233 replies to this topic

[Chavette]

Still no 5-7man groups, still not happy.

With 12v12 I guess it will be 4man or 12man or go home? Nothing inbetween? Give me a break.

[FrDrake]

jay35, on 12 April 2013 - 11:54 AM, said:

To be honest, "meh". It's fine and all, but to be honest, I don't really want every match to be close. Close is stressful. I game primarily to have fun. To enjoy the game. Enjoyment naturally comes from winning. And I'm used to winning more than losing when it comes to FPS games. So to reduce my winning, as ELO inherently does by giving better than average players tougher than average opponents, will cause me less than a normal level of enjoyment.
It's not a huge deal. I'm not going to whine because I don't get to crush the enemy every round. But it must be pointed out that you are very directly reducing the fun factor of the game for above average players any time they're looking for relaxation and fun rather than competition and stress.

Since none of the queues are ranked yet why worry, just play for fun.

If you really need to roll some newbs start a "smurf" account, if you haven't heard of those just make a secondary account with base Elo so you're not worried about trashing your "main's" with "just having fun".

[Jackie Butters]

Love the post, this should be fantastic.

[hammerreborn]

King Arthur IV, on 12 April 2013 - 11:59 AM, said:

love the weight class match making but setting tolerance to 0 is ...............................
imo anywhere between 100 tons and 1 would be better. i hope we wont get stuck in match making for a very long time or is it going to be like elo? the longer we wait the greater the difference in weight? if this is the case why not just set the tolerance higher..... between 1-100? (im guessing its tons)

Why would you want a 100 ton split when they said that 74% matches already <20-30 tons (depending on what heavy to assault means), and they want all matches to be like that.

[Deathlike]

King Arthur IV, on 12 April 2013 - 11:59 AM, said:

love the weight class match making but setting tolerance to 0 is ...............................
imo anywhere between 100 tons and 1 would be better. i hope we wont get stuck in match making for a very long time or is it going to be like elo? the longer we wait the greater the difference in weight? if this is the case why not just set the tolerance higher..... between 1-100? (im guessing its tons)

I'll hazard a guess and say that there will be some "funky" bad math going on with this because we do have missing tonnages involved (45 [BlackJack], 55, 75 [Orion], 95) so there may be some more noticeable "tendencies" to predict what mechs will drop on the field.

Edited by Deathlike, 12 April 2013 - 12:02 PM.

[stjobe]

Omid Kiarostami, on 12 April 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

To clarify, it'll be similar to the forced Weight Class balancing that we used to have. We're not doing any tonnage based matching at this time.

Ah, so top-of-their-weight-class 'mechs are still ruling the roost. Gotcha.

Why even bother having 'mechs that are not top of their weight class if you're going to do this to them?

In the words of Custom3173:

Custom3173, on 12 April 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

Hopes = dashed

/a sad Commando pilot.

Edited by stjobe, 12 April 2013 - 12:06 PM.

[3rdworld]

Does this apply to 8 mans as well?

If so:

Goodbye Marik Civil War. You had a good run.

Edited by 3rdworld, 12 April 2013 - 12:07 PM.

[hammerreborn]

stjobe, on 12 April 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

Ah, so top-of-their-weight-class 'mechs are still ruling the roost. Gotcha.

Why even bother having 'mechs that are not top of their weight class if you're going to do this to them?

In the words of Custom3173:


/a sad Commando pilot.

As long as the skill comes into play the top of the weight class doesn't really matter. In my data the heavier team actually won slightly less games on average than the lighter team (probably more around 50/50 if you discount all equal tonnage games).

[Ransack]

I look forward to seeing it in action. I will probably hate the Atlas VS Awsome tonnage difference, but it sure as hack beats getting 4D-DC's on the other team when we have 1 Stalker.

[Tuonela]

Is the plan to always have a strict weight to weight matching? I'd really prefer there to be a tolerance, not just strict 1:1 matching. That way the composition of the team remains a little bit of a mystery, which adds to the fun element of the game for me. Knowing the exact makeup of the enemy team based on mine is a little boring.

[3rdworld]

How in the heck is this going to work for 8s?

There are very few teams online anyways, and you would need to match those teams exact weight class to drop against them?


Impossibru

Edited by 3rdworld, 12 April 2013 - 12:13 PM.

