90 replies to this topic

[KahnWongFuChung]

Why do you think they changed the MM and the way we get games and modes? Just change for the sake of changes?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes I think PGI screwed up putting in the vote system when in fact it was not needed just to mess up MWO some more and more unbalanced in game and map choices and unbalanced more in battles.

Heck all they had to do was leave the solo MM the way it was with better random game mode and map rotation and add in more maps and game modes bingo easy as pie but no lets make this ungodly unbalanced crapola MM and watch the player base explode again.

In fact after 3 years of watching this circus we call MWO I'm starting to believe the Devs and staff mess up MWO just to watch the flies/players squirm. And it has noting to do with fixing the MM for future game modes.

You sir must be on your own island and braindead from repeated 3 game mode play hahaha.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So pick up your ball and go home already, ForumWarrior.

Look in the mirror I'm playing the game you have 3800+ posts MR. Forum tard and more than likely 3800 of your topics and posts suck.

Edited by KahnWongFuChung, 31 December 2015 - 09:58 AM.

[knight-of-ni]

I guess we can't accuse him of not living up to his pilot name.

[EgoSlayer]

adamts01, on 31 December 2015 - 08:42 AM, said:

Why is he the problem? I've noticed two types of players, those that don't care one bit about teamwork, matchmaker or having to always carry, and those who want competitive matches with equally skilled opponents and teammates. There's nothing wrong with either type, just different personalities. I'm the 2nd, just like OP. I want good fights, I'm good and I want to be surrounded with equally skilled players. MM does a **** job by placing tier 3, Steam noobs in my matches. Some people don't mind, I hate it.

As far as a sinking ship, none of us know. But I can tell you I haven't found a single unit that can put together more than 4 players on this crappy Oceanic server. From many people, I hear it wasn't always like that. Hopefully Steam fixes that.... We'll see....

He is the problem.
This is what he thinks a balanced match is, and what he expects his average performance to be:

MrMadguy, on 26 December 2015 - 09:50 AM, said:

And here is my REAL performance. That's, what relatively balanced match means - match was long and we won it 12:7.

Note that the expectation is a bad match where he outperforms his teammates by 4:1 and enemy team loses badly. The hypocrisy is real, "balanced" means outperforming 23 other people by a substantial margin. This type of player needs PvE, not PvP.

Edited by EgoSlayer, 31 December 2015 - 10:05 AM.

[Tyler Valentine]

who cares?

[adamts01]

JC Daxion, on 31 December 2015 - 09:45 AM, said:

Do you play PUGs, group or both? I am really curious about the ratio of games you play to get that W/L

That's only my Timberwolf, and it is almost entirely from solo que. My overall is around 1.3, probably much worse after my week long flamer escapade..... And, it's super lame gameplay. I run 2LPL & 5ML, and cautiously trade my 61 point alpha from flanks while the enemy is focused on the ball of my hiding teammates. It's poke, hide, poke, hide like a little *****. But that mech can carry like nothing else. I actually hate it. Most players are pretty bad and I can't afford to take brawling damage because I have to live long enough to make up for my assault lance barely breaking 100 each. So yeah, it sucks, I use my team as bait, let them take all the hits, but I win the match when I bring that thing out.

[adamts01]

EgoSlayer, on 31 December 2015 - 10:05 AM, said:

He is the problem.
This is what he thinks a balanced match is, and what he expects his average performance to be:



Note that the expectation is a bad match where he outperforms his teammates by 4:1 and enemy team loses badly. The hypocrisy is real, "balanced" means outperforming 23 other people by a substantial margin. This type of player needs PvE, not PvP.

Ok, I admit, you win. Balanced is everyone doing 200-300.

But I still think the norm of 3-4 players always carrying the rest of the team, 99% of the time is a big strike against MM.

[DrxAbstract]

Mystere, on 31 December 2015 - 09:48 AM, said:

Yes. But, we'll get more complaints of 8-0 stomps.

And when we get 4v4, well get even more complaints of 4-0 stomps.

And when we finally, due to all the crying, get reduced to just 1vs1, we'll get an astounding amount of complaints that people never win.

And in the end if I match the complaints to names, I suspect I will see quite a number in all of them.

<smh>

You ruined it. You grabbed it by the throat and squeezed until it stopped moving. Dumped it on the floor and stomped it flat, doused it with gasoline and threw a lit match for the coup de grace. You sir are a monster.

