50 replies to this topic

[PiVoR]

I can summarize this CBE as A class domination.

Cpt_Kill_Jack, on December 07 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

I of course mean mean within the realm of generas which is in this case FPS. Matchmaking has never really worked on PC FPS games. We dont even like EAs Web based server browser because its not an ingame browser.

It works very well in COD, matchmaker wont do its magic if theres nothing to match. Right now Hawken dont have enough players to create even teams for both sides, so its just finds whatever it can to fill the server. In future with open beta and more new players it should be better.

[Zyrusticae]

AsianJoyKiller, on December 07 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

I like the part where you completely ignore the fact that they are entirely different games with entirely different goals in what baseline gameplay should be like.
You also forget to address the fact that Hawken devs DO NOT WANT vertical progression.

Well okay then, but that's at odds with the idea of having a leveling system in the first place. If they don't want vertical progression, take out the level system entirely. If the difference between a level 1 and a 20 is going to be so insignificant that it doesn't matter, why have the system in the first place_ What does it add_

Also, gameplay style has absolutely nothing to do with matchmaking. Starcraft 2 uses the same system as League of Legends, and for good reason - it works.

AsianJoyKiller, on December 07 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

So you are saying that using matchmaking systems that have been proven to work well for over a decade is a bad idea_
Also, you imply that matchmaking is the sole reason LoL gains/retains players. That's completely silly, and ignores tons of other factors.

And to address the "you guys aren't making the game", stop relying on fallacious arguments. Trying to put words in other peoples' mouths is a stupid thing to do, especially when they've said nothing of the sort. That reflects badly on you, and shows you can't support your argument well through reason and logic.

Server browsing isn't "matchmaking" at all. As the devs themselves explained, server browsers are great because communities rise within specific servers and many of them have unique players and rule sets. As of right now, Hawken does not have either, so there is no point in allowing server browsing.

While the matchmaking is not the sole reason League of Legends has so many players, it is certainly a very big factor. The skill gap between a well-practiced pre-made and a bunch of casuals is enormous - it is a gulf so wide that the outcome is literally predetermined. It is a very good thing that these two groups are separated, and the game could never have grown so large if they were smashed together. It results in frustration for less-skilled players AND the more skilled ones alike, as getting stomped or stomping without a challenge are both equally boring (unless you're sado/maso).

I brought up the fact that they are not making the game because it's an important reason why their perspective would be completely different from the actual devs. I did not put words in anybody's mouth. That is a complete fabrication on your part.  

The devs want the game to succeed. They want to please as many potential customers as possible. As such, catering to the niche (and it IS a niche) of PC-only players who have no idea how matchmaking works or benefits them is not a good idea. Simple as that.

Edited by Zyrusticae, December 08 2012 - 11:32 AM.

[TheChaffeemancer]

Zyrusticae, on December 08 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

Also, gameplay style has absolutely nothing to do with matchmaking. Starcraft 2 uses the same system as League of Legends, and for good reason - it works.

Actually, there is one very important similarity between LoL and SC2 that doesn't exist here and in many other shooters (such as Counter-Strike and TF2). Players can join in the game at any time. Getting perfectly balanced teams is important in games like Star Craft or LoL because there is no way to swap out the weakest links. If those links leave, the team is crippled. That's part of why super stomp teams and 5v2's are so prevalent with the current system. The MM isn't bringing in new blood to replace what's lost.

Zyrusticae, on December 08 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

While the matchmaking is not the sole reason League of Legends has so many players, it is certainly a very big factor. The skill gap between a well-practiced pre-made and a bunch of casuals is enormous - it is a gulf so wide that the outcome is literally predetermined.

This is literally a thing in any game that lets you play with friends. Ok, that's a lie. World of Tanks' matchmaking will still fuzzy bunny on you so that all of you are useless in a game.

