Jump to content

Matchmaker Epic Dev Fail?


125 replies to this topic

#61 Jason1138

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 800 posts
  • LocationGeorgia, USA

Posted 22 September 2014 - 07:48 AM

"I am willing to bet many of my engineers are about as intelligent of people as you will find on this earth. "

that's how we know that it hasn't taken them 3 years of constant effort to make CW. They just haven't actually been working on it at all. Probably still aren't. Haven't bothered fulfilling the loyalty point rewards for project phoenix either. Its not because they're not good enough to do it but they're trying hard, its because they're plenty smart enough and they're just criminals.

Edited by Jason1138, 22 September 2014 - 07:49 AM.


#62 Mystere

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 22,783 posts
  • LocationClassified

Posted 22 September 2014 - 07:50 AM

View PostGlythe, on 21 September 2014 - 11:10 PM, said:

I hope you don't like the group match maker because you're only going to see Timberwolves as the heavy for optimized teams.

I also resent Elo because what it does for a game like this is make it feel that no matter how good you are you're always running at full speed and staying in place. I think you should either match with Elo or by parts+tonnage (looking at you clan tech and ECM). Both is extreme overkill. Unfortunately in this era of our civilization everyone seems to want a trophy even if they fail.

I still say this game was at its peak when you had 8 vs 8 with good matchmaking in terms of balanced weight and no Elo. The numbers for the game population will probably support this but not entirely for the reason you think....... PPCs became the super weapon when this era died (and that brought in the poptart era).


I only play solo. :wub:

Having said that, I really liked the times before 3/3/3/3. I encountered Steiner lances, light wolf packs, and all sorts of crazy teams. I miss facing those.

#63 IceSerpent

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,044 posts

Posted 22 September 2014 - 07:54 AM

View PostGyrok, on 22 September 2014 - 05:19 AM, said:

Sounds to me like you have never touched a line of code in your life.


Been "touching lines of code", as you so eloquently put it, for almost 19 years and counting. ;)

Quote

This is not a failure on their part. As a game developer, I can say there are many things I would have done differently, however, since the desyncs are fixed I cannot fault them for what they have in place.


You are contradicting yourself - if PGI hasn't messed anything up and the game is perfect, why are there "many things you would have done differently"? If the game is nowhere near being perfect, why do you think that it's not PGI who is at fault?

Not to mention that desyncs are a separate issue that has nothing to do with the topic.

Quote

Frankly, you nitwits think you can toss a couple parameters into a queueing system and automagically get something better. The reality is that what they have in place is far more complicated than you expect or realize.


Sure it is, bro. None of us had ever worked with any sort of queue algorithms before.

Quote

You could get perfect, 3/3/3/3 matches with roughly equal tonnage and skill, but then everyone would complain about 20-30 minutes between 5-10 minute matches.


1. Where did you get that 20-30 minutes figure from?
2. What makes you think that we prefer fast queue with lousy matching to slow queue with good matching?
3. Being a game developer, you do realize that we can make that an player option (select slow/good or quick/bad) and essentially have both camps fairly happy, right?

Edited by IceSerpent, 22 September 2014 - 07:55 AM.


#64 Almeras

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Slayer
  • The Slayer
  • 294 posts
  • LocationLondon

Posted 22 September 2014 - 07:56 AM

can we just see our friendly elo buckets in the team window? A lot of what is conjecture results from everyone calling themselves a 'high elo' reminds me of the saying;

"Sex is like race car driving, all men think they are good at it"

Clearly alot of people operate on the assumption they are the best player on their team and default blame the MM/team for the loss. Those that are more pragmatic can see the truth it comes down to multiple factors some you can control others are just pot luck.

5 tiers of threat should be enough to see who your teamed with; Cadet, green, amber, orange, pink

#65 EgoSlayer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 1,909 posts
  • Location[REDACTED]

Posted 22 September 2014 - 07:59 AM

View PostIceSerpent, on 22 September 2014 - 07:54 AM, said:


Been "touching lines of code", as you so eloquently put it, for almost 19 years and counting. ;)



You are contradicting yourself - if PGI hasn't messed anything up and the game is perfect, why are there "many things you would have done differently"? If the game is nowhere near being perfect, why do you think that it's not PGI who is at fault?

Not to mention that desyncs are a separate issue that has nothing to do with the topic.