[Bobzilla]

Anyone saying It's OP's fault, and he needs to get better Is dumb, unless he's T5. If he Improves slightly, he'll move up in tiers and face harder opponents.

So even if his team looses every time because of him (impossible, you get a neutral w/L from sitting idol the whole match, try it), it at the very least shouldn't be a stomp with any sort of frequency.

Stomps should happen, but they should be rare with even the worse of MMs.

For you 'git gud' geniuses out there, what do you think the point of PSR and the MM is, if not to put players of close skill together to avoid stomps? just really curious as to what/if you guys think it's for.

[xTrident]

Mister Blastman, on 31 December 2015 - 08:48 AM, said:

OP if you aren't averaging 500+ damage a drop and have a 1.3+ win/loss ratio then you are hurting your team and only have yourself to blame. Get your butt in the 'mech, start lifting durasteel and carry harder!

500+ damage? Are you serious? 500+ damage is a great game for me. And I haven't had many matches at all with more than three or four players having 500+ damage. And that's for both teams. So that's typically 18 to 20 players a match that are hurting their team... That's a ridiculous statement especially even with a great team of 12 I don't know if they could all get 500+ damage each. Maybe if it was assaults vs. assaults. But that number seems unrealistic to me. It'd be fair to say doing 500+ damage is greatly helping your team.

[DrxAbstract]

Bobzilla, on 31 December 2015 - 11:36 AM, said:

Anyone saying It's OP's fault, and he needs to get better Is dumb, unless he's T5. If he Improves slightly, he'll move up in tiers and face harder opponents.

So even if his team looses every time because of him (impossible, you get a neutral w/L from sitting idol the whole match, try it), it at the very least shouldn't be a stomp with any sort of frequency.

Stomps should happen, but they should be rare with even the worse of MMs.

For you 'git gud' geniuses out there, what do you think the point of PSR and the MM is, if not to put players of close skill together to avoid stomps? just really curious as to what/if you guys think it's for.

The system is based entirely on a variable that cannot be measured in any precise, quantifiable manner (Player skill). In a sense it's saying "Well this person usually does well this (Insert averaged performance statistic) so we'll rely on the statistical probability that he will do this well not just this game but consistently, reliably, every game! And then we'll base an entire system (The Matchmaker) off these statistics!"

The problem is two-fold: The principle belief there's consistency in a player's performance from game to game, and basing a system upon this belief.

So when the 'pros' the MM put on your team to offset the 'pros' on the other team get rolled immediately for whatever reason, or the 'newbies' on your team that are there to balance out the 'newbies' on the other team do exceptionally well that game... Well there you have it.

We already know MM is kinda broken. We already know why - We have for some time. Try giving concise, logical suggestions on improving it instead of "lolbroke, fixitnao, kthnxbai".

toodles.

Edited by DrxAbstract, 31 December 2015 - 12:06 PM.

[xTrident]

DrxAbstract, on 31 December 2015 - 12:03 PM, said:

The system is based entirely on a variable that cannot be measured in any precise, quantifiable manner (Player skill). In a sense it's saying "Well this person usually does well this (Insert averaged performance statistic) so we'll rely on the statistical probability that he will do this well not just this game but consistently, reliably, every game! And then we'll base an entire system (The Matchmaker) off these statistics!"

The problem is two-fold: The principle belief there's consistency in a player's performance from game to game, and basing a system upon this belief.

So when the 'pros' the MM put on your team to offset the 'pros' on the other team get rolled immediately for whatever reason, or the 'newbies' on your team that are there to balance out the 'newbies' on the other team do exceptionally well that game... Well there you have it.

We already know MM is kinda broken. We already know why - We have for some time. Try giving concise, logical suggestions on improving it instead of "lolbroke, fixitnao, kthnxbai".

toodles.

I would question you personally on whether your stats are fairly level from match to match then? Or, at the very least excluding the stomps are your stats fairly consistent when in a close game? Because honestly mine are. Finding a play style that works well for me which is primarily more of a support role rather than an up front brawler if it's a pretty close match 350 to 450 damage is just about right with a kill - two if it's a good round. Below 350 damage isn't what I consider a good game. Below 200 is a bad game below 150 is basically terrible. And I mentioned above 500 is an excellent game for me.

Every game I've ever played that kept track of wins/losses/KDR/Points per match etc... if I've put a decent amount of time into it to allow fair averages they usually wind up just about perfect to what I'll do over the course of any given night. Gears of War 3 - 1.5 KDR; Play a few matches I may have a KDR of .8 one match. The next will be a 1.3, then a 2.2, then a terrible game with a .6 etc. They all average out to my overall average that had been developed over a long period of time. And the thing is, the most common KDR I'll get in matches is between a 1.2 and a 1.7 or so. The very same thing is happening in MWO.

