233 replies to this topic

[Aym]

3rdworld, on 12 April 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:

Does this apply to 8 mans as well?

If so:

Goodbye Marik Civil War. You had a good run.

In fact we've been prepared for this since before MM3 hit. We're prepared to do weight class matched drops and have been since the beginning, much as RHoD does.

[Roland]

Jade Kitsune, on 14 April 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

2-2-2-2 [and by proxy 3-3-3-3] balancing is the best way to go, it allows for varried gameplay, while allowing ALL weightclasses to be represented in every match, which is as it should be.

I understand people wanting the complete freedom, but if this game continues to allow 100% freedom in everything, we'll continue to see heavy/assault warrior online, or base-rush online, and no one wants that.

What we need, for matchmaking is 2222/3333 wight class matchmaking, bigger maps, expand the existing maps, and more game modes.

Weight class matchmaking is certainly not the best way to go. You need to have team tonnage based, otherwise certain chassis like the awesome end up on the bottom of the pile, because their relative lightness compared to a mech like the atlas goes completely unaccounted for.

[jay35]

Iscariott, on 14 April 2013 - 02:32 PM, said:

You aren't the kind of person anyone should be trying to make happy. Sorry.

A: Throwing "sorry" on the end of it doesn't excuse rudeness.
B: You don't know what "kind of person" I am, but as far as MWO goes, you mean someone who pays into this game, who is a pretty consistent team player whether PUGing or grouping, and who is generally polite and does his best to contribute to winning the match. And so you'd be quite wrong in your statement that the game should not be appealing to me as much as anyone else.
C: You are purposefully misunderstanding the point being made in the text you quoted. And I'd already clarified my intent here, but I guess it's easier to ignore that and build a strawman...

Edited by jay35, 14 April 2013 - 06:57 PM.

[Zylo]

Roland, on 14 April 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

Weight class matchmaking is certainly not the best way to go. You need to have team tonnage based, otherwise certain chassis like the awesome end up on the bottom of the pile, because their relative lightness compared to a mech like the atlas goes completely unaccounted for.

I disagree, the weight class system is good for balancing as the devs can look at usage data for each mech in each weight class.

If the devs see only Atlas, Stalker, Highlander used while very few players take an Awesome this indicates that the Awesome probably has more than just a tonnage disadvantage. Is it too slow? Is the maneuverability bad? Do the hitboxes need adjustments? Do the weapon hardpoints need adjustment?

I suspect global stats for each mech can be tracked as well. Do Awesomes score far fewer kills, do less damage and lose more matches compared to the other assault mechs? If this turns out to be true the devs can start to look at why this happens and make adjustments in balance.


The problem with tonnage based matchmaking is that it encourages players to pick the lightest possible overpowered mechs to run as many of them as possible to fit within the tonnage restriction.

A similar problem exists with class limited groups. Why would players have any reason to take a less effective mech in a weight class?

Weight class matching makes sense for small group/solo matches. I don't think there is an easy fix for 8-man groups due to lower population. Returning groups to any size and matching similar size groups against each other might be the best fix.

[Kaishaku]

Its going to be interesting in a few days time. Would of rather seen U.I 2.0 or CW but you cant win them all

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Zylo, on 14 April 2013 - 07:01 PM, said:

Previous Post.

I disagree ... "Light", "Medium", "Heavy", and "Assault" are just arbitrary categories ... mechs are balanced most by: weapon hardpoints, mech hit boxes, and overall weight.

The only real example we have right now is that a CDA (40 tons) is basically a slower, but better armored, JR7 (35 tons) ... unfortunately the profile, heardpoints, etc. are also very similar, so it's easy to get caught up in that part of the comparison, instead of just looking at the things that are determined by overall weight ... internal hit points, total armor available, speed (with a certain engine rating), and (of course) the maximum amount of weapons/ammo/heat dissipation a mech can carry. All of these factors are adjusted linearly by overall weight.


