367 replies to this topic

[STEF_]

Appogee, on 21 October 2015 - 09:41 PM, said:

Player complaints about the poor quality of matches in the group queue are what led to this tonnage system.

Russ said that, to fix the problem, he'd need to limit group sizes. Players hated that idea and asked for tonnage limits instead.

This discussion played out in a thread here in the forums about three weeks ago.

And there are a lot of players compalining about the new system too.
So what?
I never asked for such a stupid tonnage system, and I guess many others too.

Of course with the new system there are a lot more people complaining about because now they must face it during drops, instead of being a forum warrior.

1) units thierself, dropping 12 man, say this system is plain stupid and broken
2) small groups suffer because of less tons available than before (3 man group could drop with 3 dire. Now , nope)
3) a lot of less tonnage than before, because assaaults are expensive in tonnage, and...a lot of more speed: MWO-Counterstrike.


New system is Sh1t, plain and simple

Edited by Stefka Kerensky, 21 October 2015 - 10:06 PM.

[Evan Kurst]

Prof RJ Gumby, on 21 October 2015 - 10:04 AM, said:

The problem is, the new system brings new possibilities for big groups that small groups can't have. Big groups can now boat mechs. Small still can't, because they have no chance to predict what mechs will be taken by other groups in their team.
It's not even about stormcow's capabilities. It's about having a team that can move at 106km/h. Or other large speed really. Or having 8 lights that can deliver massive alphas to the enemy and be gone in a second. Managing such group is much, much, MUCH easier than managing a mixed group. If we have a match between two 12-mans, the one with mixed composition need to be a lot better to have a chance to win. The uniform group have the easy mode.
Need to wait for the fatties to join? Not anymore.
Need to slow down for the group not too stretch when moving? Not anymore.
Need to watch your back? Not at that speed, not really.
Repositioning an entire team? Easy peasy.
Etc.
There are tons of tiny little issues related to the fact that a team is composed of varying mechs with varying speeds. All those issues are now nonexistent if you boat mechs in a 12 man.

Totally agree!!!

I totally understood why PGI tried to balance the match making system.

But to be honest.
There's no ******* way to prevent a 12-non premate-PUG-team to be completely destroyed by a 12-well trained-premate-Team.

It is written down so many times.
The key to win a match is team-play.
And it dosen't matter if this team is using a mixed drop deck or if they are limited to 400 t.

[iLLcapitan]

Stefka Kerensky, on 20 October 2015 - 09:40 PM, said:

I agree with your previous post: group que is not meant to be a place where you can have fun anymore. Hardcore
Cw. No thanks.
Solo que with Yolo teamates? no thanks.

If you're bored with the game in general, then maybe it's truly time for you to drop it.

[STEF_]

iLLcapitan, on 21 October 2015 - 11:25 PM, said:

If you're bored with the game in general, then maybe it's truly time for you to drop it.

or maybe it's time for pgi to improve it.

[xengk]

Kira Onime, on 20 October 2015 - 12:30 PM, said:

then again it also let's you use 1DWF and 11 urbies.

I would like to see an Atlas and his urbie swarm.

[Freeman 52]

The issue is not with tonnage limits or weight category limits. As people have said over and over again, it is the fact that a 12-man team on Team Speak will almost surely beat anything less than a high-skilled 10-man. The MWO group queue is not very forgiving in that sense: stomps happen in cascades - one mistake by one player puts the entire team on a losing spiral.

You cannot have enjoyable pug vs team unless you have respawns like in a moba or you simply ban big teams. The current system means the large team on TS has a great time all along, whereas the smaller ones and PUGs invest 20-30 minutes on a 3-minute defeat. Not fun.

Is there any way to fix this? Does it even need fixing? Who knows. What I know is that when I am dropping with 1-3 lancemates were are likely to lose quickly and painfully, and when I am dropping with 7-11 unit mates we are likely to enjoy.

[smokefield]

enforcing another 3/3/3/3 over the new system is not something i think i want. Because maybe someoen wants to run 10 dragons and 2 lights just for the lulz and we shuld not limit that.

I thought about it and i think there could be a solution...and for me it seems the best one.

Pgi said they will classify mechs/chassis based on a battle value. Then use this BV to enforce a 3/3/3/3 rule. If a mech becomes Tier 1 for example (or in other words his BV will be over a certain threshold) it will be put on the NO GO 3/3/3/3/ list - so you cant bring 3 of these mechs in the same time. But if a mech is under this value then you have no limits. Or they can do a better stratified system.

for ex : tier one - max 3 of the same mech limit
tier 2 - max 4 of the same mech
tier 3 - max 6 of the same mech
tier 4 and lower - no limits.

[Joseph Mallan]

I don't see a problem? Except there were no Assaults on either team.

[BattleBunny]

Some of the designated assault specialists in my unit are very sad about this change. If this system will stay in place unaltered, some of them will quit playing.

Assaults have lost their value now you are no longer forced to pick a few of them. Especially the really really slow assaults. They are simply not worth the tonnage. Which sucks.