Would that make for a good/decent MM? I have no idea, that's just something I've noticed over a lengthy gaming experience.

Edited by xTrident, 31 December 2015 - 12:38 PM.

[Ovion]

MrMadguy, on 31 December 2015 - 06:39 AM, said:

Spoiler

Instant queue times, but EXTREMELY TERRIBLE matches. Stomp after stomp, again, again and again. PGI definitely just shut MM off, so it's simply random matchmaking now. I don't want to be a raw meat for Meta players, sorry. I returned after Steam release to see, if this game had improved a little but, but now I quit again, till I won't see, that MWO has proper skill-based MM. And also PGI, teach your MM to track short-term lose streaks. Otherwise you'll lose all your players pretty soon.

UPD For those, who love to say "L2P noob":
1) I have been playing this game since Open Beta. About 5500 matches played. So problem isn't with my experience.
2) There are no good or bad players in MM-based game - every player should play at his own level of skill. If MM fails to match you with and against players with proper skill level - it's problems with MM, not with me. You should advance to next level of skill only after beating previous one. Playing against Ronaldo and Messi and being forced to "improve" to their level of skill since the first day of playing football - is nonsense, sorry.
3) This game was terrible since implementation of 3/3/3/3 and release of Clans. There was enough time to fix it. And I had been playing it for about a year, while it had been terrible, before quitting it for the first time. This time was enough to test my patience - now I have run out of it. That's why now it's "fix it or I quit" - nothing more, nothing less.

Sounds like you need to learn to adapt.

I've been playing since 2012.
I'm doing roughly as well lately as I have for the last 2 years.
Each time a change happens, each time there's differences in the game, I adjust, I change - I play the game and find the things that work.

As to the clans - I actually do better on average in IS mechs.

So for you I ask, how do you play?
Do you play just Public Queue, Group Queue, Community Warfare, or a mix of the 3?
What mechs do you use?
Do you ever change your tactics?
What are those tactics?
What's your tier?

Edited by Ovion, 31 December 2015 - 12:42 PM.

[Jalen]

As usual, the majority of the problems in this game lies squarely in the hands of the players.

One massive problem that never gets pointed out is that this game is supposed to be a team game that does not reward team play. The largest rewards come from damage and kills, which is a selfish endeavor and promotes single player play. If you do a large amount of damage and get a couple kills, but lose in a 2-12 stomp, you still get rewarded as much as if you did half of that damage and had no kills in a 12-2 win. So at some point players realize that winning as a team isn't nearly as important as going out and "getting yours".

Improving matchmaker, balancing mechs, tweaking weapon values, player skill levels... none of it matters when you have selfish players only looking out for their own scores.

Secondly, as someone else already pointed out but has already fallen by the wayside, there is a massive snowball effect to this game. If you start out 12v12 and somehow avoid the inevitable disconnected assault on your team (and it is ALWAYS an assault), it only takes one or two kills to gain a significant advantage over the other team. If one of your lances drops away from the rest of the team and runs into a superior force, more often than not losing that lance determines the stompy outcome of that match.

Combining these two points, selfish players seeking their own damage and kills won't bother to support their teammates, will suddenly find their team down a couple kills, and will quickly find themselves at a major disadvantage which almost always results in them losing to an ugly stomp. Then, said selfish players will complain about how bad their teammates are, and how messed up the game is.

The real ugly truth? Their selfishness, which is rewarded, is the problem.

The other real ugly truth? There's no way to fix this problem.

Good team play is more abstract and harder to quantify in statistics, so it's more difficult to track and therefore more difficult to reward. Tossing up a UAV, TAGging a target, NARCing a target, assists, and proximity to teammates are not the measure of good teamplay, but they're really the only rewards we have for it and they pale in comparison to damage, kills, and component destruction.

An example: I built a spotter ECM Raven that had a TAG, a NARC, and two UAVs but only two medium lasers. By running this mech in PUGs, am I helping or hurting the team? I'm not doing as much damage as I would with a more offensive build, the TAG and NARC only help if my teammates are running LRMs, and the UAVs only help if the team is paying attention to the overall battle and not just chasing the nearest red Dorito. So after I spot the entire team, light up targets, relay movement information, and try and herd my team like a Border Collie, if I don't break 100 damage with my two medium lasers in a fragile, easy to kill mech, I look like I'm useless. In the end I don't get rewarded for my efforts and will get berated for not doing more, even though I did more for teamplay (supposedly the entire point of the game) than the other eleven mechs on my team combined.

