Jump to content

- - - - -

Roadmap For September, October, And Beyond


253 replies to this topic

#201 MovinTarget

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 10
  • Mercenary Rank 10
  • 3,798 posts
  • LocationGreen Acres

Posted 05 September 2017 - 05:38 AM

Again, if they are working in the ability to change team size, why not develop a "switch" that allows the team size to be determined by the number of players queuing on a server?

If there are *tons* playing during NA prime time, then let the NA server switch to 12v12 while Euro and Oceanic may be much quieter during the same time period and be running 8v8.

You could then have notifications of what is currently running so group queue can build accordingly *or* just never allow more than 8 in a group so you can never have a 12 man stomp (8 + 4 or 8 + 2 + 2)...

I'm not saying I have this fully fleshed out in my head but just a thought...

#202 SuperFunkTron

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Slayer
  • The Slayer
  • 908 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 05 September 2017 - 05:55 AM

View PostMovinTarget, on 05 September 2017 - 05:38 AM, said:

Again, if they are working in the ability to change team size, why not develop a "switch" that allows the team size to be determined by the number of players queuing on a server?

If there are *tons* playing during NA prime time, then let the NA server switch to 12v12 while Euro and Oceanic may be much quieter during the same time period and be running 8v8.

You could then have notifications of what is currently running so group queue can build accordingly *or* just never allow more than 8 in a group so you can never have a 12 man stomp (8 + 4 or 8 + 2 + 2)...

I'm not saying I have this fully fleshed out in my head but just a thought...


It sounds nice, but I think it'd make more sense to just build 2 separate cues than to have a variable launcher based on population. 8vs8 plays like a different animal and it would be akin to telling players dropping in scouting that they may drop in an 8vs8 if there are lots of scouting missions.

I can only imagine how many people would excrete a brick if they found out they couldn't play exactly what they wanted when they wanted because it is offensive to them to acclimate to a game.

#203 MovinTarget

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 10
  • Mercenary Rank 10
  • 3,798 posts
  • LocationGreen Acres

Posted 05 September 2017 - 08:19 AM

View PostSuperFunkTron, on 05 September 2017 - 05:55 AM, said:


It sounds nice, but I think it'd make more sense to just build 2 separate cues than to have a variable launcher based on population. 8vs8 plays like a different animal and it would be akin to telling players dropping in scouting that they may drop in an 8vs8 if there are lots of scouting missions.

I can only imagine how many people would excrete a brick if they found out they couldn't play exactly what they wanted when they wanted because it is offensive to them to acclimate to a game.


That might be the case, I just figured it'd be 2/2/2/2 instead of 3/3/3/3 with the same re-balancing when some weight class is over/under represented...

Edited by MovinTarget, 05 September 2017 - 03:24 PM.


#204 50 50

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,032 posts
  • LocationTo Nova or not to Nova. That is the question.

Posted 05 September 2017 - 07:24 PM

View PostMovinTarget, on 05 September 2017 - 05:38 AM, said:

Again, if they are working in the ability to change team size, why not develop a "switch" that allows the team size to be determined by the number of players queuing on a server?

If there are *tons* playing during NA prime time, then let the NA server switch to 12v12 while Euro and Oceanic may be much quieter during the same time period and be running 8v8.

You could then have notifications of what is currently running so group queue can build accordingly *or* just never allow more than 8 in a group so you can never have a 12 man stomp (8 + 4 or 8 + 2 + 2)...

I'm not saying I have this fully fleshed out in my head but just a thought...


View PostSuperFunkTron, on 05 September 2017 - 05:55 AM, said:


It sounds nice, but I think it'd make more sense to just build 2 separate cues than to have a variable launcher based on population. 8vs8 plays like a different animal and it would be akin to telling players dropping in scouting that they may drop in an 8vs8 if there are lots of scouting missions.

I can only imagine how many people would excrete a brick if they found out they couldn't play exactly what they wanted when they wanted because it is offensive to them to acclimate to a game.


View PostMovinTarget, on 05 September 2017 - 08:19 AM, said:


That might be the case, I just figured it'd be 2/2/2/2 instead of 3/3/3/3 with the same re-balancing when some weight class is over/under represented...


I was thinking along the same lines and posted that same thought elsewhere.

To ensure the quickest possible match making, having a variable team size according to the number of players queuing would give more options and less restrictions.
If there are enough players queued to make 12 v 12 then that's what happens.
But having a short timer where if there are not enough for 12 v 12 it could drop to 8 v 8.
There is also no reason why it couldn't also drop to 4 v 4 should the numbers be really low.

