1579 replies to this topic

[Brauer]

Nearly Dead, on 22 May 2020 - 09:51 AM, said:

I just finished a string of games this morning into early afternoon EST.

L 5-12 No comms
L 5-12 No comms
W 12-6 Voice comms
L 5-12 No comms
L 6-11 No comms
W 12-4 Voice comms
W 12-4 Voice comms
W 12-5 Voice comms
W 12-6 Voice comms
W 12-10 No comms
W 10-2 Voice comms

Note the correlation between teamwide voice communications and win/loss ratio. We did not lose a single game where we were communicating focus fire and movements. Note, I did not drop with a group and don't have any outside comm software, so in some of the losses there might have been coordination going on, but I and the rest of the solo players were not part of it.

Just FYI the winrate of the groups I've dropped with in the mashed up queue is over 90% and team-wide comms are far from mandatory to drive wins. The main thing a group needs to do to drive wins is to keep 4 mechs close enough together to support each other, take a power position, and then burn down anything that shows its face. [edited this section for clarity]

Occasionally this means that our other teammates go ahead and get wrecked by the opposing team and we clutch out the match, often this means we dictate the whole match and completely stop an enemy nascar in its tracks.

Team-wide comms, in my experience, aren't that useful because players don't listen, players don't know enough to follow directions, or players are too timid to do what needs to be done. There are certainly cases where team-wide coordination via in game VOIP wins a game, but those instances are rare in my experience.

Edited by Brauer, 22 May 2020 - 11:06 AM.

[FRAGTAST1C]

Nearly Dead, on 22 May 2020 - 09:51 AM, said:

L 5-12 No comms
L 5-12 No comms
W 12-6 Voice comms
L 5-12 No comms
L 6-11 No comms
W 12-4 Voice comms
W 12-4 Voice comms
W 12-5 Voice comms
W 12-6 Voice comms
W 12-10 No comms
W 10-2 Voice comms

FYI...

11 games played.

7 stomps

What's that about 3% increase again? Hmm, PGI? Even with such a small, unverified data in an unrelated post, you see stomps and if you add this to actual video evidence that span hours and hours and hours, you get even more stomps. So, what were you saying about 3% increase?

[The Teddy Bear]

Brauer, on 22 May 2020 - 09:58 AM, said:

Just FYI the winrate of the groups I've dropped with in the mashed up queue is over 90% and team-wide comms are far from mandatory to drive wins. The main thing a group needs to do to drive wins is to keep 4 mechs close enough together to support each other, take a power position, and then burn down anything that shows its face. [edited this section for clarity]

Occasionally this means that our other teammates go ahead and get wrecked by the opposing team and we clutch out the match, often this means we dictate the whole match and completely stop an enemy nascar in its tracks.

Team-wide comms, in my experience, aren't that useful because players don't listen, players don't know enough to follow directions, or players are too timid to do what needs to be done. There are certainly cases where team-wide coordination via in game VOIP wins a game, but those instances are rare in my experience.

In respect for the solo players in your team! Many of them who probably never have seen a team in "action" before this test, and quite a few of them would by now have started to wonder what is going on. I feel it would be in its proper place to at least tell them in the beginning of the match: What tonnage/mechs you are running, your loadouts and what your intentions and plan are for the match. After that you dont have to say anything. Maybe, you will increase your winrate a bit maybe even by the sacred 3%?

[Kin3ticX]

On the flip side if they tighten the MM and revise the PSR the wait times just go up and we would have a 78 page thread about that instead.

[MeanMachinE]

FRAGTAST1C, on 22 May 2020 - 11:12 AM, said:

7 stomps

Russ counts stomps as 12-4 or less games, so 3 stomps according to that.

[Nearly Dead]

Brauer, on 22 May 2020 - 09:58 AM, said:

Just FYI the winrate of the groups I've dropped with in the mashed up queue is over 90% and team-wide comms are far from mandatory to drive wins. The main thing a group needs to do to drive wins is to keep 4 mechs close enough together to support each other, take a power position, and then burn down anything that shows its face. [edited this section for clarity]

Occasionally this means that our other teammates go ahead and get wrecked by the opposing team and we clutch out the match, often this means we dictate the whole match and completely stop an enemy nascar in its tracks.

