in place almost universally for about a decade, I now see this is basically pretext for demanding separate queues. <_<

Rather than arguing pointlessly with you, we'll just wait and see what happens.

[Davers]

TexAss, on 06 April 2014 - 11:50 AM, said:

Still dont get why they didnt go with a simple tonnage limit

Because Dragons are better than Shadowhawks, Atlases are better than Highlanders, Awesomes are better than Cataphracts (and just as good as Victors).

Roland, on 06 April 2014 - 11:55 AM, said:

You realize that in the actual game you aren't going to have to pay for ships, right? Those costs currently are basically part of the crowd funding effort.

Although, honestly, if you want to get in the alpha you can buy one of the cheap packages for like 20 bucks.

There are only like 3k slots left in the alpha though, having sold packages to nearly half a million players already, so you better hurry if you want in early.

It's gonna take an hour to scroll through those credits.

[Koniving]

FupDup, on 06 April 2014 - 09:05 AM, said:

Another reason why 3/3/3/3 is a sloppy bandaid at best.

What should be done for mech class balancing is... http://mwomercs.com/...-3-role-warfare

Only problem with this is that PGI has all but abandoned this design pillar.

[MisterPlanetarian]

Roland, on 06 April 2014 - 11:03 AM, said:

One of the biggest problems with how PGI has implemented Elo is the fact that new players get put in roughly around the middle, when really they should be put much closer to the bottom, if for no other reason than the fact that having a bunch of unoptmized mechs is such a liability.

It's just another addition to the long list of reasons as to why a win/loss based ELO system in a 12v12 game is a bad idea.

People who've farmed and spent around 100 million cbills will have more optimized mechs than the new guy who finished his cadet bonus last month. Simple as that.

[Zolaz]

Koniving, on 06 April 2014 - 12:15 PM, said:

Only problem with this is that PGI has all but abandoned this design pillar.

Has PGI kept any of its pillars?

[DeathlyEyes]

Davers, on 06 April 2014 - 12:10 PM, said:

Because Dragons are better than Shadowhawks, Atlases are better than Highlanders, Awesomes are better than Cataphracts (and just as good as Victors).


It's gonna take an hour to scroll through those credits.

Shadow Hawks Victors and Highlanders are the best mechs in the game