972 replies to this topic

[Sovery_Simple]

Elizander, on 07 October 2014 - 09:26 PM, said:

I think PGI should check the data on the following:

1) How many unique players (or group leaders) used the group queue and how many matches they played over a specific period of time. A weight of the average group size per leader might be required.
2) How many unique players that used the solo queue and how many matches they played over a specific time.
3) What modes are checked for each of these player types.

With that simple data you can easily determine the outcome of the matchmaker and the general population. If players hate Conquest but Conquest keeps coming up, do most players not on the forums actually have Conquest or All checked? Maybe most people do check Conquest or All and just don't bother to complain here?

For comparison, I play with all modes and I don't think a change like this would even make me come to the forums to say anything for the update (positive) because there isn't much difference from before. Those who do dislike the change however will be posting here for sure. Without the actual data on what players prefer to play it'll be hard to say if this poll is accurate or is just weighted by those who are irked vs those who are not affected by the change.

Sort of like how the first post was filled by irked people wanting a change, and everyone fine with how things are didn't bother or even know it existed, and continued along happily until this was set on fire at their doorstep?

[Madcap72]

Third option, no elo, no matchmaking... drop in open spots and that's it.


Old school computer game style.

[Darth Futuza]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 07 October 2014 - 09:21 PM, said:

The players agreeing that moving the game back from live to beta is better than putting in a test server

wow

...yeah. I'm not sure why you don't understand why the test server wouldn't work for something like this.

1) Installing the public test client means installing from scratch, most people don't want to install MWO from scratch and can't be bothered to participate.
2) Test servers don't provide real reactions to situations like this, since everyone who is doing it is in essence "signing up" for it. You can't study what happens when people who did not know about the changes encounter them.
3) Test servers almost always represent a very small portion of the actual population, which is the principle you've been complaining about to Russ about lately today (that no one sees the forum polls).
4) It is more work for the developers and takes away development time they could be spending on something else.

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 07 October 2014 - 09:26 PM, said:

I dont like it so they should remove it

I'm glad you have an opinion too, unfortunately I disagree with you. Cheerio.

Edited by Darth Futuza, 07 October 2014 - 09:29 PM.

[Threat Doc]

Between 7 and 10pm Pacific time, I spent much of the time trying to convince my friends and fellow team mates of the validity of this system. It has been a hard sell all night, and not one of them, regardless of how compelling I felt my arguments were, as witnessed by those with arguments just as compelling on the opposite side of the argument, could not be bought over to my side of things. It simply did not work.

Having played the eleven or so matches we played -normally higher, but we were vigorously talking about this subject-, I even came to the conclusion that this breaks the game far more than it fixes it. Elo is not going to be affected by this change, it will eventually go back to what it was. As well, the arguments against it have been so vociferous that I would argue there have likely already been many uninstalls.

I like all three game modes and, personally, I believe all three should be played. However, one of the most used words in our conversation, this evening, was "forced". People will not be forced to play game modes they hate, period. All three game modes find hatred from different players, and I would say each is equally hated, but Conquest the most. Assault and Skirmish are played far more than Conquest in the groups I invite to play with Armageddon Unlimited, including Equal Opportunity Destroyers, ARMD, MTAC, and other groups whose individual players have been hard-pressed to find team mates.

I have come to the conclusion that Match Making should not be done in this way, as it does FORCE people to play in modes they either do not like or, for some of my Australian friends, in general, that their internet connections and or rigs are incapable of handling.

A better way needs to be devised, and my feeling is the better way would be to allow the votes of all team mates to count as individual votes, where each player sets their preferences for mode(s), and then all votes are tallied one-for-one, until all 24 votes count, and the mode that wins is the mode that's played. This method of tallying group leader choices as backed up by all members of the group, meaning there is ONE VOTE for that group, and then allowing individual PUGgies to EACH get their own vote, makes the vote enormously lopsided. I understand you tried to make the vote cumulative, and then roll a die for the randomness, but when that randomness was brought up in conversation, tonight, voices were raised, and I thought we were going to have a mass exodus of the group we had together.

This subject makes 3PV and Coolant Flush look like a walk in the park, and it really needs to be changed, post-haste. You cannot wait a week on this, the change needs to be rolled back no later than late tomorrow morning, and then you need to work on new implementation before you lose between 10 and 15% MORE of the population you've already lost.

Keep in mind, this is coming from someone who supported THIS voting system; on paper it looks great, while in practice, I did not realize the absolute vociferousness coming from people who normally support what I support, that were absolutely against this voting. It's simply not going to work, I'm afraid. Even my method is not likely to work because, again, it's FORCING people who don't want to play certain modes, to play them, and that's simply no good.

