111 replies to this topic

[NeonKnight]

Something really needs to be done about the team building. As it is, every single time I drop with a lance of friends, (which is all the time), I drop 95% of the time into the following locations:

Alpine Peaks - L10
Canyon Network - E3 (NW corner)
Caustic Valley - E3
Crimson Strait - C4
Forest Colony - D3 side
Frozen City - B2 (SW corner)
HPG Manifold - C7
River City - D4/D5
River City Night - D4/E4
Terra Therma - F8
Tourmaline Desert - D5

to date (at time of posting) I have dropped 989 Conquest drops. Which means, this is becoming quite stale quite fast. I am certain that a lot of other folks are also seeing the same repetition in drop locations.

[M4NTiC0R3X]

Thank goodness, long awaited and greatly appreciated! Here's to hoping all goes well.

[Mawai]

Along with everyone else, I hope that the 3/3/3/3 and 1 group/side matchmaker works as advertised, despite the math that indicates it will generate long queues quite rapidly given the current preferred mech distributions.

However, just in case it doesn't work out the way you would like ... PLEASE have a plan B in mind other than shutting it down and re-writing it again. I am hoping the re-writre is sufficiently flexible to handle other configurations than 3/3/3/3 just as efficiently.

Anyway, I believe that the 3/3/3/3 will only work if the community changes their play style to use mechs that are needed to reduce queue times. There are several problems with this:

1) Not everyone can change mech class since they may not have mechs in the needed classes
2) Not everyone will want to change ... they either prefer playing heavy mechs OR may have invested in heavy/assault hero mechs which is what they will want to play to make cbills and not just to test out the matchmaker.
3) Anything more than 1 or 2 minutes in a queue is unacceptable for a game that only takes 6 to 10 minutes on average for a match.
4) I believe that a big part of the MWO demographic that actually pays for items in MWO are employed, have been involved with the franchise for a long time and have outside commitments that can significantly limit play time. These people spend real money so that they can play when they want to ... any sort of queue time will significantly impact these players and possibly reduce revenues. On the other hand, perhaps PGI plans to implement a paid priority queue for those who can afford it ... though I think that would ultimately drive away more people than it attracts.

[Malleus011]

I'm one who really dislikes the 3/3/3/3 concept (it makes games too predictable), but will hold my nose and put up with it until a better solution can be found to motivate players to run lights and mediums on their own.

That said, I wonder if we might be able to solve a few issues by flagging certain 'mechs with more than one weight category. Either the heaviest 'mechs of a class might also carry the flag for the next class up (Jenners could also count as a Medium, for example) or the lightest 'mechs of a class could carry the flag for the next class down (Cicadas could fill a light slot or Dragons a medium), or a combination of both.

This would allow the 'edge' mechs at the bottom (or top) of their weight classes to ease the load on the matchmaker, and keep players from maxing out their class choice for every match. It would also preserve *some* level of unpredictability in the matchmaking, as your Jenner might end up taking up a medium slot, or your Quickdraw might fill a medium, and so forth.

[J0anna]

So tired of lopsided matches, seems I have been getting a rash of light teams lately. 4x3 can't happen soon enough for me. Weight matching is nice, but 4x3 should still lead to more balanced matches and hopefully won't be delayed further for it.

[Cimarb]

Moenrg, on 09 June 2014 - 07:32 AM, said:

So tired of lopsided matches, seems I have been getting a rash of light teams lately. 4x3 can't happen soon enough for me. Weight matching is nice, but 4x3 should still lead to more balanced matches and hopefully won't be delayed further for it.

4x3 will not provide any more balanced matches, it will just eliminate the "weight" excuse from everyone's complaints. Roflstomps will still happen just as often.

YMMV depending on Elo and when you play, of course, but I already see the majority of my matches with quite balanced weight distribution, and a pack of light mechs can easily turn the tide against a much heavier opponent. I actually prefer to see a light lance on my team than a bunch of assaults, because they are likely to be more effective.

[krash27]

Rubidiy, on 07 June 2014 - 01:07 AM, said:

Greatest concern:
Say, a new popular mech is released. Everyone jumps into it and needs to drop multiple times to level it up. How the hell are we supposed to do this, if everyone wants to play this mech, not just a quarter of players???
I do understand reasoning behind 3/3/3/3, as well as I understand that it's not gonna make players' experience better at all.

You are assuming the whole player base will purchase the same mech at the same time to lvl it up. I don't think we are in any danger of that.

