41 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

Yeah, sorry, no. Having friends and being someone more than 1 or 2 people want to be around is exactly like bullying all the people with only 1 or 2 friends.

If you're not absolutely terrible and incompetent at this game you need to play with kid gloves or against the bad players and you have to be ready to carry like **** when they're on your team -

But you can't make that obvious or you'll hurt their feelings. You have to make sure that you're bending over backward and making sacrifices so the least skilled, least invested, most casual players still feel like winners....

Or you and all of MWO will RUE THE DAY!

RUE.

THE.

DAY.

[Imperius]

My question is how do you still have friends that play this game? I log in and it’s a ghost town.

[MischiefSC]

Imperius, on 30 June 2018 - 01:44 PM, said:

My question is how do you still have friends that play this game? I log in and it’s a ghost town.

I'm a bit of a Teamspeak ***** and I played with thousands of people at FW peak and still have a ton of active people on my friends list.

I could put a 4man for GQ together any time any day. A lot of people could.

[Imperius]

MischiefSC, on 30 June 2018 - 02:43 PM, said:

I'm a bit of a Teamspeak ***** and I played with thousands of people at FW peak and still have a ton of active people on my friends list.

I could put a 4man for GQ together any time any day. A lot of people could.

You actively still play i’m still in contact with my friends but they won’t touch this game ever again. Don’t confuse friends with randoms with from teamspeak.

Edited by Imperius, 30 June 2018 - 02:49 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Imperius, on 30 June 2018 - 02:48 PM, said:

You actively still play i’m still in contact with my friends but they won’t touch this game ever again. Don’t confuse friends with randoms with from teamspeak.

I'm not. I have a lot of gaming friends. I also have a group I still play TT Battletech with. Though it is fair to say I don't have hundreds of friends in MWO, more like people I get along with and play with.

Friends List probably is a misnomer.

[justcallme A S H]

They don't need more tonnage. They have total coordinations.

You have 12 people working together. You can drop super lights like 2-3PIR and bunch of heavies easily.

I rarely loose in a 12-man group even with a bunch of players that aren't amazing. If you're losing, you need to address that yourself

[MischiefSC]

justcallme A S H, on 30 June 2018 - 07:02 PM, said:

They don't need more tonnage. They have total coordinations.

You have 12 people working together. You can drop super lights like 2-3PIR and bunch of heavies easily.

I rarely loose in a 12-man group even with a bunch of players that aren't amazing. If you're losing, you need to address that yourself

Yet there stopped being a lot of 12mans in group queue long ago, long before the population declined. The issue isn't that 12mans can't be good - a good team in a 12man is going to win in stock mechs vs a team that plays like pugs. The issue is that GQ is just a hassle for most groups and not everyone wants to play full tryhard.

Look at FW as an example. Can a good 12man utterly dominate? Yes, of course. However a 12man from a unit that's mostly casuals can lose to pug teams. They certainly don't want to min/max mechs to steep tonnage restrictions and most the team play lights so a couple can play heavies/assaults or just everyone in a synergy medium. They want to play big stompy robbits.

If those guys are not in the queue than there's nobody to fill matches vs the good teams, who get bored of waiting and wander off.

Good groups of even decent players will win most the time vs mediocre or bad groups regardless of tonnage. However more tonnage available helps make GQ more 'casual' friendly for big groups, which keeps big groups playing. The 'just go to FW' option clearly never worked.

Also, small groups of 2-4 who take 2-4 lights and play them poorly are a critical, often insurmountable issue for the 6man they dropped with vs a decent team. The better team is always going to win - just that with steep tonnage limitations it makes playing in bigger groups less fun and as such less do it. That's why GQ started to empty well before the population exodus.

Not surprisingly the promised flood of 'casual 2-3mans who only lost because big teams were too stronk' never materialized. Because it was never tonnage but skill. All that happened was less people played because only playing a narrow set of mechs and a lot of shuffling wasn't fun and the bad teams still lost anyway.

[justcallme A S H]

Doesn't matter.

You increase tonnage all you'll do is have larger groups of better players stomping even harder.



You don't fix the problem from the bottom

[Captain Caveman DE]

to be blunt; if you want more tonnage, that's fine. just take your 12men to FW. all the tonnage you need is there.

[Appogee]

DjPush, on 30 June 2018 - 10:22 AM, said:

some of our friends don't have a huge mech selection

Would they like to buy some Mech Packs...?

[Lukoi Banacek]

DjPush, on 30 June 2018 - 10:19 AM, said:

Not everyone is a tryhard. Some us just like to group up with our friends and have a good time.

The problem is the game cannot tell who is playing hard and who is not because there is no real MM in GQ.

