344 replies to this topic

[John Bronco]

I guess I'd be ok with limiting groups to 2 players, which would could down on a lot of the cheese ******** like narc and LRMs, which ruin the match for other 20 people playing.

Edited by BlaizerP, 10 May 2020 - 08:03 PM.

[John Bronco]

DAEDALOS513, on 09 May 2020 - 06:00 PM, said:

Nah.. one day i'll play all day with 2 or 3.. the next I'll solo it.. depends on how much free time i have that day..

regardless.. you red herringed my comment.. the point i was making is the stomps simply aren't as prevalent as some make them out to be..

And yet most of your drops have been in a group, based on you...being a in a group whenever I look at my friend list.

[Nearly Dead]

Matches today were bad enough that when I had two in a row that were fun, I quit before it could go sour and ruin it. Two months ago I'd have played till midnight.

[pvt Hudsoff]

Just wanted to add my 2 cents.
Past few days (at least 2) were pretty good in match quality matter. Noticeably fewer stomps. Increase in really good ones (12:10, 12:11). I was playing solo all time.
Don't know if PGI changed anything during these days or was it my luck (two days of it?), but since the group queues started I had similar experiences as before the test, but with groups option - which was a big plus.

Cheers

ps. english is not my native, sorry for mistakes

Edited by pvt Hudsoff, 10 May 2020 - 11:29 PM.

[C337Skymaster]

BlaizerP, on 07 May 2020 - 08:09 PM, said:

TBH I don't know why anyone would drop solo with this merged queue crap.

I've spent an evening playing with
a:) Cadets
b:) Groups that may as well have been cadets
c:) The usual high-skill death squad on the other team
d:) A team of LRM boats happily smashing the win button from Zimbabwe (why are indirect locks without a TAG or NARC even a thing in this game?)

or....
e.) The usual PSR matchmaking fail where there are are no groups (afaict) but 4 90%+ pilots in a game and they all magically end up on the same team.

Fix PSR. Fix the game.

Somewhat off topic, but since you brought it up: we're missing an equipment system called "C3" that PGI apparently figured nobody would know how to use correctly, so they gave the effects of C3 to every 'mech, without the equipment. C3 was originally supposed to be lance-only, and require a 1-ton, 1-crit piece of equipment on 3 of the 4 'mechs, and a 5 ton, 5 crit piece of equipment on the "lance command" 'mech, that would allow them to share targeting data. As long as the command 'mechs' computers remained intact, they could link together to share targeting data, but only up to Company size groups (which is all we have in MWO anyway). This was IS tech, only, to boot. Not available to the Clans. Something developed in the Combine that even the other IS factions didn't have or use right away. I'd personally like to see C3 added as equipment and have target sharing restricted to its use as it's supposed to be, but then remove the minimum range on Clan LRMs the way THEY'RE supposed to be.

[Sjorpha]

Hot take: just plug the jarl's list directly into the matchmaker instead of PSR and match by rank.

[DAEDALOS513]

BlaizerP, on 10 May 2020 - 08:07 PM, said:

And yet most of your drops have been in a group, based on you...being a in a group whenever I look at my friend list.

You just helped my argument, thx.

[Alreech]

C337Skymaster, on 11 May 2020 - 04:41 AM, said:

Somewhat off topic, but since you brought it up: we're missing an equipment system called "C3" that PGI apparently figured nobody would know how to use correctly, so they gave the effects of C3 to every 'mech, without the equipment. C3 was originally supposed to be lance-only, and require a 1-ton, 1-crit piece of equipment on 3 of the 4 'mechs, and a 5 ton, 5 crit piece of equipment on the "lance command" 'mech, that would allow them to share targeting data.

Fun fact:
In the Battletech Table Top you don't need a C3 network to look at the record sheet of the enemy player to see if his Mech is damaged.
You don't need C3 (or TAG or NARC) either for indirect LRM fire.
So what should the C3 Network do to work in MWO as in the Tabletop, making projectils faster and laser burn time shorter to simulate the table top rule of using the shorter range?

MWO has too much stupid table top stuff from Battletech left.
Like the "same number of slots and 10 Heat Sinks for all Engines, but not all Heat Sinks in the Engine" rule, or the massive slot buff & free CASE for Clan Tech.
Battletech was a quick and dirty made game to make fast money with imported plastic kits of japanese Anime Mecha and became later the combat system for FASAs Mechwarrior Role playing game.
Star Leauge tech like was like the sword +2 in D&D, and upgrade for your Mech in your Role Playing Campaign, and the Clans have been meant as strong NPCs with IMBA weapons.
IMBA weapons didn't work well in a Table Top Wargame and even worse for a competetive First Person Shooter.

Edited by Alreech, 11 May 2020 - 10:14 AM.