Sure it is, bro. None of us had ever worked with any sort of queue algorithms before.



1. Where did you get that 20-30 minutes figure from?
2. What makes you think that we prefer fast queue with lousy matching to slow queue with good matching?
3. Being a game developer, you do realize that we can make that an player option (select slow/good or quick/bad) and essentially have both camps fairly happy, right?


I can answer some of these:
1) Those were the times, or longer, when the "hard lock" versions for the 3/3/3/3 went into effect.
2) I, and most others I have see stating an opinion don't want to wait 20 minutes for a match that lasts on average 7 minutes.
3) Not really because you end up splitting the queues which makes the player pools less and results in longer times for both.

#66 Gut

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 373 posts
  • LocationNear Dallas, TX

Posted 22 September 2014 - 08:02 AM

Be patient. Let them work on CW. Then work on the first time user experience and actually retaining new players.

Grow a user base big enough for ELO to actually work as intended.

Instead of working to "fix" it now.

(But seriously, PGI, get CW done)

Edited by Gut, 22 September 2014 - 08:09 AM.


#67 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 22 September 2014 - 08:05 AM

View PostGyrok, on 22 September 2014 - 05:19 AM, said:

Sounds to me like you have never touched a line of code in your life.

This is not a failure on their part. As a game developer, I can say there are many things I would have done differently, however, since the desyncs are fixed I cannot fault them for what they have in place.

Frankly, you nitwits think you can toss a couple parameters into a queueing system and automagically get something better. The reality is that what they have in place is far more complicated than you expect or realize. You could get perfect, 3/3/3/3 matches with roughly equal tonnage and skill, but then everyone would complain about 20-30 minutes between 5-10 minute matches.

So before you toss your 2 cents in take the complexity into consideration.

I can understand things like this when talking about 10 vs 12 and that sort, but the matchmaker is WAI and doing well.

As for those 12 mans you complain about. They need people to play against too. If it happens to be you, take your drubbing and go on. That or work as a team and kill them.
There would Still be rolls then Gyrok. First Mech to die, allows for two against one. Then three against one, then four against one. And before you know it. The Match Maker is broke again cause its not factoring Attrition! :rolleyes:

#68 Threat Doc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bowman
  • The Bowman
  • 3,715 posts
  • LocationO'Shaughnnessy MMW Base, Devon Continent, Rochester, FedCom

Posted 22 September 2014 - 08:09 AM

View PostRuss Bullock, on 21 September 2014 - 09:54 PM, said:

It's a good set of thoughts but most players have over simplified the process in their heads to a large degree. Unfortunately the Match Maker is keeping track of way more things then is listed in your post.

You are not taking into account ELO - even if it wants to match certain people together as you suggest it is not allowed to because of an ELO range that is far to separated to be fair.

Next is it does not take the 3,3,3,3 aspect into account, although the MM does allow some flexibility in this and ultimately has to at least match weight class for weight class in a match.

Your example doesn't even take weight class into account. What if that 10 man just simply can't fit with the 2 man you have because the 2 man is two Heavy mech's and the 10 man group already has all the Heavies allowed?
Okay, this is where you need to stop. All of this crap is unnecessary. Get rid of the limiting Elo, go to Battle Value 2. 'Mechs are evaluated in the MechLab, not during the match making -only basic numbers should be matched, as closely as possible, in MM- once the player saves the 'Mech in the ML, along with the player's general skill rating, which would also be determined by the game, through achievements and play-style as measured by metrics you already have built into the game.

Now, you have your groups/buckets of players, all of their Battle Value's added together, and pushed against a group of similar total, even if one group or another has fewer 'Mechs. If the groups are more than 5 - 10% of total BV apart, the MechWarrior with the closest number to the difference in BV gets dropped from the game, and his/her 'MECH NEVER ENTERS the game, so it's not stuck, and they can immediately move into a different game.

The only numbers YOU really take into account in MM is an individual's Elo and the 'Mech weight class. Battle Value does vary drastically, and so though your Medium 'Mech nominal BV falls in-between 450 - 600 points, prior to pilot and gunnery skill adjustments, there are designs out there that, once calculated in the MechLab on Save, will fall below that number range, God forbid, or will go way above it. In EVERY 'Mech designer I have ever used that takes BV and/or BV2 into account, I am well-capable, normally, of placing my 'Mechs well outside what their weight class BV range can be. The AU1 Wolverine chassis I developed exceeds the BV1 of the Atlas 7-K for Pete's sake, and it sacrifices 45 tons to the beast.