Zyrusticae, on December 08 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

It is a very good thing that these two groups are separated, and the game could never have grown so large if they were smashed together. It results in frustration for less-skilled players AND the more skilled ones alike, as getting stomped or stomping without a challenge are both equally boring (unless you're sado/maso).

Just like how Counter Strike flopped in 4 months and Team Fortress 2 was the worst part of the Orange Box.

Zyrusticae, on December 08 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

I brought up the fact that they are not making the game because it's an important reason why their perspective would be completely different from the actual devs. I did not put words in anybody's mouth. That is a complete fabrication on your part.  

The devs want the game to succeed. They want to please as many potential customers as possible. As such, catering to the niche (and it IS a niche) of PC-only players who have no idea how matchmaking works or benefits them is not a good idea. Simple as that.

You act like this "Devs want the game to succeed" is a completely foreign concept to everyone who disagrees with you. Despite what you think, we can grasp these concepts. We might have even had experience with matchmaking! And speaking of not grasping perspectives

Zyrusticae, on December 08 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

If they don't want vertical progression, take out the level system entirely. If the difference between a level 1 and a 20 is going to be so insignificant that it doesn't matter, why have the system in the first place_ What does it add_

To make money off boosts, that's why.

Edited by TheChaffeemancer, December 08 2012 - 11:53 AM.

[AsianJoyKiller]

Zyrusticae, on December 08 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

AsianJoyKiller, on December 07 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

I like the part where you completely ignore the fact that they are entirely different games with entirely different goals in what baseline gameplay should be like.
You also forget to address the fact that Hawken devs DO NOT WANT vertical progression.

Well okay then, but that's at odds with the idea of having a leveling system in the first place. If they don't want vertical progression, take out the level system entirely. If the difference between a level 1 and a 20 is going to be so insignificant that it doesn't matter, why have the system in the first place_ What does it add_

Horizontal progression. Variety without power.

Quote

Also, gameplay style has absolutely nothing to do with matchmaking. Starcraft 2 uses the same system as League of Legends, and for good reason - it works.

It's become painfully obvious you're now arguing with me without even understanding what Firefall's old matchmaking system was like. You made that mistake earlier, and I should have caught it, but I didn't. It's a little perplexing considering you described Firefall's old system, but you obviously didn't consider the little details.

Quote

Server browsing isn't "matchmaking" at all. As the devs themselves explained, server browsers are great because communities rise within specific servers and many of them have unique players and rule sets. As of right now, Hawken does not have either, so there is no point in allowing server browsing.

I don't even know what to make of this. They have both. I don't know why you would say otherwise. There obviously is a matchmaker, and yes, it doesn't work well at the moment, but it still exists. And the only reason that Hawken doesn't have a server browser is because they disabled it to improve the matchmaker.

Quote

While the matchmaking is not the sole reason League of Legends has so many players, it is certainly a very big factor. The skill gap between a well-practiced pre-made and a bunch of casuals is enormous - it is a gulf so wide that the outcome is literally predetermined. It is a very good thing that these two groups are separated, and the game could never have grown so large if they were smashed together. It results in frustration for less-skilled players AND the more skilled ones alike, as getting stomped or stomping without a challenge are both equally boring (unless you're sado/maso).

Here's the part you are ignoring. You said you didn't think the Optimizations needed a nerfing. That means there would be significant vertical progression. Between 2 players of equal skill, a 20 would have a noticeable advantage over a 0. Here's the thing you haven't seemed to take into account.
You can switch your mech at any time during a match.
If there's vertical progression, that means any sort of matchmaking based on levels, averaged mech levels, mech mastery or other similar metrics is flawed.

Tell me, in LoL, can you switch to a Lvl. 10 character at any time, including right at the start of the match_
In Starcraft, can you switch to a pre-built base with investments in tech trees at any given time_

Am I making myself clear_
When you have vertical progression, the ability to change to a mech that is statistically all around more powerful at any time makes any sort of level/experienced based matchmaking incredibly flawed. Let's say matchmaking is based on average level, and you have 5 Lvl. 20 mechs, but you want to level a new Lvl. 0. It would be trying to match you with people roughly Lvl 16 and in your same skill bracket. But you're trying to fight them with what is essentially an severly underpowered mech.

