271 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

Deathlike, on 20 June 2014 - 07:04 PM, said:

Pugs don't actually change. If the 1-premade per group is actually applied, the "randomness" of the PUG's "willingness to play smart" is always a counter. You have to factor in people are their own worst enemy or ally. I still expect no better with other PUGs while I'd actually hope it gets better with the Elo buckets, it guarantees nothing".

Exactly. It changes absolutely nothing for PUGs. It doesn't affect PUGs in any way. They hit launch in whatever they're wanting. It makes it harder for premades to find a game (shocking I know, PGI implementing something that discourages teams in a team based game? I never would have thunk it)
It WILL increase launch times for PUGs though because as I stated earlier, a preamde taking 3 assaults and 1 heavy cannot team up with a pug taking an assault now.
It was poorly thought out and even worse in its implementation

Quote

The difference between winning and losing... is the ability of people to know "what to do".. and often times people don't. That's why we've had "CapWarrior Online" debates and "LRMWarrior Online" debates and even "Lolcust is a joke" debates. These exist because people don't critically analyze what is to be done... now that we get more modules, turrets, and lol (because I can't think of anything beneficial to say about the Lolcust), we're continuing to dumb down the game further instead... the age old classic statement of.. L2P.

and this is the basis for a LOT of the problems and balancing issues that many have with the game. We're tired of the dumbing down to the lowest common denominator. Instead of making everyone play at the lowest level it makes much more sense to add in an "easy" mode for players like that instead of forcing everyone to play a game designed around the easy button crowd.

Yokaiko, on 20 June 2014 - 07:11 PM, said:

So if you are even remotely observant, you see t


Bullshit or you wouldn't see 70% or better of the queue as heavies and assualts.

Damage > all, period, they designed it this way.

? uhm ok?

how is it BS to think that people will jump in whatever mech they enjoy piloting the most? Not exactly sure what you're getting at here? what are you saying?

[Deathlike]

Yokaiko, on 20 June 2014 - 07:02 PM, said:

No they ton up because its literally stupid to drop in a light or medium.

Too fragile, not enough damage output. Since damage > all for match score, there is literally no reason no to derp around in a big damage mech, win or lose you do better than the lights on the winning team.

The skill required for a Light pilot is FAR GREATER than one used for an Assault. While understandably there are issues with hitreg (which people mention as an excuse far more often than not), there's simply not enough people WILLING to learn and WILLING to suffer a bit (K-D ratio primarily, and secondarily W-L ratio) to become a better overall player. What's PROBLEMATIC is that PGI has not deemed it important and/or necessary to reward players for "doing what needs to be done", like even capping points in Conquest. Lack of incentives and actual difficulty put people in a far more precarious position to pilot a Light. It goes with the territory.

While PGI cites "Lights get the most C-bills", this is MOST DISINGENUIOUS as most competent Lights try to run a UAV and help out the team, EVEN IF IT DOESN'T HAVE MISSILES BOATS. While the rewards adds to their winnings, the cost of running it outweighs said bonus.

PGI's lack of reaction to said issues doesn't make them non-existent. These have been longstanding issues that have been argued against many times and still gets NO ANSWER to. It's hard enough as it is to run a Light, but all one needs to do to add insult to injury is doing nothing about it.

Ever wonder why I get frustrated about the whole process? These relatively important things simply never get addressed and while it doesn't need to be addressed in any immediacy, it fosters the behavior we have today. That's simply the overall problem in the whole grand scheme of things.

[Yokaiko]

Sandpit, on 20 June 2014 - 07:15 PM, said:

? uhm ok?

how is it BS to think that people will jump in whatever mech they enjoy piloting the most? Not exactly sure what you're getting at here? what are you saying?

Yeah, see the founder tag.

I remember the lunchbox hunchbacks. Guess what there were 6 of every game.

[MischiefSC]

Sandpit, on 20 June 2014 - 06:54 PM, said:

I'm not disputing anything you're saying here. I'm pointing out it's not going to sovle or even mitigate roflstomps. It doesn't actually change anything other than you're assured to see 3 of each weight class in every match. Which, on another note, is stupid in my opinion. So I'm going to drop on a planet, assault their capitol and take it over using light mechs? Uhm no, light mechs are for scouting, recon, etc. You don't use your lights in an entrenched position but that's a completely separate issue.
Wait times WILL increase under the rule of 3. There's almost no way around it. It's going to increase dramatically in some cases. I dropped earlier today in my Stalker. The FASTEST time (because I started timing) was just over 2 minutes. The SLOWEST was well over 4 minutes, nearly 5. Limiting the MM in this fashion can't help but increase those times outside of peak hours. That's yet another issue with the rule of 3. It simply is not a good way to balance the MM. It restricts player choices. It increases wait times to actually play the game. It makes it more difficult to put together a balanced team.

