Jump to content

State Of Match Making - Feedback/comments


1142 replies to this topic

#601 Triordinant

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,495 posts
  • LocationThe Dark Side of the Moon

Posted 05 September 2015 - 12:21 PM

View PostFire for Effect, on 05 September 2015 - 12:15 PM, said:

If you think that small amount is a problem then you completely ignore the repeated failings on the matchmaker that have a much larger impact.

PGI already determined that tiny groups create big problems when mixed in with solos. That's WHY they created the solo-only queue. For PGI, small groups in the solo queue being a problem is a proven fact.

View PostFire for Effect, on 05 September 2015 - 12:18 PM, said:

oh it did not solve anything, stomps were as often as before the average PUG just had no groups to blame for their own inability.

PGI says it did. I'll believe them before I believe you.

#602 Rayne Vickers

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Ardent
  • The Ardent
  • 115 posts
  • LocationVickers Mining Co. Trellshire Province, Lyran Commonwelth. Hollers, Derf

Posted 05 September 2015 - 12:22 PM

View PostTriordinant, on 05 September 2015 - 12:10 PM, said:

So the solution to a "downward spiral" in the queues where maybe 5-15% of MWO players play is to make changes to an almost perfect queue where the vast majority play? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. There's clearly a conflict between large, organized competitive groups and the small casual groups that don't want to be forced to play against the big groups. PGI is not going to drag their satisfied customers into a fight between two groups that together make up a small minority.

In case you weren't here for it, there WAS a massive downward spiral a couple of years ago. What fixed it was the creation of the solo-only queue where no groups of any size were allowed.


I WAS here for it. The game was totally different a couple years ago, it was in beta, or close to it. I've been a player since beta, and am a Founder. If it happened, I was here for it. Continuing to use that logic for an argument against trying something isn't going to get anywhere. I'm a primarily solo/small group player who on occasion plays with my unit and/or other larger groups of 6-12, so I walk in both worlds. What I *can* tell you is I've been on both sides of stomps, and I can also tell you that trying to team with a group of 2-3 is an absolute nightmare in this game, and that's what I end up doing 60% of the time (I'd say 20-30% is solo, and 10-20% is with larger groups). If you look earlier in the thread, I was highly in favor of limiting group size to 4 max, period, end of story. That still might be fine, IF CW were made better to the point that larger groups could have a fun, profitable experience in it, which they currently cannot. The real problem is it's basically "darned if you do, darned if you don't" in this game right now, on all sides, so tempers are heated. I'm definitely in favor of allowing solo players into the group queue *by choice* not inclusive of PSR (the first time you click the box and/or if you have less than say 100 games or something it should probably have a pop-up warning you that the group queue can be difficult for solo players, and a yes/no cick that you accept that). I also suspect that will happen, given Russ' comments on that. I still think putting 2 mans in the solo queue for a *trial basis* of 2-4 weeks (1-2 patches) is safe enough and worth a try. 3 mans are going to be difficult, and PROBABLY should stay in the group queue (or be in either queue depending on PSRs/other factors) and 4 mans probably definately should stay in the group queue, because a well-organized 4 man will wreck-face in the solo queue.

#603 Triordinant

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,495 posts
  • LocationThe Dark Side of the Moon

Posted 05 September 2015 - 12:30 PM

View PostRayne Vickers, on 05 September 2015 - 12:22 PM, said:


I WAS here for it. The game was totally different a couple years ago, it was in beta, or close to it. I've been a player since beta, and am a Founder. If it happened, I was here for it. Continuing to use that logic for an argument against trying something isn't going to get anywhere. I'm a primarily solo/small group player who on occasion plays with my unit and/or other larger groups of 6-12, so I walk in both worlds. What I *can* tell you is I've been on both sides of stomps, and I can also tell you that trying to team with a group of 2-3 is an absolute nightmare in this game, and that's what I end up doing 60% of the time (I'd say 20-30% is solo, and 10-20% is with larger groups). If you look earlier in the thread, I was highly in favor of limiting group size to 4 max, period, end of story. That still might be fine, IF CW were made better to the point that larger groups could have a fun, profitable experience in it, which they currently cannot. The real problem is it's basically "darned if you do, darned if you don't" in this game right now, on all sides, so tempers are heated. I'm definitely in favor of allowing solo players into the group queue *by choice* not inclusive of PSR (the first time you click the box and/or if you have less than say 100 games or something it should probably have a pop-up warning you that the group queue can be difficult for solo players, and a yes/no cick that you accept that). I also suspect that will happen, given Russ' comments on that. I still think putting 2 mans in the solo queue for a *trial basis* of 2-4 weeks (1-2 patches) is safe enough and worth a try. 3 mans are going to be difficult, and PROBABLY should stay in the group queue (or be in either queue depending on PSRs/other factors) and 4 mans probably definately should stay in the group queue, because a well-organized 4 man will wreck-face in the solo queue.

