62 replies to this topic

[Listless Nomad]

This game will lose me pretty quickly if I get together 11 friends to play with and half of us are on the other team with no choice to correct it. If I want to put the effort and time in to practice, join a unit, and want to drop as a team - why shouldn't I be allowed to do so?

I know not everyone is suggesting that - but if lances are randomly assorted without being able to designate a company - then there are going to be issues.

Edited by Listless Nomad, 02 May 2012 - 04:56 PM.

[Demonwaith]

Vollstrecker, on 02 May 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

That falls secondary to the main point of gaming; you don't play if you aren't enjoying yourself. If people don't play, PGI can't support the game. While it's more realistic for invading forces to hit militia and second-line forces, a game can't operate like that all the time or the opposition will just leave (also known as the 'ragequit').

I'll give you a point... to a extent. The game simply can't cater to every single play style. Its not going to be for everyone. But this is a online game with tons of real humans playing. If you don't want to play with them. Whats the point of playing a MMO? There are dozens of lone wolf shooters out there you can play until your hearts content.

If they do set up a territory occupation system like eve's. You solo's well rage quit anyway. Simply cause there won't be any thing you can accomplish out there alone.

Personally i hope they don't even try. As famous said, It well lessen the game for the rest of us.

Edited by Demonwaith, 02 May 2012 - 04:57 PM.

[Korbyn McColl]

I touched on this in another thread, but, in short, there's nothing to balance.

Teamwork has its rewards, and trying to match players based on some abstract ranking system is like saying an ACC Football team should never have to face an SEC team because one conference is stronger than the other and fans of the "weaker" conference will get discouraged and quit watching their team play if they never get to play in a National Championship. It's simply not true. If anything, every ACC fan reading this is now itching to ram a football down my throat and can't wait till next season when their team puts the SEC in its place.

Adversity breeds excellence.

[Famous]

Devil Man, on 02 May 2012 - 04:58 PM, said:

I touched on this in another thread, but, in short, there's nothing to balance.

Teamwork has its rewards, and trying to match players based on some abstract ranking system is like saying an ACC Football team should never have to face an SEC team because one conference is stronger than the other and fans of the "weaker" conference will get discouraged and quit watching their team play if they never get to play in a National Championship. It's simply not true. If anything, every ACC fan reading this is now itching to ram a football down my throat and can't wait till next season when their team puts the SEC in its place.

Adversity breeds excellence.

I'm not sure if you're saying that the SEC is superior to the ACC or vice versa, but everyone knows that the ACC is the only real conference in the nation... even if my boys are perpetually stuck in the shadow of UNC and Duke come basketball time

[Breeze]

The challenge here isn't balancing between pre-arranged lances and lone wolves. The challenge is creating value in coherent teamwork that makes teaming up attractive to any player who would otherwise normally choose to be a lone wolf. This challenge can be met by both game mechanics (communication tools, post-match rewards, emphasis on mixed roles) and the community (players who are team-oriented, and willing to encourage/work with lone wolves to bring them into the fold; lone wolves who are concerned about overall victory rather than personal egos).

Coherency in a team can work between lone wolves and pre-arranged lances. I've seen situations where randoms in a public match have pulled together to come back from a loosing streak. But this is a delicate mix, and easily crumpled.

The devs are charged with making the game to be able to support/bolster/enhance teamwork. The community is charged with the responsibility to advocate the value of teamwork, and actively encourage lone wolves to want to join in.

[Sassori]

The lone wolf can still impact a competitive game without to much difficulty if they're smart. A lone wolf doesn't mean they automatically run off on their own (Unless of course they're a scout, a role where the lone wolf can /really/ benefit an unorganized team honestly) as that means they'll get outnumbered and outgunned fairly quick.

Another spot a lone wolf could have /great/ success is in the scout hunter role. That is a highly 1v1 situation a lot of times and if you're better than the other guy you can kill the scout and escape before retribution. Doing this will ALSO make a highly coordinated team wonder what they're facing, was that planned? Was it a fluke? Was it just bad luck?

While in general I agree that teams that coordinate will have more advantages, I do /not/ feel they are insurmountable, anymore than winning Arathi Basin against a guild team was unbeatable with a pug. We did that all the time. If the loners communicate well, or at least -react- to communication coming in, they can, and will, win matches.