In short, it solves absolutely nothing while creating a whole new list of issues. That's the exact opposite of what any balancing feature should do

It solves a slew of min/maxing issue, viability of mechs and increases the value of pugging teamwork. It devalues a lot of min/maxing meta stuff and creates a reasonable approximation of role warfare.

Wait times may change, they may not. We don't know yet. The issue was with other problems in the matchmaker, not population shifts. You'll probably still run 2-4 minutes waiting for matches. Just that each match will generally be better.

There is no fix for 'roflstomps'. That's a product of 12 v 12 in any form what so ever. It will reduce the number of badly mis-matched matches as mech classes will be better balanced.

It solves tons while creating few issues.

[Artgathan]

MischiefSC, on 20 June 2014 - 07:30 PM, said:

It solves a slew of min/maxing issue, viability of mechs and increases the value of pugging teamwork. It devalues a lot of min/maxing meta stuff and creates a reasonable approximation of role warfare.

Wait times may change, they may not. We don't know yet. The issue was with other problems in the matchmaker, not population shifts. You'll probably still run 2-4 minutes waiting for matches. Just that each match will generally be better.

There is no fix for 'roflstomps'. That's a product of 12 v 12 in any form what so ever. It will reduce the number of badly mis-matched matches as mech classes will be better balanced.

It solves tons while creating few issues.

What min/maxing issues does it solve? If anything it exacerbates them. Why bring a Dragon when it could be a Cataphract? Why bring a Locust or Commando instead of literally any other light? Is an Awesome really comparable to a Banshee/Highlander/Victor/Atlas?

3/3/3/3 will create bottlenecks every time a new mech is released, which will in turn hurt PGI's revenue stream because people won't be willing to purchase a Hero mech and suffer through inflated wait times because everyone wants to try it at the same time.

It also does nothing to fix class imbalances. 3 jumping Victor/Cataphracts will crush Mediums and Lights the same way they did before, there will just be fewer of them. It also does nothing to increase role warfare, since role warfare is largely predicated on having objectives and rewards. The rewards for actually engaging in "Role Warfare" (which is essentially just scouting as far as the rewards are concerned) are so paltry as to be meaningless.

What issues exactly will 3/3/3/3 fix?

[Sandpit]

Yokaiko, on 20 June 2014 - 07:23 PM, said:

Yeah, see the founder tag.

I remember the lunchbox hunchbacks. Guess what there were 6 of every game.

I'm stil not sure what your point is....

what does the founder tag have to do with anything we're discussing here?

I'm not trying to be a dbag here I'm just trying to find out what your'e getting at.

[Yokaiko]

Sandpit, on 20 June 2014 - 08:00 PM, said:

I'm stil not sure what your point is....

what does the founder tag have to do with anything we're discussing here?

I'm not trying to be a dbag here I'm just trying to find out what your'e getting at.

Can't figure that out eh?

[Sandpit]

MischiefSC, on 20 June 2014 - 07:30 PM, said:

It solves a slew of min/maxing issue, viability of mechs and increases the value of pugging teamwork. It devalues a lot of min/maxing meta stuff and creates a reasonable approximation of role warfare.

How does 3/3/3/3 increase the viability of a locust?
How does it prevent meta-builds?
How does it solve the issue of min/maxing?
How does 3/3/3/3 make players want to take a locust instead of a jenner?
How does 3/3/3/3 affect popular builds?

MischiefSC, on 20 June 2014 - 07:30 PM, said:

.

Wait times may change, they may not. We don't know yet. The issue was with other problems in the matchmaker, not population shifts. You'll probably still run 2-4 minutes waiting for matches. Just that each match will generally be better.

uhm....
you missed the point. The 3/3/3/3 is going to increase those times in many cases. 3/3/3/3 isn't going to affect match outcomes. Elo tweaks and adjustments MIGHT but that has absolutely NOTHING to do with 3/3/3/3

MischiefSC, on 20 June 2014 - 07:30 PM, said:

There is no fix for 'roflstomps'. That's a product of 12 v 12 in any form what so ever. It will reduce the number of badly mis-matched matches as mech classes will be better balanced.

It solves tons while creating few issues.

