481 replies to this topic

[Haipyng]

Mystere, on 28 September 2014 - 07:30 AM, said:

You have got to be kidding.




And now I think you really are. smh.

The solo queue must be kept solo. Player disquiet there has been mostly quelled.

As for the group queue, a possible solution is what I already stated in this thread.

I was saying the issue wasn't as bad as what I am seeing in terms of stomps in the large queue. Not that it didn't exist or that we need to go back to that. Solo, small group, large group with opt ins from the bottom up.

[VixNix]

Squally160, on 28 September 2014 - 05:39 AM, said:

"Heres this change that will ruin the big group q"

"We would still like to play though! we dont agre with that change"

"AHHHHH! They just want to keep things the same! they wont let us do what we want *whine whine whine*"

So yeah. Everyones solution is basically: 12 mans/big groups cant play anymore, but little groups can.

and your response to why we dont want that is because you think "we want nothing to change."

thats a real special kind of short bus logic.

So you are lumping yourself in with the few that don't want to change?

I didn't put you there.

[jackal40]

Squally160, on 28 September 2014 - 07:20 AM, said:

This whole thread is about small groups being stomped by big teams. Would you be done with the solo q if the same stomps happened there?

Don't know where the question about solo queue came from, but I'm not seeing those kind of stomps with the frequency I see in group queue. Yes, I do stop playing after I get a few stomps in a row - it's not fun.

Squally160, on 28 September 2014 - 07:20 AM, said:

The MM cant determine who is trying that night, and who is plastered.
it just says "your elo is this, you should play at that elo level"

It doesnt care what mood you are in that night, it just goes off numbers, not attitudes.

And the fundamental problem is that match maker sets up one group as the predetermined winner - instead of setting the teams closer to each other so that the players determine who wins.

Since ELO is based of your teams past performance NOT YOURS, ELO isn't currently a good measure of how good a player is.

[Hoax415]

jackal40, on 28 September 2014 - 07:48 AM, said:

And the fundamental problem is that match maker sets up one group as the predetermined winner - instead of setting the teams closer to each other so that the players determine who wins.

The fundamental problem with this thread is people like you actually believe something that incredibly stupid.

PGI did not set up a matchmaking system that maliciously tries to "force" one team to lose. The fact that you are willing to believe something like that just shows the ridiculous lengths people will go to in order to make a loss be some kind of "act of god" scenario.

[Mystere]

jackal40, on 28 September 2014 - 07:48 AM, said:

Don't know where the question about solo queue came from, but I'm not seeing those kind of stomps with the frequency I see in group queue. Yes, I do stop playing after I get a few stomps in a row - it's not fun.


And the fundamental problem is that match maker sets up one group as the predetermined winner - instead of setting the teams closer to each other so that the players determine who wins.

Since ELO is based of your teams past performance NOT YOURS, ELO isn't currently a good measure of how good a player is.

Please read up again on how PGI has set up the MM. Even Russ wrote a comment on this particular allegation.

And no, I am not looking for that post for you or anyone else.

[Haipyng]

Hoax415, on 28 September 2014 - 07:58 AM, said:

The fundamental problem with this thread is people like you actually believe something that incredibly stupid.

PGI did not set up a matchmaking system that maliciously tries to "force" one team to lose. The fact that you are willing to believe something like that just shows the ridiculous lengths people will go to in order to make a loss be some kind of "act of god" scenario.

I have to agree. MM does not set one predetermined winner over the other. The issue occurs outside of what the MM is capable of looking at. The human element in that coordinated human players will generally function far better than small groups acting without coordination. Practiced coordinated groups multiply that effect.

Small groups have a very significant handicap in every match versus a large team. That is the trouble.

Edited by Haipyng, 28 September 2014 - 08:13 AM.

[Mudhutwarrior]

Triordinant, on 23 September 2014 - 11:40 AM, said:

Based on his statement, Russ Bullock seems to dislike the idea of any groups of any size in the solo queue.

That's crap. Russ when questioned about synch dropping in solo que didn't even understand the question based on his response. I gave up on any sign of intelligence from PGI that day.

The game will suck into infinity as long as PGI owns it and people will lay their money down regardless. Just offer them a shiny new toy to rent and they are good.

[Livewyr]

Well, this thread got boring and trivial.

[Thorn Hallis]

Really? I just saw a new influx of paranoia.

[John Wolf]

Hello Mechwarriors,

Some of the responses in this thread have been seen as personal and unconstructive. Please make sure that if you wish to discuss a topic that you post politely as possible and do not target another player with insults. Just because you disagree with someone, or don't believe their idea has merit doesn't mean you have to belittle or talk down to someone. It makes all of us look worse off. Lets be a better community.