Quote

I brought up the fact that they are not making the game because it's an important reason why their perspective would be completely different from the actual devs. I did not put words in anybody's mouth. That is a complete fabrication on your part.

The devs want the game to succeed. They want to please as many potential customers as possible. As such, catering to the niche (and it IS a niche) of PC-only players who have no idea how matchmaking works or benefits them is not a good idea. Simple as that.

Can you prove conclusively that they think "completely differently" from the devs_
I'm sorry that I accused you of putting words in people's mouths. Obviously I was wrong, because you can apparently read minds and obviously know exactly how they think. Also, can you prove that none of us have any idea how to build a matchmaker that works well_ Or that we at least don't know the basics of making one_



The part I'm loving best about your posts is how you claim nobody else on the forums knows hows to go about making a decent matchmaker, but you obviously know better than us somehow. Especially when you can't even spot the gigantic game-killing flaw in your own proposal.

Edited by AsianJoyKiller, December 08 2012 - 12:14 PM.

[Zyrusticae]

TheChaffeemancer, on December 08 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

Actually, there is one very important similarity between LoL and SC2 that doesn't exist here and in many other shooters (such as Counter-Strike and TF2). Players can join in the game at any time. Getting perfectly balanced teams is important in games like Star Craft or LoL because there is no way to swap out the weakest links. If those links leave, the team is crippled. That's part of why super stomp teams and 5v2's are so prevalent with the current system. The MM isn't bringing in new blood to replace what's lost.

That is actually a good point. Perhaps they should use a system more like LoL and SC2 (where everyone is queued up into a game and is thrown back into the queue when the match ends, and quitting the match in progress means surrendering any progression and getting a loss on record).

TheChaffeemancer, on December 08 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

This is literally a thing in any game that lets you play with friends. Ok, that's a lie. World of Tanks' matchmaking will still fuzzy bunny on you so that all of you are useless in a game.

And it is the game's responsibility to at least put in an effort to match you up with similarly skilled players/groups of players.

TheChaffeemancer, on December 08 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

Just like how Counter Strike flopped in 4 months and Team Fortress 2 was the worst part of the Orange Box.

Counter-Strike does not have a skill cap as high as Hawken. In particular, it has a fast enough TTK (and no in-match repairs or healing) such that weaker players can still contribute to a team.

It also has many variations (gun game, WC3 mod, zombie mod, deathmatch mode, among others) that contribute to its popularity.

I don't play TF2.

TheChaffeemancer, on December 08 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

You act like this "Devs want the game to succeed" is a completely foreign concept to everyone who disagrees with you. Despite what you think, we can grasp these concepts. We might have even had experience with matchmaking! And speaking of not grasping perspectives

Zyrusticae, on December 08 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

If they don't want vertical progression, take out the level system entirely. If the difference between a level 1 and a 20 is going to be so insignificant that it doesn't matter, why have the system in the first place_ What does it add_

To make money off boosts, that's why.

Well, I don't believe it for a second when everybody is completely irrationally throwing out matchmaking as a boogeyman. A server browser with no dedicated servers, no mods, or anything that is actually a reason for having a server browser completely defeats the point. It's the most primitive and dumb (as in it has no logic to it whatsoever) method of getting players together, and only exists because of the aforementioned benefits.

And they're not going to sell any boosts if the difference is so small so as to be inconsequential.

Edited by Zyrusticae, December 08 2012 - 12:18 PM.

[Decoy101x]

[Zyrusticae]

AsianJoyKiller, on December 08 2012 - 12:12 PM, said:

Horizontal progression. Variety without power.