One more example: Was playing on Bog yesterday in a StormCrow, saw my teammates getting flanked by three mechs, I dropped down from one of the hills behind a Marauder and Timber Wolf, ripped the Marauder apart and was one shot away from the killing blow when an Arctic Cheetah teammate (who saw me drop down and catch all of the aggro from all three mechs) waited until I had done enough damage to the Marauder then dropped down between myself and the Marauder, directly in my stream of fire, absorbed my laser volley and took out the Marauder himself, and to top it off, a teammate said, "Nice kill" to him for that. He risked me teamkilling him just so he could swoop in and get that kill for himself, instead of trying to distract or take out the other two mechs that were on me. My teamplay? Not rewarded. His selfishness? Rewarded and complimented. Oh yeah, then the Timby and the other mech took me out.

The selfishness of the players in this game knows absolutely no bounds. From people crying about what maps or modes they don't want to play, to crying about the OP mechs (which of course is determined by which mechs kill them and are hard for them to kill), to crying about how who should and shouldn't be allowed in CW, to crying about whatever else impacts them and only them specifically. And that applies directly to gameplay where players are the primary problem, not the game.

[Thunder Child]

Regarding the linked screenshot, how can a 36 Team Damage penalty ever be considered a good match?

[xTrident]

Thunder Child, on 31 December 2015 - 01:00 PM, said:

Regarding the linked screenshot, how can a 36 Team Damage penalty ever be considered a good match?

Really? I didn't think it was that much. And if you put it into perspective that they did over 1,000 damage... That's a lot of shots. I've had matches where I know I've accidentally shot a teammate - but just barely and the game ends with me doing 12 damage or so. And much less than 1,000 damage.

[TWIAFU]

MrMadguy, on 31 December 2015 - 06:39 AM, said:

Instant queue times, but EXTREMELY TERRIBLE matches. Stomp after stomp, again, again and again. PGI definitely just shut MM off, so it's simply random matchmaking now. I don't want to be a raw meat for Meta players, sorry. I returned after Steam release to see, if this game had improved a little but, but now I quit again, till I won't see, that MWO has proper skill-based MM. And also PGI, teach your MM to track short-term lose streaks. Otherwise you'll lose all your players pretty soon.

UPD For those, who love to say "L2P noob":
1) I have been playing this game since Open Beta. About 5500 matches played. So problem isn't with my experience.
2) There are no good or bad players in MM-based game - every player should play at his own level of skill. If MM fails to match you with and against players with proper skill level - it's problems with MM, not with me. You should advance to next level of skill only after beating previous one. Playing against Ronaldo and Messi and being forced to "improve" to their level of skill since the first day of playing football - is nonsense, sorry.
3) This game was terrible since implementation of 3/3/3/3 and release of Clans. There was enough time to fix it. And I had been playing it for about a year, while it had been terrible, before quitting it for the first time. This time was enough to test my patience - now I have run out of it. That's why now it's "fix it or I quit" - nothing more, nothing less.

[DrxAbstract]

xTrident, on 31 December 2015 - 12:37 PM, said:

I would question you personally on whether your stats are fairly level from match to match then? Or, at the very least excluding the stomps are your stats fairly consistent when in a close game? Because honestly mine are. Finding a play style that works well for me which is primarily more of a support role rather than an up front brawler if it's a pretty close match 350 to 450 damage is just about right with a kill - two if it's a good round. Below 350 damage isn't what I consider a good game. Below 200 is a bad game below 150 is basically terrible. And I mentioned above 500 is an excellent game for me.

Every game I've ever played that kept track of wins/losses/KDR/Points per match etc... if I've put a decent amount of time into it to allow fair averages they usually wind up just about perfect to what I'll do over the course of any given night. Gears of War 3 - 1.5 KDR; Play a few matches I may have a KDR of .8 one match. The next will be a 1.3, then a 2.2, then a terrible game with a .6 etc. They all average out to my overall average that had been developed over a long period of time. And the thing is, the most common KDR I'll get in matches is between a 1.2 and a 1.7 or so. The very same thing is happening in MWO.

Would that make for a good/decent MM? I have no idea, that's just something I've noticed over a lengthy gaming experience.

You answered your own question and contradicted yourself at the same time... That takes finesse.

