259 replies to this topic

[Hawk819]

If it gets us out of the conundrum of repeating the same map over and over, then by Holy Smoking Toledo, I say yes.

[Kamenjar]

Oh please do whatever is needed so that competent players can team up with at least somewhat competent players. I've been teamed up in solo matches with teammates who claimed to have been playing the game for 8 days, teammates who can't even aim even closely towards the target (sky, ground - they can't even get controls straight). It is really nerve wrecking and it's ruining the game when you have no idea whether the team will back you in an aggressive move, and then the game becomes a sniper fest.

PGI - pretty please - I beg you!

[RazorBlade79]

The voting system for the gamemode is way better.

I'm way more excited about the map voting though, I want to have this since forever, it works fantastic in Starcraft 2 and I will probably almost never see Terra Therma again (or at least it will be rare)

Also, if you put in new maps, maybe don't add a voting option for the first 2 weeks or so for it and instead make it automatically high priority? (I understand that's the way it is right now, kind of)

[The Wakelord]

Short answer: Yes

Long answer: Yes. At the moment I play on any 3 (but die a little on the inside when I get the conquest), but about 70% of my matches seem to be the capture-the-base one, which in that people rarely capture said base. I can only assume it gives slightly more XP or c-bills so people are choosing that option, which forces less strict players onto that all the time.

[Evil Ed]

I sometimes do conquest only because it's the only mode that doesn't feel like a steep uphill climb when piloting a light or a medium.

I've mentioned this before, but here we go again:

There should be bonuses for helping the matchmaker create balanced 3/3/3/3-matches. Players not deselecting modes, playing the most underrepresented weight-class or voting on maps should get XP/C-bill (maybe even MC?) rewards. Not much, but lets say 15-30.000 c-bills, 50-100 XP.

Edited by Evil Ed, 22 September 2014 - 05:24 AM.

[NeoCodex]

Kamenjar, on 21 September 2014 - 11:49 PM, said:

Oh please do whatever is needed so that competent players can team up with at least somewhat competent players. I've been teamed up in solo matches with teammates who claimed to have been playing the game for 8 days, teammates who can't even aim even closely towards the target (sky, ground - they can't even get controls straight). It is really nerve wrecking and it's ruining the game when you have no idea whether the team will back you in an aggressive move, and then the game becomes a sniper fest.

PGI - pretty please - I beg you!

I'd rather see this than being forced a game mode as well. I really don't care as much about the game mode as mixing completely new players with old ones. I always play on any, no matter what mech I pick, just give me some better balanced matches and if the MM is telling you that the game mode selection is keeping him from making the games more balanced, than do it.

[Appogee]

Poll needs a new option:

"HELL YES!"

[kailii]

If we had more players, that vote would be unneccessary, and we'd have as many MM options as we'd like.

But for now - i voted YES of course... /shrug

[SgtKinCaiD]

Kamenjar, on 21 September 2014 - 11:49 PM, said:

Oh please do whatever is needed so that competent players can team up with at least somewhat competent players. I've been teamed up in solo matches with teammates who claimed to have been playing the game for 8 days, teammates who can't even aim even closely towards the target (sky, ground - they can't even get controls straight). It is really nerve wrecking and it's ruining the game when you have no idea whether the team will back you in an aggressive move, and then the game becomes a sniper fest.

PGI - pretty please - I beg you!

I voted NO because as Kamenjar said, this is the real problem : stop mixing veterans with new players in order to have an average ELO which is easier for the MM to work with.

I'm sick of waiting less than 2 minutes and having a mach that end in less than 5 minutes because we lost a full lance nearly right from the start. I'm tired of outdamaging and outscoring more than a full lance of my teammates nearly every match, even in a brand new mech. And i don't even talk about the fact that the MM forces me to take a meta compliant mech in order to carry my team. I'd rather wait 10 minutes to have a match where i can support my teammates because i know i can count on them.

And this my dream proposition for the solo queue :
- Skirmish aka quick fight / no brain. This mode is for training new guys, leveling new mechs, testing new builds, etc. Matchmaker based on class like the old one for quick match setup. Maybe put in a XP bonus and a CBIlls malus.

- Assault and Conquest : this is where the real competition begins. Matchmaker based on ELO buckets, with more loose tonnage restriction : not strict 3/3/3/3, but rather no more than 6 assaults and heavies (whatever the combination) and no more than 6 lights/mediums in order to prevent full assault team. Put in a ladder for both mode so players can compete for.

PS : i forgot something : your ELO score should not be based on W/L only, it should take also your participation in the match (aka your match score) into account.

Edited by SgtKinCaiD, 22 September 2014 - 04:40 AM.

[Kjudoon]

Unless you choose to offer a 'surrender' option, I just won't play if I can't guarantee to stay out of skirmish. It's about principle to me and I don't do hopeless causes. I'd gladly cede the battlefield to an obvious victor but feel no obligation to die for the convenience of another person who's played their game and gotten the results they got, I'm playing mine even if the only victory left possible is waiting to see if I am good enough at hiding they can't find me before the end of the match.

