125 replies to this topic

[Mordin Ashe]

I suppose that both teams should be on similar competitive level. 3x4 against 1x12 isn't competitive and will never be so please, get rid of it.
Also, ECM should be accounted for unless PGI puts it in place where it belongs. If it stays the ultimate equipment that turns off all your oponent's information warfare and renders all lock-on weapons useless, it must be assured that both teams have the same ammount of ECM because the team with less is in dire disadvantage.
Oh, and organizing MM according to average ELO and not total ELO would be great - 1 good player can't carry 4 noobs all the way, sorry.

Other than that, I am very happy with that we have because mostly MM works very well. Agreed that long waiting times are a nuisance, but hey, better wait 2 mins for good match than 5 seconds for getting steamrolled repeatedly.

[Glythe]

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

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.

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.

Let's roll back the clock to when you were talking about the development of this game. You said all mechs would be equal in a sense and the separation would largely be the pilots. Most people automatically assume that an assault is better than everything else because it has more armor and more guns. This is really quite false because the fast medium/light can exploit a large target's rear. That being said I think overall it is easiest to play this game as a heavy because you are generally fast and have good firepower. Being slow is like being a Maus is world of tanks (pre-nerf). You're tough but when you get left behind to get eaten you still die quickly. If you have players well matched with Elo it should not matter what mech they bring. If ECM is left in its OP status just give teams bringing ECM an Elo handicap. A +1 ECM advantage maybe is 100 points. a +2 ECM advantage is +300 points (yes is should scale up and be a dreadful penalty in its current form). And if you think mediums suck vs assaults then you should meet some of the people I used to play with (before the game died). The old zombie cent was way way way more survivable than any assault mech in 8 vs 8 team only games. Staying alive longer means you do more damage even if you have fewer guns.


Forcing a rigid 3/3/3/3 system is in my opinion quite stupid. I'd love to go back to the days where you can bring anything you want. Those of you who don't remember might not know that 4 lights was a serious threat to capturing the base (assault/conquest). Would this not make lance vs lance games better?

I have a question to ask. How many of your engineers have played this game for 250 hours? Or 500 hours? Have any played 1000 hours? Being smart is one thing and actually playing the game and being good at it is another. It is another thing completely to understand the meta and adjust the rules of the game to keep things fair between players. The separated lance spawn right now is one of the stupidest aspects of this game because the meta is zerg zerg and more zerg. If that is what the players want (/sigh) force it on them so teams don't have to "rescue" slow mechs. This would help with fewer landslide victories.

It's amazing that you are talking to us and I love that to no end. Many of the MMOs you play with might as well be a religion to a fictitious deity and anything you post is an unanswered prayer. Quite often I see devs who are disconnected from their own game (they never know what the players are doing until way after it becomes the norm) in addition to being disconnected from their players.

I like that we have a solo queue only right now. I hate that we have a 10-12 man or don't bother playing MM for groups. Everyone can offer ideas as to how the MM can work but I'd like to give you something to consider. What we have right now just does not work for most average people.

I'd have 3 matchmaking groups so people decide which one they go into when they click play. The first would be lone wolf. You play alone and get random team mates. I'd drop this game mode down to 8 vs 8; this was the best the game's ever been imho and it would be friendlier to new players. In this mode you would play all 3 game modes.

The second would be "lance mode". You play with up to 4 people in a lance and you play assault/conquest. Just a quick note here something needs to be done about 12 vs 12 to prevent "the zerg" where the strategy is for both teams to meet up all 3 lances. I think we really need to have some map objectives added to this game mode. Each team needs to commit a goup of 4 mechs to hold 3 different bonus objectives. The bonuses should be worth having but not game breaking. If you don't rework the bonus objectives then just please go back to putting all the players in one spot. If zerg is the meta let everyone spawn together so it is always zerg vs zerg.