Does that mean a pug is going to always win? Heck no, but that's what happens when you pug. It's expected.

I also find it amusing that people automatically assume 'Merc' is going to be > to House or Lone Wolf.

I know I personally will quite enjoy using other puggers as screens so that I can spring my own ambushes and the like when I pug. So I don't personally see the need for any sort of mechanic other than 'try' to match teams against other teams. After all, it's supposed to be competitive and not a farm the noob, if you've got any skill at all anyways.

Edited by Christopher Dayson, 02 May 2012 - 05:21 PM.

[BL00D RAVEN]

Vollstrecker, on 02 May 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:

Faster communication means a faster response to any kind of "creative" threat that arises, as you put it. Communication and discipline have an incredibly strong effect, there is a reason why Roman Legions were such a success on the field.

Rome did not win because of communication;It won because of technology and giant shields. They had the best tools of their time, so the won.

I do not care how they balance it or if they balance it. I don't care as long as I can play: my friend plays call of duty every day, but he is terrible and gets 8 kills 20 deaths and is happy. Just playing a unique game makes it good even if matches occasionally make you angry.

[Vollstrecker]

Famous, on 02 May 2012 - 04:50 PM, said:

How is making Lances play Lances going to prevent ragequitting? Someone who is prone to ragequitting will generally find a reason to ragequit, if it's not the matchmaking it will be perceived OP weapons or chassis. I sincerely hope PGI doesn't try to cater to the ragequitters, it will lessen the game for all of us. Here's an example for you- Let's say in this 12v12 both teams have a Lance on comms and two random Lances, this looks like a balanced match. When drop time comes we discover that the comms Lance on team A is there to fool around whereas the comms Lance on team B is there to practice for competitive play. You've probably just put team A at a serious disadvantage because their comms Lance can't compete with the other teams. Sure dropping into a server against a 12 man company will suck, but players who are interested and active in the game (these are also the players who spend money, not ragequitters) will either take the loss and find a different server, try to rise to the challenge of a fight they should lose, or simply find a group of players to join themselves. Just because your unit is on comms and/or has played together in the past doesn't mean that you will be world eaters, simply that you're used to playing together and can talk. A good scout player and a good fire support player don't have to be on comms, they just do their jobs and win the game. Matchmaking based on W/L or some mystically divined skill rating can hamper players ability to improve. If you play with scrubs day in and day out you never get better because you're never challenged. So yes PGI might lose players because they can't win, but those players are also very unlikely to spend money on the game, especially since there is no pay to win option (or so they promise us)

I think you're making some assumptions regarding my intent, all I said was that you will have ragequitters if solo queuers are matched against organized teams. It's bound to happen at times, but it should be the exception, not the rule. You don't send the 11th Legion of Vega against the Davion Assault Guards, you commit the Genyosha and a Sword of Light if you can.

Competent matchmaking should make sure that ridiculous imbalances are addressed, whether it's full teams or people in smaller groups. If you're queuing with a lance, I would think it should be expected to be matched against a team with similar organization, if available. That's all I was suggesting.

[Vollstrecker]

BL00D RAVEN, on 02 May 2012 - 05:28 PM, said:

Rome did not win because of communication;It won because of technology and giant shields. They had the best tools of their time, so the won. I do not care how they balance it or if they balance it. I don't care as long as I can play: my friend plays call of duty every day, but he is terrible and gets 8 kills 20 deaths and is happy. Just playing a unique game makes it good even if matches occasionally make you angry.

Rome was revolutionary in many senses, however their incredible discipline and adaptability was more what I was going for there.

Communication became more and more important as larger bodies of troops were marshaled. If you want to focus on communication specifically, you'd be looking to start at the Napoleonic Wars as it was around that period that nations began organizing massive armies.

[Korbyn McColl]

BL00D RAVEN, on 02 May 2012 - 05:28 PM, said:

Rome did not win because of communication;It won because of technology and giant shields. They had the best tools of their time, so the won.

I do not care how they balance it or if they balance it. I don't care as long as I can play: my friend plays call of duty every day, but he is terrible and gets 8 kills 20 deaths and is happy. Just playing a unique game makes it good even if matches occasionally make you angry.