I trust that the discussion from here on can continue in a more positive manner or the thread can be closed out.

Thanks for your time!

John Wolf

[PappySmurf]

I feel for you OP I would have liked to drop with friends and family in a private lobby just to train and have fun. But I don't know if MWO will ever have the ability to not just play 12v12 free for all type game modes. Some of my friends have been banned just for posting anything anymore about subjects like yours its a shame PGI has to ban players that really don't deserve it and put offensive banned players on a player council no one really wanted.

Edited by PappySmurf, 28 September 2014 - 09:25 AM.

[jackal40]

Hoax415, on 28 September 2014 - 07:58 AM, said:

The fundamental problem with this thread is people like you actually believe something that incredibly stupid.

PGI did not set up a matchmaking system that maliciously tries to "force" one team to lose. The fact that you are willing to believe something like that just shows the ridiculous lengths people will go to in order to make a loss be some kind of "act of god" scenario.

Mystere, on 28 September 2014 - 08:05 AM, said:

Please read up again on how PGI has set up the MM. Even Russ wrote a comment on this particular allegation.

Haipyng, on 28 September 2014 - 08:11 AM, said:

I have to agree. MM does not set one predetermined winner over the other.

Well, seems my forum search skills just aren't up to finding anything one way or the other - guess you folks know better cause you have more posts than I do.

That's how MM was explained to me when I asked why we seem to lose 8 out of 10 matches. I accepted that explanation because it fit the match results I've experience. Since that obviously isn't true, then the only other explanation I can come up with is I'm a terrible player.

That being the case, is there one good reason to continue to play MWO - aside from being cannon fodder for the better players?

[NextGame]

I got bored from reading this thread around page 7.

Is the matchmaker suspect? Yes it is, as it essentially likes to engineer results, and quite frankly we would be better off with something completely random.

However not everyone can be a winner, and the only way to mitigate some of your defeats is to actually make an effort to improve at the game. If you aren't willing to adapt and take advantage of tools and mechanics available to you then suck it up snowflakes, you deserve to be stomped by the people who do.

The current solo/group queue/mm system is a consequence of players whining and blaming groups for their own incompetence. Now we have the same whine with an identical root cause under a veneer of a slightly different target of blame

Edited by NextGame, 28 September 2014 - 09:47 AM.

[Squally160]

jackal40, on 28 September 2014 - 09:37 AM, said:

Well, seems my forum search skills just aren't up to finding anything one way or the other - guess you folks know better cause you have more posts than I do.

That's how MM was explained to me when I asked why we seem to lose 8 out of 10 matches. I accepted that explanation because it fit the match results I've experience. Since that obviously isn't true, then the only other explanation I can come up with is I'm a terrible player.

That being the case, is there one good reason to continue to play MWO - aside from being cannon fodder for the better players?

Can you post a SS of your stats showing 2 wins for every 8 losses please?

[Mystere]

jackal40, on 28 September 2014 - 09:37 AM, said:

Well, seems my forum search skills just aren't up to finding anything one way or the other - guess you folks know better cause you have more posts than I do.

Nope, I am not falling for that trap.

And post count has nothing to do with finding information.

jackal40, on 28 September 2014 - 09:37 AM, said:

That's how MM was explained to me when I asked why we seem to lose 8 out of 10 matches. I accepted that explanation because it fit the match results I've experience. Since that obviously isn't true, then the only other explanation I can come up with is I'm a terrible player.

Then it was explained to you wrongly and you experienced confirmation bias. It happens.

The basic principle has always been: May the better team win. And note that I said team.

jackal40, on 28 September 2014 - 09:37 AM, said:

That being the case, is there one good reason to continue to play MWO - aside from being cannon fodder for the better players?

I've been playing solo all this time. I went through all the so-called horrors that have allegedly taken place: the GOON bowling squads, the 8-man scourge, the twin 4-man stomps, the groups vs. all solo massacres. And yet I am still around and am still enjoying the game.

Edited by Mystere, 28 September 2014 - 09:52 AM.

[Jon Gotham]

Squally160, on 28 September 2014 - 05:39 AM, said:

So yeah. Everyones solution is basically: 12 mans/big groups cant play anymore, but little groups can.

Actually if you check post #344 MY solution does not equate to that. It aims to put bigger groups where possible vs bigger groups, hopefully trying to improve the experience for everyone.
Surely an idea that aims to help all the groups is one with merit?

[Spike Wallace]

Phaeric Cyrh, on 23 September 2014 - 10:01 AM, said:

I think they should put the 2 player group back into the "solo" que. I notice when dropping with just 1 other of my unit that we mostly feel like a 5th wheel when paired up with larger groups, and being out of the loop of their voice communications, and since they are mostly on VOIP there is almost no text chat as in the PUG games.

