16 replies to this topic

[Busukaba]

I mean seriously, how does the system decide to start a game with one side having 5 Mechs and the other having 8? I mean, I didn't care about PUGs vs Premades ever because if you paid attention, you learned things. I don't really care too much about the other team weighing more than yours since more tonnage does not guarentee you a win. But I do have to whine a bit when situations like this pop up.

I mean, at least make the match equal. I suppose part of the problem is you always get thrown into a match had have to wait for more to drop in. A poor system all in all. Is it that difficult to figure the base of players you have and give out even matches?

Yes, yes, fine, join a group, get on TS, join a clan, stop pugging, pugs suck, your mother hates you, blah, blah, blah. None of these 'suggestions' help the situation. I only play an average of about 10 games a day and roughly half of them have either team being short a player(s). How's that for a real matchmaking issue.

[Bguk]

It sucks because they're still working on it.

[Redshift2k5]

The missing 3 were likely queued to join and then crashed; since such crashing is not intended behavior there is no exception in the code to find replacements

[Busukaba]

But see, that's the thing. The first thing they should have addressed was uneven matches. I guess no one whined about it because everyone was jsut assuming when they were facing an 8 man team on the other side it had to be a premade. All they really appear to be doing is appeasing those with the loudest voices with fixes so PUGs don't have to face premades and 'alike' skill players can face one another instead of any real, tangible issue.

I understand you have to keep the community happy, but really, the whole thing is just silly. OK, I suppose I can see a point for some of it since a group that has been playing MW games for 20 years is going to crush a bunch of noobs, but the fact that noobs can play experts really doesn't mean the matchmaker is broken on a fundamental level. The fact that you can get ridiculously uneven matches does.

[PurpleNinja]

Bguk, on 05 December 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

It sucks because they're still working on it.

And they're working on the whole game right now.

[Busukaba]

Redshift2k5, on 05 December 2012 - 09:18 AM, said:

The missing 3 were likely queued to join and then crashed; since such crashing is not intended behavior there is no exception in the code to find replacements

Good point, I hadn't thopught of that. But I don't know... doesn't that sound like too much of a coincidence to be true? 3 people crashing while queueing up but before the match started...

[Lyteros]

PurpleNinja, on 05 December 2012 - 09:22 AM, said:

And they're working on the whole game right now.

And they are ignoring real gamebraking issues since closed beta, instead prioritizing swag and monetization items. That is why we dont have matchmaking. What we have now is not more then a stopgap to buy time.

[Clay Pigeon]

I've seen matches end up 6v4. Crashes happen.

[Inviticus]

I made a similar post yesterday complaining about the same thing but since then I have noticed a marked improvement in the dynamics of matched groups. Blowout matches happen les frequently due to PuG V Premade situations from my experience. However, I've still seen a number of situations where 3 or 4 members of my team are all in 'Trial Mechs' while the entire enemy team is composed of kitted out custom configurations. Of course, this leads to lopsided fights similar to 8vPuG and results in the same outcome. I am glad to see they are working on it and aren't finished yet.

[Busukaba]

Clay Pigeon, on 05 December 2012 - 09:25 AM, said:

I've seen matches end up 6v4. Crashes happen.

Sure, but is there any actual proof that the reason you see a 6-4 match is because everyone crashed. I've crashed tons of times, but always after I've been put into a match and we're in the countdown screen, maybe that makes me 'lucky'. Not disputing that a crash couldn't cause the issue, but having 6 people crash at somewhere between searching and getting placed in a match just seems like too much of a coincidence. Ok, I'll accept it for matches where 1 or 2 are missing could be from crashes, but 6? Just seems like a bit of a stretch.

[deadeye mcduck]

Because its phase 2, and phase 3 is the final version.

http://mwomercs.com/...79-matchmaking/

[Enigmos]

Busukaba, on 05 December 2012 - 09:20 AM, said:

But see, that's the thing. The first thing they should have addressed was uneven matches. ...

Sez you. Not necessarily true though, even though you have made your claim.

I'd say first order of priority is to get it to launch groups of four with solos against groups of four with solos. That was Phase I.

Next should be groups of 8 versus groups of 8 and groups of four plus solos with groups of four with solos. That is Phase II.

Phase III will factor combined group weights. We do not know whether Phase III might also do so with 12 -v- 12 groups.

[Davion5150]

Because PGI has higher priorites than the MM.
Such as hero mechs that are sold for MC.
And cockpit items that are sold for MC.
And camo items that are sold for MC.

[Taizan]

Davion5150, on 05 December 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

Because PGI has higher priorites than the MM.
Such as hero mechs that are sold for MC.
And cockpit items that are sold for MC.
And camo items that are sold for MC.

Exactly. Thats why we didn't get MM phase 2!!!!111Elf Oh ...

[bonapartist1]

The matchmaker is horrible!

I'm tired of games where we have NO members with ECM, or games with 4 ECM. It's also frustrating to have a game with no lights whatsoever, not even a Dragon, so someone is forced to babysit the base or else almost inevitbly lose due to cap.

F2p sucks in every way, not that it's related to this issue directly. I really hate it. I wish this were just MW5.

The most awful thing is not having enough mech bays. Basically I'd be paying 30-50 bucks just for as many bays as I'd like, which would be the cost of a fully featured, real game without all this f2p junk. It's so lame.. But at least the developers don't silence these opinions on the forum, which is more than most do.

Edited by bonapartist1, 10 December 2012 - 09:01 PM.

[Gaeb]

WHY DOES BETA GAME STILL PLAY LIKE BETA? WHY DEVS? WHYYYYYYYY?!??!?!?!?


No but seriously, I don't think MM does anything ELO based at the moment, just groups 8v8 and not-8 vs not-8. The concept of adding BV and a high ECM BV value is completely valid, although I'd hope they'd move to a lobby system before that ... something akin to either

1) You lock in your mechs before matching, but get told "average BV of a matched team for the last three hours is 872, aim to be within 10% of this for a quick match!"
or
2) You get matched based on skill - so 16 of you get put to a lobby. You can then choose from (+edit/alter) your entire mech lab, but your BV must be <= a certain number for each team. This would make setting up a match take way, way, way longer even if I think it would be way more fun. Even more so if it told you the map before you chose your mech.

Both valid options, and plenty of other options out there. Point is - beta game is beta. Just play. Or take a break and come back in 6 months.

Edited by Gaeb, 10 December 2012 - 08:54 PM.

[Delvish]

Because PGI is a second/third tier development house that has never produced anything beyond what could be considered mediocre, at best?

Face facts folks ... they're not exactly the sharpest tools in the shed when it comes to creating games. If the game manages to limp along long enough, they might be able to fix some of these issues.