27 replies to this topic

[BearFlag]

The poll has been changed to accommodate some of the failings in the polling software.

I've tried to be thorough in both questions and answers regarding the recent addition of QP maps and modes in FW. Suggestions welcome.

Edited by BearFlag, 24 December 2016 - 10:41 PM.

[naterist]

on the matchmaker question, just one thatll filter out the total newbs, and give people a place to go until they can fill out a dropdeck. theres a thread were moosegun proposed a wonderful solution to that problem.


https://mwomercs.com...rs-fp-solution/

besides that, and game wide tech balance, i think this current setup is pretty great.

Edited by naterist, 24 December 2016 - 04:36 PM.

[BearFlag]

naterist, on 24 December 2016 - 04:35 PM, said:

on the matchmaker question, just one thatll filter out the total newbs, and give people a place to go until they can fill out a dropdeck. theres a thread were moosegun proposed a wonderful solution to that problem.


https://mwomercs.com...rs-fp-solution/

besides that, and game wide tech balance, i think this current setup is pretty great.

Added:
"In addition to my other choices, filter out new players/trial mechs"

Sound about right?

[naterist]

thats what imma vote for.
thanks

[Johnny Z]

The tough one for me was how many drops should be in quickplay maps. It depends if quickplay is replaced with FP quickplay maps or not. I guess somehow having both would be good because sometimes a quick match is good and sometimes a more serious match is good.

Edited by Johnny Z, 24 December 2016 - 06:45 PM.

[BearFlag]

Johnny Z, on 24 December 2016 - 06:45 PM, said:

The tough one for me was how many drops should be in quickplay maps. It depends if quickplay is replaced with FP quickplay maps or not. I guess somehow having both would be good because sometimes a quick match is good and sometimes a more serious match is good.

Not sure I follow. The question is about QP maps/modes in FW, not Quick Play itself. Did I misunderstand? Should I rephrase the question to make it clearer?

[LordNothing]

i would use a match maker that only tries to match teams by group composition. give each group a pugness factor rating (numberPlayers - (numberGroups - 1), pugs count as 1 man groups), and then try to match teams based on the lowest difference in rating. a rating of 1 would be all pugs and a rating of 12 would be a 12 man group. psr and tonnage are not factored in.

Edited by LordNothing, 27 December 2016 - 04:25 AM.

[DANKnuggz]

I can see my opinions are pretty much opposite of what the majority thinks here... I went to FP to get AWAY from the terrible map design in QP... Seems I'll be giving this game up entirely before long if this is the direction we want the maps to go in... I want NEW FP maps not the same old crap added in as a Band-Aid but apparently wanting PGI to do some actual work that isn't just another mech for me to buy is in the minority opinion....

[BearFlag]

Yep.
After 50 responses, some of the results are surprising and, in at least one case, contradicting.
In retrospect, there were several other questions that should have been asked. Too late now unfortunately. Frankly, in retro-retrospect, I would not have posted it at all. Some of the results may well encourage PGI (if they even read it) in directions which, while apparently supported, are just bad design paths, IMO.

Edited by BearFlag, 28 December 2016 - 12:57 AM.

[KinLuu]

What did surprise you? From my point of view the results were pretty much as expected.

[BearFlag]

Well, one surprise (for me) was the match balance question. It generally falls in "OK" area and yet is refuted in W/L ratios and overall Clan dominance. The likely origin of this is the population participating in the vote which includes more than few "no matchmaker" players who think the free-for-all sans match balancing is perfectly fine. IOW, we're seeing mostly hardcore Invasion/respawn players and very few QP players who have tried FW and left.</p>

Another is the contradiction mentioned. In one question, players indicated strong support for the so-called Battle Phases. Yet in another, they mildly support mixing up the map selection. Given that "Battle Phases" are nothing more than names on a bar with only one mechanic (map assignment) associated, removing it by randomizing/selecting maps undefines the already shallow immersion of "Battle Phase."

BTW, results as expected would carry more weight if the prediction were made at the beginning.

Edited by BearFlag, 28 December 2016 - 01:22 AM.

[KinLuu]

People might not be in favour of a MM, because they don't believe it will work. Not enough players around for that.

[BearFlag]

KinLuu, on 28 December 2016 - 01:21 AM, said:

People might not be in favour of a MM, because they don't believe it will work. Not enough players around for that.

You may be right here. But matchmaking is not entirely dependent on the player pool approach. Other dynamic methods are possible.

[BLOOD WOLF]

BearFlag, on 28 December 2016 - 01:24 AM, said:

You may be right here.

he's not close to being right.

[KinLuu]

BLOOD WOLF, on 28 December 2016 - 01:26 AM, said:

he's not close to being right.

Take a look at this poll: https://mwomercs.com...-matches-in-fp/

[BLOOD WOLF]

KinLuu, on 28 December 2016 - 01:40 AM, said:

Take a look at this poll: https://mwomercs.com...-matches-in-fp/

yea, I don't really care about a poll. Reason is not a democratic thing.

If they use a MM in FP, that would be sufficient, and it is as efficient as just filling a bucket to 12 and dropping a match.

your claim for their not being enough players is based on insufficient evidence.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 28 December 2016 - 08:03 AM.

[KinLuu]

Try to read more carefully. I only claimed that was the reason for the votes - I said nothing about if I agree with them or not.

[BLOOD WOLF]

KinLuu, on 28 December 2016 - 08:08 AM, said:

Try to read more carefully. I only claimed that was the reason for the votes - I said nothing about if I agree with them or not.

sorry, you had a period before "not enough players around for that". I mistook that for an original thought, i didn't notice of you not being in agreement.

unless you do agree with that, then that is a different story.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 28 December 2016 - 08:14 AM.

[Fox the Apprentice]

KinLuu, on 28 December 2016 - 01:40 AM, said:

Take a look at this poll: https://mwomercs.com...-matches-in-fp/

That's a pretty useless poll...
Far too biased for me to participate, and I might not be alone.

[Volkodav]

If PGI trying to balance 50 \ 50 clans vs sphere, then at his achievement, in theory, FW maps we do not see at all. )

Do you want that?

I would have left only the Assault mode for FW, but not the one which is now, and the one who announced, with normal bases and others. And return old screen to prepare for the match, where you can see queue.

Spoiler