109 replies to this topic

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Mister Blastman, on 18 August 2015 - 05:56 PM, said:

I would enjoy respawn.

MW4 had it and it was nearly universal in MP and everyone here says it was better than MWO, but here they don't want it.

[Kjudoon]

Id go for respawndls. Living Legend style where you had to hoof it back to base on footand get a different mech at base.

[FupDup]

Lord Scarlett Johan, on 18 August 2015 - 06:10 PM, said:

MW4 had it and it was nearly universal in MP and everyone here says it was better than MWO, but here they don't want it.

I think it would require an entirely different game mode and/or maps to make it work, right now our maps/modes feel like a one-off "quick and dirty commando raid." Respawns seem like something more suited to a prolonged tug-of-war battle.

There would/should probably be some kind of limit to prevent infinite lives, though...maybe a "ticket" system? We could base this off of tonnage or something similar, to incentivize weaker/lighter mechs. The amount of time it takes to "redeploy" (sounds more Mechwarrior-y than "respawn") could be based on tonnage as well, to again help give a reason to use the smaller mechs. Maybe even tech levels could play into this, giving a reason to use less-than-optimal upgrades.

Edited by FupDup, 18 August 2015 - 06:48 PM.

[Fate 6]

Soy, on 18 August 2015 - 12:46 PM, said:

Which is why this is much ado about BS and the game needed[needs] casual and comp queue.

At least they didn't tier mechs, cuz I'd have already been out the door without a sound.

Well, they basically did tier the mechs, it just isn't a factor in the matchmaking equation except how it affects your performance. RIP Shadow Hawk

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

FupDup, on 18 August 2015 - 06:44 PM, said:

I think it would require an entirely different game mode and/or maps to make it work, right now our maps/modes feel like a one-off "quick and dirty commando raid." Respawns seem like something more suited to a prolonged tug-of-war battle.

There would/should probably be some kind of limit to prevent infinite lives, though...maybe a "ticket" system? We could base this off of tonnage or something similar, to incentivize weaker/lighter mechs. The amount of time it takes to "redeploy" (sounds more Mechwarrior-y than "respawn") could be based on tonnage as well, to again help give a reason to use the smaller mechs. Maybe even tech levels could play into this, giving a reason to use less-than-optimal upgrades.

You mean they should really just rip-off the Old Skool BF type conquest matches? Because that's what I honestly was hoping for CW. And what I've been craving and nagging for since I started playing this game.

[kuritakun]

pls show us our tier so we know what to expect or atleast see if the new system is really working

[Garou Wolfs Haven]

Yep knowing ours and each others PSR will create e-peen envy and bragging but for lower ranked players it also lets you know where you need to improve. If you are doing fairly well in the lower ranks you might mistakenly think you are a good player and never really improve as a player.

[Ultimax]

FupDup, on 18 August 2015 - 06:44 PM, said:

I think it would require an entirely different game mode and/or maps to make it work, right now our maps/modes feel like a one-off "quick and dirty commando raid." Respawns seem like something more suited to a prolonged tug-of-war battle.

There would/should probably be some kind of limit to prevent infinite lives, though...maybe a "ticket" system? We could base this off of tonnage or something similar, to incentivize weaker/lighter mechs. The amount of time it takes to "redeploy" (sounds more Mechwarrior-y than "respawn") could be based on tonnage as well, to again help give a reason to use the smaller mechs. Maybe even tech levels could play into this, giving a reason to use less-than-optimal upgrades.

Just a fun OT:


I used to play a game where if you died, you re-spwaned.

It was 5v5 and the first team to score X number of kills (I think it was 15) would win.


This meant one scrub could die 15x and lose the match for the other 4 players who didn't die.


Sometimes good teams in the queues would actually beg people to just stay dead, because they'd have a better chance of winning 4v5 than if the PUG kept respawning to be farmed by the enemy team.

[Revis Volek]

Gas Guzzler, on 18 August 2015 - 12:48 PM, said:

Yeah, there is probably rationale for not having casual and comp queue, probably having to do with buckets.

and no players to fill them

[Karamarka]

Escef, on 18 August 2015 - 12:41 PM, said:

Fighting only players near your own skill level will not prevent stomps. I don't know why people thought they would.

Because you don't have the idiots on your team that die in the first 2 minutes. That helps make a stomp.

Yes, if u die in the first 2 minutes u are horrible.

[NeoCodex]

Maybe the system isn't working yet. How is it supposed to now by the old elo method where you belong in the new system? It's doing guessing at best. Give it some time.

Troll attention thread 2/10 got me for the title.

[Deathlike]

Ultimatum X, on 18 August 2015 - 08:47 PM, said:

Just a fun OT:


I used to play a game where if you died, you re-spwaned.

It was 5v5 and the first team to score X number of kills (I think it was 15) would win.


This meant one scrub could die 15x and lose the match for the other 4 players who didn't die.


Sometimes good teams in the queues would actually beg people to just stay dead, because they'd have a better chance of winning 4v5 than if the PUG kept respawning to be farmed by the enemy team.

I've had CW matches where PUGs on our team would be the first to die, and we'd still win.

These are the kinds of people that "wouldn't have made a different in the outcome", and honestly need some sort of remedial training.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Escef, on 18 August 2015 - 12:41 PM, said:

Fighting only players near your own skill level will not prevent stomps. I don't know why people thought they would.

Because they mistakenly thought the new system would make the game better and in their eyes lopsided games are bad so....

