21 replies to this topic

[Gierling]

I Hate stomps as much as the next guy, and they have curtailed my desire to play, however we need to recognize that they are the product of some pretty logical math derived from Decisions the Devs have made.

Right now, the game operates with a straightforward one to one matchup between opposing sides with attrition and ranged weapons.

This means that barring exceptional occurrences, advantage mounts over time. So in a sense the most important part of any match is to get a combat advantage early. We can talk about role warfare, and it has same applicability but by and large roles are secondary to the harsh math. Advantages increase exponentially, this is something known as "Lanchesters Square Law".

Essentially, as two forces engage any advantage incurred tends to disproportionately swing the balance of power. Which tends to cause more casualties on the disadvantaged side, which increases their disadvantage, etc ad stomp.

The Math looks like this:

12 on 12, Each Mech is exposed to approximately the same amount of firepower say a 1:1 ratio.

One dies

12 on 11, the first team is now exposed to about 1/12th less firepower, while each mech on the second team is now exposed to 1/12th more in addition to what they were originally faced with. So the firepower is now 1.09/0.91

So the first team has an easier time getting that second kill. Which will only compound. This reinforces the static battle-ball of death to ensure that fire is indeed concentrated and discourages true role warfare.

So as matching gets better, and fewer matches possess outliers and exceptional situations the game will tend towards a status quo where most matches ARE facerolls. The better the matchmaking, the higher the percentage of facerolls.

This is an inevitable product of the decision to allow each player one life. As a result, most combats between well matched teams will result in FACEROLL-esque stomps based on which side established the advantage first. So matches in MWO come down to "Which side has a dumb **** Die first", or more blandly the first 30 seconds or so of actual combat.

This is frustrating because poorer players tend to engage first, and they tend to be the ones to die first, so they experience the game at its most even and the better players live longer, and are exposed to more disproportionate firepower. IE The better you are at MWO the more you are punished with even matchmaking. Better players are exposed to higher discrepancies of force, for longer. This truth = Frustrating game the better you are, the more frustrating it gets.

There is a way around this, but it's controversial.

Respawns!

So that even as one side is "Winning" the relative force strength stays the same and the other side can at least enjoy COMPETITIVE gameplay while losing.

Most of the problems with the combat model are resolved if we introduce respawns, The forces stay on an even keel throughout the match, allowing more strategic play and more competitive outcomes.

It can even work with simple skirmish rules. First team to an arbitrary amount of kills wins, punish death with a respawn timer (allowing the other team to "Dip into" the advantaged state but not really get it rolling), you could even add more nuance to it and add a progressive timer to discourage overly aggressive play. First death 20 second respawn, second death 40 seconds, third and all subsequent deaths one minute. This would also reinforce the aspect of mobility (getting from spawn to the battle lines would incentivize light and medium play) but also role warfare.

Yes you still will end up with uneven outcomes, you can easily have one guy just dies constantly. However even in those matches you as a good player wouldn't be punished. You could spend the whole match on one life, and scratch out a modest contribution against peer level forces instead of just facing down a 7-1 battle ball and melting in seconds. More importantly though, a stomp in terms of score would be the result of an actual flaw in matchmaking, as opposed to the current situation. More even teams would have more even scores.

I urge all of you to read up on Lanchesters laws, they are extremely applicable here.

I don't like the conclusion that the game requires respawns to play better (I'm a RP nerd) but the fact of the matter is that keeping it at 12 x 12 throughout the duration of the match is mathematically sound if you want the matches to feel and play more evenly throughout their whole duration.

http://en.wikipedia....hester%27s_laws

http://www.designers...the_numbers.htm

Edited by Gierling, 30 January 2014 - 12:56 PM.

[Dirk Le Daring]

There is a mode they were working on, Dropship. There is your respawn.

As for the other game modes.... No thanks. I have seen a good team get to the position in a game where they spawn-kill. I could totally see that happening with MWO. Good team stomps, sets up firing positions, downs respawning mechs. Not fun.