Finally, Elo is very limiting, at a range of 2300, forcing everyone to remain inside that range, rather than opening things up for individual players and player groups to decide what sorts of fights they would like to have. If I want to field a Company composed of 24,000 BV1 against another Company of between 21,600 and 26,400 (10% range on either side), I should be able to do that, except for the rule about 11 players on one side, for which someone can be kicked to bring the game into line with the programming problem. Alternately, if I want to field 3.600 BV1 against a group between 3,240 and 3,960, for a Light brawl, I should be able to do that, as well. You've placed amazingly hard restrictions against the player base, and are disallowing us to play the game as it was meant to be played...

There are MANY of us who have been screaming for objective-based combat, for raid contracts, but with Elo we cannot possibly do that. The Matchmaker is so busy trying to take into account so many things that it's impossible to get a great game to play, because the limitations are so HARD. 3/3/3/3, Weight classes, age of the searching group, and these relief valves designed to open things up, it is utterly ridiculous. Right now, if a group is searching for more than twenty to thirty seconds, there are two outcomes... rolling, or getting rolled, PERIOD. That is the fault of using Elo, which was a scoring system used between individual players for Chess, and is NOT VIABLE for playing decent groups.

You want the bitching and complaining about rolling one game and getting rolled the next to go away, get rid of Elo and get BV working. Look, I'm here in Everett, and I would be willing to drive the 60 or so miles, I have my passport, even, to show you guys how to make this work, on paper. You want to continue to tell us how we're missing factors that need to be accounted for in the MM, and I'm telling you how to get rid of those factors and allow your community to play with ANYONE, ANY game type, objective raids, long missions, and planetary assaults by allowing us to set stages -recon and objective recon, minor skirmishes and objective-based missions, hard skirmishes and attack/defend, and completing planetary assaults and the like- of completion. You are holding onto Elo like it's the end-all and be-all of game-play, and it's bollocks, period. Always has been, is the only real part of this game I have anger issues over, and it always will be.

Quote

This is a complex problem - I don't expect our customers to understand all of the complexities but please don't make posts explaining how easy it is unless you understand all of the layers of complexity at hand. I am willing to bet many of my engineers are about as intelligent of people as you will find on this earth.
And I'm telling you the complexity is not only unwarranted, it's holding your game, and your community, back. Why in the hell do you need to have 10 v 12 or 12 v 12 or 8 v 8, or anything, except as a ceiling for number of 'Mechs in a game? Why in the hell do you have to have 3/3/3/3? Why does a 2300 point Elo scheme still make sense to you guys, when you've been provided at least one other major possibility, where the numbers are calculated on saving your 'Mech in the MechLab, and then put into a group/faction bucket to be compared to another group for the sake of play? If you have one group with ten players at 5,000 BVMWO, and you have a Clan group of 7 players at 5,105 BVMWO, what's the problem with launching THAT game? Why does it HAVE to be 12 v 12? Why can't the 12 v 12 be a ceiling rather than a hard requirement?

Quote

Trust me if the problem were as simple as you describe it would be working as described.
I KNOW for a fact the programming issues that you would have converting are not as easy as what is described in the text, here, and I think most of your players, though perhaps not as intelligent as your engineers, understand that, as well. However, if you want to expand your game, if you want brutal combat on an even par ALL THE TIME, this is the change you're going to NEED to make.

#69 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 22 September 2014 - 08:12 AM

Though I am not a fan of Elo... BV2 was found to be exploitable by a few Commandos/Agents for TT. It is Better than BV1 was though from what I heard through the grapevine.

#70 IceSerpent

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,044 posts

Posted 22 September 2014 - 08:19 AM

View PostRuss Bullock, on 21 September 2014 - 09:54 PM, said:

It's a good set of thoughts but most players have over simplified the process in their heads to a large degree. Unfortunately the Match Maker is keeping track of way more things then is listed in your post.

You are not taking into account ELO - even if it wants to match certain people together as you suggest it is not allowed to because of an ELO range that is far to separated to be fair.

Next is it does not take the 3,3,3,3 aspect into account, although the MM does allow some flexibility in this and ultimately has to at least match weight class for weight class in a match.

