125 replies to this topic

[Gen Joe]

IceSerpent, on 25 September 2014 - 07:12 AM, said:

Won't work - how would you match a group of 5 in your suggested setup?

Of course with another 4plus-lances in the company-queue, with lances from lance-queue that signed in for company-queue also and solo players that do the same. And in this constellation the normal limits shouldn't be droped.

Edited by Gen Joe, 25 September 2014 - 07:51 AM.

[hybrid black]

Einaescherin, on 21 September 2014 - 12:08 PM, said:

3*4 player grps vs 12 player grp
or
10player grp + 2 player grp vs 4 *3player grps

Is it to difficult to make the teams even in the matchmaker?
Then don't implement futures your not able to handle!
4 times in a row get rapped by a 12 player grp cuz of low developer skill is disgusting!!!

Or get better and carry most 12 mans suck

[TexAce]

Einaescherin, on 21 September 2014 - 12:08 PM, said:

3*4 player grps vs 12 player grp
or
10player grp + 2 player grp vs 4 *3player grps

Is it to difficult to make the teams even in the matchmaker?
Then don't implement futures your not able to handle!
4 times in a row get rapped by a 12 player grp cuz of low developer skill is disgusting!!!

Its not the matchmaker, its the lack of players.

You dont want to play against 12man in 3x4 groups? Ok, are you willing to wait up to 20 minutes or more so the matchmaker can find the exact same group setup as yours? No? Well, I guess this is not the game for you.

Or go out and recruit more members.

[TexAce]

Koniving, on 22 September 2014 - 03:38 PM, said:

I don't like that either, but...
What's hilarious is 12 players versus 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2.

But on a serious note:
12 player group? Forced into 3 lights, 3 mediums, 3 heavies, 3 assaults.
10 player group? Probably will be 3 assaults, 3 heavies and 3 (of either mediums or lights with 1 left overor 2 and 2).

That 4*3 group? 3 assaults, 3 assaults, 3 assaults, 3 assaults.
That 3*4 group? 3 assaults, 1 heavy. 3 assaults, 1 heavy. 3 assaults, 1 heavy.
That 2*6 group? 2 assaults, 2 assaults, 2 assaults, 2 assaults, 2 assaults and 2 assaults.


Unfortunately the matchmaker tries to nitpick tiny groups of smaller or equal mechs to prevent that.

is this the way the MM works right now in groups? If the MM would choose to make the smaller groups heavier than the bigger groups I would think this is enough to justify them playing against each other.

[Koniving]

TexAss, on 25 September 2014 - 08:08 AM, said:

is this the way the MM works right now in groups? If the MM would choose to make the smaller groups heavier than the bigger groups I would think this is enough to justify them playing against each other.

It doesn't intentionally choose groups that way. In fact it tries to avoid it. But as the timer ticks, it begins to care less and less about weight matching, "releasing valves" as PGI put it until finally it fills all the slots.

From what I have seen it is usually a less than 50/50 chance the smaller groups will have more upper 'weight classes' than the enemy forces.

In one noteworthy match, it was 10 players and 2 players on the enemy team. 3 assaults, 3 heavies, 2 lights and 1 medium. The other two players were 1 medium and 1 assault. (4 assaults, 3 heavies, 2 mediums, 2 lights.)
My team (of no more than 3 unit tags per different tag and typically several groups of 2) had 5 assaults, 4 heavies, and 3 lights. We lost horrifically (their mediums and lights annihilated our lights, and they annihilated the assaults while their assaults and heavies wiped out our heavies.)

This however was a very rare occurrence. What I quoted before was the most extreme possible cases (half joking and half serious as it being 'possible').

Edited by Koniving, 25 September 2014 - 09:37 AM.

[kinematics]

Hi all, first post. Perhaps this have been asked and suggested before?

Why is the entire ML UI disabled/grayed out while the client side code for the MM is running? Maybe it should be reworked as a background job with the ML still functional? Then, as soon as MM instance is fully populated, the client launches the sim? Working on some mech load-outs while waiting for the MM to complete would for sure make the perceived wait to be shorter?

Another idea for making the MM having a possibly easier job would be the player selecting 1-4 mech(s) bay(s) in an (ideal) 1/1/1/1 fashion, from where the MM could make it's pick. If the player selects just one assault, for example, then that's all what the MM got and finding a suitable instance would take more time?

Edited by oliwaw, 06 October 2014 - 06:11 AM.