Team-wide comms, in my experience, aren't that useful because players don't listen, players don't know enough to follow directions, or players are too timid to do what needs to be done. There are certainly cases where team-wide coordination via in game VOIP wins a game, but those instances are rare in my experience.

While I often agree with you, I think you just enunciated why group queue died and why the hash queue is going to die and take the game with it. I suspect that there were second class potatoes in group queue also. Until they left and the queue closed.

And now solo players like me are the second class potatoes. I am on a knife edge over putting more time and effort into the game or just chucking it and doing something else. I think PGI will have some server hardware for sale in the next year.

[Thorqemada]

This summer...

[Knight Captain Morgan]

FRAGTAST1C, on 22 May 2020 - 11:12 AM, said:

FYI...

11 games played.

7 stomps

What's that about 3% increase again? Hmm, PGI? Even with such a small, unverified data in an unrelated post, you see stomps and if you add this to actual video evidence that span hours and hours and hours, you get even more stomps. So, what were you saying about 3% increase?

7 out of 11 = only 3% according to Russ' new common core math...

[Anomalocaris]

Kin3ticX, on 22 May 2020 - 11:59 AM, said:

On the flip side if they tighten the MM and revise the PSR the wait times just go up and we would have a 78 page thread about that instead.

I think it's important to note that many (most?) of the players asking for a better matchmaker are not advocating for isolating players from having to play people substantially above or below their skill level. Yes, we'd like to do that when possible (perhaps during peak hours it can be done), but we realize that if there are only 300-400 players online at a given time, you're not going to have enough 98-99% players to fill a match on their own.

What we're saying is that if you have a 24 man match formed from 2 elite 99% ranked players, 4 90% players, 4 80% players, 6 60% players and 8 players under 50%, those guys should be split. The 2 elites should never end up on the same team. And the 8 guys under 50% should be split too. Even if there is only one elite player, the next 2 (3 even) highest players should be on the opposing team to balance that unicorn out.

This doesn't require tightening the matchmaker, it just requires looking at your 24 players and splitting them up in a way that best balances skill.

[FRAGTAST1C]

MeanMachinE, on 22 May 2020 - 12:02 PM, said:

Russ counts stomps as 12-4 or less games, so 3 stomps according to that.

So, it was 12-5 and now it's less? Ok....Goal posts being moved isn't something new from PGI.

[Tarl Cabot]

Kin3ticX, on 22 May 2020 - 11:59 AM, said:

On the flip side if they tighten the MM and revise the PSR the wait times just go up and we would have a 78 page thread about that instead.

Isnt part of the issue is that Russ and team are using group MM setup instead of the solo MM setup w/modifications?

• Use Solo MM setup
  
• Remove (modify group tonnage) while also limited to 1 per weight class
  
• Drop max group from 4 to 3
  
  • Still an impact but not as much.
    
  • Communication - seasoned and effective players may not require lot of communication, but communication and the effectiveness is more important with less effective players, for those who will and do listen and follow, yes?
    
  • The above is where lots of groaning comes from, players who do not play like a team/co-op. And it would be in the best interest of the grouped players to include others then not, yes?
    
  • The above would help reinforce how a team working together can increase its force multiplier. Why sweep it under the rug?
• Have MM ignore group weight classes and only match up the solo weight class w/odd mech out
  
  • Prior to merge, Solo MM always matched up weight classes while Group MM really didnt, or if it did it was so loose it would make someone who birthed 10 kids appear to be a virgin.
• MM is still using Tier, but in Group MM that was the first thing that went out the door, if it was used at all.
  
• Modify Tier settings by increasing PSR threshold (MS requirements) to hep spread out the herd by having players actually drop in Tiers

[Brauer]

The Teddy Bear, on 22 May 2020 - 11:45 AM, said:

In respect for the solo players in your team! Many of them who probably never have seen a team in "action" before this test, and quite a few of them would by now have started to wonder what is going on. I feel it would be in its proper place to at least tell them in the beginning of the match: What tonnage/mechs you are running, your loadouts and what your intentions and plan are for the match. After that you dont have to say anything. Maybe, you will increase your winrate a bit maybe even by the sacred 3%?

