178 replies to this topic

[ccrider]

Nightbird, on 17 December 2020 - 10:32 PM, said:

PGI didn't propose the failed PSR+MM update, credit to where credit is due.

While very true they still have an uncanny ability to discuss with the player base then implement the worst proposal combined with their own twist to further degrade it. It's almost magical if it wasn't so goddam inept every time.

[Brizna]

Statistics prove the inclusion of small groups have not changed meaningfully the amount of stomps and loop-sided games.

Sorry if you are sore and are looking to blame someone of your losing streaks, it's fact.

[Nightbird]

Acheron Blade, on 17 December 2020 - 11:30 PM, said:

So as a returning player and somewhat of an outsider now after being gone for a few years, having read through most of the threads linked and posted by Nightbird, this should be a case study for “How to kill a better idea with poor interpersonal interactions.”

Or how to kill a game with a bad idea. Glass half full or half empty, unless you feel the side that succeeded in getting a terrible idea implemented though lying and slandering has no fault whatsoever? Might as well call it a lesson on how to kill the better plan through dishonesty and deceit, something that's quite popular today. If only the worse plan wasn't you know... a total failure.

Brizna, on 18 December 2020 - 05:25 AM, said:

Statistics prove the inclusion of small groups have not changed meaningfully the amount of stomps and loop-sided games.

Sorry if you are sore and are looking to blame someone of your losing streaks, it's fact.

Let's put it this way. Patient is dying of a heart attack. Patient chooses Plumber to perform emergency surgery. After surgery, Patient is still dying of a heart attack, and gains medical bills. Plumber declares mission accomplished, and it's the Patient's fault. Surgeon standing nearby smacks forehead. That is where we are today lol.

So, whose fault is it? The patient for choosing the plumber, the plumber who pretended to be the surgeon, or the surgeon who watched?

Edited by Nightbird, 18 December 2020 - 07:50 AM.

[Timber Ghost]

I got stomped on last night as well while dropping solo. But, the night before, it seemed like my team was doing the stomping. For me, it goes in streaks. Some good nights, some bad nights. Some nights we have some great games. Lets see what today holds.......

[GARION26]

Timber Ghost, on 18 December 2020 - 07:59 AM, said:

I got stomped on last night as well while dropping solo. But, the night before, it seemed like my team was doing the stomping. For me, it goes in streaks. Some good nights, some bad nights. Some nights we have some great games. Lets see what today holds.......

Agreed things go up and down sometimes - sometimes due to my own tilting of the game on a night I'm on or off.

I drop 99% solo and I very much enjoy playing. The 1% I play with my elementary school aged son and I have a great time then as well.

[Anomalocaris]

Brizna, on 18 December 2020 - 05:25 AM, said:

Statistics prove the inclusion of small groups have not changed meaningfully the amount of stomps and loop-sided games.

Sorry if you are sore and are looking to blame someone of your losing streaks, it's fact.

Simply not true. After the implementation of the merge queue PGI posted a very cryptic "stomps are up 3%". Sounds minor, right? Then you find out that stomps (as defined by PGI 12-4 or worse) were 30% of total games. That meant that players were now experiencing 3% more total stomps, which was a 10% increase over previous levels.

That is substantial. And note that PGI has refused to give us anymore data since then. Has it gotten worse? Better? From the sounds of it things improved when they tightened PSR spread in matches, but that didn't last due to wait times. Now it sounds like they are worse. Regardless, given PGI's history and general corporate behavior, I have to think if there were any meaningful improvements they would have told us, if for no other reason than to justify/support their decision (which has been panned by half the population it seems).

And we haven't even gotten into the issue of groups (very good or very bad) dramatically limiting the ability of solo players on their team to make a meaningful impact on match outcome. Either because they're so good they steamroll regardless, or they're so bad they can't be carried.

[Capt Deadpool]

Like Acheron stated above, it is fairly common for talented artists, statisticians, engineers, scientists to have poor interpersonal skills; synaptic density varies in brain location from person to person, i.e. everyone has different talents.

Many times in business environments, such individual talents require ambassadors/liasons in order to effectively communicate their ideas to management if there is no one manning the wheel smart enough to recognize the usefulness of an intelligent as$$hole.

Unfortunately, there was neither a liason nor anyone smart enough making the decisions to overlook Nighbird's (fairly benign, though increasing due to his frustration) abrasiveness, to recognize his passion and the fact that his solution was likely the best one.

