147 replies to this topic

[Karamarka]

BLOOD WOLF, on 06 July 2014 - 07:32 PM, said:

me too. Maps should come in all sizes and shapes.

Except most of the maps are crud arenas.

[Cimarb]

geodeath, on 06 July 2014 - 05:48 PM, said:

That may be what they say, but I know what I saw. They had six and 3/3/3/3 is bullshit.

geodeath, on 06 July 2014 - 06:00 PM, said:

This is the last match I was in. We had an 8 man group that is handcuffed by the 3/3/3/3 rule. Each team had 5 assaults due to matchmaker filling holes. It took forever to find this match. Why should the group I was in be handcuffed to 3 of any class when Match Maker can stack weight classes how it wants to fix its holes?

We should be able to drop what we want.

Both teams were equal - "each team had 5 assaults" - that is as designed.

At least Sasparilla gave a valid screenshot to back up his complaint. Deathlike addressed that one, though. Unfortunate that is a possibility, but it is better than no match at all. I also believe the single assault valve blowing in that match much more than the double assault valve. Does not mean it did not happen, as something could have been way out of whack, but you know he saying, "screenshot or it did not happen".

[Sarsaparilla Kid]

Deathlike, on 06 July 2014 - 10:49 PM, said:

Valve broke.

12-man (fully compliant, naturally) vs combo platter.

It sounds to me that the timer ended probably close or @ 3 mins, and "that's the best it could do".

I assume they figure that a "12 man could handle it". It didn't seem like the case for you though.

Some of our wait times were about that, so yeah, it gave it the college try before letting slip a slightly uneven match. To be fair on this one, our firing line went too wide and they charged one side and folded us up in short order.

[Calamus]

Cimarb, on 05 July 2014 - 10:20 AM, said:

• Role Warfare (rewards) needs to be implemented ASAP. Trying to force players to play lighter mechs is very obviously not working, and never will work. Until players are rewarded for playing what they WANT to play, they will never play them regularly. The vast majority of players would rather wait a couple minutes than play a mech they get little to no rewards playing.
  
• Data Transparency. This is exactly why PGI does not like releasing specific data...

1. No truer words. They need not only Role Warfare, but Community Warfare. The game just got a new paint job, so everyone is engaged and excited, but it's still completely empty inside.

2. I wouldn't release real information either if my real information made me look like a goof.

[Cimarb]

Calamus, on 07 July 2014 - 07:59 AM, said:

1. No truer words. They need not only Role Warfare, but Community Warfare. The game just got a new paint job, so everyone is engaged and excited, but it's still completely empty inside.

That is a whole other conversation, lol. One step at a time!

[TLBFestus]

I like lights.

We get squat in the way of rewards, or incentives, for choosing the pilot them though.

Here's some suggestions;

SPOTTING:

more rewards fro spotting in a light. why not? we are sticking our thinly armoured heads out to do so at considerably greater percentage of damage than a heavy or assault. If I have 40 points of CT armor and the assault has 100. If we both take a 30 point shot to the CT I lose 75% of my armour, he loses 25%.

Add in a distance factor, ie greater reward fro spotting within 500 meters or the like while you are at it.

ECM.

Give us an ECM coverage reward every 10-30 seconds and base it on the number of mechs under our umbrella and the tiem they are under it. If we counter an opponents ECM that reward should ramp up as long as it's countered.

NARC.

Give a a big reward for doing this.

DAMAGE DEALT.

Never gonna happen but some sort of scaled reward for lights where they get bonuses for hitting larger targets, or rear armor. Notice I'm not saying more damage, just better rewards for being ballsy enough to "reach out and love someone" with direct fire weapons.

Maybe some small reward for taking less damage to your mech itself. Not sure that that would work, but spit-balling here.

MANEUVERING BONUS.

Again, just spit-balling, but how about something based on distance travelled (scouting)?

[Dawnstealer]

I'm grinding through Mediums to get that Medium Assist achievement, but usually I go Light. Since all my Lights are long ground through Master, it's not like I need XP, but it is kind of disappointing to look at my XP from a match, just for comparison's sake.

