367 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

Prof RJ Gumby, on 21 October 2015 - 12:07 AM, said:

I've been on this forum for about half a year now. That must've been a rather unimpressive whine because I don't remember anyone ever demanded to drop 3/3/3/3. Also, if you check the suggestion feedback thread (http://mwomercs.com/...ach-group-size/), you can notice that the Spiral Face's post about the importance of keeping 3/3/3/3 requirement got more "likes" than the OP. This says something. It's just Russ who decided to ignore it in the end, even though he was well aware about those concerns.

The secret is on who whines that PGI listens to.

[Mystere]

cSand, on 20 October 2015 - 10:39 PM, said:

Well that may be so

but may I provide another perspective here

I do they are actually trying to make it enjoyable for everyone

On the other side of the table, you have some groups of 8-12 guys, consciously making a decision to play the game in a way that makes the game unenjoyable for anyone else but themselves. It happened in CW, it's happening in group queue for a long time now. In fact it happens in every game but in a lot of other games you have more control over who you face.

The next resort will be to cut down to 4 man max like the old group queue. People will complain but the fact is that the players, or a subset of them anyways, brought it on themselves, also a large part of the reason nobody wants to touch CW anymore

CW has bigger problems beyond the premade bogeyman.

[Mystere]

Kilo 40, on 20 October 2015 - 11:22 PM, said:

Kill group queue. If you want to play as a group, play CW.

It's not the worst of ideas.

Kilo 40, on 20 October 2015 - 11:22 PM, said:

stop wasting time trying to fix what can't be fixed.

Imagine if PGI stopped catering to people who refuse to admit that they are not as good as they think they are. So much time, money, effort, and other limited resources were wasted looking for that perfect matchmaker.

Edited by Mystere, 21 October 2015 - 07:48 AM.

[Evan Kurst]

This is no longer the Mech Warrior/Battletech game I like to play.
Now it's just another First-person-online-shooter where you try to find out the best possibility to accomplishing the queue requirements.

I really loved to see some 100t Atlas, King Crabs slowly moving across the battlefield, flanked by Heavy/Mediums.
Some Lights scouting, running around searching for lonely and carelessly targets.


I can remember a Youtube video. There was a fight between Clan and Inner Sphere.
Because of the old system (3/3/3/3) it looked like comming directly out of a battletech-novel.
Assaults mechs tramed slowly, firing rounds after rounds.
Quick medium trying to flank and were stoped by some lights.
Heavy/medium mechs establishing a fireline to be the backbone of the combat-unit.

This is real Mech Warrior feeling!

I don't want to see 12-Stormcrow drops because of only fulfilling the tonnage Values.

[BattleBunny]

Evan Kurst, on 21 October 2015 - 06:46 AM, said:

This is no longer the Mech Warrior/Battletech game I like to play.
Now it's just another First-person-online-shooter where you try to find out the best possibility to accomplishing the queue requirements.

I really loved to see some 100t Atlas, King Crabs slowly moving across the battlefield, flanked by Heavy/Mediums.
Some Lights scouting, running around searching for lonely and carelessly targets.


I can remember a Youtube video. There was a fight between Clan and Inner Sphere.
Because of the old system (3/3/3/3) it looked like comming directly out of a battletech-novel.
Assaults mechs tramed slowly, firing rounds after rounds.
Quick medium trying to flank and were stoped by some lights.
Heavy/medium mechs establishing a fireline to be the backbone of the combat-unit.

This is real Mech Warrior feeling!

I don't want to see 12-Stormcrow drops because of only fulfilling the tonnage Values.

I feel exactly the same way and I am not even a BT fan. The battlefield needs diversity. Variety. It will become a stale zerg fest if this matchmaker stays in place.

restricting mech choices to 2 of the same kind would go a long way to fixing the current problems with this.

Edited by BattleBunny, 21 October 2015 - 07:29 AM.

[C E Dwyer]

Mawai, on 21 October 2015 - 05:38 AM, said:

The fundamental assumption you make here is that the tiers actually represent player skill and that a tier 1 is better than 2 who is better than 3 and so on.

