111 replies to this topic

[Wolfwood592]

RampancyTW, on 13 January 2015 - 08:08 AM, said:

You're not going to win more if you just expect to win more without getting better. If you want to win more, you gotta stay ahead of your average performance.

Ahh I see, because your once average play will make up for 11 other players.

Im tired of you, your ignorance bores me.

[DaZur]

Blakkstar, on 13 January 2015 - 06:31 AM, said:

I'd like to see a response article the condemns modern gamers for their lazy, risk-averse, approach to games and their demand for above-average win rates for everybody based entirely upon mythical magic matchmaking algorithms that don't and can't exist.

Every game you lose has one common element: you.

I'd like to set your comment in bronze and hang it some place nice...

You win the internet today.

[Mawai]

You folks should read up on some of the source material on how the MWO matchmaker works.

It is possible for very high or very low Elo players to end up in matches with a larger spread in Elo than normal. This is because there are just so few players at their exalted ranks ... they essentially have a choice of how long they want to wait for a match that might be better which depends on how many comparable players are in the queue.

PGI could consider displaying the Elo range on each team as well as the difference between the average Elo values between the teams on the end-match screen. At least then there would be some information to cite for these complaints. At the very least I think they should internally collect all this data and then look to see if it correlates at all to win/loss.

However, in the majority of matches that I have played ... win or lose ... it is NOT matchmaker FAIL that is the cause of lop-sided matches ... it is TEAMWORK FAIL. The better organized and coordinated side, the side that pushes at the right time, the side that has at least one lance using focused fire, that side wins. Period. The last guy standing at the end with 5 kills, 4 assists, 1100 damage who has been sniping the whole game while his team lost ... FAILED ... it wasn't a matter of carry harder ... he FAILED to work as a part of a team ... great numbers, bad player.

It can be REALLY REALLY hard to get folks to coordinate in the PUG queue ... when you work together you stomp ... when folks split up, go off on their own or with a buddy ... usually it is a FAIL unless the other team happens to do the same thing.

Each map has its "preferred strategies" ... on crimson strait for example ... one base is about equally split between going through the pass or under the garage into the tunnel. The other base tends to go through the tunnel or swing around the end of the garage. The problem here is that the pass/garage side often splits ... even when it is suggested that folks all go one route they usually don't ... split team is FAIL ... in my experience being in the base opposite the island in skirmish requires slightly better team work. It would be interesting to see win/loss stats for the two starting points on this map in skirmish. On the other hand, if the island base side can be convinced to go through the pass as ONE group ... they can often roll up behind the other team and take them out very efficiently.

Winning more often has to do with team work and coordination as much if not MORE than individual player skill. This is part of why matchmaking in any team game is more challenging ... even with imperfectly balanced players ... the level of team work will often determine victory.

Edited by Mawai, 13 January 2015 - 08:18 AM.

[Rampancy]

Wolfwood592, on 13 January 2015 - 08:10 AM, said:

Ahh I see, because your once average play will make up for 11 other players.

Im tired of you, your ignorance bores me.

More or less, yes. Not all the time, but if you on net improve you should have a W/L that reflects that.

I get that it's frustrating to lose, but winning more than you lose is extremely simple. Not easy, but simple.

[Wolfwood592]

RampancyTW, on 13 January 2015 - 08:18 AM, said:

More or less, yes. Not all the time, but if you on net improve you should have a W/L that reflects that.

I get that it's frustrating to lose, but winning more than you lose is extremely simple. Not easy, but simple.

I've got a 1.2 win/loss fyi, I need no help winning. Cool story though.

[legionofvega]

Here are three ideas that I'm sure have been discussed before:

1. Incentivize group play. Offer more cash and more xp the larger your group is. Probably cap around 4 people.
2. Enable a group chat queue before hand so people can group up with other players easier.
3. Provide a in game voice chat within the group.

While this won't fix all the problems it does provide an avenue for greater group play and coordination.

Edited by legionofvega, 13 January 2015 - 08:25 AM.

[Rampancy]

Wolfwood592, on 13 January 2015 - 08:22 AM, said:

I've got a 1.2 win/loss fyi, I need no help winning. Cool story though.

Why are you complaining then?

Without a humongous playerbase the matchmaker isn't going to have even skill distributions on each team most of the time. In addition to that, even with a theoretically perfectly-balanced team, there's a strong snowball factor that can stem from small advantages. Just the nature of games with high player counts and high time-to-kill.

[Wolfwood592]

RampancyTW, on 13 January 2015 - 08:24 AM, said:

Why are you complaining then?

Without a humongous playerbase the matchmaker isn't going to have even skill distributions on each team most of the time. In addition to that, even with a theoretically perfectly-balanced team, there's a strong snowball factor that can stem from small advantages. Just the nature of games with high player counts and high time-to-kill.

Wait wait now im interested again.

You are now saying that many of the snow ball affects are based on the team based experience. What happened to your "one player can make the difference" stance? Where individual effort out weighs team factor?

I am not complaining in the slightest, merely pointing out your "logic" if it can even be called that is highly flawed in a team environment. Or did you forget what all my other posts stated?