There is no fix for roflstomps. They CAN be mitigated though.
Cadet only Queue
Community approved (if you can do it for mods you can do it for this)"drill instructors" that drop in the queue and offer help to new players figuring out the game
Elo per mech instead of per weight class
Starting new players at the bottom of the Elo ladder instead of in the middle
^THOSE will help mitigate roflstomps, not 3/3/3/3
It will also do nothing to fix mismatches. A locust is still outclassed by a jenner, raven, firestarter, commando, etc.
An awesome is still outclassed by an atlas, stalker, victor, highlander, etc.
3/3/3/3 does absolutely NOTHING to solve those mismatches in any way.

It solves NONE of those.

Yokaiko, on 20 June 2014 - 08:02 PM, said:

Can't figure that out eh?

ok I'm just going to assume you're trolling now so I'll stop trying to figure out what your feedback for the thread is

[Yokaiko]

Sandpit, on 20 June 2014 - 08:08 PM, said:

How does 3/3/3/3 increase the viability of a locust?

ok I'm just going to assume you're trolling now so I'll stop trying to figure out what your feedback for the thread is

Ok remember closed beta? All of the whine threads about hunchbacks and jenners? To fast for all of the assaults. Medium laser nerfs (like three of them) engine caps, ghost heat.

WELLLLLL this is what you get.

[Redacted]

[Sandpit]

Yokaiko, on 20 June 2014 - 08:11 PM, said:

Ok remember closed beta? All of the whine threads about hunchbacks and jenners? To fast for all of the assaults. Medium laser nerfs (like three of them) engine caps, ghost heat.

WELLLLLL this is what you get.

I see this is hard for you, I'll leave you morons to yap.

which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. Please keep it on-topic.

[MischiefSC]

Artgathan, on 20 June 2014 - 07:47 PM, said:

What min/maxing issues does it solve? If anything it exacerbates them. Why bring a Dragon when it could be a Cataphract? Why bring a Locust or Commando instead of literally any other light? Is an Awesome really comparable to a Banshee/Highlander/Victor/Atlas?

3/3/3/3 will create bottlenecks every time a new mech is released, which will in turn hurt PGI's revenue stream because people won't be willing to purchase a Hero mech and suffer through inflated wait times because everyone wants to try it at the same time.

It also does nothing to fix class imbalances. 3 jumping Victor/Cataphracts will crush Mediums and Lights the same way they did before, there will just be fewer of them. It also does nothing to increase role warfare, since role warfare is largely predicated on having objectives and rewards. The rewards for actually engaging in "Role Warfare" (which is essentially just scouting as far as the rewards are concerned) are so paltry as to be meaningless.

What issues exactly will 3/3/3/3 fix?

Bringing a Dragon when the other team is 8 assaults and a couple of lights is depressing. Bringing a Dragon when the other team is reasonably well matched to you and there's 3 enemy Mediums for you to chase and snipe, that's fun and rewarding.

It fixes min/maxing by capping the amount of maxing you can do and limiting the amount of minning your team can do. An Awesome is no match for a Banshee, but it's at least reasonably close. If there are only 6 total assaults on the field suddenly the space between your Awesome and his Banshee is bigger. Your LRM boating is more valuable, you're also not going to have 6 or 8 enemy assaults to deal with to drill through all that armor with your lasers.

Even poptarting works best when the other team is comprised of bigger, slower mechs. A lot of the meta works that way - it relies on the enemy being as big, slow and cumbersome as you are, if not more so.

This is the fundamental perk of it - you know, without a doubt, what the general make of both your team and the enemies will be every match. There's a lot of variety in it but you can't run a build with no way to deal with lights and just assume the 1 or 2 lights that show up every couple of games won't be an issue or that the other team will largely be bigger, slower and more cumbersome than you.

You've got to support your teammate to hope to win consistently, you've got an incentive to pack a mech with tools for any and every adversary - because they'll be in every match, not just some of them.

[Artgathan]

Bringing a Dragon when there are 8 assaults is depressing, but at least you know the MM attempted to match you based on weight. Bringing a Dragon in 3/3/3/3 means you're actively sandbagging your team.

Similarly, bringing an Awesome instead of a Banshee means you gave up 15 tons. If you wanted to boat LRMs, why not a Battlemaster or Highlander? They're both carrying the same number of missile hardpoints (4), but have more secondary hardpoints for backup weapons, on top of more armor and tonnage in general.