[Nightbird]

Capt Deadpool, on 18 December 2020 - 01:37 PM, said:

Like Acheron stated above, it is fairly common for talented artists, statisticians, engineers, scientists to have poor interpersonal skills; synaptic density varies in brain location from person to person, i.e. everyone has different talents.

Many times in business environments, such individual talents require ambassadors/liasons in order to effectively communicate their ideas to management if there is no one manning the wheel smart enough to recognize the usefulness of an intelligent as$$hole.

Unfortunately, there was neither a liason nor anyone smart enough making the decisions to overlook Nighbird's (fairly benign, though increasing due to his frustration) abrasiveness, to recognize his passion and the fact that his solution was likely the best one.

It is common for people to have interpersonal skills but no analytical skills.

In business environments, such individuals can rise to a position of power and yet lack the technical skill to make correct decisions in that space. As a result, they are not only unsuccessful in their role but also live in constant fear of being exposed for who they are.

Unfortunately for us this time, there was no one in the large proposal group who could recognize that their proposal was doomed to fail, and without any evidence to present as a defense in the wake of the disaster, the group spends their time making false claims and personal attacks in hopes of muddying the matter.

The bottom line is that prior to any decision made, the projected results of our choices were presented to the community. One method showed no benefits in Matchmaking, the other an 135% improvement. In spite of that, the group used their "interpersonal skills" to muscle through their non-functional proposal. To this day, this group is not willing to admit any responsibility in the harm done to the community.

Edited by Nightbird, 18 December 2020 - 02:17 PM.

[Capt Deadpool]

Nightbird, on 18 December 2020 - 01:56 PM, said:

It is common for people to have interpersonal skills but no analytical skills.

In business environments, such individuals can rise to a position of power and yet lack the technical skill to make correct decisions in that space. As a result, they live in constant fear of being exposed for who they are.

Unfortunately for us this time, there was no one in the large proposal group who could recognize that their proposal was doomed to fail, and without any evidence to present as a defense in the wake of the disaster, the group spends their time making false claims and personal attacks in hopes of muddying the matter.

The bottom line is that prior to any decision made, the projected results of our choices were presented to the community. One method showed no benefits in Matchmaking, the other an 135% improvement. To this day, this group is not willing to admit any responsibility in the harm done to the community.

100% correct on every point except one: most of those who rise to positions of power are not smart enough to fear being exposed, because they are under the mistaken impression that they have risen to their position based on their IQ XD. Plenty of obvious examples out there on the political stage

Definitely a shame for all involved and the community. Strange that such absurd 'cliqueishness' has been allowed by decision-makers to affect the game so negatively. C'est la vie...You did all you could, maybe PGI's new ownership will bring better management?

[Heavy Money]

Anomalocaris, on 18 December 2020 - 10:41 AM, said:

Simply not true. After the implementation of the merge queue PGI posted a very cryptic "stomps are up 3%". Sounds minor, right? Then you find out that stomps (as defined by PGI 12-4 or worse) were 30% of total games. That meant that players were now experiencing 3% more total stomps, which was a 10% increase over previous levels.

That is substantial. And note that PGI has refused to give us anymore data since then. Has it gotten worse? Better? From the sounds of it things improved when they tightened PSR spread in matches, but that didn't last due to wait times. Now it sounds like they are worse. Regardless, given PGI's history and general corporate behavior, I have to think if there were any meaningful improvements they would have told us, if for no other reason than to justify/support their decision (which has been panned by half the population it seems).

And we haven't even gotten into the issue of groups (very good or very bad) dramatically limiting the ability of solo players on their team to make a meaningful impact on match outcome. Either because they're so good they steamroll regardless, or they're so bad they can't be carried.

Going from 30% to 33% is not large. That's going from about a 3rd of the time to about a 3rd of the time. Its practically a rounding error.

People are anecdotally describing 80%+ stomp rate from certain groups. If that were true, the numbers would be way worse. Which leads me to believe that the whole phenomenon isn't actually that bad. Either groups aren't stomping that often, or the number of groups who stomp often is so small as to barely appear in the stats.

It leads me to suspect confirmation bias. When you get stomped and there's a group, you attribute it to that group. When there isn't, it's just a coincidence. Over time, that builds up a strong feeling of a phenomenon existing that doesn't actually.

Edited by Heavy Money, 18 December 2020 - 02:24 PM.

