419 replies to this topic

[Roadbeer]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 08 October 2014 - 06:41 PM, said:

Hey Beer, do you remember where it was that the devs said the timeline was suspended?

IIRC it had to be around Sept/Oct of last year. I was just rebuilding the House Marik website then and the ISN RSS Feed just stopped right when I got it set up.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Roadbeer, on 08 October 2014 - 06:43 PM, said:

IIRC it had to be around Sept/Oct of last year. I was just rebuilding the House Marik website then and the ISN RSS Feed just stopped right when I got it set up.

Cause someone in another thread is pointing at the clock saying its 2049 and that means he timeline isnt on hold lol

Domenoth, on 08 October 2014 - 06:38 PM, said:

I can't find your post so I have no way of knowing if you are trying to say that TK'ers and disconnectors where practicing civil disobedience.

If you are:

Civil disobedience when done correctly is very powerful. One very important tenant is that when it's all said and done, ensure that anyone looking on can find nothing that you've done to be reproachful. Expose the violent and repressive nature of those you are disobeying against. The massacre of women and children in India by British soldiers is an example of a government completely in the wrong.

Were the TK'ers and disconnectors attacking the repressive regime of their fellow players? You know who I mean, the people they actually hurt with their antics. With everything they did, when viewed by an impartial bystander, can they claim to be blameless?

Did they, in fact, have no voice and therefore need to resort to civil disobedience? Voting with your wallet not count as a voice option? Leaving for a day and letting the population drop not count as a voice option?

This is the MWO forums so I have to add that my conclusion is that no, they did not have the right to practice civil disobedience and what they practiced was not civil disobedience though they would like, and have tried to, classify it as such.

Edit:
They acted selfishly and want to use anti-PGI sentiment as an excuse for their actions.

hence why Im calling for them to face punishment

[thisisxerxes]

Bravo on rolling the change back. Whatever your stance on the issue was, it was clearly a largely unpopular feature (for whatever reason), and the impact of alienating so many players (whatever you think of them) just isn't worth it.

Thumbs up.

[Roadbeer]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 08 October 2014 - 06:45 PM, said:

Cause someone in another thread is pointing at the clock saying its 2049 and that means he timeline isnt on hold lol

This one?
http://mwomercs.com/clock

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

thisisxerxes, on 08 October 2014 - 06:47 PM, said:

Bravo on rolling the change back. Whatever your stance on the issue was, it was clearly a largely unpopular feature (for whatever reason), and the impact of alienating so many players (whatever you think of them) just isn't worth it.

Thumbs up.

Well you mean WHEN its actually rolled back (it isnt yet)

Roadbeer, on 08 October 2014 - 06:50 PM, said:

This one?
http://mwomercs.com/clock

yes lol

I was hoping for a link so I could go "I havent seen a post since this..."

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 08 October 2014 - 06:51 PM.

[Roadbeer]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 08 October 2014 - 06:50 PM, said:

I was hoping for a link so I could go "I havent seen a post since this..."

Looking at the page, it's coded for
"]var serverYear = 3049;"

So we never did hit 3050 in 2013. IIRC, there was something about rolling back to 3049 for the Clan Invasion, but that was before the whole 'seasons' thing came into play with CW, and I can't recall if it was a post, tweet or townhall thing.

Edited by Roadbeer, 08 October 2014 - 06:59 PM.

[N0MAD]

MischiefSC, on 08 October 2014 - 06:42 PM, said:

A sample size of 600+ is plenty, that gets you better than 5% margin of error. Any poll with more than 1,100 samples is sufficient to represent a population of 10,000 to millions in a binary topic like this. If you don't believe me google 'representative sample size'. At 2k or more responses you're at a margin of error of 2% or less in a population like MW:O.

The real issue isn't the poll - the real issue is CW.

How do we keep 48% of the game out of CW? If having to play a game mode you don't like is enough to send almost half the player base into fits so severe they're apparently emotionally crippled from it and will have a lifetime of PTSD to look forward to if they have to play the wrong mode for several matches per day what's going to happen when in CW they have to take a mech they don't like or a planet needs defended in a mode they don't want to play in?