Also, as an aside, LRM boating is less valuable on a battlefield that has more smaller/faster targets. LRM boats are really only effective against large, slow mechs.

Why bring a Locust instead of an Ember or Jenner? The heavier mechs can run at nearly the same speed, while being better armed, armored and able to jump.

Knowing the general composition of the enemy in advance isn't entertaining (to me at least). I will be counting the enemy mechs that go down. All the assaults gone? Time for the big push - I know they don't have the armor to resist. All the lights gone? Time to cap! (Just kidding - always kill the other team).

Also, poptarts dominate fast light mechs the same way as they dominate slow assaults, they just do it in 1/2 shots instead of 3/4.

[Sandpit]

MischiefSC, on 20 June 2014 - 08:24 PM, said:

Bringing a Dragon when the other team is 8 assaults and a couple of lights is depressing. Bringing a Dragon when the other team is reasonably well matched to you and there's 3 enemy Mediums for you to chase and snipe, that's fun and rewarding.

Again, that doesn't hold water. You're still going to face off against the same mech chassis you see now. You're not going to see a sudden "boom" in the use of locusts.

MischiefSC, on 20 June 2014 - 08:24 PM, said:

It fixes min/maxing by capping the amount of maxing you can do and limiting the amount of minning your team can do. An Awesome is no match for a Banshee, but it's at least reasonably close. If there are only 6 total assaults on the field suddenly the space between your Awesome and his Banshee is bigger. Your LRM boating is more valuable, you're also not going to have 6 or 8 enemy assaults to deal with to drill through all that armor with your lasers.

It doesn't though. It's not going to change the fact that mechs that are generally considered sub-par aren't going to be used any more often than they are now. An awesome is still an awesome and still facing off against every other assault in the game. It doesn't suddenly become "better" simply because it's only facing off against less assaults. By your logic the following teams are balanced
3 locusts
3 blackjacks
3 dragons
3 awesomes
vs
3 jenners
3 shads
3 phracts
3 atlases

Those 2 teams are nowhere near evenly matched by any means.
Even if we get more varied it doesn't solve the issue
1 locust 1 raven 1 commando =/= to 1 jenner 1 raven 1 firestarter
1 blackjack 1 cicada 1 treb =/= 1 kintaro 1 hunch 1 shad
1 quickdraw 1 dragon 1 catapult =/= 1 orion 1 phract 1 tbolt
1 awesome 1 bmaster 1 victor =/= 1 atlas 1 banshee 1 stalker
Again, this does NOTHING to even out matches. It just makes sure you'll see more lights and mediums on the field, not more subpar mechs in favor of meta builds

MischiefSC, on 20 June 2014 - 08:24 PM, said:

Even poptarting works best when the other team is comprised of bigger, slower mechs. A lot of the meta works that way - it relies on the enemy being as big, slow and cumbersome as you are, if not more so.

blackjacks, quickdraws, shads, wolverines, spiders, and tbolts would disagree

MischiefSC, on 20 June 2014 - 08:24 PM, said:

This is the fundamental perk of it - you know, without a doubt, what the general make of both your team and the enemies will be every match. There's a lot of variety in it but you can't run a build with no way to deal with lights and just assume the 1 or 2 lights that show up every couple of games won't be an issue or that the other team will largely be bigger, slower and more cumbersome than you.

no, you know what weight class they're bringing. that's it. You have no idea if you're facing 795 tons or 600 tons. You just know that 1/4 of the team will be each weight class. That's it.
You have no idea what you're facing now. There's absolutely no difference. That's exactly why light wolf packs tear up builds that don't account for them.

[Deathlike]

MischiefSC, on 20 June 2014 - 02:08 PM, said:

It minimizes LRMs and poptarts and light swarms and assault rolls.

I forgot to address LRMs..

The Griffin is arguably the best 55 ton missile boat (best mobility through JJs, torso twist, and arm radius for locks).

Some would argue it is better than the Catapult for that very purpose.

Sandpit, on 20 June 2014 - 08:41 PM, said:

3 jenners
3 shads
3 phracts
3 atlases

Old meta. Did you miss the Victor/Dragon Slayers in the tourney? Hard to miss. Still one of the better/best Assault mechs to date.

ECM need not apply as much these days.

Also, Embers have somewhat replaced pure Jenners (the D and F) as well.

[MischiefSC]

This is a common misconception; this isn't the old system where your mech has a similar mech on the enemy team, so bringing a heavy but only bringing a Dragon shorts your team a Cataphract against a team that's probably all 3Ds and Victors.