[Nightbird]

Capt Deadpool, on 18 December 2020 - 02:20 PM, said:

100% correct on every point except one: most of those who rise to positions of power are not smart enough to fear being exposed, because they are under the mistaken impression that they have risen to their position based on their IQ XD. Plenty of obvious examples out there on the political stage

Definitely a shame for all involved and the community. Strange that such absurd 'cliqueishness' has been allowed by decision-makers to affect the game so negatively. C'est la vie...You did all you could, maybe PGI's new ownership will bring better management?

I play the political game IRL, I've worked for multiple billion dollar companies. I've also taken down teams for their failures on projects on 100s million dollar scale. Being political annoys the hell out of me, but I'll do it because I'm paid to be nice. As you pointed out, I am not nice here but this is because I'd not paid to be I might not have shared my political skills but I at least shared my technical skills and honestly that's all I'm willing to do.

Mediocre bosses that suppress talented underlings is a real thing though. They fear being exposed and passed over. I recommend people stuck under one to find a new job, because there is no way around it if you're in a low position.

[Capt Deadpool]

Nightbird, on 18 December 2020 - 02:27 PM, said:

I play the political game IRL, I've worked for multiple billion dollar companies. I've also taken down teams for their failures on projects on 100s million dollar scale. Being political annoys the hell out of me, but I'll do it because I'm paid to be nice. As you pointed out, I am not nice here but this is because I'd not paid to be I might not have shared my political skills but I at least shared my technical skills and honestly that's all I'm willing to do.

Mediocre bosses that suppress talented underlings is a real thing though. They fear being exposed and passed over. I recommend people stuck under one to find a new job, because there is no way around it if you're in a low position.

Absolutely. Furthermore, if someone has changed jobs and begins to come under the suspicion that no matter where they move their bosses always seem to them to be on the lower end of the clever scale, I recommend that they should really find a way to work for themselves ASAP. Higher IQ people (and really, people in general) experience far greater career satisfaction when they have maximum autonomy.

Not shocked at all you would find being political to be annoying; that is going to take more effort and energy on your part than it will for many other people. Likewise, though my math/stats education is graduate level and probably above average, it's not remotely close to yours, and though I am a spreadsheet wiz, anything beyond that takes me more energy and focus and, honestly I find doing calculations annoying XD. But ascertaining the wavelength of the person I am speaking with and meeting them at their level does not take any extra effort for me. So it is always good to be aware of our strengths and weaknesses and not blind ourselves to them through ego.

An interesting aside since you brought up positions of power; I've worked with billionaires and captains of industry, people who run the largest financial institutions and hedge funds, the ones with helicopters pads on their yachts (I am definitely not claiming to be one of these people or otherwise trying to 'flex', BTW), and the smartest, most self-aware ones say that they are only in their positions because they met the right person or mentor at the exact right time in their life, and that they surround themselves with people smarter than themselves. But most of them are heirs or heiresses, or market manipulators, or crooks. And I have met their children... all going to Harvard or Yale or Stanford despite be literally some of the dumbest people I have ever met, yet nonetheless destined to be our next generation of senators and congress people, all believing themselves to be geniuses based on nothing except their family name.

For these are not the children of filthy peasants like Lori Laughlin, you see; the kosher way to ensure your offspring attends schools befitting of our nation's next generation of aristocrats is to simply donate several million dollars to the university of choice, which is perfectly legal and widely encouraged. I have met the future of this country, and highly suggest diversifying your portfolio to include international equity indexes XD

But I digress... gleefully screaming obscenities while piloting smashy robots is the best way to forget.

[Nightbird]

Capt Deadpool, on 18 December 2020 - 03:37 PM, said:

But I digress... gleefully screaming obscenities while piloting smashy robots is the best way to forget.

lol agreed

[Anomalocaris]

Heavy Money, on 18 December 2020 - 02:23 PM, said:

Going from 30% to 33% is not large. That's going from about a 3rd of the time to about a 3rd of the time. Its practically a rounding error.

People are anecdotally describing 80%+ stomp rate from certain groups. If that were true, the numbers would be way worse. Which leads me to believe that the whole phenomenon isn't actually that bad. Either groups aren't stomping that often, or the number of groups who stomp often is so small as to barely appear in the stats.

It leads me to suspect confirmation bias. When you get stomped and there's a group, you attribute it to that group. When there isn't, it's just a coincidence. Over time, that builds up a strong feeling of a phenomenon existing that doesn't actually.

