178 replies to this topic

[Heavy Money]

No1Curr, on 16 December 2020 - 06:01 PM, said:

[redacted]

No u.

PGI's own numbers say the average player spends like $50 on the game, and a small percent of whales spend like $90. Some spend much more, but the margin isn't so huge that it'd make any business sense to ruin most of the game for a couple % of the playerbase. Those few % would need to be spending thousands each, and that's not the case.

The explanation of incompetence/listening to the wrong people/bad luck makes much more sense. Like it or not.

Edited by Ekson Valdez, 16 December 2020 - 09:32 PM.

[morosis]

Scout Derek, on 16 December 2020 - 02:05 PM, said:

They're doing it because they either can or want to play with people they themselves know. Sure some are out there to just own people for the fun of it but some play to just shoot mechs, that's about it.

this is the point i hope to reinforce by posting this thread. even with no malice intended by the players in the group, we have to discuss the fact that the matchmaker cannot handle people like you, or even people significantly worse than you but still above average, playing in groups. it is a problem it has been completely incapable of solving for months now, with the end result being that solo players are marginalized at the expense of group players.

as to yesterday - just to paint the full picture: your group was stomping, the group that was almost certainly dodging your group was stomping, and a possible/likely third group that somehow managed to dodge both of those groups was also stomping.

at a time when getting a game takes 2-5 minutes, a solo player like me, who does not want to get stomped by a premade is simply SOL. my options were either to accept that i am going to have a legit horrid gameplay experience (which is the option i chose, hence the 2-11 WLR and completely unwinnable, noncompetitive losses) or to just quit and do something else because my enjoyment of the game is completely deprioritized vs yours, that of the second group, and the third group.

you are one of my favorite community members, but even though i want you to have fun and be able to hang out with others like you, i should not have to completely sacrifice my gameplay experience for you to have that. again, this isn't an issue i have with players using the system that has been designed for its intended purpose, it is an issue i have with the way the system has been designed, and that every time i have brought up that it is consistently failing, the response has been something along the lines of "its fine for other people who play at different times than you, therefore its fine". legit when i brought it up with Phil, his words were "well i drop solo and I'm fine, soooooo..."

the analogy here would be akin to people in homes closer to a forest fire feeling fear and panic, while those that are some miles away sip their lemonade and talk about how they aren't worried. they may not be worried NOW, but give it a little more time and it will certainly be their problem eventually.

saying "we dont have a solution that is viable for the solo quickplay experience" when that is the lion's share of the playerbase historically, is just unacceptable.

Edited by morosis, 16 December 2020 - 07:15 PM.

[Scout Derek]

morosis, on 16 December 2020 - 06:45 PM, said:

this is the entire point of posting this thread. the matchmaker cannot, absolutely cannot handle people like you, or even people significantly worst than you but still above average, in groups.

your group was stomping, the group that was dodging your group was stomping, and a possible/likely third group that somehow managed to dodge both of those groups was also stomping.

at a time when getting a game takes 2-5 minutes, a solo player who does not want to get stomped by a premade is simply SOL. your options are either to accept that you're going to have a legit horrid gameplay experience (which is the option i chose, hence the 2-11 WLR) or to just quit.

if the state of things is that bad, where those two options are my only options as a competent but not great solo player, something has to change.

And that's also another thing; this is a very rehashed thread unfortunately, that we, as players, can't do much about aside from complain and make great giant paragraphs about how XXXX and XXXX is XXXX and XXXX. Get what I mean?

I'm not trying to be rude, just trying to explain how it is, and alot of us know this, and alot of us are pissed. But it's been like this for years now, and there's not much we can do, hell, the balance community that's been made is even hesitant now that their work will even be accepted by PGI based on how they were talking the last podcast, it legitimately made their work feel insignificant, like waste, as per usual.

And when that happens, I can't help but feel sorry for those people, because they really want the game to become interesting instead of the trash heap it is now.

[morosis]

Scout Derek, on 16 December 2020 - 06:56 PM, said:

And that's also another thing; this is a very rehashed thread unfortunately, that we, as players, can't do much about aside from complain and make great giant paragraphs about how XXXX and XXXX is XXXX and XXXX. Get what I mean?

I'm not trying to be rude, just trying to explain how it is, and alot of us know this, and alot of us are pissed. But it's been like this for years now, and there's not much we can do, hell, the balance community that's been made is even hesitant now that their work will even be accepted by PGI based on how they were talking the last podcast, it legitimately made their work feel insignificant, like waste, as per usual.