A guy who quits/drops/DCs/runs out of bounds/suicides or whatever in PUG matches is a complete and total jackwagon. In CW where win/loss actually means something these sorts of feebs need to be out of the equation entirely or else we're going to have 'Oh noes! We need to defend Hesperus II from the Wolves! We lose that and we lose access to a lot of mechs/resources/goodies!' "Sorry, I can't. I don't like that map and in defense I might have to drop in a Conquest gamemode. Also I can only play Heavies or I break out in hives. If I do end up in a Conquest match I have to go to weeks of therapy to get over the crushing distress I get into. I have to have complete control over every match I play in or else I go into fits and end up crying in a corner, rocking back and forth and waiting for the terrible, terrible memories to fade". 'So you're saying you're pretty much completely worthless and can't be counted on for anything that could be considered adversarial or challenging in a game about combat and adversity.' "Yeah, pretty much. One sec, my moms bringing me my afternoon lunchable."

I get that not having game mode selection is too much for some people to handle in pugs. You can't have anything like that in CW however; otherwise all you'll have is people playing offense (where you pick the location) and nobody playing defense and endless streams of tearful, agonized posts of the life-destroying horror of having to play a Medium or end up in a game mode/map you don't like and how terribly cruel and unfair it is.

If someone needs an environment like that or a 'ladder ranking system' they need to stick to very basic pistol/shotgun/rifle/grenade games with respawn and such where that sort of ranking system works and the combat balance mechanics are simple enough to support it. MW:O is supposed to be a far more complex environment and adapting to situations you can't control are a big part of that.

Here is something you obviously didnt take into account, in CW you have an option to take part or not, you are fully aware of what you are opting into and when you do, you have obviously agreed to partake of the rule set, in another words you have choice, that is obviously very different to having no choice in what participate in...

[Sovery_Simple]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 08 October 2014 - 06:45 PM, said:

Cause someone in another thread is pointing at the clock saying its 2049 and that means he timeline isnt on hold lol



hence why Im calling for them to face punishment

If they had left for however long the system was in, people like bishop steiner would of just bitched at them for not "being there voicing their opinion, so they lost the right to complain." They did what they saw would cause the greatest benefit for their cause. In an online game, that means pissing people off ingame. Works like a charm.

[0rionsbane]

I think this is a great move why, because alienating even a small portion of the player base is a bod move. you look at it as 50% want this change, but in fact 50% want more balanced matchmaking, that involves increasing the sample size, you can do that in many ways and limiting player choice is obviously going to annoy people.

So i'm glad they are going to find an alternative, and they listened to people on both sides now. I personally didn't mid it that much but dont like conquest only because of the c-bill earnings. What i did mid was the community reaction, It didn't address the issues (small player base, stomps, and team composition) and instead focused on one side or the other being to vocal.

I think we could easily increase the player count with a few balance changes, the new mastery packs are good as they indirectly lower prices so more things like that. Things that let a player start out, maybe even a separate queue for new players as mentioned in the town hall, and then keep them interested by opening up new mechs and game play elements for them to explore.

For matchmaking in general it has been a lot more balanced since the patch a few weeks ago, I actually did not notice much if any difference with the voting system. What could be done now is a incentive to queue for all modes, increasing the likelihood of a player being in all queues for matchmaker. Or another very good change is remove 3,3,3,3 and instead allow one mech per weight class to be selected in the launch lobby, with a cap of 3v3v3v3. this would allow matchmaker a higher player count to make games with as well.

A third option is a more competitive queue that only matches based on the w/l ratio (which i really cant call elo same problem in league of legends team based elo w/l dose not translate to actual skill). Or simply a promote/demote feature to put players with worse skill in a lower bracket and players with higher skill in a different bracket, that could be abused though and would increase the chances of playing vs the same people.

I think the best solution is to double down and focus on Clan wars which would be a far more competitive scene anyway, and leave the matchmaker alone since it will end up being the casual queue anyway. That and this game really needs something to work toward other than more mechs, its hard to keep people when your game is only a matchmaking lobby, with no story, and undocumented tweaks to address balance.