However, I think the 0-ton-delta weight matching is going to be a fiasco ... there is a balance somewhere between matching Elo scores, matching weight, and taking groups into consideration when filling random matches ... but there has to be some flexibility and no system will ever be perfect.

[FiveDigits]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 14 April 2013 - 10:15 PM, said:

"Light", "Medium", "Heavy", and "Assault" are just arbitrary categories ... mechs are balanced most by: weapon hardpoints, mech hit boxes, and overall weight. [...]

I would take that even further and leave weight out of it entirely. It's the mechs' capabilities that count. Sure, a heavier mech might have more fire power, but then it's not the weight that makes it better. It's ... the fire power.

With player skill rating mechanics in place we could as well treat mechs similarly. Introduce "mech ELO" and you get a uniform match making system. I explained how this might be done before MM Phase 3.

[Icemantas]

Quote

we introduced our first pass at Elo and saw a tremendous improvement in the quality of matches being kicked off.

Quote

Fun fact: About 74% of games kicked off are within what we consider tolerable weight matching limits

a) we play on a different servers
you are very tolerant people

Since changes are about weight classes and not tonnage, not keeping my hopes up

[Zylo]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 14 April 2013 - 10:15 PM, said:

I disagree ... "Light", "Medium", "Heavy", and "Assault" are just arbitrary categories ... mechs are balanced most by: weapon hardpoints, mech hit boxes, and overall weight.

The only real example we have right now is that a CDA (40 tons) is basically a slower, but better armored, JR7 (35 tons) ... unfortunately the profile, heardpoints, etc. are also very similar, so it's easy to get caught up in that part of the comparison, instead of just looking at the things that are determined by overall weight ... internal hit points, total armor available, speed (with a certain engine rating), and (of course) the maximum amount of weapons/ammo/heat dissipation a mech can carry. All of these factors are adjusted linearly by overall weight.


However, I think the 0-ton-delta weight matching is going to be a fiasco ... there is a balance somewhere between matching Elo scores, matching weight, and taking groups into consideration when filling random matches ... but there has to be some flexibility and no system will ever be perfect.

From what I understand the weight matching will work the same as before Elo with weight classes which allows faster matchmaking than exact weight matching. The system only needs to match based on 4 weight class possibilities compared to matching by providing equal tonnage for each team.

Look at the potential for match imbalance based on total weight with 2x 4-man groups per team in the example below using weight matching rather than weight class matching:
200 tons = Atlas DDC x2 (group 1)
140 tons = Cataphract x2 (group 1)
140 tons = Raven 3L x4 (group 2)
480 tons total

160 tons = Awesome x2 (group 3)
120 tons = Dragon x2 (group 3)
100 tons = Hunchback x2 (group 4)
100 tons Trebuchet x2 (group 4)
480 tons total

Does this fight look fair to you? According to tonnage matching it's fair but according to weight class matching it's not. The Awesomes and Dragons would get ripped apart vs the Atlas and the Cataphracts assuming balanced Elo ratings and similar player skill in terms of tactics and piloting. The mediums have the potential to rip up the Ravens if they all stick together perfectly but the Ravens don't have to engage. They are faster and control the terms of the fight.

This weight balance does nothing to make the weaker mechs a good choice. They still remain weaker mechs. Sure there is a possibility the weaker mechs might be offset by something better but the same is true in weight class matching. Your team may get 2x Awesomes but it's also possible the other team did as well.

Sure it's possible in some cases the team with the Awesomes and Dragons could get 4x Spiders or 4x Commandos using a weight class matching system but this really shouldn't happen often. Both systems have flaws but weight class matching should generally produce fair matches when combined with Elo ratings. The time to build a fair match should also be lower compared to tonnage matching due to a smaller number of variables to work with - 4 for weight class vs 12? different mech weights currently which will increase as mechs are added.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

FiveDigits, on 14 April 2013 - 11:34 PM, said:

Reply to my post ... and previous post.

