State Of Match Making - Feedback/comments
#261
Posted 03 September 2015 - 10:34 PM
#262
Posted 03 September 2015 - 10:42 PM
Everything else I'm fine with.
Actually, I don't even care if I can select game modes. Sure, you could make "preferred modes check box" but in the end, MM should decide this if that helps match qualitiy. That is really easy to swallow.
Same with drop limitations, be it 4x1 or weight or whatever. Sure, 4x1 won't let you drop with 2 heavies anymore, sad, sure. But not the end of the world.
But a 4man limit... To be true, I haven't played with larger groups the whole year, mostly it was only 2-3. and getting stomped by a big group is no fun, I think we can all agree with this. Limit of 4 would be good for small groups like mine.
And still I'm against it. Sure, we have CW and even private matches to play with larger groups, but that needs even more time to get and to play a match.
Limiting to 2,3,4,6,8,10,12 on the other hand would be ok I think if that helps matchmaking in any way.
One last thing I want to add is "feeled" wait times... You know, like a loading bar for the level.
Would be nice if we could get some info from the matchmaker so you can guess how long it takes. (Counter to next release valve, hown many players it has found right know and so on, just something that isn't a spinning wheel to lighten up the wait times).
#263
Posted 03 September 2015 - 10:44 PM
#264
Posted 03 September 2015 - 10:51 PM
#265
Posted 03 September 2015 - 11:00 PM
It's bad enough trying to sync-drop a pair of 12-mans (never mind private lobbies). Now imagine that two teams, say [QQ] and [CI], want to square off. That's SIX (6!!!!!!!) dudes trying to sync by all hitting the LAUNCH button at the exact same time, and hoping that MM straightens it out. Never mind, that I'm sure no one will think to have MM look at the tags and try to put 4-mans with 2 or more of the same tag together with other 4-mans with the same tags. Nah. You'd have 2 [CI] and one [QQ] on one side, and a {CI], [QQ], and [228] on the other, and it'd take the whole weekend to run a best-of-five 12-man comp that way.
Or, is that what we want? You'll HAVE to drop in private, no XP and no C-Bills to be had, in order to work that out? Neat feature, costs IRL money. I see...
And again, I have no problem with y'all trying to make a buck on the game, at least make payroll and the utility bills every month. Got it.
NONETHEFREAKINGLESS, 4-man only is not cool.
I say drop the separation between solo and group queue, and allow the groups to be filled with solo players. If the comp tryhards are all worried about getting stuck with a PUG in a junk trial mech, then they had better bring their own 12 to the match (preferably 12 FROM THEIR ROSTER, but not naming names here).
Sorry. Got confused, thought this was reddit. Won't happen again.
Seriously, 4-man limits are crap.
1/1/1/1 is a neat idea on the surface. Consider, then, that those are likely going to be your four lances in match. Now, dig through your Battletech and Mechwarrior lore, and tell me how often a 12-mech company takes three lances of four mechs, each with a light and an assault and a heavy and a medium. G'head. I'm not going anywhere for the next 40 years.
But we're STUCK with that, last I heard, once matchmaker sticks us in a match. Sure, I can figure out who I'm buddied-up with, regardless of whether he's blue or green on the map. But it still bugs the s**t out of me.
I'll live with the 190-second average search time, or whatever. Leave it as is.
And try to listen a little less to the tryhard D-bags. Vocal minority, squeaky wheel, etc. They often embarrass me...
#266
Posted 03 September 2015 - 11:06 PM
#267
Posted 03 September 2015 - 11:07 PM
1 - leveling system for the player
example: players level 1-10 play against each other
11-20
21-29
30+ (prestige+) you get the idea
2 - spectator - allow people to spectate/watch a match being played with open voice comms and can see ingame text. of course have a delay... 3mins seems popular.
3 - promote streamers - they make videos, teach people to play, and generally promote your game. they should be rewarded. i regularly stream myself for funzzz not for my livelyhood. honestly, i have directed more players to smurfy, metamech, mwo forums, or simply teach them basic things like how to get out of 3rd person view (F3).
4 - use your mwo launcher for more than just launching the game. launcher is windowed which is really nice when im in queue for 5min+. launcher can host links to spectate top tier games. (enhance the learning curve)
BOTTOM LINE: there will be players that have bad connections, bad computers, bad skills... its gunna happen. however, for the new players that have good connections, good computers, and competent gaming skills should be able to watch a few games and be able to get the hang of it in no time. this does not require commentators/shoutcasters, but of course people explaining what is happening, at times, more helpful than not.
imo, the solo vs group queues should matter if there is a large enough player base and there is a leveling system in place for players. best of luck and i hope w/e decision is made causes more players to play mwo.
- kinesotu (been playing since before November 8, 2012, (6500MC) first purchase)
#268
Posted 03 September 2015 - 11:08 PM
After 4 years you cant cure low pop by putting in restrictions, each restriction will just shed some player or other snowballing the low pop problem.
Even allowing solo into the Q will have an impact on game quality, at least atm you have some semblance of group play, most groups are on coms or know each other, let solos in and you degrade the group play, imagine 2 to 4 solos in a team playing well solo, im sure thats going to increase the quality of the group Q.
PS.
Release valves just makes for bad quality matches, every release valve adds another seal to the slaughter...
Edited by N0MAD, 03 September 2015 - 11:15 PM.
