69 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 31 October 2013 - 07:14 AM, said:

Tonnage matchmaking is a bad idea. It forces players into the mechs which give the best bang for the tonnage. About half the mechs in the game would become obsolete overnight.

Back when this was a thing, Some Lawmen would bite the bullet and take a lighter chassis so the enemy would be deprived of another Heavy/Assault... Just sayin.

[Khobai]

Quote

Back when this was a thing, Some Lawmen would bite the bullet and take a lighter chassis so the enemy would be deprived of another Heavy/Assault... Just sayin.

Yep I remember. Which is why it should just be a strictly enforced 2 of each weight class. Because you cant abuse that.

[Kunae]

Khobai, on 31 October 2013 - 07:23 AM, said:

Yep I remember. Which is why it should just be a strictly enforced 2 of each weight class. Because you cant abuse that.

ORLY?

2x DDC
2x Orion
2x SHD
2x Jenner/Raven

4x ??

You do understand we're playin with 12 per side, now, right?

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 31 October 2013 - 07:23 AM, said:

Yep I remember. Which is why it should just be a strictly enforced 2 of each weight class. Because you cant abuse that.

But that will take away the ability of a Command to be an Assault Company. 3-5 Assaults, 3-5 heavies 2-6 Mediums and/or Lights

[Khobai]

Quote

You do understand we're playin with 12 per side, now, right?

Yes. Did you even read my post. I said divide mechs up into 5 weight classes (because tiny is a new weight class thats functionally different from lights). And then have 2 semi-randoms for balancing tonnage. That gives you 12.

Quote

But that will take away the ability of a Command to be an Assault Company. 3-5 Assaults, 3-5 heavies 2-6 Mediums and/or Lights

I see those people as being part of the problem and not part of the solution. I would rather have balanced teams with an equal distribution of weight classes.

Its possible with the lobby system in place to allow people to create rooms without weight restrictions though. Im fine with that too. So if you want to run your assault company, you can do it, but you cant join a quick match with it and instead have to create a room. I think thats a fair compromise.

Edited by Khobai, 31 October 2013 - 08:10 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 31 October 2013 - 08:04 AM, said:

Yes. Did you even read my post. I said divide mechs up into 5 weight classes (because tiny is a new weight class thats functionally different from lights). And then have 2 semi-randoms for balancing tonnage. That gives you 12.



I see those people as being part of the problem and not part of the solution. I would rather have balanced teams with an equal distribution of weight classes.

Its possible with the lobby system in place to allow people to create rooms without weight restrictions though. Im fine with that too. So if you want to run your assault company, you can do it, but you cant join a quick match with it and have to instead create a room.

I don't cause I am playing a combat game, a war game, an in war you don't always have even fights. There will be groups who get into the Dragoon's Zeta Battalion. a Unit that does not have mediums or Light Mechs. The 10th Lyran Guards

Quote

Homeworld Meachem. In 3025 their nickname was the "Thundering Elephants" because of their heavy 'Mech complement and unimaginative tactics.

, Davion Assault Guards

Quote

3 Reinforced Battalions with assault-class machines, each Battalion fields a Company of fast medium,-heavy 'Mechs

. Units known for their mass, not their diversity.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 31 October 2013 - 08:17 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

I don't cause I am playing a combat game, a war game, an in war you don't always have even fights

Yes but you fight wars for very different reasons than you play games. I dont play a game to fight mismatched battles.

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 31 October 2013 - 08:26 AM, said:

Yes but you fight wars for very different reasons than you play games. I dont play a game to fight mismatched battles.

I accept em for what they are and see if I can overcome the mismatch. If I can't I, did my best, no harm in the trying. That is true Competitive playing.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 31 October 2013 - 08:49 AM.

[SuomiWarder]

The concept of fairness in a game is something that is practiclaly part of the American psyche - and probably a lot of other cultures. We all intellectually know that life isn't fair and that some games are rigged. But we view rigged games as "bad". Sometimes we decieve ourselves and think that our Vegas games are going to work for us even if the other mooks all lose. But in short, when people feel like a game is balanced against them they tend to quit.

