402 replies to this topic

[Kitty Bacon]

I am actually really loving the patch. Nice, fair and even. Last night me and my group were running a lot of 9-10 mans just to see how the balance was placing up, we got matched up with another 10 man, 2 5 mans and a 3 man and 2 6 man. We got faced up against one 12 man and that was probably the best one... 10 mechwarriors, all vets and the best our group had to offer... We all died and our 2 pugs ended up getting like... 5 kills between them and some 800 damage each. We normally would be embarrassed, but it just showed that their Elo was as high as our own and they pulled their weight for being a Centurion and trial Catapult.

Out of the some 20 games we played to try to break the match maker (Running 2-10 mans) we had a 50-50 win/loss rate across the board. The games were fun and there was no meta jump sniping BS because they were afraid to lose a leg. One Cataphract lost his leg trying to jump snipe.. Best feeling ever. But my basic point is is that MM seems to be working, so far. I want to do the smart thing and give it a week or two and let PGI get match data to find out if it really is or not. This is a new patch with PGI playing with their new MM command console. Corse there will be hiccups before the main event.

[Semper Fi]

I can understand some peoples points in here, about how hard it is to defeat a 12/10 man team that is all arty/AS up and have actually played together.

I can also understand that if you have more than 2 friends on this game maybe you have 12, that those 12 couldn't really play together because there were very few 12 men dropping for various argumentative reasons.

So, we have here is a compromise which I think is ok. I was in several matches in 4 mans or less, and a couple 12mans from the various groups in our Steiner Hub. Mostly the group was under 6.

8 mans now there you have some fun. Only 4 to make the gap.

In all the games which our group played we won several, lost more. Some with the other team with 12mans and us without, some where we had 8 and we lost to 2 groups and Pick up LWs.

I guess what I am trying to say is I actually had fun.The not knowing what you are fighting is fun, the chance to actually work harder and pay attention more, but mostly the watching the interaction of my full team, my group and other pick ups, working together and using Chat.

I KNOW RIGHT! GO FIGURE.

But I found that most of the games we played and we/our group used chat we did seem to get cooperation from the whole team most of the time, and get some wins.

I am hoping that PGI fixes in game chat, and there are many ways to do that, and most people will say VOIP in game. Actually I think that is a terrible idea, however some better ways to get people to TS would be better through the game. Or whatever VOIP system.

The other thing they need to do is improve Chat tools, using quick texts and whatever just make it easier for people to communicate as they are piloting on their keyboard a mech in the midst of battle, instead of hoping your team is good at observing what the hell is going on in the game.

So I had fun, some things need to be changed but I am not convinced its the MM yet.
I do want more of our Devil Dogs to come back to the hub so we can do more 8 mans.

At any rate, good hunting all, and use courtesy and communicate more in Game, you might see some fun and wins. The communication part is a suggestion for LWs and groups. 1 lance usually cannot win it themselves. (Fun trying it I know )

Semper Fi.


PS: If you lose a match after following someone's idea of what to do, don't be an a55 and vent in chat, take command next time, but be happy someone is trying to do better and win.

PSS: If you are one of those folks that tries to coordinate through chat and things don't go as plan don't be an a55 either and rant/rave how no one followed you in chat. However good effort in trying to win.

Edited by Semper Fi, 03 July 2014 - 09:49 AM.

[Dan Nashe]

XPH Aku, on 03 July 2014 - 08:15 AM, said:

You guys can whine and measure your PPCs all day if you want but there is one easy solution to both sides. Give in game voice communication. Personally I can't fight and type at the same time and neither can any of you, but you can use voice chat and fight at the same time, and in reality that is what we are all fighting about, 12 man teams have voice communication 4 man and smaller teams only have comms with the guys that they are teamed with, you can't say there are guys in B6 until 1 you are already dead or 2 die while typing, I don't have 3 hands and an extra keyboard so that I can fight while i type, and in fact if the chat is open you can't change directions while you type. If they are going to continue to place 12 man groups in with pugs and small groups they could at least try and give the smaller group not used to playing with 8 or more of their team mates a chance to not get splattered. For the record if the ELO system did work in any kind of fair way a 12 man would never fight against a small group to begin with.
I played yesterday in both small and large groups, in th e small grou ps we came against 12 man every other game or so, but when we played in the larger groups 6 or more we almost always played against groups of the same size or smaller, never once against a 12 man group, how does that work?

