1142 replies to this topic

[mechkearney]

@rolly sorry, it was more a tongue in cheek remark. There are a number of people complaining that they just couldn't choose which friends they would play with if groups were limited to 4.

[Voras]

There is a reason, that the major big bad other tank-game over there from wargaming has 3 different match types: random (with max. 3 players per platoon), company battles (random full premade team vs. full premade team battles) and CW (with premade clan vs. clan battles). So everyone knows, what he is signing up for.

Getting matched with a 2 or 3 player team vs. a 12 member premade is just rediculous.

More or less "fair" matches (deviating around some average baseline) are most important, if you want to encourage smaller groups of players, that are not playing in larger coordinated team (or maybe even without common chat channel).

Remember, in order to be successfull business, you need to address also the more casual gamers (they are most of the time the majority, but have no voice in the forums, because they are so casual, that they do not care about the forum at all, they just stop playing if they do not like the way the game works without telling us so).

[HorribleGoat]

I would wait longer if it meant that I could get into a decent match and not into what feels like T2/T3 vs T4/T5+ lonely T3 me stomp. I can carry my own weight well enough, but not the whole team..

[UrAllJerks]

I hadn't played MWO in a few weeks, and just queued with a friend. We're both tier 3 and we lost each game. I'm currently attempting to basic out the Crab. There were Lords on the enemy team in one case. I mainly posted on the forum because in previous iterations of the group match-maker, I never encountered such skill disparity between teams. I'm excited about a lot of the upcoming changes around the targeting system and it seems like a lot of the recent changes are promising. I don't know the details about how players are matched against each other, how they were in the past, or how they will be in the future. Just consider this one point of data saying that whatever it is you are doing to match small groups of players against other groups today sucks relative to how it was prior to the public "tiering" system.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

The future of matchmaking.

[KodiakGW]

I have no idea why so many are making comments about PSR being broken. I mean, just take a look at the awesomely close game I had today. Nothing wrong here!



/Sarcasm Off

[Simbacca]

KodiakGW, on 25 October 2015 - 12:50 PM, said:

I have no idea why so many are making comments about PSR being broken. I mean, just take a look at the awesomely close game I had today. Nothing wrong here!


/Sarcasm Off

I get those a lot. My new record is a 14 loss streak via the Cicada-3F(L). Mechs that I have used since about a few weeks after PSR have a Win-Loss rate of 0.6 or less. In fair match ups I would expect a W-L rate of 0.85 to 1.1 which translates into balanced teams.

With that said, I do get balanced/fair matches, but that occurs in less than half of all matches played.

Edited by Simbacca, 26 October 2015 - 01:31 PM.

[iLLcapitan]

I'm not sure if giving several "personal" accounts of recent matches really help. I like the matchmaking a lot at the current state, just to voice another oppinion. Stomps on either sides at times and some close matches, which are favourable of course. Waiting time, even in a heavy, is never longer than 2 min. I doubt MM will ever be perfect, given the amount of variables from player skill to mech optimization. I call it "working" at the current state.

IMHO the only restriction the group queue needs is a sandbox for tier 5 (+4?) groups (or let them drop along the solo queue(to a certain size maybe), so we don't loose all new players, who decide to drop with friends.

Bottom line for me is: PGI please stop dedicating ressources at matchmaking and PLEASE focus on adding more content, more gametypes, more maps, more immersion and above all: a killer CW.

Simbacca, on 26 October 2015 - 01:28 PM, said:

With that said, I do get balanced/fair matches, but that occurs in less than half of all matches played.

Isn't that actually a pretty decent ratio?

Edited by iLLcapitan, 27 October 2015 - 05:24 AM.

[DeathlyEyes]

Max of 8 v 8 instead of 12 v 12. 1 group strictly balanced per side the rest should be solo players stritly balanced amongst eachother. Should lead to really balanced matches.

[Simbacca]

iLLcapitan, on 27 October 2015 - 05:14 AM, said:

Isn't that actually a pretty decent ratio?

Not when it is already beyond the point when going into a match I am effectively assured no fair chance to win at all.

Effectively, for every 1 win, I experience about 3.5 losses - and that gets tiresome very fast.

Edited by Simbacca, 27 October 2015 - 04:17 PM.

[stevemac]

Russ Bullock, on 03 September 2015 - 02:46 PM, said:

I really want to avoid this - it will only degrade the solo queue experience at least by some amount.

Russ in closed and early open beta when solos got in the group Q most ended up joining those units It was no different then what CW is now. When you made the max 4 man rule we lost about 70 members all because of that change they just stopped playing the game. I dont know too many units out there that can handle that kind of loss again.

[Simbacca]

Fast Eddie, on 13 September 2015 - 06:54 AM, said:

From my experience the match maker seems broken atm. Since the introduction of PSR most matches seem to be one sided and it's rare to get battles which are close. I exclusively PuG so this may have something to do with it?

I too pretty much always play in Solo queue. Though when I have grouped up, there are still stomps/losses. Though they do not seem as bad in solo queue.

