Jump to content

A Good Idea For Match Maker


10 replies to this topic

Poll: Would you like to see something like this model used for group match maker? (10 member(s) have cast votes)

Yes, No or The idea is good, but not complete.

  1. Yes (3 votes [30.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 30.00%

  2. No (4 votes [40.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 40.00%

  3. Yes, but incomplete, it still has some flaws (3 votes [30.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 30.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Merciless531

    Member

  • PipPip
  • The Merciless
  • The Merciless
  • 41 posts
  • LocationMA - USA

Posted 13 October 2014 - 04:35 AM

"EoRaptor, on 16 September 2014 - 01:35 PM, said: I have a question about the matchmaker. If it's been answered before, please say so, and I will hunt further through this thread.
The group selection screen is currently set up to allow the following:
1-10 players have a restriction of 3/3/3/3.
This leads to matches where I see lances of 3 direwolves and a timberwolf, or 3 timberwolves and a direwolf, often on the same team.
Would not a more layered selection screen provide better matching?
1-4 players get 1/1/1/1 5-7 players get 2/2/2/2 8-10 players get 3/3/3/3

Hi EoRaptor,
Yes indeed, that would definitely improve the matchmakers ability to combine multiple groups to produce matches. So far though, we've tried to integrate threes and larger groups into the matchmaker with as minimal impact to player behaviours as we could manage. If we were to restrict weight class counts based on group size, that would pose a significant increase in player restrictions when grouping.
While it would almost certainly improve the quality of matches being produced, I would need design to ultimately make this call. There is a very definite trade-off here, and it would need to be considered very carefully; including soliciting player feedback to determine whether or not such a change would be well received in general."

I thought this was a great start to an idea for party ques. A model I think might work with the nature of the game is a party size 2-4 can pick 1 of each weight class. If the party exceeds 4, each new player will open a slot for the different weight classes lowest to highest order. For example, 5 players would get 1 of each like a 4 man group, but now with an additional light spot. 6 would have an extra light and medium, 7 an additional heavy and this could work all the way up to a 12 man team. The reason behind the light too assault order is because smaller groups of 3 and 2 will most likely take up the heavier chassis. That and larger groups should have the tactical advantage of knowing each other's play styles and communication, there for taking lighter chassis first would be just as easily seen as a trade off.

Now I know clanner stomping teams that are used to getting in a match with their 5 dire wolfs and 3 timberwolf mechs will oppose this idea, but I for one hate those sort of match ups, its almost a garunteed loss, and it happens all too often.

#2 Hornviech

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 206 posts

Posted 13 October 2014 - 06:24 AM

Add a poll for Battlevaluesystem.

The Battlevalue system counts every part of a Mech.
Chassis
Engine
Weapons
heatsinks
Electronic Warfare (ECM, etc.)
Then there is a Battlevalue for the whole mech when everything is counted.
Four of them will be the Lance Battlevalue, 5 mechs could be a star battlevalue

Clan mechs have a higher battlevalue from the start so in matchmaking the Battlevalues of each group will be compared.
So for example when there ar IS vs Clan the Clans would have less tonnage on the field but the same battlevalue.

This is the only fair Matchmaking

It would be a lot of work to implement all the different values for each Item but it would be worth it.
Even for CW it would be good because you could limit the Battlevalue for Match. It would make everything more competitive.

This would be I think the best choice.

#3 Merciless531

    Member

  • PipPip
  • The Merciless
  • The Merciless
  • 41 posts
  • LocationMA - USA

Posted 13 October 2014 - 07:25 AM

View PostHornviech, on 13 October 2014 - 06:24 AM, said:

Add a poll for Battlevaluesystem.

The Battlevalue system counts every part of a Mech.
Chassis


This would be a totally different system from the current, my poll / Idea is more directed towards how to improve the current one to use as little resources as possible. If we were to scrap the current and move too a new system, I like parts of your Idea, but respectfully, it's way too specific. I would suggest to just make matches based on total tonnage. make a match based on total tonnage that ~ equal, for best results. I would say shoot for no more than 5 ton differences. If one assault mech is 80 tons, and you also have a heavy 75 ton mech, its almost the same tonnage, but two separate classes. One team might have 3 80 ton assaults, whereas the other has 3 x 100 ton assault mechs, and what you have here is a 60 ton disadvantage for one side and a speed disadvantage for the other (but not quite equivalent).