So, what, every single optimization is going to have an equivalent, off-setting negative_

This is the most uninteresting leveling system I have ever heard even vaguely described.

AsianJoyKiller, on December 08 2012 - 12:12 PM, said:

It's become painfully obvious you're now arguing with me without even understanding what Firefall's old matchmaking system was like. You made that mistake earlier, and I should have caught it, but I didn't. It's a little perplexing considering you described Firefall's old system, but you obviously didn't consider the little details.

Enlighten me. I have never played Firefall, so I have no idea what you're talking about.  

AsianJoyKiller, on December 08 2012 - 12:12 PM, said:

I don't even know what to make of this. They have both. I don't know why you would say otherwise. There obviously is a matchmaker, and yes, it doesn't work well at the moment, but it still exists. And the only reason that Hawken doesn't have a server browser is because they disabled it to improve the matchmaker.

Reading comprehension. I was talking about the unique communities and rule sets (mods), which Hawken's "servers" do not have and cannot have (they're all named generically and use the same rule sets).

AsianJoyKiller, on December 08 2012 - 12:12 PM, said:

Here's the part you are ignoring. You said you didn't think the Optimizations needed a nerfing. That means there would be significant vertical progression. Between 2 players of equal skill, a 20 would have a noticeable advantage over a 0. Here's the thing you haven't seemed to take into account.
You can switch your mech at any time during a match.
If there's vertical progression, that means any sort of matchmaking based on levels, averaged mech levels, mech mastery or other similar metrics is flawed.

Tell me, in LoL, can you switch to a Lvl. 10 character at any time, including right at the start of the match_
In Starcraft, can you switch to a pre-built base with investments in tech trees at any given time_

Am I making myself clear_
When you have vertical progression, the ability to change to a mech that is statistically all around more powerful at any time makes any sort of level/experienced based matchmaking incredibly flawed. Let's say matchmaking is based on average level, and you have 5 Lvl. 20 mechs, but you want to level a new Lvl. 0. It would be trying to match you with people roughly Lvl 16 and in your same skill bracket. But you're trying to fight them with what is essentially an severly underpowered mech.

Easy fix:
Tie level to player account, and NOT mechs.

Considering they're already messing with optimizations, I wouldn't be surprised if this becomes reality. Tying "level" to mechs while trying to create a decent matchmaker is an untenable situation for sure. That has to change.

AsianJoyKiller, on December 08 2012 - 12:12 PM, said:

Can you prove conclusively that they think "completely differently" from the devs_
I'm sorry that I accused you of putting words in people's mouths. Obviously I was wrong, because you can apparently read minds and obviously know exactly how they think. Also, can you prove that none of us have any idea how to build a matchmaker that works well_ Or that we at least don't know the basics of making one_

Huh_ All over the place people are saying to throw out matchmaking completely. So far as I can tell, no one is even trying to build a matchmaker that works well aside from the devs (obviously) and a scant few posters.

Actually, what the hell_ I don't even know how you're getting from here to there. I was saying that many posters in here simply want what's best for themselves and fuzzy bunny the casual players, which is NOT an attitude any self-respecting F2P developer should be holding.

AsianJoyKiller, on December 08 2012 - 12:12 PM, said:

The part I'm loving best about your posts is how you claim nobody else on the forums knows hows to go about making a decent matchmaker, but you obviously know better than us somehow. Especially when you can't even spot the gigantic game-killing flaw in your own proposal.

I don't even...

Seriously, you're making stuff up. I never said no one in here knows how to make a decent matchmaker. I DID say many posters seem to just want to throw it out entirely in favor of a server browser, or don't even attempt to consider how a good matchmaker would actually work.

[TheChaffeemancer]

Zyrusticae, on December 08 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

Seriously, you're making stuff up. I never said no one in here knows how to make a decent matchmaker. I DID say many posters seem to just want to throw it out entirely in favor of a server browser, or don't even attempt to consider how a good matchmaker would actually work.

