58 replies to this topic

[IceSerpent]

Victor Morson, on 01 May 2013 - 01:18 PM, said:

Every time this comes up I suggest one of two things. Either a BV system (which is obviously ideal since it can rate 'mechs based on equipment too),

It's even more ideal to base BV on the actual effects of equipment (i.e. speed, armor, firepower at various ranges, etc.) with some special pieces of equipment (like ECM) providing a static BV bump.

Quote

or adjusted tonnage where the matchmaker looks at some 'mechs, matching wise, as inferior tonnage. i.e. it counts a 4X raven as 30 not 35 tons.

This doesn't account for people mounting 2 NARCs and 3 flamers on a 3L. You have to account not just for the "capacity" of a given variant, but also how that capacity is utilized.

Quote

Notably I'm talking about invisible pug matchmaking. 8 mans will require something different, and CW will likely provide that.

You can use BV in 8-mans, it just needs to be set in stone - i.e. instead of picking mechs prior to matching we should "pick" the opposing team and match restrictions first, then pick our mechs.

Braggart, on 01 May 2013 - 01:20 PM, said:

thats not a matchmaking problem thats a mech balance problem that has to be fixed. There should be valid builds for every mech in the game, and if there isnt, either remove the mech or fix it.

That's irrelevant to the topic - even if there is a "perfect" build for a given variant, there's no guarantee that everybody will use that particular build.

[Braggart]

IceSerpent, on 01 May 2013 - 02:10 PM, said:

It's even more ideal to base BV on the actual effects of equipment (i.e. speed, armor, firepower at various ranges, etc.) with some special pieces of equipment (like ECM) providing a static BV bump.



This doesn't account for people mounting 2 NARCs and 3 flamers on a 3L. You have to account not just for the "capacity" of a given variant, but also how that capacity is utilized.



You can use BV in 8-mans, it just needs to be set in stone - i.e. instead of picking mechs prior to matching we should "pick" the opposing team and match restrictions first, then pick our mechs.



That's irrelevant to the topic - even if there is a "perfect" build for a given variant, there's no guarantee that everybody will use that particular build.

It is relevant to the topic. the idea that perfect builds exist for each and every mech is false. What is best for 1 player, is not best for other players. BV has no place in the game, Tonnage does. Its a matter of fixing the mechs incapable of functioning properly within set game mechanics.

[IceSerpent]

Braggart, on 01 May 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

It is relevant to the topic. the idea that perfect builds exist for each and every mech is false. What is best for 1 player, is not best for other players. BV has no place in the game, Tonnage does. Its a matter of fixing the mechs incapable of functioning properly within set game mechanics.

*sigh* Let's try this again...you have 16 players in the queue that picked Stalker 3F for this match, 8 of them have a run-of-the-mill quad PPC boat and the other 8 are packing NARCs and flamers "because it's best for them" - how are you going to make 2 balanced teams of 8 if you can only work with tonnage, which is exactly the same across the board in this case?

[Icewraith]

Wait...

So if I'm a new player, even if I've ground through getting slaughtered for my newbie c-bills, no matter what mech I pick I still have a 3/4 (roughly) chance of ending up in the same crappy trials of weight classes I probably didn't like?

Furthermore, I'm gimping myself if I buy multiple types of the same chassis in order to master them since I'll only end up in a mech I configured <4-n>/4 times, where n is the number of mechs I own in different weight classes?

No.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Tonnage limits do not work as you can take an atlas, outfit it to 75 tons... and it regesters as an 85 ton mech instead of a 100 ton mech.

Full armor, bit less in the weapons department, and you suddenly have a heavy mech with the armor of an assault.

Tonnage limits do not work. Give us an enforced, hard limit on weight classes per match. and this issue falls away. It's that simple, give us 2-2-2-2/3-3-3-3 matches and the game practically balances itself,

[One Medic Army]

Jade Kitsune, on 01 May 2013 - 07:07 PM, said:

Tonnage limits do not work as you can take an atlas, outfit it to 75 tons... and it regesters as an 85 ton mech instead of a 100 ton mech.

Full armor, bit less in the weapons department, and you suddenly have a heavy mech with the armor of an assault.

Tonnage limits do not work. Give us an enforced, hard limit on weight classes per match. and this issue falls away. It's that simple, give us 2-2-2-2/3-3-3-3 matches and the game practically balances itself,

I don't know wtf you're talking about here.
An atlas with a listed tonnage used of 75tons is still a 100ton mech.
There is no advantage to not using the full tonnage of a particular chassis.

Edited by One Medic Army, 01 May 2013 - 07:11 PM.

[Davers]

Jade Kitsune, on 01 May 2013 - 07:07 PM, said:

Tonnage limits do not work as you can take an atlas, outfit it to 75 tons... and it regesters as an 85 ton mech instead of a 100 ton mech.

Full armor, bit less in the weapons department, and you suddenly have a heavy mech with the armor of an assault.

