251 replies to this topic

[Spleenslitta]

i just want 12 or 24 player free for all so players stop whining about how bad their team is.
12 vs 12 matches isn't orderly matches. it's controlled chaos.....who cares about restraints?

I sure don't care. I just want to wreak havoc and major mayhem.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

NeoAres, on 20 February 2015 - 08:22 AM, said:

Well, whoever said we need more than one gametype anyway? Are there people around literally thirsting for Conquest? Other than that, Assault and Skirmish are, in practice, pretty identical.

I love conquest, and assault and skirmish are now much different without the turrets. 4th game mode coming out also sounds like it's gonna be awesome.

[Scyther]

Personally, I don't really about map choice (no map seems 'worse' enough to eliminate it to me).

I don't care *much* about mode choice - I only use it in these events when 1 mode (assault, conquest, skirmish) is complete and I want to focus on finishing the remaining modes. It would be annoying to only need 1 more 'assault' match and get a long string of conquest/skirmish.

Only thing I actually care about it separating the pre-made and solo queue. VOIP notwithstanding, a PUG vs a half-decent (or better) pre-made just isn't a fun fight, 80% of the time.

[Johnny Z]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 15 August 2015 - 11:35 AM, said:

I love conquest, and assault and skirmish are now much different without the turrets. 4th game mode coming out also sounds like it's gonna be awesome.

Ya the 4 v 4 influencing the other galactic battles sounds great. Way more than I expected thats for sure. In real time even? Amazing really if they pull that off.

[caseysrevenge]

To answer the question , i don't even now if it is possible, before dropping on a map, let it be possible to choose youre mech.
Now you have up to 4 variants of the same chassis,so you can make 4 builds (brawler , longrange ,cool or hot).
To keep it interesting, you drop on a hot map so you choose a cool mech,say you drop on alpine you take youre longrange chassis.The same you can do in CW make it possible to choose between different dropdecks,these you make before dropping.
More choices are not neccessary.
And 4v4 an 8v8 is a closed book it did not work in the past otherwise we still would have it , and i find those variants personnaly not necessary.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Remember how well the whole thing went when you couldnt choose your game mode and he's seriously asking this question??

They pulled it after less than 24 hours because it was so bad and he cant tell that ppl dont like not having a choice?

If so he is the utter moron all the doubters take him for

Spleenslitta, on 15 August 2015 - 11:28 AM, said:

i just want 12 or 24 player free for all so players stop whining about how bad their team is.
12 vs 12 matches isn't orderly matches. it's controlled chaos.....who cares about restraints?

I sure don't care. I just want to wreak havoc and major mayhem.

Like this:



0:25 in

[ScarecrowES]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 15 August 2015 - 03:56 PM, said:

Remember how well the whole thing went when you couldnt choose your game mode and he's seriously asking this question??

They pulled it after less than 24 hours because it was so bad and he cant tell that ppl dont like not having a choice?

If so he is the utter moron all the doubters take him for



Like this:

0:25 in

That game looks awesome! What's it called?

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

ScarecrowES, on 15 August 2015 - 04:01 PM, said:

That game looks awesome! What's it called?

This one XD

But its not false advertising because it was fan made OR because ...advertising is all lies

[Dingo Battler]

What will happen is that he'll agree to remove ELO restrictions, get insane matchups like 228s VS someone on his first match, with the 228 getting some insane score like 11 kills, as he slaughters noobs. Everyone will QQ hard, say the game is over, PGI will flip flop, steam will get delayed another year, and everything will go back to status quo, except with more whining about how things were better when they took ELO away.

Given the community, there is no "try". There is do and get whines, or don't do and get whines.

Be careful what you wish for, you might not like it

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

KBurn85, on 15 August 2015 - 05:04 PM, said:

Be careful what you wish for, you might not like it

What wish for? Im wishing for good games lol

[Dimento Graven]

KBurn85, on 15 August 2015 - 05:04 PM, said:

What will happen is that he'll agree to remove ELO restrictions, get insane matchups like 228s VS someone on his first match, with the 228 getting some insane score like 11 kills, as he slaughters noobs. Everyone will QQ hard, say the game is over, PGI will flip flop, steam will get delayed another year, and everything will go back to status quo, except with more whining about how things were better when they took ELO away.

...

