88 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

James The Fox Dixon, on 08 August 2013 - 01:49 PM, said:

Yup, but I expect to see a Steiner fist next to their names.

<-----------
Check.

[MrJolly]

James The Fox Dixon, on 08 August 2013 - 12:58 PM, said:

You also have no proof that it would increase wait times to get a match. The MM is programmed to look for certain things, so it can be programmed to look for someone choosing their force mix and their match type.

Of course there's no proof, as it's not implemented now. However, the evidence from MMOs with distinct roles show that less popular to play roles get very much shorter queues (healers, anyone? tanks?), while popular roles get long queues (dps). So getting medium mechs more viable would be beneficial.

Still, it would indeed be good if the MM would consider the types of mechs, so as not to drop completely unbalanced teams.

[Khobai]

Tonnage is a meaningless metric anyway. I can beat the majority of Atlas pilots 1v1 in a Jagermech. Atlases may be 100 tons but they are not particularly scary because theyre underarmed (same # of hardpoints as a jager), have low-mounted hardpoints, are very slow, and are very easy to hit in their center of mass. Balancing this game on tonnage is not the right way to do it because more tonnage does not necessarily mean an advantage.

4 Atlas and 4 Jenners vs 2 Atlases, 2 Jenners, and 4 Jagermechs? Whos gonna win? My money is on team #2 winning most of the time despite it having a 10 tonnage disadvantage. Also notice how we still have no mediums? Because we only bothered to match tonnage but paid no attention to weight classes. Weight class matching is far more important than tonnage matching. Tonnage is largely irrelevant in MWO.

Again, the better way to do it is to get players to want to play every weight class equally so queue times arnt increased. And then if necessary require a minimum number of each weight class per game. But tonnage should never be used to balance teams... only weight class matching.

Quote

You also have no proof that it would increase wait times to get a match. The MM is programmed to look for certain things, so it can be programmed to look for someone choosing their force mix and their match type.

Dont need proof its common knowledge. And theres precedent for it in every other game that has multiple classes and a queue system, the more popular classes have to wait longer (typically dps), while the least popular classes dont have to wait at all (typically healers).

So to reiterate:

1) make all weight classes worthwhile to play, get at least 20% of the players playing each weight class. This way queue times stay relatively short since theres no underdog weight class bottlenecking the system.

2) require at least 2 of each weight class in a 12v12 (teams would be 2/2/2/2 and 4 randoms)

3) possibly add a fifth weight class for matchmaker purposes only so Commandos dont have to be in the same weight class as Jenners and so Awesomes dont have to be in the same weight class as Stalkers/Atlases (since this was a little unfair in the past).

4) have two seperate queues for groups and non-groups (maybe allow groups of 2 at most).

I feel those four changes would balance teams a lot better.

Edited by Khobai, 08 August 2013 - 03:02 PM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Khobai, on 08 August 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

Snip.

Sorry, but that isn't Battletech. The solution I provided is taken from Battletech. If you want fairness then we might as well remove all mechs, except for Atlases and only have PPC/Gauss Rifles as the only weapons.

[Khobai]

Quote

Sorry, but that isn't Battletech. The solution I provided is taken from Battletech

Maybe you havent noticed but MWO is not Battletech. So solutions taken from Battletech need not apply.

Battletech uses a hierarchy where Assaults are undeniably at the top of the food chain. Even an incompetently piloted Atlas will have no problems beating the most skillfully piloted Jenner because if one AC/20 connects its all over for the Jenner.

MWO does not have that same hierarchy. An Atlas is not at the top of the food chain anymore. An Atlas can be beaten by a Jenner 1v1. That is why tonnage matters less in MWO and why tonnage limits are not the best way to balance teams.

I completely agree we need all four weight classes represented equally in matches. But tonnage should have absolutely nothing to do with balancing teams. Just make it 2/2/2/2 with 4 random weight classes as wildcards and to help keep the queue times shorter.

Edited by Khobai, 08 August 2013 - 03:21 PM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Khobai, on 08 August 2013 - 03:12 PM, said:

Maybe you havent noticed but MWO is not Battletech. So solutions taken from Battletech need not apply.

Umm if you haven't noticed but MWO is Battletech Universe. Solutions from Battletech Universe do apply as everything currently in MWO is from the Battletech Universe so maybe you have the wrong thread for arguing against Battletech tabletop. The title of this thread is Battletech Universe Drop Limits. Maybe you would be better off playing Call of Duty with mechs titled Hawken. Which is this way.

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 08 August 2013 - 03:17 PM.