I'm admittedly curious how many of people's anecdotes involved reliable chat confirming group size, and how much is guessing.
When we played 10s it felt like we were hitting clumps of smaller groups and w e usually won. Although had one great game.

(I don't know. I leave PGI to run numbers).

Voice chat: Several concerns.
1. Technical. Blizzard failed to make it work. PGI has far less resources.
2. Implementation: we still can't mute people in chat. Voice without two-click perma ignore will cause many players to quit. Have you read chat lately?
3. Social: Now that teamspeak is so widely used, many players won't want to migrate to in game.
4. Practical: I am not at all convinced in game chat will actually produce team work. It might. But it may very well might not. 12 people is a lot for strangers.
5. Cost: more server load? Even TS costs money.

If PGI could flip a switch to turn it on, with an easy to use ignore feature, I'd say go for it. But I am not sure it is enoigh of a panacea to warrant the investment of resources. It's an idea but I don't think it's practical at this time.

Edited by DanNashe, 03 July 2014 - 09:45 AM.

[Motroid]

Making it possible (again) to group more than 4 players and not exactly 12 was the best decision PGI has ever made.
If these are the sacrifices so be it. Everything is better than having groups restricted to 1-4 and 12 as it was for about two years.
Limiting group sizes to 4 players was the worst decision PGI has ever made and cost them more players than 3PV, ghostheat and all other abominations together. I am really glad they have come to reason.
I agree - it is a little dilemma. But for two years the units suffered from the old group restrictions and many left the game because they could not play with 5, 6, 7, 8,9,10. Now the tides have changed and the little 2 man will have to fit in just like we had to for many many months of agony and decaying units due to group restrictions. This game is evolving around teams. 2 friends casually playing together is not a team. A father and his little son is no team either. Still they can play the game and have fun, just not so much fun like before. Someone has to suffer - server population is far too less for any other solutuion. Units suffered for too long now it's the small groups turn. They have a real incentive to expand their groupsize to increase their chances of winning.

[Sarsaparilla Kid]

DAEDALOS513, on 03 July 2014 - 05:25 AM, said:

Let's not forget our new players! I thought the new patch was supposed to END being stomped?!? Why is this so hard to comprehend PGI? The game is NOT FUN ANYMORE unless you are in LARGE GROUPS. You need a constant influx of new players to survive, you must show them a good time during their first 10-20 games or they will NOT come back. You can't expect them to be able to group up in 6-12 man groups as newbs. I am hesitant to tell anyone about the game now as I know they will find it frustratingly hard (more so than before because lets' face it, this game has a pretty high learning-curve).

NEW PLAYERS ARE YOUR LIFE-BLOOD! Never forget this.

..and yes, Krispekreem, you are right, stomping a team into oblivion within 3 minutes is NOT fun either.

The new player situation is a whole different issue related to how the Matchmaker uses Elo rankings, having existed even before this patch. My anecdotal evidence is that I started up an alt account a few months back. New players start at an Elo of 1100, and after 25 matches are completed, they get a 200 point boost, so right after 25 matches, which I would say are not enough to really learn how to build a mech, pilot it and strategize in MWO, they are getting thrown into the middle of the pack of players (average Elo is around 1300), many of whom have been around for a year or more. Also, fairly low Elo players are getting grouped with fairly high Elo players to balance out the average team Elo, which is how the matchmaker tries to balance the match, and when there are not enough similarly matched individuals, it opens up the Elo pool in both directions until it can create a match. So, really new/fresh players can be teamed up and against veterans fairly quickly. After finishing my first 25 matches on the alt account, I started getting into matches with competitive players (like Wispsy) that I recognized from watching competitive league matches on Twitch.