If you were running a business, would you risk creating problems in a near-perfect queue where 80% or more of your customers are in an attempt to fix a problem in another area? It wouldn't make business sense. What would make sense is fixing CW like you suggested so the big groups would prefer it to the group queue. It may take time, but that's a far lesser risk than screwing around with the solo queue.

#604 Fire for Effect

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 5
  • Mercenary Rank 5
  • 583 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 05 September 2015 - 12:34 PM

View PostTriordinant, on 05 September 2015 - 12:21 PM, said:

PGI already determined that tiny groups create big problems when mixed in with solos. That's WHY they created the solo-only queue. For PGI, small groups in the solo queue being a problem is a proven fact.


so where is your citation? where do they say this? At best they think it might be and just because PGI thinks something its not necessarily true (see "balancing") or reasonable (see quirks on many mechs)

View PostTriordinant, on 05 September 2015 - 12:21 PM, said:

PGI says it did. I'll believe them before I believe you.



so where is your citation? where do they say this?
You were obviously not there at that time, I was. Whining in the forum and in game was not different from before they seperated the queues. Stomps were just as common or uncommon then before the seperation. The effect was just that many people said. "No I am not playing this"

#605 Rayne Vickers

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Ardent
  • The Ardent
  • 115 posts
  • LocationVickers Mining Co. Trellshire Province, Lyran Commonwelth. Hollers, Derf

Posted 05 September 2015 - 12:36 PM

View PostTriordinant, on 05 September 2015 - 12:30 PM, said:

If you were running a business, would you risk creating problems in a near-perfect queue where 80% or more of your customers are in an attempt to fix a problem in another area? It wouldn't make business sense. What would make sense is fixing CW like you suggested so the big groups would prefer it to the group queue. It may take time, but that's a far lesser risk than screwing around with the solo queue.


Businesses take risks. Is that a bigger or lesser risk than sitting on their butt and doing nothing with a stagnant, destructive system that exists now with the potential expansion to Steam on the horizon? Only PGI can make that decision. They take a risk either way, it's up to them to decide which way to go. Conservative or Aggressive. Fixing CW is certainly a thing that needs to happen, but I believe it's going to take more than just that, and something has to be tried/done in the mean time, as that's not going to be a quick process. Other than that, I've said my piece, and saying anything more about it just leads to arguments, hopefully Russ and Co. are considering all of this.

#606 Clay Pigeon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 3
  • Mercenary Rank 3
  • 1,121 posts

Posted 05 September 2015 - 12:40 PM

View PostBig Tin Man, on 04 September 2015 - 03:17 PM, said:


What would this fix? Mixed units within the same faction can still group up in CW, so now there would be MS-1, MS-2, MS-3 and MS-4 on the same team instead of just MS.

It would give some more variety to the units capturing planets.

#607 Fire for Effect

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 5
  • Mercenary Rank 5
  • 583 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 05 September 2015 - 12:44 PM

View PostTriordinant, on 05 September 2015 - 12:30 PM, said:

If you were running a business, would you risk creating problems in a near-perfect queue where 80% or more of your customers are in an attempt to fix a problem in another area? It wouldn't make business sense. What would make sense is fixing CW like you suggested so the big groups would prefer it to the group queue. It may take time, but that's a far lesser risk than screwing around with the solo queue.


I would have done it right form the beginning and would have use Battle Value times Pilot Skill as basis for match making...

