575 replies to this topic

[Black Lanner]

@Carl Tabot, Ah, your point is much clearer now. I take back my comment.

[Questar]

McGoat, on 01 December 2017 - 08:41 PM, said:

Stats...

Agreed, still waiting for the promised information.

[Tarl Cabot]

Black Lanner, on 02 December 2017 - 01:19 PM, said:

@Carl Tabot, Ah, your point is much clearer now. I take back my comment.

(nods)

And, with that missing gray area for a possible tie to hold off the invader, even if it was temporary, what reason would the current losing side have to actually show up if the bar is all the way on one side, especially after an active merc unit gone loyalist deserts and goes loyalist for the other faction?

Many had assumed that Battle of Luthien would have been treated like the previous Tukayyid events. But Tukayyid, even in lore was not about total domination, it was about Comstar preventing the seven represented Clans from taking two [color=#000000]assigned objective cities. [/color] ilKhan of the Clans conceded victory to ComStar. Of the Clans, only the Wolves had successfully gained control of both target cities, with the Ghost Bears earning a marginal victory for holding Spanac but failing to take Luk, and the Jade Falcons achieving a draw based on inflicting far greater losses than they took. So of 14 target cities, only 3 were taken while CJF vs Comstar was considered a tie with heavy loses on both sides.

Again, stressing that Capitols planets should not treated like proxies like Tukayyid, nor should each drop count as 3.33%. If PGI believes 1% is too extreme then try 2% (50 battles each side) while setting actual Victory Condition to 82% (41 out of 50) instead of the default 92.4% (28 out of 30). But setting it to 3.3% (1 out of 30) is plain wrong for a Capitol Planet (Clan or IS).

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 02 December 2017 - 03:44 PM.

[Black Lanner]

just to lighten things a bit...

[NocturnalBeast]

I would like to see what percentage of the Clan players were loyalists, because you can't really call it a "Clan" win if most of the players on the Clan side are mercs.

[D V Devnull]

Ed Steele, on 02 December 2017 - 06:04 PM, said:

I would like to see what percentage of the Clan players were loyalists, because you can't really call it a "Clan" win if most of the players on the Clan side are mercs.

I'm putting a 'Like' on that post of yours... I would also like to see some stats on this last chunk of madness.

---

@ MAIN TOPIC ----

Now, with that said, and very much not linked to the post I was quoting above, I've been reading over the last few posts and catching up. I'm going to boil my thoughts down to a few Bullet Points, and I'm going to try to avoid going Wall-Of-Text...

• The choices of Win Count to take Victory so far have sucked. I do agree with this.
  
• I disagree, however, with the Community's choice of where the Capture Threshold should be. We should keep the 30-win limit @ 3.33% each. But, we should require that there is a lead of 10 wins (or 33.3%) in the lead in order to take Victory over the opposition. Ties should be unlikely, but still possible. I might even be a little too wide with a choice of 10 wins. Perhaps 8 wins of lead would be a little better set... I dunno.
  
• Requiring such a high Cumulative Match Score (near 7500... really?!?!?) in combination with a mode limitation (Invasion) and number of matches (Ugh... 45? Whoa...) is way too much. That WILL drive people away from even trying, given the current climate of the game. More to be read about this down below...
  
• PGI needs to fix the Match Score system in Invasion. You should NOT lose any match score until your Final Drop Deck Mech is dead, and even then, you should only lose 10% at most after all the performance put in. Of course, I'm assuming people are trying to put in their best efforts. But this would end people being able to easily 'game' the Match Score by making their team into 'cannon fodder'.

...and I'm going to split that 3rd Item's (Match Score/Mode/Match Count) bits into Bullet Points below...

• We've already had people enraged over trying to mix Requirements so heavily, and the 'salt' has been too real.
  
• Match Queue Times are way too high right now in CW/FW/FP, so if you forcibly combine in this level of Requirements, you turn a Challenge into pure luck to complete. That ruins a Challenge, and makes it more easy to just go QP and rack up the (C-Bills) to get what the player who gave up wants, or 'earn'/'pay for' (MC) to get to their goals. I'm certain we don't want the situation turning into this.
  
