523 replies to this topic

[Kristov Kerensky]

Boris The Spider, on 02 July 2015 - 01:25 PM, said:

Of course high Elo solos are not stomping new players in the group queue because that is clearly impossible!!! But if you increase the population in the group queue, its easier to build better matches. If you add an Elo multiplier based on group size, it would effectively mean at lower Elo's the matches as built would be high middle level Elo solos and low Elo groups. While not perfect, that would make the group queue slightly more accessible than it is now, and dropping solo less attractive to experienced players. If a high Elo solo player found he was unable to compete and became a liability for his team, his Elo would decrease to the point he no longer qualified for the group queue.

Actually, it's not impossible, group que averages the Elo of the group and then finds another group with a similar average Elo, so you can have top Elo and newbs in a single group facing high and top Elo players due to the averaging, and that DOES happen right now. It's an issue, it's been an issue, and it'll continue to be an issue with the way PGI does the Elo rankings and averaging system for groups. That's why I suggest the New Player group and the restrictions/functions I listed. It actually takes the higher Elo's out of the equation totally, so high Elo players aren't tossed in with low Elo players without being restricted to Trial Mechs without any skill tree levels, and it keeps the purposely low Elo vets from ganking newbs by going by Games Played instead of JUST Elo ranking. Simple and functional system, PGI could implement it within a month, maybe 2 given how low their manpower on that end of the dev staff is. It's not an EASY system to program, but it's not outside their experience. The biggest issue would be the playerbase size for that New Player que, and I know from personal experience that everyone I know in MWO would be willing to deal with longer wait times in this case, as it makes for much better experiences for the New Players, and THAT is paramount, without a good experience, they will NOT stick around.

Hells, PGI could even PROMOTE us Vets teaming up with New Players by giving New Players a list of Vets to add as a friend, if us Vets accept that invite and drop with the New Player in the New Player Group Que, we get some sort of goodies, cbill bonus for each drop let's say, and if we do it X times, we get a Title, X+Y times we get a cockpit item and X+Y+Z times we get some MC, say 1500? It gives Vets who are already inclined to do this something for doing it, and it gives other Vets who aren't as inclined an incentive to do it, and that will cut down on the que times! I'd do it for nothing, I've done it for years in MW titles and other games, I enjoy teaching new players the ropes, it's fun, and it's always nice to find other people who enjoy what you enjoy. It's also a great recruitment tool for units

TWAIFU, wasn't it awesome seeing -MS- in action? I learned a few tricks, that's for certain, and they did NOT make me or anyone else on the team feel like we were horrible or anything like that. It was fun, it was a bit humbling, but it was fun none the less. I particularly enjoyed my 1v1 in my Raven against Doc in his Timberwolf, that guy is amazing, knew what I going to do before I did, but I think I scratched his paint at least, really a good little dance and he was most gracious in victory

[Drakolus]

As this is the closest post to the topic I could find...

I don't mind premades and 12 mans but there HAS to be a way to balance the teams during drop matchmaking. Almost every game I end up in results in a 12-0 or 12-4 steamrolling. I will be the first to admit that I am terrible but I, alone, cannot account for the NON-STOP loss roll that I seem to be on every day.

I wouldn't even mind losing more than I win if the losses were at least close or the battle felt like we had a chance. Usually by the first 2 minutes my team is scattered to the winds and getting chewed to pieces.

Adding insult to injury, there's always that one guy telling us how terrible we are and how we should work as a team which essentially translates into "you didn't follow me even though I didn't say a damn thing and I rambo'd it and died so you all are terrible and my excuse for being the dead one."

So whining aside, can we PLEASE look at finding a way to better balance the drops so that it's not a non-stop 12-0 steamroll.

* Also, I see the phrase ELO being thrown around, what is that?

Edited by Drakolus, 02 July 2015 - 03:00 PM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Drakolus, on 02 July 2015 - 02:53 PM, said:

As this is the closest post to the topic I could find...

I don't mind premades and 12 mans but there HAS to be a way to balance the teams during drop matchmaking. Almost every game I end up in results in a 12-0 or 12-4 steamrolling. I will be the first to admit that I am terrible but I, alone, cannot account for the NON-STOP loss roll that I seem to be on every day.

I wouldn't even mind losing more than I win if the losses were at least close or the battle felt like we had a chance. Usually by the first 2 minutes my team is scattered to the winds and getting chewed to pieces.