So I have tried to tell the team what to do at the start, for example telling them we want to control the spine/bridge on HPG, and I always include coordinates. The thing is that this hasn't led the random players on the teams I've played with to do anything like what I have recommended.

I also make calls with some frequency mid-match, and these seem (and this is very subjective) to have a slightly higher chance of being followed, but more often than not it's like making calls into the void.

Because of these experiences I fairly frequently don't bother. I know I've got one to three players by my side who I can depend on to a much greater degree, and generally we coordinate what we're doing to some extent. It's usually much more fun and useful to focus on communicating with those players than trying to heard a pick-up team that may include players who have comms turned off, who are actively against any kind of play other than rushing at their first target, or who simply don't have the discipline to hold a power position.

[The Teddy Bear]

Brauer, on 22 May 2020 - 08:13 PM, said:

So I have tried to tell the team what to do at the start, for example telling them we want to control the spine/bridge on HPG, and I always include coordinates. The thing is that this hasn't led the random players on the teams I've played with to do anything like what I have recommended.

I also make calls with some frequency mid-match, and these seem (and this is very subjective) to have a slightly higher chance of being followed, but more often than not it's like making calls into the void.

Because of these experiences I fairly frequently don't bother. I know I've got one to three players by my side who I can depend on to a much greater degree, and generally we coordinate what we're doing to some extent. It's usually much more fun and useful to focus on communicating with those players than trying to heard a pick-up team that may include players who have comms turned off, who are actively against any kind of play other than rushing at their first target, or who simply don't have the discipline to hold a power position.

I understood what you were saying in the first post. Yust saying, you are now playing with some players that have never experienced playing with or against a group before.

[Tarl Cabot]

Brauer, on 22 May 2020 - 08:13 PM, said:

So I have tried to tell the team what to do at the start, for example telling them we want to control the spine/bridge on HPG, and I always include coordinates. The thing is that this hasn't led the random players on the teams I've played with to do anything like what I have recommended.

I also make calls with some frequency mid-match, and these seem (and this is very subjective) to have a slightly higher chance of being followed, but more often than not it's like making calls into the void.

Because of these experiences I fairly frequently don't bother. I know I've got one to three players by my side who I can depend on to a much greater degree, and generally we coordinate what we're doing to some extent. It's usually much more fun and useful to focus on communicating with those players than trying to heard a pick-up team that may include players who have comms turned off, who are actively against any kind of play other than rushing at their first target, or who simply don't have the discipline to hold a power position.

This is not a perfect world, there will be players who do follow and your team, then those who do not. For many they have played without any real direction/control, and that also includes being aggressive when it is called. Some will try to follow though and that is the important part. The other part will be, whatever plans are made do so with the expectation that those not grouped up may not follow then adjust accordingly, just as you currently have to do now.

The Teddy Bear, on 22 May 2020 - 08:52 PM, said:

I understood what you were saying in the first post. Yust saying, you are now playing with some players that have never experienced playing with or against a group before.

TTB, even after what I posted, I believe some of it is that his calls, when he tries it w/in-game VOIP, changes and likely drastically based on who follows, using tactics when most of the team follows along vs tactics used while depending only on his grouped mates. Something along the lines of calling for a push then having most of the team evaporate away instead.

Some players may have Voice disabled (no icon in Tab/group screen) and also have chat disabled, though they may pay attention to minimap. And as noted TTB, many are not used to playing with an actual group and consistent and even semi-effective drop calling.

Other that groups and external VOIP, the game itself went for almost 3 years with a build-in VOIP, no command wheel and terribly build chat interface, and almost non-existent in the non-combat interface.

[East Indy]

Brauer, on 22 May 2020 - 08:13 PM, said:

Because of these experiences I fairly frequently don't bother. I know I've got one to three players by my side who I can depend on to a much greater degree, and generally we coordinate what we're doing to some extent. It's usually much more fun and useful to focus on communicating with those players than trying to heard a pick-up team that may include players who have comms turned off, who are actively against any kind of play other than rushing at their first target, or who simply don't have the discipline to hold a power position.

You might've just had bad luck — most teams, I find, are willing to trying something different, especially if it leads to a win and high scores.

By contrast, last night, I was in multiple games where Alpha Lance was slow on the uptake, out of position and eliminated from the game early, leading to 12-1 kinds of experiences. I really do think the question of group skill, at this state of the game, is more often about lack thereof and the matchmaker's inability to account for it.

