864 replies to this topic

[Gwahlur]

Cloves, on 24 June 2018 - 10:04 PM, said:

if they had a way of making sure none of the tier fives where smurfs, I might entertain this, even though you are ruining the NPE for the other 22 guys, but we don't. I also have a really hard time imagining two authentic tier five players playing together. If you are bringing a friend into this game, you are no longer tier five, and you probably created a smurf account just to evade this restriction.

I had just started playing, and tried to make a friend start playing with me. Both tier 5's, i had maybe a week under my belt before I got him to log in as well. So I don't have a hard time imagining that.

You should have a check on match scores, if over so and so high match scores for 3 games while in 2man, lose access to 2manning. That way, you weed out people making alt accounts to sealclub, or the guy on the alt account has to intentionally potato to keep 2manning

[Wil McCullough]

Cloves, on 24 June 2018 - 09:55 PM, said:

I am all about them getting rid of tonnage limits in QP. As long as it's balanced across teams, it should be the wild west. 12 assaults vs 12 assaults is fine with me. There will never be weight viability balance till they stop artificially throttling the population. In the current meta, if you reach a certain level of play, it's assaults over everything, barely kept in check with lights that get paid 1/2 what the assaults do. I feel the game would be improved if every weight was an equally valid choice, and I feel it's hard to justify most mediums these days, they are just too far behind the curve.

It will never happen because the community demands this imbalance. Just look at the amount if whining on the forums by bad assaults. "Lights are op! They're supposed to only have the role of scouting and support!"

"Lights have to protect the assaults from other lights!"

Mm will never be solved until balance is solved. And balance will never be solved as long as the community demands imbalance.

How imbalanced do they want it to be? Well. Some lights (35t and up) are the size of mediums (viper/cicada), have less agility than a heavy (linebacker) and some even go the same speed (or slower) as assaults (cougar vs max engine battlemaster). And bad players still want them nerfed harder.

Pgi balances to the lowest denominator and it's a major reason why i stopped playing. Because bads will always be bad and bads want to keep everyone else from having a fair game.

Just like the bads in this thread are trying to do.

[S O L A I S]

Cloves, on 24 June 2018 - 09:55 PM, said:

I am all about them getting rid of tonnage limits in QP. As long as it's balanced across teams, it should be the wild west. 12 assaults vs 12 assaults is fine with me. There will never be weight viability balance till they stop artificially throttling the population. In the current meta, if you reach a certain level of play, it's assaults over everything, barely kept in check with lights that get paid 1/2 what the assaults do. I feel the game would be improved if every weight was an equally valid choice, and I feel it's hard to justify most mediums these days, they are just too far behind the curve.

That's just your perspective. 12 vs. 12 assaults/heavies would shaft those using less popular classes. The current system ensures folks like me get into a match in their medium mech. It also doesn't fly with the modes. An all assault conquest mode sounds hilarious and probably would be... a couple of times. It would also produce very stale and boring game play as well as I am sure a metric bleep ton of imbalances.

[Vesper11]

S O L A I S, on 24 June 2018 - 09:33 PM, said:

Honestly from the matchmaker thread I don't think the real problem is the matchmaker itself. Would put the hard cash on PSR really being the culprit especially with the example of bad player versus good example you used.

I treat MM and PSR as the same, as without proper PSR you can't have a good MM. And yes, it is the problem.

MischiefSC, on 24 June 2018 - 09:33 PM, said:

No, GQ doesn't suck.

One bracket, lack of players and thus long waiting times, lack of tonnage balance, lack of dropsync protection is not suck for an average/casual player? Wew, you must be living in some hardcore brutalland where casuals are born ripped.

Cloves, on 24 June 2018 - 09:55 PM, said:

I am all about them getting rid of tonnage limits in QP. As long as it's balanced across teams, it should be the wild west. 12 assaults vs 12 assaults is fine with me.