Not to pick a nit, but without training and firm discipline the Roman Legions would have been crushed, irregardless of their "technology". It was their ability to stand firm against the charging hordes and obey orders relayed to them by banners that allowed them to defeat the Celtic and Germanic tribes. Communication played a very big role in the success of the Roman Legions.

[Lomack]

Angelicon, on 02 May 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

The only reasoning I saw from Wargaming regarding platoon size not exceeding 3 was to make it easier for the matchmaker. If one platoon of 5 went with a Maus and four Liechtraktors... well that'd be kind of hard for the MM to deal with.

The WoT MM system assigns a value to your tank (there is a range for every type and tier of tank) for each fight. When your grouped. The highest value of all those in the group is how you are ranked by MM. So if you had a Maus and 4 traktors, you go into a fight that is setup for the Maus. The problem is that the other 10 players get screwed as your group just brought 4 tanks that can't do much besides spot for one hit.

---
I don't really see a problem with lances. Sure 4 people that can coordinate well and know what they are doing are going to give the team an advantage in a pug match. However, we don't know how the MWO matchmaker will be setup. They could easily include in their algorithm the desire to try and pair grouped lances up with other grouped lances. This would negate a bit of the grouping bonus if both teams had grouped players.

Thats not to say there probably shouldn't be a limit for Pug matches. A 4 person (one lance) group limit I think is probably reasonable for pugs. For clan matches, I would expect the clan to decide who is going into the match, and in this case your only fighting against other clan teams and not pugs.

Edited by Lomack, 02 May 2012 - 06:05 PM.

[LackofCertainty]

Games that limit how much of a group you can bring are always a pita. Since MWO is going to be 12v12, I want to be able to queue with anywhere from 0-11 of my friends. (aka lone wolf up to full team) If the matchmaking for that doesn't work, then it needs to allow 1-4 peeps to group together, and balance based on lances.

Balance should take into account premades not by boosting their matchmaking rating, but by matching them against similar teams. If one team has a premie lance, a lance that's 2 groups of 2, and a lance of lone wolves, then the enemy team should have the same. One of the nice bits of F2P games is that they generally get a big enough playerbase to get away with this.

If they implement ranked games later, they should do something like what LoL does. In LoL, you can solo queue ranked, duo queue, or go with a full team. In MWO that'd translate to solo queue ranked, duo queue, or go with a full lance. Full 12/12 teams would be restricted to custom games or clan matchups.


The game has to account for and be playable as a lone wolf. People who actively don't want the devs to plan for lone wolves are silly trolls like Sheewa. Totally hilarious that his first response to any dissenting opinion was "Are u mad?" Classic trolling, very nice.

[Kudzu]

Famous, on 02 May 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

I'm not sure if you're saying that the SEC is superior to the ACC or vice versa, but everyone knows that the ACC is the only real conference in the nation... even if my boys are perpetually stuck in the shadow of UNC and Duke come basketball time

When it comes time for football the SEC is where it's at, squeaky foulball bouncy-hoops is for other conferences and UK. WDE!

[Insidious Johnson]

"Go Team Venture Lone Wolf!"

[Egomane]

Vollstrecker, on 02 May 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:

I'm not sure what you're trying to claim here, but communications have been a solid backbone of organized warfare since its inception. The only way it would be advantageous to not use it is if the communication channels are compromised and false orders given, or if you're communicating by runner (whom can just be slain).

Faster communication means a faster response to any kind of "creative" threat that arises, as you put it. Communication and discipline have an incredibly strong effect, there is a reason why Roman Legions were such a success on the field.

I never said that it is useless. I even admitted that it gives you benefits and will strengthen your abilities. I even said, that my observation my be different from yours.

But there are more ways to take advantage of an enemies communication then to undermine it or to cut it short. In my short time of online gaming I have decimated more then one organized group of players. Even to the extend that I have been called a cheater by one such group, because they were unable to find a countermessure to my winning streak against them.

So my oppinion is, that we don't need any balancing.

Famous, on 02 May 2012 - 04:50 PM, said:

Just because your unit is on comms and/or has played together in the past doesn't mean that you will be world eaters, simply that you're used to playing together and can talk. A good scout player and a good fire support player don't have to be on comms, they just do their jobs and win the game.