Anomalocaris, on 22 May 2020 - 02:11 PM, said:

This doesn't require tightening the matchmaker, it just requires looking at your 24 players and splitting them up in a way that best balances skill.

Exactly. Tier 1 has been playing with Tier 5 for months or years. Probably years. That's the reality, but it can be helped if the matchmaker knows who's who.

[Magic Pain Glove]

DAEDALOS513, on 21 May 2020 - 01:54 PM, said:

Sigh... you sound really upset (passionate?) and I'm not sure why ppl can't have a conversation without taking it personal (yes, when you call someone dumb you are taking it personal).. anyway..

The funny thing is I didnt say that to you , I said that line of logic is , there is a difference . If you want me to be personal I will say I dont think you are dumb I think you are intentionally misleading others , avoiding discussing observable metrics , using faulty logic and selective player experience of a portion of the playerbase (who likes the change) as it suits your argument while disregarding others in attempt to rationalize and defend the current implementation of the soup queue . While you enjoy the change yourself you still have an irrational fear of it being reversed , which I assure you wont happen.

PGI barely reversed Long-Tom despite everyone being very vocal against it. It only took em 6 months after which faction play was already in ashes.

Quote

I only brought up the fact that many players agree with me because you wanted proof.. if you want to disregard them like you accuse me of doing, be my guest.. be a hippocrit.

Now this here is the funniest thing of it all . You present a portion of forum commentators experience as "proof" to me while disregarding the other sizable portion who dislikes the change while at the same time claiming that all experience is subjective and all that while calling me a "hippocrit".

Quote

Something that would help solo'ers immensely is to join a unit. Make friends and share knowledge.

Should I [GOON] join a unit ? Should ASH [EMP] join a unit ? Should Brauer [MJ12] join a unit ? Once again , good advice but in reality it is a disguised attempt downplay the downsides of the current soup queue and place the blame on personal aspects/skills of individual players . Same thing with your previous "improve" argument . Disguised good advice aimed at redirecting blame for badly implemented change from developer to player.

Quote

PS. You exagerate alot. I don't respond to obvious exagerations.

You dont respond to anything objective if its gonna put you in a corner from which you cant weasel out with self-contradictory arguments you are using . I however don't have that problem .I am willing to debate anyone and explain my reasoning as clear and concise as I can .

You will tell Nearly Dead to "Improve" but you wont tell it to Proton.
You will tell some random pug to "join a unit" for the sake of argument but you wont tell it to me or other players I mentioned above.

10/10 Logic , not contradictory at all .

[Horseman]

East Indy, on 23 May 2020 - 05:05 AM, said:

Exactly. Tier 1 has been playing with Tier 5 for months or years. Probably years. That's the reality, but it can be helped if the matchmaker knows who's who.

Months at worst, if at all true prior to the queue merge. Remember Ash tested it a while ago https://mwomercs.com...to-make-tier-3/

Edited by Horseman, 23 May 2020 - 09:30 AM.

[Anomalocaris]

pseudofiction, on 23 May 2020 - 09:28 AM, said:

My experience with the groups so far is that they either carry you through the match way too hard, or (very rarely) screw the team over more than any 4 random solo players possibly could have. Either way they are often a big source of imbalance due to superior teamwork and their inclination to use power-builds, that’s why letting them make up to a third of the team is horrible idea. You also need to keep in mind that more people from the unit are often trying to synch-launch with the group so you can end up with even bigger “group”.....

A lot of us feel you brother. But to paraphrase Russ... "3%"

Not gonna change IMO. So you have to make a decision on whether you want to deal with it or move on. Cause Russ and Paul definitely aren't listening to those of us with these concerns.

[East Indy]

Horseman, on 23 May 2020 - 09:29 AM, said:

Months at worst, if at all true prior to the queue merge. Remember Ash tested it a while ago https://mwomercs.com...to-make-tier-3/

Gotcha, gotcha. I mean true "Tier 5" — below 30% percentile, and likely having crept up in MWO-recognized Tier due to PSR.

[FRAGTAST1C]

It is only fair that the experiments should continue but for the next month, remove QP and keep only FW, limit group size to 4-man and see how it goes. It is only fair.