251 replies to this topic

[TWIAFU]

cSand, on 20 February 2015 - 09:31 AM, said:

No matter what you do for MM, bad players gonna whine about losing

then they're gonna blame their losses on the system or other players instead of their own badness.

We tried it already, and put everyone in one matchmaking pool. Guess what happened? People still bitched and moaned about the MM, their team, and additionally about not being able to choose what mode to play.

Basically, the bad players still kept on sucking, and still kept blaming everything else but their own suckage for that

So since they're gonna whine either way, I'll take free choice of what mode I play

QFT.

No matter what PGI does they are going to complain about it.

Solo in Solo queue = complain that groups are using teamwork.

Groups in Solo Queue = Solo complaining that Groups are rolfstomping them.

Groups in Group Queue = Groups complaining about Groups rolfstomping them.

Groups/Solo in CW = both complain that groups, solo, and Units are stomping them.


Thankfully, it is real easy to see who is not a team player or a good sport and easily be avoided and marginalized.

[TWIAFU]

LordKnightFandragon, on 20 March 2015 - 01:45 PM, said:

I want 8v8, with close games that actually make the game playable, over 2-12 stomps in either direction.

So, instead of 2-12 stomps, you want 2-8.

That solves everything!

With Scouting mission you can do 4x4 and be able to complain about the evil 4 man.



Changing group size will do nothing to solve peoples lack of teamwork in a group game with a "Solo Drop" mentality.

Pssst, THERE IS NO SOLO DROP IN MWO!

[Dimento Graven]

Look what we should have LONG since realized is that the MM has only a partial implementation of elo.

I find it very difficult to believe that if elo was working the way it's intended to, that we'd all see STOMPS as often as we do. If the elo implementation in MM was working right the NORM would be 6 to 12, 7 to 12, 8 to 12, 9 to 12, 10 to 12, 11 to 12 type match endings.

What the vast majority of reports in the forums seem to indicate that it's the 0/1/2/3 to 12 stomps that are the most common result in MM.

If MM truly was building teams where the elos of both sides were very nearly equal how would it be possible for stomps to be the norm?

No, I think elo is being used to judge who is going to win, and how much of an elo bump/subtraction is given to each individual at the end of the match, and that's pretty much it.

I don't think any of us are seeing LESS stomps than before elo was implemented, nor before 12v12 was brought to fruition, or during the 4 man group limitation. In fact, judging by my vid archive to me it looks like stomps started occurring MORE often AFTER elo was implemented.

So... I think elo should be abandoned, it DOES NOT guarantee that new players will only be facing new/unskilled players. It DOES NOT guarantee that both sides are being built with an equal chance of winning.

Eliminate elo, maintain the sliding weight match priority in MM, and let's let the chips fall where they may.

[Sir Wulfrick]

Would it have been difficult in some way for one of the PGI employees to have spent 5 minutes creating a poll here in the official game forum? THIS is how they communicate now?

On topic - I suppose as a mercenary I fight where I'm paid to go. I do however want to see fewer 2-12 or 12-0 matches. I'm perfectly happy to sacrifice choice for the greater benefit of having actually competitive matches rather than one-way stomps.

[Burktross]

Yes.
I couldn't care less about what map and gamemode it is, so long as its a good match.

[stjobe]

I leave everything unchecked - all game modes, all servers.
I've played for three years.

And here's my take: The matchmaker doesn't produce quality matches more than once in a blue moon; it actually feels worse than the "slap 8 players on both teams and let's go" matchmaker we had back in closed beta half of the time.

I don't want to play on two balanced teams if the Elo spread on the individual teams is so great as to put me in with day-one rookies; nor do I want to be the rookie that balances out the high-Elo player in order for my team's Elo average to match the other team's Elo average.

I'll put it very simply: I want to play with and against players of my Elo. Not people 500 - 1,000 Elo away.

Fsck this team average Elo bullcrap.

[ApolloKaras]

In the text of what the OP was actually asking, I would chose the latter

"Do you want the most Competitive(closet ELO) Matches but at the cost that you can no longer choose maps or modes?"

Edited by Saxie, 14 August 2015 - 12:35 PM.

[Johnny Z]

This isnt a problem with other similar games. I dont know why its a problem with this game.

What I mean is the regular queue should make matches and be done with it. Newbies shouldnt have to face experienced players because of trolls. Thats just messed up and been that way to long.

To the seal clubbers in this topic have some dignity.

Edited by Johnny Z, 14 August 2015 - 12:43 PM.

[M4rtyr]

Sir Wulfrick, on 14 August 2015 - 12:29 PM, said:

Would it have been difficult in some way for one of the PGI employees to have spent 5 minutes creating a poll here in the official game forum? THIS is how they communicate now?

Does kind of stick out doesn't it... makes you wonder, if they won't post the question for the community themselves (what else does the community manager do?) then are they really reading the answers anyway.

Take the time to communicate on YOUR OWN forums PGI.

[Y E O N N E]

Theoretically, knowing what map and mode you are about to play should result in more competitive games as players min-max their 'Mechs for their choice of map and mode.

That said, I prefer randomized maps and modes precisely because not knowing what we're going to drop into prevents meta-gaming for maps and modes in normal matches. Save map choice for competitive tournaments.