Averages, when used as the foundation for any system, creates a flawed mechanism. Just because your 'average' KDR is 1.5 or 'average' Damage for an 'excellent performance' is 500+ damage doesn't change the fact that the numbers on a game-to-game basis vary wildly - This is the fundamental problem with using statistical probabilities as the foundation for a system (The Matchmaker) that is meant to manage inherently unstable variables (The Players).

My 'average' performance is 600+/- damage and 2+/- kills. I've had games where I've been AFK at the start and come back to find my Mech getting picked apart by 3 Lights and died with only 86 Damage. I've also walked away from games with 1500+ Damage and 9+ Kills. Even the reported 'best' players in this game have died with 50-100 Damage on the board, I know because I've been responsible for it on several occasions, just as I've been prematurely put in the dirt within the first 2 minutes. Sure, you can do 400+ damage consistently, but the more important details would be:
You do above 400 all the time, but that also varies from 401-1000 damage where the damage done is to critical components that lead to kills or the damage was done to zombified limbs and wasn't much use and multiple variations in between. Those games you do 400+ Damage and walk away with 90% Health on your Mech while others you either die or walk away with 40% - All that damage you absorbed probably saved a life or two on team, maybe not. The Matchmaker doesn't acknowledge the intrinsic value of these figures because it's literally impossible to create a system that can, and yet such details are monumentally important when trying to create a Matchmaker system.

[xTrident]

I don't understand how I answered my own question as well as contradicted it? An average terrible match and an average great match is not the same thing as an "average match" for me, or probably for anyone The average good and bad matches are stated as such because they're anomalies. I have far fewer terrible and great matches than I do my typical 400 damage matches and a kill or two. (although the kills really are up in the air)

Whether it was a direct question to me, or simply a statement even though I'm much more into the support role I do get my butt kicked pretty well. 90% health is a rarity for me and because I'm an XL engine user 40% is as well. I usually can't absorb that much damage before dying. Anyway, I understand what you saying pertaining to how the damage was done - critical components compared to zombified limbs and the amount of damage taken. I will say I'm not good enough to worry about it. I simply support the best I can and do as much damage as I can because I know that will at least help the team.

But my point is my typical average match for any game I've ever played and the average in stats I've accumulated over a long period of time is quite accurate to what I see myself doing on a regular basis.

Edited by xTrident, 31 December 2015 - 01:58 PM.

[BigBenn]

MrMadguy, on 31 December 2015 - 07:57 AM, said:

For a year, while it was terrible - for another year, while it was great. If it was great while beta, then why it can't be great now? May be problem isn't with me then?

No, it is your problem young padawan. "tis your opinion that things are "broken".

When PGI comes out and says "NO MORE CHANGES, THE GAME IS PERFECT", that will be the day it begins its downfall. Until the I applaud them making MWO a work in progress. Tweak, adjust, add, remove, etc. Until then.... 'tis j00 that has the problem.

You may leave no, Jr.

[DrxAbstract]

xTrident, on 31 December 2015 - 01:53 PM, said:

But my point is my typical average match for any game I've ever played and the average in stats I've accumulated over a long period of time is quite accurate to what I see myself doing on a regular basis.

You asked me if my stats are consistent per my average performance. Obviously - This is how the game establishes your 'averages'. My 'averages' are a factored reflection of all my games being 'averaged' together, which is why my 'average' may be better or worse than someone else's 'average' but will show some consistency relative to myself. Everyone has some consistency, but that wasnt the point. The point was the variations between this consistency as well as the maximum and minimum performances plus the variations between the established averages... That's how you answered your own question.

And you contradicted yourself by stating your game reports your 'averages' being more or less consistent with your 'average' game yet admitted to there being anomalous games where you do exceptionally well or poorly relative to your 'average', which means your average is also indicative of these factors as well and not necessarily as representative of your performance as you might think just because it's 'close'.

It's called a variable. Your averages are completely irrelevant - That was my point.

Just because you do well on 'average' and your 'average' stats reflect you repeating those results 'on average' does not change the fact those 'averages' were created by taking all the combined stats from all games and mashing them together to create an 'average'. It takes your absolute worst game and combines it with your absolute best games, forms an 'average' performance that you may or may not more or less adhere to, then completely disregards the fact that 'average' was created using the extremes of both scenarios in juxtapose to its established 'average' of you because the system was not and can not be designed to also take into consideration the fact that you have the potential to vary well beyond the established average sum of performance it has created for you.