138 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

Nightbird, on 22 June 2018 - 03:33 PM, said:

Scenarios against bots? Against people the teams will continue to be a problem.

It's an extension of your "dynamic teams" idea.

[MischiefSC]

Honestly there's some uncomfortable truths inherent in a good matchmaker.

We want to believe that "average" is still "alright" and all players who are not high performers are still "average".

That's absolutely not the case. The "average" in MWO is still a very low performer and the right side of the curve is steep. Someone 2hos below average is getting carries the vast majority of the time.

High/low to an average has always been twitchy. It means the bads are always being farmed or carried. One great aspect of the proposed dynamic team size and mech value matching is that you can build teams in clusters more effectively. 16 players above X threshold looking for a match? Great, split them for mech value, not tonnage, into an 8v8 and try to keep player skill ranking/Elo comparable. This builds a better match than giving each team 4 bads to carry and making it About who carries harder. This makes matches more about your skill vs skilled opponents rather than who can farm the other teams bads the fastest.

[Nightbird]

MischiefSC, on 23 June 2018 - 10:21 AM, said:

Honestly there's some uncomfortable truths inherent in a good matchmaker.

We want to believe that "average" is still "alright" and all players who are not high performers are still "average".

Well, I've come to accept that when most people say average, they mean the median, not the mean.

[dalemming]

it will never work most ppl are simply to afraid to do a real push (except some pros like MJ12 or 228) or stand a real brawl. "oh there's a med laser, i need to give up my flank and run". rename that game to cuntwarrior online and the whining will disappear because it matches 85% of the playerbase.

[Nightbird]

https://mwomercs.com...s/page__st__540

28 pages and people still are not asking for balanced matches. That's fine by me, all my clubs have been updated with hyper-hydrophobic coating so I don't have to clean them very often.

[Nightbird]

https://mwomercs.com...less-ded-again/

All that's needed is a real MM and dynamic teams. The rest don't matter if all you want are balanced matches.

[MischiefSC]

Nightbird, on 26 June 2018 - 08:07 AM, said:

https://mwomercs.com...less-ded-again/

All that's needed is a real MM and dynamic teams. The rest don't matter if all you want are balanced matches.

I think asymetric team sizes would be almost impossible to balance with resources currently available but reduced team sizes for 6v6, 8v8 matches to keep skill ranges separate would be excellent. Just a flat % cbill/xp bonus for smaller matches based on % of total reduced enemies.

Also FFS we need an Elo system and some sort of Elo for mechs. Some mech valuation format of some sort accounted for in the MM.

[McGoat]

MischiefSC, on 26 June 2018 - 08:24 AM, said:

Also FFS we need an Elo system and some sort of Elo for mechs. Some mech valuation format of some sort accounted for in the MM.

Impossible with the amount variables for a just one variant. Also, simply because "X" mech is capable of "Z" loadout doesn't mean each player can utilize it well enough to warrant potential placement based off chassis selection.

Instead ELO per class, per player, would be ideal. They already do similar with Solaris with divisional ELO.

[Nightbird]

The difference between almost impossible and easy? Skill ;D

[McGoat]

Nightbird, on 26 June 2018 - 08:38 AM, said:

The difference between almost impossible and easy? Skill ;D

Time is an important variable - these guys are working on MW5, mekpaks, Solaris, FP, MWOWC, and ridiculous balance proposals that do the opposite.

I can see Chris saying anyone using a mech with HLL/ERMED mix is ELO1 - then we get guys with MS HLL HBRs on the forums pouring the salt

[Nightbird]

On the contrary, I think nothing is more imporant to MWO than creating good match making before MW5 is released. MW5 however well received is a single player experience. It'll sell for only the price of one mech pack and will be discounted 75% after one year. There will be one shot of revenue, and an influx of new players into MWO much like Battletech once people finish the 50-100 hours of gameplay.

Those players will leave MWO quickly if MM is as dumb as it is today. This applies to QP SQ, GQ, FP, and Solaris. PGI should be desperate to increase the new player retention rate. The MW5 player influx is a one time opportunity. Weapon balancing is important to us min-maxers, but a few % either way on stats is nowhere as important to the new player experience as match making.

[Mystere]

MischiefSC, on 26 June 2018 - 08:24 AM, said:

I think asymetric team sizes would be almost impossible to balance with resources currently available but reduced team sizes for 6v6, 8v8 matches to keep skill ranges separate would be excellent. Just a flat % cbill/xp bonus for smaller matches based on % of total reduced enemies.

Kill that obsessive and never-ending drive for "balance", kill it with fire (). Instead make it an (almost) "endless war" mode.

Edited by Mystere, 26 June 2018 - 09:35 AM.

[Khobai]

Nightbird, on 26 June 2018 - 09:28 AM, said:

On the contrary, I think nothing is more imporant to MWO than creating good match making before MW5 is released. MW5 however well received is a single player experience. It'll sell for only the price of one mech pack and will be discounted 75% after one year. There will be one shot of revenue, and an influx of new players into MWO much like Battletech once people finish the 50-100 hours of gameplay.

