Jump to content

Yes, The Mm Is A Problem But...


15 replies to this topic

#1 FRAGTAST1C

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Fighter
  • The Fighter
  • 2,869 posts
  • LocationIndia

Posted 18 April 2019 - 08:11 PM

This is just me thinking out loud but I think there is some truth to it. So, you be the judge.

I don't restrict myself to piloting a particular class of mechs. But I honestly do better on fast Heavies and brawly Assaults than any other type of mechs. I do pilot Lights and Mediums and do ok but if I compare the stats side-by-side, you can see that I favour the other two classes.

Now, since the new Marauder IIs are out, I can see loads of people using them. I have seen 8 Marauder IIs in a team and I'm pretty sure that they are being used 'cause they got them and not 'cause they WANTED to use them. As a result, until they get the loadouts right and learn the characteristics of the mech, most of the matches for them will be avg at best. I have the same experience piloting the 3 Marauders that I got from the Standard pack.

I have eventually settled on 3 LL + 5 ERML for the Laser variant, 2 LBX 10 and ML for the Ballistic variant and yet to find a nice balance for missiles for the missile variant (using 8 MRM 10s right now but I have also set up 4 SRM 6 + 5 SRM 2 + 4 ML and heat sinks to keep it cool; yet to try it though). Until I got that loadout setup and a few skill points invested, the matches were bad to mediocre at best with occasional match of getting multiple kills and crossing 700 damage. During this time, I found getting into position a chore, the constant Hibernal Rift selection being a hindrance to learning the new mech and other people having the same problems as me, ALSO compounding to my problems.

I've started to think that, like in the previous patch where the first couple of weeks, loads of AMS were being used and the changes to the missile system caused them to feel like AMS was unfair, the same is happening now 'cause of the new mechs and a really bad map.

But the question to derive from all of that is this... "Should we wait for things to settle down everytime something new hits the game or should PGI make changes and add things to their game that doesn't create this meltdown?"

Personally, I think that making mechs and not making them good in terms of mobility or special quirks hampers the gameplay. The MM is bad enough as it is but when every player who is above average starts to have trouble dealing with new things 'cause they're worse than what was already there, then bad match-making gets highlighted more and more. It's not to say that a little self-reflection is required (it is indeed needed) but MM alone isn't the cause for deteriorating experience within the first couple of weeks of a new release. After that, things go back to normal and rarely the MM topics are created.

So, it is, for me, boiling down to whether we must accept that players take time to learn bad maps and oddly behaving mechs and have less fun while doing so OR try and make PGI see that sticking with lore quirks and lore hardpoints and lore nonsense for mechs while not realising map making is more to just reskinning and reusing assets is just bad for the playerbase.

I'm not saying that we can't have both (what the hell am I saying?!) but a little more thought about making the game fun and less importance on LORE goes a long way.

Yes, yes, I had time to kill and I did a Jerry Maguire. "Show you the mech pack". Oh, right... Show ME the mech pack!

#2 John Bronco

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Fighter
  • The Fighter
  • 966 posts

Posted 18 April 2019 - 08:17 PM

Patch week is always bad, you've never going to change that.

I mean, all the spuds playing the new MAD is bad, but not nearly as bad is the WHM IIC in Feb, that was a truly awful mech, and if it really gets to you then grab your favorite mech of choice and farm the **** out of them.

Edited by BlaizerP, 18 April 2019 - 08:18 PM.


#3 KodiakGW

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Jaws
  • The Jaws
  • 1,775 posts
  • LocationNE USA

Posted 19 April 2019 - 05:57 AM

Double XP weekend could have solved a lot of the issues. Solaris was a lot more active last night, and you can achieve all of the two event rewards pretty quickly in that mode. Was happy not to have to play QP to get them. Completely skipped the last event rewards.


#4 FRAGTAST1C

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Fighter
  • The Fighter
  • 2,869 posts
  • LocationIndia

Posted 19 April 2019 - 06:14 AM

I just started playing the game for the current event (Egg Shaped Event) and I need just 3 components destroyed to fully complete all of the challenges. It was a quick achievement despite being on the wrong end of a lot of stomps but I just went straight at the enemy, dished out ~400 and killed at least one of them in almost all the matches while on the good ones, I got few more kills and managed to stay alive until the end.