To have even more closely matched games, Tonnage would be A LOT more specific, but the algorithms to make good matches where there are at least 2 of each weight class, no more than 4 of each weight class, and greater than less than target weight capacities may be resource heavy, or maybe I am wrong? This would definitely balance match maker, but as we all know, easier said than done.

View PostHornviech, on 13 October 2014 - 06:24 AM, said:




Clan mechs have a higher battlevalue from the start so in matchmaking the Battlevalues of each group will be compared.

So for example when there ar IS vs Clan the Clans would have less tonnage on the field but the same battlevalue.



This is the only fair Matchmaking





Now for this, instead of giving the clan mechs an imaginary rating increase as a nerf, they should just work on balancing the clan mechs, I definatly agree that some clan mechs are a bit too powerful.

Edited by Merciless531, 13 October 2014 - 07:40 AM.


#4 13th Shaman

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 42 posts

Posted 14 October 2014 - 02:39 AM

Merciless531, It seems, you didn't get the whole idea of the battle value system quite right. This system was created from the very origin of battetech, along with the first mech drawn, was this system implemented. With years of work, the guys behind creating the battletech perfected it, revising the values and balancing them. Now the values weren't changed for couple years now, and it seems 'BVs' (battlevalues) are in the right spot. So, yeah, no need to balance the values or think them up. Everything we got in the MWO already has a value.

Also you said that the whole matchmaking system would need to be redone. I don't thinks so, I mean I am not a programmer or so. But instead of using the mechs class and elo for finding a match, It would need to use only Elo and the BV. So there is not so much of a difference, or at least i guess so. Just add ELO number to the BV number and everything should be fine.

I also think that the BV would be resource friendly, all the match would be done in the game client while saving the mech in mech lab so no counting the BV of your mech during the matchmaking process. The BV rate of your mech would be simply added to yours ELO and voilà, you can safely look for a match.

Also It couldn't be thought as a nerf of clans technology. The values as I already said, were set for all the mechs and technology in the game, a long time ago. The clans technology is better and actually should be better, for example the IS UAC5 is rated 112BV while the CUAC5 is rated 122, not so much of a difference but it has a resemblance for the different cooldowns and range. Not nerfing anything, just giving them numbers.

When it comes to the EoRaptor's idea, I seriously think that's a very bad idea. While it seems to be helping with matches, the truth is that it would restrict the players too much. It's aimed at the 3 Direwolves and 1 Timberwolf, but hits also the 3 IS medium mechs and 1 Heavy mech lances too, and lots of similar settings. Which I don't like at all. I play with friends light lances all the time, what you are proposing is killing all the fun from playing a light lance. You actually are trying to take them, to make such lances extinc from the game. I think it's almost impossible to play a skirmishing lance in a setting of 1/1/1/1. What you would make is to play always and at all times, a lance focused around and being slowed down by a Assault. Instead of killing the sheeps of enemy team, you make the wolfs protect a cow. A bad idea indeed.

A weight restriction would help, but remember that a StormCrow is better than a Shadowhawk, and If you don't see that already. Compare an Orion to Timberwolf. Weight restrictions would be better, that's true, but still it would be nowhere close to being a complete and good matchmaking system.

Edited by The13, 14 October 2014 - 02:43 AM.


#5 Merciless531

    Member

  • PipPip
  • The Merciless
  • The Merciless
  • 41 posts
  • LocationMA - USA

Posted 14 October 2014 - 06:26 AM

View PostThe13, on 14 October 2014 - 02:39 AM, said:

Merciless531, It seems, you didn't get the whole idea of the battle value system quite right. This system was created from the very origin of battetech, along with the first mech drawn, was this system implemented. With years of work, the guys behind creating the battletech perfected it, revising the values and balancing them. Now the values weren't changed for couple years now, and it seems 'BVs' (battlevalues) are in the right spot. So, yeah, no need to balance the values or think them up. Everything we got in the MWO already has a value.

Also you said that the whole matchmaking system would need to be redone. I don't thinks so, I mean I am not a programmer or so. But instead of using the mechs class and elo for finding a match, It would need to use only Elo and the BV. So there is not so much of a difference, or at least i guess so. Just add ELO number to the BV number and everything should be fine.

