292 replies to this topic

[BobBagels {ScorpS}]

This is getting stupid.
Just give us a map, globe, universe or whatever you wanna call it, with territory to attack and defend.
Give us something other to do besides just kill and die.
We can do the rest.
We did it before.

[Ingvay]

Jak Darren, on 06 May 2014 - 02:57 PM, said:

Man, if you could actually add *content* to your game with the same frequency you add monetized items, maybe people wouldn't laugh at your "patch" notes.

I've never seen you guys muck up adding something that we pay you for, yet everything else seems to get flubbed up and/or pushed weeks to months back.

Real good show you're putting on for us. Real good.

This... X100

[Heffay]

BobBagels, on 06 May 2014 - 04:13 PM, said:

This is getting stupid.
Just give us a map, globe, universe or whatever you wanna call it, with territory to attack and defend.
Give us something other to do besides just kill and die.

There are at least 3 player run leagues providing this functionality for you. Why don't you join one of those?

[Rubidiy]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 06 May 2014 - 03:47 PM, said:

I appreciate this suggestion. However, it's important to note that every player's definition of content is different.
For a great many players, and indeed for ourselves as developers, new Mechs do count as content just as much any other feature in the game we have added to, whether it's whole new facets like Private Lobbies or smaller additions like cockpit items inspired by the Community. With that in mind, I ask if you be more specific about what particular kind of content you would personally like to see more of. Thanks!

it's ok. Just fix what's already broken. That would be a good start.
- Turrets firing at range of 1000m
- weapon range modules not adding range written in description
- matchmaker, that keeps creating 1 team by given parameters and stuffing 2nd team with the rest of available players not matching initial parameters.
- messed up spawns in training grounds
- darkened "connecting" screen in training grounds after every loadout change.
- screwed up terrain hitboxes across all maps

and these are things that poped up in my mind just now. How do you think, a new player should feel when he sees all these bugs?

[Thorqemada]

Well, it could be that the Matchmaker does not find enough High-Elo-Soloers to fill Teams with only 1 Premade Group of 2 to 4 Players bcs the amount of Soloers needed in that Elo-Bracket is bigger than the available pool.
Equal Matches have a longer playtime whitch reduces the availabiliy of Soloers as well as the private matches that (my guess) will be frequented by Players of the higher Elo bracket and not by Noobs who dont have any clue about the inconvenient social framework of this game.

That is the positive scenario...



PS: I had quite a few nice and close matches today.

Edited by Thorqemada, 06 May 2014 - 04:26 PM.

[Zeriniel]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 06 May 2014 - 03:47 PM, said:

I appreciate this suggestion. However, it's important to note that every player's definition of content is different.
For a great many players, and indeed for ourselves as developers, new Mechs do count as content just as much any other feature in the game we have added to, whether it's whole new facets like Private Lobbies or smaller additions like cockpit items inspired by the Community. With that in mind, I ask if you be more specific about what particular kind of content you would personally like to see more of. Thanks!

With all due respect, Niko, It's not necessarily the specifics of the content, but it seems to be the frequency and the perceived attention to detail.

Most of us are understanding and semi-intelligent folk. We get that the teams that create a bobble head, and one that patches the match maker are two different groups. Got it. And that a hero mech is a big deal to the team. Also, that the main focus of most of the company right now, is the Clans.

But the things that go wrong, are the things that are the most basic, the building blocks of this game. No matter how many IS or clan mechs you pile on top, how many MC items, etc. you throw at us, as long as the frame work of this game is so easily broken and unbalanced, it makes those nice shiny things seem insulting.

I'm not going to pretend to know what's going on behind the scenes at PGI, I won't be that presumptive or insulting (in this post), but also don't backhandedly insult people on the forums about things they are just as passionate about as the developing team.

Many of us just want a working game, with simple but functional systems, that then expand to the nice and glorious things that PGI loves to create. A house on shaky foundation won't last as long as one that's solid.

One more stupid saying "Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance"

[wanderer]

Ironically, it seems the most functional matchmaker to date has been the one style that existed before all the attempted fixes to begin with.

Thanks for the apology, Niko- but I am sorry you're the face in front for this. These are embarrassing, and people in other gaming companies get fired for butchering code repeatedly.

[Jonathan Paine]

Sorry, but not surprised to hear that patching the matchmaker failed again. At which point does it make more sense to create a new matchmaker using fresh code rather than attempting to get the current wreckage moving?

Also, since actual game play seems to make a mockery out of the 84% pug launches - how about we allow any size team in the queue and balance those with pretty severe limitations on mech class/tonnage? The bigger the team you want, the more second tier mechs you have to bring.

Oh well.

[Darklord]

Heffay, on 06 May 2014 - 04:14 PM, said:

There are at least 3 player run leagues providing this functionality for you. Why don't you join one of those?