I just played a match where I was the top damage dealer in my team @ ~560, got a solo kill and lost the game 12-1. It was on Mining Collective, I was piloting the Mad 4HP and most of the team mates were on the Mad II as well. I've started to see a pattern here. Everytime a team has more Mad IIs than the other, more often than not, that team loses. The Mad II is NOT a frontline mech despite being a 100 tonner. It's best to use it as a gun platform instead of taking damage for the team. Even the 4HP with its 9 missile hardpoints. It's best to use it as a late-game entry and deal as much damage as possible with close range missiles instead of trying to be smart about it.

#5 Bud Crue

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 9,882 posts
  • LocationOn the farm in central Minnesota

Posted 19 April 2019 - 06:22 AM

View PostFRAGTAST1C, on 18 April 2019 - 08:11 PM, said:

But the question to derive from all of that is this... "Should we wait for things to settle down everytime something new hits the game or should PGI make changes and add things to their game that doesn't create this meltdown?"

Personally, I think that making mechs and not making them good in terms of mobility or special quirks hampers the gameplay. The MM is bad enough as it is but when every player who is above average starts to have trouble dealing with new things 'cause they're worse than what was already there, then bad match-making gets highlighted more and more. It's not to say that a little self-reflection is required (it is indeed needed) but MM alone isn't the cause for deteriorating experience within the first couple of weeks of a new release. After that, things go back to normal and rarely the MM topics are created.

So, it is, for me, boiling down to whether we must accept that players take time to learn bad maps and oddly behaving mechs and have less fun while doing so OR try and make PGI see that sticking with lore quirks and lore hardpoints and lore nonsense for mechs while not realising map making is more to just reskinning and reusing assets is just bad for the playerbase.

I'm not saying that we can't have both (what the hell am I saying?!) but a little more thought about making the game fun and less importance on LORE goes a long way.

Yes, yes, I had time to kill and I did a Jerry Maguire. "Show you the mech pack". Oh, right... Show ME the mech pack!


I admit that i am having real trouble following you here.

You start out seeming to imply that PGI changes stuff too quickly and not letting things "settle" before they add other things and then segue to a suggestion that bad or maybe just new mechs exacerbate bad matchmaking, but then also that this bad matchmaking is because "every player who is above average starts to have trouble dealing with new things" and then you conclude with an apparent assertion that PGI sticking with lore derived values on mechs is also a problem.

So...what are asking for?

Since skills tree there have been only like 2 months where PGI didn't dink with some aspect of game play. So are you asking them to stop doing that or to just slow down? In any case, I don't see how that norm of monthly changes affects the MM. Nor do I see this "every player who is above average starts to have trouble dealing with new things" element. I mean good players just adapt to the changes or just play what PGI broke the least, that's how it has always been; so I just don't follow what you are saying here.

As to the whole lore values thing you mentioned, I don't see how that has anything to do with the MM or making it worse. If a mech is bad because it has "lore" values or whatever, people just won't play it much...just like they won't play a bad mech for other reasons.

I just don't follow where you are going with all this.

#6 FRAGTAST1C

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Fighter
  • The Fighter
  • 2,869 posts
  • LocationIndia

Posted 19 April 2019 - 06:40 AM

View PostBud Crue, on 19 April 2019 - 06:22 AM, said:

You start out seeming to imply that PGI changes stuff too quickly and not letting things "settle" before they add other things and then segue to a suggestion that bad or maybe just new mechs exacerbate bad matchmaking, but then also that this bad matchmaking is because "every player who is above average starts to have trouble dealing with new things" and then you conclude with an apparent assertion that PGI sticking with lore derived values on mechs is also a problem.


I'm trying to say that the MM ISN'T the only problem 'cause there are so many factors compounding the issue.

View PostBud Crue, on 19 April 2019 - 06:22 AM, said:

So...what are asking for?

Since skills tree there have been only like 2 months where PGI didn't dink with some aspect of game play. So are you asking them to stop doing that or to just slow down? In any case, I don't see how that norm of monthly changes affects the MM. Nor do I see this "every player who is above average starts to have trouble dealing with new things" element. I mean good players just adapt to the changes or just play what PGI broke the least, that's how it has always been; so I just don't follow what you are saying here.