Your example doesn't even take weight class into account. What if that 10 man just simply can't fit with the 2 man you have because the 2 man is two Heavy mech's and the 10 man group already has all the Heavies allowed?

Next is game mode selector - say the 2 man says no to the game modes that the 10 man has selected.


Russ, the assumption was that players are taken from a pool that satisfies other checks/requirements. I.e. a single Elo bracket, same game mode selcted, "filler" group is picked from groups with appropriate mechs, etc. In other words, the rest of the parameters are still in place and are not being skipped (although switching to BV scheme would simplify things immensely IMHO). I aplogize for not mentioning that specifically - an oversight on my part.

Quote

This is a complex problem - I don't expect our customers to understand all of the complexities but please don't make posts explaining how easy it is unless you understand all of the layers of complexity at hand. I am willing to bet many of my engineers are about as intelligent of people as you will find on this earth.


I am not saying that they are not intelligent, but I do believe that there is a problem with a design process somewhere. The whole purpose of matchmaker is to create a fair match, agreed? if current MM doesn't create fair matches, then it doesn't meet the design requirements and therefore is broken (as it has no other functions to perform). I certainly understand the desire to speed things up, but when it happens at the expense of main functionality of the system, it makes no sense.

Quote

We can implement the suggestion if you do not care if you end up with 12 heavies against 12 mediums or any other extreme combination. Or if you don't mind if one team is Comp team good and the other full of noobs and so on.


Russ, just out of curiosity, if you were to implement something like this with other checks (Elo, etc,) still in place what would be the actual average wait time? If it's not too difficult to get that info from statistics you guys have.

#71 IceSerpent

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,044 posts

Posted 22 September 2014 - 08:28 AM

View PostEgoSlayer, on 22 September 2014 - 07:59 AM, said:


I can answer some of these:
1) Those were the times, or longer, when the "hard lock" versions for the 3/3/3/3 went into effect.
2) I, and most others I have see stating an opinion don't want to wait 20 minutes for a match that lasts on average 7 minutes.
3) Not really because you end up splitting the queues which makes the player pools less and results in longer times for both.


1) hard lock 3/3/3/3 is not the same as group sizes, can't base any assumptions on that.

2) we never had any kind of a poll regarding acceptable wait times. Also, 20 minutes is practically an eternity from a perspective of MM - I am not yet convinced that we're looking at that kind of time increase.

3) It's the same kind of split that happens when you add a new game mode, yet folks seem to keep asking for more modes instead of grabbing pitchforks every time this idea comes up. Which is another reason I am not quite willing to buy into this "most others are not willing to wait" idea.

#72 Apnu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 2,083 posts
  • LocationMidWest

Posted 22 September 2014 - 08:30 AM

I don't like the current MM system.

Last night I and a friend grouped up in "new" mechs as two and went looking for matches. We had very long searching time and we kept winding up as filler against a 12 man from CK who were well organized, had a plan, was on coms and were all skilled aggressive players.
We lost every single time to them. No way our ad hoc collection of 3 or 4 small groups with a random or two tossed in could stand up what CK was brining.

We gave up after a while. It was unfun.

This sort of thing hurts the game, if two people who are pals group up with starting Elo mechs and they're going to wind up facing a skilled competitive unit time after time after time, something is very broken.

#73 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 22 September 2014 - 08:32 AM

Your two man argument is the same one PUGs used to get less excuses for their fail Apnu. I don't disagree with you, but for right now, the Devs have no plan on allowing two mans to flip between Ques.

#74 DrXitomatl

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 138 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationUnited States

Posted 22 September 2014 - 08:33 AM

View PostRuss Bullock, on 21 September 2014 - 10:07 PM, said:

View PostFatYak, on 21 September 2014 - 05:14 PM, said:

with MWO's playerbase you can either have a great MM and long long wait times for a match, or, a not so good matchmaker and short wait times

We cant have both


This is a valid point - although player counts have been consistent pretty much since the beginning. MechWarrior has a LOT of factors to account for.

Players want exact tonnage matching plus a variety of mechs on the battlefield and to play against players of similar skill. It is a lot to take into account and unfortunately for a niche product to have some of the more strict requirements of any game. It isn't a great combination.