On a final note for this entry, let me just say that it was brought up in conversation, and this is something I DO agree with, that this voting system is a band aid for bad game play. People do not play Conquest because it needs to be rebuilt, redesigned to make it challenging, without giving it over to Recon/Scout kings who can take resources so fast the opposing team has no ability to act, nor to the Kill Everything kings who ignore the game, treating the map like a damn brawl fest, anyway. I'm sorry, but you guys are going to have to make the Conquest map an amusement park ride for EVERYONE, to give EVERYONE equal relevance on that map. Right now, it's just not there.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Whoops, on 07 October 2014 - 09:25 PM, said:

The main question is: Are we (possibly) losing a segment of the playerbase for this, and is it worth it if we do?

Id rather see the WHOLE playerbase get to vote really then see how EVERYONE feels.

Or better question: is it worth it to PGI if we leave?

[Kjudoon]

Lindonius, on 07 October 2014 - 09:16 PM, said:

You spelled "No" wrong.

[Slyder]

Darth Futuza, on 07 October 2014 - 09:23 PM, said:

No, I was pointing out to him that I was one of the people that like it, since he was asking who would want this change. That's all. There's no need to pretend I was implying I'm obliviously unaware of others wants.

The problem with the change is that....

Group A (which likes all maps and enjoys playing them all at random)

Group B (players that like specific maps, and want to play those exclusively)

With the new system in place...Group A is given exactly what they want, by being able to queue for all 3 map types, while Group is is told their way is unaaceptable, and are FORCED to play modes they dont want too. Group A is given 100% of their choice, while Group B is given 0%

In the original system, Group A was given 100% of their choices by being able to queue for all map types, and Group B was equally given 100% of their choices, by being able to queue for what they want.


The New system completely favors 1 play style, while destroying the other.

The Old system gives equality to both groups.

[Alienized]

then its about time the majority starts thinking and put their thoughts into the forum. its not the minorities fault if they want to change something but the majorities fault for not beeing in the forum.

[Lindonius]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 07 October 2014 - 09:25 PM, said:

of the minority of the ppl playing, yes

Good job arguing that the minority of players should choose how the majority play.

I wasn't arguing anything. Just pointing out a fact.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Darth Futuza, on 07 October 2014 - 09:28 PM, said:

...yeah. I'm not sure why you don't understand why the test server wouldn't work for something like this.

...yeah. Im not sure why you dont understand that this is a bad thing

[Mystere]

Gyrok, on 07 October 2014 - 09:16 PM, said:

NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GROUP QUEUE DOES NOT WANT THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Slyder, on 07 October 2014 - 09:16 PM, said:

We dont like it / want it in the group queue either. Play the game types you want to play, and we will play ours. We dont want to be forced into random game modes, because you cant be sure what to bring to a fight...and THAT IS WHAT MW IS AT ITS CORE!!!!!

Which now begs the question: Who the frak really wanted this? Is it just those people who voted for it on the original poll?

[Roadbeer]

Russ Bullock, on 07 October 2014 - 08:39 PM, said:

I don't disagree on the ELO win/loss aspect - I have never liked it. I am more of a player that might get 400-500 damage and 8 assists but rarely get a kill. I am not really rewarded in game for what I feel in many matches is above average play yet when I lose my ELO goes down. Something in discussions for a long while yet. Time in our only enemy.

As I said here...
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3752619

1. Elo really only works for solo players. Though you have a "group" average, you've never stated (IIRC) if you've put in a modifier for the force multiplier of communication. It's always been said that a group of 5 on VoIP can overpower a group nearly twice that size that isn't. It's the wildcard of communication that's hard to put a value on.

2. Weight class matching by itself doesn't really address the differences between an Awesome and an Atlas, or even a Raven 2x vs. a 3L. It's a generalization which while it may "work" it's not "optimal"

Ultimately, I think the BEST solution (and this is just my opinion here) would be to create a Battle Value system of sorts.
Ok, before anyone says anything... STOP. I know that the BT Battle Value system WON'T work in this, that's why I said "Create a Battle Value system of sorts"

First would be to assign a rating to the variant. Like I mentioned above a RVN 2X is NOT a RVN 3L. A CPLT C1 and C4 are close, but not the same. So, create a point system that each variant has its place on it. It appears you're doing this with the "Tier" system, so give each "Tier" a "Weight" to use in formulating a Mech Battle Value

Second would be to assign a rating for all weapons. Say set the Medium Laser as the baseline, and base all other weapons around it. (This would also allow you to make changes to the weapon without buff/nerf. You change its rating and its weight on the MM without fundamentally changing the way the weapon works, unless there is some glaring problem with it, oh, and remove Ghost Heat)

Third is to assign a rating for all equipment: TAG, ECM, Modules, etc.