Exactly that. The changes happen in a haphazard fashion. There's no logic there. One update screwed up the Heat dissipation. Another made AMS strong by increasing the range without addressing the fact that it can shoot through solid objects when all that was required was a simple change to the LRMs. All missile systems got a change which is illogical.

On top of that, mechs are badly designed. By that, I'm talking purely about functionality. Take the Corsair for e.g., Enough said. Same with most of the Warhammer IIC variants. They're the mechs, along with others, that are fabulous aesthetically but the functionality is so bad that it deters players from piloting them.

Note here that I'm not talking about MM yet.

View PostBud Crue, on 19 April 2019 - 06:22 AM, said:

As to the whole lore values thing you mentioned, I don't see how that has anything to do with the MM or making it worse. If a mech is bad because it has "lore" values or whatever, people just won't play it much...just like they won't play a bad mech for other reasons.


I wasn't talking about the MM when referring to the lore. I'm taking lore as its own island. Sticking with lore causes problems in a competitive environment. Yes, the game is played to be fun but there's no fun to be had when some mechs are borderline DOA and others definitely ARE DOA. What's the point in having so many mechs then? There needs to be some thought about hardpoint placements and designing hitboxes.

Now, moving to the MM. Well, we all agree that it's bad. But when you add all of the above factors into the mix, then MM is just one problem, isn't it? That's what I'm trying to say. Just MM alone isn't the problem here (although it is a big problem) but the other factors mentioned above creates an even worse experience.

Edited by FRAGTAST1C, 19 April 2019 - 06:41 AM.


#7 Bud Crue

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 9,882 posts
  • LocationOn the farm in central Minnesota

Posted 19 April 2019 - 07:09 AM

View PostFRAGTAST1C, on 19 April 2019 - 06:40 AM, said:


I'm trying to say that the MM ISN'T the only problem 'cause there are so many factors compounding the issue.


Gotcha. I don't think bad mechs, or constant change has much of a compounding impact on the MM. To me the MM's ills are all about a limited population and PGI's horrid implementation of the PSR system. If we were all running Spider 5Vs the current problem of goods being matched with bads and everything else would still be the same as it is now.

View PostFRAGTAST1C, on 19 April 2019 - 06:40 AM, said:

Exactly that. The changes happen in a haphazard fashion. There's no logic there. One update screwed up the Heat dissipation. Another made AMS strong by increasing the range without addressing the fact that it can shoot through solid objects when all that was required was a simple change to the LRMs. All missile systems got a change which is illogical.


PGI is gonna PGI. This is how it has always been. They have never changed things truly iteratively (there is a reason its called the nerf HAMMER and not the surgically precise nerf scalpel) and they almost always changes multiple things together without seeming to understand how the multiple aspects will impact one another (see past energy draw PTS and info tech PTS for prime examples of this). Anyway you are correct here. It is haphazard, but we all deal with it.

View PostFRAGTAST1C, on 19 April 2019 - 06:40 AM, said:

On top of that, mechs are badly designed. By that, I'm talking purely about functionality. Take the Corsair for e.g., Enough said. Same with most of the Warhammer IIC variants. They're the mechs, along with others, that are fabulous aesthetically but the functionality is so bad that it deters players from piloting them.

Note here that I'm not talking about MM yet.

I wasn't talking about the MM when referring to the lore. I'm taking lore as its own island. Sticking with lore causes problems in a competitive environment. Yes, the game is played to be fun but there's no fun to be had when some mechs are borderline DOA and others definitely ARE DOA. What's the point in having so many mechs then? There needs to be some thought about hardpoint placements and designing hitboxes.


Sure some mechs are good some mechs are mediocre and some are just bad. Wadiyagonnado?

This game is based on nostalgia for an existing IP and some of the mechs that we get in this game are -like they often were there- good, bad, redundant, inherently flawed, etc. PGI does a great job making some of them competitive in the MWO medium and not so good a job with others. Nuthin for it.

View PostFRAGTAST1C, on 19 April 2019 - 06:40 AM, said:

Now, moving to the MM. Well, we all agree that it's bad. But when you add all of the above factors into the mix, then MM is just one problem, isn't it? That's what I'm trying to say. Just MM alone isn't the problem here (although it is a big problem) but the other factors mentioned above creates an even worse experience.