#269
Posted 03 September 2015 - 11:09 PM
panicbutton, on 03 September 2015 - 08:43 PM, said:
Fundamental issue with that though -
it's only applicable to top tier competitive teams, which isn't everyone. Not by a big stretch. I'm having a great time tonight in the group queue in a mixed group of people, 7-9 of us at any given time. 4 max? Most of us would be playing a different game. We would not be splitting into 4s, we'd be playing another game.
Really that simple. I get the concept but a 4 player max group queue is irrelevant to me. I'll pug a bit, CW if there's people around for it who want to CW, or I'll play another game. I'm not alone if history is an indicator.
#270
Posted 03 September 2015 - 11:15 PM
the whole argument and reason for splitting the two was the SOLO players complained they had no voice comms and the group players did.
So we split the groups....and group play suffered.
Then finally the golden day arrived and VOIP now exists in the game, and having played on SOLO drops, it is used...to great effect.
So, how about we just get rid of SOLO/GROUP/CW queues and merely have COMMUNITY WARFARE drops and NON-COMMUNITY WARFARE drops. I am quite certain there are no issues in the CW side of the house that a solo player get's stomped in CW.
So again, enough with diluting the player base and make us all one group for NON-CW drops. It was promised, now deliver.
Edited by NeonKnight, 03 September 2015 - 11:16 PM.
#271
Posted 03 September 2015 - 11:15 PM
Remove 1/1/1/1 and it'll be 12 dires. What crap that would be.
#272
Posted 03 September 2015 - 11:19 PM
#273
Posted 03 September 2015 - 11:22 PM
- Each group needs to be created in a 1/1/1/1 fashion.
PLZ JUST DON'T!
Edited by FREDtheROLF, 03 September 2015 - 11:23 PM.
#274
Posted 03 September 2015 - 11:25 PM
unFearing, on 03 September 2015 - 10:19 PM, said:
1/1/1/1,
2 pilots in one class, 2 pilots in another
2 pilots in one class, 1 pilot in another, 1 pilot in another.
I do believe that training time in the public queues is a passing era in an effort to move it into the private matches... where it belongs and PGI makes money.
At least that's a subtle undercurrent I'm seeing form.
Edited by Kjudoon, 03 September 2015 - 11:26 PM.
#275
Posted 03 September 2015 - 11:35 PM
Group queue is just always 12-man deathball BS.
#276
Posted 03 September 2015 - 11:37 PM
I am absolutely fine with the 1/1/1/1 or something in that direction.
#277
Posted 03 September 2015 - 11:51 PM
"Ok, you can play with your friends, but only 3. And you're playing in the same match with them, but you're going to be playing in totally different mechs, at different speed bands... so basically, you're only barely playing with them at all.
I don't have a lot of horses in this race. I rarely play in established groups, but I do really enjoy getting a pile of friends together playing - people from all sorts of units and such, with people coming and going along the way. We could never do that in the 4 man days of old, and this would end it.
I just think - as much as I totally understand not enjoying being rolled by 12 mans - that going back to a 4 man limit would have profound impact. It may well make match quality better, I don't dispute that. But taking away "Fun Playing With Friends"... that's bad.
It'd be ok, if CW was more viable. But as it stands, it's just not. It takes too long to get matches (when you can in the first place!) with upwards of 1/2 hour between matches searching/building teams/etc. Just not practical for getting an impromptu group together and having some fun.
#278
Posted 03 September 2015 - 11:52 PM
So let's assume a Metawhale get's 1000BV, a TDR 750BV, a Hunchback 500BV and a FS9 250BV.
Now give the group for every player who joins the group 500BV for the groups BV pool.
You want to drop a Whale in a 4 man? Great! Just sacrifice the 1000BV and go Dire, Hunch, 2x FS9. Go two TDR? 2xTDR + 2FS9. TDR + 2 Hunch + FS9...
This leaves you with a great way to restict 0/0/#/# style groups without taking away the option to do a Hunchbro drop (I would cry if we can not do this anymore ). The maximum amount of Whales would be 4 since four whales are 4000BV. This would leave you with 2000BV left for 8 guys wich would all have to take a FS9 then.
I mean the restrictions to weightclasses are dumb anyway. What's the difference between a Cicada and a Jenner anyway? 5 tons? This would automaticly boost the validity of low tonnage (assume lower BV) mechs in a given weight class.
#279
Posted 04 September 2015 - 12:02 AM
Locabiosol, on 03 September 2015 - 11:52 PM, said:
....No, not really. This isn't what you're thinking of.
The 'battle value' that PGI has talked about is a rating for the chassis based on its hardpoints, hardpoint locations, model shape, and engine limitations. It does not rate the value of equipment loaded, because it's meant to give a base point for the value of the 'mech chassis itself so that they can decide what needs how much quirking.
This value does not take into account armor, equipment, modules, et cetera. This is especially relevant because the value of a piece of equipment can vary based on where it's mounted on the 'mech and what other equipment is mounted on the 'mech (if we're going to talk about the overall strength of a 'mech and assign a number to it). Further, basing choices off of that would not take into account pilot value. Thus, it cannot be used as you propose.
#280
Posted 04 September 2015 - 12:05 AM
Back when that was in "exploration" (tonnage limits instead of the 3/3/3/3 system), people were ready to conform to it.
Sure it won't have a perfect tonnage distribution (nothing ever will), but it's an intentional team handicap that wasn't fully restrictive (taking 2 Stormcrows for instance would not break the system, unless it was 1/1/1/1).
I feel like that was a time that something as simple conceptually like that wasn't fully looked into.
30 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 30 guests, 0 anonymous users