And when that happens, I can't help but feel sorry for those people, because they really want the game to become interesting instead of the trash heap it is now.

all the guy in the crows nest on the titanic could do was point at the iceberg and blow his whistle.

but you can be damn sure he pointed at the iceberg and blew his whistle.

[Heavy Money]

morosis, on 16 December 2020 - 07:23 PM, said:

all the guy in the crows nest on the titanic could do was point at the iceberg and blow his whistle.

but you can be damn sure he pointed at the iceberg and blew his whistle.

I hate to 'well, acksually' you, but one of the biggest factors in the Titanic sinking was that the lookouts did NOT spot the iceberg until it was too late to turn. This is sometimes blamed on them not even having binoculars on that voyage (whereas they usually would have), but even with them they may not have been able to see the iceberg given the weather conditions. They couldn't see it, and it probably wasn't even their fault. The problem was the speed the ship was going at in iceberg infested waters.

[morosis]

Heavy Money, on 16 December 2020 - 07:29 PM, said:

I hate to 'well, acksually' you, but one of the biggest factors in the Titanic sinking was that the lookouts did NOT spot the iceberg until it was too late to turn. This is sometimes blamed on them not even having binoculars on that voyage (whereas they usually would have), but even with them they may not have been able to see the iceberg given the weather conditions. They couldn't see it, and it probably wasn't even their fault. The problem was the speed the ship was going at in iceberg infested waters.

how does that not make it the perfect analogy for the current situation?

the captain was irresponsible. the people in a position to provide warnings were not empowered. there was a point at which the iceberg was so close that the lookouts could, indeed see it, and issue panicked warnings.

this is that panicked warning.

[Heavy Money]

morosis, on 16 December 2020 - 07:39 PM, said:

how does that not make it the perfect analogy for the current situation?

the captain was irresponsible. the people in a position to provide warnings were not empowered. there was a point at which the iceberg was so close that the lookouts could, indeed see it, and issue panicked warnings.

this is that panicked warning.

Yes, I do think it is very apt. But, continuing the comparison, the mistake wasn't due to malice either. It was due to a chain of pressure going all the way up to the top, which caused corner cutting and risk taking. We are left seeing the result of that + bad luck.

PGI has made a lot of choices that turned out badly. They were mostly blind choices, where they had to choose something. And now, with the benefit of hindsight, we see they were bad. But if they had chosen the other options, then we might just be complaining about different issues. Or maybe we'd be happy, but a different subset of the playerbase would be saying the same thing over some other issue.

I've worked on enough things like this to sympathize with their situation. But I do hope now that they make some good changes, since the problems are becoming very clear.

No1Curr, on 16 December 2020 - 07:44 PM, said:

[redacted]

[redacted]

Edited by Ekson Valdez, 16 December 2020 - 10:32 PM.
Quote cleanup

[morosis]

Heavy Money, on 16 December 2020 - 07:47 PM, said:

Yes, I do think it is very apt. But, continuing the comparison, the mistake wasn't due to malice either. It was due to a chain of pressure going all the way up to the top, which caused corner cutting and risk taking. We are left seeing the result of that + bad luck.

PGI has made a lot of choices that turned out badly. They were mostly blind choices, where they had to choose something. And now, with the benefit of hindsight, we see they were bad. But if they had chosen the other options, then we might just be complaining about different issues. Or maybe we'd be happy, but a different subset of the playerbase would be saying the same thing over some other issue.

I've worked on enough things like this to sympathize with their situation. But I do hope now that they make some good changes, since the problems are becoming very clear.

i like the way you said that, and i think it is more or less correct. i hope it has never come across as me insinuating that PGI is malicious, or actively seeking to harm the playerbase. however there is a certain degree of irresponsibility in the face of suffering customers that makes their intent more or less irrelevant. the captain of the titanic certainly didnt intend to hit the iceberg, but he didnt do much to prevent the disaster either.

[Heavy Money]

morosis, on 16 December 2020 - 08:01 PM, said:

i like the way you said that, and i think it is more or less correct. i hope it has never come across as me insinuating that PGI is malicious, or actively seeking to harm the playerbase. however there is a certain degree of irresponsibility in the face of suffering customers that makes their intent more or less irrelevant. the captain of the titanic certainly didnt intend to hit the iceberg, but he didnt do much to prevent the disaster either.