This is not true. The PSR calculation system has a upward bias to it. If you win you go up. If you lose you can still go up, stay even or might drop. If you throw an average player into this mix then over time they will rise depending on the number of games they play.

However, you might say that they will rise to a level where they affect their team negatively and start losing since their skill isn't as high so their PSR will plateau. This might be true except for the fact that every other player in the game is rising at the same time. The ones who play more rise faster based on number of games and not intrinsic skill so you get a lot of "average" folks rising to tier 1 just by grinding it out.

The main truth is that tier 1 players should be more experienced and thus on average better just because of the number of games they have played if for no other reason.

However, if they were going to do an experience based system then I would have suggested using your MECH XP on the mech you are currently using combined with your total GXP earnings to get an idea of how much experience a player has .. then maybe analyse the individual player mech stats to obtain an "effectiveness" or "skill" rating for the mech they are driving ... and feed that data into the matchmaker instead of the PSR system.

P.S. A system like that might give you an on the fly battle value that is reasonably easy to calculate and which applies to the specific mech the player is dropping in.

I'm aware its just an xp bar, and allegedly according to paul everyone will get better and all rise to T1, but that is completely false

There will be players that will never reach T1 some will never reach T2 no matter how many games they play because match maker always searches for games to try make every ones win/ lose around the one mark, currently I think I have about 150 games in the win credit, I'm plus something or other.

In this, and in my view, only this, the MM is very successful, but there are some people, myself included that when MM sacks against you that cannot carry the others and maintain a match score that will allow real progress up the bar.

So this means that it does in effect make peoples P.S.R pan out at a certain levels and not everyone no matter how much P.G.I's lead designer says they will, make T1

It would be like camping spawns in ever quest, and once you reached a certain point up the bar the spawn added extra orc's


so PSR is an XP bar, but it's an XP bar with Menaces


Edit well it was around the 150 mark having written this I thought I'd better find numbers

Win/loss 3159/3116 so I'm now only 43 in the green and I rarely grouped when it was around the 150 mark
back then when I was mostly solo around 99% my K/d was 1.83

Since my soloing grouping is around the 50% mark now my K/d has dropped 1.60 and my average damage per match has dropped around 180

so group play has hardly been a crutch to my skills like a lot of people claim it is.

and now PGI seem intent on making group play harder..

No wonder I'm close to getting refunds and quitting

Edited by Cathy, 21 October 2015 - 07:02 AM.

[Medi0cr3]

Jman5, on 20 October 2015 - 12:22 PM, said:

I don't see the problem. Both teams are fairly balanced at 640 tons.

Jman, really??????? lol.... Quit trollin brah...

[Alwrathandabout42ninjas]

BattleBunny, on 21 October 2015 - 06:49 AM, said:

I feel exactly the same way and I am not even a BT fan. The battlefield needs diversity. Variety. It will become a stale zerg fest if this mathmaker stays in place.

restricting mech choices to 2 of the same kind would go a long way to fixing the current problems with this.

Although you are correct some of the time, in the end it is up to this community of players right now. The players have the choice, and whats wrong with that? Honestly, last night I had more fun than I have had in 2 years with this game. Facing off against a whole wave of Wangs/4G's/BJ's/Stormcrows was alot of fun. Also, if your team brings alot of BAP and streaks, you will completely murder Cheeto dropdecks. There is a counter to every strat, you just gotta play the game.

Edited by Alwrath, 21 October 2015 - 07:01 AM.

[C E Dwyer]

Game was better in closed beta when IGP were around, and I never thought I'd ever say that and said it twice in two days now

Edited by Cathy, 21 October 2015 - 07:12 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Cathy, on 21 October 2015 - 07:12 AM, said:

Game was better in closed beta when IGP were around, and I never thought I'd ever say that and said it twice in two days now

Well while you are right: game seem to have been better in CB, i don't think that IGP has any share about that. Quite the opposite i think they pressed on to fast to hard into OpenBeta - killing anything that looks challenging (bowling; RnR; convergence vs HSR...)
they were handed a deck full of aces and they left only blanks

Edited by Karl Streiger, 21 October 2015 - 07:19 AM.