I'm sorry, but you have that now even with elo restrictions. Elo is NOT a guarantee of not having noobs vs veterans, it never has been. So assuming that suddenly we'll see this happen, when it already does is, well... Silly.

Currently elo doesn't work, it serves no purpose other than to maintain itself, ie: MM will try and balance elo's on both sides, pretty much fail, make a prediction on who is supposed to win and who is supposed to lose, then adjust everyone's elo according to the results of the match vs. the elo prediction, and start all over again the next time you click the launch button.

Supposedly more population would make this work, maybe... I kind of doubt it given all the various factors that goes in to each match. Anyway, the only way I could think of making this work would be impossible for PGI to implement and not have every match take a minimum 5 minutes to assemble.

The ONLY way to make this work is each 'mech you own has two sets of elo's. One set of elo's while pugging, one for each map, and one set of elo's while grouped, one for each match. If you own 10 'mechs, and there's 20 maps, that'd be 400 elo's. Group elo's could then be reasonably averaged, your 'mech's performance for hot vs cold vs neutral maps could be factored, and then MAYBE we'd end up with the vast majority of our matches with actual close scores rather than the current opposite be true.

However, that's a crap ton of programming to do, and that's a crap ton of data to maintain, and that's a crap ton of waiting for matches to be assembled.

Again, while I see this the ONLY way to give elo it's best chance at being meaningful under the constraints of the current match making system, I seriously doubt we'd see this drastic a change.

[R Razor]

Would rather see PGI implement a matchmaker that takes player skill (measured statistically using the stats they already track) and mech with loadout value into account.

Would get far more "balanced" matches that way that you do in the current situation.........as for picking a map, unless you are a house leader, you don't get to pick and choose where you fight, you are a soldier, you go where you're told and fight who you're told. I do think you should know what map you're going to drop on before you select your mech and load out though, it's a very rare occasion for a military operation to kick off without some preparation after all.

[Yokaiko]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 15 August 2015 - 04:49 PM, said:

This one XD

But its not false advertising because it was fan made OR because ...advertising is all lies

It was made by Celestial, paid for by PGI. Its fan made only in the sense that they contracted a fan, because he was making better videos than they were.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Yokaiko, on 15 August 2015 - 06:52 PM, said:

It was made by Celestial, paid for by PGI. Its fan made only in the sense that they contracted a fan, because he was making better videos than they were.

Yeah I remember I was being sarcastic lol

[Jon Gotham]

MadBadger, on 15 August 2015 - 03:06 PM, said:

Only thing I actually care about it separating the pre-made and solo queue. VOIP notwithstanding, a PUG vs a half-decent (or better) pre-made just isn't a fun fight, 80% of the time.

You can't face a premade in the solo queue...the only real limiting factor is YOUR OWN willingness to communicate with others.
In group queue everyone you face is a premade. Only limiting factor is YOUR OWN willingness to communicate with others.
In CW the only real limiting factor is YOUR OWN willingness to communicate with others.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All I want is a community driven experience with fair matches, where skill dominates and team work rules. Of course I know with this wonderous anti social "community" that ain't likely....hence all the "solo queue for everything but we'll still moan about lack of teamwork" threads.

The choice for me is already gone, the only mode I want to play is CW and that is being taken away from me by the anti group army. So, I'd say choice don't matter anyway just PLEASE make the mm FAIR.

[sycocys]

All I read is that Russ can't comprehend that many players think its asinine that there's only a handful of maps this far along in the games development.

A handful of small, arena style maps.

Do players want to play on the more poorly designed of the few maps? No, but you won't give them any options for variety because you are stuck to this notion that Mechwarrior needs to be some sort of e-sports arena shooter instead of an online Mechwarrior game.
So much of this could have been mitigated through

A. Listening to the players early on and designing larger more open maps.
or
B. Creating tools/allowing players to create the game piles of maps for free.

Just to restate it - the maps/selection issue almost entirely comes down to the ridiculous lack of variety. It's insane that this game not only has such tiny maps for a Mechwarrior title, but that there are so few maps 3 years down the road. Seriously, there's not even different versions/areas of the maps you spent ungodly amounts of time early on creating all these assests for.

Edited by sycocys, 16 August 2015 - 01:31 AM.

[Druarc]

Id have to same good fun games, I can deal with playing maps like terra every now and then.

Especially once they get there new faces lifts.

personally I'd like to see a better ELO.