The final mode is premade groups only. You play full teams with 3/3/3/3 (maybe with some random stragglers who can join via some sort of open/closed lobby). You give people the chance to get organized on TS or their preferred voice system. Then they go out and play skirmish. You all spawn in the central spawn location and move out to kill each other with no frills. For this mode you throw out Elo completely. You are told this going into the game. It's best man wins no questions asked. The cream rises to the top and those wanting to get better learn by losing or stop playing. There also needs to be a tonnage cap so if you bring 3x 100 tons and 3x 75 tons then you have almost no tonnage left for lights/mediums. As it stands right now there's no reason to bring most 80-85 ton assaults when you can bring a 100 ton instead.

Edited by Glythe, 21 September 2014 - 10:51 PM.

[Kirtanus]

Played with teammates in 3-man group - we met 5 different 12man groups and won all of them. The only loose was against another mix groups drop... Good skill is OP.

[Mystere]

TygerLily, on 21 September 2014 - 10:26 PM, said:

My dream matchmaker:

Ditch game mode selection. 33% chance of each game mode...done.

Super loose 3/3/3/3 valves.

Super tight Elo and Weight MATCHING (ton for ton).

I'd love to drop in to a game knowing our tonnage is equal and out skill is equal. Just need to get Clan tech balanced and IS vs Clan buckets instituted and I'd be a happy cat.

I am the exact opposite. I do not want to be able to predict the composition and quality of my enemy. That's boring in my book. YMMV of course.

[Monky]

I could go for a matchmaker where you can set preferential ordering and MM can slide around, for both map and game type. Being able to ban 1 really disliked map could be great too.

[Thorn Hallis]

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

Then don't implement futures your not able to handle!

I think you wanted to say "Don't ask for features when you can't handle the consequences".

[Glythe]

Monky, on 21 September 2014 - 10:41 PM, said:

Being able to ban 1 really disliked map could be great too.

This is nice.... but there are a few problems. First it is hard for a company with less than ten maps in their game to learn that most players hate maps X,Y and Z. The X/Y are probably mordor and alpine (especially with the current metas).

This would slow down match time and that is already too long imho. Then again if you simplify the match making equation you can have some room for a few options to slow it down just a bit.

Mystere, on 21 September 2014 - 10:40 PM, said:

I am the exact opposite. I do not want to be able to predict the composition and quality of my enemy. That's boring in my book. YMMV of course.

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).

Edited by Glythe, 21 September 2014 - 11:18 PM.

[Tomcat0815]

I would love to have the option to have a drop deck of four mechs from four weight classes ready. And then let MM choose which one suits best. And if one wants to play his/her assault mech, he puts only that one mech into his drop deck.

I think one problem is that people imagine matches to have a stable equilibrium when the match starts.
I believe it i s an unstable equilibrium, meaning that if the starting situation changes only a little bit once the match has started, e.g. one team loses his first mech, the equilibrium drastically shifts towards one side, building up momentum and becoming very hard to swing around.

So even a match with 100% similar ELO, mechs and group size and communication would not be that close in it's outcome as one might expect.

[Glythe]

Tomcat0815, on 21 September 2014 - 11:24 PM, said:

I would love to have the option to have a drop deck of four mechs from four weight classes ready. And then let MM choose which one suits best. And if one wants to play his/her assault mech, he puts only that one mech into his drop deck.

I think one problem is that people imagine matches to have a stable equilibrium when the match starts.
I believe it i s an unstable equilibrium, meaning that if the starting situation changes only a little bit once the match has started, e.g. one team loses his first mech, the equilibrium drastically shifts towards one side, building up momentum and becoming very hard to swing around.

That's a great idea in theory but you would need to bring at least 2 choices..... And it would need to be at least 1 category away from your other choice if you bring 2 mechs. Why? Ok I bring my Direwolf and Timberwolf. GG either way it's like I have an assault. I either have the fast one or I have the one with a zillion dps. The other solution is a tonnage limit. That way you can bring a 40 ton medium or a 100 ton assault.