[SnagaDance]

Mors Draco, on 18 August 2015 - 04:13 PM, said:

I just played a match where we beat a bunch of 228 players. Guys that means I'm Tier 1. Here that, I'm T1. I played 228. Thats all you need to know. I'm Tier one. /drops mic

Yo Mors Draco, I'm really happy for you, Imma let you finish but Kristian Radoulov is one of the best mechwarriors of all time... of ALL TIME!!

[Lily from animove]

You guys read the patchnotes? tier 1 can also meet tier 3 players. So playing with or vs people you think they might be T1 does not inclue you being T1 as well.

Soy, on 18 August 2015 - 12:46 PM, said:

Which is why this is much ado about BS and the game needed[needs] casual and comp queue.

At least they didn't tier mechs, cuz I'd have already been out the door without a sound.

and how do you properly decide who is casual and who is comp what would prevent a comp from entering csual q for easy c-bill farming?

You guys always say these things so easily but never think what it means to implement it or how your system just would work.

Edited by Lily from animove, 19 August 2015 - 12:27 AM.

[Frytrixa]

Are you sure one switches the TIER within 24hours after the PSR was implemented?

[Escef]

Karamarka, on 18 August 2015 - 10:48 PM, said:

Because you don't have the idiots on your team that die in the first 2 minutes. That helps make a stomp.

Yes, if u die in the first 2 minutes u are horrible.

Ok, little demonstration for you. You have 2 teams of 12 where every player's effectiveness is ranked 1 (really bad) to 5 (really good), trying to keep the total values near the same.

Team 1: 1,1,2,2,3,3,3,3,4,4,4,5
Team 2: 1,1,1,1,3,3,3,3,4,5,5,5

Either team can lose 2 of their 1 ranked players with comparatively little loss of effectiveness, they only represent about 6% of the team's combat potential. Not a huge loss, right?

But what if the teams are more balanced in skill distribution?

Team 1: 3,3,3,3,3,3,3,4,5,4,4,5
Team 2: 3,3,3,3,3,4,4,4,4,4,4,4

Say Team 1 pushes and it goes bad and they lose both their 5's? They've lost a little over 23% of their team's fighting potential, that's disastrous. Even losing a single 3 ranked player is about 7% of the team's effectiveness, meaning in this situation losing just 1 of their "weakest" players is worse than the teams from the first example losing their 2 worst.

So, no, horrible players dying in the first 2 minutes DOES NOT really help make a stomp. What helps make a stomp is losing players that represent a respectable portion of your team's fighting capacity. Which is actually MORE likely in evenly matched games.

Edited by Escef, 19 August 2015 - 12:58 AM.

[Lykaon]

Escef, on 18 August 2015 - 12:41 PM, said:

Fighting only players near your own skill level will not prevent stomps. I don't know why people thought they would.

The truth is the closer the teams are matched the more casualties hurt your chance of winning.With no talent dispairity there isn't some other effect to take up the slack for being down a few mechs.If you had a 2 man team on comms this could compensate for being down mechs. Coordination would compensate but,this is not allowed.

I still rarely find pug matches were anyone takes command or coordinates and when I do I rarely find players cooperating by following orders.

If both sides are equal on skill then the following starts to impact the chances of victory.

Blue team player is equal to red team player except blue is piloting a Quickdraw red has a Timberwolf

Blue team has 3 ECM mechs red team has 0

Blue team loses 2 mechs without dealing significant damage red team now has a 10 vs 12

Blue team has a disconnect that never returns putting them down 1 if talent is matched then blue starts with a deficentcy because the match maker paired the disconnect with a connected player.

However playing in the groups only queue is like playing a different game. I rarely see stomps (maybe 1 in 10 or only 10% stomps) my win loss is streakish but still winning more than losing (slightly).And even when I lose a match I am generally satisfied with my performance in that match.

[Joseph Mallan]

Even if we

Soy, on 18 August 2015 - 12:46 PM, said:

Which is why this is much ado about BS and the game needed[needs] casual and comp queue.

At least they didn't tier mechs, cuz I'd have already been out the door without a sound.

If we had Casual and Comp we would still have much whining about stomps.

[Joseph Mallan]

Escef, on 19 August 2015 - 12:52 AM, said:

Ok, little demonstration for you. You have 2 teams of 12 where every player's effectiveness is ranked 1 (really bad) to 5 (really good), trying to keep the total values near the same.

Team 1: 1,1,2,2,3,3,3,3,4,4,4,5
Team 2: 1,1,1,1,3,3,3,3,4,5,5,5

Either team can lose 2 of their 1 ranked players with comparatively little loss of effectiveness, they only represent about 6% of the team's combat potential. Not a huge loss, right?

But what if the teams are more balanced in skill distribution?

Team 1: 3,3,3,3,3,3,3,4,5,4,4,5
Team 2: 3,3,3,3,3,4,4,4,4,4,4,4

Say Team 1 pushes and it goes bad and they lose both their 5's? They've lost a little over 23% of their team's fighting potential, that's disastrous. Even losing a single 3 ranked player is about 7% of the team's effectiveness, meaning in this situation losing just 1 of their "weakest" players is worse than the teams from the first example losing their 2 worst.

So, no, horrible players dying in the first 2 minutes DOES NOT really help make a stomp. What helps make a stomp is losing players that represent a respectable portion of your team's fighting capacity. Which is actually MORE likely in evenly matched games.

What can PGI do to stop 3-4 players killing one Mech on the enemy side? My team loses a Timber Wolf and its at a 75 ton disadvantage to the enemy team. Then we lose a Centurion and now we have a 125 ton disadvantage. We lose that many weapons on the field and we will almost always have a hard time swinging the momentum back our way.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 19 August 2015 - 01:23 AM.