Sounds like it's almost time to ramp up the marketing effort and grow our player base! Just need to get that single player campaign put together even if just for the sake of training new players. Make sure it's good, though, so they get hooked! Then advertise like nuts. More players = shorter wait times and/or the ability to make more stringent MM protocols.

#75 EgoSlayer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 1,909 posts
  • Location[REDACTED]

Posted 22 September 2014 - 08:43 AM

View PostIceSerpent, on 22 September 2014 - 08:28 AM, said:


1) hard lock 3/3/3/3 is not the same as group sizes, can't base any assumptions on that.

2) we never had any kind of a poll regarding acceptable wait times. Also, 20 minutes is practically an eternity from a perspective of MM - I am not yet convinced that we're looking at that kind of time increase.

3) It's the same kind of split that happens when you add a new game mode, yet folks seem to keep asking for more modes instead of grabbing pitchforks every time this idea comes up. Which is another reason I am not quite willing to buy into this "most others are not willing to wait" idea.


You're entitled to believe what you want to believe, but the facts are out there if you look. Look at the complaint threads every time there has been a MM change and you'll see the two most common complaints are wait time and poor matches. And many people don't understand that just because it was 12-0 or 12-1 stomp doesn't mean it was poor match making. Combat Loss Grouping is the reason why stomps are a normal occurrence even in a perfect match.
And on #3 that's exactly why Russ is proposing removing that as a hard lock.

With your suggestion of a "good" vs "fast" option, a 12 man set at "good" will wait until there is another 12 man that matches on the existing criteria, game mode, and skill rating. That could be hours. If you look at the complaints from the 12 mans in the past they were already complain about not even being able to find matches at all before the 3/3/3/3 changes. It basically killed the 12 man queue. It would also apply to larger groups like 10 mans and possibly 8 mans as well, it would make the match criteria so small a range it's difficult to fill - leading to more wait time.
It's simple math really - if it was so easy to make the perfect match, the MM would be doing that already. And it does a good job when there are less restrictions like in the solo queue.

#76 IceSerpent

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,044 posts

Posted 22 September 2014 - 09:21 AM

View PostEgoSlayer, on 22 September 2014 - 08:43 AM, said:

You're entitled to believe what you want to believe, but the facts are out there if you look. Look at the complaint threads every time there has been a MM change and you'll see the two most common complaints are wait time and poor matches.


That "and" is the culprit. Indeed, people don't like waiting for a while and still end up in a poor match. That doesn't necessarily mean that they won't be willing to wait for a good match. Folks generally are willing to wait if they expect to get something good out of it.

Quote

And on #3 that's exactly why Russ is proposing removing that as a hard lock.


People who bother to exclude game mode(s) are already willing to wait longer for a match they don't perceive as bad. What makes you think that they would be willing to drop that selection and play unwanted game mode when they get outvoted?

Quote

With your suggestion of a "good" vs "fast" option, a 12 man set at "good" will wait until there is another 12 man that matches on the existing criteria, game mode, and skill rating. That could be hours.


Or it could be minutes - we don't know yet. What we do know is that quite a few people pick "good" vs. "fast" option in game mode selection (pick specific mode vs, "any"). The devil is in the details - how good that "good" is and how much time one has to sacrifice in order to get it.

I'd really love for PGI to run a poll along the lines of "how long you'd be willing to wait for a guaranteed good (fair) match?" I.e. no valves, no loosing up of MM, 100% guarantee that it will be fair. Maybe this is not really that big of an issue.

#77 Threat Doc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bowman
  • The Bowman
  • 3,715 posts
  • LocationO'Shaughnnessy MMW Base, Devon Continent, Rochester, FedCom

Posted 22 September 2014 - 09:32 AM

View PostJoseph Mallan, on 22 September 2014 - 08:12 AM, said:

Though I am not a fan of Elo... BV2 was found to be exploitable by a few Commandos/Agents for TT. It is Better than BV1 was though from what I heard through the grapevine.
ANY TIME you have numbers in a game, Joe, you're going to have exploits. Besides, who's to say PGI, who would control BVMWO -see what I did there? :) - that the amount of exploit would be reduced? The thing I would be most worried about is having Elite pilots in Mastered Lights. But, then, that's what the bucket is about, isn't it? If I place 12,000 BVMWO into a group, even if a group of eight had 12,500 BVMWO, it would still be a relatively even match, because player skill would be turned away by numbers, IF the group works well together.