In general, I agree ... I think match making should be based on the player's experience (how many matches he's played), the player's overall results (how much he has contributed to his team in the past), the player's results in the specific mech he's piloting that match, and the mech's effectiveness. There are probably some wild cards that need to be added as well ... whether or not he's dropping with a group, etc.

But, that's not the system we have ... right now, the system we have is ... well, no one outside of PGI knows exactly what system we have beyond what we've been told (hidden Elo scores for each weight class).

[Sam Slade]

I think I'm in favor of tonnage matching over class matching but then I'd have to see how they both play out first.

In eight man drops free for all is the way to go, combined with a prematch lobby. I know I'd not be that keen on playing against a 'Surprise it's Atlas' group of 8 DDCs(booring game)... unless I could choose the map(a good feature for weight imbalance I think) as then beating them wouldn't be so hard(a tactical challange is fun). The DDC base rush on Tourmaline wouldn't be as easy as River City or the Forest.

[MustrumRidcully]

I think weight class matching would need to be combined with tonnage matching at least.
E.g.
1) Each side has the same number of lights, mediums, heavies and assaults.
2) Each side has the same total tonnage.

Otherwise you can get a group of 2 Commandods, 2 Cicadas, 2 Dragons and 2 Awesomes fighting against 2 Ravens, 2 Hunchbacks, 2 Cataphracts and 2 Atlai. That can never result in a fair match.

[Sprouticus]

jay35, on 12 April 2013 - 01:42 PM, said:

And if you want to get really analytical, you could argue that not allowing higher skilled players to interact with lower skilled players inherently reduces the exposure lower skilled players will have to higher-skill tactics from which they could learn and improve. It can be argued everyone suffers from artificial barriers, not just higher-skill players who lose fun factor and experience artificial constraint, but also lower-skill players that are less challenged to improve and have less exposure to learning opportunities.

A counter argument to this would be that it is better for lower skilled players to be exposed to the tactics and skills of those better gradually through incremental improvement rather than all at once.

I know how to play hockey, but in the end going intoa pick up game against NHL players is simply going to reduce the fun factor for me and overwhelm me with tools that I simply am not capable of using. Where as putting me up against those close to me (slightly better or worse) will expose me to skills and tactics I can learn from.

It also makes me more likely to come back and play more because I have a chance.

[Sprouticus]

Roland, on 14 April 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

Weight class matchmaking is certainly not the best way to go. You need to have team tonnage based, otherwise certain chassis like the awesome end up on the bottom of the pile, because their relative lightness compared to a mech like the atlas goes completely unaccounted for.

It sounds like the total tonnage is fairly close in most cases (20-30 tons). Now it could be argued that the reason tonnage has been so close is that people are taking the hgh end of weight classes, but wathcing the number of Dragons, Catapults, Stalkers, etc in drops I dont think that is the case.

I would of course prefer tonnage based balancing (or even better ROLE based balancing), but that's just me.

[Roland]

Zylo, on 14 April 2013 - 07:01 PM, said:

I disagree, the weight class system is good for balancing as the devs can look at usage data for each mech in each weight class.

If the devs see only Atlas, Stalker, Highlander used while very few players take an Awesome this indicates that the Awesome probably has more than just a tonnage disadvantage. Is it too slow? Is the maneuverability bad? Do the hitboxes need adjustments? Do the weapon hardpoints need adjustment?

I suspect global stats for each mech can be tracked as well. Do Awesomes score far fewer kills, do less damage and lose more matches compared to the other assault mechs? If this turns out to be true the devs can start to look at why this happens and make adjustments in balance.

But you are missing a key point here.

The Awesome isn't supposed to be equivalent to an Atlas. It's 15 tons lighter. It's supposed to be weaker.

The fact that it's 15 tons lighter is supposed to be the balancing point. Because it's supposed to exist in a game that is balanced on either tonnage or BV.