Adding insult to injury, there's always that one guy telling us how terrible we are and how we should work as a team which essentially translates into "you didn't follow me even though I didn't say a damn thing and I rambo'd it and died so you all are terrible and my excuse for being the dead one."

So whining aside, can we PLEASE look at finding a way to better balance the drops so that it's not a non-stop 12-0 steamroll.

You actually have a much closer match in skill levels when it's a 12-0/12-2 stomp that happens quickly as opposed to a long drawn out 12-6 or 12-8 match that took forever. It's the nature of the combat in MWO, good players see an opening, capitalize on it quickly and take out 1 or 2 enemy Mechs, which reduces the possible firepower of the enemy, which means they can focus fire more effectively on the fewer remaining Mechs which means they all go down quickly.

Less skilled players will not see that opening, they won't capitalize on it, they won't focus fire and the match takes longer and lots of time is wasted due to multiple solo combats taking place. The snowball effect doesn't materialize because the skill required to see and take advantage of the openings isn't there so it doesn't happen.

And since it works BOTH ways, which ever team sees and takes advantage of the opening first is typically the one that wins, not always though.

That's simply how the combat in MWO works out.

[Drakolus]

Kristov Kerensky, on 02 July 2015 - 03:00 PM, said:

You actually have a much closer match in skill levels when it's a 12-0/12-2 stomp that happens quickly as opposed to a long drawn out 12-6 or 12-8 match that took forever. It's the nature of the combat in MWO, good players see an opening, capitalize on it quickly and take out 1 or 2 enemy Mechs, which reduces the possible firepower of the enemy, which means they can focus fire more effectively on the fewer remaining Mechs which means they all go down quickly.

Less skilled players will not see that opening, they won't capitalize on it, they won't focus fire and the match takes longer and lots of time is wasted due to multiple solo combats taking place. The snowball effect doesn't materialize because the skill required to see and take advantage of the openings isn't there so it doesn't happen.

And since it works BOTH ways, which ever team sees and takes advantage of the opening first is typically the one that wins, not always though.

That's simply how the combat in MWO works out.

Which then gets right back around to the "Why am I constantly on the team that gets the 0 kills part of that." I'm bad at this game, my stats reflect that. Shouldn't I be placed with equally bad players so we can derp at each other and have fun while mutually being terrible?

[IraqiWalker]

TWIAFU, on 02 July 2015 - 01:34 PM, said:

Losing and failing are two different things. The ones that fail are the ones that do not or can not learn from a loss.

THAT is the right attitude of a good player.

Drakolus, on 02 July 2015 - 02:53 PM, said:

Adding insult to injury, there's always that one guy telling us how terrible we are and how we should work as a team which essentially translates into "you didn't follow me even though I didn't say a damn thing and I rambo'd it and died so you all are terrible and my excuse for being the dead one."

Those guys need to be lobotomized. It's for the good of the species.

Drakolus, on 02 July 2015 - 02:53 PM, said:

* Also, I see the phrase ELO being thrown around, what is that?

Elo (Not ELO) is match making system. It's skill based and used in chess to evaluate the skill of a player. Everyone starts in the middle, and when you are matched against a team that is supposed to beat you, and you win. Your Elo drops. If you are expected to win, and you lose, your Elo drops. The problem is that chess is 1v1, and everything is static. There is no KDR, no damage score, NONE of that in Elo.

So far, it's still the most common ranking system in most games. The problem is that it ONLY factors wins, and losses. So if you deal 20 damage, and die 10 seconds into the match, but your team still wins, Elo adjusts your rating based on that win.

Drakolus, on 02 July 2015 - 03:14 PM, said:

Which then gets right back around to the "Why am I constantly on the team that gets the 0 kills part of that." I'm bad at this game, my stats reflect that. Shouldn't I be placed with equally bad players so we can derp at each other and have fun while mutually being terrible?

If you end up winning often, Elo will match against teams that are supposed to beat you, which can basically force you into a losing streak.

So it could be you just got unlucky, and had several people on your team that were all slated to lose.

[Drakolus]

IraqiWalker, on 02 July 2015 - 04:42 PM, said:

THAT is the right attitude of a good player.


Those guys need to be lobotomized. It's for the good of the species.