[TamerSA]

Postumus, on 08 October 2014 - 01:23 PM, said:

Also, I keep seeing posts like this. ELO and match stomping are much less related than people think. The experienced players have said it, even the dev's have said it. Mechwarrior matches are not a series of 1v1 duels, where if the players are just matched evenly enough, the match score will always be near even. Even with closely matched teams, a vast majority of games are going to end up with a win by at least a 2:1 margin in kills. In my experience, the games that end as 8,9,10 to 12 are either flukes where both side's tactics fell apart, or those where teams showed no coordination, with no focused fire, everyone shooting a different mech, no grouping, etc..

I understand what you and other people are saying about ELO and stomping. I also understand that games tend to have a snowball effect due to the nature of the game and because with good teamwork and tactics, you expect one team to run away with the game if they get even a slight upper hand. I'm in no way good, but I've been playing for long enough to understand this.

Despite all of this, I still maintain that my games yesterday felt better than in months. My personal performance was also better than usual, and I felt I could engage most situations with confidence.

Sometimes despite what you see on paper, what you actually experience for yourself makes a difference. The games felt better. That was my experience of it so that is my opinion.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

N0MAD, on 08 October 2014 - 04:41 PM, said:

[size=4]
Rubbish it wasnt bowing to the whinning it was acknowledging that the Forumites arent a representation of the community as a whole.
Me thinks some people are upset that because they spend alot of time and thousands of posts on the forums they know best and whats good for the population have been proved wrong.
They took a poll to the actual public and it proved that it was a very different result than just taking it to the forums.

How have they been proved wrong?
Because people who can't adapt to change; had a fit over a minor issue of a game type they don't like coming up maybe 2/10 times? In a single day of the system being live?

That's not proving anyone wrong; that just shows how doomed this game is because of matchmaking hard options that shouldn't have been put in; in the first place.

And now PGI are too scared to take away the hard options

[Revis Volek]

Prezimonto, on 08 October 2014 - 02:25 PM, said:

The biggest issue is that this isn't a sustainable way to deal with game modes, IF you want more game modes in the future. Some concession needs to be made for the large block of people who actually want MORE variety in how to play not less. This game's largest appeal is a stagnant game style it drives folks off who get bored. Add that the total population, obviously, isn't large enough to sustain a 4th game mode as it's already barely large enough to sustain 3, and how do you add a 4th mode?

Its not large enough to support more game modes with hard choices If you dont have enough players in one mode to even get a match going having hard choices makes them wait forever with no chance of a match EVER. So in order for more gamemodes to be implemented properly into a small population you need flexible choices so games run weather its the mode you wanted or not.just need enough players and means we have to deal with a up in the air decision on the game mode.

Would be better implemented if for the 59 seconds we are waiting for people to get into the queue that we vote on the match and the mode during that time. Show 3 maps and the modes, then during the wait we vote. That simple....then matches always run. Votes happen right there with no surprises and people can even petition in the chat for the mode they want. I for one dont care what mode i get so if people are going Skirmish and i see it i will vote that way too. EIther way, hard decision makes it so more modes will never be possible.

All i want is CW so i can stop giving a damn about any of this bologna.....

Edited by DarthRevis, 08 October 2014 - 11:45 PM.

[Tyman4]

Going to be honest, I didn't know that we even had a vote. And the system was in place for what 2 days or something?

Why when I log into MWO and they have the advertisments for MECHS does it not SAY, Click here VOTE for game mode selection. I don't follow twitter, if you want my opinion you had best post it on the forums, IN an OBVIOUS place.

And why the hell do I need to follow twitter, facebook, blah blah. I follow one site the forums and that is it. At least give us some time to find out that you are having a vote.

I'm all for a system that improves ELO matching, since game type is irrelavant do to deathball tactics. So there, 51.4% +1 votes yes. Thx Russ, I like the idea even if others don't.

Tyman

Edited by Tyman4, 08 October 2014 - 11:46 PM.

[MischiefSC]

N0MAD, on 08 October 2014 - 07:03 PM, said:

Here is something you obviously didnt take into account, in CW you have an option to take part or not, you are fully aware of what you are opting into and when you do, you have obviously agreed to partake of the rule set, in another words you have choice, that is obviously very different to having no choice in what participate in...

