271 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

Mystere, on 21 June 2014 - 07:43 AM, said:

Wasn't it up for only a very short time before the meltdown? If so, just how many matches were you able to squeeze during that short period? Do you think that was a good sample size?

In other words, is it possible that your "Flat out awesome" few matches were just sheer luck and not really due to 3/3/3/3?

It was up twice.

I got 4 total matches.

All 4 were excellent.

From a statistical perspective you could reasonably give it 3 potential values. 'Crap', 'Not Bad' and 'Awesome' for the same of simplicity as well.

The odds of getting an 'Awesome' on 4 matches out of 4 samples is about 1.2%.

However, it's a self-selected sample from someone with an inherent bias and only 4 total samplings.

You can however relate that multiple other people did try it at the same time, everyone I've seen speak of it raved about it. In all 4 of those matches all the chat comments were very positive - in my first match someone was commenting that it was like playing in 12mans, the way both teams just stuck together, watched over each other and coordinated.

Anecdotal experience aside I'm reasonably familiar with the behavioral psychology side of it. That's why I'm the most excited to be honest. I work in analytics, extracting business performance impacts from policy changes and marketing strategies as well as agent behavior impacts on JDP scores(J.D. Powers, a sort of ranking for relative customer service).

There is a balance to be struck in how much 'freedom' (it's all illusionary, it's a game, all such changes do is alter the rules) you give your consumers vs the manner of structure you present. Much like how the limitations in Clan mech design actually work to give them more character and make them more interesting having something like 3/3/3/3 builds a gaming framework for player sto play within. It lets you focus on the mech you're bringing being fun, not how you're optimizing your teams tonnage. Meta players will always play the meta. Currently or with any matchmaker design they will be trying to maximize their positive impact. You want to keep that in mind but you can't let it dictate the whole game system or you end up with a game that *must* be played maxxed meta.

It's a simple change with a bigger reward. People who want the 'first 2 years of Ultima Online' type of experience aren't going to like it. Pretty much everyone else will. in the long run it's a better business decision than a lot that have been made over the last couple of years.

[Mystere]

MischiefSC, on 21 June 2014 - 11:32 AM, said:

You can however relate that multiple other people did try it at the same time, everyone I've seen speak of it raved about it.

A lot of people also claimed 3/3/3/3 was awesome -- except for the fact that it was turned off during the period they claimed they were playing.

Hence my skepticism.

MischiefSC, on 21 June 2014 - 11:32 AM, said:

In all 4 of those matches all the chat comments were very positive - in my first match someone was commenting that it was like playing in 12mans, the way both teams just stuck together, watched over each other and coordinated.

Isn't this more because Elo actually worked, and not specifically because of the 3/3/3/3 mech distribution?

Edited by Mystere, 21 June 2014 - 12:05 PM.

[Goose of Prey]

Quote

Yokaiko we get that point it has been parroted many times but I think you are misrepresenting it. It isn't that there is no reason to go medium, it's that it isn't fun to go medium because you don't have as big an impact, so say that next time. Now i'll concede that in a 3/3/3/3 system it still might not be fun for mediums/lights, but it will be a hell of a lot more fun than it is now playing in games with 75% assaults/heavies.

Those people bought mechs with their hard earned dollars. If PGI sells them the mechs, then changes the ability to field them, that is fraud. Especially if you can show they planned it all along. That type of "change" is not covered under a "terms of service" contract. Refunds would need to be made available. Sorry, but we have been putting up with this crap for far too long and it must stop. I don't like the current MM, however it can't be fixed on the backs of hard working people by devaluing their purchases. If PGI/IGP screwed up, then they should pay up. When those who make the mistake are forced to pay for it will you see a change to a more responsible company.

[Sandpit]

Dakshinamurthy, on 21 June 2014 - 10:58 AM, said:

No you don't get it. It's more fun for everyone involved.

uhm no, no it's not. The numerous posts in this thread alone prove that statement false.

it's more fun for YOU, not EVERYone else.

If they come up with a new MM system and you don't like it there's always private matches. Everyone is quick to throw that suggestion out there when we're talking about groups and their ability to participate in the game. So the same holds true for pugs. If you don't like playing by the rules of PGI then you can always buy some premium time and hope you have a buddy that has premium time as well and try to put together matches like that.

[Sandpit]

MischiefSC, on 21 June 2014 - 11:32 AM, said:

It was up twice.

I got 4 total matches.

All 4 were excellent.

From a statistical perspective you could reasonably give it 3 potential values. 'Crap', 'Not Bad' and 'Awesome' for the same of simplicity as well.