[XANi]

The biggest problem is that there is no lobby system so we can't choose match based on what team have/needs

That + limit would solve pretty much all problems, just do something like draft pick:

• there is tonnage limit for all mechs
  
• you can choose from 4 you chose before queuing + 4 current trials
  
• teams pick 2 mechs per "turn" of pick, they can ofc see their own team pick but they only can see tonnage of their enemies (to avoid metagaming much)
  
• players with lighter mechs get first pick to avoid "tonnage saturation", so someone with 1light 3 mediums will get firstpick over someone with 3 lights 1 assauts.
  
• players are guaranteed 50 tons of avaliable tonnage to use, more if their teammates picked something lighter or there is spare tonnage in weight limit left
  
• if player will take all assaults but dont have tonnage he have to use lighter trial mech. That is to avoid players going to fight with 4 assaults in their bays to "get a spot

James The Fox Dixon, on 08 August 2013 - 12:58 PM, said:

You also have no proof that it would increase wait times to get a match. The MM is programmed to look for certain things, so it can be programmed to look for someone choosing their force mix and their match type.e.

That does not work like that.

You have pool of say 2000 players looking for match.

Then you cut by ELO so at least total newbies are not playing with veterans, and are left with say 500 ppl with rougly similiar skill.


The more criteria you add, the lesser pool becomes, and ones that play "popular" size will wait longer (tank/dps/healer problem)

Dumb matchmaking will just match by either tonnage limit or "at least X of each type", so if someone likes to play "popular" weight he will wait longer.

Now if I'd want to make smart matchmaking I'd go with:

• look at queue, see what are light/med/heavy/assault ratios (say 2/1/4/3)
  
• try to match team so there is same ratio of players in them
  
• if player for given bracket is not avaliable use "closest one"
  
• then adjust based on total weight

so players always get similiar queue time, just if there is more assautls in queue teams would have more assaults in general, and teams will still be balanced.

[James The Fox Dixon]

XANi, on 08 August 2013 - 03:17 PM, said:

The biggest problem is that there is no lobby system so we can't choose match based on what team have/needs

Umm you do know that there is a thing called UI 2.0 that is coming next month, so that takes care of that problem.

[Joseph Mallan]

James The Fox Dixon, on 08 August 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

Umm if you haven't noticed but MWO is Battletech Universe. Solutions from Battletech Universe do apply as everything currently in MWO is from the Battletech Universe so maybe you have the wrong thread for arguing against Battletech tabletop. The title of this thread is Battletech Universe Drop Limits. Maybe you would be better off playing Call of Duty with mechs titled Hawken. Which is this way.

To be clear, I like this up till this point. Then you took the low road. It's ok to disagree, but being that dismissive, does your position a disservice.

[Khobai]

Quote

Umm if you haven't noticed but MWO is Battletech Universe. Solutions from Battletech Universe do apply as everything currently in MWO is from the Battletech Universe so maybe you have the wrong thread for arguing against Battletech tabletop.

If this game was more like Battletech, I would 100% agree with you, but sadly its not...

Those dropweights are based on a hierarchy that doesnt exist in MWO. More tonnage does not mean better in MWO. And actually this is the perfect thread for pointing out the differences between Battletech and MWO. Especially when you want to implement ideas from Battletech into MWO based on the false assumption that Battletech and MWO are similar enough that it would work. They are nothing alike.

Quote

To be clear, I like this up till this point. Then you took the low road. It's ok to disagree, but being that dismissive, does your position a disservice.

Its okay it made me laugh lol.

I think we all want the same thing though... equal representation of all four weight classes. We just dont agree on how to get there. I dont think it should be handled through tonnage, since tonnage is actually an imbalanced way of balancing teams in MWO.

Edited by Khobai, 08 August 2013 - 03:34 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

The only thing making them so different is that the players are randomly thrown together with whatever they come to the game with. The Lobby system would help fix this as I have had explained to me by some of my fellow Lawmen.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Khobai, on 08 August 2013 - 03:30 PM, said:

If this game was more like Battletech, I would 100% agree with you, but sadly its not...

Those dropweights are based on a hierarchy that doesnt exist in MWO. More tonnage does not mean better in MWO. And actually this is the perfect thread for pointing out the differences between Battletech and MWO. Especially when you want to implement ideas from Battletech into MWO based on the false assumption that Battletech and MWO are similar enough that it would work. They are nothing alike.

Its okay it made me laugh lol.

I think we all want the same thing though... equal representation of all four weight classes. We just dont agree on how to get there. I dont think it should be handled through tonnage, since tonnage is actually an imbalanced way of balancing teams in MWO.