Those players will leave MWO quickly if MM is as dumb as it is today. This applies to QP SQ, GQ, FP, and Solaris. PGI should be desperate to increase the new player retention rate. The MW5 player influx is a one time opportunity. Weapon balancing is important to us min-maxers, but a few % either way on stats is nowhere as important to the new player experience as match making.

the main reason MWO isnt retaining players is because its not a very good game.

its a minimally viable mech combat game. And people want more than minimum viability.

lack of a functional matchmaker is certainly a problem. But I wouldnt say its the #1 problem.

#1 problem with this game is its gamemodes and maps. they lack polish, depth, replayability, fun, and immersion.

Edited by Khobai, 26 June 2018 - 09:40 AM.

[Nightbird]

Mystere, on 26 June 2018 - 09:33 AM, said:

Kill that obsessive and never-ending drive for "balance", kill it with fire (). Instead make it an (almost) "endless war" mode.

Whaaaaaaaaa? Ending dropship farming? I'm in!

[McGoat]

Nightbird, on 26 June 2018 - 09:28 AM, said:

On the contrary, I think nothing is more imporant to MWO than creating good match making before MW5 is released. MW5 however well received is a single player experience. It'll sell for only the price of one mech pack and will be discounted 75% after one year. There will be one shot of revenue, and an influx of new players into MWO much like Battletech once people finish the 50-100 hours of gameplay.

Those players will leave MWO quickly if MM is as dumb as it is today. This applies to QP SQ, GQ, FP, and Solaris. PGI should be desperate to increase the new player retention rate. The MW5 player influx is a one time opportunity. Weapon balancing is important to us min-maxers, but a few % either way on stats is nowhere as important to the new player experience as match making.

I agree with you, I wasn't being serious

What they chose to spend time on I will likely never agree with.

Solaris took how much time and resources to create, just for it to be dead before it reached 60 day life? How much of that should have been diverted to current mechanics? (Probably all of it)

[Mystere]

Khobai, on 26 June 2018 - 09:36 AM, said:

the main reason MWO isnt retaining players is because its not a very good game.

its a minimally viable mech combat game. And people want more than minimum viability.

lack of a functional matchmaker is certainly a problem. But I wouldnt say its the #1 problem.

#1 problem with this game is its gamemodes and maps. they lack polish, depth, replayability, fun, and immersion.

Then stop helping on the minimally viable front.

It's just rear-guard action trying to preserve a dying game.

Edited by Mystere, 26 June 2018 - 09:43 AM.

[Khobai]

thats not making the game more minimally viable, its making it more friendly for new players

the new player experience for this game is crap

the way I see it competitive groups should not be in group queue. group queue should be for more casual groups. while competitive groups should be in competitive mode and faction play. those gamemodes exist specifically for units and competitive players. while group queue should be more for casual players that just wanna play with 1-2 friends.

I think it makes a lot of sense to change group queue to make it more accessible for casual groups. And im not gonna change my opinion on that. Or dinosaurs.

Edited by Khobai, 26 June 2018 - 09:47 AM.

[Nightbird]

Khobai, on 26 June 2018 - 09:43 AM, said:

thats not making the game more minimally viable, its making it more friendly for new players

the new player experience for this game is crap

the way I see it competitive groups should not be in group queue. group queue should be for more casual groups. while competitive groups should be in competitive mode and faction play.

This idea improves the new player experience, that idea makes it worse.

[Khobai]

how does allowing new players to not play with friends without getting stomped by vets improve the new player experience?

that makes no sense. you are wrong.


new players should not be put into the same game as experienced vets just because they choose to play with a friend or two.

there is something clearly wrong with that. it absolutely contributes to MWO's poor player retention rates. And it very obviously needs to be changed.


and what youre all forgetting is that a matchmaker only works if you have a high enough player population that you can consistently match groups against similar sized groups of equal skill. MWO doesnt have that. there is no way to fix the matchmaker in GQ as long as we have low pop issues. matchmaker as a solution is off the table in GQ.

Which is why I think it makes the most sense to open GQ upto to more casual groups. And make competitive play and faction play the gamemodes for more experienced players. then theres a gamemode for everyone and the game might retain more players by allowing new players to play with friends without getting stomped.

Edited by Khobai, 26 June 2018 - 10:02 AM.

[Nightbird]

Khobai, on 26 June 2018 - 09:43 AM, said:

thats not making the game more minimally viable, its making it more I think it makes a lot of sense to change group queue to make it more accessible for casual groups. And im not gonna change my opinion on that. Or dinosaurs.

So it doesn't make sense to you that the MM should treat a group with two of you different from two EMP members? Today, you are treated equal to EMP by the MM, congratz, you're as good as EMP.