Ideally, there should be a new player pool, where they get to wade in slowly and only face themselves or other lower Elo people until they reach a few hundred matches, or more. It would take them that long to be able to fund with C-bills the 3 variants they will need to master one mech, which helps them to survive longer.

[VixNix]

Ironwithin, on 03 July 2014 - 08:56 AM, said:

There is a CHANCE you might drop against a full group of 12, it is not a certainty.
Also: They are just people like you, not god-like machines, some are better than others but if you shoot them they die.

Seriously ...people here make it out to be impossible to play any match without being stomped by some ambitious hardcore unit out there just waiting for pug-fodder. It is not, just give it a try.

Man, your there is a chance meet my if it weren't for bad luck I'd have none at all....

I am telling you we played about 10 games with 5-6 people and 7 or 8 of them were vs 10-12 premade groups, it was not only NOT FUN it was frustrating and it was agonizing and it made me NOT WANT TO PLAY.

Then throw in the OP clan mechs and the night was a complete disaster, I think we may have won 2 or 4 out of the 20 or so matches...

[SoHxPaladin]

VixNix, on 03 July 2014 - 10:20 AM, said:

Man, your there is a chance meet my if it weren't for bad luck I'd have none at all....

I am telling you we played about 10 games with 5-6 people and 7 or 8 of them were vs 10-12 premade groups, it was not only NOT FUN it was frustrating and it was agonizing and it made me NOT WANT TO PLAY.

Then throw in the OP clan mechs and the night was a complete disaster, I think we may have won 2 or 4 out of the 20 or so matches...

so what you are telling me is that your unit is a waste of space and to hope you are never on my team. thanks for the intel!

[DAEDALOS513]

Motroid, on 03 July 2014 - 09:51 AM, said:

Making it possible (again) to group more than 4 players and not exactly 12 was the best decision PGI has ever made.
If these are the sacrifices so be it. Everything is better than having groups restricted to 1-4 and 12 as it was for about two years.
Limiting group sizes to 4 players was the worst decision PGI has ever made and cost them more players than 3PV, ghostheat and all other abominations together. I am really glad they have come to reason.
I agree - it is a little dilemma. But for two years the units suffered from the old group restrictions and many left the game because they could not play with 5, 6, 7, 8,9,10. Now the tides have changed and the little 2 man will have to fit in just like we had to for many many months of agony and decaying units due to group restrictions. This game is evolving around teams. 2 friends casually playing together is not a team. A father and his little son is no team either. Still they can play the game and have fun, just not so much fun like before. Someone has to suffer - server population is far too less for any other solutuion. Units suffered for too long now it's the small groups turn. They have a real incentive to expand their groupsize to increase their chances of winning.

How do u expect new people to start playing? Usually someone has to introduce them to the game right? Well that means dropping as a 2-man. Good luck getting the newbie to have a good time dropping against an 8man.

New players are the life-blood of MWO and PGI will bleed out if it stays business as usual.

SoHxPaladin, on 03 July 2014 - 10:31 AM, said:

so what you are telling me is that your unit is a waste of space and to hope you are never on my team. thanks for the intel!

You really are a negative person aren't you? That was extremely rude... AND IT PROVES MY POINT.

8-12 man groups are MOSTLY going to want the BEST players out there. This MM is so wrong on so many levels, I can't begin to count the ways!

You cannot mix the two play-styles (casual and competitive), it's a recipe for disaster!

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 03 July 2014 - 10:52 AM.

[Dan Nashe]

I really like the idea of allowing groups.
But like you said, 2 mans aren't really teams.

But you need groups of 1 or 2 to fill in for groups of 10 or 11.
PGI said they thought it would be unfair or not fun to be the only PuG on an 11 man.

I submit that PGI is wrong. That being a solo with an 11 is no worse than being a solo in aa 12 person of pure solos, and would actually contend that it is more fun to know your team is coordinated. I have yet to hear the complaint. "My 2 man was placed with a 10 man and it felt bad because it felt like I couldn't influence the match outcome".

I like the "number of minds" analogy.

I am certainly not trying to remove larger groups.
I am trying to:
(1) Keep the matchmaker functional. You simply can't make perfect matches.
(2) Keep the teams close to equal.
(3) Allow larger groups.
(4) make it fun for everyone.

