115 replies to this topic

[WM Wraith]

Sprouticus, on 07 October 2014 - 05:20 PM, said:

notice it is the same 4-5 people complaining. Everyone else is too busy playing.

I am not playing - strongly disagree with the change. I know of no game that has game modes that forces players in to a specific play type.

[The King Of Zimbabwe]

I have now played for a few hours, 50% of my matches have been conquest despite NOT selecting it. I have now got to the point where if i get conquest i just DC. Yes, i know its hard on my team, but most people only have limited time to play and I dont see why I should waste my time playing a mode i dont like. I dont see how giving players less control over their game is seen as an improvement.

PGI will not be getting another penny out of me until this "feature" is removed.

[Rebas Kradd]

Sprouticus, on 07 October 2014 - 05:20 PM, said:

notice it is the same 4-5 people complaining. Everyone else is too busy playing.

Quite a few people have stopped playing, actually.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

911 Inside Job, on 07 October 2014 - 05:11 PM, said:

Bad analogy because 3pv didn't take anything away from people playing in FPV. It only gave some an option and offset its advantages with significant disadvantages (zoom in 3p doesn't have the same FOV, etc.)

NOT bad analogy when youre talking about the way that poll was worded NOT the mechanic itself

[Alex Morgaine]

Artgathan, on 07 October 2014 - 01:19 PM, said:

To build on the point of how the MM has been giving out more even matches: another thing PGI could do to help reduce the perception of "stomps" is to display the percentage of remaining health each surviving mech has at the end of the match on the EOR screen. I think part of the problem is that people don't realize how close the match was to becoming 7 - 12 instead of 2 - 12 (if only a few more triggers had been pulled).

That said, stomps will always happen. They happen in every game.

Make it lowest vital(engine/head/leg) percent structure section. Seeing a mech with 1% left feels like it will be more accurate then 53% left cause an XL loaded ST was targeted but not finished off before the match ended.

[MountainCopper]

Rebas Kradd, on 07 October 2014 - 12:31 PM, said:

MechWarrior is a beast that has a nature. Its nature is stomps. We are piloting slow, large targets through wide-open spaces against 12 enemy mechs. Mistakes are unforgiving. Once two mechs on your side are down, the enemy has fewer targets to worry about, and its fire focusing becomes more efficient. Therefore, a "snowball effect" is created that simply doesn't exist in games like competitive Counter-Strike. 12vs12 games with game dynamics like MWO's invariably tend towards stomps, and creating the conditions for an "even" game are very difficult and usually artificial.

That is a very good observation on how matches develop in MWO. Most matches end by one team having destroyed all Mechs of the other team.
So the score will be 12 to X. And more times than not, a low value for X simply means that players from the losing team were unable to kill one enemy before being killed themselves due to the mentioned snowball-effect, and being overwhelmed.

ELO factors into which team will lose 2 or more players first and will then most likely lose the match.

Rebas Kradd, on 07 October 2014 - 12:31 PM, said:

My opinion: I don't like this change. In order to benefit the game, the gamemode tweak needs to bring back at least as many people as it drives away, and that's a big gamble for the above reasons. It also trods on a fundamental gamer freedom. While it's imperative that we remember that this change will not PROHIBIT Conquest or Assault, I think it's safe to say that we'll see it considerably less. Finally, it takes an option that was basically already available to the players (picking "Any" for your gamemode) and forces it on everyone.

This is exactly what angered me the most during the first games played after this patch; the game taking away my freedom of choice of what I want to play...

And honestly, I'm not going to comply with the game mode the MM forces onto me if that's repeatedly one I very much dislike and have deselected.

The frequency of these disliked modes is also driving me into that... Of 6 matches played, getting 6 times nothing but Skirmish, is something I'm not allowing the game to do to me. Not happening...

Rebas Kradd, on 07 October 2014 - 12:31 PM, said:

Over the next few weeks, we as a community need to be greedy for two things: the ELO data from the matchmaker change and the feeling of whether stomps have been reduced. And if the ELO data improves significantly while the feeling of even play does not, then we've proven something: that stomps are being generated by things other than ELO.
queue.

It will be very interesting to see the results.

Edited by GoldenFleece, 08 October 2014 - 12:37 AM.

[Chrithu]

Nice Post. Dare I bring up Battle Value on the table again?

All the problems the OP lists with how actual loadouts affect the outcome of a match possibly a lot more than Elo or even weight class just calls for a system that measures the strength of each individual loadout and tries to balance those. Most people call it Battle Value and if cleverly done you could incorporate weight class and Elo into it before trying to match and then you only have to match by Battle Value and nothing else.