As a 2 man you have little hope of swaying the battle and I don't see how 2 man groups would be unfair to solo players. Even when dropping with 3 I notice a significant improvement of battle effectiveness over a 2 man drop.

I agree. I play world of tanks too and the most you can drop with that is a 3 man in a 15 v 15 and that is pretty balanced (if only they could fix the tank drops though)

[Deathlike]

I'm trying to catch up with this disastrous thread, so let me just link how I think the queues should be structured:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3760681

Here's some logic..

1) Solo player - You don't have friends on or your situation limits the want/need to play in groups.
Remember that most tourneys are run in the solo queue, so this becomes an issue.

2) Small group (2 to 4 players) - You only wish to play with your friends, and have a good time. You're not large enough to be a clan/group/unit, and just wish to play together, regardless of result. Of course, this also occurs when not enough of your group/clan/unit or friends are not on yet.

3) Large group (5 to 12 players) - You're probably in a clan/group/unit wanting to just win games... bleeding into competitive or at least semi-competitive. It's probably the closest thing you can get to practicing before CW or whatever turns up (league play or whatnot). You could have quite a bit of friends... that are invested in this game. This is where you're at.

While, some players will bleed into multiple sections (like casual players in bigger groups), it is incumbent upon the biggest premade (usually 6-man or bigger... being 50%+ of the group) to actually play competitively due to having the MOST CONTROL over the outcome of the battle. IMO, once you effectively grow the group to a certain size, it is the responsibility of the biggest premade to want to win, instead of just being casual. It's not "casual" anymore when you've reached that size.

In my proposed structure (listed in the link), it addresses the 2-4 man which I consider "casuals" that need to isolate themselves from the big groups. The "competitive" queue will have a more flexible MM structure (so, imbalances will naturally happen, but if you're a good player/group, you shouldn't be whining about it) while they are provided bonus C-bills for participation... separating those that don't know how to "R" vs those that will dish out an arty because their group demands it.

I hope people understand that with the current system, I certainly understand how the system is flawed for smaller groups, and I believe my suggestion addresses this particular nuance, while making the competitive queue "more realistic" to what CW match construction may be most similar to.

I wish my message wouldn't get lost in this shuffle..

[Lorgarn]

Deathlike, on 28 September 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:

1) Solo player - You don't have friends on or your situation limits the want/need to play in groups.
Remember that most tourneys are run in the solo queue, so this becomes an issue.

2) Small group (2 to 4 players) - You only wish to play with your friends, and have a good time. You're not large enough to be a clan/group/unit, and just wish to play together, regardless of result. Of course, this also occurs when not enough of your group/clan/unit or friends are not on yet.

3) Large group (5 to 12 players) - You're probably in a clan/group/unit wanting to just win games... bleeding into competitive or at least semi-competitive. It's probably the closest thing you can get to practicing before CW or whatever turns up (league play or whatnot). You could have quite a bit of friends... that are invested in this game. This is where you're at.

It is just the thing, that people here go to different length how much effort they can (yes CAN not WANT) put into a videogame. And since everyone is very ok with dropping top organised players against week or normal ones, you make it mandatory for everyone to go for the same length which definatly NOT EVERYONE can do.

So ether you join a large clan and undergo a scedule, training every second day and what not, or you end up pretty much ******, simple as that.

Oh yes....that group I mentioned is called casuals. Perhaps we just state at account creations that those are only in the game for filling up queues and putting money in.

[Spades Kincaid]

Lorgarn, on 28 September 2014 - 02:11 PM, said:

It is just the thing, that people here go to different length how much effort they can (yes CAN not WANT) put into a videogame. And since everyone is very ok with dropping top organised players against week or normal ones, you make it mandatory for everyone to go for the same length which definatly NOT EVERYONE can do.

So ether you join a large clan and undergo a scedule, training every second day and what not, or you end up pretty much ******, simple as that.

Oh yes....that group I mentioned is called casuals. Perhaps we just state at account creations that those are only in the game for filling up queues and putting money in.

Did you even read the link he gave, and the proposal in it that he was talking about?

Seems not. Because it offers a 2-4 queue that avoids the large groups for those players.

Between this and the two who got irate over my post that quoted and responded to Squally; as if it'd been directed to small group players? (it clearly wasn't if they paid any attention)

Some of you are doing a good job of appearing to be looking to take offense at anything you read.



Btw Deathlike - That's probably the best suggestion I've seen if PGI is determined to maintain a standard queue with large groups. The big question with it is, are there enough active players to have it run well? It'd have my support to be tried if PGI thinks there are.

Edited by Spades Kincaid, 28 September 2014 - 02:28 PM.