IIRC atm if everyone picks assaults and wait long enough it'll be assaultfest, so you can say there is no tonnage limits.

Cloves, on 24 June 2018 - 09:55 PM, said:

if they had a way of making sure none of the tier fives where smurfs

Yep, need that good MM/PSR.

[Dogstar]

Youy know it's strange that there's only about 4 players continually saying that duos/small groups in QP _can't_ work and then the same few players also end up saying stuff like 'I only play CW anyway'.

If you don't play QP then you shouldn't be sitting here trolling this thread with your absolutist attitude - you don't know better and you're just fighting against something that could improve new player experience a lot without any genuine reason to do so other than 'I want it this way'.

It's very childish and stubborn.

[TheBossOfYou]

Dogstar, on 25 June 2018 - 12:33 AM, said:

Youy know it's strange that there's only about 4 players continually saying that duos/small groups in QP _can't_ work and then the same few players also end up saying stuff like 'I only play CW anyway'.

If you don't play QP then you shouldn't be sitting here trolling this thread with your absolutist attitude - you don't know better and you're just fighting against something that could improve new player experience a lot without any genuine reason to do so other than 'I want it this way'.

It's very childish and stubborn.

That's not other forum goers.

That's a mirror son.

[Wil McCullough]

Dogstar, on 25 June 2018 - 12:33 AM, said:

Youy know it's strange that there's only about 4 players continually saying that duos/small groups in QP _can't_ work and then the same few players also end up saying stuff like 'I only play CW anyway'.

If you don't play QP then you shouldn't be sitting here trolling this thread with your absolutist attitude - you don't know better and you're just fighting against something that could improve new player experience a lot without any genuine reason to do so other than 'I want it this way'.

It's very childish and stubborn.

The problem with ad hominem arguments is that they don't actually address any of the points the other guy brought up, making you look like a right *** trying ti grab at straws.

[Kroete]

S O L A I S, on 24 June 2018 - 10:14 PM, said:

After that then consider how hard a sell your idea of established players being excluded from dropping together... There are tons of 'tier 1's' who already think group queue is unfair and not fun because they get rolled. Some of those folks are on here pushing to be allowed to drop with their other 'tier 1' friends.

As there were no restictions,
they said they want to play with their friends..

I suggested that the matchmaker increases the psr of each groupmember based on the groupnumber to compensate the groupadvantage. They said they have no advantage ...

The same people split their 12 mans to 4 mans after the changed to only 4 mans in qp,
so they clearly showed they want a challenge and dont want to stomp pugs.
Then groups get removed from qp . . .


They want to stomp, they dont want any handycap to compensate the groupadvantage and nothing has changed until now.
Same in fw, they dont want a real pug queue (not the intendet fail we had), because reasons, now they have a dead fw ...


Should i mention that we still see groups (7 members from one group in one qp match was the best and they still tryed to tell us it was just random that they all were in the same match) trying to syncdrop in qp because they want a little sealclubbing?


But let me tell you something i have read a lot at the old times:
Stop crying and get a group!

Thats what we get told from the stompers in qp and we still get told from groups in fw, so just get a bigger group then two and everything is ok.

Edited by Kroete, 25 June 2018 - 02:25 AM.

[Wil McCullough]

Kroete, on 25 June 2018 - 02:18 AM, said:

As there were no restictions,
they said they want to play with their friends..

I suggested that the matchmaker increases the psr of each groupmember based on the groupnumber to compensate the groupadvantage. They said they have no advantage ...

The same people split their 12 mans to 4 mans after the changed to only 4 mans in qp,
so they clearly showed they want a challenge and dont want to stomp pugs.
Then groups get removed from qp . . .


They want to stomp, they dont want any handycap to compensate the groupadvantage and nothing has changed until now.
Same in fw, they dont want a real pug queue (not the intendet fail we had), because reasons, now they have a dead fw ...


Should i mention that we still see groups (7 members from one group in one qp match was the best and they still tryed to tell us it was just random that they all were in the same match) trying to syncdrop in qp because they want a little sealclubbing?