Elo (Not ELO) is match making system. It's skill based and used in chess to evaluate the skill of a player. Everyone starts in the middle, and when you are matched against a team that is supposed to beat you, and you win. Your Elo drops. If you are expected to win, and you lose, your Elo drops. The problem is that chess is 1v1, and everything is static. There is no KDR, no damage score, NONE of that in Elo.

So far, it's still the most common ranking system in most games. The problem is that it ONLY factors wins, and losses. So if you deal 20 damage, and die 10 seconds into the match, but your team still wins, Elo adjusts your rating based on that win.


If you end up winning often, Elo will match against teams that are supposed to beat you, which can basically force you into a losing streak.

So it could be you just got unlucky, and had several people on your team that were all slated to lose.

Logical and well presented, thanks .

Does my particular issue/rant fit in with the trying to balance out the matchmaker/remove 12-man pre-mades? I saw some topics talking about trying to get and retain new players which I kind of am. I quit about 2 months after the game "launched" and have only come back recently.

Is there anything in the works to try and skill-balance the drops a bit more or am I just stuck in wishful thinking mode?

[PurpleNinja]

Just why?

[Kristov Kerensky]

Drakolus, on 02 July 2015 - 06:50 PM, said:

Logical and well presented, thanks .

Does my particular issue/rant fit in with the trying to balance out the matchmaker/remove 12-man pre-mades? I saw some topics talking about trying to get and retain new players which I kind of am. I quit about 2 months after the game "launched" and have only come back recently.

Is there anything in the works to try and skill-balance the drops a bit more or am I just stuck in wishful thinking mode?

Actually Russ did just state at the recent Town Hall that Elo rankings and how they are determined are getting redone to be more accurate for the team/individual setting we have. It will now look at your PERFORMANCE during a drop, not just your win/loss, so that bad players being carried by a good team will see their Elo drop and good players being hampered by a bad team will be able to go up despite losing. Do well and your team loses, you get a boost instead of a hit, do crappy and your team wins, you don't get a boost, you may get a hit depending on how bad you were. That will help in the Solo que, but I'm not sure it will really help in the Group que yet, since it still averages for that and if an elite groups with a newb to show them the ropes, they'll get tossed against higher rank players over all due to that averaging system.

Otherwise, the changes to the Elo system should allow for better drops in the Solo que over all.

[IraqiWalker]

Drakolus, on 02 July 2015 - 06:50 PM, said:

Logical and well presented, thanks .

Does my particular issue/rant fit in with the trying to balance out the matchmaker/remove 12-man pre-mades? I saw some topics talking about trying to get and retain new players which I kind of am. I quit about 2 months after the game "launched" and have only come back recently.

Is there anything in the works to try and skill-balance the drops a bit more or am I just stuck in wishful thinking mode?

Kristov said all that I needed to say, on Elo improvement. I just have one more thing to add:

Regardless of Elo wanting to screw you or not. Using comms, or even simple team chat to herd the cats in a direction can help turn the odds in your favor. Had a drop earlier in my LCT-3V. It had not basics on it yet, so I knew I wasn't going to be much help. However, being in a locust meant I could go anywhere, and take my time typing in commands.

It was Viridian Bog, and I immediately told the team to take the B5 to B3 line. 8 of them followed, the other 4 were too slow. Got hit by a couple of enemy mechs, we encircled them, destroyed them, and kept on walking. At C3/4 we engagedd the main enemy force, and the team collapsed on them and took them down piece by piece. The match ended 12-8.

Here are the exact orders I typed down:

Take the 5 line folks.

B5 to B3

Watch the hill.

enemy UAV in C4

Centy crit right torso.

Face hug the LRM mechs so their weapons are useless.

That's all I typed. I died shortly after the "Watch the Hill" command because I stood still and let a 2xERLL centy burn my CT off.

Edited by IraqiWalker, 03 July 2015 - 12:26 AM.

[TWIAFU]

Kristov Kerensky, on 02 July 2015 - 01:43 PM, said:

TWAIFU, wasn't it awesome seeing -MS- in action? I learned a few tricks, that's for certain, and they did NOT make me or anyone else on the team feel like we were horrible or anything like that. It was fun, it was a bit humbling, but it was fun none the less. I particularly enjoyed my 1v1 in my Raven against Doc in his Timberwolf, that guy is amazing, knew what I going to do before I did, but I think I scratched his paint at least, really a good little dance and he was most gracious in victory

I'll be honest, it is a bane and a blessing. They are good either be it by tactics, teamwork, or sheer numbers.

