136 replies to this topic

[Kekrebos]

WarHippy, on 23 May 2014 - 06:55 AM, said:

Sorry, but neither of you are Aidan Pryde or any other lore character in a novel that are shown having performed amazing feats that have an effect on the universe for dramatic effect while telling a story. We are all just nameless grunts. That being said from a gaming perspective things effecting your faction shouldn't be decided by random individuals, but rather by the organized effort of the units representing your faction. Sure, you can be praised for your individual actions, but your individual actions are no more than one tiny piece of a much bigger puzzle.

Just because you are a lone pilot doesn't mean you don't work well with your team, or are not part of a unit. From a gaming perspective we should have an impact. We ARE the army. We ARE the legion of nameless pilots fighting the war in the trenches. You have your logic backwards. The organized player units should be the "Alpha company" so to speak, while we are the rest of the regiment doing the grunt work. We should have a large impact on the big puzzle, you should have a small but important impact.

[Malleus011]

I'd rather have weight matching than 3/3/3/3, and think it would be more flexible and more fun.

I'd rather be able to drop any size group.

If we're going to be forced into an artificial bracketing system like 3/3/3/3 (instead of just giving lights and mediums more incentive to be played, which would raise their numbers without forcing players), the 4/4/4 system was more fun.

If you're going to rewrite the MM for CW, then you should consider a ground-up rewrite instead of trying to shoehorn 3/3/3/3 and ELO into a MM for galaxy-spanning planetary conquest battles.

[Desintegrator]

Very nice - we will get 3-3-3-3 matching in one of the next patches !

I would bet that it wont work !

But create it anyway. You have shown in the past that you really know what your doing !

[GunnyKintaro 01]

Thanks guys keep up the Great work!!!

[WarHippy]

Rallog, on 23 May 2014 - 07:05 AM, said:

Just because you are a lone pilot doesn't mean you don't work well with your team, or are not part of a unit. From a gaming perspective we should have an impact. We ARE the army. We ARE the legion of nameless pilots fighting the war in the trenches. You have your logic backwards. The organized player units should be the "Alpha company" so to speak, while we are the rest of the regiment doing the grunt work. We should have a large impact on the big puzzle, you should have a small but important impact.

Sometimes you work well with a random team, and sometimes you don't. 12 random pugs have no coordination and shouldn't be the deciding factor in who control a planet. I don't want to see a planet won or loss because one side or the other won the pug lottery. As solo players our actions should only be in aid to the organized units that actually have a battle plan.

[Calamus]

So, the code that needs to be re-written for a feature being introduced in 4 weeks time is NOW going to be re-written because it's a broken piece of useless garbage.

It sounds to me like you all got lucky that you created such a steamy pile of a matchmaker, and that it failed now instead of 4 weeks from now when you push back Clans.

[Kekrebos]

WarHippy, on 23 May 2014 - 07:22 AM, said:

Sometimes you work well with a random team, and sometimes you don't. 12 random pugs have no coordination and shouldn't be the deciding factor in who control a planet. I don't want to see a planet won or loss because one side or the other won the pug lottery. As solo players our actions should only be in aid to the organized units that actually have a battle plan.

I disagree. I like the idea of random battles push the fronts, units capture strategic objectives to assist the war effort. That way EVERYONE has something to do with CW from your random lone PUG to your coordinated units. Unless their vision of CW has changed since I last read about it, you don't really capture planets except as a merc unit anyway, while the PUGs push the fronts of the war. I'm happy with that. It gives everyone something to do and doesn't leave out a huge part of their population from a potentially fun aspect of the game.

I don't want to be just an aid to an organized unit. I don't care about the organized units. I just want to hop in and have some fun games as myself, or with a couple friends. CW gives me more incentive to do that, and adds to the fun for me. Anyway, I'm done derailing the topic, which is about a complete matchmaking overhaul. Which I fully support, and may well pull me back in to playing the game more than a few matches a month.