[TWIAFU]

Kira Onime, on 21 October 2015 - 03:11 PM, said:

You could force some organized 12 mans into nothing but light and mediums and they would still roll over other groups.

It is just the nature of group play. You will face groups better than you and you will get rolled.

I agree with you 110%.

I like that you and others showed the real fault in the system, it can be gamed. It can be gamed at the cost of others.

It should not open to being gamed like that. It makes for bad experiences. Furthermore, it makes 12mans look really bad. Even worse when they intentionally drop like that - all within the current rules.

We are already the evil boogeyman and this does not help. A point needed to be made and it was.

Pushing that point further does nothing but harm the 12man and since the population of the 12man is 1% we do not need to be the target for anyone anymore.


Tonnage system, on its own, can be gamed. Tonnage system in conjunction with the other balance systems to come could be the balance so many are after.

All I am trying to do is point out this is only one part of many to come. We need to see how all these new balance systems are going to work together.

I suggest we look at the big picture instead of this small part of it.

[Joseph Mallan]

TWIAFU, on 22 October 2015 - 03:15 AM, said:

I agree with you 110%.

I like that you and others showed the real fault in the system, it can be gamed. It can be gamed at the cost of others.

It should not open to being gamed like that. It makes for bad experiences. Furthermore, it makes 12mans look really bad. Even worse when they intentionally drop like that - all within the current rules.

We are already the evil boogeyman and this does not help. A point needed to be made and it was.

Pushing that point further does nothing but harm the 12man and since the population of the 12man is 1% we do not need to be the target for anyone anymore.


Tonnage system, on its own, can be gamed. Tonnage system in conjunction with the other balance systems to come could be the balance so many are after.

All I am trying to do is point out this is only one part of many to come. We need to see how all these new balance systems are going to work together.

I suggest we look at the big picture instead of this small part of it.

Is it really gaming the system if said group is actually that good? I don't real many of the Updates so I don't know what has changed, but a good team should be good no matter what they are driving.

[TWIAFU]

MischiefSC, on 21 October 2015 - 06:05 PM, said:

Here is the fundamental problem -

The new system pre-nerfs you for dropping in groups under the assumption that you're going meta tryhard.

So you have to go full meta tryhard or you're double nerfing your team.

The problem isn't groups. It's mixing casuals and tryhards. It's mixing pug with friends vs actual groups.

Actually Mischief, this does NOT mimic my group experiences last night.

Dropping in a group of 8-10, all of us in our 'mechs, non meta, non-tryhard, just dropping and playing normally.

We faced the same, non meta, non tryhards. Even in light of my initial disdain for this system, I WAS WRONG.

Yes, I said I WAS WRONG.

We were and are able to take 'mechs that we want to play, even leveling, and do very well. To be perfectly honest, I think some of the matches were even better then they were before!

Did like 10 drops last night in a 8-10man, rest were PUG groups.

Won 8, lost 2. One loss was an EPIC battle, right down to the last man!

These battle were better then they were on Monday.

Just listening to those in the group, they liked the new system, they didnt feel trapped by 4x3, they felt like more option were open now to take 'mechs they wanted.

I know people reading this are going to hate what I posted because it more positive then negative.

But it is the god honest truth and what I personally experienced.

I WAS WRONG.

It seems like this is providing better matches for my friends and group. That is important to me.

[Prof RJ Gumby]

Appogee, on 21 October 2015 - 09:41 PM, said:

Player complaints about the poor quality of matches in the group queue are what led to this tonnage system.
Russ said that, to fix the problem, he'd need to limit group sizes. Players hated that idea and asked for tonnage limits instead.
This discussion played out in a thread here in the forums about three weeks ago.

Russ was right. Limiting group sizes is the option to actually solve that issue with current playerbase size. Unfortunately, it sucks, thus nothing should've been done with this. 3/3/3/3 was actually the best solution balancing between giving a chance for small teams and not imposing too many artificial restrictions on big teams.

EchoFreebirth, on 22 October 2015 - 02:34 AM, said:

The issue is not with tonnage limits or weight category limits. As people have said over and over again, it is the fact that a 12-man team on Team Speak will almost surely beat anything less than a high-skilled 10-man. The MWO group queue is not very forgiving in that sense: stomps happen in cascades - one mistake by one player puts the entire team on a losing spiral.
You cannot have enjoyable pug vs team unless you have respawns like in a moba or you simply ban big teams. The current system means the large team on TS has a great time all along, whereas the smaller ones and PUGs invest 20-30 minutes on a 3-minute defeat. Not fun.
Is there any way to fix this? Does it even need fixing? Who knows. What I know is that when I am dropping with 1-3 lancemates were are likely to lose quickly and painfully, and when I am dropping with 7-11 unit mates we are likely to enjoy.

It may depend on the tier, but I often drop in a 2-man and have fun in it. Or at least had until Tuesday. Yeah, stomps were never rare, but whatever. Never had a problem with that.