"Tend". Some will carry on if the game itself is fun enough or they have some special interest in the theme of the game.

However the original poster's statement has validity to it. If the situation reaches a point where many players feel the game is stacked against them because of large tonnage imbalances, then most will tend to leave. That will leave fewer of us around to play. And seriously, how hard can it be to balance total tonnage within a given range and if a match cannot be put together in a reasonable time frame then launch as close as possible with a notice that there were not enough players to "balance" the game. Or just drop that match down to 8v8, 9v9 or whatever. Heck, by tonnage you cold even have 9 v 12 if the nine side was all assaults.

Yes, tonnage is not always the pefect balancing method. But it is easy to count and grasp and we are talking more about what players "feel" is a level playing field than what hard numbers say.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

But most people play games for that nebulous concept called "fun". Now this is different for most people but a fairly common denominator is having a "fair" chance of enjoying yourself. For a lot of people this does not include dying rapidly every time when you first start the game.
I'm not a particularly good player but my elited modified/upgraded mediums will eat a new player in a trial Atlas most times (some people are just naturally good). Even one of my Shawks with very few tweaks will do it.
The problem is that, for whatever reason, the MM just does not work. Giving new players an average Elo doesnt help either.
As long as I'm happy with my performance in a match, I don't care if I win or lose, its nice to win but "no biggie".

[-Natural Selection-]

Just do like WoW instance drops.. Select the class you wish to drop as and hit launch. It drops you into a group needing that role.

Maybe take a look at how WoW arenas matchmaker works also.

Edited by Dozier, 31 October 2013 - 12:24 PM.

[pwnface]

Matchmaking should take skill into consideration over weight, however a team should never have 200+ tons of weight advantage regardless of player skill. Assuming somewhat similar skill levels, a massive weight advantage is incredibly difficult to overcome. I'd like to see the matchmaker balance teams to within 60-80 ton differential at most and then worry about matching ELO. Also, an optional lobby system with a team weight limitation setting would be awesome.

@Dozier: Who determines what roles are needed for a particular group? Most classes can fulfill a variety of roles, I don't think it is necessarily a good idea to force matches to have a specific number of mechs of a particular weight class.

[Agent 0 Fortune]

It is easy to tell when the the population drops, game quality goes down the tube as well.
Last night I was working on my Battlemaster's, a weight class with which I am mediocre. For several hours I played in largely well balanced and fun matches. Then at 10PM PDT (1 AM Eastern), it was like hitting a light swtich, and for the next hour my all of my matches were one sided stomps. it was particularly annoying for a couple reasons:
1. because I always ended up on the losing team (aside from not being fun I got little cbill/xp)
2. because and the matcher rushed me into those matches, no waiting for a better match-up. I mean take your time I don't mind waiting a couple minutes if it means I can have a fun match, especially during off hours.

The point being that population is time-sensative. I don't know what the overall population is doing, but it definitely ebbs and flows with the hour of the day. I suspect many PUG players probably just quit playing at those hours which exacerbates the problem. Personally I know it isn't worth my time to grind through loss after loss, especially when I am just trying to grind XPs (as opposed to playing mechs of choice for fun).

I don't know what PGIs solution is but I would love to be able to manually manipulate the matchmaker. For instance put in a matchmaker tolerance, where tell the matchmaker how long I am willing to wait for a match, and the maximum deviation of Elo and weight class.

Edited by Agent 0 Fortune, 31 October 2013 - 03:38 PM.

[Voidcrafter]

Joseph Mallan, on 31 October 2013 - 04:33 AM, said:

Skill.

Frankly if I cannot overcome a heavier or lighter enemy, then I am not a good enough Warrior.