First of all, 3% is a lot. If the govt raised income taxes from 30% to 33% I guarantee people would be screaming about it and trying to figure out how to deal with that much less money every month. Going from 30% to 33% stomps means that person is experiencing 10% more stomps than they used to in a given period of time. For the average player that's about 3-4 more stomps per month. A large enough change that most people would perceive it. Never mind that PGI's definition is, by necessity, rather basic.

Second, while confirmation bias is definitely a thing, there are strong groups out there that are winning 80% of their matches in quick play and stomping about half the time. I expect there are really bad groups that have the stats reversed, but they don't tend to stream or post their results. The problem for the average solo dropper is when they start to observe these groups showing up repeatedly in their matches, and they come to the (logical) conclusion that whichever side that group is on will be winning the vast majority of matches. That makes those solo players feel like they really don't matter. That they can't affect the outcome, and that they are little more than NPCs in those matches. Again, probably the same thing if there is a crap group dropping as well, only reversed. No matter how hard you carry, if you get those guys on your side you're kinda screwed.

Finally let's not forget that we're looking at stats on a monthly basis. If the average MWO player drops 15 day/month that means they're playing 7 matches/day. Maybe you get a day with groups having little impact and decent matches. Then the next day you get a killer group in your drop cycle and half your games are stomps. Those things stick in people's minds. But we do know that stomps went up by a noticeable amount after the queue merge, so the perception is not unmoored from reality.

[Heavy Money]

Anomalocaris, on 18 December 2020 - 04:07 PM, said:

First of all, 3% is a lot. If the govt raised income taxes from 30% to 33% I guarantee people would be screaming about it and trying to figure out how to deal with that much less money every month. Going from 30% to 33% stomps means that person is experiencing 10% more stomps than they used to in a given period of time. For the average player that's about 3-4 more stomps per month. A large enough change that most people would perceive it. Never mind that PGI's definition is, by necessity, rather basic.

3% tax is a lot because of margins. 3% in the situation of wins/losses is not. 3-4 extra stomps a month sounds imperceptible. Do most people even remember what matches they won or lost for more than a couple hours? Personally, I remember really clutch wins, but nothing else specific. Most people just have a vague impression of if they're winning more or losing more, and vague impressions are unreliable.

Anomalocaris, on 18 December 2020 - 04:07 PM, said:

Second, while confirmation bias is definitely a thing, there are strong groups out there that are winning 80% of their matches in quick play and stomping about half the time. I expect there are really bad groups that have the stats reversed, but they don't tend to stream or post their results. The problem for the average solo dropper is when they start to observe these groups showing up repeatedly in their matches, and they come to the (logical) conclusion that whichever side that group is on will be winning the vast majority of matches. That makes those solo players feel like they really don't matter. That they can't affect the outcome, and that they are little more than NPCs in those matches. Again, probably the same thing if there is a crap group dropping as well, only reversed. No matter how hard you carry, if you get those guys on your side you're kinda screwed.

I'm willing to accept that there are groups that have 80% stomp rates, and that they don't show up in the data for whatever reasons. That seems totally plausible to me. But that brings up a new problem: Are these players stomping because they are a group, or because they are good? If the same people solo dropped instead of grouping, matches with an unbalanced amount of skilled players would probably still have the same stomp ratio.

Consider we have 2 groups of 4 skilled players. They usually match against each other, which balances out. When they aren't there to balance each other out, either group will stomp pugs. Now, remove group drops. The same number of skilled players are dropping, just mixed with each other. They lose whatever advantage teamwork within their group provides, but are also free of tonnage limits. You'll still generally have the situation that whatever team gets more of these experienced players is much more likely to stomp. And now you are actually more likely to have more than 4 of them on the same team, which could easily balance out their lost teamwork advantage in the overall stats. (This effect could also explain why adding groups in only changed stomps from 30% to33%.

Stomps could stay the same or even increase, but people wouldn't blame pre-mades anymore. Would there be the same level of frustration? What if we kept the premade groups, but people weren't part of the same unit, so it was harder to notice them?

The big assumption people make on this topic is if you didn't allow groups in with the solos, that the high skilled players who play in groups would cease to play quickplay at all. Some would, but other high skilled players would start again.

Without an ability to separate the performance of a group of skilled players from the performance of the same players dropping solo, its an invalid comparison. Is the source of stomps the skill imbalance? Probably. But how much of the power of a group is the skill of its members, and how much is the advantage of them being grouped? This must be addressed if you want a clear picture of what's going on.

If we had a matchmaker that was better at balancing skilled players between the teams, would groups matter?

Edited by Heavy Money, 18 December 2020 - 04:25 PM.