Cannot fault them for doing what they do and doing it well. It does suck to get rolled just as much as it does to do the rolling.

But we took the opportunity after the encounter, and still are talking about it today, to see what we can do differently to adapt to the new tactics employed by our enemy. We broke out the CW map and were drawing on it, going over what we saw, and what we can do ourselves to adapt. Now, we want to encounter them again, and will, to test out what we have learned.

I like to be challenged. I like to have to think, not just point and shoot. Odd as it may sound, I don't mind (maybe slightly enjoy) losing so long as I can learn from it.

Win or lose, can suck going up against the largest, most organized, and most dominate Unit in CW. On the other hand, can never get any better if you are never challenged.

[TWIAFU]

Drakolus, on 02 July 2015 - 02:53 PM, said:

As this is the closest post to the topic I could find...

I don't mind premades and 12 mans but there HAS to be a way to balance the teams during drop matchmaking. Almost every game I end up in results in a 12-0 or 12-4 steamrolling. I will be the first to admit that I am terrible but I, alone, cannot account for the NON-STOP loss roll that I seem to be on every day.

I wouldn't even mind losing more than I win if the losses were at least close or the battle felt like we had a chance. Usually by the first 2 minutes my team is scattered to the winds and getting chewed to pieces.

Adding insult to injury, there's always that one guy telling us how terrible we are and how we should work as a team which essentially translates into "you didn't follow me even though I didn't say a damn thing and I rambo'd it and died so you all are terrible and my excuse for being the dead one."

So whining aside, can we PLEASE look at finding a way to better balance the drops so that it's not a non-stop 12-0 steamroll.

* Also, I see the phrase ELO being thrown around, what is that?

Right there, that is why your getting stomped and you acknowledge it. Matchmaking cannot do anything about the lack of teamwork. Plus, to help explain why your team is stomped, we would have to know what your team was doing, map, and where they were.

ELO? Thats Electric Light Orchestra. Group from the 70's and age of Disco!

[Jon Gotham]

TWIAFU, on 03 July 2015 - 03:11 AM, said:

I'll be honest, it is a bane and a blessing. They are good either be it by tactics, teamwork, or sheer numbers.

Cannot fault them for doing what they do and doing it well. It does suck to get rolled just as much as it does to do the rolling.

But we took the opportunity after the encounter, and still are talking about it today, to see what we can do differently to adapt to the new tactics employed by our enemy. We broke out the CW map and were drawing on it, going over what we saw, and what we can do ourselves to adapt. Now, we want to encounter them again, and will, to test out what we have learned.

I like to be challenged. I like to have to think, not just point and shoot. Odd as it may sound, I don't mind (maybe slightly enjoy) losing so long as I can learn from it.

Win or lose, can suck going up against the largest, most organized, and most dominate Unit in CW. On the other hand, can never get any better if you are never challenged.

Why can't more of the playerbase be like this guy?

[Kristov Kerensky]

TWIAFU, on 03 July 2015 - 03:11 AM, said:

I'll be honest, it is a bane and a blessing. They are good either be it by tactics, teamwork, or sheer numbers.

Cannot fault them for doing what they do and doing it well. It does suck to get rolled just as much as it does to do the rolling.

But we took the opportunity after the encounter, and still are talking about it today, to see what we can do differently to adapt to the new tactics employed by our enemy. We broke out the CW map and were drawing on it, going over what we saw, and what we can do ourselves to adapt. Now, we want to encounter them again, and will, to test out what we have learned.

I like to be challenged. I like to have to think, not just point and shoot. Odd as it may sound, I don't mind (maybe slightly enjoy) losing so long as I can learn from it.

Win or lose, can suck going up against the largest, most organized, and most dominate Unit in CW. On the other hand, can never get any better if you are never challenged.

Isn't it great to feel that way when you are playing? I mean, sure, we could do what the anti-social players and the whiners do, scream and cry, but instead, we look at the experience as a learning opportunity and chance to improve ourselves, so we have FUN while they are having a horrible time.

I don't know what creates that mindset, never understood it, but that's GOT to be a really crappy way to go through life, right?

[TWIAFU]

kamiko kross, on 03 July 2015 - 10:47 AM, said:

Why can't more of the playerbase be like this guy?

Very kind of you to say.

Most of any credit goes to the Unit I belong to and the environment they foster.

