259 replies to this topic

[Mawai]

Russ Bullock, on 21 September 2014 - 10:34 PM, said:

Thanks for your question I should make it clear that in your example it isn't that Crimson would be chosen, it would be that Crimson had about a 33% chance of being chosen. Also we would likely give each map at least a vote of 1, therefore everything would have at least a very small chance of being chosen with the % increasing with the number of votes.

Would the same random process be applied to the game mode selection as well? So that even if no one selected a particular mode there would still be a 1/27 chance that it could come up?

[Chet Manley]

Wow. Talk of fixing matchmaking, town-halls, giving back to the community... What spurred the culmination of these events?

I'm not complaining, by all means keep it up! But, I am curious.

[Mawai]

One quick comment ...

Before going to the effort of implementing this ... can you verify the numbers that removing this constraint will actually make a substantive difference in the quality of matches formed overall? Run stored player data through the matchmaker removing the game mode constraint and see how many more large group vs. large group matches are formed and how the difference in Elo between teams changes and whether the difference is significant.

The basic idea sounds ok but if it can't be backed up with numbers it doesn't really mean anything. This change might or might not be worth the effort involved.


Also, have you considered that a player's Elo may differ depending on game mode? Elo is based on winning or losing against expectations. However, different game modes have different win conditions. A player with a high Elo in light mechs which is derived predominantly from Conquest matches could indicate an excellent strategic player who manages to keep the cap win going for their side ... and thus secures a win more regularly. This Elo standing may not translate into a good match in either Skirmish or assault modes due to the different win conditions since they may not be as skilled in a direct combat or scouting role.


One more point ... each game mode may not be as rewarding for each mech class. I rarely play conquest in my light mechs since I found myself often working on caps for the win ... but then I was not generally involved in the combat and the rewards for helping to cap were pitiful. Missing out on the rewards for kills/assists/damage done/saviour kills ... really hurts your bottom line in earnings ... so I won't play conquest generally. Similarly, having a slow mech in conquest is also almost useless ... the battelfield is more fluid ... the only good thing in PUG conquest is that usually both teams will have a few slow mechs ... so the central "blob" of each team usually run into each other eventually.

[ERescue]

After a rather lond "debate with myself", I chose to vote "No". I know several players dislike one or more game modes / features.

Due to this, I am going to make the following proposal, though I am well aware it is literal pain in the rear end to program. Already feel sorry for the coders... :/ However, this model should make almost all players happy, I think.

Player profile, using myself as example one:

Assault, box ticked.
Conquest, box ticked.
Skirmish, box ticked.

If Assault, pilot: dropbox, with all owned / available mechs: Stalker-3M
If Conquest, pilot: dropbox, Centurion
If Skirmish, pilot: dropbox, Trial Catapult

Map preference:

Upvote: dropbox, choose: Frozen City, Night
Downvote: dropbox, choose: HPG

This way, I am available for any game mode, get to choose what I pilot in each mode and do not get a guarantee of a specific map, but higher / lower chance of a specific pick.

Example player two:

Only Assault ticked.
Assigned mech for Assault mode: Direwolf Prime
Downvote: Terra Therma

This player will only be considered for Assault games and will pilot his / her beloved Direwolf. (S)he will usually not end on Terra Therma, but is not guaranteed to avoid it 100% of the time. (S)he may have a longer wait time than I do, but will get a game that suits his / her preferences.

I might have missed some critical detail, so if anyone spots any, please point out. Also, developer viewpoint would be awesome, if it is not too much to ask.

[warner2]

I voted no because in my experience Conquest on average produces bad PUG / Solo matches. A bit like Terra Therma produces bad PUG / Solo matches only I can't avoid Terra Therma. I can however currently avoid Conquest so I am permanently selected to play Assault / Skirmish only.

[AztecD]

i dont really care when im dropping solo, sometimes you win, sometimes you get stomped.

as long as it does not translate to CW im fine with what ever changes you guys see fit.

[Diligent Gravy]

I voted yes to this, only in that I am a casual player for the most part. I am not a great/skilled player (follow orders but hands shake a little making targeting difficult) but being matched with folks around my level would I think make it more fun on the whole as matches would be closer/longer upping the enjoyment.