Edited by Druarc, 16 August 2015 - 01:46 AM.

[Kyle Travis]

Not bothered about selecting maps - I like having to cope with whatever we drop into...............

I like close games - like most people - more than stomping the opposition.

[ScarecrowES]

Druarc, on 16 August 2015 - 01:44 AM, said:

personally I'd like to see a better ELO.

Just a quick point here for the community in general. This is not directly at the quoted player, but the statement he made is indicative of a lack of understanding of Elo in the community at large.

First, "ELO" is properly written "Elo," as it named for its creator Arpad Elo. A person, not an acronym.

Getting that out of the way, the system is designed to calculate relative skills between single player versus player interactions in single-player competitions such as chess. In theory, it CAN be used to calculate team versus team relative skill scoring, but only when the composition of those teams is fixed from match to match. Even then, Elo is a poor system to use. As team composition becomes more and more complicated, the significance of individual performance on a team becomes such that individual gains or losses in performance can have unpredictable results on the outcome of a match. You could, for example, use Elo to measure the relative skill of baseball teams over the course of a season, as game to game their makeups are largely the same. However, it wouldn't be a very accurate measurement of skill, and its this reason why Elo is never really used in this way.

Elo absolutely CANNOT measure the individual skill of a player on a team. And it cannot be used to measure the relative skills of teams whose makeup from match to match change. Elo is not capable of distinguishing the performance of any player on a team from the performance of any other player, and thus has no way of knowing what level of contribution players make to their teams.

The basic concept behind Elo's system is to raise or lower your skill score based on your actual result (win-loss) from your expected result. Let's say you're rated at a 200 skill, and your opponent at 150. Based on skill, you're expected to win the match. Thus, if you win, it proves your relative skill assessment was "correct." You will not gain any points to your skill score, and the loser will not lose any, as it was expected he would lose (or possibly certain interpretations would reward you a small addition to score, and the other player a small loss based on exactly the spread of the result). But let's say you lost instead. It was expected you would win, so perhaps your skill score was presented to high. You will lose some skill points for losing to a "weaker" opponent, while the other player will gain skill points for beating a "superior" opponent. Thus, over time, your skill scores should remain a reflection of your overall skill.

As stated before, Elo can't work for MWO because it can't judge what each player brought to his team's success or failure. Your team can lose, but you can put in a heroic effort that rivals the best of the winning enemy team. Elo says despite your heroic performance that your skill still wasn't up to scratch, so you'll drop in skill. Whereas even the worst player on the enemy team - the guy who died first in the match with a mere 14 points of damage - will receive a bump up in skill. This is all, of course, in theory, as MWO throws a big wrinkle into Elo... skill-matched matchmaking.

MWO seeks to match teams of similar skill to each other, putting 2 teams together whose cumulative skill scores are extremely similar. This is a problem for Elo's system, as it depends on first making a skill-based prediction on who will win the match. If two opponents are considered to be evenly matched in terms of skill, the prediction of a winner cannot be made. Both teams are equally as likely to win the match as they are to lose it - so the result, then, is not notable or significant under Elo's system.

What ends up happening, then? Well, because you weren't expected to win OR lose, your skill won't really change significantly from match to match. Any gains your Elo score makes in one match will be insignificant at best, and balanced by losses made on other matches. Even if you perform well from match-to-match... even if your personal stats like kill-to-death and win-to-loss ratios are well in the positive, your personal Elo skill rating will remain largely the same over time. And regardless of where your Elo rating starts (and tends to stay), it doesn't matter... because you will be matched to a random assortment of players from all skill levels to produce a team with a cumulative skill level similar to the opposing team (also made of random players of mixed skill level). Russ and the PGI team have gone on record as stating that the static nature of player Elo has proven out just as described here, and for exactly these reasons.

So, does Elo work for multi-player games? Nope.
Does Elo work in MWO? Nope.
Does your Elo score reflect your personal skill? Nope.
Does your Elo score reflect the types of players you will play with or against in matchmaking? Nope.
Does your Elo score matter in MWO? Not at all. Not even close. It is, for all intents and purposes, an entirely random and meaningless statistic based on absolutely nothing to do with your actual game performance.

[ScarecrowES]

Speak of the devil and he shall appear. New pilot skill system announced today sounds an awful lot like the one I've been describing for the last few years. Way to get on the ball PGI.