[Shae Starfyre]

Perspective...

Everyone's view on what the issue is has a counter.

If everyone's point of view is correct, there is no right answer/solution.

If everyone's perspective is wrong, there is no right answer/solution.

If some are right and some are wrong, there is no... you get the picture.

There are too many variables that go into why someone won or loss and it changes nearly every game... good luck with making it fair, thinking it is fair, thinking it should be fair, or any other combination of self impotent perspective on how 'YOU' should be treated, are the best, are the worse, or any other combination of adjectives that describes your pitty or lack of.

Edited by Aphoticus, 13 January 2015 - 08:48 AM.

[Funkadelic Mayhem]

cdlord, on 13 January 2015 - 06:39 AM, said:

LOL, is this ANOTHER "MWO is P2W" thread?

do you not know your alphabet? F2P is not the same letters and numbers as P2W

[DaZur]

The idiocy of “MM Boogieman” is astounding… Yet it continues to be propagated by well-meaning albeit misguided players.

The match-maker does one thing: Attempt to pair two teams based on their composite Elo scores. The assumption is made that a player’s Elo score directly correlates to their skill and inherent abilities to contribute.

That’s it…

What the match-maker has no control over is whether that player’s Elo score does in fact =/= their ability to contribute nor their inherent ability to pilot the mech they’ve brought to the match nor their ability to play as a team striving for the common goal to win the match.

The match-maker has no control over the “human element” or more precisely… the Chaos Theory. In short the match-maker can only set up the match but once the match starts, it has no ability to influence the ability of the involved participants to contribute.

It’s like playing a game of Chess with 32 individual players playing each piece… The ability for one team to win is largely dependent upon their ability to work together toward the common goal. If those 32 players/pieces all go off and do their own thing, (chaos) their ability to win is severely hampered. If at least a portion play to complement each other they stand a good chance of winning. If the entire team works as a cohesive unit (Comms?) they are neigh unstoppable…

Why are stomps so prevalent in these sort of games? Simple…. “Math”. Statistically, it’s more common for matches to result in lopsided stomps than it is the have parity matches because of compounding force strength.

Compounding force strength > Combat force attrition. I.e… For every player loss on one side it instantly increases the applied force strength of the opposing team. There is an effective 1/4th attrition tipping-point where the applied force strength is so dominant that it cannot effectively be countered.

Does granular balance mechanics like tonnage, battle-value and other metrics have influence? Absolutely… but not in the way most think. Granular balance metric do only one thing… either slow-down or accelerate the outcome rate.

In short… Even if you had two opposing teams comprised of perfectly matched skill players, mechs, load-outs, all playing on a perfectly balance arena where there was no environmental influence… The reality is, statistically the match stands a higher probability of resulting in lopsided result than not. Why?

Compounding force strength doesn't care about all these fluffy granular balance metrics… It’s all about the “math”. All it does is tighten the tolerances between the teams. As such, either the tipping-point takes longer to manifest or the blow-out happens in short order.

[CDLord HHGD]

Funkadelic Mayhem, on 13 January 2015 - 09:02 AM, said:

do you not know your alphabet? F2P is not the same letters and numbers as P2W

I am pretty sure I do, but now I am wondering if you know sentence syntax and structure. Since you didn't answer the question I posed....... I could be wrong, this might be an "evil MM boogeyman" thread too...

[1453 R]

If players spent a tenth as much energy on improving their play as they did on b!tching at the matchmaker for not giving them the games they need to show off their ULTRA LEET AMAZINATING SKILLZ...well, they might actually develop ultra leet amazinating skills. And they were certainly have more fun in MWO.

Seriously. What happened to a loss just being a loss, and not a Dire Personal Insult from Game to Player? Half the players in any given match are going to lose, folks - no matter how fantastic you are, sometimes that is going to be you. Accept that fact, shrug off a loss as just a thing that happens, and watch your contentment rating with MWO soar up at least four hundred percent.

Edited by 1453 R, 13 January 2015 - 09:11 AM.

[That Dawg]

I've read about half of most of the posts.

so.......I dont think I'm a scrub, (since the new UI came in) got 6-7 1000 damage games, 4-5 7 kill games.
that said, I still get rolled, we still roll the other side, BUT....those are about half my matches, the last half...usually goes down to 4-5 on either side till the tilt happens, so all in all about half are truly GG, the other half a mix of omgwtfbbq

AND every so often, our last man standing, be it me, or someone else, will KILL, flat out stone cold flatten their last 3 mechs.....its glorious to be that guy, or get to watch that guy do it!

When in doubt, just remember my sig

[PurpleNinja]

Holy crap.
TL,DR

[Gaius Cavadus]

I blame everything on BT/MW's ablative armor concept.

You see, in both World of Tanks and War Thunder (mostly) real ballistics are modeled and this means that truly skilled driving and angling and positioning can deflect almost unlimited amounts of damage.

What does this matter?

In WoT I've killed as many as 9 of the enemies' 12 tanks. In War Thunder I've won 6-on-1s in inferior tanks.