Just because its popular doesn't mean every person playing will have the MC or cbills to purchase it or the mech bay to hold it. Actually it is wholly unreasonable to even think this might occur, lest the interwebs implode!

[Mawai]

krash27, on 09 June 2014 - 05:23 PM, said:

You are assuming the whole player base will purchase the same mech at the same time to lvl it up. I don't think we are in any danger of that.

Just because its popular doesn't mean every person playing will have the MC or cbills to purchase it or the mech bay to hold it. Actually it is wholly unreasonable to even think this might occur, lest the interwebs implode!

This is actually quite the opposite in my experience. When a new mech is released there are typically quite a large number of players (greater than 1/10 maybe as much as 1/5) leveling up that mech and its variants. This will certainly have an impact on the matchmaker so it will be interesting to see how well this type of situation is handled.

[krash27]

Mawai, on 10 June 2014 - 05:11 PM, said:

This is actually quite the opposite in my experience. When a new mech is released there are typically quite a large number of players (greater than 1/10 maybe as much as 1/5) leveling up that mech and its variants. This will certainly have an impact on the matchmaker so it will be interesting to see how well this type of situation is handled.

A large number, yes, everyone though....
1/5th is hardly everyone, and I doubt it will be close to that myself. People will see 3 on one team in two games in a row and voila...People will scream everyone. Hyperbole lives here.

There are an awful lot of people that are refusing to dole out cash to PGI until MANY features are in game and a lot of bugs/balancing/MM problems are dealt with and they see that it is finally working.

The larger number of people playing the new build is to be expected, I mean it is damn hard to tell which, if any, particular mech variants are good at what roles until they are mastered. Can not blame people for wanting to master them and see what builds work the best.
/shrug

Edited by krash27, 11 June 2014 - 04:15 PM.

[Hellzero]

First and foremost, I'm very pleased with the amount of increased communication, and even more with the amount of good news on the horizon(and the reports of the setbacks as well, better to hear the reasons than no reasons at all).

- In my opinion the 3x4 system made the matches for a short while seriously interesting/intense in the field of Lance behaviour. So I'm looking very much forward to the updates/implementation of this.
- I wasnt awaiting to hear anything concrete this early on, so let's see how things go after the clans.

[talbs]

Thanks

[Javenri]

I am really glad for this update. Weight balancing is a must and should have been implemented much sooner but at this point the game can't afford another failure like the UI 2.0 and previous attaempt of 3/3/3/3. Take your time and test it thoroughly before presenting it.

On another note, I hope you will rethink the limiting of 4 players per group. There have been several proposals on the issue (here is mine http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3354844); I am sure you can think something with those suggestions as a base.

[Kanin Zeta]

I've been playing for a couple of weeks now and here's what I have noticed about the public MM experience:

1. The randomness of the start locations seems to get hung up sometimes. There have been multiple times where I got the same map 2-3 times in a row. I know RNG's sometimes repeat themselves due to simple law of averages, but this one gets downright pedantic. I found myself in the Tourmaline Desert five times in a row today.

2. Since the Clan release some of the matches have been decidedly un-even. I don't know if this is due to tonnage or the number of Clan mechs being uneven on either side. The ROFL-stompage has been quite hilarious at times.

3.Need for in-game mods or a screenshot/reporting tool. When I first started playing MWO, one of my partner's co-workers told me "Oh, don't even bother, the community is horrible in the public games."
It didn't take me long to see what he meant. Mostly my experience has been a positive one, but you know there are always a few jerks (because Interwebs) that try to ruin it for everyone.

Thanks for a great game and keep up the good work. In spite of the birthing pains, inevitable release hiccups and hotfix hoopla you provide a lot of fun. I spent a lot of weekends in the barracks playing tabletop Battletech and remember running to the PX to grab the first PC version for my old Tandy 1000. I'm looking forward to spending a lot of hours stomping around in a Blackjack....and maybe a Wolfhound if that isn't one of the lawyer-mechs.