[Mystere]

Aresye Kerensky, on 21 October 2015 - 12:06 AM, said:

I blame the whiny player base. The entire reason this got implemented in the first place was because so many players complained about stomps. Actually, that's the reason behind pretty much EVERY change to the group queue.

FTFY. Some people here seem to act as if the matchmaker should give them guaranteed wins.

Aresye Kerensky, on 21 October 2015 - 12:06 AM, said:

Larger groups may have to wait a little bit longer, but that should be the cost. Right now search times for a full 12man are actually fairly quick, as the MM is very quick to throw a bunch of small groups against them. A 2-5 minute longer wait to find a large group for a large group isn't that bad, and probably won't be much longer at all if the PSR gap is allowed to widen a little bit for larger groups.

Want to play as a large group? Be willing to accept some PSR fluctuation and a little extra search time in order to find you a similarly sized group.

I think large groups have been stifled enough. They don't need to be punished some more.

Aresye Kerensky, on 21 October 2015 - 12:06 AM, said:

Going up against tougher teams outside of their PSR is good practice ...

Ha! Ha! Ha!



Kindly pardon my laughing. I just could not contain myself. I have this nagging feeling that many do not want to face tougher opponents. Otherwise, we will not be in any of this MM mess.

[Jman5]

Medi0cr3, on 21 October 2015 - 06:55 AM, said:

Jman, really??????? lol.... Quit trollin brah...

Sorry I don't buy into this circlejerk that playing 10 stormcrows and 2 blackjacks make you unstoppable. What I do believe is that blackjacks and stormcrows are great medium mechs, but more importantly BMMU has a lot of very strong players. When you create a 12 man BMMU premade they will probably win 90% of their matches regardless of restrictions. I think all the people here implying that BMMU only wins because of mech choice are doing a disservice to their players.

I prefer this current system over the one where every small group overloaded on assaults and heavies leading to outrageous tonnage mismatches.

Things are going to be shaken up, but I find it kind of disingenuous to think that anyone can come up with the best drop deck possible under these new rules a couple hours after patch went live. Or that a hodge-podge of small groups losing to a 12 man of BMMU is a sign of the apocalypse.

I think it's going to be fun to see what sort of drop decks people come up with.

[Dimento Graven]

Jman5, on 21 October 2015 - 07:27 AM, said:

Sorry I don't buy into this circlejerk that playing 10 stormcrows and 2 blackjacks make you unstoppable. What I do believe is that blackjacks and stormcrows are great medium mechs, but more importantly BMMU has a lot of very strong players. When you create a 12 man BMMU premade they will probably win 90% of their matches regardless of restrictions. I think all the people here implying that BMMU only wins because of mech choice are doing a disservice to their players.

I prefer this current system over the one where every small group overloaded on assaults and heavies leading to outrageous tonnage mismatches.

Things are going to be shaken up, but I find it kind of disingenuous to think that anyone can come up with the best drop deck possible under these new rules a couple hours after patch went live. Or that a hodge-podge of small groups losing to a 12 man of BMMU is a sign of the apocalypse.

I think it's going to be fun to see what sort of drop decks people come up with.

Yes, pretty much most average players can 'appear' strong when playing an easy mode Clan 'mech, with a default OP factor of 20%...

[Kristian Radoulov]

I would just like to point out that if the smaller groups decided to point their assaults directly at the enemy's SCRs instead of trying to Nascar, you will absolutely crap on them.

This is a problem of tactics and not playing to your strengths.

[InRev]

Mystere, on 20 October 2015 - 12:44 PM, said:

You Canadians should really erect a Berlin Wall type of border with your southern neighbor. Their bad influence is obviously rubbing on you.

Or, you know, that's how every political system in every democratic country works. If you really want a doozy, study the political history of Spain.