Zyrusticae, on December 08 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

Well, I don't believe it for a second when everybody is completely irrationally throwing out matchmaking as a boogeyman.

Bolded a statement, italicized the points that contradict your statement. Kiwi would do more but he needs to redirect his efforts towards his English final essay.

[AsianJoyKiller]

Zyrusticae, on December 08 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

So, what, every single optimization is going to have an equivalent, off-setting negative_

This is the most uninteresting leveling system I have ever heard even vaguely described.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion.

Personally I find it to be much more fun if I know I beat someone due to superior skill rather than just being more powerful than them. And the idea of tweaking my mech so it plays to my strengths and enhances them is quite nice.

There's also the problem that vertical progression has a nasty tendency to promote certain cookie cutter builds and strategies. Certain things just end up better than their alternatives, and so in order to compete, you have to stick with that.

Quote

Enlighten me. I have never played Firefall, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

Wow.
So you told me I was wrong without even understanding what I was talking about.
Well done.

Quote

Reading comprehension. I was talking about the unique communities and rule sets (mods), which Hawken's "servers" do not have and cannot have (they're all named generically and use the same rule sets).

Your statement lacked clarity. That's on you.
Also, there are several distinct communities already present in Hawken, not only as clans, but in a separation of casual and competitive. So you're wrong on that count.

Quote

Easy fix:
Tie level to player account, and NOT mechs.

Considering they're already messing with optimizations, I wouldn't be surprised if this becomes reality. Tying "level" to mechs while trying to create a decent matchmaker is an untenable situation for sure. That has to change.

Gee. What an easy fix, why didn't I think that was a valid option_
Oh wait. Because that fixes nothing.

Tell me, how does tying matchmaking to player account level actually change anything_
How does it actually address the matter of under/overpowered mechs being in the same match and being able to switch between them at a whim during the match_

Think through this. Don't just come back with a knee jerk reaction because you think I'm being condescending or something. Remove emotion from the equation, use your brain and show my why there isn't a big hole in your idea.



Now for the entertainment part of this...

Quote

Seriously, you're making stuff up. I never said no one in here knows how to make a decent matchmaker.

You sure you really want to go down that road_

Zyrusticae, on December 08 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

Huh_ All over the place people are saying to throw out matchmaking completely. So far as I can tell, no one is even trying to build a matchmaker that works well aside from the devs (obviously) and a scant few posters.

Zyrusticae, on December 08 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

I was saying that many posters in here simply want what's best for themselves and fuzzy bunny the casual players

Zyrusticae, on December 08 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

the niche (and it IS a niche) of PC-only players who have no idea how matchmaking works

Zyrusticae, on December 08 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:

Well, I don't believe it for a second when everybody is completely irrationally throwing out matchmaking as a boogeyman.

If you want, later I can point out all the places where you did, in fact, put words in peoples mouths' or imply that they said something they never even remotely hinted at.

[Necro]

Sorry to budge in your guys nice discussion but would you mid making a thread or pm about the issues your having with one another_

[Cpt_Kill_Jack]

Necro, on December 08 2012 - 01:42 PM, said:

Sorry to budge in your guys nice discussion but would you mid making a thread or pm about the issues your having with one another_

I dont know I stopped posting here after my ending comment a day ago.

[Decoy101x]

[Grafix]

Zyrusticae, on December 08 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

Easy fix:
Tie level to player account, and NOT mechs.

Considering they're already messing with optimizations, I wouldn't be surprised if this becomes reality. Tying "level" to mechs while trying to create a decent matchmaker is an untenable situation for sure. That has to change.

This statement by Zyrusticae makes me laugh.

This would work "IF" each player only had one Mech to pilot.  At the end of CB3 I had all the mechs except for the Rocketeer and Bruser with all different levels because I don't play each mech all the time.  The game play is so fluid becaue of the difference in team mates and tactics.  Sometimes I switch back and forth between different mechs during one match depending on the need of my team and the situation.