A simple starting point could be to give each weapon, piece of equipment (like Heatsinks, ECM, BAP, TC, CC), upgrade (Endo, FF, Artemis) and module a points value, then add up the points for anything equipped in a mech add the mech's armor points (which basically is the inclusion of it's weight class so to say) add the player's Elo and the result is the Battle Value of that loadout. Now you try and match Battle Values.

For drop ship mode you simply add up the battle values of all four selected mechs.

I really think such a change of the system is worth the time and effort to implement and test it. And also would allow for the removal of the 3x4 rule which was never enforced and thus mostly not applied in the first place.

I really think investigating a Battle Value based Matchmaker should be the top priority AFTER CW Phase 2 is done and delivered. It should be the goal for CW season 2 to have the best matchmaking possible, and in my view that's only achievable with a system that takes individual loadouts into consideration.

Edited by Jason Parker, 08 October 2014 - 12:54 AM.

[Papaspud]

Slepnir, on 07 October 2014 - 03:25 PM, said:

Funny I check the forums every day and I never saw the poll, what section was it in?

terrible idea BTW, I detest skirmish and refuse to play it, hopefully I won't get it much.

Sorry guy, I played for 4 hours tonight, 13 games of skirmish, 3 assaults and 1 conquest, I am going to be one of the people that quits playing, and add to that most of the teams every game were assaults and heavies.... no more 3-3-3-3

[Alex Morgaine]

BV would bring in the idea of max bv modes and low tech gear would be worth more then a speedbump to endo/dhs/etc mandatory mechs. Might work better then tonnage too. Something to investigate I'd say.

Edited by Frosty Brand, 08 October 2014 - 01:08 AM.

[Chrithu]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 07 October 2014 - 02:31 PM, said:

They also need to TEST THE GODDAMNED IDEAS not just shoehorn the things directly into the friggin live servers

What? Like on the testserver that is used by about 50 peeps that on top of it most likely roam in the same elo bracket either way?

Sorry mate in general you may be right, but this particular case can only be tested on the live servers if you want to get reliable data.

[Lupin]

Maybe they should fix the route of the problem the MATCH MAKER, than force players to play game modes they do not want.

I have no problem Skirmish mode, and will play it when with a group or if events needs it. And likely to be the most popular game mode, but does not mean everyone what's to play the same way.
I prefer a game with a few more options in tactics. Otherwise you just have YET another shoot-em up.

BTW I still find it funny that this web site still only lists 1 game mode:
http://mwomercs.com/game/modes

After 2 years.

[AssaultPig]

Battle value will not be the answer to anything as long as we have symmetrical teams, and it's not great at balancing the tabletop anyway.

Papaspud, on 08 October 2014 - 01:06 AM, said:

Sorry guy, I played for 4 hours tonight, 13 games of skirmish, 3 assaults and 1 conquest, I am going to be one of the people that quits playing, and add to that most of the teams every game were assaults and heavies.... no more 3-3-3-3

this was my experience too (although I played fewer games.) It isn't really surprising; the player base seems to want deathmatch more than anything. Which is fair enough, bully for them; what's unclear is what happens to the people who want something even a little bit more interesting than hillhumping in the biggest mech they own.

[Slepnir]

Davers, on 07 October 2014 - 06:43 PM, said:

Which is funny since Skirmish is the only game mode that allows players true freedom of movement on the map without worrying about cap points.

Except the little fact that it is the mode that promotes the least freedom of movement because everybody groups up in a huge deathball to avoid getting picked off by the enemy deathball. the other modes force the teams to do something other than deathball if played with sound tractics.

[Sprouticus]

Rebas Kradd, on 07 October 2014 - 08:08 PM, said:

Quite a few people have stopped playing, actually.

Please cite your sources when making statments like this. Also, how many is 'quite a few'?

Also, how many will play more because the Elo is closer (at least in the group queue)?

Until you can give actual numbers, your comment is pointless.

[Rebas Kradd]

Sprouticus, on 08 October 2014 - 04:52 AM, said:

Please cite your sources when making statments like this. Also, how many is 'quite a few'?

Also, how many will play more because the Elo is closer (at least in the group queue)?

Until you can give actual numbers, your comment is pointless.

Don't be smarmy.

I've seen plenty of people back out. I'm not backing out myself (I've never filtered by gamemode anyway), but I completely understand their position.

And the tough part is, the burden of proof is on PGI that the new feature will benefit the game. Will it bring back more people than it drives away? Will it increase the spending of those who are satisfied? Heck, maybe it will. We'll have to see. I just hope that PGI will act in the best interests of the game and treat community opinion as a component of their decision, rather than feeling slaved to it.