• A better balance would be down around 4000 to 5000 Match Score, because not everyone is very skilled. This, of course, assumes PGI's inability to fix the Match Scoring. Otherwise that number of near 7500 would have been more reasonable. Not everyone has the time to grind like insane lemmings.
  
• If a Mode like "Invasion" has to be needed, requiring such a high number of games will not work due to Match Queue Times. We can maybe get away with a minimum limit of around 10 to 15 games over a 4-Day Period before it's too much, as not all people have lots of time to spare.
  
• Just to re-iterate... NOT EVERYONE HAS TIME TO GRIND AND 'NO-LIFE' CHALLENGES... Please trust me understanding that some of you want things royally hardcore. However, if you want the game to be inviting to new players, and if you want the game to grow so that Queue Times are NOT so high, then you absolutely must avoid setting the bar too high. People avoid sticking around if they find the entry curve to be the equivalent of the highest mountains on Terra.
  
• Pulling from Point #4 in the Upper Set, we need to put some pressure on PGI about the deductions from Match Score in regard to Death during a 'Drop Deck'-enabled CW/FW/FP Match. Taking so much away when you've been giving it your best is both tiresome and mind-breaking, and it repels people from continuing to even think of trying to battle on. Sane people without all the time in the world will think...
  
  "They've set the bar this high, but then they're taking away half my earned work towards a challenge because I was killed out of all four of my Mechs, regardless of the circumstances? I give up!"
  
  ...and then they'll walk away. There should be no tolerance for an injustice like this, and it's time to make PGI understand that.

...and with all of this above said, I'm seeing I couldn't avoid being a Wall-Of-Text matter anyway. At least I boiled it down as simply as I could. Hopefully, you've all enjoyed the read of thoughts? I've been trying to consider the matter from all sides, including that of the Casual-type (and Newbie) Players who seem to sometimes get ignored.


~Mr. D. V. "So much crossfire... I think I've got a headache needing a warm, non-scalding heat sink with cushioning." Devnull

[MovinTarget]

D V, yes, not everyone has the time, but having one single challenge that is shouldn't be a crime. There are people that do have the time and want challenging goals. Who says every reward has to be achievable by everyone regardless of circumstance? That is what people are crying for. Everyone has a reason why they couldn't grind out those 250s. Most are different reason so that means PGI has to addtess every single user's predicament? That doesn't seem realistic because we know someone out there will come up with new reasons to complain afyer PGI has addressed this round.

So lets just stop assuming we deserve anything unless we paid for it. And "paying in time" by playing the game doesn't count b/c if you are not having fun you are doing it wrong.

[Brauer]

MovinTarget, on 03 December 2017 - 10:40 AM, said:

D V, yes, not everyone has the time, but having one single challenge that is shouldn't be a crime. There are people that do have the time and want challenging goals. Who says every reward has to be achievable by everyone regardless of circumstance? That is what people are crying for. Everyone has a reason why they couldn't grind out those 250s. Most are different reason so that means PGI has to addtess every single user's predicament? That doesn't seem realistic because we know someone out there will come up with new reasons to complain afyer PGI has addressed this round.

So lets just stop assuming we deserve anything unless we paid for it. And "paying in time" by playing the game doesn't count b/c if you are not having fun you are doing it wrong.

I agrer that the 250 score challenge is fine. I got about half of what I needed in scouting while securing my c-bill challenges. Unfortunately a hard drive failure and wifi problems prevented me from securing the last few for the Night Gyr. That's fine with me, it is disappointing, but if I had played better I would have gotten it. Expecting to meet all challenges is a bit much, I have a work trip later and will miss a day or two of free mc, but it happens.

[Groutknoll]

D V Devnull, on 03 December 2017 - 10:17 AM, said:

Requiring such a high Cumulative Match Score (near 7500... really?!?!?) in combination with a mode limitation (Invasion) and number of matches (Ugh... 45? Whoa...) is way too much. That WILL drive people away from even trying, given the current climate of the game. More to be read about this down below...