But please, first show us on the doll where 'Murica touched you, because your posting history shows a strange, psychotic ex-girlfriendesque obsession with the Land of the Free and the Home of the (Atlanta) Braves.

As for the thread, this all would be totally academic if mechs were actually balanced properly so that you could bring potpourri and have a reasonable chance at success. But they're not. So . . . yeah.

[PharmEcis]

Dimento Graven, on 21 October 2015 - 07:29 AM, said:

Yes, pretty much most average players can 'appear' strong when playing an easy mode Clan 'mech, with a default OP factor of 20%...

Grab 12 players and mechs of your choice and we'll grab 12 and run IS and we'll see what the outcome is. Clan mechs are NOT OP.

The bottom line is teamwork is always OP. Couple 12 man teamwork with 12 "good" players and then mech choice no longer matters as much.

[Almond Brown]

So a Team got rolled and that is somehow new News? Really. Pretty sure Teams were getting rolled on Monday... How come no one Posted their getting Rolled on that day but waited for Wednesday after a change? Hmmmm.

PGI has stated they can adjust the Group tonnage levels on the fly. How about we wait and see how the current numbers pan out and YES, of course you will get groups of 10 Crows and 2 BJ's. It is also a certainty that other, even more "fooked" up combinations, will be seen when the "Sync Droppers" manage to hit one Match just right. Just can't wait for the river of Whine Tears when that happens... OMG! LOL

Edited by Almond Brown, 21 October 2015 - 07:38 AM.

[Mystere]

Dino Might, on 21 October 2015 - 03:19 AM, said:

I like the tonnage system. Fix the Crows instead of basing the entire game around a few outlier mechs.

The only thing they need to fix is to remove the minimum weight restrictions. I hate that a two man can't bring two Locusts.

Before all the hate and discontent spews forth for this idea, fighting 12 firestarters with heavier mechs is pretty easy peasy. Consider that you can just blast arty and airstrikes anywhere they coalesce, and your standard heavy build will rip a leg off in two shots. We faced down about 8 FS9s at once last night, while two of our team were running Hollander builds. We still won. Min drop tonnage is not needed.

CW is proof that facing 12 Firestarters (or any 12 lights for that matter) is not an issue for a team that can shoot and does not panic. Even PUG teams were able to deal with them.

[Mystere]

Mawai, on 21 October 2015 - 03:40 AM, said:

Lol ... it was predicted by lots of folks ... unfortunately, PGI wasn't one of them.

I don't know where PGI gets the idea that just doing tonnage would provide balanced matches when their mechs aren't balanced to start with.

However, the main question is whether average matches are better or worse and not really the outliers like this one. With a 640 ton limit, 12 mans really don't have much selection left.

Average matches? Who does that on the forums when the objective is to bring down in flames something we do not like. Using "average matches" would be inconvenient. We can't have that, no siree!

Cathy, on 21 October 2015 - 05:08 AM, said:

Guild Wars probably the most popular E-sport...

Huh?

[Dimento Graven]

PharmEcis, on 21 October 2015 - 07:35 AM, said:

...

Clan mechs are NOT OP.

...

And there goes ANY credibility you may have had.

It's a proven fact that Clan 'mechs ARE in fact OP by a minimum 10%, and on average 20%.

Turkayyid showed that Clan 'mechs destroyed 10% MORE 'mechs but did 10% LESS damage.

When you have a 'mech that can have HIGH speed, LARGE alpha, and maintain significant survivability against its opposite, IT IS OP, PERIOD.

That Clan trifecta of HIGH SPEED, LARGE ALPHA, SURVIVABILITY for darn near EVERY IS 'mech can't be attained, or even approached.

If an IS 'mech wants SURVIVABILITY, they have to give up SPEED or LARGE ALPHA, and USUALLY they're giving up some of both.

Clans with:
Lighter weapons.
Smaller weapons.
Longer range weapons.
Harder hitting weapons.
Non-side torso dying XL's.
Smaller XL's
Smaller DHS.

Get more tonnage and more space for larger alphas, while enjoying the fact that their XL's don't end their game when they lose a side torso.