Just like any battle senario you have to tailor your wepon to each situation.  You don't bring a rocket launcher to a closed quarters environment because you will end up blowing yourself up also.

How would you specifically tie in the levels to each player when they have multiple mechs/weapons to choose from_  Everybody is also different.  I leveled up my main mech all the way and then purchased another mech to level up/test with and once that was at a reasonable level and I have attained the testing/evaluation of a mech that I wanted I moved on to another.  Mechs that I have and did not care for that much sat idle while I leveled up my other mechs.  At the end of CB3 I still had a level 0 mech and a level 3 mech because I just did not like the loadout/changes from CB2 to CB3 at all on those mechs.

[Zyrusticae]

AsianJoyKiller, on December 08 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

Now for the entertainment part of this...

Quote

Seriously, you're making stuff up. I never said no one in here knows how to make a decent matchmaker.

You sure you really want to go down that road_

If you want, later I can point out all the places where you did, in fact, put words in peoples mouths' or imply that they said something they never even remotely hinted at.

Reading comprehension.

Lots of folks are saying they don't want anything to do with matchmaking. They're throwing it out without even considering the possibility. That is nothing at all like saying they don't know how to make a decent matchmaking system. It speaks only of their willingness to consider the idea, and not whether or not they have the ability to do so.

Also, you need to learn what the phrase "put words in peoples mouths'" mean. Because these two posts:
"some people will just be better than others. the quicker they stop trying to please everyone via the matchmaker and mech's / tech trees  the better they are. STOP catering towards the crybaby casual player."
"Matchmaking has never really worked on the PC. Its always about what server your friends or clan plays on and you regular it. The Server browser is a must for the PC and always will be. For Games that work on the Consoles matchmaking is the best thing, it simply doesnt work on the PC."
Demonstrate exactly what I was talking about. They are making the assumption that matchmaking just can't work, they're not even considering it, they just want it gone.

Grafix, on December 08 2012 - 05:47 PM, said:

This statement by Zyrusticae makes me laugh.

[snip]

Huh. I can tell you've never played League of Legends before.

Again, easy solution: Have multiple optimization trees that you can save. Pick one when you pick your mech at the beginning of the match.

All your mechs would be the same level; actually, I would say that tying mech power to level is a bad idea to begin with, and shouldn't be done. "Leveling" should only give tech points; as it is, the way weapons and abilities level up is a straight power increase. If they're really trying to avoid vertical progression, then that's something that has to be addressed.

AsianJoyKiller, on December 08 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

Well, you are entitled to your opinion.

Personally I find it to be much more fun if I know I beat someone due to superior skill rather than just being more powerful than them. And the idea of tweaking my mech so it plays to my strengths and enhances them is quite nice.

There's also the problem that vertical progression has a nasty tendency to promote certain cookie cutter builds and strategies. Certain things just end up better than their alternatives, and so in order to compete, you have to stick with that.

Quote

Easy fix:
Tie level to player account, and NOT mechs.

Considering they're already messing with optimizations, I wouldn't be surprised if this becomes reality. Tying "level" to mechs while trying to create a decent matchmaker is an untenable situation for sure. That has to change.

Gee. What an easy fix, why didn't I think that was a valid option_
Oh wait. Because that fixes nothing.

Tell me, how does tying matchmaking to player account level actually change anything_
How does it actually address the matter of under/overpowered mechs being in the same match and being able to switch between them at a whim during the match_

Think through this. Don't just come back with a knee jerk reaction because you think I'm being condescending or something. Remove emotion from the equation, use your brain and show my why there isn't a big hole in your idea.

Man, does no one here play League of Legends_

I know I bring it up a lot, and I'm certain some folks here don't have a high opinion of the game, but again, the stuff they do just works, and I see no reason to not learn from their example.

The difference between a level 1 and a level 30 can be pretty damn huge in that game. Know how they fix that_ They just don't match level 1s with level 30s.