There are also 3 separate discussions I'm involved with:
A. General matchmaking;
B.Whether 12s are special.
C. Whether 2s should be treated as solos.

Although they overlap, I am not committed to any position on 12s.
I am also not committed to a position on 2s.

Boiling it down, my separate issues are these:
1. I think the largest group on one side should never be more than 2 larger than the largest group on the other team.
2. I don't think there's any problem mixing solos and large groups as long as the teams are equivalent. E.g. 6 v 7 with 11 solos.
3. I think 2s are more akin to solos than to groups of 4+ but 3s are more akin to groups of 4 than to solos. To put it another way, I think a mixture two 2s and 2 solos v 6 solos is more fair and fun than three 2s versus one 6 man.
4. I think the problem with 1 group per side is that there simply are not enough solos to fill in the other 20 spots.if you treat duos as groups.
5. I think that you need solos filling out groups to allow teams larger than 6 to match if you are trying to avoid 3 4s vs one 12 or a 10 and a 2.And to make groups of 5,7,9, and 11 work.

Finally, I think the best way to do all of that is
One queue.
No more than 1" group" per side. A "group" being defined as 3-11 (or 12, don't care so much about that).
Each team's group must be the same size, with a max size difference of two players.
If one team has a group of 4+, the other team must have a group of 3+.
Groups of two should not be considered groups. In other words, each team can have unlimited duos, and duos don't count as the one group per side.

The matchmaker would work like this:
If there are excess solos and 2s in the queue, it would create a game of just solos and 2s. Statistically speaking the odds of 6 x 2 v 12 x 1 is tiny and not likely to be a bad match.
otherwise, normal behavior is to match groups of 3-11 (or 12) with groups of eoughly equal size, and then fill in with duos and solos.

Whether to allow 12 v 11 or 12 v 10 is a separate issue.
I would sugest the mm wait longer to find another 12 before expanding.

Edited by DanNashe, 03 July 2014 - 10:47 AM.

[VixNix]

SoHxPaladin, on 03 July 2014 - 10:31 AM, said:

so what you are telling me is that your unit is a waste of space and to hope you are never on my team. thanks for the intel!

SoHxPaladin, are you an ass?
I expect PGI should want their "Elite Founders" to have less troll like features...

What I was saying is pretty much the same as everyone else that isn't part of a 12 and even what most of the people who are have been saying, small groups of casual players DO NOT WANT TO END UP PLAYING VS COMPETATIVE PLAYERS.

Stop trolling!

Edited by VixNix, 03 July 2014 - 12:34 PM.

[Grendel408]

troll?!? where?

[Almeras]

VixNix, on 03 July 2014 - 08:44 AM, said:

I was very much looking forward to the larger grouping, until it happened...

A classic case of people not knowing what's good for them. I said exactly that when I heard about the new match maker and its come true.

some remembered the old 8vsPUGs fondly most left after pre-made queue they're back now and find they're white bait for the 12man sharks.

[Jonathan Paine]

One possible solution to the QQ'ing... maybe there should be an Elo cut-off for getting to run with the "big guys". Something like groups of 4 or less with less than average Elo cannot be put into the group queue.

Thoughts?

[VixNix]

Jonathan Paine, on 03 July 2014 - 03:41 PM, said:

One possible solution to the QQ'ing... maybe there should be an Elo cut-off for getting to run with the "big guys". Something like groups of 4 or less with less than average Elo cannot be put into the group queue.

Thoughts?

QQ?

really?

and i thought this forum was a place to express your opinions on the MM changes...

TROLL!

There are 3 to 6 of us that get together for MWO night, most only play that 1 night a week, why cant we have our casual game and be on the same team without having to be in the QUE vs 8+ groups?

Edited by VixNix, 03 July 2014 - 03:51 PM.

[DAEDALOS513]

DanNashe, on 03 July 2014 - 10:43 AM, said:

I really like the idea of allowing groups.
But like you said, 2 mans aren't really teams.