That! They will not always win, but they will put a dent into the one or the other organized unit. There will be players who can understand each others intend without much or even no communication at all and those can be on par with the organized players or even above them.

There will be organized teams at the top of the food chain. I'm sure of that. But it's not communication alone that will take them that far.

[AlanEsh]

jesus, on 02 May 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

This is false. I happen to live in the SF Bay area (where wargaming's US office is) and have had the good fortune to meet some of them at events they've hosted. Platoons was one of the subjects I spoke at length with them about. They were, in fact, ready to introduce a 5 person platoon until their research showed that it would be completely dominant and would leave the rest of the players on the team marginalized (that is, the rest of the team won or lost based not on anything could did, but whether they got the good 5-person platoon or the bad one). I thought it was amusing they needed research to show them that, since anyone who has been in a game with a -G-, Forge, or NDP 3x T9 medium platoon already knows how absurdly dominant they are.

OK but so what? The dev's counter for 5 person platoon ownage is to ensure that platoon is opposed by another 5 person platoon. And again we're back to the MM having to deal with ensuring the platoons are matched up one for one, and matched relatively evenly as far as weight goes.

MWO will have a direct parallel, with a Lance representing 1/3rd of a team's mechs. So whether it is 5 tanks or 4 mechs, they're still going to have to deal with potential roflstomps if their MM isn't up to the task.
I'm hopeful that the combination of their focus on Role Warfare, and a good MM code, PGI won't have the show stopping issue that apparently caused Wargaming to abandon larger platoons.

[Inappropriate359]

Angelicon, on 03 May 2012 - 08:32 AM, said:

OK but so what? The dev's counter for 5 person platoon ownage is to ensure that platoon is opposed by another 5 person platoon. And again we're back to the MM having to deal with ensuring the platoons are matched up one for one, and matched relatively evenly as far as weight goes.

Sigh. Because just assuring that a 5 person platoon (or a lance) is paired up against another 5 person platoon/lance does not bring balance for the non lance players. In fact, it effectively disenfranchises the other players on the team who will then (statistically speaking) win or lose not based upon their own abilities and actions, but based upon whether the matchmaker put the better quality lance on their team or the opposing team. It should be obvious why this is not desirable.

The easiest way to 'balance' this is to sidestep the issue altogether. A purely random gameplay mode, and a another gameplay mode for 4/8/12 person teams. Solves the entire thing and keeps everyone on an even basis. The more I think about it and the more discussion I see, the more I'm convinced there is no way to actually balance lance teams in a "pub match" setting.

[Famous]

jesus, on 03 May 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:

Sigh. Because just assuring that a 5 person platoon (or a lance) is paired up against another 5 person platoon/lance does not bring balance for the non lance players. In fact, it effectively disenfranchises the other players on the team who will then (statistically speaking) win or lose not based upon their own abilities and actions, but based upon whether the matchmaker put the better quality lance on their team or the opposing team. It should be obvious why this is not desirable.

The easiest way to 'balance' this is to sidestep the issue altogether. A purely random gameplay mode, and a another gameplay mode for 4/8/12 person teams. Solves the entire thing and keeps everyone on an even basis. The more I think about it and the more discussion I see, the more I'm convinced there is no way to actually balance lance teams in a "pub match" setting.

Your last thought is right, there's no way to have every match even every time. No system can account for player skill variation. All things considered I'd prefer to risk an unbalanced game over this idea of randoms in one area, teams in the other. This will completely remove the desire to find other players to form groups. Separating the groups also creates a large barrier to moving from one to the other.

If, like me, the player doesn't have a history of playing online MW games they will have substantial difficulty in getting into the 4/8/12 matches. You have to find, at minimum, three other players who you can work with and play with at the same time consistently. If I'm getting dumped into a room of randoms every time it will be very difficult to find a consistent group to join.

Also this isn't WoT. Full Stop. The biggest difference you'll find is that non-combat roles actually have a point in this game. If I'm driving a Raven there is almost no way I'm going to take out and Atlas head to head. Put a Raven and a Catapult against 2 Atlases, well now we have a fight. The Cat can sit quietly in the back waiting for a target lock from the Raven and the Raven knows that the Cat is going to be damaging the enemy.