[TWIAFU]

Kristov Kerensky, on 03 July 2015 - 10:58 AM, said:

Isn't it great to feel that way when you are playing? I mean, sure, we could do what the anti-social players and the whiners do, scream and cry, but instead, we look at the experience as a learning opportunity and chance to improve ourselves, so we have FUN while they are having a horrible time.

I don't know what creates that mindset, never understood it, but that's GOT to be a really crappy way to go through life, right?

Yea, it is a nice way to feel when playing and discussing with the team on how best to approach the next drop.

People are really missing out and I feel bad for them.

[Boris The Spider]

Kristov Kerensky, on 02 July 2015 - 01:43 PM, said:

Actually, it's not impossible, group que averages the Elo of the group and then finds another group with a similar average Elo, so you can have top Elo and newbs in a single group facing high and top Elo players due to the averaging, and that DOES happen right now.

Kristov, you keep misreading what I'm writing in different ways... 1^st you say there is no point removing high Elo's from solo, when I explain the rational for it, you then seem to forget that were talking about solos. Anyway I will try a reword, and explain the effect rather than the method, because reading the rest of your post I think we are both actually looking for a similar outcome.


OK, imagine solo Elo as 10 banding’s. They are not a true scale because of the way Elo develops into a bell curve, just 10 roughly equal size bands. Group banding’s run from 6-10.

At bands 1-5, Solo players will never see a group. Ever. They are just matched against equivalent Elo opponents. They will encounter high Elo players a lot less than they do currently.

At band 6, its still a >90% solo experience, but you will occasionally start to see small groups, these would be low Elo, usually new players in trial mechs.

At band 7, its about 66% solo, usually a small 2-4 casual group on each side. To progress beyond this level without Elo knocking you back down would require you to actively work with your team. Rambo's would need to be especially gifted to get any higher.

At band 8 the game becomes similar to the old above average Elo queue. Groups would be mid-high Elo, typically 3-5 in size. Solo players who reach this rating act as filler for small groups. Solos would be abut <20% population, and to maintain this position would probably require the use of in-game VOIP.

At band 9, players who reach band 9, require no hand holding. They would start to be used as filler for large group battles. Groups would be either large med elo 6-10 mans or smaller high Elo 2-4 mans.

At band 10. the top 10% of solo players in the game, the top 25% of group players, any 11 man group would be more than happy to have a solo tale their 12^th spot. Big med-high groups 8-12 man, or high Elo 2+ man.

______________________________________

So, what does this mean for solo players. Well, new solo players would be fighting players averaging a much lower Elo than at present. The top 30% of solo players would lose their ability to farm new players. As players progress in ability they would have far more interaction with grouped players on their own team, meaning that CW would be far less of a culture shock and they may be more inclined to look to join existing units or create new ones of their own.

For grouped players, the increased selection of players means a matchmaker than can find much more closely ranked battles without extending the wait times too much (they would have to go up a bit though). Rather than choosing you team mates just because they happen to be the right size group in the right sized mechs, it starts putting players in with similar abilities. Any solo players on your team and on the enemies are above average skill.

There is no Pug-stomping possible. Before a small casual group develops the skill and co-ordination to be able to perform a stomp with any kind of reliability, they will find themselves playing in band 8. Groups larger than 5, because of the Elo multiplier on group size will never play lower than band 8 unless they are all teribad. Large high Elo groups, because of a combination of increased wait times, tighter matching restrictions, but mitigated with vastly increased population get much fairer (read more difficult) matches.

The benefits are, its one queue, closer skill matching right across the spectrum, it cannot be cheated, there is no choice to play at a level lower than you are capable of. This alone benefits new player enormously at a time when you are hoping to get a massive influx of them. You give people a choice and sadly a lot of people will just choose to farm them. Its pretty simple, just a slight increase in wait times, tweaking a group size Elo multiplier to fit and a re-work of Elo, which they are doing anyway. Honestly though, I don't expect much support for this as it only helps new and casual players and significantly hampers the established solo and grouped elite.

TWIAFU, on 03 July 2015 - 03:14 AM, said:

Right there, that is why your getting stomped and you acknowledge it. Matchmaking cannot do anything about the lack of teamwork.