Not only do we get faster matches, but the different numbers in the battles creates a different style of conflict and we get a different experience as a result which will give us more variety each time we play in addition to the map and mode.

I would like to point out that given the 'full teams yes/no' functionality we already have available in the private lobby, it doesn't seem impossible to think that we could have a variable limit to work with the active population at any given moment.

The solo quick play queue still uses the 3/3/3/3 but group quick play has the tonnage limit so there might be some considerations around how it puts things together.
We may need to consider going back to the 3/3/3/3 format for group play, but we may also need to consider restricting group size in quick play to a single lance with a 1/1/1/1 setup.
Do we also need to consider merging solo and group queues for quick play?
In which case, is the 1/1/1/1 limit the best option or would a merged queue work better with a tonnage limit?
Do we need an alternative option of perhaps using lance classifications based on average tonnage?
Whether or not that is worth worrying about at this stage, not sure, but something that might need to be reviewed.

#205 MovinTarget

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 10
  • Mercenary Rank 10
  • 3,798 posts
  • LocationGreen Acres

Posted 06 September 2017 - 07:44 AM

not bad points 50 50, but we have to be careful about making it too restricting since some people want to specifically play certain mechs and pushing the idea too far may rub them the wrong way...

As far as group queue, it may be as simple as giving people information before dropping... so they can see "Currently 8v8 mode" or "Currently 12v12 mode" or simply warn them that going over 8 players may result in unusually long wait times.

Perhaps even a tooltip for "There are X groups the same size or larger in queue/playing at this time" so you could get a feel for the competitive landscape...

#206 TheFallOfTheReaper

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Wolf
  • The Wolf
  • 335 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 01:03 PM

Why do people keep referring to 8v8 as an "improvement"?, it's going backwards......which is a downgrade. Improvement would be 16/16, 20/20, 24/24, 28 32 36 and so on

#207 TheFallOfTheReaper

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Wolf
  • The Wolf
  • 335 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 01:17 PM

Tldr:
Reeeeee 8v8

#208 Sleepyboy14

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Brother
  • Big Brother
  • 120 posts
  • LocationChicago, Terra

Posted 13 September 2017 - 03:18 PM

View PostShadowHimself, on 13 September 2017 - 01:03 PM, said:

Why do people keep referring to 8v8 as an "improvement"?, it's going backwards......which is a downgrade. Improvement would be 16/16, 20/20, 24/24, 28 32 36 and so on


That is something I would like to see in MechWarrior Online.

#209 TheFallOfTheReaper

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Wolf
  • The Wolf
  • 335 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 03:29 PM

All the reeeees^ I mean win

#210 WarmasterRaptor

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Wrath
  • The Wrath
  • 164 posts
  • LocationQuébec - Canada

Posted 13 September 2017 - 04:23 PM

Could be even simpler : they do like they do with the server selection

Check the box of the type of team sizes you want to fight : 4v4, 8v8 and 12v12
Select them all and have access to everything, remove one, get the other two... and select only one, then wait for a proper match up.

Another thing I think would help matchmaking IMHO, and at the same time "train" new players setting a drop deck is setting a quick play deck of two/three mechs. I'm not sure the 1/1/1/1 rule should apply here, but it could help?

You'd select your "main" drop ie. a heavy, and the MM will prioritize that selection when you search for a match.
Although, if the heavy queue is saturated, it'll look at your next mech to find you a match and so on...

My 2 cents :) Thoughts ? improvements on the idea ? or simple pure rejection? XD

Cheers,

#211 Zyrocenus

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Kapten
  • Kapten
  • 65 posts
  • LocationOntario Canada

Posted 14 September 2017 - 03:58 AM

Ok I skimmed the replies and didn't see anyone mention this so I gotta:

NO NEW EVENTS TILL NEXT TUESDAYS PATCH?!?

What gives? I'm sure your user base spikes when an event is on and plummets in the interim. Last event ended on the 5th and now the next isn't till Tuesday coming?

Maybe I missed something

Zyro

#212 TheFallOfTheReaper

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Wolf
  • The Wolf
  • 335 posts

Posted 14 September 2017 - 04:02 AM

There's a thread for that already^, their idea of an "event" was the alpha strike sale, just before a nerf hammer/loyalty reveal, which litterally smells like burning wallets :3

#213 Zyrocenus

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Kapten
  • Kapten
  • 65 posts
  • LocationOntario Canada

Posted 14 September 2017 - 04:13 AM

Sry double posts.... net is glitching.... or these forums.... navigation is sketchy at best and posts seem to vanish....but like the last one....then appear

#214 TheFallOfTheReaper

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Wolf
  • The Wolf
  • 335 posts

Posted 14 September 2017 - 04:14 AM

Also I will say some of the later arguments were semi well thought out, however, if they 8v8 solo play only ffs please.