All in all I disagree with your base premise, that 1/3 of a team will always dictate the actions of that team.

EDIT- Word choice

Edited by Famous, 03 May 2012 - 01:07 PM.

[Azantia]

Sorry all I keep seeing is lone wolves and casual players being afraid of organized / team play.

Its amazing to me :

Lone Wolf : I want it to be FAIR! /cry

It is fair. You have the same opportunity to join / create a team as anyone else.

You wanted to be a lone wolf, remember?

I dont care your reasons.

I dont want to be a lone wolf. I want to be part of a team that is organized, and objective focused. We will play and have fun. We will laugh if people rage quit. Not because we are @ssholes. But because you are being childish and fail to see what is plainly obvious.

the application of warfare is a team based action. People who go into combat alone, often die alone.

When you make a choice, you reap the benefits and the consequences.

If PGI wants to have a lone wolf only mode, no problem, I support it. I would rather face an organized team on the other side any day. If I have to face a half organized team, half lone wolf team and we happen to tear them apart, then hopefully they will learn something. Hearing the lone wolves cry, because they chose to be a lone wolf, thats absurd to me.

the problem with World of Tanks matchmaking isnt about Platoon vs non-platoon.

its about the spread of their tanks, and the fact that the bell curve for a tanks effectiveness against a higher tiered tank vs a lower tiered tank is sharply in-favor of a higher tiered tank. Their tank tier spreads are simply too loose. A tier 5 tank by himself, stands next to no chance against an equal tier 7 (meaning med vs med, heavy vs heavy etc etc).

In my opinion, Tanks could improve their gameplay immensely by improving their tier spread.
No more tier 5s vs Tier 8s
No more tier 4 scouts vs tier 9s (yes I understand you are supposed to scout)

1s to 2s
2s to 4s
3s to 5s
5s to 6s
6s to 8s
7s to 10s

obviously it can be re-fined, but anyone who has played tanks can look and see even this "from the hip" shot, would work better.

you would have to balance some of the arty damage (which is insanely high) but it is very workable.

This is due to the fact that your gun simply cannot hurt the other tank, while the higher tank, usually will one to two shot you.

Mechwarrior / battletech does not work quite this way.

Edited by Azantia, 03 May 2012 - 01:24 PM.

[Inappropriate359]

Famous, on 03 May 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

Your last thought is right, there's no way to have every match even every time. No system can account for player skill variation. All things considered I'd prefer to risk an unbalanced game over this idea of randoms in one area, teams in the other. This will completely remove the desire to find other players to form groups. Separating the groups also creates a large barrier to moving from one to the other.

If, like me, the player doesn't have a history of playing online MW games they will have substantial difficulty in getting into the 4/8/12 matches. You have to find, at minimum, three other players who you can work with and play with at the same time consistently. If I'm getting dumped into a room of randoms every time it will be very difficult to find a consistent group to join.

Also this isn't WoT. Full Stop. The biggest difference you'll find is that non-combat roles actually have a point in this game. If I'm driving a Raven there is almost no way I'm going to take out and Atlas head to head. Put a Raven and a Catapult against 2 Atlases, well now we have a fight. The Cat can sit quietly in the back waiting for a target lock from the Raven and the Raven knows that the Cat is going to be damaging the enemy.

All in all I disagree with your base premise, that 1/3 of a team will always dictate the actions of that team.

EDIT- Word choice

As you say, you don't have a history of playing online games. You can disagree with me on that basis, but you're disagreeing with me based on opinion unsupported by either experience or even any information. My assertions are based on the better part of 20 years of playing team based online games (not just WoT fyi), all the way back to Kesmai's Air Warrior 1 and the MUDs of that era; not to mention considerable educational and professional experience with statistics. I was there for Battletech Solaris and MPBT 3025 as well. What I'm expressing here isn't some potential doomsday scenario: It's how every team based tactical FPS has always worked. Every. Single. One. "Full Stop".

What's funny is how many people, including many who must have experience playing similar types of games, simply don't see it. And they're not going to see it until they lose 20 consecutive matches against 12 person teams and stop playing altogether. The other group here does see it but want the game to work that way anyway, hoping for an easy way to farm win rates and kills.