The odds of getting an 'Awesome' on 4 matches out of 4 samples is about 1.2%.

come on dude, you're better than that. You don't base statistics like that on 4 matches and a purely subjective opinion of "fun"

It's easy for me to say everyone I'VE spoke to hates the 3/3/3/3 system

If you liek it that's great, but not everyone does and to represent anything to the contrary is just false.

Regardless, I'd like to hear more ideas on how to improve MM. I don't care if they involve 3/3/3/3 or not. The MM needs a big rework and I personally don't feel the rule of 3 is going to make it any better

[Dakshinamurthy]

Stop using euphemisms and say it like it is, you want to be able to exclusively play one mech and refuse to accept a longer wait time. Do you actually expect people to take that position seriously? You can't be bothered to make a sacrifice for the greater good of the game why should anyone here care what you think when its obvious you're only concerned with your own gaming experience.

About the refund.... i'm not a lawyer are any of you? Do you have any citations or evidence that legally refunds have to be made available or should we just take your gut feeling as fact? What about wimps are the makers allowed to wimp a mech after they sell it or is that false advertising? I only ask because it's clear you have a firm understanding of the law in this regard.

People are trying to come up with MM solutions but I already said it before. It's impossible to come up with -any- solutions when you try to cater to a group of people who just say "no" entirely out of self interest. You keep asking for solutions well why don't you give one. The easiest way to do that is first figure out, and maybe you could tell us now, what is currently wrong with the MM system now, and this is the important part, what are you willing to give up so that the system is better? I play assault all the time but because i'm a reasonable person I accept that for the sake of the greater good I might get a longer wait time. Why is that so hard for you to wrap your head around?

If you don't have a better idea then what are you on about. Before you can say no, you have to present an alternative.

Edited by Dakshinamurthy, 21 June 2014 - 01:27 PM.

[Sandpit]

Dakshinamurthy, on 21 June 2014 - 01:16 PM, said:

thanks for your feedback. You can go attempt to troll elsewhere now. You've shown you have zero interest in having a discussion about how to improve the MM system. You've offered no ideas or suggestions on how we can improve it or help the community as a whole. have a good day sir, please either post on topic and stop the personal attacks or move along.

I've given no less than two examples in this very thread on how to improve the MM system in my opinion and how to have an MM system that improves the NPE, offers variety without forcing players into it, and how to increase the value of subpar mechs.

[Dakshinamurthy]

I offered a few solutions, mainly a 6/6 scenarior or a 3/3/6 scenario. The only ideas i've seen here are all in the same vein, give incentives for players to play underused mechs, and disincentives for playing overused. The incentives i've seen are increased/decreased cbs for some mechs and longer wait times. I don't care what the solution is as long as it works and I don't see how the cbill thing will work when cbills are so meaningless to so many people.

But i'm sorry, if you aren't willing to give something up to make the matchmaking system work better, you shouldn't be in the discussion.

[Artgathan]

BLOOD WOLF, on 21 June 2014 - 11:14 AM, said:

kind of messes up your reasoning, because plenty of people still run mediums.

And plenty of people smoke despite the fact that it's bad for them. What's your point?

[Dakshinamurthy]

He was making the same point that your statement makes, not everyone cares about running the most meta thing, some people play for fun and would rather keep some street cred.

Edited by Dakshinamurthy, 21 June 2014 - 02:03 PM.

[AssaultPig]

If you're looking for an example of a sport that lacks specific rules about what players can do, where they must be and for how long, how the team roster must be composed, etc., American football is not at all what you want to be citing. All you have to do to see how severely the NFL restricts 'variety' is compare to the college game, or the CFL, or crazy stuff that happens at the high school level (like A-11.)

anyway

3/3/3/3 produced awesome matches for the brief time it was implemented. If the few players who demand to play assault mechs exclusively have to wait a bit longer for a match, that's a small price to pay for more variety and fewer games dominated by a blob of high-firepower configs. I don't think anybody thinks that 3/3/3/3 is perfect, but it is much more likely to be implemented than any other solution.

The people suggesting battle value specifically always crack me up; battle value doesn't even work well in the tabletop, where teams can be uneven. It has zero chance to work in this game and would probably be even more prohibitive to assault-exclusive players than 3/3/3/3.

[Deathlike]

Artgathan, on 21 June 2014 - 01:48 PM, said:

And plenty of people smoke despite the fact that it's bad for them. What's your point?

The funny thing is that the queue is in short supply of Mediums, more or less as much as Lights. Plenty of Heavies and Assaults though!