Yes it can. Elo is; leaving aside the way its derived, essentially your capacity for teamwork combined with your skill. A good team players Elo is high despite of his skill, and a skilled players Elo is high despite his ability to work in a group.. The best players with the highest Elo combine skill with teamwork.... So matching Elo's closely is the matchmaker balancing for teamwork as best it can. Just at the minute, the matchmaker doesn’t have enough low Elo players available to it in group queue to perform that function. Some players have yet to develop their teamwork skills, some will never get it, but that should not prevent them enjoying the game, it should just prevent them excelling at it.

Edited by Boris The Spider, 03 July 2015 - 03:02 PM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Uh...Boris...the system works nothing like that, it DID, sorta kinda, once upon a time, and the anti-social players screamed so much that Groups and Solos were split apart and won't be put back together again.

What you've outlined is exactly what we had as far as group/solo mixtures, and you were put together based on Elo and the results are self evident, so I don't think what you propose has any chance in hell of happening, nor is it anything even remotely like what Russ discussed.

And Elo score being what allows or disallows you to get in a group? That's wrong on so many levels. Elo has nothing to do with your team work, it's a personal ranking and is SUPPOSED to be based on your individual performance. It's not currently, it's based on the win/loss stat mainly, YOUR performance isn't what it reflects. And due to how it's working right now, unless you are in Group que, your Elo is probably not changing at all according to Russ, hence...

Russ said they're redoing Elo rankings and what new players will start with as an Elo score, dropping that score even more than it already is.

Right now, your performance has no real effect on your Elo, if your TEAM is predicated to win and your team loses instead, YOU get dinged. If your team is supposed to lose and it wins instead, you get a small boost. What YOU did to help either of those situations doesn't get factored in.

New system will look at what you did as well as whether or not your TEAM was predicated to win or lose. Predicated to win and wins and you do jack, you don't get a boost, may even get dinged if you did bad enough. Predicated to win and loses but you did really well, you don't get dinged, you get a boost. This will drop the Elo on a number of bad players who've been in the group que and being carried, and it will start raising the Elo of the good players who've been solo PUGing and getting stuck with really bad teammates and losing but they do really well every time.

Group que, this will have the above effects, but it will NOT solve the issue of high Elo players bringing new players with a New Player Elo into the group que, due to the average of the group being used to match with another group, you will probably face a group composed of mostly high Elo players and get stomped, exactly as it works now.

That's why I've proposed a New Player Group que where 1 single Vet, determined by Games Played NOT Elo!, is allowed to group with up to 3 New Players and is given an Elo equal to their lowest value, as well as being restricted to using ONLY Trial Mechs with a 0 skill tree setting on that Trial Mech REGARDLESS of what the Vet should actually have.

This prevents New Player Groups from being matched with high Elo players AND also prevents ganking of New Player Groups by people who've gamed their Elo to be low for that purpose, which we know happens. Yeah, that Vet is stuck in a crappy Mech but so what, the entire point of this is to allow Vets to bring their friends in and show them the game WITHOUT getting their asses stomped into the dirt, thereby giving those New Players a good experience.

Simple and effective.

Edited by Kristov Kerensky, 03 July 2015 - 03:45 PM.

[cSand]

Kristov Kerensky, on 03 July 2015 - 10:58 AM, said:

Isn't it great to feel that way when you are playing? I mean, sure, we could do what the anti-social players and the whiners do, scream and cry, but instead, we look at the experience as a learning opportunity and chance to improve ourselves, so we have FUN while they are having a horrible time.

I don't know what creates that mindset, never understood it, but that's GOT to be a really crappy way to go through life, right?

Then the best feeling is when your small group finally beats that 10 man ! And most in my experience are pretty classy about it when they do lose

[TWIAFU]

cSand, on 03 July 2015 - 03:42 PM, said:

Then the best feeling is when your small group finally beats that 10 man ! And most in my experience are pretty classy about it when they do lose

That David and Goliath experience is kinda cool when it happens.

[Aim64C]

Alistair Winter, on 25 June 2015 - 10:39 PM, said:

Here's my question:
Do you think it's good for the longevity of MWO to keep the big groups playing with the small groups?

Do you think it's good for the longevity of MWO for the gameplay to be focused on Team Solaris?

For the most part, the game doesn't offer much to write home about unless you're a MechWarrior fan - in which case, it's the only MechWarrior game out there, really, under active development.

Is there anything about MWO to introduce new generations to the Battltech Universe? Or is it just stompy robot deathmatch?