Personally I'd like to see a "125 ton" match mode. As a player you get 100 tons and you can either bring a 100 ton mech and a 25 ton mech. If you bring two mechs then you can die once and still have a respawn. Or you can bring 2x 45 mechs and bring a 30 ton mech to have 3 spawns.


12 vs 12 is a catalyst for "swing" games. More mechs means there is more of a risk when you pop out for a second. There are more eyes on the field so that a flank poke is more difficult (for lights). More people means alpha is forever and always the " I win" button. One solution there is when community warfare comes out make the hottest planets worth the most reward.

Sustained dps is just not rewarding anymore unless you are guaranteed to have 1 on 1 fights.

[Levon K]

This whole thread would have been averted if everyone took the time to listen to the town hall meeting. Look it up on soundcloud.

[SaltBeef]

I am liking the sound of a 4 mech dropship readiness. If there is going to be a invasion map or maps that are large and open up into other map maps with a crossover canyon tunnel or bridge or Gateway, or door way , or blast through a wall, or burn down a Forest to get the map extension. Hell maybe you got to load onto a dropship it will fly you to the next map section. If we could take 4 mechs and have a 1hr game setting but the game starts at the top of the hour and you get to bring 4 mechs to the fight. 1 hour Matches: after the hour is up whom ever has the most mechs or most objectives wins.You could combine it with Conquest so that in certain areas of the map if you stand in the border box count down your team takes control of turrets, gates, or artillery guns or opens a prison that releases men that climb into tanks or mechs and assist ( AI ) , GINS GUNS BIG!! GUNS ( arty guns give one free arty and airstrike to everyone who stands in the Taken Box ) or escort troops or tanks or HuhUhUUUmm!! ROYALTY!.
Would not it be absolutely outstanding to find a rare ammunition reloading depot and any mech that wait and captures the crew gets free ammo reloaded.

Edited by SaltBeef, 22 September 2014 - 02:15 AM.

[SaltBeef]

If you were a lowly worker in a Ammo dump surrounded by mountains of ordinance are you going to say NO to that enemy DiaSHI telling YOU OVER THE comms TO RELOAD THE AC5'S OR THE WHOLE BLOCK IS GOING UP IN A FIREBALL with you in it.

Edited by SaltBeef, 22 September 2014 - 02:17 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

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!!!

There is just no way to make everyone happy Einaescherin. You didn't get ***** cause of the DEVs though. You got ***** because the team with better team work wins.

For the first time since... well the first Tournament, I got to drop against Koniving and "friends". I think I got him to >50% armor with Missiles. I Was happy to have seen him on the fields again, and have no problem that he and his team beat/crushed my team. The better team wins the match. So if you are being beaten by better players, you need to accept that truth, and press launch again, OR wait till the double XP weekend is over. Thats what I chose after Saturday. It was nice to test myself, but I had slightly better luck in PUG, but the grinders were out there as well, and I am not top tier, I did assist my team fairly well, and won a bit more, so better times there.

Eboli, Hope to drop with you again when you have more time.

[Modo44]

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

Honestly we can make the MM amazing if players will accept the trade offs. For instance allow us to put 1 mech per weight class into even smaller groups so for instance a group of two can't be two heavies etc. This alone would mean the MM could fit the jig saw pieces together really easy. Put that on top of the game mode selector being a vote and were in business.

Personally, I think hardening the group restrictions (e.g. to 1/1/1/1 until you get 5 and 2/2/2/2 until you get 9 players) would do wonders for the group queue. It could shift a major load off of the matchmaker, and onto players. Unfortunately, I can hear the "they be taking my freedom" screams already.

[Joseph Mallan]

You can take my life but you canno take mih FREEDOM!

[Modo44]

Joseph Mallan, on 22 September 2014 - 03:36 AM, said:

You can take my life but you canno take mih FREEDOM!

Except by referendum.

[Joseph Mallan]

Modo44, on 22 September 2014 - 04:23 AM, said:

Except by referendum.

Not even then.