Actually, they are quite alike in terms of what is in both of them as well as the fact that PGI is using the timeline as a basis for releasing of content as well as what that content is. Both exist in the Battletech Universe. Notice that I am saying Battletech Universe and not Battletech TT. There is is a distinction.

The system proposed does just that. It gives equal representation for when CW hits as well as providing us with role warfare. This idea is for what is coming in the future and not necessarily now. Besides, the developers have stated that weight limits are coming back. I, for one, would like to give PGI an idea on how to implement it that gives them exactly what they want and advertised it as such, which is role warfare.

If you have a better suggestion feel free to come up with one and post it. Otherwise it just appears that you have no clue about how the Battletech Universe works. Also, I only posted the tonnage of what can be taken to give those people that have only played the video games and are not up on the universe itself can have an idea of what the universe is like.

Also, I apologize for my snarky comment to you. It was uncalled for and a cheap shot. I've had a long day.

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 08 August 2013 - 03:43 PM.

[BookWyrm]

Condensed version, weight limits please. Implement them appropriately, thank you.

[Jack Lowe]

Well I doubt it matters whether one disagrees with this thread or not. It's already been heavily hinted at that drop tonnage limits WILL be coming in one form or another with UI2.0 and CW. It would seem that the devs tend to agree with james in general principle, that tonnage limits are needed, we'll have to see if they agree with his method of implementation. Therefore arguing for or against their inclusion is probably a mute point if past experience is any indicator. It would be more fruitful to discuss how to best handle tonnage limits to get the most balanced results. Otherwise we'll be leaving the devs to their own devices, another 4 parts system that still doesn't get the job done like the current MM I can do without. As far as someone who suggested that MWO was nothing like the BT universe my reply is this. This is a test bed almost everything we're doing right now we were told at one point or another was designed for testing and gathering data for development purposes. Parts of it are the core mechanics, but no it's not battle tech not yet. Multiplayer massive online death brawl perhaps, but they wanted it that way to more quickly amass data. In about 6 to 9 months we should see this game really change and become much closer to what battle tech is. It's only a rare few that have the far seeing eyes to realize that day will come and make suggestions with the end result and bigger picture in mind. These are the people the devs should be giving some consideration at the least.

[Miekael]

3rdworld, on 08 August 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

Tonnage limits themselves don't really accomplish much other than limiting the number of assaults and increasing the number of lights. You also need to incorporate some form of a min of X class, if you really want variety.

I agree with this, the only way I can see diversity being promoted is to not allow two of the same variants or even chassis to drop on the same side. With the latter probably putting too much strain on matchmaking.

[Roosterfish]

How about using a Combat Value system?

Each mech is worth a set value and each component on the mech is worth a set value. All is added together to produce a Combat Value for a mech.

The MM then makes up 2 teams with a similiar Combat Value.

[Joseph Mallan]

Roosterfish, on 08 August 2013 - 05:27 PM, said:

How about using a Combat Value system?

Each mech is worth a set value and each component on the mech is worth a set value. All is added together to produce a Combat Value for a mech.

The MM then makes up 2 teams with a similiar Combat Value.

I have seen ow systems like this can be manipulated by crafty players. It will end badly.

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 08 August 2013 - 03:30 PM, said:

Its okay it made me laugh lol.

I think we all want the same thing though... equal representation of all four weight classes. We just dont agree on how to get there. I dont think it should be handled through tonnage, since tonnage is actually an imbalanced way of balancing teams in MWO.

Laugh if you'd like, but there is something to be said for members who can disagree while remaining respectful.

[Mackman]

That sounds like it'd actually be really fun... each different weight limit would likely have differing styles of play ("metas"), which would be pretty interesting... of course, after losing a match earlier because my team decided to just take the loss rather than bother splitting up to cap points, I don't have a whole lot of faith in the MWO community's ability to adapt.

[East Indy]

As mentioned in another thread, I played around with 650-ton companies like this:

Lances
Command Lance: 300 tons
Assault Lance: 300 tons
Light Command Lance: 250 tons
Fire/Strike Lance: 250 tons
Support Lance: 200 tons
Pursuit Lance: 150 tons
Recon Lance: 100 tons

650-ton Combinations
Company 1: Command Lance, Support Lance, Pursuit Lance
Company 2: Command Lance, Strike Lance, Recon Lance
Company 3: Light Command Lance, Assault Lance, Recon Lance
Company 4: Light Command Lance, Fire Lance, Pursuit Lance