72 replies to this topic

[Max Genius]

Jman5, on 22 November 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:

...here was a tweet by Russ today.

https://twitter.com/...970978973110272

That is good to know! Can't wait. Any timeframe on UI 2.0?

[Mystere]

Max Genius, on 22 November 2013 - 01:28 PM, said:

That is good to know! Can't wait. Any timeframe on UI 2.0?

Soon.




(with my apologies again to Roadbeer)

[Jman5]

Max Genius, on 22 November 2013 - 01:28 PM, said:

That is good to know! Can't wait. Any timeframe on UI 2.0?

They are planning on releasing various UI 2.0 features in phases. If I had to take an optimistic guess, I would say phase 1 will release sometime before the end of the year. We're getting another UI 2.0 test next week and there is a video developer update that's coming shortly. We'll probably get a more firm idea of their development plans then.

Edited by Jman5, 22 November 2013 - 01:46 PM.

[needforsleep]

I dont really think tonnage is that huge a deal. I mean, I've won 12 mans with a team of all light mechs. But yeah, it does suck to go up against a Steiner scout lance when the biggest mech on your team is a cataphract, so im looking forward to the tonnage limits.

[Max Genius]

needforsleep, on 22 November 2013 - 01:50 PM, said:

I dont really think tonnage is that huge a deal. I mean, I've won 12 mans with a team of all light mechs. But yeah, it does suck to go up against a Steiner scout lance when the biggest mech on your team is a cataphract, so im looking forward to the tonnage limits.

Were you playing against pugs and just conquest maps? I think a decent 12-man with a good mix of mechs that are leveled would do well against your 12 lights.

And I think many will disagree with you about tonnage, it is a huge deal in MWO. Everything in this game with the exception of modules have some tonnage associated to it.

[MischiefSC]

Max Genius, on 22 November 2013 - 05:35 PM, said:

Were you playing against pugs and just conquest maps? I think a decent 12-man with a good mix of mechs that are leveled would do well against your 12 lights.

And I think many will disagree with you about tonnage, it is a huge deal in MWO. Everything in this game with the exception of modules have some tonnage associated to it.

It's also not as fun for the rest of the team - the 4man wolfpack does alright against pugs most of the time but since it creates a tonnage mismatch the rest of your team is playing at a major disadvantage. if the enemy team has half a brain when they see you guys they'll circle the wagons near base and obliterate you, then move on for some quality cuddle time with your team. It's just one match of several for the premade but for the other 8 people on the team is the terribly unenjoyable one-off that they are so irritated by they come talk about it on the forums.

Which is fine - tonnage mismatch sucks. I'd take tonnage mismatch over Elo mismatch but neither is enjoyable. Not entirely sure about weight restrictions being the solution but I'm happy to take what comes so long as it's a steady grind towards resolution.

It seems like a lot of the things we want to see are being held back for U.I 2.0. At this point I pretty much don't care if U.I 2.0 is in 16 bit monochrome and involves your mech carameldansen to a constantly looped tape of k-pop. I want it out so we can move forward.

[Serenade]

Be nice if they implemented a scaling bonus, say defeating a team 30% heavier than yours gets you a 30% cbill bonus while defeating a team 20% lighter penalises you 20% of awarded cbills, etc. Wouldn't deter the 4 man troll groups dropping in the usual sniping highlanders with enough arty and air strikes to level a small city, but to those who are looking to make some cbills for whatever reason it'd make a lighter mech a bit more enticing since they come with the possibility of a bigger pay off. Wont ever happen but we can dream.

[Jman5]

needforsleep, on 22 November 2013 - 01:50 PM, said:

I dont really think tonnage is that huge a deal. I mean, I've won 12 mans with a team of all light mechs. But yeah, it does suck to go up against a Steiner scout lance when the biggest mech on your team is a cataphract, so im looking forward to the tonnage limits.

It is a huge deal. It's just most people don't realize they just got out tonned because few people actually sit down and compare weights from game to game. In some matches you're talking 100-200 ton difference. That's like putting someone in a hunchback and asking them to solo a highlander. You can do it, but it requires you to outplay the highlander to a large degree. The team with more tonnage has more firepower and more armor. On top of that, you only know after the fact that your opponents so completely out tonned you.

In Conquest it's the opposite problem. A 4-man of lights just runs around capping all the points. On big maps it's much harder to control the outter cap points without your own 4-man light squad.