Combine those 3 things, then add in a faction multiplier, say IS = 1, Clan = 1.5 (something else you are able to modify w/o constant nerfs/buffs to equipment) and there is your base Mech Battle value.

Then add in Elo as a representation of pilot skill. Mech BV + Elo = Battle Value.

From there, you can throw on a Group Multiplier to the BV based off of the size of the group. (Solo is 1, 2 player is 1.2, 4 player is 1.5 and so on.)

I *think* this would give you an easier and more accurate formula to use in your match making.

Edited by Roadbeer, 07 October 2014 - 09:32 PM.

[Joanna Conners]

Aliisa White, on 07 October 2014 - 09:29 PM, said:

then its about time the majority starts thinking and put their thoughts into the forum. its not the minorities fault if they want to change something but the majorities fault for not beeing in the forum.

In most games it is a minority of people who are on the forums vs. the number of people in the game. The majority is often silent and happy, while the minority screams loud enough to evoke changes that no one else likes.

Changing gameplay like this based on a poll that is not indicative of the entire playerbase is always a bad idea.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Aliisa White, on 07 October 2014 - 09:29 PM, said:

then its about time the majority starts thinking and put their thoughts into the forum. its not the minorities fault if they want to change something but the majorities fault for not beeing in the forum.

riiiiight lol

Joanna Conners, on 07 October 2014 - 09:31 PM, said:

In most games it is a minority of people who are on the forums vs. the number of people in the game. The majority is often silent and happy, while the minority screams loud enough to evoke changes that no one else likes.

Changing gameplay like this based on a poll that is not indicative of the entire playerbase is always a bad idea.

The screwed up thing is Russ SAYS they know that the forums dont represent the majority yet theyre running a two day poll and jamming it directly into the game regardless

[MadLibrarian]

I think voting is a big improvement, but using it for game modes is much less useful than it would be for maps. Playing a game based around a play now button seems more suited for android than pc too. Also, most of these matchmaker issues could be assuaged with a good lobby system and viewable stats/rating.


tl;dr.
The hosted server route might even create bonus income for PGI. Ever play any of the Unreal Tournament, or Quake series games? Though based on respawns, the server system kept the games alive for years and years past their prime. Allowing subcommunities for the various gameplay modes and options (like instagib) to develop, which would run tournaments themselves. The more data integration the better.

Dropship mode with longer games just sounds awesome to me, for a game in the mechwarrior franchise especially. Anything that can be done to make this game less 'Casual' will probably be an improvement. Releasing the game early and trying to meet the needs of a whiny populace can really set back the development. Might consider dedicating someone to the whine patrol and spending as much time designing gameplay options as possible.

Edited by MadLibrarian, 07 October 2014 - 09:35 PM.

[-Natural Selection-]

I would like the option that allows both to happen, better Elo matching and user defined mode selection. Though I have never used Elo as a crutch, I loose I try to get better. But just saying for those who have issues with it.

[Darth Futuza]

Slyder, on 07 October 2014 - 09:29 PM, said:

The problem with the change is that....

Group A (which likes all maps and enjoys playing them all at random)

Group B (players that like specific maps, and want to play those exclusively)

With the new system in place...Group A is given exactly what they want, by being able to queue for all 3 map types, while Group is is told their way is unaaceptable, and are FORCED to play modes they dont want too. Group A is given 100% of their choice, while Group B is given 0%

In the original system, Group A was given 100% of their choices by being able to queue for all map types, and Group B was equally given 100% of their choices, by being able to queue for what they want.


The New system completely favors 1 play style, while destroying the other.

The Old system gives equality to both groups.

Yeah I get what you're saying and I agree, but the old system comes at the expense of longer match finding times. That's why I think the new system is better: average faster match-to-find times.

[Joanna Conners]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 07 October 2014 - 09:33 PM, said:

riiiiight lol



The screwed up thing is Russ SAYS they know that the forums dont represent the majority yet theyre running a two day poll and jamming it directly into the game regardless

Two days is not nearly enough either. A week, even a month, would be far better. The best way would be to e-mail all the players with a link to the poll and encourage people to be involved. Outreach is a very effective tool and makes people feel like they are valued and contributing members & customers of this game community.

[Darth Futuza]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 07 October 2014 - 09:29 PM, said:

...yeah. Im not sure why you dont understand that this is a bad thing

Enlighten me.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Darth Futuza, on 07 October 2014 - 09:35 PM, said:

Yeah I get what you're saying and I agree, but the old system comes at the expense of longer match finding times. That's why I think the new system is better: average faster match-to-find times.

Id rather have the option of waiting longer as long as I get what I want than being forced to play something I dont want.

And just HOW long were these wait times? I have yet to see anything past a minute to wait O.o