[NeoCodex]

SgtKinCaiD, on 22 September 2014 - 12:41 AM, said:

I voted NO because as Kamenjar said, this is the real problem : stop mixing veterans with new players in order to have an average ELO which is easier for the MM to work with.

I'm sick of waiting less than 2 minutes and having a mach that end in less than 5 minutes because we lost a full lance nearly right from the start. I'm tired of outdamaging and outscoring more than a full lance of my teammates nearly every match, even in a brand new mech. And i don't even talk about the fact that the MM forces me to take a meta compliant mech in order to carry my team. I'd rather wait 10 minutes to have a match where i can support my teammates because i know i can count on them.
than 6 lights/mediums in order to prevent full assault team. Put in a ladder for both mode so players can compete for.

So you have any proof that MM will use more new players to balance the ELO if by Russ's words matches are "better quality"?

It does raise a question, however, what "better quality" actually means. But if MM has a chance to make something a 50/50 win, even if you have some new players on both teams, it should end of something like a 11/12, right? And that should be a good game everyone wants (man, I live for these games, it's so exciting to watch right until the end), and if this means that we will still have a new player here or there in the game, I don't mind it.

Edited by NeoCodex, 22 September 2014 - 12:50 AM.

[STEF_]

Russ, I would like to say something here:

1) group matches have problem: "12 team players (of course well coordinated, and with TS)" vs "3-4 small groups of 3-4 pilots" aren't fun at all. Boring stomps.

We need lance drops 4 vs 4 or 8 vs 8

2) Giving an elo values of 900 to newbies is wrong.

3) mixing different elo players to balance the total elo of the 2 teams is wrong as well.
Now in pugs we have skilled players dropped with total noobs, ad this is disappointing of both kinds of players
Edit: cloud MM choose players with similar elo? for istance at least "elo zones" 0-300 // 300-600 ecc.?


thank, if you ever read this

Edited by Stefka Kerensky, 22 September 2014 - 01:06 AM.

[SgtKinCaiD]

NeoCodex, on 22 September 2014 - 12:48 AM, said:

So you have any proof that MM will use more new players to balance the ELO if by Russ's words matches are "better quality"?

I don't understand your question : the MM is actually mixing veterans with new players to have an average ELO score which is easier to match. Can you explain further ?

NeoCodex, on 22 September 2014 - 12:48 AM, said:

It does raise a question, however, what "better quality" actually means. But if MM has a chance to make something a 50/50 win, even if you have some new players on both teams, it should end of something like a 11/12, right? And that should be a good game everyone wants (man, I live for these games, it's so exciting to watch right until the end), and if this means that we will still have a new player here or there in the game, I don't mind it.

A balanced match can still end in 12-2 : a slow landslide where one team lose a mech there plus another one, etc. until it can't fight back. But right now, we have matchs where a full lance is already dead by the third minute.

[NeoCodex]

Stefka Kerensky, on 22 September 2014 - 12:50 AM, said:

Russ, I would like to say something here:

1) group matches have problem: "12 team players (of course well coordinated, and with TS)" vs "3-4 small groups of 3-4 pilots" aren't fun at all. Boring stomps.

We need lance drops 4 vs 4 or 8 vs 8

2) Giving an elo values of 900 to newbies is wrong.

3) mixing different elo players to balance the total elo of the 2 teams is wrong as well.
Now in pugs we have skilled players dropped with total noobs, ad this is disappointing of both kinds of players
Edit: cloud MM choose players with similar elo? for istance at least "elo zones" 0-300 // 300-600 ecc.?


thank, if you ever read this

The 12man stomps are another big problem we're still dealing with but Russ said this is what communtiy wanted and and it will probably stay this way. So either learn to play in a 12 man or get stomped. But I don't want to look for a big group every day I play, it takes time to find and organise so many people, it's more tiring and serious, it burns you out quicker, and downtime between matches is longer, and grouping in small groups of 2-4 is pointless, unless you enjoy being stomped. 12mans can be fun and I welcome addition of it to the game so you can play it every day, but that's the day I pretty much stopped playing in groups, since if you don't have a good coordinated 10 or 12 group of players, it's pointless to even try to play with friends.

Also team dynamics and conversations are not the same when 12 people are present on TS rather than 2-4, the group dynamic is much more pleasant, personal and relaxed and you can actually have a conversation and enjoy the game together, which is pretty much impossible now with those small groups that really made the game a lot of fun to relax with at the evening. Now you have to step it up and be 100% comitted to serious play in a big group, or solo it. I choose solo 90% of the time, because it's just so much less hassle.

Edited by NeoCodex, 22 September 2014 - 01:11 AM.