Min/Max weight caps are important not just for fairness, but it allows you to execute a plan with some idea of what your opponents will throw at you.

[Acid Phase]

Max Genius, on 22 November 2013 - 10:00 AM, said:

Just played a game today where our team was made up of 8 lights, 1 med, 2 heavies, 1 assault.
There's was 5 assaults, 4 heavies, 2 meds, and 1 light.

Was like trying to stay dry while outside in a Super Typhoon.

Oh, and one of ours was a disco - not that it would have really mattered.

Fix matchmaking!

Careful waving that around here. You might get a typical response from Russ such as .....

Edited by Acid Phase, 22 November 2013 - 07:09 PM.

[Zolaz]

Hey calm down. PGI just isnt good at programming and implementation of well, anything. Just lower your expectations and you will be happier. You still have a year or so of more PGI goodness as we wait for CW and UI 2.0.

[Rhys Erlykov]

As has been stated, the match seemed closer than you think. Look at the bottom of their scoreboard: an Atlas that scored THREE damage before it was destroyed? That has to be some sort of record. Was the three damage from bumping into its Locust teammate?

You were the better team, you simply got beat by attrition.

[Greyboots]

Max Genius, on 22 November 2013 - 10:00 AM, said:

Just played a game today where our team was made up of 8 lights, 1 med, 2 heavies, 1 assault.
There's was 5 assaults, 4 heavies, 2 meds, and 1 light.

You know the first team listed is actually the most powerful currently, yes? I absolutely dread an opposing team with so many lights. A swarm of lights will absolutely drill holes in the rear of enemy mechs in nothing flat. Because you are all over the place, someone is always shooting the enemy in the back making for ridiculously easy kills.

I've been in teams that have roflstomped opposing teams with a makeup like that because the light players realize the advantages in there being so many light players. We ganged up, travelled together and just annihilated opposing mechs by taking out their backs. I think we lost 3 mechs by the time we'd killed everything on the other side. I have been roflstomped for exactly the same reason.

Quote

Was like trying to stay dry while outside in a Super Typhoon.

Only because you didn't capitalize on the advantages that your team structure offered. It's actually a winning combo that can be extremely hard to counter.

That is the "problem" with tactical games. You have to play in a tactical manner based on the structure of the game and cards you've been dealt. How you "want to play" often takes a back seat to what you need to do in order to take full advantage of your team OR capitalize on the structural weaknesses of the opposing team.

If you just ignore that, play the way you want to play and get roflstomped? To stop playing tactical games is the quickest and easiest way to solve this issue.

Quote

Fix matchmaking!

Yes, fix matchmaking but this isn't one of the problems with it. This isn't the TT game and even weights isn't really the "tool of fairness" that is is there.

[Mystere]

Greyboots, on 23 November 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

You know the first team listed is actually the most powerful currently, yes? I absolutely dread an opposing team with so many lights. A swarm of lights will absolutely drill holes in the rear of enemy mechs in nothing flat. Because you are all over the place, someone is always shooting the enemy in the back making for ridiculously easy kills.

It's nothing the back-to-wall and hollow square formations cannot solve.

[Asakara]

Hey PGI, would you please let me know when your statement is supposed to apply? As in my continuing experience it seems to be false:

http://mwomercs.com/...ition-answered/

#47 RiceyFighter: What is the current situation with weight restriction?
A: We have tightened up the weight restrictions for now. This will be replaced by tonnage limits in a future update.



840 vs 515 = 325 ton difference. Another way to put it is that 1 side had an extra 3 atlases + 1 commando in extra weapons, armor, ammo, heat dissipation, engine power, etc...:

Edited by Asakara, 24 November 2013 - 11:11 AM.

[focuspark]

but seriously what would you all have MM do? Wait for tonnage balanced teams? Disregard ELO scores?

The generic assumption that MM could have move assaults and lights to the opposing team is likely invalid as those were most likely pre-mades.

[Asakara]

focuspark, on 24 November 2013 - 11:25 AM, said:

but seriously what would you all have MM do? Wait for tonnage balanced teams? Disregard ELO scores?

The generic assumption that MM could have move assaults and lights to the opposing team is likely invalid as those were most likely pre-mades.

I dunno, maybe take team 2's bravo lance at 300 tons and swap that with team 1's alpha or charlie lance at 160 tons? Since we are moving entire lances we do not have to worry about splitting up groups right?