A better balance would be down around 4000 to 5000 Match Score, because not everyone is very skilled. This, of course, assumes PGI's inability to fix the Match Scoring. Otherwise that number of near 7500 would have been more reasonable. Not everyone has the time to grind like insane lemmings.

If a Mode like "Invasion" has to be needed, requiring such a high number of games will not work due to Match Queue Times. We can maybe get away with a minimum limit of around 10 to 15 games over a 4-Day Period before it's too much, as not all people have lots of time to spare.

Hey Dev, i was suggesting a cumulative match score so that all matches played would count, not just the matches that were >250. for me it seemed to be 50/50 chance of getting the 250. did some thinking and came up with that formula that could be adjusted to be better. it gives the better players the cumulative score fast but still need to do the min amount of drops, it also gives everyone else a chance to grind out the award.

yes, my number are outrageous, but i assumed worst case match score and chance of getting the 250 match score. a lot depends on the chance to get the match score for the cumulative score. PGI should have the average and mean invasion match score data and can adjust how easy or difficult a match score event could be.

[William Slayer]

Black Lanner, on 02 December 2017 - 11:37 AM, said:

@William Slayer, the Clans held Luthien for nearly the entirety of that event, and we lost, so we took the lessons learned and applied it to this event. It was a portion of why R79T did so well.

I will reiterate my suggestion on improving event resolution:

So, I as an individual have a suggestion on how it should have gone. PGI, it is my opinion that you should have set a point at which something akin to "Overtime" started. Given at time of, say 4 hours in which, if there isn't already a winner, each side has this time to push the bar. To incentivize everyone to play throughout the event, set up a bonus for whichever side has held the strongest lead throughout the event, to the tug of war bar.

Yes, I agree that your strategy was completely valid considering the lessons PGI had taught you during the Luthien event.

If my unit had been smart we would have told everyone to not bother showing up until the last day, so that our players were mentally fresh, and ready to put in 6 to 7 hours of continuous play to insure victory. Instead, we played each and every day, winning victories that although we made C-Bills and had fun, cost us the larger goal of hanging onto Tharkad.

Our suggestion on how to conduct the next event such as this:

Line up a series of planets from both sides. One of these planets can be "taken" at the end of each day of the event by the side that comes away with the most victories for that day. The final day of the event can be fought for control of a major world (such as Tharkad), with the same victory conditions. This slight addition to the current way the event is run would inject much more significant meaning to the all the days preceding the final day of the event, allowing players who cannot participate on the final day to feel like their efforts garnered SOMETHING for their side of the conflict.

In the case of the Jade Falcon / Steiner event that just happened, several worlds currently held by Jade Falcon would have been given to House Steiner (one for each day that Steiner pegged the marker to the wall), and Tharkad would then still be given to Clan Jade Falcon because they won the majority of battles on the final day of the event.

Running the event this way CAN turn the event into a "win win" so that both sides can point to the worlds they took and show how their effort / participation made a contribution.

[Questar]

Matt Newman, on 28 November 2017 - 10:06 AM, said:

Luthien Faction Battle played out as it was designed (however poorly) and the end result will not be altered
Lesson learned I attempted to make it impossible to have a tie.
By attempting to make it impossible for it to tie I set the Win threshold to 0.
By setting it to Zero the code interpreted it as "set to Default Values".
The event played out but not as it was designed so it has been corrected after the fact.

Here are all the Faction Play events we have had since the events system was added in the game and the results of each event.



Interesting side note.The reason people were unable to claim the victory prize is I didn't create a defeat prize.
Yet another lesson learned.

I just wanted to point out that I am making changes to these events and trying to right by you guys.

Some positives from this event as I see it:

• Mechs were not behind the victory conditions.
  
• Time investment was challenging but very achievable.
  
• Ended event during peak hours on Sunday.
  
• 250 min match score did get more people in the Invasion Que except those that wanted to try and get 250 in scouting (you know who you are.)

Listen, I am as frustrated as you guys but I'm going to get up and dust myself off and make the best events I can with what I have. We will have a bunch of really cool events coming in December and armed with the knowledge of what happened with these 2 events I am more confident than ever.