Before the amount of money gained in CW is not substantially higher than in the group queue, large groups will not play CW. Why play 30 minutes and gain HALF that of normal play? Risk and reward not to mention time needed to archive something are simply not in a state that people say "yes that what I want to play CW".

In classic terms: "Why should I make a boring timeconsuming Raid if I get less that playing nice intances?"

CW is currently dominated by micro groups and solo players.

View PostClay Pigeon, on 05 September 2015 - 12:40 PM, said:

It would give some more variety to the units capturing planets.



how so? Ms would simply split up to 6 units and would just recruit 12 people groups from those units.... result would be the same...

Edited by Fire for Effect, 05 September 2015 - 12:56 PM.


#608 Clay Pigeon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 3
  • Mercenary Rank 3
  • 1,121 posts

Posted 05 September 2015 - 12:52 PM

View PostFire for Effect, on 05 September 2015 - 12:44 PM, said:


I would have done it right form the beginning and would have use Battle Value times Pilot Skill as basis for match making...

Before the amount of money gained in CW is not substantially higher than in the group queue, large groups will not play CW. Why play 30 minutes and gain HALF that of normal play? Risk and reward not to mention time needed to archive something are simply not in a state that people say "yes that what I want to play CW".

In classic terms: "Why should I make a boring timeconsuming Raid if I get less that playing nice intances?"

CW is currently dominated by micro groups and solo players.




how so? Ms would simply split up to 6 units and would just 12 people groups from those units.... result would be the same...

Fewer planets would have [MS] on them because no single MS subunit would guarantee that they got the high combined score in the capture.

#609 Fire for Effect

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 5
  • Mercenary Rank 5
  • 583 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 05 September 2015 - 01:05 PM

View PostClay Pigeon, on 05 September 2015 - 12:52 PM, said:

Fewer planets would have [MS] on them because no single MS subunit would guarantee that they got the high combined score in the capture.


who cares about tags? still they would flood CW... they could simply make 12 men groups from mainly one group and then they still would have only one tag everywhere...

#610 anthony nevers

    Rookie

  • The Formidable
  • The Formidable
  • 9 posts

Posted 05 September 2015 - 01:06 PM

View PostEnaris, on 05 September 2015 - 12:12 PM, said:


This is exactly the point I was driving at a bit ago. It's easy to throw out the accusation that the large group players are feeling "entitled to have what they want at the expense of us."

However, the flip side is also true. Getting rid of the 5+ man groups would be at the expense of those who like them. So, you're really saying you want things on your terms, at the expense of others.

Also, remember that while the number of 5+ groups is a limited % of the group queue, that's also a bit misleading. After all, a 12 man group is 6x as many people as a 2 man, so large groups will represent a larger % of the absolute group queue population than a simple headcount of groups would imply.


The 12mans still have CW. We were frequently reminded by not only these big units but by PGI that this was their mode that they had been asking for. Not our fault if they ran just about everyone who isn't in a big unit out of CW and the pop for it is so low. While it's fun for the 12 people queuing in a pre-made, for the smaller groups 2-4 who spend a long time in the queue only to get stomped in 4 minutes isn't fun. It's demoralizing, it's not fun, and it's potentially driving people away.

#611 Triordinant

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,495 posts
  • LocationThe Dark Side of the Moon

Posted 05 September 2015 - 01:10 PM

View PostFire for Effect, on 05 September 2015 - 12:34 PM, said:

so where is your citation? where do they say this? At best they think it might be and just because PGI thinks something its not necessarily true (see "balancing") or reasonable (see quirks on many mechs)

"Russ Bullock's Content" is limited to posts 1 year old or newer. I grabbed this one from almost a year ago where he says "any groups in the solo queue really screws it up":

http://mwomercs.com/...33#entry3752133

This one is from 48 hours ago and he says this about the Solo Queue today: "this currently has created the best feeling public matches in MWO we have ever had, very happy with this":

http://mwomercs.com/...-making-in-mwo/

If you compare that with all the problems mentioned by both PGI and people on the Forums when we had only one queue, it's clear creating the solo-only queue made a huge positive difference.

It's true that anything PGI thinks might not be true; but that applies to everyone, including you. Lucky for us, you're not the one who gets to decide.