[Anomalocaris]

Heavy Money, on 18 December 2020 - 04:23 PM, said:

3% tax is a lot because of margins. 3% in the situation of wins/losses is not. 3-4 extra stomps a month sounds imperceptible. Do most people even remember what matches they won or lost for more than a couple hours? Personally, I remember really clutch wins, but nothing else specific. Most people just have a vague impression of if they're winning more or losing more, and vague impressions are unreliable.



I'm willing to accept that there are groups that have 80% stomp rates, and that they don't show up in the data for whatever reasons. That seems totally plausible to me. But that brings up a new problem: Are these players stomping because they are a group, or because they are good? If the same people solo dropped instead of grouping, matches with an unbalanced amount of skilled players would probably still have the same stomp ratio.

Consider we have 2 groups of 4 skilled players. They usually match against each other, which balances out. When they aren't there to balance each other out, either group will stomp pugs. Now, remove group drops. The same number of skilled players are dropping, just mixed with each other. They lose whatever advantage teamwork within their group provides, but are also free of tonnage limits. You'll still generally have the situation that whatever team gets more of these experienced players is much more likely to stomp. And now you are actually more likely to have more than 4 of them on the same team, which could easily balance out their lost teamwork advantage in the overall stats. (This effect could also explain why adding groups in only changed stomps from 30% to33%.

Stomps could stay the same or even increase, but people wouldn't blame pre-mades anymore. Would there be the same level of frustration? What if we kept the premade groups, but people weren't part of the same unit, so it was harder to notice them?

The big assumption people make on this topic is if you didn't allow groups in with the solos, that the high skilled players who play in groups would cease to play quickplay at all. Some would, but other high skilled players would start again.

Without an ability to separate the performance of a group of skilled players from the performance of the same players dropping solo, its an invalid comparison. Is the source of stomps the skill imbalance? Probably. But how much of the power of a group is the skill of its members, and how much is the advantage of them being grouped? This must be addressed if you want a clear picture of what's going on.

If we had a matchmaker that was better at balancing skilled players between the teams, would groups matter?

The short answer is, if we had a matchmaker that properly balanced total team skill (including groups), it wouldn't matter (or at least it wouldn't be nearly as significant as it is).

But that assumes that PGI is capable and willing when it comes to fixing matchmaking. I would assert that they are neither capable or willing and history would bear me out. But even ignoring capability, they have been quite clear about what they are willing to do, which means they will never properly balance groups of 4 in the matchmaker.

As for the rest, groups have a disproportionate impact because they remove the randomness inherent in the current matchmaker. Drop a 1%er 4-man on one side and a 50%er on the other. Assume the rest of the teams are balanced. The result is clear. Now mix those 1%ers and 50%ers into the normal matchmaker. You are far more likely to distribute them evenly across both teams, improving overall match quality. Yes, there will be times when a disproportionate amount of good players land on the same team, and that's when match quality drops. But that, at least, happens in a more random way. With pre-mades, they will always be on the same side.

This is why stomps go up. 1/3 of the team is basically unaccounted for by the matchmaker. Yes, the matchmaker pre-merge needed work, but it provides our baseline. The only thing that changed was that we had groups who could break the matchmaker through skill aggregation, tonnage imbalance and teamwork. Even if there was no tonnage change and no communication allowed, the high skill teams would still stomp more.

If we're going to keep the current matchmaker, groups need some sort of multiplier based upon their deviation from the mean. A better way would be to take into account WLR, that way players who constantly play in high achieving groups are ranked higher which means they should get tougher opponents. Of course, that would also mean PGI needs to secondary lobby balancing.

None of that will happen though for reasons previously discussed. The only way to solve the issue that is within PGI's scope of ability and interest is unmerging the queues. Or, at least dropping group size to 2 to reduce the influence of the pre-mades on the match.

[morosis]

Anomalocaris, on 18 December 2020 - 06:25 PM, said:

The short answer is, if we had a matchmaker that properly balanced total team skill (including groups), it wouldn't matter (or at least it wouldn't be nearly as significant as it is).

But that assumes that PGI is capable and willing when it comes to fixing matchmaking. I would assert that they are neither capable or willing and history would bear me out. But even ignoring capability, they have been quite clear about what they are willing to do, which means they will never properly balance groups of 4 in the matchmaker.