[Hardin4188]

Well excuse me for being busy buying a car and getting that all sorted out. Most of the time I spend on the forums is when I am I at work when I should be working anyway so yes I don't see every poll. And to have such a small sample size determine such a large feature of the game is disappointing. I don't like playing skirmish so sometimes I uncheck it and I should be able to if I want. The player base is obviously a lot smaller then I thought if we are having to resort to this method.

[Killstorm999999]

Slepnir, on 07 October 2014 - 04:20 PM, said:

Yes this
Like all militaries house units or mercs don't just go out to throw down with a hostile enemy force without an objective. skirmish mode is just COD with mechs. there is no objective to fight over making the fight pointless in my mind. it is a mode for players who cannot or don't want to deal with multiple win conditions. thus I never willingly play it.

Skirmish has an objective: that is to control the map, and in order to do you need to eliminate the enemy force that is occupying it. You are obviously there fighting for some reason, and that reason is a strategic reason that is beyond the scope of a very tactically oriented game.

Edited by Deltron Zero, 08 October 2014 - 06:44 AM.

[Hardin4188]

Deltron Zero, on 08 October 2014 - 06:43 AM, said:

Skirmish has an objective: that is to control the map, and in order to do you need to eliminate the enemy force that is occupying it. You are obviously there fighting for some reason, and that reason is a strategic reason that is beyond the scope of a very tactically oriented game.

Skirmish has no objective aside from killing the enemy team. It is team deathmatch. It has two 12 mech masses collide at each other. There is no controlling the map. That is why it is a boring game mode that I shouldn't have to play.

[Killstorm999999]

Hardin4188, on 08 October 2014 - 06:53 AM, said:

Skirmish has no objective aside from killing the enemy team. It is team deathmatch. It has two 12 mech masses collide at each other. There is no controlling the map. That is why it is a boring game mode that I shouldn't have to play.

Yeah, but the objective of killing the team goes beyond just killing the team. If you imagine these skirmish matches as part of a larger conflict, then you can begin to realize what eliminating the enemy force means. For instance, if you want to control the HPG Manifold, you need to destroy all mechs on the HPG Manifold. This makes a lot of sense to me.

I am not bashing Conquest, I have had many fun games of Conquest. I am just saying that you can't discount skirmish as making no sense because there are no objectives. (my original response was to somone thinking that skirmish was unrealistic)

Edited by Deltron Zero, 08 October 2014 - 07:02 AM.

[Sprouticus]

Rebas Kradd, on 08 October 2014 - 06:21 AM, said:

Don't be smarmy.

I've seen plenty of people back out. I'm not backing out myself (I've never filtered by gamemode anyway), but I completely understand their position.

And the tough part is, the burden of proof is on PGI that the new feature will benefit the game. Will it bring back more people than it drives away? Will it increase the spending of those who are satisfied? Heck, maybe it will. We'll have to see. I just hope that PGI will act in the best interests of the game and treat community opinion as a component of their decision, rather than feeling slaved to it.

Rebas Kradd, on 08 October 2014 - 06:21 AM, said:

Don't be smarmy.

I've seen plenty of people back out. I'm not backing out myself (I've never filtered by gamemode anyway), but I completely understand their position.

And the tough part is, the burden of proof is on PGI that the new feature will benefit the game. Will it bring back more people than it drives away? Will it increase the spending of those who are satisfied? Heck, maybe it will. We'll have to see. I just hope that PGI will act in the best interests of the game and treat community opinion as a component of their decision, rather than feeling slaved to it.

i totally agree with your 2nd paragraph. The question of whether this is in the best interest of the game is a tough one though and goes beyond straight numbers. For instance would people who left eventually come back and just deal with the voting system eventually? Would people end up trying it, hating it, and eventually leave?

The only way to be truly certain would be to run it like this for a while(weeks) and not change anything else to see the trend of unique players. Which of course would never happen. Short of that the best option is to look at the actual impact on the Elo differential and then use that data to make the decision. (in addition to the vote, which is basically 50/50 right now).

My gut says they will turn off the voting for the solo queue and keep it on for the group queue. Which I would be fine with TBH. I think the voting system is great if it does what PGI wants it to do, which is to make for better matches.


By the way, I wan NOT being smarmy, I just hate it when people use anecdotal evidence to argue a point. It is terrible logic. I hate it even more when they don't cite ANY numbers (I personally saw X number of people stop playing last night) in their arguments.It is poor logic and clouds the discussion with pointless commentary that actually makes it harder to look at the issue properly.

If you want to change peoples minds, that is simply not the way to do it. So yea, I called BS on your post. I don't regret it.