[King Arthur IV]

hammerreborn, on 12 April 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

Why would you want a 100 ton split when they said that 74% matches already <20-30 tons (depending on what heavy to assault means), and they want all matches to be like that.

Deathlike, on 12 April 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

I'll hazard a guess and say that there will be some "funky" bad math going on with this because we do have missing tonnages involved (45 [BlackJack], 55, 75 [Orion], 95) so there may be some more noticeable "tendencies" to predict what mechs will drop on the field.

i should of read before i posted but apparently its not based off tons. i would of liked it to be based of tons but if its based off tons and the tolerance is 0, it would be very odd because finding perfect matches would be hard.

btw where did i say 100? i said between 1-100, they could set the tolerance to 2 for all i care. looks like im not the only one that doesnt read. huehuehuehue but its not tons so meh

Edited by King Arthur IV, 12 April 2013 - 12:22 PM.

[NinetyProof]

MadPanda, on 12 April 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

So one team gets an Atlas DC, other team gets a trial Awesome, great, looking forward to it...

ELO much? Should take care of some of that.

Your also assuming that the DC is built correctly, and not just as terrible as the trial awesome. Again, if the player ELO is similar, then the match up will be similar ... after all, how many people actually use the awesome anyways? not going to be that many so they won't show up that often :-)

[Deathlike]

I'm bored...

I wished ELO was based on the mech VARIANT, which would make comparisons to ELO from a Raven 2X or 4X DIFFERENT from a Raven 3L. They should be different, but they are valued the same, which, they are clearly not by design or balance.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Chavette, on 12 April 2013 - 11:58 AM, said:

Still no 5-7man groups, still not happy.

With 12v12 I guess it will be 4man or 12man or go home? Nothing inbetween? Give me a break.

This...

[Little Details]

Without speaking to the actual up-coming changes, I did want to call out Omid for making a really nice write-up of the topic, what's changing, why it's changing, timeline, what information they've been gathering, how they used it, etc. Openness from PGI on changes is always a good thing and the communication was excellent.

[Wintersdark]

Omid Kiarostami, on 12 April 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

To clarify, it'll be similar to the forced Weight Class balancing that we used to have. We're not doing any tonnage based matching at this time.

Awwwww

thanks for the clarification though.

[Wintersdark]

stjobe, on 12 April 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

Ah, so top-of-their-weight-class 'mechs are still ruling the roost. Gotcha.

Why even bother having 'mechs that are not top of their weight class if you're going to do this to them?

In the words of Custom3173:


/a sad Commando pilot.

This

With tonnage matching (+ keeping equal numbers, but ignoring actual classes) there's so much more value in bringing low-end mechs than there is currently. Without tonnage matching, you're just going back to the place where the fellow who brings a Dragon just give the opposing team a 3D or dual AC20 Jager, etc. Awesome vs. Atlas, etc.

(Don't get me wrong, I love dragons, but... yeah.)

With tonnage matching, things are so much more interesting.

[Wintersdark]

Deathlike, on 12 April 2013 - 12:21 PM, said:

I'm bored...

I wished ELO was based on the mech VARIANT, which would make comparisons to ELO from a Raven 2X or 4X DIFFERENT from a Raven 3L. They should be different, but they are valued the same, which, they are clearly not by design or balance.

No, absolutely not.

Because most players don't play a lot of matches - I seem to remember... Garth? saying 6 matches/day was the average. At 6 matches per day, your Elo score will take months to settle unless you always play with the same mechs. Even assuming it was done by mech type not variant, it would still take ages, and change extremely slowly.

It's a balance between adjustment speed and accuracy. Weight class is really the best way to do it IMHO.

(Edit: to calculate Elo, that is)

Edited by Wintersdark, 12 April 2013 - 12:31 PM.

[Hellen Wheels]

jay35, on 12 April 2013 - 11:54 AM, said:

I'm not going to whine because I don't get to crush the enemy every round. But it must be pointed out that you are very directly reducing the fun factor of the game for above average players any time they're looking for relaxation and fun rather than competition and stress.

Let the whining begin!! I for one welcome our new matchmaking overlords. It is about freaking time they finally are attempting a fix to the B$ matchmaking as it is now.

I may just have to buy something to congratulate them....nah, never mind.

Edited by Hellen Wheels, 12 April 2013 - 12:34 PM.