MM is but one problem, but it is THEE problem. All the other stuff, from constant change to bad mechs, to whatever, are all issues of player choice (don't play a bad mech, don't like the latest nerf or change then play in a manner that mitigates it just like everyone else, etc.). We all are subject to the same game environment and so our relative performance and standing in that environment. It's that PGI insists that someone like me belongs in matches with the best players of the game that is the problem for all of us (regardless of mechs or changes or anything else), and there is nothing we as players can do to change that in the game environment as it exits (other than drop in private matches...but that isn't really the game).

So while I agree that some of the stuff you point to is annoying or poorly implemented, etc. I don't see any of that stuff as compounding the problem that is the MM.

#8 FRAGTAST1C

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Fighter
  • The Fighter
  • 2,869 posts
  • LocationIndia

Posted 19 April 2019 - 07:21 PM

View PostBud Crue, on 19 April 2019 - 07:09 AM, said:

So while I agree that some of the stuff you point to is annoying or poorly implemented, etc. I don't see any of that stuff as compounding the problem that is the MM.


Fair enough but consider this... the good pilots are bad when trying a new mech that is horrible by design. Hence why those mechs aren't seen on the battlefield (e.g., Spiders). Now, if a 95% rated player is in that Spider and the MM puts him against a 70% rated player piloting a Stealth Commando, the 70% rated player wins. I get that this is an extremely biased e.g., but it isn't false. So, MM is trying to balance the players' rating across both teams but the choice of mech ruins that process. That's what I'm trying to say.

#9 John Bronco

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Fighter
  • The Fighter
  • 966 posts

Posted 19 April 2019 - 07:44 PM

View PostFRAGTAST1C, on 19 April 2019 - 07:21 PM, said:


Fair enough but consider this... the good pilots are bad when trying a new mech that is horrible by design. Hence why those mechs aren't seen on the battlefield (e.g., Spiders). Now, if a 95% rated player is in that Spider and the MM puts him against a 70% rated player piloting a Stealth Commando, the 70% rated player wins. I get that this is an extremely biased e.g., but it isn't false. So, MM is trying to balance the players' rating across both teams but the choice of mech ruins that process. That's what I'm trying to say.


I'm just not sure how true that is, I myself try to play a wide of variety of mechs to be competent a them, and if you watch top players on twitch they have no problem dominating in any chassis. No matter what you're playing the game is always the same, always be looking for (and landing) shots, and always minimize or spread incoming damage.

#10 FRAGTAST1C

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Fighter
  • The Fighter
  • 2,869 posts
  • LocationIndia

Posted 19 April 2019 - 08:27 PM

View PostBlaizerP, on 19 April 2019 - 07:44 PM, said:


I'm just not sure how true that is, I myself try to play a wide of variety of mechs to be competent a them, and if you watch top players on twitch they have no problem dominating in any chassis. No matter what you're playing the game is always the same, always be looking for (and landing) shots, and always minimize or spread incoming damage.


Would you say a 95% pilot in a Hellspawn would dominate someone who's rated 70% using a Bushwhacker or a Crab?

#11 John Bronco

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Fighter
  • The Fighter
  • 966 posts

Posted 19 April 2019 - 09:14 PM

View PostFRAGTAST1C, on 19 April 2019 - 08:27 PM, said:


Would you say a 95% pilot in a Hellspawn would dominate someone who's rated 70% using a Bushwhacker or a Crab?


Generally yes, also your comparison is a bit flawed as the Hellspawn's agility is fairly respectable now.

#12 FRAGTAST1C

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Fighter
  • The Fighter
  • 2,869 posts
  • LocationIndia

Posted 19 April 2019 - 09:33 PM

View PostBlaizerP, on 19 April 2019 - 09:14 PM, said:


Generally yes, also your comparison is a bit flawed as the Hellspawn's agility is fairly respectable now.


Then why is it that we don't see as many Hellspawns as we see Crabs or Bushwhackers?

The point is, Hellspawns aren't good. The Paralyzer is the one I use and it's ok. But if what you say is true, then we should be seeing more and more Hellspawns destroying Crabs and Bushwhackers, which doesn't happen.