Chose a medium of your liking and go against that fresh DDC then
Or do the same with a Dragon.
It is that simple on words.
Other than that - I've read about enough "I THINK" stuff about the ELO/Matchmaking - for me the greatest issue is that there aint a pinned post showing some sort of formulae/calculations of how those stuff are actually... calculated?
Speculations of what we're doing right and wrong can go on forever like this - I would really want to know what the hell is wrong with this game matchmaking...
"I THINK" this should be issued like - publicly issued. Finally. Please?
And, Christ, if there is a "value" for how much weight difference is allowed - I'm quite certain that everything above 60 is way too much.
200? More than 200? Are you pulling my leg?
Well okay... I'm fine with the match being challenged - but combine that with the ELO and the fact, that mine got me(for some unknown reason of course - I have no idea how does the calculation there goes...) on the side with the less weight(meaning - our team is with 200 tons lighter), with people which I can very easy tell that are new to the game...
Don't you see an issue here? Cause I'm sure as hell I do.
Enough thinking and speculations.
I want calculation formulae and numbers.
This "ELO" and matchmaking stuff are old news already - the clearance about it --> still none.
Or have I missed something on the forums? Am I the only one who's getting really annoyed from staying in the dark for some "feature" that's actually probably one of the most important ones?

[Gozer]

I've participated in some weight limited events (Marik Civil War) that required sync drops in the 12 man cue. Being able to pick force composition before dropping in was interesting. As the Kuritian Fill-in for a Marik event I was given one of the lighter roles so more weight was available for the main line guys. When we can have custom matches I think these kinds of fights will be more common as they can be quite fun.

[Joseph Mallan]

Voidcrafter, on 01 November 2013 - 02:37 AM, said:

Chose a medium of your liking and go against that fresh DDC then
Or do the same with a Dragon.
It is that simple on words.
Other than that - I've read about enough "I THINK" stuff about the ELO/Matchmaking - for me the greatest issue is that there aint a pinned post showing some sort of formulae/calculations of how those stuff are actually... calculated?
Speculations of what we're doing right and wrong can go on forever like this - I would really want to know what the hell is wrong with this game matchmaking...
"I THINK" this should be issued like - publicly issued. Finally. Please?
And, Christ, if there is a "value" for how much weight difference is allowed - I'm quite certain that everything above 60 is way too much.
200? More than 200? Are you pulling my leg?
Well okay... I'm fine with the match being challenged - but combine that with the ELO and the fact, that mine got me(for some unknown reason of course - I have no idea how does the calculation there goes...) on the side with the less weight(meaning - our team is with 200 tons lighter), with people which I can very easy tell that are new to the game...
Don't you see an issue here? Cause I'm sure as hell I do.
Enough thinking and speculations.
I want calculation formulae and numbers.
This "ELO" and matchmaking stuff are old news already - the clearance about it --> still none.
Or have I missed something on the forums? Am I the only one who's getting really annoyed from staying in the dark for some "feature" that's actually probably one of the most important ones?

Its been a while since I did this in a Centurion. I killed one Atlas fresh, an a second that was damaged... Using the stock AC10. I would never try it in a Stock Dragon, as I feel the Mech has ALWAYS been under gunned. On the other hand I have played most of my games in a D-DC and I have been killed by every other Mech in the game at least once. As I said, If I cannot overcome a heavier or lighter Mech(in my case they are all lighter) I was not the better warrior in the contest.

a 200 ton weight advantage is mere 16 tons per Mech. 200 Ton advantage is not a lot to overcome.

I seem to be one of the only players willing to own that truth!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 01 November 2013 - 03:35 AM.

[Galenit]

Khobai, on 31 October 2013 - 07:14 AM, said:

Tonnage matchmaking is a really bad idea because it forces players to use whatever mechs give the best bang for the tonnage. About half the mechs in the game would become obsolete overnight.

A better way to balance teams is to divide the mechs into five weight classes (tiny, light, medium, large, and massive) and then give each team 2 of each weight class and then 2 semi-random weight classes (semi-random because it will try to balance tonnage using these last 2 mechs). So like if your team has a locust and the other team has a commando in the same slot, your random mechs will get 5 extra tons added on.

Its a better way of balancing teams because players can still play whatever mechs they want without excessively penalizing their team.

Why not the simple way?
We have 4 weightclasses, 12 slots.

Not less then 2 and not more then 4 of every weightclass,

with together a max weight of 700 tons and a min weight of 600 tons ( (3x30+3x50+3x65+3x80).

The weight restrictions must be tested and discussed.