Right?

#78 DrXitomatl

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 138 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationUnited States

Posted 22 September 2014 - 09:32 AM

QUICK PATCH-IT IDEA: Having players vote on the mode is cumbersome and will eat into my actual gaming time. Instead, let the commander choose a primary mode (s)he wants and select "backup" modes that (s)he considers acceptable if a match into the desired mode type is not available soon. There may need to be two columns of 3 boxes, one column called preferred, under which the commander selects the preferred game mode, and another column that says acceptable, where the commander selects any other game modes they are willing to do. They do not HAVE to do this, they could just select the preferred game mode and they will search all day if they have to for it.

This is not much different than the current setup where the commander can select 2 modes, but this just adds in the ability to indicate a preference. Have the MM look for just the preferred mode type for, say, 1 minute, then expand the search to include other acceptable types if no matches have been found within the given time frame.

Example: Myself and most of the other guys in Clan Widowmaker pretty much only play Skirmish mode. But I'm willing to play Assault if it'll get me a couple of minutes sooner to do so. However, I will not play Conquest unless we're all geared up with mechs built for the job, in which case I would NOT want to do Skirmish.

EDITORIAL NOTE: Obviously this is not a solution, but it is a simple thing that could be done very soon and provide a slight benefit. I think we'd get fewer groups selecting just one game mode if we could state a preference.

Edited by WM Xitomatl, 22 September 2014 - 09:40 AM.


#79 Zyllos

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,818 posts

Posted 22 September 2014 - 09:38 AM

View PostRuss Bullock, on 21 September 2014 - 10:23 PM, said:

There will be more posts on this soon but ELO doesnt really have a home in CW nor a way we can really bring it over. Also 3/3/3/3 really doesn't exist in CW any longer either since it will be balanced out by the dropship which in a way recreates 3/3/3/3 but the is more flexibility on how you drop in etc


This statement is a very large statement.

It means CW will play nothing like the current public/group drops.

I am going to assume the "dropship" is going to have some type of chassis allowance and tonnage limit for the drop?

More is needed!

#80 EgoSlayer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 1,909 posts
  • Location[REDACTED]

Posted 22 September 2014 - 09:49 AM

View PostIceSerpent, on 22 September 2014 - 09:21 AM, said:


That "and" is the culprit. Indeed, people don't like waiting for a while and still end up in a poor match. That doesn't necessarily mean that they won't be willing to wait for a good match. Folks generally are willing to wait if they expect to get something good out of it.


Except it isn't an 'AND' it's two separate complaint items. When the match wait times were long the complaint was that it was a long match. Most people said the match itself was well matched when there was a long wait.

Some sample data - 400+ posts on wait time issues:
http://mwomercs.com/...maker-feedback/


View PostIceSerpent, on 22 September 2014 - 09:21 AM, said:

People who bother to exclude game mode(s) are already willing to wait longer for a match they don't perceive as bad. What makes you think that they would be willing to drop that selection and play unwanted game mode when they get outvoted?



Or it could be minutes - we don't know yet. What we do know is that quite a few people pick "good" vs. "fast" option in game mode selection (pick specific mode vs, "any"). The devil is in the details - how good that "good" is and how much time one has to sacrifice in order to get it.

I'd really love for PGI to run a poll along the lines of "how long you'd be willing to wait for a guaranteed good (fair) match?" I.e. no valves, no loosing up of MM, 100% guarantee that it will be fair. Maybe this is not really that big of an issue.


Except we do have an idea how long it will be, based on past match maker changes. The 12-man queue was killed by match wait times due to only 12-man vs 12-man matching. 8 Mans where hard to match because 4 mans were allowed in the public/solo queue - resulting most groups being 4 mans and 2 man because that is the fast way to get a match. The players *have* voted by their behaviors, and all the evidence is there. PGI has even more data because they see what is in the pool and what the edge cases really are.

And part of the problem is that people think that a stomp is a bad match maker. It isn't necessary so, since we have limited health and no respawns. Tactual errors/mistakes that put a team down 20% of the force relative to the enemy is an almost certain win for the other side, but most assume it's because the MM was bad.


Edit: added a wait time feedback thread for reference.

Edited by EgoSlayer, 22 September 2014 - 09:58 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users