54 replies to this topic

[BumbleBee]

I don't know why they didn't add an Opt-In for solos to enter the group Queue much like with region servers. Maybe after 200 matches it becomes Opt-Out

Maybe drop it down to 8v8 as well. The bigger maps with smaller group sizes could add some chances for actual scouting and tactics, as well as reducing the numbers required for matches

Edited by BumbleBee, 10 March 2023 - 01:50 PM.

[Heavy Money]

BumbleBee, on 10 March 2023 - 01:22 PM, said:

I don't know why they didn't add an Opt-In for solos to enter the group Queue much like with region servers. Maybe after 200 matches it becomes Opt-Out

Maybe drop it down to 8v8 as well. The bigger maps with smaller group sizes could add some chances for actual scouting and tactics, as well as reducing the numbers required for matches

They've tested 8v8 and it did not help.

[Heavy Money]

the check engine light, on 10 March 2023 - 03:48 PM, said:

Because the group players damn well knew they would end up fighting nothing but other coordinated groups just like in old Group Queue and that this was something they would have to ram down everyone else's throats.

They decided it was better to do that and make excuses for it than a more inventive approach to keeping GQ around like dynamic match sizing with an MM. They'd need to bring back the "players online" functionality to make that work and that would result in potential arse-baring.

They did it like this because everything else would be even worse. Dynamic match sizing would be a disaster. That has never worked in any game ever.

[BumbleBee]

I was just as much talking about smaller groups on larger maps giving more options than "set up firing line here"

Less players = less eyes looking for fewer Mechs and more opportunity for flanking/scouting

It could also mean less incoming ordinance so slightly more forgiving combat

I found 8v8 back in Beta to be much more dynamic as far as battle locations and flexibility in tactics

Edited by BumbleBee, 10 March 2023 - 06:16 PM.

[sycocys]

BumbleBee, on 10 March 2023 - 06:12 PM, said:

I found 8v8 back in Beta to be much more dynamic as far as battle locations and flexibility in tactics

8v8 in one of the last event queues was a heck of a lot better as well. And from my understanding that's completely lacking a MM to have any skill level separation.

IMO the real issue is when you get team A playing -skirmish is the only mode- and team b playing whatever the match mode is -- then we are right back to "capture points/bases need turrets" + "turrets are op they need to be deleted". Unfortunately the higher tier/comp players only see arena mode and have been since early on been unwilling and/or incapable of allowing the game to be anything more than arena mode.

Truly though I thought it was hilarious when no one was smart enough to defend their base even after the match started with all chat blowing up with SQUAWKs.

[Heavy Money]

the check engine light, on 10 March 2023 - 05:30 PM, said:

Well this ain't working either. Figure it the hell out. I got tired of your excuses for DO NOTHING STATUS QUO GOOD a while ago. Haven't seen you solo drop in EVER.

Given what SirEpicPwner did with the WHM4L I suspect if any idea on the matter turned out to be better than status quo you'd plaster your names all over it.

I don't think the current situation is ideal by any means, but the problem is the lack of population. Making the MM more complicated won't help. Splitting solos off from groups will just kill what's left of the playerbase. There is room for improvement in the MM in how it balances the two teams for sure though, and hopefully that's what they are working on now. We never got JayZ's MM proposal fully implemented.

Also, the current situation is working. Its got problems, but the sky isn't falling here.

You're right that i haven't solo dropped much in awhile, but that's because my work schedule changed. I've barely been doing any drops lately.

I'm not sure what you're referring to with SirEpicPwner and the WHM-4L. The only 4L in my life is the MAD-4L

BumbleBee, on 10 March 2023 - 06:12 PM, said:

I was just as much talking about smaller groups on larger maps giving more options than "set up firing line here"

Less players = less eyes looking for fewer Mechs and more opportunity for flanking/scouting

It could also mean less incoming ordinance so slightly more forgiving combat

I found 8v8 back in Beta to be much more dynamic as far as battle locations and flexibility in tactics

Yeah the main complaint that came up was that smaller team size meant that higher skilled players (grouped or not) had an even larger impact on the match. And there's a much larger penalty to someone messing up early, or getting a DC or something. It was more convenient in many ways like you say, but overall it made the game much more punishing, which is the opposite of what we're trying to achieve overall

Edited by Heavy Money, 10 March 2023 - 06:42 PM.