Hence why I said I just want to keep that sort of absurdity out of CW.

The game went for like 2 years with no way to choose game modes. Remember all the stuff about people talking up 'closed beta'?

Amazing thing given that, apparently, not having control over game modes is unplayable for some.

I get wanting to control game mode, even maps, etc. For irrelevant pug matches that's fine. There's a balance to be had with matchmaking but I can get the concept.

The absolute tantrums over it though? Quitting, suiciding, essentially screwing everyone else because they didn't get their way? It's great that PGI is trying to involve players more in the decision making process. That sort of behavior though is a great way to make it untenable to do so.

In the end I don't think this particular change had a good enough payoff for pug matches or even group queue though we'll need to hear from PGI what difference it made. I get that they rolled it back and it's good that they did.

The community response and temper tantrums though are toxic to the opportunity to even be involved in such a discussion.

I am pleased that PGI tried it, saw what little benefit it provided compared to the negatives (more than just folks throwing a tantrum) and pulled it. People needed to see what sorts of tradeoffs are involved with trying to more finely tune matchmaking - at a certain point you need to accept 'this is about as good as it's going to get without cutting off your nose to spite your face'.

Again though, on the whole poll thing - 600 people responding is pretty much good enough. You're around a 5% margin for error. Anything over 1100 is frosting; at that point we're going to be in the 2% or less margin of error range. That they're people from the forums and not people who don't go to the forums is irrelevant. Same reasoning that a poll of people who've registered to vote even if they don't actually go out to the polls is still a legitimate poll of how people will vote.

[Vercinaigh]

Welp, as a vet, a former whale, and a top level competitive player and a active part of the community. I can tell you that this change had me playing the game again with my mates instead of solo queue which drove me to quit because I don't have clan mechs, and the difference in power, despite being able to overcome it, upset me. I had a reason to play again, but now it's gone, and so is my drive or time to play.

Sorry but stomping people with GK all night isn't fun, or amusing. Prior to this change we would play all night, and win 95% of our matches, NEVER seeing another competitive team. After, we saw all of them inside an hour, every match was a fight and if we got too lost in our back and fourth barter amongst ourselves, we lost even the weaker games we got put into. That never happened prior, and now it's gone, because people whined too much. I hate Assault with the passion of a million fiery suns of god, but having fun matches was worth it, because it was a challenge, a reason to play, not anymore.

Sad day, I know in the end this post prolly means nothing to anyone, but I thought I'd share anyways, I miss the days there was only comp teams in the group queue.....so much fun....

Edited by Vercinaigh, 09 October 2014 - 01:25 AM.

[HUBA]

Vercinaigh, you have a point there but you are missing a big part of the community. Top player really have a benefit of a tighter elo match making, because at the high end elo really matters but in the mid range it is pretty much the same if the player 100 points apart. Top player have a high elo for a reason, they want to win and have a strong opponent so the tent to take the best mechs and also can expect that the other side is doing the same. The mid range is also in the place for a reason. Mostly because these people play for fun. It is more likely to find different mechs in this group. Someone who likes his locust and someone who like to punch holes with his dire whale. As average PUG I'm more concerned about things like do we have ECM, do we have some strong Clan mechs, and do we have not only a locust and 2 kitfox as light mechs.The second thoughts then is hopefully our DW has the good pilot and not the Commando.

[N0MAD]

MischiefSC, on 08 October 2014 - 11:50 PM, said:

Hence why I said I just want to keep that sort of absurdity out of CW.

The game went for like 2 years with no way to choose game modes. Remember all the stuff about people talking up 'closed beta'?

Amazing thing given that, apparently, not having control over game modes is unplayable for some.

I get wanting to control game mode, even maps, etc. For irrelevant pug matches that's fine. There's a balance to be had with matchmaking but I can get the concept.

The absolute tantrums over it though? Quitting, suiciding, essentially screwing everyone else because they didn't get their way? It's great that PGI is trying to involve players more in the decision making process. That sort of behavior though is a great way to make it untenable to do so.

In the end I don't think this particular change had a good enough payoff for pug matches or even group queue though we'll need to hear from PGI what difference it made. I get that they rolled it back and it's good that they did.