Tonnage limits do not work. Give us an enforced, hard limit on weight classes per match. and this issue falls away. It's that simple, give us 2-2-2-2/3-3-3-3 matches and the game practically balances itself,

You are creating problems that do not exist in either TT or MW:O. Stop that.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Davers, on 01 May 2013 - 07:21 PM, said:

You are creating problems that do not exist in either TT or MW:O. Stop that.

I am speaking from prior experience of this system as was seen in Mechwarrior 4.

The match maker took "tonnage" into account, the exact tonnage of the mech. Not the "possible" tonnage... An Atlas, that's kitted out to 75 tons, still weighs 75 tons, It is a platform that is Rated at 100 tons.

[Davers]

Jade Kitsune, on 01 May 2013 - 08:31 PM, said:

I am speaking from prior experience of this system as was seen in Mechwarrior 4.

The match maker took "tonnage" into account, the exact tonnage of the mech. Not the "possible" tonnage... An Atlas, that's kitted out to 75 tons, still weighs 75 tons, It is a platform that is Rated at 100 tons.

I did not play MW4, so I was unaware of this. But I don't think that will be an issue here. It seems more like a bug that made it into game than an intended feature.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Davers, on 01 May 2013 - 08:57 PM, said:

I did not play MW4, so I was unaware of this. But I don't think that will be an issue here. It seems more like a bug that made it into game than an intended feature.

As much as I'd like to say you are correct here, I do not believe you are.

As I said, tonnage is tonnage. If an atlas is kitted out to be only 50 tons, it's only 50 tons, despite it's possibility of being 100, it's not kitted out to 100.

A ton is a ton, 10 tons is 10 tons. If an atlas is not outfitted to 100 tons, it's not 100 tons.

The system makes sense. Though as such, it is exploitable by nature.

It's why instead of backing tonnage, I back the "Weight class" enforcement for matches. A hard limit that gives us an equal number of each weightclass. While some may find it "boring" in that regard, I find it fair, you will always be matched against equal weightclasses of mechs, you don't have to worry about dropping against 5 assaults and 3 mediums... You'll fight 2-3 of each weightclass every match.

[Zylo]

Jade Kitsune, on 01 May 2013 - 09:13 PM, said:

As much as I'd like to say you are correct here, I do not believe you are.

As I said, tonnage is tonnage. If an atlas is kitted out to be only 50 tons, it's only 50 tons, despite it's possibility of being 100, it's not kitted out to 100.

A ton is a ton, 10 tons is 10 tons. If an atlas is not outfitted to 100 tons, it's not 100 tons.

The system makes sense. Though as such, it is exploitable by nature.

It's why instead of backing tonnage, I back the "Weight class" enforcement for matches. A hard limit that gives us an equal number of each weightclass. While some may find it "boring" in that regard, I find it fair, you will always be matched against equal weightclasses of mechs, you don't have to worry about dropping against 5 assaults and 3 mediums... You'll fight 2-3 of each weightclass every match.

Do you really think the weight class enforced 2-2-2-2 drops for example would promote much diversity beyond the most OP mech of each weight class?

Let's be honest here, a 2-2-2-2 match today would probably see 2x highlander poptarts (or possible stalker PPC boats), 2x cataphracts poptarts, Trebuchet poptarts and Raven 3L's.

I still don't think a 50 ton Atlas is an issue, if someone does that they are going to be defeated by any average Centurion, Hunchy or Treb pilot. If you think this is an exploit I'm not going to argue with you. I would like to see a viable 50 ton Atlas build though because I don't think it's possible.

I'm starting to side with those who suggested BV for balancing. I know it's complicated but PGI can easily adjust BV on equipment as balance changes. PGI doesn't even need to use TT BV but that could provide a starting point. The BV on a PPC/ERPPC right now should be very high, while the nerfed SRMs and LRMs should be a bit lower. Those unpopular mechs no one plays? Lower BV to give players an incentive to run them.

[Davers]

BV only works because there is a known value- pilot skill. Knowing the exact hit probabilities allow the designers to say a weapon that hits with this accuracy at x range for y damage is worth z BV. But when every pilot has completely different hit percentages for each weapon it is much harder to come up with a BV system. This is why I feel the basic 'matching' stat has to be based off of skill, such as Elo tries to do. Maybe Elo should be even more specific then it is now, with every variant having it's own rating? That way a Spider would have a lower rating than say, a Jenner rather than them both be equal.

[Zylo]

Davers, on 01 May 2013 - 09:42 PM, said:

BV only works because there is a known value- pilot skill. Knowing the exact hit probabilities allow the designers to say a weapon that hits with this accuracy at x range for y damage is worth z BV. But when every pilot has completely different hit percentages for each weapon it is much harder to come up with a BV system. This is why I feel the basic 'matching' stat has to be based off of skill, such as Elo tries to do. Maybe Elo should be even more specific then it is now, with every variant having it's own rating? That way a Spider would have a lower rating than say, a Jenner rather than them both be equal.

This may work as it would provide a similar function to BV but simplified to only be based on the mech type.

[Davers]

Jade Kitsune, on 01 May 2013 - 09:13 PM, said:

As much as I'd like to say you are correct here, I do not believe you are.