[Thorqemada]

That i agree, many problems root in that Battletech never evolved into a Computergame inspired by a Boardgame but stays a Boardgame that pretends to be a Computergame.

[LordNothing]

wasder undapants, on 09 May 2020 - 10:27 AM, said:

Wow that bad eh? I have very little clue about the complexity behind any of this but is there no chance to fix the PSR and matchmaker. Never mind the word 'fix' as some believe its not broken, how about improve?

pretty sure the only people who believe psr is working are those who are members of pgi. id expect that if it were working each tier would have equal numbers. but scroll through any forum post and you would be hard pressed to find someone who is not in t1. one would usually expect a bell curve with the most populous tier being t3. and yes the only thing it needs is a small math tweak to make the system symmetrical and a possible reset and reseed (and you might not need this if you put a bit of fudge factor to accelerate seeding for a time when it hits, and it would just trend down towards one over a period of time).

people need to be placed in appropriate tiers for their skill, they don't need their egos artificially fluffed by being in the top tier without actually deserving it.

Edited by LordNothing, 11 May 2020 - 08:39 PM.

[C337Skymaster]

Kodyn, on 08 May 2020 - 11:14 PM, said:

Take a break, come back, find out they let Paul do a thing. Why, ever, would you let Paul do a thing? Just pay him and keep him in a corner if you're going to insist on employing him, don't let him touch things...


This whole thread is hilarious btw. Anyone thinking this game had enough population left to mess with anything regarding matchmaking was and is dreaming. Lot of work to mess with a system so few people will be affected by. With the amount of money I've wasted on this game, you'd think I'd care a bit more, but honestly, if you don't laugh at the state of MWO and how sad PGI is these days, you'd cry. Never have I seen such an inept company last this long being so bad at what they do.

Also, Russ calling another person rude, that had to make my year. At least he didn't call anyone worthless, that'd just be too much irony to handle.

Yeah, Battletech and Mechwarrior have a much bigger fan base than even I realized 10 years ago, and have a hugely positive reputation with that fan base. PGI has spent the last 10 years milking that reputation for every last penny they could get out of it. We're all still here because MW2, MW3, and MW4 were so excellent, and we're all on a non-stop nostalgia trip. There's nothing here worthy of anyone's attention who's not already super addicted to the franchise, and even 90% of those who were have figured out how to get the ACTUALLY good games running on new hardware and gone back to playing those.

As for Russ, I think we might have found one of the few people in the world that's never seen The Princess Bride, and he really needs to.

[C337Skymaster]

wasder undapants, on 09 May 2020 - 02:34 AM, said:

Come on, everyone just admit it, this is what we need. A complete reset allowing players to better fall into skill levels after a few weeks/months of playing. Lets just get behind this instead of arguing about everything else. I am in Tier 1 apparently and 92% percentile on Jarl's. Trust me, thats not right. Either 85% on that list below me play once a year, or the PSR system is completely broken. I am experienced in the game yes, highly experienced, but I am not a skillful pilot. The system needs to separate those things and stop biasing towards players who play more. We have all played with players like me who are experienced, in tier 1 but aren't that skillful, In a similar way there must be players in the lower tiers who are highly skilled but dropping with far less capable pilots and unable to win rounds etc. Lets just reset with a system that allows pilots to better land where they should be, then hopefully everything else (more enjoyable rounds, bringing more new players in, retaining some competitive upper tier matches etc) will happen.

I'm something like 44% on Jarl's list and in Tier 1. I'll tell ya, I miss Tier 3. I had way more fun being back there than I do running with the meta-spam. I make a point of running 'mechs with their stock weapon loadouts as much as possible (though I do redistribute armor and upgrade to double heat sinks. You're just a walking stick if you don't), which is part of my percentile, but the other part of it is that I'm just not that good: I have NEVER been able to combine torso-twisting and shooting. It's always one or the other, and that handicaps me, severely. I have no business being in Tier 1, but after 4.5 years of playing, I don't have much choice in the matter.

[C337Skymaster]

Alreech, on 11 May 2020 - 10:10 AM, said:

Fun fact:
In the Battletech Table Top you don't need a C3 network to look at the record sheet of the enemy player to see if his Mech is damaged.
You don't need C3 (or TAG or NARC) either for indirect LRM fire.
So what should the C3 Network do to work in MWO as in the Tabletop, making projectiles faster and laser burn time shorter to simulate the table top rule of using the shorter range?

MWO has too much stupid table top stuff from Battletech left.
Like the "same number of slots and 10 Heat Sinks for all Engines, but not all Heat Sinks in the Engine" rule, or the massive slot buff & free CASE for Clan Tech.
Battletech was a quick and dirty made game to make fast money with imported plastic kits of japanese Anime Mecha and became later the combat system for FASAs Mechwarrior Role playing game.
Star League tech like was like the sword +2 in D&D, and upgrade for your Mech in your Role Playing Campaign, and the Clans have been meant as strong NPCs with IMBA weapons.
IMBA weapons didn't work well in a Table Top Wargame and even worse for a competitive First Person Shooter.