Maybe have the damage award based on tonnage? So 150 damage per weight class to get the award? 150 for light, 300 for medium, 450 for Heavy, 600 for Assault?

Just a "throw it against the wall"-number, the idea being that the damage award is scalar depending on the weight class. A Light dealing 600 damage is hitting WAY above their weight class.

[Dimento Graven]

Quote

...
Elo is from 0-2800. While the average difference in variance is 241.27, match #24 in the list has a HUGE 762 variance. That is 30% of the whole Elo range, meaning one team is roughly in the middle of the mid-Elo "bucket", while the other team is roughly in the middle of the LOW-Elo "bucket". I would be willing to bet that was a horrid, horrid match.
...

I think I was victim of that match, it's games like that, that make me hate solo pug dropping.

Solo dropping into MWO is like a box of chocolates, you never know when someone has replaced your chocolates with feces...

[Cimarb]

TLBFestus, on 07 July 2014 - 08:52 AM, said:

I like lights.

We get squat in the way of rewards, or incentives, for choosing the pilot them though.

Here's some suggestions;

SPOTTING:

more rewards fro spotting in a light. why not? we are sticking our thinly armoured heads out to do so at considerably greater percentage of damage than a heavy or assault. If I have 40 points of CT armor and the assault has 100. If we both take a 30 point shot to the CT I lose 75% of my armour, he loses 25%.

Add in a distance factor, ie greater reward fro spotting within 500 meters or the like while you are at it.

ECM.

Give us an ECM coverage reward every 10-30 seconds and base it on the number of mechs under our umbrella and the tiem they are under it. If we counter an opponents ECM that reward should ramp up as long as it's countered.

NARC.

Give a a big reward for doing this.

DAMAGE DEALT.

Never gonna happen but some sort of scaled reward for lights where they get bonuses for hitting larger targets, or rear armor. Notice I'm not saying more damage, just better rewards for being ballsy enough to "reach out and love someone" with direct fire weapons.

Maybe some small reward for taking less damage to your mech itself. Not sure that that would work, but spit-balling here.

MANEUVERING BONUS.

Again, just spit-balling, but how about something based on distance travelled (scouting)?

My idea on spotting is to make spotting rewards based upon the amount of damage the target takes while you are spotting it. It would be a fraction of what you would get for doing the damage yourself (maybe 25-30% of what you get for your damage), but when multiplied by your whole team, it would add up quickly. For instance, say I was in a Locust and had line of sight on an enemy Atlas. Instead of just a flat spotting bonus, and assist if I actually hit it too, I now get 25% of all the damage done by my team to that enemy Atlas while I am spotting it, whether I hit it or not (since hitting it blows my cover, but currently you don't get an assist for spotting an enemy unless you also hit it for damage).

This would replace the "assist" bonus, and would give you a reason to do more than just graze the enemy with your laser as you run by.

I agree on the ECM and NARC, but the damage dealt is already covered in my spotting reward.

You really can't give a bonus for maneuvering, as that could be too easily taken advantage (think of all those lag shielders that would farm it, since it would be endless rewards due to no damage being done). Instead, I do think there should be some sort of "tank reward". My Atlas (and Dire Wolf now that the CT is fixed), for instance, is built to take the brunt of the enemies attack as we advance. I currently get zero reward for doing that. It is weighted to reward heavier mechs more, though, so someone would have to come up with a clever method for scaling it to benefit lighter mechs too.

Dimento Graven, on 07 July 2014 - 10:45 AM, said:

Solo dropping into MWO is like a box of chocolates, you never know when someone has replaced your chocolates with feces...

Lol, that made me laugh. Mostly because it is so true....

[Dan Nashe]

1. Weight class matching is back. Big improvement.

2. I like the 3/3/3/3 restriction on groups. You just have to rotate which guy is not a timberwolf.

3.Timberwolf broke matchmaking this month.