[C E Dwyer]

Zeece, on 20 February 2015 - 07:51 AM, said:

Russ Asked me to Pose this Questions to the Community during last nights Townhall so that he could get honest and open feedback from y'all on it.

To give context to his question.

Do you want full choices of Mode and Maps at the Expense of Less Competitive Matches (because every choice shrinks the size of the pool of players that the Matchmaker can choose opponents from which means it will have to expand the ELO range to fill a match)

or

Do you want the most Competitive(closet ELO) Matches but at the cost that you can no longer choose maps or modes?

Reference: Current Solo Queue ELO difference 38... Current Group Queue ELO difference 183

I'm more interested in why the CEO of the company can't get his butt down here and ask the question himself, or gosh the community manager Tina who's job it is, to pose these kind of questions, if this is Kosher.

Also I'd like to point out, that pretending to represent P.G.I is an offense, that can get you moderated for a very very long time, and why a thread started in February is getting resurrected in August


Grumpy ain't I

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Grandpaw, on 20 February 2015 - 07:56 AM, said:

Much rather be able to choose maps and modes myself,if I have to play matches that I hate whats the point of playing this game at all?

Yeah because when every dropship you have crashes every time you play a match, thatd get expensive O.o

Cathy, on 14 August 2015 - 01:08 PM, said:

I'm more interested in why the CEO of the company can't get his butt down here and ask the question himself, or gosh the community manager Tina who's job it is, to pose these kind of questions, if this is Kosher.

Also I'd like to point out, that pretending to represent P.G.I is an offense, that can get you moderated for a very very long time, and why a thread started in February is getting resurrected in August


Grumpy ain't I

Because he's too sensitive.

M4rtyr, on 14 August 2015 - 12:56 PM, said:

Does kind of stick out doesn't it... makes you wonder, if they won't post the question for the community themselves (what else does the community manager do?) then are they really reading the answers anyway.

Take the time to communicate on YOUR OWN forums PGI.

Maybe its because he really doesnt want to see the answer. He's already made up his mind the way it will go and asking anyone would just show him he can be wrong

[Hellcat420]

I'll give my answer when Russ comes to his forums and asks us himself.

[nitra]

I think they should just go ahead and do the grunt work of creating a Battle Value system.

where every mechs quirks, content, and its pilots elo is assigned a value

the match maker then grabs the 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 for the match and assigns a vale to each group for example

first 3 bv is XXX second 3 bv is XXX third 3 is bv XXX and the fourth is XXX

the match maker will then go out and get another group of 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 that closely matches the first and throw them into a match.


but i like lobbies better

there should be a fast drop lobbies these will drop players in battle when the following criteria are met .

if upon end of countdown 24 players in lobby are ready then 24 players are dropped in battle.

if upon end of countdown 16 players in lobby are ready then 16 players are dropped in battle.

if upon end of countdown 8 players in lobby are ready then 8 players are dropped in battle.

these are completely random map and random game mode lobbies with the intent of quick matches .

then you can have your more custom lobbies

like always 12 v 12 on all big maps only

and always 4 v 4 on small maps only.

and of course classic 8 v 8 on classic maps.

lobbies should be the way this game works rather than the automated system we have now.

[Khobai]

agreed need 8v8 for non-CW queues and 12v12 for CW only

that would fix a ton of balance issues

[Telmasa]

Necro party in this thread, dang....

Mister Blastman, on 14 August 2015 - 11:53 AM, said:

This.

Well, except PGI has done something unexpected and made it clear they're willing to overhaul the current maps to better house a 12v12 match.

I'm okay with that solution, though I do think new river city needs some touch-up work when it comes to spawn placement in various game modes.

[ScarecrowES]

Sorry if this has already been said... I'm not gonna read all 11 pages to find out.

Given that Russ himself has stated that ELO is a meaningless stat that PGI intends to do away with anyway in favor of a real skill stat, I see no reason to build a matchmaking system around keeping ELO spread tight for public matches.

When you admit to your player community that ELO doesn't work, and that it in no way reflects the actual skill of a player, why put weight onto it at all as a defining criteria for selection of players in a match?

I might go so far as to say that until a REAL skill system has been put in place, ELO should probably be removed as a criteria for solo queue.

[Mister Blastman]

Telmasa, on 15 August 2015 - 09:46 AM, said:

Necro party in this thread, dang....



Well, except PGI has done something unexpected and made it clear they're willing to overhaul the current maps to better house a 12v12 match.

I'm okay with that solution, though I do think new river city needs some touch-up work when it comes to spawn placement in various game modes.

The volcano on Terra Therma needs to erupt sending fireballs through the air randomly landing on hills, bridges and 'mechs. It'll keep everyone moving and instantly fry anyone in the caldera.

[CtrlAltWheee]

joelmuzz, on 20 February 2015 - 08:32 AM, said:

I think they should try a no Elo day and see what happens.
Match mechs for the day instead of players. Tonnage is simplest metric for a quick trial, but if it was a successful trial it can become more sophisticated (eg ECM valuable, Flamer Stalker worthless).

Experiment days are fun.

ECM Experiment day if that was feasible.
12v10 IS vs Clan day.
8v8 day.
Groups of 2 in solo queue day.

Advertise it well ahead of time. Can't know how difficult it is on their side, but they'd get some data and we'd have a day of fresh action.

[KHETTI]

#BringBack8v8.