Yeah, i agree there is irresponsibility. And I didn't think you were saying they were malicious, but lots of people do. I was talking in general

[Scout Derek]

Heavy Money, on 16 December 2020 - 07:47 PM, said:

I mean, he's not a developer or investor in PGI. Bluster is literally the only lever he has to pull on. He's worked to get their attention and make suggestions, and they aint taking them. You could say he didn't do a good enough job i suppose, but that's why i pointed out that you hadn't even tried as much as he has.

Pretty much this. If anybody has been around here long enough since Open beta, they know I've done quite a bit both on here and everywhere else here and there, I'm not someone who goes "oh hehe I'm on my sub with my buddies who will gang up on anyone I want!", I'm more of a person that goes "okay, if it costs me some reputation so be it, it'll have to happen because it's what's right".

Anyone, who knows I used to be a moderator on here remembers that. Those that don't know or refuse to do a smidge of homework doesn't know or have a single shred of what exactly has happened here regarding me, and regarding the community as a whole. I don't like to draw tons of attention, but it's starting to show and has to be pointed out that someone legitimately has no clue about the history of the community and PGI as a whole. If you want, I can give a play by play within a single paragraph, as needed.

morosis, on 16 December 2020 - 08:01 PM, said:

i like the way you said that, and i think it is more or less correct. i hope it has never come across as me insinuating that PGI is malicious, or actively seeking to harm the playerbase. however there is a certain degree of irresponsibility in the face of suffering customers that makes their intent more or less irrelevant. the captain of the titanic certainly didnt intend to hit the iceberg, but he didnt do much to prevent the disaster either.

I don't think PGI as a whole is attempting this, however, the decisions made from the top in the long run have altered the game's longevity and interest as a whole, and this is particularly seen in MW5. I can also provide details there if you'd like.

[morosis]

Scout Derek, on 16 December 2020 - 08:38 PM, said:

Pretty much this. If anybody has been around here long enough since Open beta, they know I've done quite a bit both on here and everywhere else here and there, I'm not someone who goes "oh hehe I'm on my sub with my buddies who will gang up on anyone I want!", I'm more of a person that goes "okay, if it costs me some reputation so be it, it'll have to happen because it's what's right".

I don't think PGI as a whole is attempting this, however, the decisions made from the top in the long run have altered the game's longevity and interest as a whole, and this is particularly seen in MW5. I can also provide details there if you'd like.

i hope this comes across the right way, but this isn't about you. its not about the 99%ers. its not about the 1%ers. its not about the players at all.

this is about one, very simple thing.

in order for mwo to function, games have to be worth playing.

at present, for a solo player, they are not worth playing. they are not fun. they are not competitive. they are not interesting.

[Scout Derek]

morosis, on 16 December 2020 - 08:54 PM, said:

i hope this comes across the right way, but this isn't about you. its not about the 99%ers. its not about the 1%ers. its not about the players at all.

this is about one, very simple thing.

in order for mwo to function, games have to be worth playing.

at present, for a solo player, they are not worth playing. they are not fun. they are not competitive. they are not interesting.

Oh I know it isn't about me, but I'm just defending myself from someone who believes I am something completely different, which was pretty off-topic in itself.

[Gagis]

Nightbird, on 16 December 2020 - 04:04 PM, said:

From the very beginning, the "community-driven" PSR and MM was designed favor strong groups and screw over everyone else.

This part and your vindicativeness about it is absolutely false. Everyone working on the community proposals pretty much threw their hands in the air about groups being in the queue and worked under the assumption that groups would either go away or have a separate implementation. Groups were not taken into account in any of the proposals since there was absolutely no information about how groups work, even. All math was done with 24 individual players in the system.

Hells, I still don't even know HOW groups are calculated for the current matchmaker, and I created one of the alternative proposals, which was outside the scope of what PGI was willing to do work for, just like Nightbird's. Are groups matched based on a sum of their members' PSR, or an average, or median, or maybe maximum or minimum? I have absolutely no idea.

PGI asked for a simple XML edit. Several proposals came in that were that and one was chosen that was no less broken than any of the other XML edits delivered as asked. Nightbird and me delivered proposals that would have taken actual programming to accomplish, and those were ignored by PGI because thats not what PGI asked for. Now Nightbird is blaming other players for that in a crazy forum crusade and I am finding that extremely inapproppriate.