[Wildstreak]

Kmieciu, on 22 May 2014 - 11:34 PM, said:

Wait. I thought the matchmaker has already been rewritten to allow 3/3/3/3 limit? What were they doing for the last few patches?

The previous rewrites were actually done to small bits of the code, a patch each time.
Now they are saying they have to rewrite the whole thing, an overhaul.
Think of it like a car muffler.
A bracket holding the muffler breaks, you use a coat hanger to tie it back on.
But then it makes noise and you can see the muffler is so corroded, you have to get a new one.

[MountainCopper]

Right now, at the moment of writing, the MM works again. Meaning, that most players are being dropped into a game but with the 3v3v3v3 law not in effect as I understood it (and I hope for some sort of 3v4v2v3 or 2v3v3v4 will also be allowed as long as the team weight stays close to each other).

And now you plan to completely rewrite the MM in 4 weeks and expect it will work as well as it does now?

Edited by GoldenFleece, 23 May 2014 - 07:53 AM.

[SgtKinCaiD]

GoldenFleece, on 23 May 2014 - 07:46 AM, said:

Right now, at the moment of writing, the MM works again. Meaning, that most players are being dropped into a game but with the 3v3v3v3 law not in effect as I understood it (and I hope for some sort of 3v4v2v3 or 2v3v3v4 will also be allowed as long as the team weight stays close to each other).

And now you plan to completely rewrite the MM in 4 weeks and expect it will work as well as it does now?

The current MM does not work well when you reach a high/low ELO.

[JediPanther]

I'm so looking forward to seeing over half the enemy team as "no pilot" and being the only one alive on my team. I'd be glad to get rid of that dead animal for a fee of $500 plus expenses and I'll throw in an island for free because I know you love your islands...

[MountainCopper]

SgtKinCaiD, on 23 May 2014 - 07:58 AM, said:

The current MM does not work well when you reach a high/low ELO.

No, it doesn't. Is this one of the goals to improve what has been pharaphrased as "...support the faction based matching necessary for CW..." ?
ELO matching will suddenly improve by a vast margin...?

Edited by GoldenFleece, 23 May 2014 - 08:22 AM.

[Wildstreak]

I just realized, look at the current team tournament.
They were given a Tonnage Limit, Round 1 I believe was 720.
They picked Mechs based on that.
When you look at final teams, their selections were not done by a 3/3/3/3 system. One team could have gone 4/0/4/4, another 3/4/3/2, a third 0/3/8/0.
Tonnage Limit might be better than 3/3/3/3, depends on people's view of tournament matches.
So Tournament Results may make the argument for or against 3/3/3/3 with data to back it up.

[Jonathan Paine]

This piece of news makes me feel like a white knight.Thank you, mr Bullock, for acknowledging that the current matchmaker cannot be salvaged, and for putting someone I respect on the job of writing it anew.

[WarHippy]

Rallog, on 23 May 2014 - 07:34 AM, said:

I disagree. I like the idea of random battles push the fronts, units capture strategic objectives to assist the war effort. That way EVERYONE has something to do with CW from your random lone PUG to your coordinated units. Unless their vision of CW has changed since I last read about it, you don't really capture planets except as a merc unit anyway, while the PUGs push the fronts of the war. I'm happy with that. It gives everyone something to do and doesn't leave out a huge part of their population from a potentially fun aspect of the game.

Everyone should have a role, but solo players should not be the deciding factor(and I am a solo player). You want units to capture strategic objectives, and I want units to be the deciding factor in a planets capture. Well guess what planets are a strategic objective in this universe. I see no enjoyment in losing a planet because 12 random nobodies that can't/don't work together all think they are the greatest thing since sliced bread get randomly selected to fight for a planet.

Rallog, on 23 May 2014 - 07:34 AM, said:

I don't want to be just an aid to an organized unit. I don't care about the organized units. I just want to hop in and have some fun games as myself, or with a couple friends. CW gives me more incentive to do that, and adds to the fun for me. Anyway, I'm done derailing the topic, which is about a complete matchmaking overhaul. Which I fully support, and may well pull me back in to playing the game more than a few matches a month.