As for the rest, groups have a disproportionate impact because they remove the randomness inherent in the current matchmaker. Drop a 1%er 4-man on one side and a 50%er on the other. Assume the rest of the teams are balanced. The result is clear. Now mix those 1%ers and 50%ers into the normal matchmaker. You are far more likely to distribute them evenly across both teams, improving overall match quality. Yes, there will be times when a disproportionate amount of good players land on the same team, and that's when match quality drops. But that, at least, happens in a more random way. With pre-mades, they will always be on the same side.

This is why stomps go up. 1/3 of the team is basically unaccounted for by the matchmaker. Yes, the matchmaker pre-merge needed work, but it provides our baseline. The only thing that changed was that we had groups who could break the matchmaker through skill aggregation, tonnage imbalance and teamwork. Even if there was no tonnage change and no communication allowed, the high skill teams would still stomp more.

If we're going to keep the current matchmaker, groups need some sort of multiplier based upon their deviation from the mean. A better way would be to take into account WLR, that way players who constantly play in high achieving groups are ranked higher which means they should get tougher opponents. Of course, that would also mean PGI needs to secondary lobby balancing.

None of that will happen though for reasons previously discussed. The only way to solve the issue that is within PGI's scope of ability and interest is unmerging the queues. Or, at least dropping group size to 2 to reduce the influence of the pre-mades on the match.

if people read one post in this entire thread, i hope it is yours.

you also provide a good description of why i mentioned in my original post that the game desperately needs secondary lobby balancing. once the MM chooses the players for the match, it should do a second pass and create two different, relatively balanced teams from that pool of players. if it can keep the groups intact and still do this, then great. if not, they get split up so that EVERYONE has a chance to enjoy a balanced game.

there is zero reason why the product should be servicing the satisfaction of the group players over solo players except ignorance of the fact that the entire pool of players being matchmade should be of equivalent priority.

lastly, to all who may be reading this, please note that even in a game that is matchmade perfectly, stomps will still happen due to poor gameplay, mistakes, poor positioning, tactics, random disconnects, etc. my post, and my overall criticism of the matchmaking in the game is only to highlight that a disproportionately large number of games in the current system are won and lost at the loading screen. that is unacceptable.

Edited by morosis, 18 December 2020 - 06:48 PM.

[morosis]

Jiro Yamada, on 17 December 2020 - 12:24 PM, said:

For what it's worth, I used to play solo and recently came back to the game since the queue merge literally because groups were now more reasonable to play with without getting roflstomped every game and it made introducing the game to new players much easier that way. Personally I've found matchmaking to be better than my old solo days, and none of the six or seven people I've introduced to MWO over the last couple of weeks have had any complaints about it, and they've traditionally been pretty sensitive about MM fairness in other games.

im glad you had a good experience. you probably have been fortunate to play at higher population times, or when these kinds of matchmaker distorting groups were less prevalent. if you, and the others you have brought in (thank you), were to play the kinds of games i played on the night i did my solo test run, i guarantee you would not be saying what you are saying here.

as anyone gets better at this game, you definitely develop a sensitivity to poor matchmaking. and i can tell you, 100% for sure, not much about my horrible 13 game stretch was really due to my own poor gameplay. my team was often down 1-6 or worse in the first 2 mins, and although i was often still alive at that point, the games were hopeless. again, nobody wants to be in games that are not only unwinnable, but actually unplayable.

these were unplayable games.

Edited by morosis, 18 December 2020 - 06:57 PM.

[Scout Derek]

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

I already see 3 different people post it's due to low population that's making impossible for the MM to create balanced games. This is completely false. From the very beginning, the "community-driven" PSR and MM was designed favor strong groups and screw over everyone else.

https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__6339434

Ehh, I never got into that nonsense. Personally, as I pointed out, the key parts of the game is what makes MM garbage; just an influx of so many bad mechs and game mechanics you begin to wonder....

How the hell did we allow pgi to absolutely destroy the core game and cobble it back together into this disfigured mess; It still bothers me today how awful engine desync was, or how energy draw was even allowed to appear as an actual game mechanic on the pts.

You don't have to answer, because we know the answer to that. And I hope others do as well.

[AnAnachronismAlive]

Since some kind of matchmaker (re)work seems to be on the table anyhow and officials got pointed towards this thread yesterday, mebbe someone can place some sort of a comprehensible and goal-oriented abstract into the applicable Command Chair Thread => Modes

Pretty, pretty please: no salt, no bad blood, no accusations (not even subliminal ones, ye smarties!) - but a goal-orientied explanation why what we have now does not work and what else might work out better.

Edited by AnAnachronismAlive, 19 December 2020 - 04:42 AM.