367 replies to this topic

[pwnface]

Kira Onime, on 21 October 2015 - 02:42 PM, said:

But then again.

What was the problem with groups and who the **** asked for this tonnage system?

I haven't seen anyone ask for tonnage based system instead of 3/3/3/3. If someone can point me to a link or thread I'm curious as well.

[9thDeathscream]

Ah its being setup for Esport. Small moving meta mechs only!!!

[TWIAFU]

Akulla1980, on 21 October 2015 - 02:27 PM, said:

LOL Keeping tabs on twitter.

Seems the majority like the changes.

Maybe it is working for them? Maybe they ARE getting better drops?

I mean no disrespect to any Unit here, but maybe those that like it are not having or getting to face - and thankfully for them! - the Units pushing the Tonnage system to the extreme?

Maybe those that like it are not running meta "cheese" themselves and don't face it either.

Maybe it is OK for for upper Tier players to run meta streakcrow vs meta streakcrow, sounds boring as hell, but thats just me.

Maybe it is to early to freak the hell out without knowing how this and the other re-balance systems will interact.

[TWIAFU]

Kira Onime, on 21 October 2015 - 02:42 PM, said:

But then again.

What was the problem with groups and who the **** asked for this tonnage system?

Small groups forming 12 didn't like facing a organized group of 12.

Tonnage limits was in response to small groups making 12 complaining about the strength of 12 organized players.

Limit tonnage of a premade 12man compared to that of smaller groups making 12 to better achieve balance.

[CDLord HHGD]

Novakaine, on 21 October 2015 - 02:40 PM, said:

The very best anti-mech swarm tactic.

I prefer the Battle of Rorke's Drift myself. ~100 Brits against 4000+ Zulus.

[Kira Onime]

TWIAFU, on 21 October 2015 - 03:05 PM, said:

Small groups forming 12 didn't like facing a organized group of 12.

Tonnage limits was in response to small groups making 12 complaining about the strength of 12 organized players.

Limit tonnage of a premade 12man compared to that of smaller groups making 12 to better achieve balance.

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.

[Solahma]

Dimento Graven, on 21 October 2015 - 01:50 PM, said:

Ok, and?

Well, I was going to respond why your opinion is uninformed considering you don't even know the advantages of:
- Short burn duration
- FLD ballistic weapons
- Ability to choose engine size

and so on

But, then I realized if you honestly have no idea why those are beneficial characteristics then I really would rather not converse with such a casual about mech balance.

Edited by Solahma, 21 October 2015 - 03:12 PM.

[potatoherbs]

Veritae, on 20 October 2015 - 12:49 PM, said:

Actually, I think today would be a great day to bring lurms to destroy all the bs clammer "skillcrows" taking the field. Oh the clammer tears. They will be so sweet!

I hope you don't really think for a second that a full lurm drop deck will stomp a crow drop deck.... cause that would be the sad.

[Aresye]

Mystere, on 21 October 2015 - 07:22 AM, said:

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.

I never said it was ideal, nor that large groups "want" to face tougher opposition. I simply said that large, organized groups are the best candidates to be the ones to "bite the bullet" for the rest of the player base. We HAVE to be realistic when it comes to the size of our player base. We CANNOT ensure solo players, small groups, AND large groups all have perfect matchmaking. It's impossible with how many players we have.

Currently the worst place to be in for matchmaking is in a small group, because the matchmaker prioritizes PSR averaging over group size. That's the problem that I was addressing in my previous post. You could have a 12man of CSJx and a 12man of SJR both searching at the same time, but because their PSR averages are too far apart, it gives both of them multiple small groups that have an average PSR closer to their team's average, despite the fact both of them facing each other would be a more balanced match.

We've seen enough threads where people complain about being stacked against large, competitive teams when playing as a small group. I've experienced it first hand enough times that I very rarely drop in anything less than a 6man. Why? Because if I drop in a 4man or less I'm pretty much guaranteed to face a large, competitive premade.

Practically every large unit I've ever dropped with has enjoyed tougher opposition more than facing disorganized pugs. Sure, sometimes it's nice to just relax and not having to worry about the game, but when doing practice for league play, facing a bunch of small groups and stomping them gives you absolutely no practice. In fact it's counter-productive to a good practice, as you can get away with things you could never get away with against a better team, and you build bad habits as a result.

Large groups represent the smallest portion of the player base yet continuously are favored by the matchmaker when it comes to giving them games they can win, often against multiple small groups. I get it when you say large groups have been demonized enough. I completely agree, and this isn't about demonizing large groups. I'm not talking about bringing back the ghost town that was the 12man queue. Nor am I saying that large groups don't deserve good matchmaking. All I'm saying is that large groups need to be put against other large groups, and if some minor PSR fluctuation needs to happen to keep search times realistic and prevent a ghost town from happening, then that's what needs to happen. That's a "realistic" suggestion.

A lot of new players are here because they have friends that play this game, but we LOSE the majority of those new players because their experience playing with friends in a small group is ABYSMAL. If we ever want to grow the player base, we have to help the small groups, and if the price of having a larger player base is that large groups "might" have to face some adversity, then so be it.

Since you seem content in shooting down my idea because it isn't the magical, "everybody's happy," suggestion you were looking for, how about you explain your "better" idea?