You see, the thing is, they have to make masteries and runes worth something so that player builds actually have a measurable impact on their performance. When it's nothing but level 30s vs level 30s, these are functionally side-grades, because everyone is on even ground. There's no issue about "vertical progression" because most of the low-level players will never get matched against level 30 players.

The problem we currently have is that mechs must be leveled up individually, and you can switch between them mid-match, which results in the problem you're talking about where you can't separate the high levels from the low levels.

If you just tie level to player account and get rid of mech levels, you nip that issue in the bud. Let people make multiple optimization trees (hell, you can charge for additional trees if you want to) that they can switch between at the beginning of a match just like they can switch mechs.

I have to say, it's kind of weird how everyone here assumes that mech levels are a thing that must always be there. That really isn't the case.

AsianJoyKiller, on December 08 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

Quote

Enlighten me. I have never played Firefall, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

Wow.
So you told me I was wrong without even understanding what I was talking about.
Well done.

Actually, nevermind. I don't need to know. It's just one example of a failure and is not proof of systemic flaws outside that one game.

AsianJoyKiller, on December 08 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

Quote

Reading comprehension. I was talking about the unique communities and rule sets (mods), which Hawken's "servers" do not have and cannot have (they're all named generically and use the same rule sets).

Your statement lacked clarity. That's on you.
Also, there are several distinct communities already present in Hawken, not only as clans, but in a separation of casual and competitive. So you're wrong on that count.

Yes, but can they host servers yet_ That's what I'm getting at.

I'm certain the server browser will return anyway once dedicated servers are available. That doesn't mean they shouldn't work on matchmaking, which is what I'm getting at.

Edited by Zyrusticae, December 08 2012 - 08:58 PM.

[AsianJoyKiller]

Zyrusticae, on December 08 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

Demonstrate exactly what I was talking about. They are making the assumption that matchmaking just can't work, they're not even considering it, they just want it gone.

Considering some of the assumptions you've been making, you really shouldn't be talking.

Zyrusticae, on December 08 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

I would say that tying mech power to level is a bad idea to begin with, and shouldn't be done.

Really_ You previously stated otherwise.

Zyrusticae, on December 07 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

With regards to optimizations, I think nerfing the fuzzy bunny out of them was going the wrong way

Zyrusticae, on December 08 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

The difference between a level 1 and a level 30 can be pretty damn huge in that game. Know how they fix that_ They just don't match level 1s with level 30s.

You see, the thing is, they have to make masteries and runes worth something so that player builds actually have a measurable impact on their performance. When it's nothing but level 30s vs level 30s, these are functionally side-grades, because everyone is on even ground. There's no issue about "vertical progression" because most of the low-level players will never get matched against level 30 players.

The problem we currently have is that mechs must be leveled up individually, and you can switch between them mid-match, which results in the problem you're talking about where you can't separate the high levels from the low levels.

Congratulations on explaining what I just explained to you and why it it doesn't work.

Zyrusticae, on December 08 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

If you just tie level to player account and get rid of mech levels, you nip that issue in the bud. Let people make multiple optimization trees (hell, you can charge for additional trees if you want to) that they can switch between at the beginning of a match just like they can switch mechs.

I have to say, it's kind of weird how everyone here assumes that mech levels are a thing that must always be there. That really isn't the case.

I was debating your assertion that merely separating players in matchmaking by levels would work, and I pointed out why that doesn't work. You then went on to claim that tying MM to player level would make a difference. I pointed out why that doesn't work either.

This is the first time you talk about a separation of power and mech levels. You either made the assumption that people could read your mind and debate with things you never said, or are now changing your argument because your previous stance was unfavorable and proven to be fundamentally flawed.

If it's the first, well that's just you being incredibly silly, and if it's the second, well, I'll ignore the ethical issues of that and just say create another thread so we can talk about how to build a better optimization system (or better yet, find an existing thread. God knows there's tons of them already).