4. Allowing timberwolves to jump was a horrible mistake. Sorry folks who bought a summoner pack.

5. Greater. rewards for spotting and being the first to see a mech and more per second of capping is a good idea. However, winning needs to always be the most important thing. The team that splits off more than 2 mechs to cap almost always loses unless the other team splits more. Do not want people to focus on farming cbills over winning. Love the scoreboard idea to show spotting assists and seconds spent capping.


6. More rewards for lights won't solve it, but a lot of players like me like all 4 weight classes. I literally choose my farming mech based on what makes more money. A 10% earnings increase for playing the least popular two classes in the game is a good idea. It would motivate some players and help. Obviously not a panacea.


7. Encouraging less used chassis is good if mm works. The problem is if your team gets a commando (non ecm) and ours gets a Raven 3l. Perfect weight matching would help but is not practical. A starting point may be when you buy a new mech, elo is set at the average elo of other variants you have of that chassis. If you lack other variants, use average elo of all mechs in that weight class. Then track elo permech. Or at least track by chassis! I can't play my 2d because I mostly run embers and jenners so my elo skews towards good mechs. A bonus of 5% cbills/xp for the least used chassis could help encourage variety.

8. I think the valves release too early. 2 min avg queues are fine for my twolf and dragonslayer, and 3 minute is no biggie. In a group of 5+ I am willing to wait 4-5. However, if you could enable chat while searching it would be awesome (not everyone can use mic. Babies wake up). Point is, queues have felt super fast to me. (I play u.s. prime time, admittedly).

9.I hate repair and rearm. Dying is its own penalty. R&R encourages low risk roles: sniping and lrm boats have enough incentive.

10. Matchmaker thoughts:
10+2×1 v. 9 + 3x1 (x# means group size of #) is good. I would love to be on either team as a solo. An invite friend from the end of game. Screen would make it amazing.
10 +2 v 3x4 is awful.
6 + 6x1 v 2 + 10x1 is awful.
4x3 v 4 + 2 + 6x1 is awful.
12x1 v 12x1 is fine, but random chaos with no real manuevers. It is fine but no better than 4 + 8x1 v 4 +8x1.
I think 2 people on T.S. with no one else are not much better off than 2 randoms.
So I would make the mm:
1 group per side.
Groups must be within 2 players in size.
Groups of 2 do not count as groups (and thus do not count towards 1 group per side).
Keep 4x3.

10 or so. Consider something like:
All lights and mediums get plus 1 module slot (heck, give is mediums plus 2!).
Only lights and mediums get speed tweak. Assaults and heavies instead get a second fast fire skill. (Fast fire improves dps, but doesn't help snipers). (Or plus 5 internal structure in non head locations?) Or 10 percent more i.s.(round normally).
Something that fits their role without making them much more powerful. I like more structure because battletech is interesting when you take crits).
Maybe let mediums choose: speed tweak skill or more i.s. skill.(as a skill it reflects better piloting to turn hits into glancing blows).

[Dan Nashe]

@ Cimarb:
I would KILL for even a damage taken STAT on the scoreboard.. Actual xp rewards ate just icing on that happy cake. If a I take 80% of my total armor in Anything in total damage, I have had a good game. If one guy takes 200 damage in a shadowhawk before dying, and the other guy takes 50, that matters a lot!

And I love your spotting damage reward idea. And at a minimum it should be an assist. Having spectated a lot pressin R is really actually hard for many players too! Holding that lock for more than 1 missile hit really contributes to the team.

[Solahma]

What does the column on the far left represent? Elo matching? If that's the case, the second from the bottom is going to get HOSED

[Sandpit]

Sarsaparilla Kid, on 06 July 2014 - 10:41 PM, said:

Here's mine...we were a 12-man, and obviously the other side was at least 2 separate groups matched up against us. We had 3/3/3/3, but they had 4/4/2/2:

the first think you need to accept is that I don't care what MM system they come up with, you're never going to have 100% perfectly balanced matches every single game.

Not to mention they had 1 extra assault and heavy, that's not really what I'd call "lopsided"...

[Sarsaparilla Kid]

Sandpit, on 07 July 2014 - 12:36 PM, said:

the first think you need to accept is that I don't care what MM system they come up with, you're never going to have 100% perfectly balanced matches every single game.