Finally, you can count on one thing if something is ****** up I will own up to it and tell you the truth of what and why.

I'll look into the progress of the rewards.
Matt.

Over a week after the event, still waiting for the event numbers. I understand everyone is busy with MechCon, but this is needed for full disclosure.

[MovinTarget]

William Slayer, on 03 December 2017 - 10:12 PM, said:

Line up a series of planets from both sides. One of these planets can be "taken" at the end of each day of the event by the side that comes away with the most victories for that day. The final day of the event can be fought for control of a major world (such as Tharkad), with the same victory conditions. This slight addition to the current way the event is run would inject much more significant meaning to the all the days preceding the final day of the event, allowing players who cannot participate on the final day to feel like their efforts garnered SOMETHING for their side of the conflict.

In the case of the Jade Falcon / Steiner event that just happened, several worlds currently held by Jade Falcon would have been given to House Steiner (one for each day that Steiner pegged the marker to the wall), and Tharkad would then still be given to Clan Jade Falcon because they won the majority of battles on the final day of the event.

Running the event this way CAN turn the event into a "win win" so that both sides can point to the worlds they took and show how their effort / participation made a contribution.

I would to see them staggered a bit so that each "prime time" has a chance to be the lynchpin for a world or two. As it stands, it would basically always hinge on the same end time for each planet...

[Fox the Apprentice]

Questar, on 04 December 2017 - 05:38 AM, said:

Over a week after the event, still waiting for the event numbers. I understand everyone is busy with MechCon, but this is needed for full disclosure.

They aren't obligated to give us numbers. They've only done that for ~2 events, if I recall.

Numbers would be nice, though.

[D V Devnull]

I'm just going to concentrate on a couple of things here real quick...

---

MovinTarget, on 03 December 2017 - 10:40 AM, said:

D V, yes, not everyone has the time, but having one single challenge that is shouldn't be a crime. There are people that do have the time and want challenging goals. Who says every reward has to be achievable by everyone regardless of circumstance? That is what people are crying for. Everyone has a reason why they couldn't grind out those 250s. Most are different reason so that means PGI has to addtess every single user's predicament? That doesn't seem realistic because we know someone out there will come up with new reasons to complain afyer PGI has addressed this round.

So lets just stop assuming we deserve anything unless we paid for it. And "paying in time" by playing the game doesn't count b/c if you are not having fun you are doing it wrong.

Hi there, MovinTarget... You must have missed some of my other posts on the MWO Forums. I am one of those who NEVER goes around here with a so-called "Sense of Entitlement", because I very much understand PGI could go cold at any time and not do Events anymore. I'm actually rather thankful that PGI does indeed do these Events, and gives enjoyable stuff for completing parts of them.

That said, I was NOT saying by any means that these Challenges should all be "quick, easy, 5-minute things" either. I was simply saying that PGI should avoid setting them up so unreasonably as to actively require any of the following four things...

• No-Lifeing (i.e.: to such point that one would ignore Job/Spouse)
  
• Overkill Grind (i.e.: to such point of going mentally insane)
  
• Extreme Luck (i.e.: to such point that your efforts were not what actually mattered in finishing the Challenge)
  
• Ignorance of Health Issues (i.e.: to such point that one let their body get medically damaged, such that visiting a Doctor was needed)

...in order to have any chance of finishing even the toughest Challenges. I personally don't mind the bar being high, just as long as it doesn't fall afoul of those four "Critical Criteria Indicating Poor Design". When it does exceed those, that's where I start taking issue with the matter. Even if a Challenge is tough, I also don't want a newer player taking one look and giving up on everything before they start. That would just hurt queue times, decreasing the number of matches actually getting played, which then hurts everyone wanting a Challenge to take on. I want them to take a look, and still feel enticed to try, even if it's way on the upper edge, such that one major Real Life issue could block them from finishing. I think we can agree that nobody needs the wait times to be extremely high due to people giving up and turning their collective backs?



As for this...