3 Heavies. That's it. A a Dragon, which actually runs very well against mediums, is not as bad a choice (not ideal, but not bad) as it is when both teams are overweight. Your 3 assaults are likely going to be vulnerable to those mediums.

It doesn't make a Dragon less vulnerable - it just means that the impact isn't as big. It's not about making sub-par mechs better, it's about making them less of a handicap. it's about giving players enough knowledge of the other teams makeup to have some reasonable assumptions for mech design (light hunter, striker, support, etc) without making every match cookie-cutter.



Currently you don't know if the other team is 300 tons or 1200 tons. Narrowing that to 600 yo 795 is a huge improvement. It means that at worst the other team is only 795 tons of mechs, nor does someone bringing a Cataphract is actually a good poptart.

Trying to take it to reducto ad absurdum and saying that you're going to have 3 locusts, 3 blackjacks, 3 dragons, 3 awesomes is about as logical as saying you could drop today with 11 Locusts plus you vs 12 Warhawks. Can you in theory? Sure. It's not going to happen.

So your argument is that when taken to absurd extremes, you can get absurd results. Though still not as absurd as the current system.

The reality is that without the pressure to push peak meta people will gravitate towards the middle. More to the point, with the knowledge that other team WON'T be a pile of assaults and heavies players can focus more on playing what they enjoy and not what is at least as big as what the other guy is bringing.

8 assaults sucks. 6 assaults sucks in fact. 3 assaults? Manageable.

[Sandpit]

Deathlike, on 20 June 2014 - 08:57 PM, said:

Old meta. Did you miss the Victor/Dragon Slayers in the tourney? Hard to miss. Still one of the better/best Assault mechs to date.

ECM need not apply as much these days.

Also, Embers have somewhat replaced pure Jenners (the D and F) as well.

the only way I've ever known what the current meta was, was by reading the QQ threads. Basically if I saw (insert weapon here/strategy/etc.) I knew that was the current meta. lol
seriously, that's how I knew

but the above example is still valid. weight class matching is NOT equality amongst mechs. The original iteration was tonnage matching. For whatever, "We can't do it" reason it was, it went away in favor of this. IIRC it was actually mentioned that the rule of 3 was designed around weight class matching

[Sephlock]

The solution is to ban premades entirely and let them play Power Rangers in private matches.



Only instead of making it so that you need 24 players total or 2 people with premium time, make it so that EVERY SINGLE PLAYER IN THE PRIVATE MATCH has to have premium time, and if they run out in mid match, they drop out.

Then delay CW in favor of a timewarp giving us all the weapons available in MW4 mods. Heavy lasers, X-pulse lasers, Heavy Gauss, Light Gauss, you name it!

Also, older weapons systems that should be in now, like Rockets and Arrow IV missiles.

ALSO delay all production on new maps in favor of... you guessed it, EVEN MORE FOCUS ON DAKKA, THE ACTUAL FUN ELEMENT OF THE GAME!

DAKKKKKA!

[Sandpit]

MischiefSC, on 20 June 2014 - 09:06 PM, said:

This is a common misconception; this isn't the old system where your mech has a similar mech on the enemy team, so bringing a heavy but only bringing a Dragon shorts your team a Cataphract against a team that's probably all 3Ds and Victors.

3 Heavies. That's it. A a Dragon, which actually runs very well against mediums, is not as bad a choice (not ideal, but not bad) as it is when both teams are overweight. Your 3 assaults are likely going to be vulnerable to those mediums.

It doesn't make a Dragon less vulnerable - it just means that the impact isn't as big. It's not about making sub-par mechs better, it's about making them less of a handicap. it's about giving players enough knowledge of the other teams makeup to have some reasonable assumptions for mech design (light hunter, striker, support, etc) without making every match cookie-cutter.



Currently you don't know if the other team is 300 tons or 1200 tons. Narrowing that to 600 yo 795 is a huge improvement. It means that at worst the other team is only 795 tons of mechs, nor does someone bringing a Cataphract is actually a good poptart.

Trying to take it to reducto ad absurdum and saying that you're going to have 3 locusts, 3 blackjacks, 3 dragons, 3 awesomes is about as logical as saying you could drop today with 11 Locusts plus you vs 12 Warhawks. Can you in theory? Sure. It's not going to happen.

So your argument is that when taken to absurd extremes, you can get absurd results. Though still not as absurd as the current system.

The reality is that without the pressure to push peak meta people will gravitate towards the middle. More to the point, with the knowledge that other team WON'T be a pile of assaults and heavies players can focus more on playing what they enjoy and not what is at least as big as what the other guy is bringing.