1 win for every 3.5 losses in solo. <-My complaint.
1 win for every 2 to 2.5 losses in group. <-Not my complaint.

[Fire for Effect]

KodiakGW, on 25 October 2015 - 12:50 PM, said:

I have no idea why so many are making comments about PSR being broken. I mean, just take a look at the awesomely close game I had today. Nothing wrong here!



/Sarcasm Off

see this post:

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4668200

dozen of reasons that have nothing to do how the groups are matched

[Fire for Effect]

Yozaa, on 24 September 2015 - 04:59 AM, said:

So many pages so if this has been said , My bad

Group Avg Tier 5 > Max group size 12
Group Avg Tier 4 > Max group size 10
Group Avg Tier 3 > Max group size 8
Group Avg Tier 2 > Max group size 6
Group Avg Tier 1 > Max group size 4

The specifics can be adjusted but the idea is the higher the average Tier the smaller the group

Just a thought

we already had a max 4 people group size. Did accomplish nothing except that 2/3 of the unit stopped playing. stomps and everything else happened excatly ly as ofter as before, which is not surprising since GROUPS ARE NOT THE REASON FOR STOMPS.

I keep citing myself:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4668200

[Nightbird]

Comment on this post: http://mwomercs.com/...-tiers-and-psr/

Suggest loosening the valves on the tier, so that you can lose a medium number of PSR points on a win but with very low score, and gain a medium number of points on a loss but very high score. This will allow a player's tier to more accurately reflect actual skill. What is happening now is that people can get carried too far upwards when dropping with a good group, but will suffer in solo queue for long afterwards as you only lose points when your team loses. This also reduces the impact of RNG in the matchmaker from determining your PSR.

Edited by ironnightbird, 29 October 2015 - 11:44 AM.

[Lord Auriel]

Ok my two cents on this.

I like the idea of 4-man groups, because (wall of text following):

Group queue is fun until you have to fight 10-or 12 man groups. The latest fad is taking like 8 stormcrows and four whatever other super-meta-mechs and stomp group queue. Russ said this doesn'thappen very often, but it does, and when it does, half of my unit members just go offline because this is just ridiculous. Group queue should not be aplace for 12mans to practice ultra-meta-roflstomping while abusing the new tonnage limits. It's just not fun.

Also, every time I go into the group queue I feel bad if I don't take a SCR, TBR, DWF, or any of the other remaining tier 1 metamechs. because you know, group is not supposed to be fun, it's supposed to be tryhard meta craziness, right?

Highly competitive play should not contamine the group drop experience.

On the other hand, what is wrong in doing 4-mans only. every group team in Teamspek would go to a separate channel and could have fun, because when you do a 12-man you don't have fun anyways. Someone has to give orders, everybody else needs to shut their mouth. Sorry, these are two completely different worlds.

[LiGhtningFF13]

I recently had this match, random PUG. Only a try but very meaningful for me. Especially that enemy light pilot in the Firestarter who shot everyone's back and no one of my team reacted or even care. Model example of a PUG match.

[Void Angel]

You had two disconnects, too. That has a psychological as well as logistical effect - this isn't a representative match of a normal game.

[Zarathustrah]

Lord Auriel, on 30 October 2015 - 02:58 AM, said:

Ok my two cents on this.

I like the idea of 4-man groups, because (wall of text following):

Group queue is fun until you have to fight 10-or 12 man groups. The latest fad is taking like 8 stormcrows and four whatever other super-meta-mechs and stomp group queue. Russ said this doesn'thappen very often, but it does, and when it does, half of my unit members just go offline because this is just ridiculous. Group queue should not be aplace for 12mans to practice ultra-meta-roflstomping while abusing the new tonnage limits. It's just not fun.

Also, every time I go into the group queue I feel bad if I don't take a SCR, TBR, DWF, or any of the other remaining tier 1 metamechs. because you know, group is not supposed to be fun, it's supposed to be tryhard meta craziness, right?

Highly competitive play should not contamine the group drop experience.

On the other hand, what is wrong in doing 4-mans only. every group team in Teamspek would go to a separate channel and could have fun, because when you do a 12-man you don't have fun anyways. Someone has to give orders, everybody else needs to shut their mouth. Sorry, these are two completely different worlds.

God I hope you're being sarcastic. Just because you don't enjoy winning and playing good mechs doesn't mean it isn't fun to play them. I know that when I run 12 man groups, it is fun. This is a game in which you COMPETE against other teams to win. Saying that public que play should not be highly competitive is utter nonsense.

Now, as far as 4 man groups only go, also utter nonsense. Why join a unit and have fun playing as a team and being in a community if you can only group up with a max of 3 other people? Do you expect the larger groups will just go play the broekn CW gamemode?

Are you just stupid or are you trolling?

[LiGhtningFF13]

Void Angel, on 31 October 2015 - 08:30 AM, said:

You had two disconnects, too. That has a psychological as well as logistical effect - this isn't a representative match of a normal game.

In my case unfortunately not. I often got discos on my side. Thats also a sad part.

Edited by LiGhtningFF13, 31 October 2015 - 12:03 PM.