Also for new folks coming into the game playing in the group queue with their friends as its sits now can be a veritable nightmare of stompings. Personally I don't mind getting worked in group queue as I can learn from better players, but some folks don't appreciate a 12/0 stomping continually.

Also Russ thanks for engaging the community on this issue

Anyway that's my 0.02 CDN
DG

[Steel Will]

If the goal is to improve player experience, I don't think putting people into game modes they may intentionally be trying to avoid is a good way to do it. And while I'm very glad to see an increase in dialogue and openness to the community's wishes, please don't let internet polls guide the direction of this game. For every good idea with an overwhelming consensus there's a bad idea to go right along with it. This is one of those bad ideas.

[Foxtrot four eight]

If you put me in a game mode I don't want, I will drop from the match.

[Einaescherin]

Same thing like before mode selector, player leave at a gamemod they dont want to play.
Same thing like now happened if a player dont like the map.
.....
Missing a increase of learning at this idea......
Because this is ~5% different from Random and in most case more than 50% of the player don't want the map or don't want the game mode or both.
13 Maps 3 Gamemodes 39 different combination of votes from 24 different players......

A big facepalm for this idea......

[Why Run]

Competitive, nah. Everyone loves the current matchmaker. This is just so much fun!

Edited by Why Run, 22 September 2014 - 11:27 AM.

[Felio]

It might also really help if we knew, objectively, how good of a job the matchmaker is doing. How much use are the release valves getting, and how good of a predictor is that of a badly lopsided conclusion?

[Coolant]

Can't stand Conquest...any game mode where a single shot doesn't have to be fired is a game mode I don't want to play. I don't even like Assault cause games can still come down to occupying a single spot, but at least combat is emphasized.

I would rather have lopsided games then be forced to cap or be capped.

[FaceRipt]

I for one am for more balanced matches but after the last vlog when Russ mentioned this i decided to give it a whirl.

If this goes thru get ready for lots of skirmish some assault and maybe 1 conquest mode out of 20 games if your lucky.

My main problem with this is conquest is my preferred mode as to it can be won with tactics other than turtle or murder ball. not saying that every conquest goes to max points for victory but at least the opposing team has to make some kinda decision to move it or lose it.

I would vote yes but these other 2 modes are so undesirable atm, I know one game this weekend on a skirmish in alpine against a 12 man it was a turtle on both sides with combat only breaking out with under 5 mins left in the round. All that time standing on a hill while they stood on another. SO MUCH FUN WAS HAD!!!

[Andross Deverow]

I would much rather keep the ability to lock out certain game modes. I do not like conquest it is a horrible game mode.

Regards

[Why Run]

On another note, under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should you ever let the matchmaker run longer than 3 minutes. If you let the valve control open, it's going to produce EPIC bad games. I have now resorted to sitting around watching the clock to make sure it doesn't happen. Everytime I wait for the valve to open at 3 minute, it turns into the ugliest games ever. SPARE YOURSELF THE WASTED GAME, NO 3+ Minute waits.

[Andross Deverow]

The big issue here with quality matches is the simple fact that there are only 3 modes of play and CW is still a pipe dream at this point in time. Give us more game modes finish CW we want dropship mode, we want objectives that are worth capturing, we want battles to span over several maps not just one tiny map per instance.

Regards

[razor31]

I'm going to reply to this topic in hopes that PGI reads this thread. If you lock the game modes I will uninstall this game. I know I'm only one person, but I have spent lots of money on this game. Now if 100 players of my commitment do the same, its a big hit to the wallet. For all you people crying how broke the match maker is JOIN A UNIT and drop as a group. This is a online game, and if you chose to drop solo with 11 others, don't cry when they don't do what you expected.

[Nathan Foxbane]

Chet Manley, on 22 September 2014 - 08:36 AM, said:

Wow. Talk of fixing matchmaking, town-halls, giving back to the community... What spurred the culmination of these events?

I'm not complaining, by all means keep it up! But, I am curious.

Getting the IGP bottleneck out of the way.

[DarkBazerker]

I vote no because I like having choices.