#13 John Bronco

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Fighter
  • The Fighter
  • 966 posts

Posted 19 April 2019 - 09:58 PM

View PostFRAGTAST1C, on 19 April 2019 - 09:33 PM, said:


Then why is it that we don't see as many Hellspawns as we see Crabs or Bushwhackers?

The point is, Hellspawns aren't good. The Paralyzer is the one I use and it's ok. But if what you say is true, then we should be seeing more and more Hellspawns destroying Crabs and Bushwhackers, which doesn't happen.


There are many ways to explain this observation.
1.) Hellspawn has historically been terrible.
2.) Thus many people don't have them, even after buffs.
3.) They look like crap.
4.) You are assuming better players should make make a habit of running around with mechs that are worse then some of their counterparts in the same class. I don't see any reason why this would be the case.
5.) Bushwackers and Crabs have always been good mechs and in some circles have a spiritual following, I don't know of anyone who feels that way about the Hellspawn.

Edited by BlaizerP, 19 April 2019 - 09:58 PM.


#14 FRAGTAST1C

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Fighter
  • The Fighter
  • 2,869 posts
  • LocationIndia

Posted 19 April 2019 - 10:22 PM

View PostBlaizerP, on 19 April 2019 - 09:58 PM, said:


There are many ways to explain this observation.
1.) Hellspawn has historically been terrible.
2.) Thus many people don't have them, even after buffs.
3.) They look like crap.
4.) You are assuming better players should make make a habit of running around with mechs that are worse then some of their counterparts in the same class. I don't see any reason why this would be the case.
5.) Bushwackers and Crabs have always been good mechs and in some circles have a spiritual following, I don't know of anyone who feels that way about the Hellspawn.


You've just proven my point. If the Hellspawn was a great chassis, then they would be used almost as much as a Crab or Bushwhacker. I'm not assuming anything about what better players SHOULD DO. I'm saying that if better players would be piloting crappy mechs, then their stats would become mediocre. This isn't about MM pitting bad teams against good ones. This is also about bad mechs against good mechs and that's 'cause of sticking to lore and not thinking enough about functionality. A Jaegermech isn't going to be better than a Roughneck. Period.

Now, before you assume anything else about what I'm saying, let me make it clear. The MM is the problem but it's being compounded by the fact that the mechs aren't designed to be useful equally. Some are clearly better than others. So, MM isn't going to be able to fix that one. Start making all mechs functionally good and we could be seeing more mechs on the field and better games.

#15 John Bronco

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Fighter
  • The Fighter
  • 966 posts

Posted 19 April 2019 - 10:34 PM

View PostFRAGTAST1C, on 19 April 2019 - 10:22 PM, said:


You've just proven my point. If the Hellspawn was a great chassis, then they would be used almost as much as a Crab or Bushwhacker. I'm not assuming anything about what better players SHOULD DO. I'm saying that if better players would be piloting crappy mechs, then their stats would become mediocre. This isn't about MM pitting bad teams against good ones. This is also about bad mechs against good mechs and that's 'cause of sticking to lore and not thinking enough about functionality. A Jaegermech isn't going to be better than a Roughneck. Period.

Now, before you assume anything else about what I'm saying, let me make it clear. The MM is the problem but it's being compounded by the fact that the mechs aren't designed to be useful equally. Some are clearly better than others. So, MM isn't going to be able to fix that one. Start making all mechs functionally good and we could be seeing more mechs on the field and better games.


I don't disagree with any of that, but I guess my point is an improved mm doesn't necessarily need to account for differences in mech chassis quality, as pilot skill is ultimately the most important measure. Of course how you measure that is another topic altogether, but at the very minimum W/L ratio and MS will go a long way.

#16 FRAGTAST1C

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Fighter
  • The Fighter
  • 2,869 posts
  • LocationIndia

Posted 20 April 2019 - 02:56 AM

View PostBlaizerP, on 19 April 2019 - 10:34 PM, said:


I don't disagree with any of that, but I guess my point is an improved mm doesn't necessarily need to account for differences in mech chassis quality, as pilot skill is ultimately the most important measure.


Sure, when the MM is working right and the mechs are equal. But, like I've mentioned, there are certain mechs that just aren't good whatsoever compared to the others. MM isn't going to fix that. I agree with you that the MM is the big problem but mechs have also added to this 'cause of lacklustre design.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users