But let me tell you something i have read a lot at the old times:
Stop crying and get a group!

Thats what we get told from the stompers in qp and we still get told from groups in fw, so just get a bigger group then two and everything is ok.

Back when i still played, 5ssp used to get 3-4 of us in a match during gmt +8 prime time not through magic or some kind of "synch drop" ploy. There's just that many of us in the same time zone that you see unit mates in the same game pretty often.

Synch dropping in quickplay is silly. The odds of you being in the same match as your friend is really low because there's so many games being thrown together at any point in time. Now halve that chance for the odds of being in the same game and in the same team.

[Cloves]

S O L A I S, on 24 June 2018 - 10:20 PM, said:

That's just your perspective. 12 vs. 12 assaults/heavies would shaft those using less popular classes. The current system ensures folks like me get into a match in their medium mech. It also doesn't fly with the modes. An all assault conquest mode sounds hilarious and probably would be... a couple of times. It would also produce very stale and boring game play as well as I am sure a metric bleep ton of imbalances.

I don’t follow the logic you use. The idea would be natural selection would result first in an explosion of weight, then an explosion of 20 ton to 45 ton preadators. Modes mean little to nothing with the current weight towards having 3/3/3/3, it’s skirmish every game, except for the end of conquest, where the last red light can shake the game. The current system does not ensure anyone gets a match, really. Just that lights will get a faster que, followed by mediums. I do like that idea as compensation for the challenge the two weights face, but I would rather make both weights an equal match to the average heavy or assault. As it stands, it seems that lights hunt assaults, mediums hunt lights, heavies hunt mediums, and assaults hunt everything but lights. But that’s just my perspective.

[Khobai]

[Redacted]

Cloves said:

if they had a way of making sure none of the tier fives where smurfs

all the tier 5 are smurfs

this game doesnt get new players anymore lol

everyone Ive tried to get to play this game has quit within 2 weeks

because the new player experience is garbage. and no one seems to want to improve it. even solaris is bad for new players.

Edited by draiocht, 25 June 2018 - 09:13 AM.
exploit

[Dogstar]

Wil McCullough, on 25 June 2018 - 01:12 AM, said:

The problem with ad hominem arguments is that they don't actually address any of the points the other guy brought up, making you look like a right *** trying ti grab at straws.

I've already made some sensible arguments but the same few players keep repeating their 'it'll destroy QP' adage whilst offering nothing other than personal opinion. I got tired of that and decided to point out how unreasonable they are being.

So no it's not ad hominem, it's frustration at people who are so stubborn that there has to be some underlying personal reason for their opposition - I assume they got gibbed by a 2-man at some point and are now unreasonable

[Nightbird]

Dogstar, on 25 June 2018 - 06:46 AM, said:

I've already made some sensible arguments but the same few players keep repeating their 'it'll destroy QP' adage whilst offering nothing other than personal opinion. I got tired of that and decided to point out how unreasonable they are being.

So no it's not ad hominem, it's frustration at people who are so stubborn that there has to be some underlying personal reason for their opposition - I assume they got gibbed by a 2-man at some point and are now unreasonable

They're top players in the game telling you they will come seal club in Solo QP if that is what you wish for.

[Lykaon]

Khobai, on 25 June 2018 - 06:19 AM, said:

[Redacted]


all the tier 5 are smurfs

this game doesnt get new players anymore lol

everyone Ive tried to get to play this game has quit within 2 weeks

because the new player experience is garbage. and no one seems to want to improve it. even solaris is bad for new players.

Ironicly,because I did make a new account recently (a tier 5 smurf) I can assure you that the level of game play in the low tiers is about what you would expect from tier 4 and 5.

So if they are all "smurfs" then they are the players that got carried into the tier 1-2 bracket through no level of skill of their own and probably belong in tier 4 and 5.