[GoatHILL]

8v8 has been tested a few times now, it is totally one sided.

If 8v8 become the normal game mode it will be a sign the game is dead and they are just milking the last few pennies out of this ride.

[BumbleBee]

I'd be happy for them to put it in as an event here and there. 8v8, random map, no respawns

[Heavy Money]

the check engine light, on 10 March 2023 - 07:32 PM, said:

He knows, and I know you two keep company.

Lol yeah let me just shoot him a message "hey some guy on the forums is saying you did something with a WHM-4L know what that's about?" You brought it up, you can explain lol.

[Heavy Money]

the check engine light, on 10 March 2023 - 09:05 PM, said:

He posted the 5 SNPPC to Grimmechs with his name on it. I hadn't seen a WHM-4L used more than ONCE before I decided to try and do something with it, the builds listed before then didn't even take into account the PPC HSL quirk, that's how ignored it was. The most he did was shave legs and head to add another DHS which I was already considering.

That was not his idea. Him pretending it is disgusts me. The LPPC-2UAC5 ENF5P build also mysteriously showed up on the build list after I ran it while in your Discord, with Tarogato credited. Again, the 5P had been practically ******* ignored.

I wouldn't even care if it were just posted sans credit. You ******* took a brief moment of discovery from someone and used it for cheap ******* Internet points. I didn't even realize the 4L had been posted there until I saw someone else I HAD NEVER SEEN BEFORE running the 5 SNPPC build and got curious enough to look.

What? It has his name on it on Grimmechs because he's the one that uploaded it. Grimmechs isn't some patent office of who invented a loadout. You think there's some internet clout contest going on or something when nobody else does. Nobody is pretending anything.

Also I have no idea who you are, so this is all lacking a lot of context.

[JC Daxion]

Heavy Money, on 28 February 2023 - 06:56 PM, said:

Having it take mechs/groups into account is going to achieve the opposite of what you want. That only serves to obfuscate a pilot's ability to deal damage and win. For example, if I'm t1 in my best heavy mech, and then I switch to a mech I'm less good in, then you are now more likely to get matched against me under your proposed system. In the current system, it treats me the same regardless. This works against me and in favor of you.

The skill distribution in the game is very uneven. Top players are not struggling to stay in t1. Their PSR generally goes up even on losses anyway. Any extra stuff added to the system is only going to serve to increase the likelihood of you being put against those players.

And the problem with the MM isn't that we don't know who the high scoring players are. It is that the MM isn't that great at distributing them across lobbies/teams.

You would have a couple of Gold stars just for being at the top of the leader board even if you were in the worst mech possible. Your not pegged at T1 with out being a top 100 or 200 player. Like i said, Player and Mech.

That's one of the issues with the system, there is as much range in T1 as there is in t5-t1. Adding bonuses or variables to how well a person plays would help getting more balanced matches.




Also to the person saying matches take long enough, It wouldn't add any time, a computer can sort 24 players in a fraction of a second. Seeing this is a Post match sort system it would not add any time.

It would basically be helping to sort players, two 10 star players you add them to separate teams,. you have a 10 star group, add a couple of top solos to the other side. You have a 1 star four man, you boost them with a few higher value players.


The idea is basically a rank system that helps sort the players POST Match build.

[sycocys]

JC Daxion, on 11 March 2023 - 04:04 AM, said:

The idea is basically a rank system that helps sort the players POST Match build.

Really shouldn't take much longer, but if they build matches the same way they showed in FP they'd probably have to rebuild half the system. I guess with QP it could just be done in post because they hide that information from you until it loads in.