I just want to hop in and have fun as well, but that should be what random games are for. Random games with no real focus should have no effect on CW. For CW it should be about the groups with us solo players filling in where needed and working with those groups to complete objectives.

[Rayne Vickers]

Wesxander, on 23 May 2014 - 06:56 AM, said:

I for one will be happy to see 3/3/3/3. Tired of getting in games and finding SUPRISE your side has 2 assaults and the enemy has 9 in skirmish mode. The one night 3 by 4 was up. Yes it was up for one night in MWO all the games were close. The best stomp I seen about 40 games was 12 to 5 deaths. Not like the stuff we seeing now 12 to 2, 12 to 0, 12 to 1.

Bit tired of match maker letting in 4 man assault teams. Let's see our atlas sacrificed himself to off 2 their atlases WTH YOU SAY THEYGOT 3 LEFT and we only had 3 assaults total....

Sometimes you get just the opposite though rare. Here comes that 2 lance of swarming lights with streaks, ecm, beagle probes..... Oh look the rest the team is just over the hill might as well be range 900 once 9 lights tear into you. ETA till death even with decent armor 30 seconds....

As I said please do bring back 3 by 4

I hate being one of these, but "this". This says exactly what my earlier post wanted to say, but uses more and better word-things.

[Apnu]

I have no idea what Russ is talking about. Showing the numbers isn't affecting player behavior. I had a match last night where my team had 3 lights and 9 heavies. NINE! I'm working on Catapults right now, so no matter what the percentages say, I'm taking a heavy and putting up with longer search times. Anyway, we smoked the opposition even though the tonnage was roughly right, They had 3 lights, 2 mediums, 5 heavies and 2 assaults.

That ain't right.

[Pihoqahiak]

Tekadept, on 22 May 2014 - 08:26 PM, said:

So you always knew you had to rewrite the MM to support CW, yet all the times you were 90 days away from CW you had not thought to rework the matchmaker that was required for said CW as it sounds like it was yet another "bottleneck"?

During his Reddit Q&A, Russ stated that they haven't been working on CW at all for a long time now and have been devoting a vast amount of their resources into getting clan mechs out to sell. I don't even think he realized just what he admitted to, lol. I get the feeling a lot of people glossed right over that little tidbit though. It pretty much boils down to another occasion of him lying months ago about the work being put into CW and where the company is going with this title. They may have done a little brainstorming, but no real resources other than that have gone into even starting to put CW into the game, which needed to be there during beta testing years ago at this point. Take a look at games like Warframe if you want to see how development can and should progress in an FPS game. They have implemented a vast amount of content within a very short time span. And by content, I don't mean cockpit bobbles and cosmetic junk(they do have that in the game, and far more than MWO has, lol). I mean a wide variety of mission types, new weapons, new Warframes (which are much more diverse and challenging to design and implement than new mechs in MWO), a large amount of game content for player run guilds, Community Warfare(which wasn't even an initial aspect of the game design), far more maps than MWO, and many unique events (battles/conflicts/mission) with unique participation and achievement awards from them. That design team makes PGI look like a group of high school kids tinkering around their basements...no I take that back, I know some high school kids that tinkered around their basements and built up mech simulator pods in their spare time and they turned out better than this is.

[John Norad]

Carbon Guardian, on 22 May 2014 - 10:10 PM, said:

PGI listens way too much to this community. (..)

Wait, wait, wait... what? What?
Yeah, rrrrright. Now it's the players' fault that things are messed up. People should really stop complaining or making suggestions.

Ok, seriously, IF the devs listen too much, then they listen to the wrong players. And that's their own fault. They surely didn't listen too much to the intelligent and well thought-out contributions from the community. A community that was very motivated and ambitious at first, mind you.

So maybe it's a bad idea to make sweeping statements like that.

[Kaptain]

Carbon Guardian, on 22 May 2014 - 10:10 PM, said:

PGI listens way too much to this community.

hahahaha!
Oh wait, you're serious?
Let me laugh even harder
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!