[MrMadguy]

morosis, on 16 December 2020 - 02:19 AM, said:

...

Game has been unplayable as solo for a long time already depending on your skill. Because opening release valves for high skill players in order to decrease their wait times at expense of middle tier players - is really bad idea.

[Nightbird]

Gagis, on 16 December 2020 - 10:16 PM, said:

Groups were not taken into account in any of the proposals since there was absolutely no information about how groups work, even.

I explained (provided information) to your group how your formula unfairly benefits groups. Pretend ignorance is your excuse now huh? Unhappy you got found out?

There is no vindictiveness on my part, I am doing my part to ensure that if there is another MM pass, PGI and the community ignores suggestions from your group, because not only do you guys not acknowledge that your proposal has utterly failed, but you also spread misinformation that my proposal was out-of-scope or more difficult than your group's proposal. Both are utterly false. I will continue such efforts since we don't really know when PGI will do another MM pass, if ever, or until you guys stop slandering my proposal and acknowledge your group did not do the math on the current MM.

Gagis, on 16 December 2020 - 10:16 PM, said:

which was outside the scope of what PGI was willing to do work for, just like Nightbird's.

Nightbird and me delivered proposals that would have taken actual programming to accomplish

You know what's inappropriate? Lying. Repeatedly.

Edited by Nightbird, 17 December 2020 - 07:56 AM.

[AnAnachronismAlive]

Mebbe we can focus on the central flaw (that seems to be the match maker or the used logic/parameters behind it). In case the current system is flawed - something I can not judge about (for now) -, why not elaborate again and create a better version of what we have now.

There is no shame in failing if the intentions are good once folks are open to admittance and to support another part (be it flawed too or not) ... since it is all about improving the current situation.

So bring it up in the command chair forums and we are good to go!

Edited by AnAnachronismAlive, 17 December 2020 - 09:50 AM.

[Nightbird]

AnAnachronismAlive, on 17 December 2020 - 09:39 AM, said:

Mebbe we can focus on the central flaw (that seems to be the match maker or the used logic/parameters behind it). In case the current system is flawed - something I can not judge about (for now) -, why not elaborate again and create a better version of what we have now.

There is no shame in failing if the intentions are good once folks are open to admittance and to support another part (be it flawed too or not) ... since it is all about improving the current situation.

So bring it up in the command chair forums and we are good to go!

Been trying for 5 months, with numbers and graphs, to show the group why their system failed. No acknowledgements yet, other then working as intended. PGI would be proud.

[AnAnachronismAlive]

Lockheed_, on 17 December 2020 - 09:46 AM, said:

Oh ain't that the truth!

Ye, gimme some knuckle-care for trying to advance positions towards some middle- /functional-ground. Splendid.

Will try to fight myself through the old MM-discussion over the next couple of days, hoping to understand the statistical background and place the issue into the command chair forum afterwards.

Not that I am fed off by sorting tons of non-referring single proposals into some sort of comprehensible post, but hey ... if I wanna keep playing MWO and hope for some improvements, it comes at a cost, eh? So off we go!

[CFC Conky]

Lockheed_, on 17 December 2020 - 09:46 AM, said:

Oh ain't that the truth!

Why not give groups a collective SR rating and place them in matches accordingly. that would take care of the 4 stack roflstomp groups as well as those who are dragging down their team with weird flanks and other zimbabwe maneuvers.

Hello all,

Forgive my ignorance about the MM stuff, but would having a group queue with a max of 4 players per group (12 players per side) alleviate some of the aggro? At the very least it could reduce the size of pre-made teams.

Good hunting,
CFC Conky

Edited by CFC Conky, 17 December 2020 - 10:23 AM.

[dario03]

Nightbird, on 17 December 2020 - 07:33 AM, said:

I explained (provided information) to your group how your formula unfairly benefits groups. Pretend ignorance is your excuse now huh? Unhappy you got found out?

There is no vindictiveness on my part, I am doing my part to ensure that if there is another MM pass, PGI and the community ignores suggestions from your group, because not only do you guys not acknowledge that your proposal has utterly failed, but you also spread misinformation that my proposal was out-of-scope or more difficult than your group's proposal. Both are utterly false. I will continue such efforts since we don't really know when PGI will do another MM pass, if ever, or until you guys stop slandering my proposal and acknowledge your group did not do the math on the current MM.

iirc the current system was supposed to have 3 or 4 parts to it. Only the first part has been done.