The community response and temper tantrums though are toxic to the opportunity to even be involved in such a discussion.

I am pleased that PGI tried it, saw what little benefit it provided compared to the negatives (more than just folks throwing a tantrum) and pulled it. People needed to see what sorts of tradeoffs are involved with trying to more finely tune matchmaking - at a certain point you need to accept 'this is about as good as it's going to get without cutting off your nose to spite your face'.

Again though, on the whole poll thing - 600 people responding is pretty much good enough. You're around a 5% margin for error. Anything over 1100 is frosting; at that point we're going to be in the 2% or less margin of error range. That they're people from the forums and not people who don't go to the forums is irrelevant. Same reasoning that a poll of people who've registered to vote even if they don't actually go out to the polls is still a legitimate poll of how people will vote.

I have some experience in Polls as the company i worked for (in the days of dinosaurs) ran many for product studies.
One thing that was imperative to running a poll of limited people to get a sample was.... run the poll over multiple communities, because when you run a poll within a limited community the sample is often skewed because of local preferences or bias.
If you are going to poll say 600 people you dont poll in a single suburb/town sometimes even state, you do it over a large area.

Vercinaigh.
I may be miss reading what youre saying, but as i understand it you were happier playing the same 1/2 dozen teams over and over rather than playing a variety of teams? ok.
I have a solution for you, join a League play with like minded/skilled people rather than trying to exclude people from a public Q.
Because brother all im hearing is youre dissapointed that you cant have a fun time without forcing others to play modes they dont wana play because you know they dont have fun playing those modes.
Instead of putting in a system where 50% (roughly) of the population said it would ruin their fun and blaming them for it, perhaps you should be talking to PGI about finding a better method of matching you with people of your teams skill level that doesnt involve limiting peoples choices of having fun same as you dont like having your options limited.
How do you think casual players feel about them being thrown into a match vs an Elite team like yours 95% of the matches they play (working of your quoted 95% win ratio) and on top of that being forced to play a mode they dont want or like.
Im not saying you dont have a very valid point in fact im sympathetic to your situation but dont go blaming players that are wanting same thing as you, an entertaining time, its not their fault.

[Vercinaigh]

HUBA, on 09 October 2014 - 02:29 AM, said:

Vercinaigh, you have a point there but you are missing a big part of the community. Top player really have a benefit of a tighter elo match making, because at the high end elo really matters but in the mid range it is pretty much the same if the player 100 points apart. Top player have a high elo for a reason, they want to win and have a strong opponent so the tent to take the best mechs and also can expect that the other side is doing the same. The mid range is also in the place for a reason. Mostly because these people play for fun. It is more likely to find different mechs in this group. Someone who likes his locust and someone who like to punch holes with his dire whale. As average PUG I'm more concerned about things like do we have ECM, do we have some strong Clan mechs, and do we have not only a locust and 2 kitfox as light mechs.The second thoughts then is hopefully our DW has the good pilot and not the Commando.

Yes and sadly though there are a lot of us upper pilots, and we're starting to burn out. A lot of us really only play scrims and such anymore and if that's not happening, more and more of us arn't playing anymore. We attract crowds at the tourneys when they happen, are a large part of why they happen. We contribute massive amounts of content and events to the community that all levels enjoy. I'm not saying we're more important than anyone else, we're not. But we are getting the massive short end of the stick, and for all that we do, slowly all the fun of just playing with your mates is being eroded from the game.

I can only ask that people consider what I've said here, between these facts and of course other problems unique to each individual, these people are starting to vanish, that's never a good thing, for any game I've ever been a part of, so much of what everyone enjoys is run by these people, including myself. We want to love this game, and see it succeed far beyond expectations or preconceptions, and a good bunch of us actively help it happen, albeit slowly, for now. But as it stands, it's just not much fun for us. Sure we enjoy the time we spend playing with the mates, but then, if the game itself adds little to the moment other than something to do...I think you get the point and by now I'm surely rambling.