Groutknoll, on 03 December 2017 - 04:49 PM, said:

Hey Dev, i was suggesting a cumulative match score so that all matches played would count, not just the matches that were >250. for me it seemed to be 50/50 chance of getting the 250. did some thinking and came up with that formula that could be adjusted to be better. it gives the better players the cumulative score fast but still need to do the min amount of drops, it also gives everyone else a chance to grind out the award.

yes, my number are outrageous, but i assumed worst case match score and chance of getting the 250 match score. a lot depends on the chance to get the match score for the cumulative score. PGI should have the average and mean invasion match score data and can adjust how easy or difficult a match score event could be.

Hey there, Groutknoll! I somewhat agree with your idea of Cumulative Match Score, linked with a minimum number of matches. And yes, I get that we're trying to have ALL Matches count, not just ones that reach a certain Match Score for being determined as "Qualifying". However, what made it fall apart in my mind (and set me off... sorry) was the cross-linkage with restricting to a single Queue Type, combined with setting an over-high line to reach. Yes, we do need people to fill the Queues and keep on playing, but we need to be careful in what thoughts we provide to PGI. If they set Challenges up in the "Worst Case Scenario" range, we'll have exactly the problem that I was stating to MovinTarget up above. Just to give some math/numbers that shows my thoughts...

15 Matches * 250 Score Each = 3750 Total
3750 Match Score * ~1.33 Maximum Safe Multiplier = 5000 Maximum Safe Total
15 Matches * ~1.33 Maximum Safe Multiplier = 20 Max. Safe Equiv. Matches
(IF there was a Per-Match Requirement, which there obviously should not be...)
Wanted Luck Factor versus Effort Required = 0% to 1.5% (Skills should matter, right?)

...because if PGI tried to put more than an extra 33% on the threshold for Cumulative Match Score, as well as tried to lock things to just a single Queue Type in CW/FW/FP, then newer players will tend more often to just give up than to make an effort and actually try. That would result in the Queues being empty, Wait Times being high, and a whole lot of people getting nothing in the end. Of course, all my math above assumes that newer players, as well as seasoned Casual-type players, will only hit a Match Score of 250 about 33% of the time. With the number of '5000 Cumulative Match Score' that I'm proposing, players could also still switch back and forth between Scouting and Invasion, but still have to keep the Queues loaded for a reasonable duration. PGI has to be able to keep everyone enticed, or things get terrible for the ones who still stayed and played. As it stood, needing 250 MS for 15 Matches, with only 4 days to get in there, was pushing the edge of going into being unreasonable. Unknown to some, I had to miss this Capital Planet Battle Event due to Thanksgiving, as have I also missed a Sale or two that happened recently. I'm just trying to make sure that it doesn't land up that Challenges become "Overkill Exclusive" in future Events where I can participate, because when that happens, then the Queues get rather unwantedly empty and slow. This causes everyone's chances of finishing (not just my own), to decrease based on the Active Player Count, which runs the Luck Factor up to undesired levels for everyone... including PGI.

On top of this, I (and I'm sure many others) also don't want to find the "Clubbed Seal Effect" happening, due to Veteran/Experienced Players running 'whole hog' over the rest of the community. If the bar is way too high, those types make sure to find some way to play that hurts everyone else. Neither PGI, nor the Newbie/Casual-Class players, need this happening. At least, I think we can agree on that?

---

Now that I've gone totally 'Wall-Of-Text' again, I'm going to go double-check something. Then, hopefully, I'll go add myself to the population in the Queues. Enjoy the read, Everyone.

~Mr. D. V. "My 'mental tilt' is that of trying to keep MWO from collapsing due to lack of players... NOT 'Entitlement'!" Devnull





(p.s.: I know I haven't covered anything involving "Battle Segmentation" and the timing with that. Frankly, I don't think I could provide a good idea of how to split it properly.)

[Geewiz 27]

D V Devnull, on 04 December 2017 - 12:59 PM, said:

I'm just going to concentrate on a couple of things here real quick...