[Jman5]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 06 May 2014 - 03:47 PM, said:

I appreciate this suggestion. However, it's important to note that every player's definition of content is different.
For a great many players, and indeed for ourselves as developers, new Mechs do count as content just as much any other feature in the game we have added to, whether it's whole new facets like Private Lobbies or smaller additions like cockpit items inspired by the Community. With that in mind, I ask if you be more specific about what particular kind of content you would personally like to see more of. Thanks!

In the hundreds of assault games I have played since you added turrets I have seen only one base cap rush, which failed miserably.

You need to re-work the turrets and put them in the player's control instead of static spots. You give every player their own free turret to place and kills, damage, assists, etc the turret acquires are tied to your own. You add a short global cooldown similar to Strikes so that players can't just insta-spam them onto one spot the moment a team pushes.

This allows players to decide themselves which areas need to be strategically defended.

The only concern I can think of is if players base rush and then load up their turrets on the friendly team's base. To prevent that, you could make it so that zones around the enemy's base cannot accept turret placement from the enemy.

Hell, you could make it a light/medium only ability since 3/3/3/3 will make sure it's equal on both sides.

Edited by Jman5, 06 May 2014 - 04:59 PM.

[Pyrrho]

Bront, on 06 May 2014 - 02:21 PM, said:

It's likely that's number of launches clicked. If you expand that out to people, groups make up more than a third

84+16+12+16=128 people in the above chart (abstracted)

(16+12+16)/128 = 34.375%

More maths:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3267976

[Bartholomew bartholomew]

Queue times are probably up since goups can play together privately now instead of being at the mercy of match rage quitting hate filled solo only pugs.

Maybe if people used teamwork and didn't just quit because of goup/map/mode/etc. Then there would not be half the problem implementing the features all you rage-quitter's say you want. But don't wanna play with along side anybody but what you consider your own kind...

Edited by Bartholomew bartholomew, 06 May 2014 - 05:18 PM.

[Sky Hawk]

Till I never liked 3/3/3/3 (too many Lights + not diverse enough) and private matches (no XP/CB) are just useless for me (I don't buy CB-Mechs for MC, so I need lots of CB), so I just enjoy what we HAVE NOW. Of course, I was killed many times tonight, but there was some good matches too:
- 1 min waiting time.
- 1-2 or non Lights both side.
- 7-9 Heavy+Assault (so not even near 3/3/3/3).

But at the end, both side wrote the same: 'gg'. So, I hope they fix it in the NOT TOO near future.

PS. (This goes for you too, Nikolai!) What I really don't liked, least 1 disconnected player, almost in every match (over 80% least)! THAT should'd be fixed, very fast not the other stuff.

Edited by Sky Hawk, 06 May 2014 - 05:24 PM.

[wanderer]

Jman5, on 06 May 2014 - 04:58 PM, said:

In the hundreds of assault games I have played since you added turrets I have seen only one base cap rush, which failed miserably.

You're in the wrong games. While base caps are less common, I do run into them...if you can get the entire team to do it together. Crimson is actually rather good for this, I've seen people run up the docks, down the "saddle" and roll through to the base thanks to the more dispersed turret configuration.

What needs to happen is spreading those turrets out a bit more on some maps, and removing 1-2 on maps that force a compact turret configuration.

[N0MAD]

Heffay, on 06 May 2014 - 04:14 PM, said:

There are at least 3 player run leagues providing this functionality for you. Why don't you join one of those?

Maybe because they want the people they are paying to do it to actually do it.
You have PGI telling people to use 3rd party software to find people to play with instead of adding it them selfs (how about a game chat lobby) and now youre telling people to use 3rd party sites to get content.
Hell why not just get 3rd party people to develop the game.

[Ezazel]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 06 May 2014 - 03:47 PM, said:

I appreciate this suggestion. However, it's important to note that every player's definition of content is different.
For a great many players, and indeed for ourselves as developers, new Mechs do count as content just as much any other feature in the game we have added to, whether it's whole new facets like Private Lobbies or smaller additions like cockpit items inspired by the Community. With that in mind, I ask if you be more specific about what particular kind of content you would personally like to see more of. Thanks!

I'm not the guy you asked but I'll give my opinion anyway! The bare minimum i want/need is more maps. Not only 1 or 2 more but dozens. The maps are supposed to represent a whole galaxy full of planets, moons, bases etc.

[Ransack]

bah, just reported this as a bug. sorry

[Ninja Takashi]

just fix it please....

[John Norad]

( Tl;dr: maybe try a more simple form of matchmaking? Or re-think the factors by which the matchmaker works? )

To be honest, I think it was too early for an Elo driven matchmaking.
It should've been the last thing to care about. A good Elo calculation can be a great help and improvement, yes. But if done wrong, it can cause just as much damage.