Not to mention they had 1 extra assault and heavy, that's not really what I'd call "lopsided"...

My post was not so much to complain, but to address the concept that the MM will not always directly match 1 for 1 each weight class represented on both teams, as some have conjectured, even when one team is 3/3/3/3 due to being a 12-man.

Edited by Sarsaparilla Kid, 07 July 2014 - 12:44 PM.

[Sandpit]

Sarsaparilla Kid, on 07 July 2014 - 12:43 PM, said:

My post was not so much to complain, but to address the concept that the MM will not always directly match 1 for 1 each weight class represented on both teams, as some have conjectured, even when one team is 3/3/3/3 due to being a 12-man.

That's where the release valves come in though. It TRIES to match 1:1 but if the wait time exceeds whatever limit PGI has placed on it, it starts opening those release valves to get players into games.

There's never going to be a way for PGI to strictly mandate a force composition like that without having very long wait times (which is why many of us shook our heads when we tried to explain that to them in the first place and they just kept on trucking forward)

[Cimarb]

Solahma, on 07 July 2014 - 12:09 PM, said:

What does the column on the far left represent? Elo matching? If that's the case, the second from the bottom is going to get HOSED

Yes and yes. See Karl's comment in my OP, though, as he does address that.

Sarsaparilla Kid, on 07 July 2014 - 12:43 PM, said:

My post was not so much to complain, but to address the concept that the MM will not always directly match 1 for 1 each weight class represented on both teams, as some have conjectured, even when one team is 3/3/3/3 due to being a 12-man.

It was stated that it will always match on both sides, even when valves are released, but something involved in a 12-man team may break that. I will mention it on Twitter and see if I can get a response.

[Sarsaparilla Kid]

Cimarb, on 07 July 2014 - 01:06 PM, said:

It was stated that it will always match on both sides, even when valves are released, but something involved in a 12-man team may break that. I will mention it on Twitter and see if I can get a response.

Yes, perhaps in matching a 12-man that already has the strictest weight balancing enforced, there may be a different sort of release valve that allows a weight class mismatch if no possible combination of smaller groups can be used to make a strict 3/3/3/3 match, after a certain amount of time, at least. I'll have to start paying attention when I'm also in a smaller group if the 1 for 1 weight matching can go astray even after the release valves trigger that allow it to move away from 4x3 weight restrictions for both teams.

Edited by Sarsaparilla Kid, 07 July 2014 - 01:21 PM.

[Sandpit]

Sarsaparilla Kid, on 07 July 2014 - 01:21 PM, said:

Yes, perhaps in matching a 12-man that already has the strictest weight balancing enforced, there may be a different sort of release valve that allows a weight class mismatch if no possible combination of smaller groups can be used to make a strict 3/3/3/3 match, after a certain amount of time, at least. I'll have to start paying attention when I'm also in a smaller group if the 1 for 1 weight matching can go astray even after the release valves trigger that allow it to move away from 4x3 weight restrictions for both teams.

the horrendous wait times were the reason the release valves had to be put in place. It wasn't much of an issue before allowing any size group into the 12mans. With the introduction of 2-10mans and all the mech combinations involved it becomes an issue.

I don't know that they can "fix" that though. It's one of thsoe things where you kinda have to accept "better" instead of perfect.

[Sarsaparilla Kid]

Sandpit, on 07 July 2014 - 01:27 PM, said:

the horrendous wait times were the reason the release valves had to be put in place. It wasn't much of an issue before allowing any size group into the 12mans. With the introduction of 2-10mans and all the mech combinations involved it becomes an issue.

I don't know that they can "fix" that though. It's one of thsoe things where you kinda have to accept "better" instead of perfect.

Probably not...as long as it's reasonably close, I think that's all we can hope for.

[Sandpit]

Sarsaparilla Kid, on 07 July 2014 - 01:33 PM, said:

Probably not...as long as it's reasonably close, I think that's all we can hope for.

I think if more players took that stance we'd have a "nicer" community here overall lol