Besides, I find the respawn concept to go against the spirit of the game. (if implemented across the board) With the exception of dropship mode, maybe. Maybe.

[Khobai]

Quote

Respawns!

Preventing stomps is the reason most games have respawns.

[Sephlock]

Khobai, on 30 January 2014 - 06:46 PM, said:

Preventing stomps is the reason most games have respawns.

[sokitumi]

dont worry, pgi and the dorks wont ever back things that made every previous version of the game fun to play.

this is srs bsns mw not some toy!!! lols

[Redshift2k5]

This is what I've been saying for what seems like years, based on personal experience.

Thanks for putting together a very formal analysis and including real-world analogues. A shift in strategy to try to gain that "early advantage" and conversely, to change your tactic when you have suffered ealy losses, may help players in the long run.

[100mile]

Re-spawns do not prevent stomps...Every freaking game that has re-spawns ends up with the enemy sitting close to the re-spawn point killing people as they straggle in..or just killing them as they straggle back onto the battle field...
The other problem with Re-spawns is that people are reckless as they don't care if they die...
Having 1 life means you need to be careful with it...The OP is right in that the MM working is responsible for the face rolls to a point...IMO he is wrong in how much tactics and the ability to work together has to do with winning/losing...I end up in plenty of competitive matches..Ratio is probably 50/50 with face rolls...

[General Taskeen]

100mile, on 30 January 2014 - 07:35 PM, said:

Re-spawns do not prevent stomps...Every freaking game that has re-spawns ends up with the enemy sitting close to the re-spawn point killing people as they straggle in..or just killing them as they straggle back onto the battle field...

False.



And all I did was look up games that have respawn modes on youtube and typed in "comeback." Totally possible in MW:LL too where it is impossible to camp main spawns, since each base is bristling with cannons and missiles galore.

[Gierling]

You can also respawn in waves to prevent spawn camping so all the dead players who have waited out there timer can spawn on say the minute mark.

[Fang01]

TLDR Go back to call of doody

[Sandpit]

Respawn doesn't mean no stomps. I've played tons of games that have respawns that end in stomps. You get spawn trapped even with protected spawn areas. It's not hard to set up outside of a spawn area and lock it down.
The only thing respawn can do is prolong that issue. Instead of getting stomped in 3 minutes now you're getting stomped in 9 minutes. It might give the illusion of "close games" but I don't think it actually changes anything.

If you gave each player 4 (since that's the free mech bay number) respawns that just means instead of having a 12-0 that's over quickly, you'll have stuff like 40-0 (48v48) that takes 9 minutes. The players who run out and get shot up badly aren't going to change their play style and get "better" simply because they have a few respawns.

[Belorion]

One of my favorite things about this game is the absence of respawns...

Just say no to respawning. Friends don't let friends play modes with respawns... etc. etc.

[Gunbuster]

"The better the matchmaking, the higher the percentage of facerolls."

Your logic does not compute. you describe Lanchesters Square Law but then somehow make the leap that better matching will make a side being stomped more prevalent. The two are not linked like that. I would bet the telemetry with better matching will show, be it noob to noob, or vet to vet that games take slightly longer to play out vs mismatched skill level sides.

Edited by Gunbuster, 31 January 2014 - 10:46 AM.

[Tesunie]

Math seems actuate. Logic seems reasonable, but opinionated to favor one side of the topic. Respawns might change some roll stomps, but most times well probably just prolong the stomp. Respawns would only help encourage the old trickle feed into enemy guns, one of the largest causes of roll stomps I've seen personally.

Of course with drop ship mode, it could be interesting to see what happens, and I'm not against a well made respawn system. Drop ship mode seems fitting to lore. It could work. If respawn will change the stomps, we will see then. It might change some, but I suspect that most stomps will still happen.

[SaltBeef]

The video above is what ruins games.

[Aesthir]

I agree with your analysis of how "stomps" progress. It tracks pretty well with my own observations of battles. The first team to lose 3 mechs more than the other team will win 9 out of 10 games. (Incidentally, that 10th game is usually an amazing play; there's nothing more awesome than a comeback, but it requires teamwork and good players.)