---

Hi there, MovinTarget... You must have missed some of my other posts on the MWO Forums. I am one of those who NEVER goes around here with a so-called "Sense of Entitlement", because I very much understand PGI could go cold at any time and not do Events anymore. I'm actually rather thankful that PGI does indeed do these Events, and gives enjoyable stuff for completing parts of them.

That said, I was NOT saying by any means that these Challenges should all be "quick, easy, 5-minute things" either. I was simply saying that PGI should avoid setting them up so unreasonably as to actively require any of the following four things...

• No-Lifeing (i.e.: to such point that one would ignore Job/Spouse)
  
• Overkill Grind (i.e.: to such point of going mentally insane)
  
• Extreme Luck (i.e.: to such point that your efforts were not what actually mattered in finishing the Challenge)
  
• Ignorance of Health Issues (i.e.: to such point that one let their body get medically damaged, such that visiting a Doctor was needed)

...in order to have any chance of finishing even the toughest Challenges. I personally don't mind the bar being high, just as long as it doesn't fall afoul of those four "Critical Criteria Indicating Poor Design". When it does exceed those, that's where I start taking issue with the matter. Even if a Challenge is tough, I also don't want a newer player taking one look and giving up on everything before they start. That would just hurt queue times, decreasing the number of matches actually getting played, which then hurts everyone wanting a Challenge to take on. I want them to take a look, and still feel enticed to try, even if it's way on the upper edge, such that one major Real Life issue could block them from finishing. I think we can agree that nobody needs the wait times to be extremely high due to people giving up and turning their collective backs?




As for this...

Hey there, Groutknoll! I somewhat agree with your idea of Cumulative Match Score, linked with a minimum number of matches. And yes, I get that we're trying to have ALL Matches count, not just ones that reach a certain Match Score for being determined as "Qualifying". However, what made it fall apart in my mind (and set me off... sorry) was the cross-linkage with restricting to a single Queue Type, combined with setting an over-high line to reach. Yes, we do need people to fill the Queues and keep on playing, but we need to be careful in what thoughts we provide to PGI. If they set Challenges up in the "Worst Case Scenario" range, we'll have exactly the problem that I was stating to MovinTarget up above. Just to give some math/numbers that shows my thoughts...

15 Matches * 250 Score Each = 3750 Total
3750 Match Score * ~1.33 Maximum Safe Multiplier = 5000 Maximum Safe Total
15 Matches * ~1.33 Maximum Safe Multiplier = 20 Max. Safe Equiv. Matches
(IF there was a Per-Match Requirement, which there obviously should not be...)
Wanted Luck Factor versus Effort Required = 0% to 1.5% (Skills should matter, right?)

...because if PGI tried to put more than an extra 33% on the threshold for Cumulative Match Score, as well as tried to lock things to just a single Queue Type in CW/FW/FP, then newer players will tend more often to just give up than to make an effort and actually try. That would result in the Queues being empty, Wait Times being high, and a whole lot of people getting nothing in the end. Of course, all my math above assumes that newer players, as well as seasoned Casual-type players, will only hit a Match Score of 250 about 33% of the time. With the number of '5000 Cumulative Match Score' that I'm proposing, players could also still switch back and forth between Scouting and Invasion, but still have to keep the Queues loaded for a reasonable duration. PGI has to be able to keep everyone enticed, or things get terrible for the ones who still stayed and played. As it stood, needing 250 MS for 15 Matches, with only 4 days to get in there, was pushing the edge of going into being unreasonable. Unknown to some, I had to miss this Capital Planet Battle Event due to Thanksgiving, as have I also missed a Sale or two that happened recently. I'm just trying to make sure that it doesn't land up that Challenges become "Overkill Exclusive" in future Events where I can participate, because when that happens, then the Queues get rather unwantedly empty and slow. This causes everyone's chances of finishing (not just my own), to decrease based on the Active Player Count, which runs the Luck Factor up to undesired levels for everyone... including PGI.

On top of this, I (and I'm sure many others) also don't want to find the "Clubbed Seal Effect" happening, due to Veteran/Experienced Players running 'whole hog' over the rest of the community. If the bar is way too high, those types make sure to find some way to play that hurts everyone else. Neither PGI, nor the Newbie/Casual-Class players, need this happening. At least, I think we can agree on that?