[That Dawg]

Quote

2. Since the Clan release some of the matches have been decidedly un-even. I don't know if this is due to tonnage or the number of Clan mechs being uneven on either side. The ROFL-stompage has been quite hilarious at times

this, in spades
I quit playing for weeks at a time vs. last year -Every. Night.
I can live with the hiccup map syndrome, getting X over and over..then a new map, then a flair up of the oft repeated map again and again, whatever it may be. Oddly if its a map I like, no worries, but "night" anything or "storm up your arse can't see"..not so much

I can handle what the media is starting to call a blatant pay to win game as well, learn to counter whatever new threat shows up, but the matchmaker is a joke.
Tonnage insults, experience insults...THREE atlas DDc's on my team did about a hundred damage total..yes, I took screens. Other battles, I've seen those new mechs do next to nothing damage- clearly a "hey i'm going to buy a win" player(s)
You MUST balance this game or continue to lose players..players with money...you know..what keeps it alive? My friends list of 30 looks like a ghost town, I see 3-5 of the group from last year.

[Cimarb]

Kanin Zeta, on 23 June 2014 - 03:04 AM, said:

I've been playing for a couple of weeks now and here's what I have noticed about the public MM experience:

1. The randomness of the start locations seems to get hung up sometimes. There have been multiple times where I got the same map 2-3 times in a row. I know RNG's sometimes repeat themselves due to simple law of averages, but this one gets downright pedantic. I found myself in the Tourmaline Desert five times in a row today.

2. Since the Clan release some of the matches have been decidedly un-even. I don't know if this is due to tonnage or the number of Clan mechs being uneven on either side. The ROFL-stompage has been quite hilarious at times.

3.Need for in-game mods or a screenshot/reporting tool. When I first started playing MWO, one of my partner's co-workers told me "Oh, don't even bother, the community is horrible in the public games."
It didn't take me long to see what he meant. Mostly my experience has been a positive one, but you know there are always a few jerks (because Interwebs) that try to ruin it for everyone.

Thanks for a great game and keep up the good work. In spite of the birthing pains, inevitable release hiccups and hotfix hoopla you provide a lot of fun. I spent a lot of weekends in the barracks playing tabletop Battletech and remember running to the PX to grab the first PC version for my old Tandy 1000. I'm looking forward to spending a lot of hours stomping around in a Blackjack....and maybe a Wolfhound if that isn't one of the lawyer-mechs.

1. Look at your map stats (on your profile page, just under the main navigation bar) and I'm willing to bet the numbers aren't all that off from map to map. If they are, you are just having a bad run to start out. Not ideal, but the numbers will average out eventually, so look forward to it!
2. Everyone is still getting used to their new mechs, and you have a very large portion of the community playing in basic-skilled mechs currently, so they are slower, hotter, and less maneuverable, making every mistake compound on itself. This results in quick stomps quite often, unfortunately, but will level off as people get their new mechs elited/mastered.
3. 100% agree with the in-game reporting tool. It would make moderation much easier, as well as allow you to give more accurate and timely reports, especially for bugs, as you can do it from the exact position you found it at.

Anyways, welcome to the game and I hope you continue to have a great time! Based on your phrasing, I assume you are in the military, so also thank you for your service!

ThatDawg, on 23 June 2014 - 04:10 AM, said:

this, in spades
I quit playing for weeks at a time vs. last year -Every. Night.

I can handle what the media is starting to call a blatant pay to win game as well, learn to counter whatever new threat shows up, but the matchmaker is a joke.
Tonnage insults, experience insults...THREE atlas DDc's on my team did about a hundred damage total..yes, I took screens. Other battles, I've seen those new mechs do next to nothing damage- clearly a "hey i'm going to buy a win" player(s)
You MUST balance this game or continue to lose players..players with money...you know..what keeps it alive? My friends list of 30 looks like a ghost town, I see 3-5 of the group from last year.

I'm a little confused by your pay2win comments. You mention three DDCs, which you can purchase with in game money, doing horribly, and then Clan mechs, which you are insinuating are pay2win, also doing horribly. If people do horribly regardless of whether they pay or not, how does that make the game pay2win? Sounds pretty balanced to me...

[poopenshire]

still getting 12 individual players vs 2 x full 4 man rosters from the same Organization.

2 full lances from the same group, on TS together, against a full 12 man of people who are not, well I guess MM is still broken.

[Kanin Zeta]

Just checked the map stats, thanks for the tip, and they ranged from "Frozen City - 13" to "Canyon - 53" in number of matches.

That big a range tells me the MM random number generator code that chooses maps isn't very random.

Yes, it may even out over time (with that big a range, it will be like buying packs of hot dogs and buns and trying to average it out evenly. That'll take a while and be more trouble than it's worth. You'll either have a lot of moldy buns or a dog that's on high blood pressure medication from eating leftover weenies) but you seem to have missed the point of my previous post. I was pointing out that the RNG seems to "hiccup" by which I mean it produces the same result a series of times.