I also think that the BV would be resource friendly, all the match would be done in the game client while saving the mech in mech lab so no counting the BV of your mech during the matchmaking process. The BV rate of your mech would be simply added to yours ELO and voilà, you can safely look for a match.

Also It couldn't be thought as a nerf of clans technology. The values as I already said, were set for all the mechs and technology in the game, a long time ago. The clans technology is better and actually should be better, for example the IS UAC5 is rated 112BV while the CUAC5 is rated 122, not so much of a difference but it has a resemblance for the different cooldowns and range. Not nerfing anything, just giving them numbers.

When it comes to the EoRaptor's idea, I seriously think that's a very bad idea. While it seems to be helping with matches, the truth is that it would restrict the players too much. It's aimed at the 3 Direwolves and 1 Timberwolf, but hits also the 3 IS medium mechs and 1 Heavy mech lances too, and lots of similar settings. Which I don't like at all. I play with friends light lances all the time, what you are proposing is killing all the fun from playing a light lance. You actually are trying to take them, to make such lances extinc from the game. I think it's almost impossible to play a skirmishing lance in a setting of 1/1/1/1. What you would make is to play always and at all times, a lance focused around and being slowed down by a Assault. Instead of killing the sheeps of enemy team, you make the wolfs protect a cow. A bad idea indeed.

A weight restriction would help, but remember that a StormCrow is better than a Shadowhawk, and If you don't see that already. Compare an Orion to Timberwolf. Weight restrictions would be better, that's true, but still it would be nowhere close to being a complete and good matchmaking system.


Well there are a few flaws I see with you BV model. First off, you say it would be simple to implement and replace BV into the ELO and Weight class equation of match maker. This is not true at all, they would have to give all the components, chassis etc. in the game a value and hope that it stands true for their model of the game, research, testing and coding for this will take a lot of time. Then you claim that clan weapons and mechs are better, which I fully understand because it is supposed to be the new and improved chassis of the future, but then what you are looking at is a bigger problem. Match maker is going to add up your BV system's points and what you are going to end up with is matches of Lighter Clan Drops VS. Heavier IS drops (are clan drop ships not as good as carrying the same tonnage?). If all the components of the clan mechs are better in BV points, it will add up and make it hard for matches to be made that have a balance of the four weight classes/ tonnage values which seems to be the goal of PGI. The last issue I see is people are going to strive to make a meta based around the mech that does the best with the lowest BV rating, it will make the game linear and boring.

War isn't fair, you bring the best you can afford to the battlefield and give it your all. What should matter on a drop is how much tonnage can your drop ship carry, and what mechs do you have available to you that can fill that drop ship. You think the U.S. military calculated their BV points on the bombs they drop in the middle east? Lol, ok that is a bit dark, but maybe you get my point. In this game, the only linear thing is, we all use mechs, In theory we all use drop ships to get those mechs to the battlefield, both teams can drop 12 mechs (that might vary in the future though). You don't calculate your BV before you put your mech on a drop ship, if it fits it ships!

#6 13th Shaman

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 42 posts

Posted 14 October 2014 - 01:33 PM

I'm neither a programmist nor a table top player, so, yeah It would be hard to explain the BV thing for me. For that, a specialist would be needed. Also, all of the things that are in the game already have a set battle value, for me it looks simple. Add another attribute to all of the 'items' (engines, chassis etc.) in the game, an then count it up. Does not seem to be hard, but yeah as I already said I don't know much about programming. The BV system, should be from the very beginning of the game, but it was not. Now it's a bit too late to implement BV system, i would agree with that.

Still the BV system, let's say to me it seems to be a golden solution, at least with as much knowledge of BV system as i posses. While you say, the americans didn't count the BV of their boombs... I do not agree. Actually all of the weapons systems that were ever created have some kind of rating and a degree of lethality, along with human or animal 'soldiers'. A 'BV' (Now I should call it, a measure of explosive power or lethal power) of a bomb called 'Little Boy' that was dropped by American Army on Hiroshima would be of 16 Kilotons of TNT. That's the very first example, you yourself actually provided. All of the weapon systems created by Humans, have some kind of measure unit. To make it short, for the bombs it is Kilotons of TNT, and I'm ready to die for it, that the Americans exactly knew how strong their bombs were. I think, that they exactly know, what and (approximately) where was dropped, and what strenght of it was. But yeah, I get your point.