Edited by draiocht, 25 June 2018 - 09:21 AM.
Quote Clean-Up

[McGoat]

I've read these, and it's been said by more than one person but it clearly isn't taking hold in those brain housing groups.

I play with the top in this game in every mode: CW, QP(GQ), and CompQ - even derping around we are the top 1-2%. In the completely spud mindset of yoloQ I assure you that what you seek will not be found as most of us really only drop in 2 mans in GQ, sometimes 3-4. In yoloQ average games see near or over 1k dmg delivered by capitalizing on 12 other yoloist mistakes.. Do you want two people outputting that? C'mon now.

This isn't a false claim, or any sort of misleading commentary to keep pounding "casuals" in GQ, it is a blanket warning that the stomps will be worse against the very teams you want to avoid.

A few of these people asking for this are doing so because in a GQ setting, even on a win, they're delivering under 100dmg when grouped with us because they don't get the game - often times they do the same or less when playing us. The root of the problem is the individual, not the mode(s).

Edited by McGoat, 25 June 2018 - 08:03 AM.

[Lykaon]

Nightbird, on 25 June 2018 - 06:54 AM, said:

They're top players in the game telling you they will come seal club in Solo QP if that is what you wish for.

I just don't understand the "seal club" argument.

Is there an assumption that the match maker will not be building teams that include groups on BOTH teams?

Are people assuming that the match maker will only make one side composed of groups and the other all solos?

Are you assuming that elite top 1% players will drop everything that they did to get that skill level just to "seal club" ? Because I can assure you a player does not get "good" shooting fish in a barrel.


I gues it's a matter of perspective. And here is mine...

I have been playing MWo since the closed beta where we only had one queue and no match maker at all no PSR and VOIP as a basic feature built into the game.

Back then a well coordinated group would be utterly devastating because there were no rules to restrict group size,mech choice or skill levels. If we wanted to drop 8 players in assault mechs with all players being equal to a tier 1 in skill we could.

Today pretty much none of that applies to the current match maker.

But,let me roll forward from the golden age of seal clubbing (where all this fear of clubbing originates from)

Later down the line after MWo soft release we had group sizes reduced to 4 and a seperate queue used for only groups between the size of 5-12 but not 11 since 11 players could not be matched. So if you had 11 tough luck you couldn't drop without kicking a friend out of group.

So we had team sizes inflated to 12 and groups limited to 4 players and the matchmaker had very few criteria. I believe we had rule of 3s and group size matched per team and that was about it.

This meant that most matches had the same number of each weight class of mech per team and a group of the same size on each team.

I played then,and here is the thing about the persiting "seal clubbing" myth. The deciding factor of overall team quality was not the 4 grouped players it was how the 8 solo players performed as a team. if you 4 player group was totally awesome but your puggies were all determined to get killed in stupid ways your "seal clubbing" premade would be fighting a 4 vs 8 pretty early on and would loose.

It was the PUG portion of the team that frequently determined how a match would unfold. Why? because the puggies were the vast majority of the team composition. They were literally two thirds of the team.


Another frequently overlooked fact of the "seal clubing" myth was team composition.

If the match maker had the following criteria.(and this was the match maker then)

ONE: 12 players per team
TWO: 1 group per team size limited to 4 players
THREE: group size matched per team
FOUR: mech weight classes matched per team.

Then wouldn't this mean that a team composition would be 4 grouped players max and 8 solo players?

So every team that had 4 grouped player also had two thirds of it's total size composed of solos. Literally meaning the grouped players on a team were always out numbered two to one or more by solos.

This logically means that if a team that was composed of a group of 4 and 8 solos that won a match had 12 victors of which TWO THIRDS were solo players. The vast majority of the victors were not the grouped players but the solo players.

On the flip side whenever a team with a group won a match an opposing team with a group lost a match.This means grouped player also lost matches. Yes groups lost matches!