8 assaults sucks. 6 assaults sucks in fact. 3 assaults? Manageable.

not really.
everything you stated simply says it improved on a horrible system and that's it. i don't think anyone has ever said it didn't improve what was pretty much pointed out by the community universally since cb as one of the worst MM experiences we'd had in a very long time.

Bravo in that regard I suppose?
Stepping up from a horrible system to a moderately mediocre system that solved none of the original problems, just limited their handicap slightly as you stated, and created, as I pointed out, several new problems ALL while managing to not only alienate yet ANOTHER portion of their community but it ALSO managed to be one of the worst patches for playability in recent history. Hurray?

Now all of that may sound a bit harsh but here's the thing. There have dozens if not hundreds of suggestions and ideas given to PGI by the community SINCE CB about how to help improve the MM experience that were universally agreed upon as being MUCH better than the 3/3/3/3 system.

THAT is the point I am making. Stepping up to mediocrity from horribad is the issue. This is especially true when there are tons of other options available that wouldn't divide and tick off the community as much. Keep in mind this is an MM experience for a game that was designed as a multiplayer game from inception. So MM should, we would think????, be one of the top priorities from day 1 right?

Point being, 3/3/3/3 is not going to change any dynamics you see now except to ensure you see more meta mechs from different weight classes. maybe
because if the numbers I saw this morning are going to be the norm? Good luck finding a game when less than 10% of the player population are the only ones riding around in lights and mediums.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Sandpit, on 20 June 2014 - 10:42 PM, said:

not really.
everything you stated simply says it improved on a horrible system and that's it. i don't think anyone has ever said it didn't improve what was pretty much pointed out by the community universally since cb as one of the worst MM experiences we'd had in a very long time.

Bravo in that regard I suppose?
Stepping up from a horrible system to a moderately mediocre system that solved none of the original problems, just limited their handicap slightly as you stated, and created, as I pointed out, several new problems ALL while managing to not only alienate yet ANOTHER portion of their community but it ALSO managed to be one of the worst patches for playability in recent history. Hurray?

Now all of that may sound a bit harsh but here's the thing. There have dozens if not hundreds of suggestions and ideas given to PGI by the community SINCE CB about how to help improve the MM experience that were universally agreed upon as being MUCH better than the 3/3/3/3 system.

THAT is the point I am making. Stepping up to mediocrity from horribad is the issue. This is especially true when there are tons of other options available that wouldn't divide and tick off the community as much. Keep in mind this is an MM experience for a game that was designed as a multiplayer game from inception. So MM should, we would think????, be one of the top priorities from day 1 right?

Point being, 3/3/3/3 is not going to change any dynamics you see now except to ensure you see more meta mechs from different weight classes. maybe
because if the numbers I saw this morning are going to be the norm? Good luck finding a game when less than 10% of the player population are the only ones riding around in lights and mediums.

It is so simple, I do not see why you spend your time arguing these things. 3's are not supposed to do anything else but provide a balance to classes. Not weight,variety, play style, preference, none of that. It's just making sure my team has three assaults and the other team has three assaults. It is strictly just balancing a match, you are adding to many variable and making a simple thing complex. Worst part of it is you are doing so just for the sake of disagreeing.

For all those who do not understand let me use simple math. table a has 3+3+3+3=12 and table B has 3+3+3+3=12, that is balanced; that is all the MM is trying to do. adding in different variables that have nothing to do with what the matchmaker is set to accomplish proves nothing.

[Sandpit]

BLOOD WOLF, on 20 June 2014 - 10:53 PM, said:

It is so simple, I do not see why you spend your time arguing these things.

because some of us don't agree with pgi?
because it's our feedback?
because we ahve just as much right to give suggestions and feedback as you do?
because that's exactly what these forums are supposed to be for?
thank you for contributing but there's no need for hostility. just because I don't like the MM system and you do is no reason to get all huffy

The rule of 3 system is going to marginally improve the tonnage discrepancy that CAN occur at the moment. That's it. This system needs a much bigger overhaul than that to do things like

Improve NPE
Improve retention
Mitigate ROFLSTOMP

The rule of 3 will NOT do that. Hence we "argue" to PGI that their system is not going to improve things much if any and their limited (they're the ones always claiming "we're looking for employees, we're so small of a company our resources are limited") would be MUCH better off being used in other areas and implementing an entirely different MM system. That's why I "argue"