But you need groups of 1 or 2 to fill in for groups of 10 or 11.
PGI said they thought it would be unfair or not fun to be the only PuG on an 11 man.

I submit that PGI is wrong. That being a solo with an 11 is no worse than being a solo in aa 12 person of pure solos, and would actually contend that it is more fun to know your team is coordinated. I have yet to hear the complaint. "My 2 man was placed with a 10 man and it felt bad because it felt like I couldn't influence the match outcome".

I like the "number of minds" analogy.

I am certainly not trying to remove larger groups.
I am trying to:
(1) Keep the matchmaker functional. You simply can't make perfect matches.
(2) Keep the teams close to equal.
(3) Allow larger groups.
(4) make it fun for everyone.

There are also 3 separate discussions I'm involved with:
A. General matchmaking;
B.Whether 12s are special.
C. Whether 2s should be treated as solos.

Although they overlap, I am not committed to any position on 12s.
I am also not committed to a position on 2s.

Boiling it down, my separate issues are these:
1. I think the largest group on one side should never be more than 2 larger than the largest group on the other team.
2. I don't think there's any problem mixing solos and large groups as long as the teams are equivalent. E.g. 6 v 7 with 11 solos.
3. I think 2s are more akin to solos than to groups of 4+ but 3s are more akin to groups of 4 than to solos. To put it another way, I think a mixture two 2s and 2 solos v 6 solos is more fair and fun than three 2s versus one 6 man.
4. I think the problem with 1 group per side is that there simply are not enough solos to fill in the other 20 spots.if you treat duos as groups.
5. I think that you need solos filling out groups to allow teams larger than 6 to match if you are trying to avoid 3 4s vs one 12 or a 10 and a 2.And to make groups of 5,7,9, and 11 work.

Finally, I think the best way to do all of that is
One queue.
No more than 1" group" per side. A "group" being defined as 3-11 (or 12, don't care so much about that).
Each team's group must be the same size, with a max size difference of two players.
If one team has a group of 4+, the other team must have a group of 3+.
Groups of two should not be considered groups. In other words, each team can have unlimited duos, and duos don't count as the one group per side.

The matchmaker would work like this:
If there are excess solos and 2s in the queue, it would create a game of just solos and 2s. Statistically speaking the odds of 6 x 2 v 12 x 1 is tiny and not likely to be a bad match.
otherwise, normal behavior is to match groups of 3-11 (or 12) with groups of eoughly equal size, and then fill in with duos and solos.

Whether to allow 12 v 11 or 12 v 10 is a separate issue.
I would sugest the mm wait longer to find another 12 before expanding.

PGI HIRE THIS MAN AS A CONSULTANT NOW!

...or at the very least, give him a free mech-bay for his valuable info!

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 03 July 2014 - 04:00 PM.

[DAEDALOS513]

Jonathan Paine, on 03 July 2014 - 03:41 PM, said:

One possible solution to the QQ'ing... maybe there should be an Elo cut-off for getting to run with the "big guys". Something like groups of 4 or less with less than average Elo cannot be put into the group queue.

Thoughts?

Just read DanNashe's reply. It's lengthy but it's what we need.

[Hellcat420]

knightsljx, on 02 July 2014 - 03:20 PM, said:

not my problem if you guys go off topic. The OP posted about how matchmaker is not working properly, which it is. If you want to provide feedback on how it SHOULD be working, start a new thread or post it in Features Suggestion.

Currently, the matchmaker is NOT broken

no, its not broken, its just complete garbage

[Shimmering Sword]

For a long time solo players have complained that groups (even groups of two) ruin their matches with OP teamwork, and us groups have just said "deal with it".

Now the tables have turned a little. Solo players don't have to encounter as many groups, and groups have to encounter far more. As someone who plays almost exclusively in groups, DEAL WITH IT!
I'd much rather be stuck in more competitive matches and reap the better teamwork, than be stuck constantly depending on the dice roll of how bad my solo team mates happen to be.
Yesterday I lead groups of 5-7 against 10/12 man groups and won or had a close loss more often than being stomped.

If you don't like fighting against big enemy groups, go drop solo, otherwise suck it up.