[VeeOt Dragon]

to get back on topic i don't see the OPs idea as a good one. it would just lead to so called "elite" players grabbing a mech they have never used so that it drops them down in tier and they can seal club for a bit. as it is there are times of day where T1s are put into matches with T5s. groups throw out this calculation even more. (personally i think the best way to deal with groups is to take the highest tier player in the group and treat the group as that tier. so if a group had 1 T1, 1 T2, and 2 T3s, the match maker would treat the whole group as T1). we are sort of stuck with groups in QP because there weren't enough players to keep all the game modes going. so now we just have QP and FP, the later is pretty much dead already due to elite 12 man pre-built groups dominating every match and forcing anyone who just wants to solo drop out of the game mode out of frustration.

the biggest problem (well other than the MM not knowing what to do with groups) is a lack of player base. sadly MWO is likely on its last legs. hell i rarely play unless there is a reward event that i am interested in. (mostly any more its free mech events and Loot bag events). mostly this is due to a lack of new player retention. its not the old or veteran players that keep a game running well its the new players. you will always be losing veteran players its just how life works people move on to other games or simply get bored and need a break. we need to draw new players to the game and keep them. trouble is every time it comes up or PGI are asked about it they seem to have no interest in improving the new player experience let alone investing in a small amount of advertising. MWO has one of steepest learning curves of any shooter i have every played and i include single player games as well as multiplayer here. to really understand the game in a timely manor a new player has to spend at least a few hours watching vids on youtube and the vast majority of the less biased of such builds are vastly out of date.

[Heavy Money]

the check engine light, on 10 March 2023 - 10:56 PM, said:

I don't think I care too much anymore that you don't remember, I'm going to satisfy myself with the knowledge that you aren't worth talking to and never were.

Bruh you changed your name, how am I supposed to know

But if you are who I think you are, we all welcomed you in and tried to help you, but you didn't want help. You wanted to be mad. And then you said you were quitting the game. But I guess you're back, and you still just want to be mad. So by all means, continue.

JC Daxion, on 11 March 2023 - 04:04 AM, said:

You would have a couple of Gold stars just for being at the top of the leader board even if you were in the worst mech possible. Your not pegged at T1 with out being a top 100 or 200 player. Like i said, Player and Mech.

That's one of the issues with the system, there is as much range in T1 as there is in t5-t1. Adding bonuses or variables to how well a person plays would help getting more balanced matches.

Ah. Yes, more granularity among high tier players could help distribute them better across teams. I agree with that. Although I think a per-mech gold star system is still going to be a lot of extra complexity for minimal return. Changing from 5 tiers to, say, 10 tiers may be better (with current t5 being t10, and current t1 being new t5. And non-linear scaling to get into the new top tiers.)

[Heavy Money]

the check engine light, on 12 March 2023 - 07:27 PM, said:

There is NOTHING LEFT TO DO but be ******* nuclear-tier pissed off at how this game has been handled. They're already looking for ways to duck out of any improvements whatsoever to matchmaker. You did NOTHING to meaningfully help me. What the **** am I supposed to pick up from a few pointless ride-alongs with your T1 crew and getting ******* manhandled by groups of other T1s? This is and was nothing but VANITY for you. An opportunity to "look like one of the GOOD ones" or whatever parlance you prefer for conditioning a noob to put up with this game's endless horseshit.

I'm going to do what I damn well should have done back then and leave you to it. With any luck a LOT of other people will also leave you to it, and when your wait times go even HIGHER you can definitely point at population issues.

We spent hours explaining how things worked to you. You would just get mad about it because you think they should work differently. We took time to include you, but you didn't want to do basic stuff like talk on comms or try proper loadouts. You witnessed that we don't have some uber giga pwn everybody skill power despite being a group of t1 players. The sane lesson to learn is that the game isn't as stacked or unbalanced as you think. And yet you still have the audacity to act like we do and are somehow poisoning the game.

You clearly have a lot of issues with the game. You hate pretty much all the mechanics. You complain about everything. When will you realize that you don't actually like this game? It isn't what you want it to be, and you are handling that fact so poorly that you are mad at me about it. The problem is entirely you. But here you are blaming people who tried to include you. How about you go be ungrateful somewhere else.