So where did the "seal clubbing" come into play? it's not like the end of the game had only the two groups on opposing teams listed as victors and all the solos of both teams were the losers. It was pretty much every time a team won that team had two thirds or more of it's players being solo players.

And that was way back before we had a more robust match maker that kept some semblance of PSR balanced and of course before we had an intergrated VOIP for the whole team to communicate with.

Even with the old "wild west" match maker and no public VOIP the system was largely defined by the solos. And that was groups of 4 in the same queue not grouped pairs.

In closing I think the seal clubbing argument is either a smoke screen used to evade other issues or an argument based on assumptions that are largely false.

Edited by Lykaon, 25 June 2018 - 08:46 AM.

[McGoat]

It is a matter of perspective, and the top players are telling you they see a different scene playing out than you do. That in itself is just fine, as we experience the game differently by choice; however "something" [redacted before I get another vacay for name and shame] tells me that your experiences are skewed into the area of letting 2 mans into soloQ.

I am taking into consideration that the other side will possibly have a 2 man also, but having 10 other uncoordinated people playing mariokart instead of robbits will make for an easier time for you. If you were being honest you would plainly state that you personally would have an easier time with another player you know playing a mixed bag team.

Edited by McGoat, 25 June 2018 - 08:26 AM.

[Lykaon]

McGoat, on 25 June 2018 - 08:00 AM, said:

I've read these, and it's been said by more than one person but it clearly isn't taking hold in those brain housing groups.

I play with the top in this game in every mode: CW, QP(GQ), and CompQ - even derping around we are the top 1-2%. In the completely spud mindset of yoloQ I assure you that what you seek will not be found as most of us really only drop in 2 mans in GQ, sometimes 3-4. In yoloQ average games see near or over 1k dmg delivered by capitalizing on 12 other yoloist mistakes.. Do you want two people outputting that? C'mon now.

This isn't a false claim, or any sort of misleading commentary to keep pounding "casuals" in GQ, it is a blanket warning that the stomps will be worse against the very teams you want to avoid.

A few of these people asking for this are doing so because in a GQ setting, even on a win, they're delivering under 100dmg when grouped with us because they don't get the game - often times they do the same or less when playing us. The root of the problem is the individual, not the mode(s).

But, would you and your top tier team mates drop group queue for an easier solo queue seal clubbing experience?

How well would you do if the match maker also put a top tier team of the opfor?

How many 1-2% players would be present at any one time dropping in the "solo" queue. By definition this would be between 1 and .5 % (or less) of the players in games being played because of the very nature of 1% being one player in 100 and needing two to make a team. Pretty much the definition of "outlier" .

Could two highly skilled players carry 8 solos who are determined to get killed before doing anything useful? How many designated casualties can you personally carry? And remember the opfor also has a high PSR team gunning for you.

Even when your two player team of 1-2%ers wins you share that victory with 10 solos on your team. So your two players winning is also FIVE times that number in solos winning.

And what I think is the real issue with low skilled small groups in the group queue is not running in two or three very skilled players it's consistantly running up against 6-10 good players and a general failure in the player population as a whole to make effective use of communication tools to compensate.

[McGoat]

Lykaon, on 25 June 2018 - 08:39 AM, said:

But, would you and your top tier team mates drop group queue for an easier solo queue seal clubbing experience?

Sometimes, sure

Lykaon, on 25 June 2018 - 08:39 AM, said:

How well would you do if the match maker also put a top tier team of the opfor?

I suspect just fine

Lykaon, on 25 June 2018 - 08:39 AM, said:

How many 1-2% players would be present at any one time dropping in the "solo" queue. By definition this would be between 1 and .5 % (or less) of the players in games being played because of the very nature of 1% being one player in 100 and needing two to make a team. Pretty much the definition of "outlier" .

It isn't just the 1-2%'ers i'm speaking of, anyone grouped up already has an advantage. The level of skill present is a personal problem.