[Summon3r]

this is absolutely ****ing insane, currently rolling in a 12 man and roflstomping everything we come across, there is no way in HELL PGI intended this to be this way? is there? ffs we are fighting throw together groups who cant even talk to each other except type and its a complete face ****ing. kind of fun for us zero fun for the rest of the players.

[Kendricke]

DAEDALOS513, on 03 July 2014 - 05:13 AM, said:

ATTENTION PGI:

Thank you Arghmace, youre suggestion makes sense! You not only have to match based on skill and tonnage, but you have to match games based on HOW MANY MINDS ARE AT WORK ON EACH TEAM. By this I mean, if there is one 12man on one team, consider that ONE MIND working as a hive. If there are four groups on one team, consider that FOUR MINDS.

This is where the unbalance occurs. You just can't rely on random players to be coordinated like a 12man, 10man or even 8man team. Because let's face it, we have a hard enough time finding someone to lead and come up with a plan at the beginning of each game most of the time. When we finally do overcome this, the other larger, 'one-minded' team is in position and ready to STOMP.

HERE IS THE SOLUTION: +/-1 GROUP

Do this and then everyone will be complaining about the fact that the 12 mech groups start intentionally running 10 mechs. Then we'll be back in here talking about 10 mechs groups stomping the poor 2-4 mech groups. So you'll argue for 8 mech groups. Then you'll see 8 mech groups forming up constantly and coordinating on comms against 2-4 mech groups...or even 5-8 mech groups that aren't using good comms.

Unless you outright limit grouping sizes to a minimum (something like 5 or 6 at minimum) and everyone else runs single, you're absolutely going to see someone in a larger, more experienced, more coordinated group stomping over everyone else on occasion. Most of the complaints here seem to come from players who are used to running in 2-3 person groups. You could limit group sizes to 6 and you'd absolutely see 6 mech groups mopping the floor with you still.

My guild has just over a dozen or so members. Most of us have known each other for 20 years or more. I used to play tabletop Battletech in high school with some of these guys. On any given night, there are about 3-6 of us online and we're thrilled that now we can all group together and just play without having to split up. Last night, we asked some friends from other guilds to join us and we formed up some 10 and 12 mech groups and had a BLAST. We got stomped once or twice. We did pretty good a few times. We had some close calls that we pulled out and won a few times. What we had EVERY time was fun.

If you limited us to 10 mechs, we'd have run 10 at a time and everyone else would have joined a separate group together. If you'd limited us to 8, we'd have run 8+4 or 8+6. Even then, you'd still be facing off against 8 experienced, coordinated players on comms together. Limit it to 6 and guess what - we'd run 6+6+whoever was left over. Now you've got double the chance of facing a max size group of us - and we're still going to be experienced, coordinated players on comms together.

The best pugs I've ever run with stuck together. They may not have been on comms, but they got it - they didn't run off on their own, they didn't panic when a light ran through the middle or backfield, they didn't freak out when LRMs started to pile in, you didn't have to tell them to get in ECM range, and you didn't need to remind them not to push a bottleneck by themselves. Some of our matches last night were more chaotic as a 12 mech max group in comms together than some of the best matches I've run solo (this morning, I had a killer run in my old Atlas, racked up 6 kills right out of the gate).

The problem wasn't 12 mech groups. The problem is the perception of 12 mech groups. I'd be willing to bet that not even half of the reported "12 mans" in this thread were actually that. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of the boogymen we're hearing about were just coordinated groups that were stuck together and figured out how to get it done with or without comms.

Seriously, in this thread, I've been told to watch out for the 50% unemployment level, then the 35% unemployment, then to not believe what the government tells me, then the idea that "99%" of all matches were against the 12-mans forming up to decimate the poor, innocent casual 2 mech groups who only want to just have a good time (if not for those evil meta-loving 12-man sonsabitches).

The only screenshot I've seen so far (up to page 10) is from a guy who said the matchmaking wasn't that bad and that he had a pretty good time.

Where are all the screenshots showing the massive number of 12-mech groups preying on the weak and powerless here? Hell, I didn't realize that many 12-mech companies existed.