As I said, tonnage is tonnage. If an atlas is kitted out to be only 50 tons, it's only 50 tons, despite it's possibility of being 100, it's not kitted out to 100.

A ton is a ton, 10 tons is 10 tons. If an atlas is not outfitted to 100 tons, it's not 100 tons.

The system makes sense. Though as such, it is exploitable by nature.

It's why instead of backing tonnage, I back the "Weight class" enforcement for matches. A hard limit that gives us an equal number of each weightclass. While some may find it "boring" in that regard, I find it fair, you will always be matched against equal weightclasses of mechs, you don't have to worry about dropping against 5 assaults and 3 mediums... You'll fight 2-3 of each weightclass every match.

The Atlas chassis weighs more than a Hunchback's so already you are going to have less to work with within those 50 tons. The best you could hope for is to end up with a larger Hunchback that moves around 30kph. Maybe you can figure out an advantage with this, but I cannot.

[Demos]

The best of two worlds would be a weighting by some sort of BV, matched with piloting skill.
Must not be something elabortae, but when e.g. seven "classes" are created (ultra-green, green, regular, veteran, elite, ultra-elite, legendary) and set with a multiplier (e.g. 0.5 for ultra-green, 0.75 green, 1.0 regular, etc.) the BV could be matched with the skill ratio.
ultra-green would be for example the first 25 matches,
green the matches 26 to xx, combined with a win/loss ratio of .xy
and so on.
Of course this could be exploited, when a seasoned player create a new account, but this should be only a minor issue.

[Zyllos]

Look, the problem behind doing a straight tonnage limit and let the team sort it out with the random pickup games is who gets the higher tonnage? So a system where it attempts to balance the tonnage between the two teams (and allow players to play whatever they want) would be fine. This also lets 8man and 12man teams (I hope they do not take away the 8man teams because 8v8 is still a valid gameplay choice) to have tonnage limits and let the team sort it out.

But the best way to balance tonnage is using the up coming lobby system that allows you to choose up to 4 mechs to bring to the fight, basically giving you up to 4 respawns. Within that system, you set a tonnage limit for each player. My suggestion is setting a tonnage limit of 200t. This allows players to choose to have only 2 respawns of 2 Atlai or 4 respawns of 50t mechs, and any combination inbetween.

This system balances tonnage limits by players having a choice in what they want to bring independent of all other players. Players who wants heavier mechs either get less respawns or have to reduce the amount of heavier mechs to get more respawns. Having a limited respawn also allows game tactics to evolve, especially for Conquest, and enforce more gameplay around objectives because within a 15m timelimit, it would be extremely hard to run through a possible 32 mechs (or 48 in 12v12).

This is also a boon for the Assault gameplay type because it's MUCH easier to attack/defend with respawns while still having the option to annihilate the other side if no team gets the advantage of capping.

Edited by Zyllos, 02 May 2013 - 05:37 AM.

[Hobo Dan]

Davers, on 01 May 2013 - 09:42 PM, said:

BV only works because there is a known value- pilot skill. Knowing the exact hit probabilities allow the designers to say a weapon that hits with this accuracy at x range for y damage is worth z BV. But when every pilot has completely different hit percentages for each weapon it is much harder to come up with a BV system. This is why I feel the basic 'matching' stat has to be based off of skill, such as Elo tries to do. Maybe Elo should be even more specific then it is now, with every variant having it's own rating? That way a Spider would have a lower rating than say, a Jenner rather than them both be equal.

What if BV in MWO was based off of Weapon load out and the staticstics that are tracked. A Medium Laser has a base BV of X + the Accuracy % of said pilot with MLs. Someone better at the Maths can make a real equasion for that, but you get the idea. Obviously new pilots would be an issue since they have no stats.

Just a thought...

[IceSerpent]

Davers, on 01 May 2013 - 09:42 PM, said:

BV only works because there is a known value- pilot skill. Knowing the exact hit probabilities allow the designers to say a weapon that hits with this accuracy at x range for y damage is worth z BV. But when every pilot has completely different hit percentages for each weapon it is much harder to come up with a BV system. This is why I feel the basic 'matching' stat has to be based off of skill, such as Elo tries to do. Maybe Elo should be even more specific then it is now, with every variant having it's own rating? That way a Spider would have a lower rating than say, a Jenner rather than them both be equal.

No, BV that we are talking about is simply a characteristic of a given mech loadout, pilot skill is totally separate. It also has nothing to do with percentages of any kind, it's simply a numerical representation of the "sum" of mech capabilities. The higher the value - the more dangerous/effective the loadout. It remains exactly the same, regardless of who pilots that mech.

[Praehotec8]

I think the matchmaker ought to try to match players into groups such that there are a greater proportion of medium mechs to all others. Something like 4 mediums, 3 lights, 3 heavies, and 2 assaults, or something. It would help keep in line with the fluff that medium mechs are more commonly available and fielded. Sure, there is a variation in the utility of various mechs/loadouts within a weight class, but that is a separate issue to be addressed.

You could add BV matching to this, or if necessary, BV matching alone might be good also.