Why? Armor, or, more appropriately, the ability to bounce shells by knowing the angles of my tank and how to angle it against an enemy. And sometimes it's even just insane RNG ballistic luck.

But here in MWO, and all of BattleTech-dom, armor doesn't work like that. Every point of damage that hits your mech is absorbed by your mech. No perfect amount of angling, deflection, or whatever is ever going to bounce a shell.

Even an AC-2 landing on an Atlas' CT at an 89.9999999999999999999 degree angle is going to do 2 points of damage. In WoT or WT it would harmlessly bounce off because they use a much more realistic ballistics model.

But the armor model is what makes this game so difficult for carry-hards. There's virtually no scenario in MWO where I can single-handedly come back from a 6-on-1 in a match. The damage modeling simply doesn't allow it.

This is why almost every match is a landslide in one direction or the other. In solo queue teams don't come back from a three mech deficit. Once you reach that threshold in numerical superiority the match is over.

This is why this game won't, can't, ever support those magical comebacks. This game really doesn't allow the average player to have their "moments" like other games do. You just have to wreck-face and be an unstoppable murder machine in a meta mech start to finish to carry a team.

A few choice minutes of highly skilled gameplay well above your own skills will never win the match in this game.

I'm not advocating some hyper-realistic damage model for BT/MW or anything but it's the primary contributing factor to matches in WT and WoT not being all complete facerolls like they are in MWO.

Edited by Cavadus, 13 January 2015 - 09:31 AM.

[Kassatsu]

Cavadus, on 13 January 2015 - 09:29 AM, said:

I blame everything on BT/MW's ablative armor concept.

You see, in both World of Tanks and War Thunder (mostly) real ballistics are modeled and this means that truly skilled driving and angling and positioning can deflect almost unlimited amounts of damage.

What does this matter?

In WoT I've killed as many as 9 of the enemies' 12 tanks. In War Thunder I've won 6-on-1s in inferior tanks.

Why? Armor, or, more appropriately, the ability to bounce shells by knowing the angles of my tank and how to angle it against an enemy. And sometimes it's even just insane RNG ballistic luck.

But here in MWO, and all of BattleTech-dom, armor doesn't work like that. Every point of damage that hits your mech is absorbed by your mech. No perfect amount of angling, deflection, or whatever is ever going to bounce a shell.

Even an AC-2 landing on an Atlas' CT at an 89.9999999999999999999 degree angle is going to do 2 points of damage. In WoT or WT it would harmlessly bounce off because they use a much more realistic ballistics model.

But the armor model is what makes this game so difficult for carry-hards. There's virtually no scenario in MWO where I can single-handedly come back from a 6-on-1 in a match. The damage modeling simply doesn't allow it.

This is why almost every match is a landslide in one direction or the other. In solo queue teams don't come back from a three mech deficit. Once you reach that threshold in numerical superiority the match is over.

This is why this game won't, can't, ever support those magical comebacks. This game really doesn't allow the average player to have their "moments" like other games do. You just have to wreck-face and be an unstoppable murder machine in a meta mech start to finish to carry a team.

A few choice minutes of highly skilled gameplay well above your own skills will never win the match in this game.

I'm not advocating some hyper-realistic damage model for BT/MW or anything but it's the primary contributing factor to matches in WT and WoT not being all complete facerolls like they are in MWO.

"Realistic" has never been part of this particular game series vocabulary. You want a simulator, go play one, this is not it. I could care less if people try to claim it is - It's not. It never has been, and it never will be. I could easily use similar arguments against any type of vehicle in games like Planetside 2 or the Battlefield series. Where's the angled shell deflection in those games? Oh that's right, they're not trying to simulate an actual battle. They're games.

Edited by Kassatsu, 13 January 2015 - 09:43 AM.

[DaZur]

Cavadus, on 13 January 2015 - 09:29 AM, said:

I blame everything on BT/MW's ablative armor concept.

This is why this game won't, can't, ever support those magical comebacks. This game really doesn't allow the average player to have their "moments" like other games do. You just have to wreck-face and be an unstoppable murder machine in a meta mech start to finish to carry a team.

A few choice minutes of highly skilled gameplay well above your own skills will never win the match in this game.

Eh... While I agree in principle, I've both done it and seen it done. Typically it's scenarios where the aggregate damage inflicted by the rest of the team leaves the opposing team essentially two mouse-farts aware from being destroyed.

Additionally... While ballistics is a large component of MW:O there is an equally present contribution by energy weapons. As such, your premise is kind'a situational dependent upon the percentage of ballistic -vs- energy weapons involved in the match.

Edited by DaZur, 13 January 2015 - 09:44 AM.

[Jman5]

One of the things I think Mechwarrior Online does pretty well is that I don't think the RPG elements of the game are all that game-breaking. You can bring an adequately powered IS trial stock mech to a game and succeed with it. Conversely, you don't just faceroll with a fully mastered, fully moduled, meta mech.

Now granted, PGI does need to get on the ball and release viable trial clan mechs like they did with the IS champion versions.

[FupDup]