What I don't agree with is your solution. Respawns are not the solution, especially without Repair and Rearm. All that will do is turn the game into a Suicide Lemming Rush, which the game is already skewed too far toward.

Without consequences, without progress, without something to fight for, people have no impetus to fight smart.

Dropship mode, respawnings, all that does is turn the game into Pay To Win, where the person with the most big mechs to keep throwing at the battlefield wins.

We could use a tonnage/firepower based matchmaker, but that only goes so far. What we really need is more than one game mode. We only have one, and it's Skirmish. That's how 99% of games are played, just go out and kill the other guy. There's no reason to move to cap points, no point behind Conquest and Assault, no reward for doing anything other than Skirmish. In many cases, the rewards are LESS for doing anything but Skirmish. You get penalized for not killing enough of the enemy team.

So there is no fix to the problem of "stomps". Because of the way the game is structured, stomps are the inevitable outcome. This game needs to be redesigned from the ground up, structured around some kind of point or goal, before this sort of thing stops happening. And I for one don't believe that PGI has either the creative talent or fortitude to do it. I would very much like to be proven wrong, but nothing I have seen in the past year gives me anything resembling hope that this game will ever be anything more than it is now.

[100mile]

General Taskeen, on 30 January 2014 - 07:46 PM, said:

False.



And all I did was look up games that have respawn modes on youtube and typed in "comeback." Totally possible in MW:LL too where it is impossible to camp main spawns, since each base is bristling with cannons and missiles galore.

I'm sorry i figured everybody on this thread would use common sense...I didn't mean every single match in the game...what I said was every game....and as far as MW:LL goes you are right they didn't camp at the base..they camped just outside of range and tried to catch you as you came back in...

[Joseph Mallan]

sokitumi, on 30 January 2014 - 07:25 PM, said:

dont worry, pgi and the dorks wont ever back things that made every previous version of the game fun to play.

this is srs bsns mw not some toy!!! lols

TT didn't use respawn... You did say every previous version and TT is a present/previous version of MW:O. In that I will be interested in seeing if some of our Mods make it into the TROs as fluffed Variants.

General Taskeen, on 30 January 2014 - 07:46 PM, said:

False.



And all I did was look up games that have respawn modes on youtube and typed in "comeback." Totally possible in MW:LL too where it is impossible to camp main spawns, since each base is bristling with cannons and missiles galore.

How often do the teams make a comeback? is here some data for it?

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 01 February 2014 - 09:23 AM.

[Rebas Kradd]

I agree that basic gaming math favors the early lead in general, but in most games, comebacks are still possible.

What REALLY eliminates comebacks in MWO is two things. One, we are playing with big, slow, ponderous targets that cannot nimbly hop back into cover once ambushed like a CS or CoD avatar. Make a mistake and you pay. Two, this game features a number of immersive mechanics like cockpit shake, impact smoke, and visceral noise, that have the effect of suppressing and shutting down a mech once he's targeted by multiple opponents, especially for low-FPS players.

Those two things exacerbate Lanchester's Square Law beyond its usual impact, and of course they're not going away. So in a sense, I feel MWO matches will always swing heavily based on early leads and comebacks will be difficult. Respawns may or may not help here. I wish PGI had data on how often comebacks occur.

The best solution is something a lot of other people have been advocating: reduce the damage output and make MWO a slower-paced rhythm game. But that's tough to do at this point.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 01 February 2014 - 09:37 AM.

[Gladewolf]

This is sound, but lacks any real accounting for skill when dealing with "stomps". I know KDR is not an exacting science for instance, but a player with a 2 to 1 ratio cannot necessarily be discounted unless that player is matched up against someone else with a similar skill set. So what you wind up looking at on it's base are 12 players, likely to kill 18 mechs( if half have a 2 to 1) vs a team only likely to kill say 12 to 14....that changes the equation quite a bit(because some players count 2 or even three times more than others). All pilots are not created equal.