[xZaOx]

Cant wait for weight/class balanced matches in puggin n 8mans. Perhaps we'll see more teams playing 8mans again. And maybe more teams running mediums than assault heavy.

[Billygoat]

ECM needs to have it's own category in the matchmaker since the equipment itself is unlikely to be fixed. 1 x ECM light matched with 1 x ECM light, 1 x ECM assault matched with.. etc. etc.

Phase 5 maybe?

[Zyllos]

Zylo, on 15 April 2013 - 12:21 AM, said:

From what I understand the weight matching will work the same as before Elo with weight classes which allows faster matchmaking than exact weight matching. The system only needs to match based on 4 weight class possibilities compared to matching by providing equal tonnage for each team.

Look at the potential for match imbalance based on total weight with 2x 4-man groups per team in the example below using weight matching rather than weight class matching:

200 tons = Atlas DDC x2 (group 1)
140 tons = Cataphract x2 (group 1)
140 tons = Raven 3L x4 (group 2)
480 tons total

160 tons = Awesome x2 (group 3)
120 tons = Dragon x2 (group 3)
100 tons = Hunchback x2 (group 4)
100 tons Trebuchet x2 (group 4)
480 tons total

Does this fight look fair to you? According to tonnage matching it's fair but according to weight class matching it's not. The Awesomes and Dragons would get ripped apart vs the Atlas and the Cataphracts assuming balanced Elo ratings and similar player skill in terms of tactics and piloting. The mediums have the potential to rip up the Ravens if they all stick together perfectly but the Ravens don't have to engage. They are faster and control the terms of the fight.

This weight balance does nothing to make the weaker mechs a good choice. They still remain weaker mechs. Sure there is a possibility the weaker mechs might be offset by something better but the same is true in weight class matching. Your team may get 2x Awesomes but it's also possible the other team did as well.

Sure it's possible in some cases the team with the Awesomes and Dragons could get 4x Spiders or 4x Commandos using a weight class matching system but this really shouldn't happen often. Both systems have flaws but weight class matching should generally produce fair matches when combined with Elo ratings. The time to build a fair match should also be lower compared to tonnage matching due to a smaller number of variables to work with - 4 for weight class vs 12? different mech weights currently which will increase as mechs are added.

See, I beg to differ on that subject.

The Awesomes/Dragons dictate the fight against the Atlases. Even if the Cataphract/Atlas lance was together, the Awesomes/Dragons should be able to single out a Cataphract/Atlas target while only the Cataphracts could against the Awesomes/Dragons, either by superior speed (Dragons) or support range (Awesomes).

And you mentioned the balance been the RVN-3Ls and the Mediums. The Mediums should win the fight but the RVN-3Ls would be dictating the engagements.

I don't think you can dismiss a tonnage based balanced over the weight class balance, or vise versa.

We have tried the weight class based balancing, and we got what you would expect. Many mechs get left to the wayside, as the same happens with 100% free choice. The one choice we have not tried is tonnage based matching.

But it seems the devs are afraid to try this. Either in that it will take too long to match by tonnage, or they will force Timmy or Sally to have to pick a mech that he/she doesn't want to play.

Edited by Zyllos, 15 April 2013 - 11:23 AM.

[Ngamok]

http://steamcommunit...s/?id=139399196

[FiveDigits]

Billygoat, on 15 April 2013 - 07:40 AM, said:

ECM needs to have it's own category in the matchmaker since the equipment itself is unlikely to be fixed. 1 x ECM light matched with 1 x ECM light, 1 x ECM assault matched with.. etc. etc.

Phase 5 maybe?

Don't stop at ECM.

FiveDigits, on 14 April 2013 - 11:34 PM, said:

With player skill rating mechanics in place we could as well treat mechs similarly. Introduce "mech ELO" and you get a uniform match making system. I explained how this might be done before MM Phase 3.