This is akin to the church being worried about what hymnal to purchase to replace the old ones while the vast majority of the congregation has gray hair.

Quote

Let's face it, a lot of people have tried to introduce their friends to the game by teaming up in the group queue, and have failed miserably because matchmaker puts them up against 6-12 man groups of veterans in hyper pimped Clan mechs, roflstomping and tea-bagging them in less than 3 minutes every time. We should all acknowledge that the new player experience in the group queue is horrible.

This is really only going to be solved by changing the gameplay.

Quote

So what's your solution? Keep the status quo? Move bigger groups to CW? Maybe create some sort of absolute barrier for the matchmaker, preventing 5-12-man groups from ever getting matched up against low Elo players?

Let's just pretend we (the players) had the ability to solve this problem, for the sake of discussion.

If you want my observations:



Command & Conquer: Renegade was an excellent multiplayer video game with a very manageable learning curve to its key multiplayer game mode.

What Renegade did was divorce the concept of "death" from "loss." It also divorced "kill" from "win."

The objective of the game is to destroy the opposing team's base. Character death is simply a cost of attempts to accomplish that objective and the opposing team is simply an obstacle to that objective.

While I've yet to play Renegade X (which is a fan-made successor), the original Renegade had 'marathon' servers where the game ran until one side or the other established victory in that map. Teams could be as large as 60 vs 60 (yes, those got full) - and games could be extremely intense.

Again - dying wasn't the end of the world in the game. You didn't spend a few minutes waiting for and building up to a match only to get killed in 30 seconds to have to wait all over again. You joined a match, got killed in 30 seconds, respawned, and did it again. Killing enemies, also, was just beating back a tide that never ended until you did something to destroy the building linked to supplying vehicles, credits, power, etc. Games were persistent - so if a player had to leave, another player would eventually log on and take his place. You would join a server with the game in progress.

Destroying the enemy's power plant doubled their cost for items and shut down any base defense structures they had. It also reduced the amount of credits they received for every second the refinery was alive. Destroying their base defense, obviously, got rid of what was essentially instant death for any hostile infantry within its range (very handy for dealing with enemies with cloaking devices, since it could see through those). Destroying the barracks cut off access to specialized infantry that were more effective at the base line roles, and destroying the weapons factory cut off access to vehicles.

Everything was secondary to base defense - absolutely everything.

This made it relatively easy for new players to act in a defensive role and assist the team. Since playing the repairing role was a great way to earn credits at a low risk - it also meant that newer players could afford to purchase the higher priced offensive weapons to experiment with. Since death was not an immediate end to the game experience or of seriously disastrous consequence to the team, there wasn't much reason to be concerned about death, nor was there a feeling of guilt for trying something new.

Aside from being foolish and letting the enemy hijack your vehicle (cloaked players liked to wait near areas where players would get out of their vehicle to repair it just to run up and snatch it - then run the guy over with it) - it was pretty hard to **** up as a new player in any way that would make you catch huge amounts of flack.

Also:



Arma 3 is a fairly hardcore simulator and has absolutely massive open terrains with the ability to input dynamic objectives. Logistics become an issue, as do things like reconnaissance, since there's enough terrain to get lost in several times over. Even the smallest maps make Alpine, Tourmaline, and Terra Therma look like tiny excerpts.

Consider such a large map to a battletech theme with territory belonging to multiple factions. Various logistics systems are in place that need to be defended (IE - players on the team are rewarded for when those various supplies make it to their destination within the territory) and various structures convey certain benefits. Communications relays allow for timely support, power generators make their attached systems function, sensor networks provide valuable intelligence within their range...

So attempts to capture and/or destroy these installations would be the focus of players who are attempting to achieve the objective of driving a faction out of the area.

Anyway - the idea is that both of these games have considerably different aspects. Neither is designed to be a 10 minute match. Neither of them has a direct correlation between "death" and "loss."

I think the best thing that could be done for the long term development of MWO is to develop something more akin to "Battletech Online" that takes us away from mech-on-mech action as the focus of the gameplay and places it more as a faction-on-faction action as a focus of the gameplay, with mechs, vehicles, and the players that bring them to the field are simply pursuant to those ends.

That...

and it would be absolutely awesome if I could drop with a good player in a PUG match and say: "I like that guy, I want him to be my friend so that I can drop with him again in the future."

Some kind of in-game community aspect would be great to actually building a community to have warfare with.