#612 Enaris

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Resolute
  • 120 posts
  • LocationAnywhere I can keep a close eye on Liao.

Posted 05 September 2015 - 01:11 PM

View Postanthony nevers, on 05 September 2015 - 01:06 PM, said:


The 12mans still have CW. We were frequently reminded by not only these big units but by PGI that this was their mode that they had been asking for. Not our fault if they ran just about everyone who isn't in a big unit out of CW and the pop for it is so low. While it's fun for the 12 people queuing in a pre-made, for the smaller groups 2-4 who spend a long time in the queue only to get stomped in 4 minutes isn't fun. It's demoralizing, it's not fun, and it's potentially driving people away.


Even if you assumed that CW was "ready for prime time", which it isn't, that only applies to 12 mans. What about 6? 8?

As I said a few pages ago, the big problem I see in this thread is that there's a real desire on both sides to insist on getting things their way, and if the other side doesn't like it, tough cookies.

That's my real concern. Really, my sympathies are are with smaller groups, but telling people who have built their game experience on playing with their buddies that they have to pick and choose? That's not good either.

We need to find some kind of a way for both sides to work together, and to do it in a way that doesn't destroy the new game experience when Steam opens up.

#613 Triordinant

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,495 posts
  • LocationThe Dark Side of the Moon

Posted 05 September 2015 - 01:23 PM

View PostEnaris, on 05 September 2015 - 01:11 PM, said:

We need to find some kind of a way for both sides to work together, and to do it in a way that doesn't destroy the new game experience when Steam opens up.

This is just off the top of my head and I don't know if it'll work, but how about no players with Unit tags allowed in the upcoming 4 vs 4 "scouting" matches?

#614 Fire for Effect

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 5
  • Mercenary Rank 5
  • 583 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 05 September 2015 - 01:24 PM

View PostTriordinant, on 05 September 2015 - 01:10 PM, said:

"Russ Bullock's Content" is limited to posts 1 year old or newer. I grabbed this one from almost a year ago where he says "any groups in the solo queue really screws it up":

http://mwomercs.com/...33#entry3752133


its nothing but stating his opinion with absolutely no data to back it up



View PostTriordinant, on 05 September 2015 - 01:10 PM, said:

This one is from 48 hours ago and he says this about the Solo Queue today: "this currently has created the best feeling public matches in MWO we have ever had, very happy with this":

htttp://mwomercs.com/...-making-in-mwo/

If you compare that with all the problems mentioned by both PGI and people on the Forums when we had only one queue, it's clear creating the solo-only queue made a huge positive difference.


again he is stating an opinion without any hard facts. For example he completely ignores the fact MM matches things that are simply far to different. (yes one nonECM-commando on that side and a ECM-che(e/a)ta for the other side ... fits *grinning MM*
If there is a group or not is then inconsequential for the result if palyers are combined like that! The sorting of mechs had a far bigger impact on the result.

View PostTriordinant, on 05 September 2015 - 01:10 PM, said:

It's true that anything PGI thinks might not be true; but that applies to everyone, including you. Lucky for us, you're not the one who gets to decide.


Oh the MM would surely work better if I had decided, since currently an important metric is completely missing. matching weight classes is nonsense (Cicada without ECM = Stormcrow?) matching weight is still nonsense (Orion = Mad Cat?)

MATCH COMBAT POTENTIAL TIMES PILOT SKILL!

#615 Triordinant

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,495 posts
  • LocationThe Dark Side of the Moon

Posted 05 September 2015 - 01:31 PM

View PostFire for Effect, on 05 September 2015 - 01:24 PM, said:

its nothing but stating his opinion with absolutely no data to back it up

PGI has data. They just don't share it with the customers -almost no company does. You, on the other hand, don't even have the means to gather the data (data which is telemetry from the MWO servers). Even if it was an opinion, do you actually believe many people will trust your opinion over PGI's?

#616 Fire for Effect

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 5
  • Mercenary Rank 5
  • 583 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 05 September 2015 - 01:32 PM

View PostTriordinant, on 05 September 2015 - 01:23 PM, said:

This is just off the top of my head and I don't know if it'll work, but how about no players with Unit tags allowed in the upcoming 4 vs 4 "scouting" matches?


finally I can agree to something Tri has posted. Of course not the exact thing he posted but yes:

NEW PLAYERS SHOULD BE SEPERATED!

throwing them to the lions or wolves (pun intended) is definitely not a good idea. New players have simply no place in groups they will be easy pickings for any halfway competent pilot and will be a burden for their own team.