The more I think about it, the more I come to conclusion that some people should just learn to suck it up. PVP games are not and will never be totally fair. That's unachievable. Crying about uneven odds for small groups brought us into a situtation where those small groups are even more screwed. That's probably the 1000th time I write it, but whatever: 3/3/3/3 system actually did lower the gap between small groups and big groups, as it prevented big groups from uniforming their mech setup. Heavier mech only sometimes means a better mech, so the weight gap between small groups and big groups would need to be HUUUGE to even the edge to big groups removal of 3/3/3/3 brought. Like 40 ton average for a 12-man or something. That would in turn screw up and ruin fun for big groups, especially those less competitive ones, who can't make full use of communication and coordination. There are plenty of those, you know.

[TWIAFU]

Joseph Mallan, on 22 October 2015 - 03:20 AM, said:

Is it really gaming the system if said group is actually that good? I don't real many of the Updates so I don't know what has changed, but a good team should be good no matter what they are driving.

No Joe, it is not. And the thing is, Kira's Unit, giggity, is that good!

Learned that the hard way...



That's why I am trying to say that the point about gaming it was necessary to make. But, IMO, to continually make it - even when you do not have to - is not beneficial but harmful. To do it just because you can, even when instincts may tell you it is wrong, is not the way to go.

A little bit of restraint could go a long way here.

[Widowmaker1981]

TWIAFU, on 22 October 2015 - 03:35 AM, said:

No Joe, it is not. And the thing is, Kira's Unit, giggity, is that good!

Learned that the hard way...



That's why I am trying to say that the point about gaming it was necessary to make. But, IMO, to continually make it - even when you do not have to - is not beneficial but harmful. To do it just because you can, even when instincts may tell you it is wrong, is not the way to go.

A little bit of restraint could go a long way here.

No. i want people to continue to break the system as hard as possible to force PGI to change it. Because if its not changed its going to force me out of the game that ive spent a lot of money on and love.

[Widowmaker1981]

TWIAFU, on 22 October 2015 - 03:28 AM, said:

Actually Mischief, this does NOT mimic my group experiences last night.

Dropping in a group of 8-10, all of us in our 'mechs, non meta, non-tryhard, just dropping and playing normally.

We faced the same, non meta, non tryhards. Even in light of my initial disdain for this system, I WAS WRONG.

Yes, I said I WAS WRONG.

We were and are able to take 'mechs that we want to play, even leveling, and do very well. To be perfectly honest, I think some of the matches were even better then they were before!

Did like 10 drops last night in a 8-10man, rest were PUG groups.

Won 8, lost 2. One loss was an EPIC battle, right down to the last man!

These battle were better then they were on Monday.

Just listening to those in the group, they liked the new system, they didnt feel trapped by 4x3, they felt like more option were open now to take 'mechs they wanted.

I know people reading this are going to hate what I posted because it more positive then negative.

But it is the god honest truth and what I personally experienced.

I WAS WRONG.

It seems like this is providing better matches for my friends and group. That is important to me.

Did your group bring any assault mechs?

[reign]

Compare the same group BMMU in 3 Dires 3 Timbers 3 Stormcrows and 3 ACH.. I wonder what the result would be.. Probably even bigger stomp.

Why because there all Tier 1 Meta VS .... Pugs trying to level / have fun.

This match is a horrible Statistical Outlier to how the system is actually working.

[BattleBunny]

reign, on 22 October 2015 - 04:37 AM, said:

Compare the same group BMMU in 3 Dires 3 Timbers 3 Stormcrows and 3 ACH.. I wonder what the result would be.. Probably even bigger stomp.

Why because there all Tier 1 Meta VS .... Pugs trying to level / have fun.

This match is a horrible Statistical Outlier to how the system is actually working.

You are missing the point. This wasnt about the fact the 12 men team won. offcource a good group can beat smaller groups. Its about the way it was won. Having a big group all move at the same speed is super easy mode. assaults are no longer needed, required,or even helpful. They are not worth their tonnage. Not by a mile.

[Shae Starfyre]

I saw the video on the storm crow crew in patch feedback, and what is interesting about the argument, "Teamwork is Op," being thrown around, is moot by listening to these guys.

The only two tactical decisions made was ball up, and head for center with a casual note here and there, otherwise, they were having side conversations, someone came in towards the end, and it was all, "Hey, come to see the party?" kind of stuff; not to mention, the 'Yea, it's broken comments." Kudos to the guys who revealed the broken nature, by the way.

It was not tactical, it was not teamwork is op, it was straight, 'You all know what to do, have fun." So, yea, Fun is Op (sarcasm).

This bothered me more than anything and will continue to keep me away from the group queue; it needs to be a gritty situation, comms on high alert, and everyone nail biting their way to victory.

I have seen more heated comms in EvE Online during a 30 bomber stealth drop on a lone battleship in null space than this rubbish.

Edited by Aphoticus, 22 October 2015 - 05:35 AM.

[Vetal]

I think all problems of MWO started just after CW introduction. Form the start of the mwo till CW, only lrms were a bit bugging. All tries to stretch the existing GOOD game on the CW were faults. Maybe pgi should refuse of CW at all?
Anyway, I won't play any group queue and CW until 3/3/3/3 system or some equal come back.

Edited by Vetal, 22 October 2015 - 05:47 AM.