[color=#959595]"What should matter on a drop is how much tonnage can your drop ship carry," - We are talking here about the tonnage of a dropship? Okey then mate, You think that what are the Clann pilots eating? Can you even imagine how long are their supply lines? It's not so easy to get those in line, even if you conquer some planets, the supply chain would be long like hell. Also either they upgrade the facilities on planets they conquer with Clan technology or all ammunition and spare parts and mechs, need to travel a long, long distance to get to a unit. What it means to make it short, is that the tonnage available for Clanners to put mechs on their dropship would be a lot smaller than for the IS pilots. The clans are not a part of Inner Sphere, and all the things needed for war and to sustain a life on a space ship, need to be packed somewhere. Along with the Drop Ship (they need to conquer a planet, and then hold it, damn there are so many problems that thinking about even a small portion of them gives me a headache. [/color]

Also I didn't claim that the Clan weapons and technology is better. It's not a claim, it's a simple truth, and I am not the guy responsible for it being better nor the first one to say so. They are supposed to be better, thought up in the very core of universum we are talking about, to be better. So yeah to sum up, they are designed to be better.

You say, war isn't fair, so why do we even care to balance things out?O.o

Edited by The13, 14 October 2014 - 01:33 PM.


#7 Merciless531

    Member

  • PipPip
  • The Merciless
  • The Merciless
  • 41 posts
  • LocationMA - USA

Posted 14 October 2014 - 03:37 PM

View PostThe13, on 14 October 2014 - 01:33 PM, said:


[color=#959595]"What should matter on a drop is how much tonnage can your drop ship carry," - We are talking here about the tonnage of a dropship? Okey then mate, You think that what are the Clann pilots eating? Can you even imagine how long are their supply lines? It's not so easy to get those in line, even if you conquer some planets, the supply chain would be long like hell. Also either they upgrade the facilities on planets they conquer with Clan technology or all ammunition and spare parts and mechs, need to travel a long, long distance to get to a unit. What it means to make it short, is that the tonnage available for Clanners to put mechs on their dropship would be a lot smaller than for the IS pilots. The clans are not a part of Inner Sphere, and all the things needed for war and to sustain a life on a space ship, need to be packed somewhere. Along with the Drop Ship (they need to conquer a planet, and then hold it, damn there are so many problems that thinking about even a small portion of them gives me a headache. [/color]

Also I didn't claim that the Clan weapons and technology is better. It's not a claim, it's a simple truth, and I am not the guy responsible for it being better nor the first one to say so. They are supposed to be better, thought up in the very core of universum we are talking about, to be better. So yeah to sum up, they are designed to be better.

You say, war isn't fair, so why do we even care to balance things out?O.o


I like what we are getting too, you bring up a good point, clanners are trying to carve out territory of their own w/o any preexisting strong holds/ supply lines. A balance like the BV system could actually show an accurate representation to the clanners limited supplies to counter their better weapon systems. And I didn't mean to say you claimed the clan systems were better, I meant to say I understand that that is how it is supposed to be, but my concern is I needed a logical explanation behind why clans couldn't carry just as many tons of weaponry as an IS faction. Now I see though, from a tactical stand point why clans would have a disadvantage, but as I have been taking programming in college, it would take them some time to research, insert, test and debug the BV system. It would be amazing if they could just copy and paste all of the BV system into all the separate file locations for every weapon, engine, chassis, etc. and it worked perfectly with an algorithm that calculated each teams BV, ELO and a balance of the 4 mech classes based on the ideals that clanners have better technology but limited supply lines, and IS have home field advantage.

I like some points you brought up, and would agree that something like BV system would be great, but it might be time heavy for the devs. If we could have a temporary fix like I have suggested above, we might have better fights till they can devote the time they need for a thing like the BV system. Thanks for the insight o>

Edited by Merciless531, 14 October 2014 - 03:49 PM.


#8 13th Shaman

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 42 posts

Posted 15 October 2014 - 01:54 AM

I fear, they will never implement the BV system, although it would be best :). What they will actually do is, that they will just nerf clan weapons and Clan mechs further, step by step so that the IS & Clan mechs and weapons will be 'equal' or at least with this aim in mind, but with different 'feel' about it:/.

I just hope, they won't implement the 1/1/1/1 system as you proposed, it would ruin the fun of playing in a well coordinated lance for me, (and mind that I am a dedicated IS medium mech pilot and play with guys that love IS mechs). I also fear that this solution wouldn't be temporary.