Anyways I just hope people really think about that, and start considering such things, we arn't the boogie man or out to get anyone, we want the same stuff as everyone else mostly, we have a high level of understanding on the game that helps us contribute a lot to some things, but in the end, we just want to have fun too and play against like skilled and like minded groups and people, it's no fun to beat up on people, and it doesn't make us feel any better either. We were starting to get it with the change, and now it's gone

~Vercinaigh
Alpha of Golden Keshik

Edited by Vercinaigh, 09 October 2014 - 04:10 AM.

[Vercinaigh]

N0MAD, on 09 October 2014 - 02:33 AM, said:

I have some experience in Polls as the company i worked for (in the days of dinosaurs) ran many for product studies.
One thing that was imperative to running a poll of limited people to get a sample was.... run the poll over multiple communities, because when you run a poll within a limited community the sample is often skewed because of local preferences or bias.
If you are going to poll say 600 people you dont poll in a single suburb/town sometimes even state, you do it over a large area.

Vercinaigh.
I may be miss reading what youre saying, but as i understand it you were happier playing the same 1/2 dozen teams over and over rather than playing a variety of teams? ok.
I have a solution for you, join a League play with like minded/skilled people rather than trying to exclude people from a public Q.
Because brother all im hearing is youre dissapointed that you cant have a fun time without forcing others to play modes they dont wana play because you know they dont have fun playing those modes.
Instead of putting in a system where 50% (roughly) of the population said it would ruin their fun and blaming them for it, perhaps you should be talking to PGI about finding a better method of matching you with people of your teams skill level that doesnt involve limiting peoples choices of having fun same as you dont like having your options limited.
How do you think casual players feel about them being thrown into a match vs an Elite team like yours 95% of the matches they play (working of your quoted 95% win ratio) and on top of that being forced to play a mode they dont want or like.
Im not saying you dont have a very valid point in fact im sympathetic to your situation but dont go blaming players that are wanting same thing as you, an entertaining time, its not their fault.

I would like to point out that we can't play said leagues 24/7, lord knows we try, so we have to play what everyone else does most of the time, we do play the leagues, who do you think makes and runs them all? As far as these teams being forced to play us, that's exactly what stopped with these changes, we played all the top teams inside an hour, instead of a whole night of fighting exactly what you describe. I would like to note our average night is usually a loss or 3 all night, with the change, it was getting closer to 40%, not perfect but much better, but we're a strong team, can only expect so much, but it was fun, all the matches were challenging instead of sub 3 minutes 12-0's....

~Vercinaigh
Alpha of Golden Keshik

Edited by Vercinaigh, 09 October 2014 - 04:16 AM.

[N0MAD]

Vercinaigh, on 09 October 2014 - 04:14 AM, said:

I would like to point out that we can't play said leagues 24/7, lord knows we try, so we have to play what everyone else does most of the time, we do play the leagues, who do you think makes and runs them all? As far as these teams being forced to play us, that's exactly what stopped with these changes, we played all the top teams inside an hour, instead of a whole night of fighting exactly what you describe. I would like to note our average night is usually a loss or 3 all night, with the change, it was getting closer to 40%, not perfect but much better, but we're a strong team, can only expect so much, but it was fun, all the matches were challenging instead of sub 3 minutes 12-0's....

~Vercinaigh
Alpha of Golden Keshik

I do feel for you bro seriously.
Been there in that bracket you play, not with MWO not enough people at least not competitive groups.
I played competitive MW from MW2 thru 4, i was Khan of SJ for a very long time and was lucky enough to have a team of very active skilled players, we had alot of large good leagues to play in, some Planetary some Ladders (its was SJ that ran the BZ league for a long time) so we always had some where to play competitively.
I feel PGI actually killed the competitive scene here early on by not giving us the private lobbies early in the game, back then in the beginning i filled my friends list with old Mw vets that became founders, we all waited for the lobbies so we could set up/participate in the play we had in previous MW versions, unfortunately 95% of those vets left and have never returned, the lack of those lobies is the main reason they left.
I miss the old MW days....
BTW PGI not giving this game a General chat where people can commune is a huge mistake, it just doesnt give the community a place to meet, bond and grow, but hey they know best.....

Edited by N0MAD, 09 October 2014 - 04:54 AM.