Really? So how did indirect fire work on Tabletop, then, if a C3 network was "required" for target data sharing? That's the impression I had, and the functionality that I envisioned: Clan 'mechs can't share target data, and neither can IS 'mechs that aren't configured for it. If an IS group sacrifices the tonnage and space, they gain a powerful teamwork advantage. The Clan counter is that they're really powerful individually, but can't work together as a team nearly as well. It fits with the Lore, too, and the Clan impetus for 1v1 duels, even in open combat.

Personally, right when I first started playing this game almost 5 years ago, I was looking around for an "attack ground" function, because I feel like LRM boats should have the option of telling the computer "make the LRMs land here" designated on the battle grid. Perfectly easy to miss any targets, but you can blanket an area with warheads and make an enemy move from cover. Honestly might have been a better option for PGI than adding air strikes (I finally heard about where they came from after they added the old Forest Colony map back).

I've been hunting for PDFs of the TT rules online, but so far I'm only a short way into a beginner's guide, and I've only gotten as far as basic moving and shooting (only addressing direct fire, with no mention of indirect anything, so far).

[cheapcamper]

dear staff of PGI.

This is a horriable idea for us regular puggies, please leave it for 4 weeks only, for the sake of mechdads and puggies alike. i had spend more than 800 USD on this game, please dont kill my experence for me

[Mister Smile]

Russ already stated on Twitter, that this change will be permanent.

[Alreech]

C337Skymaster, on 12 May 2020 - 06:48 AM, said:

Really? So how did indirect fire work on Tabletop, then, if a C3 network was "required" for target data sharing?

Indirect LRM Fire was introduced with the Battletech Manual 1987, the C3 Network 1990 with the Technical Readout 3050.

To hit roll:
Attacker Firing Skill + Attacker Range & Movement Mods + Target Movment Mod + Spotter Movements Mod + Mods for Line of sight of Spotter +1

Quote

Personally, right when I first started playing this game almost 5 years ago, I was looking around for an "attack ground" function, because I feel like LRM boats should have the option of telling the computer "make the LRMs land here" designated on the battle grid.

That's the way Artillery work in the Battletech Table top: you write down the Hex it should hit, roll 2d6 to see if you hit it, and any unit in the hex get's damaged.

Quote

Perfectly easy to miss any targets, but you can blanket an area with warheads and make an enemy move from cover. Honestly might have been a better option for PGI than adding air strikes (I finally heard about where they came from after they added the old Forest Colony map back).

Air Strikes & Strafing are part of the Aerotech rules and work different

But to not went totally off topic:
Mechwarrior Games are first person shooters, and any game mechanic must work in that enviroment.

The Targetting mechanic from MWO is rooted in Mechwarrior 2, 3 & 4 (Press a Key when on Target = Bracket around target, armor status & weapons shown).
The "Sharing Targetting Data" of MWO is pretty standard for a game from 2012 and comparable to the spotting system of first person shooters like Battlefield 3 & 4. (visible enemys appear on the minimap).
It's needed to make PGIs Idea of "Information Warfare" possible: Scouts that seek out enemys and deliver data on them to the rest of the team.
PGI killed it with ECM pretty quick, and making it dependent on a C3 Network in all Mechs (or TAG, NARC) would kill the rest of Information Warfare that is left in MWO.

Indirect LRM Fire - and Artillery and Air Strikes - are a mechanic to counter camping.
It works against enemys that don't move. Other FPS Games use hand granades or Artillery Strikes as tool against campers.
It's also a teamwork based buff for light Mechs.

[C337Skymaster]

Okay, so that would have been the function of the Arrow IV and Long Tom systems, had PGI decided to include those (I do wish they had, but made them either battlegrid-guided, or TAG-guided, and automatically track to the closest TAG-designated target, kinda like real-world laser-guided munitions).

Thank you for the dates. That will help me, immensely, in tracking down the original play-rules and separating what I know from the MechWarrior titles (all I've ever played) and what comes from TT that I never knew, or never knew correctly. I got my start in MW2, and have only taken an interest in the original TT rules within the past couple years, so I'm still catching up.

[Weeny Machine]

Some effects of merging the queues:


1. Match quality
I haven't had so many rolls before (winning or losing is pretty dull). You wonder why you even bother playing when the match is shorter than the loading screens to get into the match.

To make it even more "fun" people create one group and then do sync drops in addition. Seal clubbing surpreme...