For that record.. when 3/3/3/3 "was working" (I bothered checking my matches with screenshots), I had stupidly long wait times (between like 7 to 11 minutes) and while 1 match was close, I didn't enjoy the rest of them (played like 5 or so tops). It was literally a waste of my time for the time spent waiting in the queue. FOR THE RECORD I was trying to run Lights, which are generally the least used class in the game and was "suggested" by the MM at the time. Why am I being punished for picking Lights to relieve the queue when that was clearly not the case?

It might just be the Elo bracket that's really affecting it, but people's experiences completely vary on what their current/actual bracket happens to be... which is why the experience varies greatly. I was greatly disappointed and annoyed when 3/3/3/3 was active for that brief period of time.

Edited by Deathlike, 21 June 2014 - 02:26 PM.

[Yokaiko]

Deathlike, on 21 June 2014 - 02:25 PM, said:

FOR THE RECORD I was trying to run Lights, which are generally the least used class in the game and was "suggested" by the MM at the time. Why am I being punished for picking Lights to relieve the queue when that was clearly not the case?
.

Because if there are 6 games worth of heavies and assaults queued they have to come up with an EQUAL number of lights and mediums for games to kick off.

So going by what I've been seeing this morning the queue has been less than 20% in the lighter classes all day. So everyone gets to wait. All playing a medium or light buys you is being first in line. But you STILL need 6 mediums and 6 lights to get a game rolling.

[xMEPHISTOx]

Meh, scarp the 3-3-3-3 and go with simple tonnage matching.
Will never understand why pgi makes things more complicated than they have to be. Try the 3-3-3-3 but only after giving us a simple tonnage matching system so when the 3x4 setup fails again at least can revert back to some form of matching.

[YueFei]

AssaultPig, on 21 June 2014 - 02:17 PM, said:

If you're looking for an example of a sport that lacks specific rules about what players can do, where they must be and for how long, how the team roster must be composed, etc., American football is not at all what you want to be citing. All you have to do to see how severely the NFL restricts 'variety' is compare to the college game, or the CFL, or crazy stuff that happens at the high school level (like A-11.)

And yet the NFL still features a variety of weight classes of athletes.

Do you want MWO to be *more* restrictive? Less choices, less variety?

People cite mechlab restrictions as if that helps their argument that 3/3/3/3 is a great idea. The problem is they don't understand the difference between means and ends. Methods vs goals. The goal should be to increase the variety of viable mech choices, builds, and strategies. The idea behind restricting certain chassis is so that one chassis doesn't obsolete others (Victor vs Awesome), thereby *increasing* the variety of viable choices.

3/3/3/3 doesn't increase your viable choices, it just restricts the game's format without actually adding variety to it.

BTW, A-11 is no longer allowed at the High School level.

[Sandpit]

YueFei, on 21 June 2014 - 03:18 PM, said:

Do you want MWO to be *more* restrictive? Less choices, less variety?

thereby *increasing* the variety of viable choices.

3/3/3/3 doesn't increase your viable choices, it just restricts the game's format without actually adding variety to it.

this is the part I really have trouble wrapping my head around.

It's like people WANT more restrictions on how to play the game as long as it fits into how THEY want to play the game. This thread is about coming up with ways to create MORE options for players instead of constantly and consistently coming up with systems and features that exclude instead of include players.

When did having options become a bad thing? When did it become "wrong" to want more options instead of wanting more restrictions that limit the ability of other players outside of an individual's preference from enjoying the game as well?

It's like everyone seems to think that every time a suggestion is made on changing or adding something to the game, it's "bad" because it's outside of THEIR scope of fun even though it wouldn't negatively impact or restrict how they want to play.

[Mystere]

AssaultPig, on 21 June 2014 - 02:17 PM, said:

3/3/3/3 produced awesome matches for the brief time it was implemented ...

Are you sure it was the 3/3/3/3 component of the matchmaker that was working and not the Elo part?

Edited by Mystere, 21 June 2014 - 05:32 PM.

[Mystere]

xMEPHISTOx, on 21 June 2014 - 02:46 PM, said:

Meh, scarp the 3-3-3-3 and go with simple tonnage matching.

Meh! Scrap that and just go with random matching. It's probably the easiest one to implement. And based on all the changes and tweaks made so far to the matchmaker, I do not think it is much better or worse.

Edited by Mystere, 21 June 2014 - 05:42 PM.

[maniacos]

No they should simply stop this MM bullshit they will never get this right. They should just do a proper lobby everything else will never work. Matchmaking, balance, 3333, blabla none of that will ever possibly go right.

[Sandpit]

Jherek C, on 21 June 2014 - 05:42 PM, said:

They should just do a proper lobby

yup

Can't recall an online multiplayer game in the past 5-10 years that doesn't have some kind of lobby system in place. Especially prior to launch. Well except MWO of course
2 years and counting
nearly a year after official launch