To prevent a single 4 man to take more then the half of the maxweight with their 4x atlas there should be a restriction too.
Like 65x members of premade tons (a 4 man would have 1/3 of the maxweight this way)
or giving them a restriction to max. 2 mechs of 1 weightclass and a min. of 3 different weightclasses are need to play in pug.

[Joseph Mallan]

Galenit, on 01 November 2013 - 03:53 AM, said:

Why not the simple way?
We have 4 weightclasses, 12 slots.

Not less then 2 and not more then 4 of every weightclass,

with together a max weight of 700 tons and a min weight of 600 tons ( (3x30+3x50+3x65+3x80).

The weight restrictions must be tested and discussed.

To prevent a single 4 man to take more then the half of the maxweight with their 4x atlas there should be a restriction too.
Like 65x members of premade tons (a 4 man would have 1/3 of the maxweight this way)
or giving them a restriction to max. 2 mechs of 1 weightclass and a min. of 3 different weightclasses are need to play in pug.

This makes it so we cannot have an Assault Company which should be up to 8 Assault/Heavy Mechs and 4 Medium light Mech... Minimum. There are commands which have only 12 Assault/Heavy Mechs per Assault company.

[Voidcrafter]

Joseph Mallan, on 01 November 2013 - 03:33 AM, said:

Its been a while since I did this in a Centurion. I killed one Atlas fresh, an a second that was damaged... Using the stock AC10. I would never try it in a Stock Dragon, as I feel the Mech has ALWAYS been under gunned. On the other hand I have played most of my games in a D-DC and I have been killed by every other Mech in the game at least once. As I said, If I cannot overcome a heavier or lighter Mech(in my case they are all lighter) I was not the better warrior in the contest.

a 200 ton weight advantage is mere 16 tons per Mech. 200 Ton advantage is not a lot to overcome.

I seem to be one of the only players willing to own that truth!

All that was going to be truth in a world where you can go with any mech against any mech - this game is hardly the case.
I've killed, for example, 5 assault mechs in a single match with my CTF-3D(2xUAC5s, 4xMediums) when the team caps where 8 ppl per team --> it was a match with 7 assaults on each side(I was the lightest mech on our team - logically), I was the last man standing(against 3 assaults) and I pushed it through. Got a screenie too btw - if you want proof - I just have to get to my gamer PC home
I personally don't have that much of an issue with those difference - I'm just observing how my team mates react to them - when the named happen to be some sort of new-ish players, ordinary they get really frustrated.
And by some reason the matchmaker does that - it puts some of them in my matches - I'm not hypocratic here, I'm just feeling sad when I gotto shoot down someone who's standing still and can't aim - I prefer the challenge.
And, after the last few patches, I happen to see that sort of players a lot - on both sides.
And I know what you mean btw - when I'm on the field I always aim in the targets that are out of my league - with my CTF-3D I ordinary go for the Battlemasters/HGNs/Atlai rather than the other squishy targets.
Or the boom Jaggers - face to face - man style
Well alright - the last one aint completely true - I'm not an ***** afterall...
Also I had not just few games in which I killed 2(or more) sorta-fresh lights with my orion(AC10, 4xMeds, SRM6 + SRM4 + Artemis) or the named CTF-3D.
And this raw math... 16 tons is the difference between a poptarting highlander and an Orion. Between an Locust and an Raven 3-L. Between a Shadow Hawk and a Cicada. And almost the difference between an AWESOME and Atlai - if you restrict your whole team with this rule by a way or another - if we're talking about skilled players on both side... you're gona have a baaaaaaad time...
I'm not even whining about defeats or lack of victories - though my W/L ratio have dropped since the PPC hell(damn - even then it was better ) - though my match stats at the end of the game aint that different.
I don't care if I would win or lose, as long as the game is fun.
And here comes my issue - with such of a weight difference, the people are getting angry(on both sides btw) - it's ordinary either way to easier to win or way too impossible.
I don't think in these condition most of the reasonable players would have fun how about you?

[Joseph Mallan]

I don't know Void, I consider myself a reasonable player. Am I out of touch cause I am a 34 year veteran of gaming?