Here it clearly shows one of the fundamental shortcomings of PGI. They have not delivered any solo content.
New players would have to play through a Solo Campain after that they would get a free mech some money and have a good understanding about the game.

new players need a playground for the first few weeks be it 4 vs 4 or a seperate solo 12 vs 12 queue. Also some free acceess to the training ground so a vet player can show em something.

new players belong anywhere just not in a group or CW queue. thats as if giving someone a toy pistol and saying attack that grizzly bear. they just will be shredded...

#617 Kjudoon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 7,636 posts
  • LocationWisconsin

Posted 05 September 2015 - 01:51 PM

View PostTriordinant, on 05 September 2015 - 08:42 AM, said:

Here's a possible 3 queue solution:

1. Solo Queue - it stays exactly the way it is, no changes. PGI is unlikely to change it because it's MWO's best performing queue of all time, according to Russ Bullock. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

2. Small Casual Group Queue - this is where new players group up. It's also where veterans can train newbies and where current players can introduce their friend/sibling/spouse/coworker/etc. to the game. Group size limited to 3. PGI could put a limit of only one Tier 1 or Tier 2 player per group (the Trainer) if they wanted.

3. Unit Queue - this for the minority of MWO players who like to organize, train and compete. Group size 4 and above. It could even be the CW queue after they fix CW.

My solution for over a year if you include an opt in function for those in the queue beneath the bigger groups. The catch still remains player population.

Here's also an incentive I could toss in: allow the unit queue to be able to play matches on CW maps mixed with regular maps in skirmish mode with no turrets, respawn or Omega. That incentivizes players to group up into larger groups to get access to those maps for practice (which would be thrown in at random.

There are 4 levels to this game of players: New, Casual, Dedicated, Competitive. These levels and styles of players are broad and general. This does not imply an endgame or growth for enjoyment like levelling up a character, but a preferred type of gaming interaction mixed with skill level. I am sure PGI has taken these into account and would be shocked if they don't have it broken down like this in any analysis they have done.

New: They don't know the game yet and so they are learning how they want to play. They need protection and nurturing. This is your Pop Warner football level to High School level football player. There may be something there or they may forever be at the 7v7 fun weekend social player

Casual: They have little to no interest about things like CW and the big competitive dynamic. This is also your largest group and also spawn the most players that go Dedicated or Competitive. They just want to play with their friends or by themselves in a cool game experience. Their skill varies as does their desire to use this game for socialization. They also need to be protected because if they do not enjoy this game, they leave. They are safe enough to play with skilled New players. They would be equivalent to the NCAA from Class 1 to class 3 schools. They might make the jump up, but most never will, happy to play at their level because thats all they want.

Dedicated: These are the players devoted to the game, getting better and making a name for themselves and their unit. They practice alone or with a team, run meta. They are considering going into Tournaments from time to time and may be good enough to make that leap, but generally these are the heart and soul of your CW players. These are the players often most dissatisfied with the failure of CW and burnt out by it's bad design. These are your CFL/Arena League level players. Some can make the jump higher, but most, they're caught in a limbo of extremely good compared to college players, but always looking for more.

Competitive: These are usually the best of the best players in the game. They set the meta and play in tournaments and private matches a lot more than most or completely dominate CW if that's their comepetitive style of play. They are the smallest group of player because few have acheived their level of skill, discipline and coordination. You will see them pugging from time to time, but often they stick to their arena of play. They are the MWO equivalent of the NFL. Even the worst starter in the NFL is better than most college players. There are about 2000 NFL football players out of the hundreds of thousands at all levels of the game. Although they are the dream for many, almost none can make it at that level.