#215 Zyrocenus

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Kapten
  • Kapten
  • 65 posts
  • LocationOntario Canada

Posted 14 September 2017 - 04:16 AM

View PostShadowHimself, on 14 September 2017 - 04:13 AM, said:

Lol reeeeeeee, just delete one or the other or "report" yourself and have a mod do it for you if your lazy



Right thanks. done

#216 Zyrocenus

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Kapten
  • Kapten
  • 65 posts
  • LocationOntario Canada

Posted 14 September 2017 - 04:22 AM

ShadowHimself....

U mention the Alpha strike sale as an event.... I too saw them classify this BS no worth SALE as an EVENT

Weak.....weak sauce

Zyro

Edited by Zyrocenus, 14 September 2017 - 04:23 AM.


#217 SuperFunkTron

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Slayer
  • The Slayer
  • 908 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 14 September 2017 - 05:54 AM

View PostShadowHimself, on 14 September 2017 - 04:14 AM, said:

Also I will say some of the later arguments were semi well thought out, however, if they 8v8 solo play only ffs please.

You know, supporting you statements would go a long way to help remove the "joke" association you've been so ardently building for yourself. I'm still waiting for you to provide some sound reasoning behind your unsupported claims and complaints.

#218 Cherry Garden full of Blue Roses

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The All Seeing
  • The All Seeing
  • 57 posts

Posted 15 September 2017 - 01:19 PM

View PostShadowHimself, on 13 September 2017 - 01:03 PM, said:

Why do people keep referring to 8v8 as an "improvement"?, it's going backwards......which is a downgrade. Improvement would be 16/16, 20/20, 24/24, 28 32 36 and so on


Let me use your own logic to show you how senseless is what you've wrote up here (or: I want to hit yourself with your own logic, but people like you have two ways of thinking: one for them and one for the rest of the world; if you are inteligent only a bit, maybe you will realise, how stupid is what you've wrote):

Improvement would be 10/10, 8/8, 6/6. Downgrade is 12/12, 16/16, 20/20.

Going backwards is a way of wisdom, when you've realised you made a bad decision but you can repair it. Going towards no matter what... that's the way of Hittler's (Stalin's, Mussolini's etc.) thinking.

Edited by Cherry Garden full of Blue Roses, 16 September 2017 - 05:55 AM.


#219 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 4,973 posts

Posted 25 September 2017 - 08:38 AM

Time to show what the new FP event system can do!

#220 MovinTarget

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 10
  • Mercenary Rank 10
  • 3,798 posts
  • LocationGreen Acres

Posted 25 September 2017 - 09:17 AM

View PostShadowHimself, on 13 September 2017 - 01:03 PM, said:

Why do people keep referring to 8v8 as an "improvement"?, it's going backwards......which is a downgrade. Improvement would be 16/16, 20/20, 24/24, 28 32 36 and so on



How is this a downgrade?

Lets go on a trip down memory lane... Were you around when FW first dropped? over the course of a match, many players experienced a degradation of FPS/performance... why? because of all the mech corpses still on the field from previous waves added overhead to the game! They "fixed" this by cleaning up the mech corpses after a certain period of time WHICH MEANS THE GAME WAS NEVER OPTIMIZED TO HANDLE SO MANY MECHS ON THE FIELD (ACTIVE OR DEAD)!

Sooooo increasing the # of mechs on the field not only dilutes the experience and makes herding cats more likely to be herding epileptic quadrapeligic kittens, IT WILL IN ALL LIKELYHOOD RENDER THE GAME UNPLAYABLE FOR EVEN MORE PEOPLE!

...is that an improvement?

So unless you have suggestions that are rational and grounded logic about how to better optimize the code (lol good luck w/ that) for more mechs in play simultaneously, I would suggest living in the real world and not in the realm of faulty expectations that have littered this forumscape for so many years.

Because even if they overcome the technical challenge, the idea of potentially dropping with 35 potatoes instead of just 11 doesn't exactly appeal to guys that want more than just being on the field in big stompy robots.

I would much rather there was an FFA mode for that many players and just throw the idea of teamwork out the window all together...

Edited by MovinTarget, 25 September 2017 - 01:03 PM.






3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users