[Sky Hawk]

As always in such MM threads, I say, I don't like the idea of 3/3/3/3, because 3 IS (MWO) Lights in one team are mostly too strong.. I would prefer 2/3/4/3 or 2/3/3/4 or such targest for the MM...

But since CB Clan Mechs, and those many Summer Sales, I don't like newly:

- 3 ECM team vs. 1 or non-ECM team

- 2 DW team vs. Atlas + Victor team

- 2 non-ECM Kit Fox + Adder team vs. any other 3 Light Mech team..
...

I know, that's almost non possible, but I would want, that MM could see not just the weight, but the equipment the Mechs too. (I speak just from Solo! In Group Q, count more TS+teamwork/number of well knowed teammates as the Mechs.)

[Gyrok]

IceSerpent, on 21 September 2014 - 01:16 PM, said:

No, it's not difficult. The way it should work is to only match large team vs. large team within a given threshold. For example (assuming threshold of 2):

Groups in the queue: 12-man, 10-man, 2 x 6-man, 2 x 4-man, 2 x 2-man
Matching:
- take the largest group, check if we have a match (second largest one) within threshold - we do (12 and 10)
- put largest group into team A and matching one into team B - we have 12 v 10 at the moment
- fill second group with the first 2-man and we're done (12 vs. 10 + 2).

What if we don't have a matching second largest group? I.e. no 10-man in the previous example.

Groups in the queue: 12-man, 2 x 6-man, 1 x 4-man, 4 x 2-man
Matching:
- take the largest group, check if we have a match (second largest one) within threshold - we don't (12 - 6 > 2)
- skip the the largest group (leave it in the queue), start with second largest (I'll call it "largest" from now on) - we have a match (6 and 6)
- put largest group into team A and matching one into team B - we have 6 v 6 at the moment
- fill team A with a next largest group - we have 4-man, now we're at 10 (6+4) v 6
- fill team B with a next largest group , we have 2-man - now we're at 10 (6+4) v 8 (6 + 2)
- fill team A with a next largest group - we have another 2-man, now we're at 12 (6+4+2) v 8 (6+2) and team A is good to go
- fill team B with a next largest group - we have another 2-man, now we're at 12 (6+4+2) v 10 (6+2+2)
- fill team B with a next largest group - we have another 2-man, now we're at 12 (6+4+2) v 12 (6+2+2+2), we're done.

To summarize the algorithm:

The "core" (largest) teams on each side are always within the given threshold.
The remaining slots on both teams are filled with the largest group that fits there, alternating between teams - add group to team A, then add group to Team B, the n add group to team A, etc.
Smaller teams get the fastest MM, as they can be added to larger groups and can be the "core" themselves (if the largest team in the queue is 4-man, it becomes a "core").
Larger teams may have to wait for another sufficiently large team to get into the queue.
Scenario where 12-man is matched against 6 x 2-man can never happen, the worst discrepancy can be the "filler" part ending up with 6-man on one side and 3 x 2-man on the other when "core" is 6-man vs. 6-man.

The difficult part is to convince PGI to implement someting like this.

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.

[Scratx]

Russ 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



Honestly we can make the MM amazing if players will accept the trade offs. For instance allow us to put 1 mech per weight class into even smaller groups so for instance a group of two can't be two heavies etc. This alone would mean the MM could fit the jig saw pieces together really easy. Put that on top of the game mode selector being a vote and were in business.

But it comes with trade offs most wouldn't accept....but we can keep talking this through. I just ask that we spread the word to the player base on exactly what is going on with the MM and that it isn't that we can't program a simple method of putting groups together.

On a purely academic manner, let's assume we would want/accept allowing restricting smaller groups... Would a tonnage-based cap, on top of 3/3/3/3, scaling based on how many players are in the group, be a workable solution? It would give a big reason to use "sub-optimal" tonnage chassis (like 40-45t range, or 60t), and the support for tonnage restriction is already in. Would just have to be exposed and enforced more widely than just private lobbies.