Just remember:
1. It has to be simple.
2. It can't involve mixing groups with solo players.
3. It can't involve an insanely long search time.
4. It can't involve creating another queue and/or more queue options.

[Mystere]

Kira Onime, on 21 October 2015 - 02:42 PM, said:

But then again.

What was the problem with groups and who the **** asked for this tonnage system?

Do your homework. Use the search function. The debate on whether or not to use tonnage limits has been going on since 2012.

[Top Leliel]

And yet piloting Locusts or Atlases with a buddy as half a lance is forbidden according to PGI...
Do they actually think that would be overpowered when stuff like OP is possible?

Edited by Top Leliel, 21 October 2015 - 04:52 PM.

[Ultimax]

Kira Onime, on 21 October 2015 - 01:19 PM, said:

He wants more feedback on "tonnage ranges" ....... he just doesn't get it does he?

No, he doesn't get it at all.

He doesn't get this, and Paul doesn't understand the rage against the first PTS.

They didn't even put out an apology for how bad it was, they only put one out for not telling us what it was before hand - but it was still a mind boggling failure on multiple levels.


That's where we are, neither of these two guys at the top really seem to understand where they should start to unravel the ever building pile of problems.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 21 October 2015 - 05:46 PM.

[MischiefSC]

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.

[Kira Onime]

Ultimatum X, on 21 October 2015 - 05:45 PM, said:

No, he doesn't get it at all.

He doesn't get this, and Paul doesn't understand the rage against the first PTS.

They didn't even put out an apology for how bad it was, they only put one out for not telling us what it was before hand - but it was still a mind boggling failure on multiple levels.


That's where we are, neither of these two guys at the top really seem to understand where they should start to unravel the ever building pile of problems.

Oh, also to add when presented the problem of people boating 8 of a certain type of mech, his response was that those mechs were the problem... not that you could boat 8........ logic

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

It's mixing casuals and tryhards. It's mixing pug with friends vs actual groups.

Define "tryhard" as well as "casual" 'cause I'm getting the feeling your definition of a "tryhard" is someone that plays to win and the "casual" is someone that plays for "fun".

[BlackDrakon]

All I can say is, it was such a fun drop with those 8 ACH and 4 DW...

[MischiefSC]

Kira Onime, on 21 October 2015 - 06:08 PM, said:

Define "tryhard" as well as "casual" 'cause I'm getting the feeling your definition of a "tryhard" is someone that plays to win and the "casual" is someone that plays for "fun".

Essentially. A 'tryhard' in this concept is someone who enjoys winning and plays to win. A 'casual' in this context is someone derping around with some friends. Playing like they do in pug queue.

That's the real difference in group queue that upsets people. You've got folks who want to pug with friends playing in the same environment as groups of players who want to play with a group, as a group, and enjoy winning. We're not even talking about ranked teams rolling an optimized deck. We're just talking people who share targets on voip and showed up in something other than an urbie or LRM Timber Wolf (yes yes, someone is going to show up and say how amazing the urbie is with X loadout and they beat their mom in a private match this one time in one, and the guy who raves about how amazing their LRM TW is. They are proving the point really) and otherwise, you know. Play to win.

The only thing weight limits have done is push more people into the tryhard group. If you're nerfed in total tonnage because you have more than 2 friends to play with you're double-nerfed if you take something you don't at least have double-basics on and is a solid performer for you.

If I play with 5 or 6 friends in group queue now we load for bear. We have to; we're nerfed before we hit launch. I can't level Grasshoppers or Novas or a Zeus in group queue anymore; we need to optimize, max tonnage and puke rainbow death or sparkly gauss or else we're screwed before we start.

It does the opposite of what it's supposed to do.

Edited by MischiefSC, 21 October 2015 - 06:51 PM.

[The Reconciler]

Came home from work today and decided to buy the latest pac. I dont usually spend money on this game but i've been enjoying running with my friend on our assaults, so i was going to get the new resistance group and support pgi a little. now my friend and i cant run our assaults together at all. Think i'll keep my money after all.

[Kira Onime]

MischiefSC, on 21 October 2015 - 06:50 PM, said:

Essentially. A 'tryhard' in this concept is someone who enjoys winning and plays to win. A 'casual' in this context is someone derping around with some friends. Playing like they do in pug queue.

I could stick with this should we push the conversation further but do know your definitions are not exclusive to the group you used them for.

Heck, I would technically be considered a "casual tryhard" by those definitions.

[Davers]

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

Usually true. Above tier 5 at least

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.

You can boat mechs now when in a big group, so you need to boat mechs now when in big group. Without boating you'll be limiting your own potential, you will resign to tackling problems that could be automatically solved before the battle started. No way around it. It's the same reason why we boat weapons. Yes, you can play good in a mech with 3 different weapon systems, only with the same effort you could do great in a mech with 1 weapon system. Same with mechs. You won't boat mechs, congrats, but be ready to loose againt teams that aren't actually better than you, they just have it easier.

We are saying the same thing, only I used far less words.

[Appogee]

Kira Onime, on 21 October 2015 - 02:42 PM, said:

But then again. What was the problem with groups and who the **** asked for this tonnage system?

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.

Edited by Appogee, 21 October 2015 - 09:42 PM.