2. Mechs

2.1. Tonnage
The number of heavies and assaults is obscene

2.2. Types
Non-meta mechs are pretty rare since the merging.

3. Tier
I am sorry to say that but having an experience bar which basically never goes down and only up - for some faster, for others slower but up is up - shows that you are simply unable to balance that game or that system. It is not meant as an insult but an absolute potato would end up one day in tier 1 and would be treated as a pro player. That is simply flabbergasting.



To sum it up: since merging the queues the number of rolls has risen enormously and the diversity went down the drains.

Edited by Weeny Machine, 12 May 2020 - 12:32 PM.

[50 50]

I'd like to ask if we can test going back to the 3/3/3/3 weight class restrictions for the teams.

We needed the tonnage limit on the groups in group queue because it was impossible to match varying sizes of groups to a 3/3/3/3 limit to build the teams.

But with a mixed group and solo queue that should no longer be as relevant.

Could we also try out applying a 1/1/1/1 restriction to the groups so they fit within that same framework. Originally the groups did have to fit within the team 3/3/3/3 weight class restriction but was able to soak up one or more of those classes. (ie. A group of 4 could take 3 assaults and 1 heavy or a group of 6 might do 3 heavies and 3 assaults)
Applying the 1/1/1/1 limitation with the maximum group size of 4 is something that we have not tried and helps to diversify the groups and move away from some of the cheesier drops we have seen.

Can't say I have seen much difference in the match outcomes compared to pre merge.
But certainly need to adjust the tier system so that your gain is not affected by the win/loss of your team and only based on personal metrics.
Also need to make sure that the calculations for losing tier are the equivalent of gaining tier.
It has to be just as easy to drop in rank as it is to go up.

[JaxomRahl]

I suspect this comment comes too late and is already drowned out by the variety of die hard seal clubbers and solo players like myself predominantly. That said:

Overall, I would say my enjoyment of this game has dropped with the introduction of the groups into the solo queue. I respect the developers desire to reduce queue times for group queue, but I think unleashing 4 stacks on the solo queue is too damaging to the balance. I'm slightly disheartened by the fact none of the metrics they're assessing the introduction of group includes match balance and stomp rate. The three selected dimension are: match maker speed, tier balancing, and weight class balancing. I suspect PGI is hoping Tier balancing has some bearing on match quality, but as many have pointed out Tier is mostly just a measure of how long you've been playing. Lets face it not everyone becomes a pro given enough time. I certainly do not. To me, the metrics they're assessing by indicate very little persuasive concern for endeavoring to balance the outcome of matches.

Not all of the games suck. I wouldn't say that. I would say maybe half are still fun, but for the other half you either get lucky and get the try hard group or you get the group that is pulling their new cadet along for the ride. The entire queuing system just feels extremely luck based on dimensions you can't control. Namely which side of the team you get stuck with.

Things that have changed for the worse for me are:

• I am stuck playing meta mechs or at least ECM mechs to have any hope of enjoying a match. Requiring ECM to have fun significantly limits the list of mechs I can take out.
  
• I run into considerably more meta mechs that, as a casual player, just make me want to stop playing. I appreciate there's nothing wrong with running a macro'd ac2/uac2/lbx2/rac2/rac5/etc build, but it highlights a huge disparity between someone out to club seals and someone who's out to have fun in alternate ways. Those builds always existed before, but there were certainly less of them.
  
• Spawning in the wrong lance/drop point with a slow mech effectively guarantees you can't get to the front line before getting overwhelmed by the enemy. If you're lucky a good samaritan tries to escort you, but generally you just die (and probably the samaritan too).

Recommendations:

• Improve player rating so a tier based analysis actually has value
  
• Reset the tiers to let players fall into their natural rankings
  
• Limit group size to 3 and reduce tonnage cap. Should not be able to run 3 heavies. This would dramatically reduce the stomp potential of a group.
  
• Spread groups across lances. Would force mech classes to drop together again and drop points to be valid for tonnage. A premade may be inspired to work with their team as a whole more and, regardless, it'd take longer for them to group up and start clubbing.
  
• Provide some indication of premades in the loading screen/battle overlay. This is important battle data for both sides.
  
• Introduce ally mech loadout information into loading screen/overlay. This would empower an inspired commander to actually lead if they know what builds they're actually working with. Not all urban mechs are created equal.
  
• Maybe even let people view and export builds from the end game screen. This would greatly flatten the learning curve, encourage sharing, and empower build analysis.
  
• Or, just treat groups as sets of solo players that may or may not play on the same side to fix the insanity of matching group sizes as much.
  
• Also maybe run a survey in the client to gather user data that isn't just a bunch of forum warriors' opinions.

TL;DR Focus on match balance as a heuristic, not tonnage and tiers. Make tiers count for something.

Edited by JaxomRahl, 13 May 2020 - 12:25 AM.