There are more simple ways to get things going. KISS principle. And first things first.

First, you need a well balanced system. Hardware balance, that is, with 'hardware' being mechs and equipment.
I still see problems with design philosophy here. It's supposed to be a non-tiered system, but at the same time heavier mechs cost more MC and cbills, and matchmaking takes/took into account drop-weight. And now there's a need for a 3/3/3/3 system.
That does not compute. Sure, the heavy or assault jumpjet-capable mechs aren't popular because 'bigger is better'. They're popular because they fit the current FotM gameplay which is pinpoint alpha. With a different Meta it would be somethign else. Like light/medium mechs for zoom-zoom fast and zippy tactics or generally fast mechs for brawlergeddon.
But still it often looks like weight isn't as irrelevant as 'non tiered system' sounds in this context.
At any rate, there are indications that balance isn't right where it should be. And maybe the reason for that is that it's not quite clear where it's supposed to be. It's just a gut feeling that surfaces every time I get back to the game to see how it develops.
Oh and 'balanced' doesn't mean everything has to be equally good. It just means that it has to be properly factored in into the matchmaking. Better hardware means better performance and better chances of winning. Simple as that. Be it 'better' (=heavier?) mech or better quality equipment.

Second you have to handle the social grouping aspect, aka 'premade or not'. Coordinated groups are usually more efficient than solo players thrown together. That's not exactly hot news.
So you have to keep them separated or evenly numbered, with the former being the simple solution. If a premade group doesn't utilize their advantage, it's their own fault, not the matchmaker's. Just like a skilled player going afk or being drunk, or people actively sabotaging their team is something no matchmaker can compensate or calculate.

Then after getting that done you can care about factoring skill into the mix. Is someone skilled because he has a good K/D ratio? Without the balance part you can't tell. Without the social/grouping part you can't tell. He might be good at building efficient mechs, always driving the current FotM. He might've hurt his K/D by driving fun builds, or stock mechs, or a not yet optimized newly purchased mech. He might just be lucky in getting weak opponents. He might always group up against PUGs. Etc.
So what's better than K/D? Hit percentage? Well maybe, yes. But that also depends on some other factors. Weapon type for example. Or chosen role. A great scout pilot doesn't have to be a master marksman. And how are you going to measure someone's tactical and leadership skills? By his K/D ratio? Now you're back where you started..

Elo should come last. If a simple matchmaker doesn't work, the answer shouldn't be to replace it with a complicated one. The answer should be to fix it.
These issues here look a lot like trying to run before you learned to walk. Well to be fair it can work, mind you. But it sure doesn't in most cases.

Edited by John Norad, 06 May 2014 - 06:27 PM.

[Wildstreak]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 06 May 2014 - 12:36 PM, said:

Greetings MechWarriors,

As per the Command Chair Update on Friday:
"A problem with the single group per team feature of the matchmaker was identified and fixed and will be in the May 6th patch. This feature of the matchmaker will be re-enabled; however, it will be monitored closely. In case problems with the matchmaker arise again, we may be forced to disable it."

Our monitoring of the matchmaker immediately following the patch has revealed that wait times had more than doubled as a result of this fix being added without further changes to the matchmaker already in the pipeline. As these wait times far exceeded our tolerances for players to be left idling; We are temporarily disabling this feature.

The following bug fix is redacted from today's patch notes:
-Fixed an issue where multiple 2-4 player groups can enter into a public match on the same team
All other bug fixes introduced remain intact.

Similar to 3/3/3/3 1 group per side uses similar queuing functionality that requires some re-factoring before these features can be supported correctly. As with 3/3/3/3, we look forward to getting you these features as soon as we can and will keep you updated on their progress.

May I say from here on, I think more development should be put into Private Matches eventually eliminating the Public PUG Queue.

Since Private Matches are now in, features allow Players to handle balancing between themselves better than any Matchmaker failure added so long as the Team Commanders can communicate with each other to arrange a fair fight. This gives the community a tool to allow our involvement in creating better matches with better results.

PUGging has seen delays partially caused by the players who have shifted over to Private. I also believe PUGging will continue to have a flaw even if 3/3/3/3 or some other system is implemented.

If I take a Medium Mech and say 50% of the PUG community does too, my chances of getting in a match are far less than if 50% were trying with some other weight class. This will mean more delays on top of those caused by fewer players in the PUG Queue.

Just evolve Private Matches to become THE match type adding things like Lobbys where you can get together with people not on your in game Friends List so you have a greater chance of joining a team for a match.

That's my view. PUGging has had its share of problems, it is soon time to put this part of MWO to bed.

EDIT - I recently had a couple of ideas on how Private Matches can be used based on the no XP/CB rewards.

Edited by Merchant, 06 May 2014 - 06:50 PM.