I LIKE playing in the Canyon, but DAMN. A little variety goes a long way

Currently, I'm working on the mech tree for Blackjack mechs. Against most IS mechs I'm able to hold my own. Since the Clan mechs made the scene I don't know how many times I've had my center torso cored out by one long-ranged shot. While it is canon and a good representation of the impact the IS mechwarriors faced in the early days of The Return, it does impact gameplay negatively for us driving IS lights and mediums. I'm spending as much time spectating as I am playing...perhaps even more than I did as a true noob fighting only against other IS warriors in trial mechs.

Edited by Kanin Zeta, 23 June 2014 - 10:20 PM.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Trimmed for brevity (the whole post is right ^ there)

Kanin Zeta, on 23 June 2014 - 10:19 PM, said:

That big a range tells me the MM random number generator code that chooses maps isn't very random.

In general, mine range from a group of 50-ish and a group of 100-ish ... it is widely speculated (and my stats kind of confirm it) that:
(1) when new maps are initially released, they are weighted to get selected more often in order to generate more stats for that particular map (so that they can make tweaks where there are issues). ... but they haven't added any new maps since the stats reset ...
(2) maps with different modes (day / night, for example) are counted as one map, for selection purposes, so they will appear half as often

Quote

... I don't know how many times I've had my center torso cored out by one long-ranged shot. ...

Assuming you mean front CT, you may want to consider one (or several) of these things:
- almost never stop moving, and when you do stop, make sure it is behind cover
- almost never watch to see if you hit your shot (with ballistics or PPCs) ... immediately after taking your shot, twist away to shield your CT, to present a smaller profile
- almost always try to move unpredictably ... don't peek out around the same corner more than twice, turn during jumps, vary your speed, don't move in a straight line
- almost always put more armor on your front CT (and front side torsos) than you think you need ... I used to think 4:1 (front to back) was a good ratio ... depending on your playing style and 'mech, you probably don't need more than 10 on the back of a medium 'mech

Welcome to MW:O!

Edited by Kageru Ikazuchi, 24 June 2014 - 12:57 AM.

[Cimarb]

Kanin Zeta, on 23 June 2014 - 10:19 PM, said:

Just checked the map stats, thanks for the tip, and they ranged from "Frozen City - 13" to "Canyon - 53" in number of matches.

That big a range tells me the MM random number generator code that chooses maps isn't very random.
(Snip)
Currently, I'm working on the mech tree for Blackjack mechs. Against most IS mechs I'm able to hold my own. Since the Clan mechs made the scene I don't know how many times I've had my center torso cored out by one long-ranged shot. While it is canon and a good representation of the impact the IS mechwarriors faced in the early days of The Return, it does impact gameplay negatively for us driving IS lights and mediums. I'm spending as much time spectating as I am playing...perhaps even more than I did as a true noob fighting only against other IS warriors in trial mechs.

Here are my map stats (sorry if the formatting is all messed up - my iPad despises these forums...):

Map Name Matches Wins Losses Ratio Time
Forest Colony 49 22 27 0.81 04:39:47
Frozen City 58 27 30 0.90 05:04:26
Caustic Valley 85 40 45 0.89 08:30:43
River City 43 25 16 1.56 04:30:32
Forest Colony Snow 51 26 25 1.04 04:53:48
Frozen City Night 54 27 27 1.00 04:43:55
River City Night 46 23 23 1.00 04:37:27
Alpine Peaks 81 46 35 1.31 11:16:35
Tourmaline Desert 95 50 44 1.14 09:58:05
Canyon Network 91 53 38 1.39 09:38:02
Terra Therma 103 60 43 1.40 11:10:50
Crimson Strait 108 55 51 1.08 11:32:10
HPG Manifold 88 52 36 1.44 08:27:41

As Kageru said, maps that have a day/night or alternate snow version are considered the same map, so you combine the number of Forest Colony and Forest Colony Snow drops and that gives you the number for that map. Considering that, Alpine Peaks is my lowest (at 81), while my highest is Frozen City (yuck, 112).

Another odd fact is that while most people complain about Terra Therma, you can see from my stats that, despite me not liking that map either, it is my second highest win percent (at 1.40, just short of HPG), so I try not to complain about it too much.

[Wolf Clearwater]

Mixing 12 man teams with smaller teams is your worst decision by far. That is as nice as it can be said. Would like to say more, but it is all ban-able at best.