The point is that these 4 groups really can't play together for very good reasons. Competitive players are not challenged by anything less than themselves, New players (not talking alts here) cannot compete well with much better than the lesser skilled casual players. Dedicated players often want to be competitive, but something keeps them from making that jump though they are better than Casual players. Of course everyone looks at the giant herd of casuals as their natural and preferred playground of either easy conquest or training ground meaning that they are caught in the blender and have probably the least ability to control their own destiny or play the way they want. This is what PGI needs to preserve first and foremost. A methodology to step up from one to the next level or be able to stay at their level without being abused or abusing the others.

If they do not do this, they cannot succeed long into the future and then we will all be left with nothing till the next game comes out.

#618 Karl Marlow

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 2,277 posts

Posted 05 September 2015 - 01:53 PM

if we didnt have CW I would very much be against lowering the team cap. Since we do have CW I see no harm in lowering the cap to 4 but I don't like the 1/1/1/1 rule. People who want to group in larger numbers have an outlet with CW. Ditch the 1/1/1/1 tule and just keep it to 3 mechs max of the same weight class and call it good. Then throw it all into the same queue group and solo

#619 Kjudoon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 7,636 posts
  • LocationWisconsin

Posted 05 September 2015 - 02:00 PM

View PostFire for Effect, on 05 September 2015 - 01:32 PM, said:


finally I can agree to something Tri has posted. Of course not the exact thing he posted but yes:

NEW PLAYERS SHOULD BE SEPERATED!

throwing them to the lions or wolves (pun intended) is definitely not a good idea. New players have simply no place in groups they will be easy pickings for any halfway competent pilot and will be a burden for their own team.

Here it clearly shows one of the fundamental shortcomings of PGI. They have not delivered any solo content.
New players would have to play through a Solo Campain after that they would get a free mech some money and have a good understanding about the game.

new players need a playground for the first few weeks be it 4 vs 4 or a seperate solo 12 vs 12 queue. Also some free acceess to the training ground so a vet player can show em something.

new players belong anywhere just not in a group or CW queue. thats as if giving someone a toy pistol and saying attack that grizzly bear. they just will be shredded...


And we get back to the root problem: The player population is so darn low dividing it into new groups is a severe problem. Do you remember the 12man only queue? What a horror show that was. I can recall playing at NA primetime in that and getting maybe 3-4 matches in a 2 hour period. This is pre CW in case you don't remember, so wait times of 20 minutes, hoping for a match, then getting the same opponent almost every single match because NOBODY ELSE WAS PLAYING was very common. But to devote an entire queue for a group that could not even manage to get more than 36-48 players at any one time is abyssmal by every measure for a game. Then there were the occasions of trying to sync drop so you could compete against one another and getting matched with the wrong team so it was a fast brawl to the finish in the middle or mass suicide of both teams to get another shot at the sync.

I agree that PvE should have been a focus from the get go. But as correctly pointed out Mechwarrior 5 could not get funding to start up because reasons. So this was the route, now we're having to do PvE development Johnny-Come-Lately.

PvE should not be just for new players and then force them out into 'the real game'. Most gamers I know would rather play Co-Op multiplayer than PvP just about every single time. You need a place that is an engaging PvE experience that is not lather-rinse-repeat and boring after the third time you play it. It needs to be a place also for those who have burnt out on PvP play but not MWO to go and cool off and that means good gameplay with depth that can't be had in PvP.

But you must confess that Tri is right: none of us have data and are posting are opinions... except for Russ. He's got data.

#620 Fire for Effect

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 5
  • Mercenary Rank 5
  • 583 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 05 September 2015 - 02:12 PM

View PostTriordinant, on 05 September 2015 - 01:31 PM, said:

PGI has data. They just don't share it with the customers -almost no company does. You, on the other hand, don't even have the means to gather the data (data which is telemetry from the MWO servers). Even if it was an opinion, do you actually believe many people will trust your opinion over PGI's?


Oh I have data: it was already tried and it had failed. Can there be better data?

I sincerely doubt that PGI was able to interpret data. The past has shown that they have difficulty with interpretation...
Maybe they got better but I doubt it.

Apart from that its rather easy: compare damage and resilience of Mechs:
Oh cicada can do less that Stormcrow so it make no sense to put both into the same bucket...

basic logic also helps:
two identical pilots one in a locust one in a Mad Cat are simply not equal so you need BOTH metrics for matchmaking....





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users