[Kjudoon]

NeoCodex, on 22 September 2014 - 01:10 AM, said:

The 12man stomps are another big problem we're still dealing with but Russ said this is what communtiy wanted and and it will probably stay this way. So either learn to play in a 12 man or get stomped. But I don't want to look for a big group every day I play, it takes time to find and organise so many people, it's more tiring and serious, it burns you out quicker, and downtime between matches is longer, and grouping in small groups of 2-4 is pointless, unless you enjoy being stomped. 12mans can be fun and I welcome addition of it to the game so you can play it every day, but that's the day I pretty much stopped playing in groups, since if you don't have a good coordinated 10 or 12 group of players, it's pointless to even try to play with friends.

Also team dynamics and conversations are not the same when 12 people are present on TS rather than 2-4, the group dynamic is much more pleasant, personal and relaxed and you can actually have a conversation and enjoy the game together, which is pretty much impossible now with those small groups that really made the game a lot of fun to relax with at the evening. Now you have to step it up and be 100% comitted to serious play in a big group, or solo it. I choose solo 90% of the time, because it's just so much less hassle.

This was not wanted by the community as a whole. It was wanted by the esport crowd. HOw do I know it wasn't the whole community? Two Words: Solo Queue.

The idea that the community fought for it seems to boil down to the 5+ incident between Russ and a few other community members a few months before we got the feature, and the constant complaining of the Esportos wanting easy pickings to practice on. Those with friends, but not interested in playing hard core got hung out to dry between he 'no groups' and 'big groups' cries. In fact, this lives on the premise that if you want to play in a group, you must want to be playing on 'most extreme' difficulty and never just casually mess around. It's gotta be hard competition all the time. Some of us want that NONE of the time... nor do we enjoy pugging solo. Both are horrible styles of play.

Now we're seeing the full horror of 12man v Pugs in the group queue and it's driving people out of the game. I'm one of many who's ready to give up and I've just about hit my 1 year anniversary. I'll see how CW plays out or if they finally return to us the Lance queue of 2-4 mans... but barring that, there's little to nothing here worth me paying money for, let alone playing for.

Edited by Kjudoon, 22 September 2014 - 01:38 AM.

[Reno Blade]

If this would lead to ELO brackets playing within the bracket instead of mixing in everything to get "average", then I'm all for it.

It often looks like there are teams with <1000 ELO mixed with some >2000 veterans.
If that means that there will be a lot more matches with <500-700, 700-1000, 1000-1300, 1300-1600, 1600-1900, 2100<, then it should be a way better experience for all involved in these matches.

Ofc, the edge cases will still be a problem.
If you have 10 people with 2200 and 2 with 2800 vs a team with 12x 2300s, it can become still be quite one-sided.

Edit:
And I would be ok with a checkbox with "wait 5 more minutes for a better match" if the games would be better AND games would last longer than the usual 5-8 minutes (aka. longer TTK times).

Edited by Reno Blade, 22 September 2014 - 01:35 AM.

[Liveish]

Assault & Skirmish Yes Conquest No

[NeoCodex]

I'm surprised esport crowd was being favored in this case since it's ussualy a minority of game population, so I fail to see how would this be a good business decision if you are driving away from the game the majority of your 4 man lance groups, which many of them were also often part of that 90% solo queue. Mistery.

However, more elo brackets does sound like a good idea, why not add more refined filters for elo and try it out?

[Evengar Dragonis]

I do not care about the choice of maps, I play the same way at all.
But, I really do not like skirmish mode, I think its stupid. Please can you leave no opportunity to play in the hated mode of the game?
On the other hand, if the two teams will be collected with equal Elo, there is a chance a very interesting game, and I can take a chance!

Edited by Leonid, 22 September 2014 - 01:37 AM.

[1453 R]

I want to vote Yes, Russ. I do. I think it's a good idea, and it'd help matchmaking times and quality both, and at the very least I'd be willing to let you guys try it, yes.

That said...

I really, really, really really, really, really, REALLY, REALLY, SUPER REALLY GOD DAMN HATE Skirmish mode. I have had some incredibly bad game experiences in Skirmish mode, bad enough that they forced me to disable Skirmish in my drop selection queue when, previously, I left all three game modes selected specifically to alleviate the issues you want to alleviate. The number of times I've been on the bad end of toxic players in Skirmish abusing the mode's mechanics to force an actively painful game on me outnumbers the times players have done the same to me in Assault and Conquest combined, and if I never have to set foot in that horrible snake pit of a game mode again, it'll be about five or six games too soon.

I can't in good conscience vote for an unconditional "Yes". As I said, I'm willing to give it a trial shot, but if it were my choice? I would take the "Implement it for a month and then deactivate it again for data collection and analysis" option. My matchmaking times and quality had better skyrocket, and I'd best have the option to finally drop with my brother and/or my new-to-the-game buddy in his mostly stock Catapult in the group queue without getting continually pounded into meat paste by nine-man murderclans eight games out of ten, if you want me to tolerate more games like that absolute nightmare on HPG that finally forced me to turn Skirmish mode off in the first place.

Edited by 1453 R, 22 September 2014 - 02:10 AM.