Zyrusticae, on December 08 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

Actually, nevermind. I don't need to know.

The sheer arrogance of this statement is amazing. You're saying that you don't need to know and understand the opposing viewpoint or their arguments to constructively debate with them.
That is stupid.

[D20Face]

I can't quote enough to join at this point. I guess I'll have to leave this to AJK.

I'm going to put forth that since the game is PC only it'd be better to use methods PC players tend to prefer. A number of the most popular PC games use server browsers. We're used to them, they work, and they have merit even in games that lack mods.

I'd also like to put forth that vertical progression tends to not work in games with midgame joins. If you argue against midgame joins, I will textwall the fuzzy bunny out of you.

Edited by D20Face, December 09 2012 - 12:43 AM.

[Trolled]

Thermite, on December 07 2012 - 08:52 PM, said:

I love how the Grenadier, is not mentioned in these discussions, yet you will never find this class on the top of any leaderboards.

I admit it is a support mech and should not expect much, but it would be nice to see a little more mobility.

The Rev GL is one hell of a fuzzy bunny, and the mech itself is great TDM support.

[Grafix]

Zyrusticae, on December 08 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

Huh. I can tell you've never played League of Legends before.

Again, easy solution: Have multiple optimization trees that you can save. Pick one when you pick your mech at the beginning of the match.

All your mechs would be the same level; actually, I would say that tying mech power to level is a bad idea to begin with, and shouldn't be done. "Leveling" should only give tech points; as it is, the way weapons and abilities level up is a straight power increase. If they're really trying to avoid vertical progression, then that's something that has to be addressed.

Just like all your posts...they make me laugh

No, I have never played "League of Legends".  Never said I played it either.   Nor do I want to play it

The original point of this thread was to inform the public what was in CB3 and lessons learned.  What you are suggesting is a complete re-write of all code not just for match making but for pilot experience, mech leveling, and technical tree.  You are trying to suggest that this game be more like another game instead of working with the vision of the developers to create a unique game not just another MechWarrior/Battletech game.

MechWarrior/Battletech games have standard load out/classes for different mechs and when pilots level up they unlock a mech class (ie Light 30to35 tons, Medium 45to55 tons, Heavy65to75, Assult 85to100 tons).

A re-write of what you are suggesting would set back development for months and I don't think your vision and the developer's vision are in the same track for the game play they have invisioned.  All your posts make me laugh....

[Cpt_Kill_Jack]

Zyrusticae, on December 08 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

Lots of folks are saying they don't want anything to do with matchmaking. They're throwing it out without even considering the possibility. That is nothing at all like saying they don't know how to make a decent matchmaking system. It speaks only of their willingness to consider the idea, and not whether or not they have the ability to do so.

Also, you need to learn what the phrase "put words in peoples mouths'" mean. Because these two posts:
"some people will just be better than others. the quicker they stop trying to please everyone via the matchmaker and mech's / tech trees  the better they are. STOP catering towards the crybaby casual player."
"Matchmaking has never really worked on the PC. Its always about what server your friends or clan plays on and you regular it. The Server browser is a must for the PC and always will be. For Games that work on the Consoles matchmaking is the best thing, it simply doesnt work on the PC."
Demonstrate exactly what I was talking about. They are making the assumption that matchmaking just can't work, they're not even considering it, they just want it gone.

you quoted me and didnt quote me. But the reason i dont like matchmaker is because im a clan play. If ny clan is running a server i will spend 98% of my time trying to populate the server. Getting a server to self pooulate takes work and someone has to do it. If i want to go to one server then im probably going to use a browser. Peer to peer systems work great with matchmaking it doesnt work for people in clans much.

I plan to be running at least 2 servers for my clan.

Edited by Cpt_Kill_Jack, December 10 2012 - 10:11 AM.

[Ollie]

This post needs moar QUOTE ALL THE THINGS