Lykaon, on 25 June 2018 - 08:39 AM, said:

Could two highly skilled players carry 8 solos who are determined to get killed before doing anything useful? How many designated casualties can you personally carry? And remember the opfor also has a high PSR team gunning for you.

Yes. Already do this in GQ. As far as friendly deaths? Who knows.

Lykaon, on 25 June 2018 - 08:39 AM, said:

Even when your two player team of 1-2%ers wins you share that victory with 10 solos on your team. So your two players winning is also FIVE times that number in solos winning.

True.

Lykaon, on 25 June 2018 - 08:39 AM, said:

And what I think is the real issue with low skilled small groups in the group queue is not running in two or three very skilled players it's consistantly running up against 6-10 good players

Again, more of a personal problem. The lack of MM is what creates this and after years of it being ignored I doubt you'll see any sort of measurable ELO type system put in place.

Lykaon, on 25 June 2018 - 08:39 AM, said:

a general failure in the player population as a whole to make effective use of communication tools to compensate.

Herein lies the biggest issue, players not using what's available to improve their individual games, combine this with a low population in general and you see how a proper ELO system could prove difficult for PGI. These guys do not understand their own weapons enough to balance them, how could they balance players into actual tiers that sort them into soloQH (solo queue heavy, haha).

Edited by McGoat, 25 June 2018 - 09:55 AM.

[LowSubmarino]

Reno Blade, on 24 June 2018 - 03:28 AM, said:

As long as the MatchMaker will add the same amount of teams with same skill level on both sides, it could work with sizes of 1-3.

No, Dood.

It would be near impossible to balance that.

A lance of really good players, that know the maps even in pure darkness, that have played together and know how to terrorize especially unassauming, uncoordinated pug teams.....that would be imba.

How many really good teams are there?

One such group would possibly win the vast majority of QP matches they join.

Its kinda nasty what you can do with 4 mechs that know what to do and actually work together. They just decimate a team. Unlesss you have ppl of equal skill that also actually anticipate the worst and most effective and skilled attack. If you have 3 or 4 emp players that are on coms but more importantly are very experienced in terms of cooperating, then chances are very high, that you wont get a small squad on your pug team that would be a match for that combined power.

I doubt that would be fair but im willing to test it.

So let small teams join pug matches for a month and see what happens.

I can already hear the complaints in the forum though.

I mean.....damn....

Look at how chaotic some teams in pug matches are.

They dont even understand, that on conquest and especially on smaller maps like mining, one of the most effective and almost too easy strats is to exploit pug teams tendencies to spit and go for gamma and kappa (or those cap points on the flank of theta).

You deathball on one side and in - im not kidding - 8,9 out of 10 matches youlll get a big, juicy heavy and assault lance and swallow them without even lossing a single mech.

Pug teams just split and get hammered cause they have a lot of difficulty to grasp certain concepts.

Such as: a big group and number of mechs and guns will more likely than not terminate a small number of mechs and weapons.

As easy to grasp that might sound, pug teams dont really understand that and fall to a push over and over again.

If I - a not complete but still more or less casaul player that is definitely not among the best but no weak cannonfodder either - then emp and co will absoutely be aware of that too.

They know all the good positions, know exaclty what their mechs and loadouts are capable of and they will brutally exploit the very obvious mistakes pugs do.

I dont even have to ask. I know that the frustration here in the forum would be vast.

Ask e.g. emp players if they think that is a good idea.

Honestly, I doubt they would say thats good. Because ultimately it would mean they would just dominate almost all matches and there wouldnt be a challenge. One of the really good players can be challegning enough. But alone they at least have numbers against them and can actually train their reactions, aim and test themselves. As a unit, even a small group working together, theyd just demolish almost all pug teams.

The MM isnt good enough to distinquish between a really experienced and dangerous player and a player that reached Tier 1 but is nowhere as skilled as the other player. How do you expect the current MM to actually find a small group of 3 - 4 that has the potential to counter such a strong group.

that doesnt seem realistic.