Edited by Heavy Money, 12 March 2023 - 10:54 PM.

[pbiggz]

the check engine light, on 13 March 2023 - 10:10 AM, said:

stuff

Alright ill poke the bear...

your personal experience with the matchmaker is by definition anecdotal. No matter how many matches you present they'll always be *your* experience alone. You need more data points. A lot more. Until you have them (and I know you can't get them) you don't have the necessary data to make the kinds of claims I think your making, though, due to your tone, and the personal nature of most of your posts here, its hard to tell exactly what those claims are, outside of you being irrationally mad about a 12 year old fremium game.

Despite its faults (and all matchmakers have faults) our matchmaker is actually doing remarkably well given the very small pool of players it has to pull from. MWO is a complex game, and one of the few i've played that can legitimately be lost in the mechlab, before you even get into a match. From the sounds of it, you don't play nice with others, so your own experiences are definitely being coloured by that.

Edited by pbiggz, 14 March 2023 - 11:29 AM.

[Heavy Money]

the check engine light, on 13 March 2023 - 09:08 AM, said:

"proper loadouts"

I'm about to show you why you're wrong.



These were all played with builds suggested either by you/your Discord or Grimmechs' database.

3 LPPC 3 MRM10+XL300. Panned as a poor compromise and not found on Grimmechs.

A handful of games played with the Grimmechs suggested 4ML 1UAC5 (no more than 5 games), switched because that sucked, mostly played with 3 LPPC 1 UAC5+XL200.

6 SNPPC, XL340. Grimmechs uses an LFE.

A handful of games with the Grimmechs suggested 2 LB10X 4 ML XL280 (less than 10). Mostly 4 LB2X 4SL+XL255.

You actually panned this build because "poptarts don't need speed" and "you're trying to be Clan in an IS". XL325+3PPC+4SL versus Grimmechs' suggested builds, a few games (probably less than 25) with 4 SNPPC and an LFE300.

I'm not really sure what your point is here. The images aren't working. Are you saying Grimmechs loadouts are bad and yours are better? That's probably true of some loadouts on there.

the check engine light, on 13 March 2023 - 10:10 AM, said:

MM is turbo-screwed and it needs work. Again, they're already ducking out of that idea after talking about taking a look at it with an "engineer".

The argument isn't that MM doesn't have problems. The argument is that the primary problem is population, followed by lack of granularity in t1 matches. All the other suggestions and most of the variables PGI can easily change are noise compared to low pop or won't help. You are acting like there is some easy fix and people are just refusing to do it. But there isn't. Refusing to implement 'fixes' that won't help is not avoiding the problem or failing to recognize it.

[sycocys]

I would reckon that a fair portion of us gave up any belief that they'd make any actual progress in developing this game other than new mechpacks years and years ago.

In my opinion, I don't think Russ has been particularly interested in this game for anything other than milking it for the absolute minimum effort since leaving beta and realizing the player base wasn't going to support him pushing the studio directly into another game that he'd launch in an incomplete state.

[sycocys]

the check engine light, on 15 March 2023 - 03:17 PM, said:

What have you to show for data points? There are plenty of other anecdotal examples given by other players of lopsided matchmaking. The only thing you have done so far is blithely dismiss any consternation about the state of MM. I am not and will not be content to accept either my wins or losses as things that should be granted arbitrarily.

Purely anecdotal and only a couple dozen matches, but since accruing the xp for tier 2 I've seen a lot less actual rolls thus far. When you see known comp players on one side and not the other, they generally end up being the few rolls in the mix that I've seen.
Up through tier 3 it was probably in the 90% range of matches that were complete rolls one way or the other.

[Scout Derek]

the check engine light, on 10 March 2023 - 09:05 PM, said:

That was not his idea. Him pretending it is disgusts me. The LPPC-2UAC5 ENF5P build also mysteriously showed up on the build list after I ran it while in your Discord, with Tarogato credited. Again, the 5P had been practically ******* ignored.

You do realize how mechDB works... right?