#9 Hornviech

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 206 posts

Posted 16 October 2014 - 04:20 AM

View PostMerciless531, on 14 October 2014 - 06:26 AM, said:


Well there are a few flaws I see with you BV model. First off, you say it would be simple to implement and replace BV into the ELO and Weight class equation of match maker. This is not true at all, they would have to give all the components, chassis etc. in the game a value and hope that it stands true for their model of the game, research, testing and coding for this will take a lot of time. Then you claim that clan weapons and mechs are better, which I fully understand because it is supposed to be the new and improved chassis of the future, but then what you are looking at is a bigger problem. Match maker is going to add up your BV system's points and what you are going to end up with is matches of Lighter Clan Drops VS. Heavier IS drops (are clan drop ships not as good as carrying the same tonnage?). If all the components of the clan mechs are better in BV points, it will add up and make it hard for matches to be made that have a balance of the four weight classes/ tonnage values which seems to be the goal of PGI. The last issue I see is people are going to strive to make a meta based around the mech that does the best with the lowest BV rating, it will make the game linear and boring.

War isn't fair, you bring the best you can afford to the battlefield and give it your all. What should matter on a drop is how much tonnage can your drop ship carry, and what mechs do you have available to you that can fill that drop ship. You think the U.S. military calculated their BV points on the bombs they drop in the middle east? Lol, ok that is a bit dark, but maybe you get my point. In this game, the only linear thing is, we all use mechs, In theory we all use drop ships to get those mechs to the battlefield, both teams can drop 12 mechs (that might vary in the future though). You don't calculate your BV before you put your mech on a drop ship, if it fits it ships!


When it comes to the BV System then the clans will have lighter drops becaus the have not as many mechs on the field as IS but the same Weaponpower.

I have made a poll for the BV System next to this one and put some links in which explain it a little bit.
http://mwomercs.com/...se-battlevalue/

Also you can have a look into the Master Rules for Battletech to get some Ideas for implementation of some good things from BT TT.
http://www.lski.org/...0(rev.%20050108)/BattleTech%2035000%20-%20Master%20Rules%20-%20Clear.pdf

Edited by Hornviech, 16 October 2014 - 04:34 AM.


#10 razor31

    Member

  • PipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 31 posts

Posted 16 October 2014 - 06:03 AM

I love how every one continues to think that the clan mechs are so powerful. With all the nerfs to clan weapons the IS weapons systems are stronger. LRM's fire in a group instead of streaming out. Balistics weapons are pinpoint instead of burst fire. IS energy weapons are cooler. The only advantage that clan weapons have over IS weapons are there range of the laser weapons and the weight of the weapon systems. With the incoming percs of the IS mechs it will be interesting to see how far IS mechs move over the clan mechs. Did anyone ever think THAT maybe the clan mech seem stronger because better pilots are in them. Most people in clan mechs have been playing this game for some time now and have a good understanding on weapons grouping, weapon system combos, and team play.

#11 Merciless531

    Member

  • PipPip
  • The Merciless
  • The Merciless
  • 41 posts
  • LocationMA - USA

Posted 22 October 2014 - 11:04 AM

View Postrazor31, on 16 October 2014 - 06:03 AM, said:

I love how every one continues to think that the clan mechs are so powerful. With all the nerfs to clan weapons the IS weapons systems are stronger. LRM's fire in a group instead of streaming out. Balistics weapons are pinpoint instead of burst fire. IS energy weapons are cooler. The only advantage that clan weapons have over IS weapons are there range of the laser weapons and the weight of the weapon systems. With the incoming percs of the IS mechs it will be interesting to see how far IS mechs move over the clan mechs. Did anyone ever think THAT maybe the clan mech seem stronger because better pilots are in them. Most people in clan mechs have been playing this game for some time now and have a good understanding on weapons grouping, weapon system combos, and team play.


Highly competitive players do play in clan mechs yes, but not because they just simply like them for their aesthetics. Highly competitive players are playing clan mechs because they have been proven better. lol

on another note, with the IS quirks coming, I believe that there may be a balance with them, though most likely it will make them over powered and there will be some nerfs, but we will have to see.

Edited by Merciless531, 22 October 2014 - 11:07 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users