394 replies to this topic

[Cimarb]

Wolf87535, on 02 July 2014 - 04:40 PM, said:

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.

Curious why you think that.

[Jack Romeo]

As a small casual groups playing unmastered mechs, trying different setups and not caring about the metagame, last night was a pretty bad experience. This update catered to the hardcore crowd, and made the game less fun for groups like us.

If this is the direction the game is moving, the player base will shrink and die. Hardcore players, while essential to the game, is a small group. There has to be room for the casual majority as well, or they will leave.

[Cimarb]

Shadowcoil, on 03 July 2014 - 01:59 AM, said:

As a small casual groups playing unmastered mechs, trying different setups and not caring about the metagame, last night was a pretty bad experience. This update catered to the hardcore crowd, and made the game less fun for groups like us.

If this is the direction the game is moving, the player base will shrink and die. Hardcore players, while essential to the game, is a small group. There has to be room for the casual majority as well, or they will leave.

Casual or not, who you are matched up with has to do with your Elo. While I agree that there is lots of room for improvement in Elo calculation, the variance according to Russ is hanging around ~50, with some matches getting up around 100 occasionally. That is a very good variance for balanced matches, unless it is balancing high+low vs medium to get there - that is likely where you are running into bad matches. IF your groups Elo is "low", and you are getting matched up with high Elo players to fight against lots of average players, your group may get wiped out pretty quick.

Other than that case, the matchmaker is grouping (roughly) even group sizes against each other, with (roughly) even Elo scores and perfectly even weight classes, meaning that any stomps that are happening is because of poor communication on your side and individual mistakes (again on your side). Casual or not, it is (roughly) balanced until your team/you starts making mistakes. No matchmaker will ever be able to plan for those mistakes, in any game.

[Jack Romeo]

How does that relate to organized groups of 10+ stomping on a random collection of smaller groups?

[Cimarb]

Shadowcoil, on 03 July 2014 - 08:29 AM, said:

How does that relate to organized groups of 10+ stomping on a random collection of smaller groups?

I assume you have proof of this? I would love to see your matches' group breakdown and compare it to what PGI has shared over the last couple days.

[SVK Puskin]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 23 June 2014 - 10:47 AM, said:

Please leave us your feedback on the latest update from Russ on upcoming features!

Spoiler

Epic fail!!! This dynamic group queue is horrible idea!!! I guess that users who prefer to play in 12 men group were complaining about the waiting time, right? 12 men group must not play against 1 or 2 smaller groups!!! Did you lost your mind or what? I am just shaking with my head and can not believe what you just did with match making system!!! Shame on you!!!

[Jack Romeo]

Cimarb, on 03 July 2014 - 10:34 AM, said:

I assume you have proof of this? I would love to see your matches' group breakdown and compare it to what PGI has shared over the last couple days.

No, I can´t prove that we´re having less fun then before the patch.

[Cimarb]

Cimarb, on 03 July 2014 - 05:33 AM, said:

<snip>
Other than that case, the matchmaker is grouping (roughly) even group sizes against each other, with (roughly) even Elo scores and perfectly even weight classes, meaning that any stomps that are happening is because of poor communication on your side and individual mistakes (again on your side). Casual or not, it is (roughly) balanced until your team/you starts making mistakes. No matchmaker will ever be able to plan for those mistakes, in any game.

Shadowcoil, on 03 July 2014 - 08:29 AM, said:

How does that relate to organized groups of 10+ stomping on a random collection of smaller groups?

Cimarb, on 03 July 2014 - 10:34 AM, said:

I assume you have proof of this? I would love to see your matches' group breakdown and compare it to what PGI has shared over the last couple days.

Shadowcoil, on 04 July 2014 - 02:37 AM, said:

No, I can´t prove that we´re having less fun then before the patch.

Not what I asked, but good try.

I stated, as you can see above for your easy reference, that MM is trying to match groups up to the best of its ability.

You then ask how that relates to a 10-man stomping on "a random collection of smaller groups".

I then ask for proof of this situation. That means you would prove that you had multiple matches where a 10-man group went up against a collection of smaller groups.

Since you did not use the term "pair" of smaller groups, I will assume that you mean at least three. That means that, at most, it is a team of 2+2+8, 4+4+4, or otherwise "smaller" groups, correct?

It is quite likely that 2+2+8 vs. 10+2 is happening, as it is the next closest possible grouping down (along with 8+4 and 9+3, but those are not valid options in your argument). None of those are a very big difference, though, as the difference in organization between 3/4 of your team and 4/5 of your team is very small.

Regardless, as I said, I would love to see what you are experiencing in the form of some proof, because there may very well BE an issue that PGI in their global view has not noticed yet.

[Winters Rigor]

Revert MM please.. And do not touch it. Now this is a real pain.

[Haitchpeasauce]

Why is falling in feet per second when every other measurement (range, speed, etc.) is metric?

Suggestion for larger groups: Allow for groups of 11, and they drop one man down.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Haitchpeasauce, on 07 July 2014 - 07:45 PM, said:

Why is falling in feet per second when every other measurement (range, speed, etc.) is metric?

It's a relic from how the Cryengine was originally written. Hopefully the HUD gets an update overall when that gets worked on, such as getting us a HTAL display.

[Cimarb]

Praetor Knight, on 07 July 2014 - 08:12 PM, said:

It's a relic from how the Cryengine was originally written. Hopefully the HUD gets an update overall when that gets worked on, such as getting us a HTAL display.

I would not mind them adding a HTAL display, as long as it does not replace the paper doll. Paper doll is immensely more intuitive to new players, and gives more information more quickly than a bunch of bars do.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Cimarb, on 08 July 2014 - 05:48 AM, said:

I would not mind them adding a HTAL display, as long as it does not replace the paper doll. Paper doll is immensely more intuitive to new players, and gives more information more quickly than a bunch of bars do.

Yeah, that's true. Although it would be nice to be able to switch between an HTAL and the Paper Doll in the future.

[Cimarb]

Praetor Knight, on 08 July 2014 - 10:21 AM, said:

Yeah, that's true. Although it would be nice to be able to switch between an HTAL and the Paper Doll in the future.

I think you could integrate them together quite well, actually. Instead of having them a bar of bars horizontally, just have each component be a set of bars surrounded by the paper doll, or something similar.

[Mota Prefect]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 23 June 2014 - 10:47 AM, said:

Please leave us your feedback on the latest update from Russ on upcoming features!

Spoiler

lol. And still no mention of community warfare. Just goes to further prove the point that PGI/IGP are money gubbing whores with a new hero mech coming out just about every week,

This game started out with such high hopes an aspirations. Now PGI has destroyed not only the BattleTech MMO, its also ruined the IP that we all love so much.

Good Lord, way to screw up yet another gane PGI,