Let's see... Currently we have:
Team 1: 160+195+160 = 515
VS
Team 2: 260+300+280 = 840
Difference = 325 tons for Team 2.

Now, if we follow what I said in the 1st sentence we would get:
Team 1: 160+195+300 = 655
VS
Team 2: 260+280+160 = 700
Difference = 45 tons for Team 2.

Which do you think is better? One side having 325 tons over the other or one side having 45 tons over the other?

Personally I would prefer to play with a 45 ton difference between total team tonnage rather than a 325 ton difference.

[Tatula]

How about a match with 12v10? Had one like that yesterday while PUGging. Why couldn't the Matchmaker make it 11v11??? I would really like PGI to explain how the MM decides to fill one side with 12 and the other with 10.

[kuangmk11]

focuspark, on 24 November 2013 - 11:25 AM, said:

but seriously what would you all have MM do? Wait for tonnage balanced teams? Disregard ELO scores?

The generic assumption that MM could have move assaults and lights to the opposing team is likely invalid as those were most likely pre-mades.

Force tonnage balanced premades

Paul said:

Our end goal for Match Making is to introduce a tonnage limit for teams trying to drop. For example (please note these numbers are for DEMONSTRATIVE purposes only):



While you’re group is preparing to launch, depending on the number of players, the team will have to figure out which Mechs they can bring and their total tonnage must fall between the minimum and maximum tonnage level. An example of this is if a team has 6 players and tries to launch with 6 Atlases, the group interface will not allow this because their total tonnage is 600 and the min/max allowable is 315-365. If the group however brings a Raven(35t), a Spider (30t), a Blackjack(45t), a Centurion (50t), a Jagermech (65), and an Atlas (100t), their team total tonnage would be 325 which falls in the min/max allowable. The team can now successfully launch. If a team tries to bring all lights, their tonnage would be under the minimum allowable and the team would not be able to launch. As you can see, this system requires teams to be very aware of their tonnage and make very conscious decisions as to which Mechs to bring.

Now that teams are launching within tonnage limits, the Match Maker can match players based on Elo for skill matching and just grab from the pools of teams/players that are in the Elo bracket and as long as there’s enough room in the match, the players will be added. You will notice that if all players took the maximum weight per group size.. a team of 10+2 = 730 tons. This is the same as a full 12-man.

This feature alone will greatly diversify what Mechs will be showing up on the battlefield as personal preference in the weight classes will also be part of the group building process.

That being said, this is not a simple feature to pop in. It requires backend verification that Mechs are viable and that they meet the launch requirements. It also requires UI support for building the teams and verifying the launch requirements. It also requires a revamp of the Match Maker to take into account the various sizes of teams and their weight limits. There is no timeline for this at the moment but there are engineers working through each of the requirements listed here.

Ask the Devs 45

[focuspark]

Asakara, on 24 November 2013 - 11:39 AM, said:

I dunno, maybe take team 2's bravo lance at 300 tons and swap that with team 1's alpha or charlie lance at 160 tons? Since we are moving entire lances we do not have to worry about splitting up groups right?

Let's see... Currently we have:
Team 1: 160+195+160 = 515
VS
Team 2: 260+300+280 = 840
Difference = 325 tons for Team 2.

Now, if we follow what I said in the 1st sentence we would get:
Team 1: 160+195+300 = 655
VS
Team 2: 260+280+160 = 700
Difference = 45 tons for Team 2.

Which do you think is better? One side having 325 tons over the other or one side having 45 tons over the other?

Personally I would prefer to play with a 45 ton difference between total team tonnage rather than a 325 ton difference.

And if two of those were a 5-8 man drop?

Look to make this work the devs need to do two things first:

1) limit groups to 4 or 12; with no values in between
2) visibility identify groups in the team windows

Once this is done, MM could do a better job AND we could verify it. Until then, there's not much to be done.

[Asakara]

focuspark, on 24 November 2013 - 04:27 PM, said:

And if two of those were a 5-8 man drop?

Look to make this work the devs need to do two things first:

1) limit groups to 4 or 12; with no values in between
2) visibility identify groups in the team windows

Once this is done, MM could do a better job AND we could verify it. Until then, there's not much to be done.

Max group size in the "normal" queue is 4. You can not drop as a 5-8 man group in the normal queue so I do not see the relevance of your question.