---

Now that I've gone totally 'Wall-Of-Text' again, I'm going to go double-check something. Then, hopefully, I'll go add myself to the population in the Queues. Enjoy the read, Everyone.

~Mr. D. V. "My 'mental tilt' is that of trying to keep MWO from collapsing due to lack of players... NOT 'Entitlement'!" Devnull





(p.s.: I know I haven't covered anything involving "Battle Segmentation" and the timing with that. Frankly, I don't think I could provide a good idea of how to split it properly.)

Hi D V Devnull I'm having trouble seeing your problem with the Tharkad event I've only been playing MWO for 8 months and I've taken part in all events in that time. From a relatively new players perspective it was the best experience I've had to date. The cue times were almost non-existent which was refreshing considering what they are normally like. In one session alone we had 10 FW invasion insta drops in a row! And my personal experience was the cue's for invasion throughout the entire event was massively improved. The 250 match score I believe was the reason for the increase in player numbers throughout the event because it was harder to achieve people stayed on longer. Also maid it harder to farm scouting like the majority of pilots did in the Luthien event. I would actualy like to see PGI have separate rewards for Scouting and Invasion altogether and have the premium rewards for invasion only. P.s. just my opinion.

[McGoat]

Stats, please

[Black Lanner]

As for the events, I did not meet the 250 requirements because of RL, and it doesn't bother me. This is a game that I enjoy from a franchise that I love. I am glad there were a variety of events, even ones that I could not achieve.

[Groutknoll]

D V Devnull, on 04 December 2017 - 12:59 PM, said:

Hey there, Groutknoll! I somewhat agree with your idea of Cumulative Match Score, linked with a minimum number of matches. And yes, I get that we're trying to have ALL Matches count, not just ones that reach a certain Match Score for being determined as "Qualifying". However, what made it fall apart in my mind (and set me off... sorry) was the cross-linkage with restricting to a single Queue Type, combined with setting an over-high line to reach. Yes, we do need people to fill the Queues and keep on playing, but we need to be careful in what thoughts we provide to PGI. If they set Challenges up in the "Worst Case Scenario" range, we'll have exactly the problem that I was stating to MovinTarget up above. Just to give some math/numbers that shows my thoughts...

15 Matches * 250 Score Each = 3750 Total
3750 Match Score * ~1.33 Maximum Safe Multiplier = 5000 Maximum Safe Total
15 Matches * ~1.33 Maximum Safe Multiplier = 20 Max. Safe Equiv. Matches
(IF there was a Per-Match Requirement, which there obviously should not be...)
Wanted Luck Factor versus Effort Required = 0% to 1.5% (Skills should matter, right?)

...because if PGI tried to put more than an extra 33% on the threshold for Cumulative Match Score, as well as tried to lock things to just a single Queue Type in CW/FW/FP, then newer players will tend more often to just give up than to make an effort and actually try. That would result in the Queues being empty, Wait Times being high, and a whole lot of people getting nothing in the end. Of course, all my math above assumes that newer players, as well as seasoned Casual-type players, will only hit a Match Score of 250 about 33% of the time. With the number of '5000 Cumulative Match Score' that I'm proposing, players could also still switch back and forth between Scouting and Invasion, but still have to keep the Queues loaded for a reasonable duration. PGI has to be able to keep everyone enticed, or things get terrible for the ones who still stayed and played. As it stood, needing 250 MS for 15 Matches, with only 4 days to get in there, was pushing the edge of going into being unreasonable. Unknown to some, I had to miss this Capital Planet Battle Event due to Thanksgiving, as have I also missed a Sale or two that happened recently. I'm just trying to make sure that it doesn't land up that Challenges become "Overkill Exclusive" in future Events where I can participate, because when that happens, then the Queues get rather unwantedly empty and slow. This causes everyone's chances of finishing (not just my own), to decrease based on the Active Player Count, which runs the Luck Factor up to undesired levels for everyone... including PGI.