So until MM can be fixed, it would not be in PGI's best interest to give 12-mans more tonnage to appease the occasional "casual 12-man."

[Eisenhorne]

MischiefSC, on 30 June 2018 - 08:23 PM, said:

Also, small groups of 2-4 who take 2-4 lights and play them poorly are a critical, often insurmountable issue for the 6man they dropped with vs a decent team.

This is my biggest complaint about group queue... a squad of 3-4 lights and mediums dropping together is almost always a poison pill for their team. Of course there are players that are amazing in piranhas or whatever that are fine, but its way more common for the lights to suck. Maybe add a minimum tonnage to smaller groups too. 2 man groups need to be at least 150 tons, 3 man groups need to be at least 180 tons.

Edited by Eisenhorne, 01 July 2018 - 08:04 AM.

[MischiefSC]

justcallme A S H, on 30 June 2018 - 09:18 PM, said:

Doesn't matter.

You increase tonnage all you'll do is have larger groups of better players stomping even harder.



You don't fix the problem from the bottom

So to clarify what's the problem we are trying to fix? A 12 0 win is a 12 0 win. The good teams are still going to win. Are you saying the matches prior to tonnage change were worse than now? You could also speculate that easier tonnage restrictions would result in more total teams which would help the matchmaker but we don't have any useful data to point to on that.

My take is that the good players are going to win consisyently. If you don't have a deep enough population to break people out into skill matched teams then you're going to have mismatches. Tonnage limits won't significantly change that. I think the last year of GQ has shown that out as well but I don't have the metrics to gauge, just anecdotal stuff.

However softening tonnage limits almost certainly will increase the total GQ population which can, potentially, give the MM something to work with.

[Jay Leon Hart]

I *could* find the numbers, but I'm being lazy, so are these about right for GQ tonnage limits?
2 = 200 (2 x 100)
3 = 285 (3 x 95)
4 = 360 (4 x 90)
5 = 425 (5 x 85)
6 = 480 (6 x 80)
7 = 525 (7 x 75)
8 = 560 (8 x 70)
9 = 585 (9 x 65)
10 = 600 (10 x 60)
11 = 605 (11 x 55)
12 = 600 (12 x 50)

I guess, to limit the firepower of larger groups, but to a lesser extent, they could adjust upwards to;
2 = 200 (2 x 100)
3 = 290 (1 x 100, 2 x 95)
4 = 380 (4 x 95)
5 = 465 (3 x 95, 2 x 90)
6 = 550 (2 x 95, 4 x 90)
7 = 635 (1 x 95, 6 x 90)
8 = 720 (8 x 90)
9 = 800 (7 x 90, 2 x 85)
10 = 880 (6 x 90, 4 x 85)
11 = 960 (5 x 90, 6 x 85)
12 = 1,040 (4 x 90, 8 x 85)

Or something in between, if that's more sensible?
[Edit] Like this?
2 = 200 (2 x 100)
3 = 295 (+95)
4 = 385 (+90)
5 = 470 (+85)
6 = 550 (+80)
7 = 625 (+75)
8 = 695 (+70)
9 = 760 (+65)
10 = 820 (+60)
11 = 875 (+55)
12 = 925 (+50)
[/Edit]

Edited by Jay Leon Hart, 01 July 2018 - 11:36 AM.

[Prototelis]

If they're going to do anything they need to raise minimum tonnage so a 4-6 man that isn't filling the deck isn't screwing you out of things you probably need.

[MTier Slayed Up]

I have laidea.

Instead of tonnage restriction, why not a 3x3x3x3 forced rule instead?

[Imperius]

DrtyDshSoap, on 02 July 2018 - 12:36 AM, said:

I have laidea.

Instead of tonnage restriction, why not a 3x3x3x3 forced rule instead?

That’s how it used to be but...

POTATOES: TheSe TeAmS ArE ToO GoOd fOr Us WE CaNT Be BoThErEd tO fINd FrIeNds NeRF TeAmWoRk iN a TeAM GaME

[Stinger554]

MischiefSC, on 01 July 2018 - 08:28 AM, said:

A 12 0 win is a 12 0 win.

Giving 12-mans more tonnage turns 12-8s, 12-6s, etc into 12-0s that's the issue.

Bringing up 12-0 wins still being 12-0 wins is a red herring. Of course if a 12-man would have won 12-0 they still will it's the other possibilities that are affected.

[Nightbird]

With low tonnage, good teams will still 12-0. With more tonnage, bad teams will still 0-12. Any change applied equally does absolutely nothing, new MM or bust.

[Hellfire666]

Just do like everyone else does and do 4 man sync drops so you get 6 assaults on your team.

It's totally not abusing the match making system.