On top of this, I (and I'm sure many others) also don't want to find the "Clubbed Seal Effect" happening, due to Veteran/Experienced Players running 'whole hog' over the rest of the community. If the bar is way too high, those types make sure to find some way to play that hurts everyone else. Neither PGI, nor the Newbie/Casual-Class players, need this happening. At least, I think we can agree on that?

ah, so you were getting 250 match 33% of your drops. make even more sense ... ok, how about adding number of days for the event check?
cumulative score = (# matches * match score) + (((# matches / % of making match score) - # matches ) * (match score - 1))
number of event days = cumulative score / (median FP match score * median number of daily player FP drops)

so for you Dev,
(15*250) + (((15/.33)-15)*(250-1)=11,333 cumulative match(rounded) !!!!
ok, now some assumptions ( yeah, i know *** out u and me )
median player FP match = 100, median number of daily FP drops = 2 (this is out of all active players, should be higher if active FP players)
11,333/(100*2)= 56.665 days ... or 113 FP drops. really not possible and this is where a lot of anger comes from

Just wanting to give Matt ideas on how to tweak events. prevent hiding for match score, better players can finish quick, others have a chance to grind and a option to have event connected to a FP mode (scout or invasion)

[D V Devnull]

Geewiz 27, on 04 December 2017 - 03:52 PM, said:

Hi D V Devnull I'm having trouble seeing your problem with the Tharkad event I've only been playing MWO for 8 months and I've taken part in all events in that time. From a relatively new players perspective it was the best experience I've had to date. The cue times were almost non-existent which was refreshing considering what they are normally like. In one session alone we had 10 FW invasion insta drops in a row! And my personal experience was the cue's for invasion throughout the entire event was massively improved. The 250 match score I believe was the reason for the increase in player numbers throughout the event because it was harder to achieve people stayed on longer. Also maid it harder to farm scouting like the majority of pilots did in the Luthien event. I would actualy like to see PGI have separate rewards for Scouting and Invasion altogether and have the premium rewards for invasion only. P.s. just my opinion.

Eh... Your displayed Join Date only indicates about 5 Months. I hope you're not just someone using an Alt. Account...

Anywho, if you're serious about being completely new, then you've had staggeringly far better mileage than myself in your first 5 Months. My first 6 Months was loaded full of hell. The next 6 weren't so great either, but better than the first 6 Months happened to be. Unfortunately, more often than not, the reason my experience has suffered is because MWO's Match Setup Systems seem bent on putting me with people who are unwilling to communicate, and Event situations that keep conflicting with Real Life badly enough to constantly keep me having to watch out for those who could end up in the same bad boat as myself.

Groutknoll, on 04 December 2017 - 09:26 PM, said:

ah, so you were getting 250 match 33% of your drops. make even more sense ... ok, how about adding number of days for the event check?
cumulative score = (# matches * match score) + (((# matches / % of making match score) - # matches ) * (match score - 1))
number of event days = cumulative score / (median FP match score * median number of daily player FP drops)

so for you Dev,
(15*250) + (((15/.33)-15)*(250-1)=11,333 cumulative match(rounded) !!!!
ok, now some assumptions ( yeah, i know *** out u and me )
median player FP match = 100, median number of daily FP drops = 2 (this is out of all active players, should be higher if active FP players)
11,333/(100*2)= 56.665 days ... or 113 FP drops. really not possible and this is where a lot of anger comes from

Just wanting to give Matt ideas on how to tweak events. prevent hiding for match score, better players can finish quick, others have a chance to grind and a option to have event connected to a FP mode (scout or invasion)

I think you may have put a Decimal Point in the wrong place there? Or perhaps chosen a wrong Operator to sequence through? As it stands, I didn't get to compete during Thanksgiving, but if I had to put up with a line to reach like that, then I would never succeed.



~Mr. D. V. "I start to think this Universe is targeting me for bad days... my mileage must be consistently worse than others." Devnull





[Edit by Post Author for a missed piece of a thought...]

Edited by D V Devnull, 05 December 2017 - 12:52 PM.

[StormDll]

Ну и что там со статистикой уже? Сколько ее ждать от пираний?