376 replies to this topic

[Sidekick]

A "minimum" option is highly doubtable. It would restrict the selection of the last mechs into two directions, meaning that the selection of the secont last mech dictates the selection of the last mech.

An easier selection would be to be able to select above (5t) or below the last free tonnage.

As for as random/pug match this would mean that the easiest matchmaking algorithm would try to pool one heavy and one light mech together that pool up to 1/6th of the weight limit.

Say the limit is an average of 60t per mech, The resultung 2 "averaging" mechs with combined 120t would be anything between an atlas and a locust or 2 dragons.

To make this work, the limit discussed by devs would be applied to groups 2-4 as well, meaning that SSLs would be impossible. Light lances however would raise the average weight of the rest of the team.

Let´s assume that a flock of Ravens (140t) drops together. They should be suming up 240t of the 720t group limit. They get selected by the MM, the rest of the team composition are 580t for 8 players, not 480t like the MM usually plans. This raises the average tonnage of the rest (PUGS) to 72t!

So essentially this means: If you PUG and the matchmaker groups you with premades, you are more likely to get a chance to drop in a heavier mech. This means that light, coordinated lances are more valuable in PUG play.

Any mathammer thoughts on how the player distribution we have now would function with this system? Taking our current heavy-or-assault-or-spider meta, how many players wouldn´t find a match an how would the usual combination of weight matched groups look like.

[Jman5]

Sidekick, on 28 November 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

A "minimum" option is highly doubtable. It would restrict the selection of the last mechs into two directions, meaning that the selection of the secont last mech dictates the selection of the last mech.

An easier selection would be to be able to select above (5t) or below the last free tonnage.

As for as random/pug match this would mean that the easiest matchmaking algorithm would try to pool one heavy and one light mech together that pool up to 1/6th of the weight limit.

Say the limit is an average of 60t per mech, The resultung 2 "averaging" mechs with combined 120t would be anything between an atlas and a locust or 2 dragons.

To make this work, the limit discussed by devs would be applied to groups 2-4 as well, meaning that SSLs would be impossible. Light lances however would raise the average weight of the rest of the team.

Let´s assume that a flock of Ravens (140t) drops together. They should be suming up 240t of the 720t group limit. They get selected by the MM, the rest of the team composition are 580t for 8 players, not 480t like the MM usually plans. This raises the average tonnage of the rest (PUGS) to 72t!

So essentially this means: If you PUG and the matchmaker groups you with premades, you are more likely to get a chance to drop in a heavier mech. This means that light, coordinated lances are more valuable in PUG play.

Any mathammer thoughts on how the player distribution we have now would function with this system? Taking our current heavy-or-assault-or-spider meta, how many players wouldn´t find a match an how would the usual combination of weight matched groups look like.

I'm not sure I'm following you. Weight caps will be put in place for premade teams (4-mans) as well as the 12 man team overall. So your scenario of dropping as a 4-man of 4 ravens would be impossible. If they use the the metrics they brought up as an example, the minimum weight for a 4-man team would be 210 tons. The most ravens their 4-man could select would be 2 ravens and then they would have to bump up to two heavier mechs to reach the minimum tonnage requirements.

[Edustaja]

Jman5, on 28 November 2013 - 02:08 PM, said:

I'm not sure I'm following you. Weight caps will be put in place for premade teams (4-mans) as well as the 12 man team overall. So your scenario of dropping as a 4-man of 4 ravens would be impossible. If they use the the metrics they brought up as an example, the minimum weight for a 4-man team would be 210 tons. The most ravens their 4-man could select would be 2 ravens and then they would have to bump up to two heavier mechs to reach the minimum tonnage requirements.

I like that solution. It removes the biggest abusers from the pug queue, eg. the 4-man light lance and the 4-man assault lance.

[stjobe]

As far as I can tell from the limited information we have (group tonnage limits for groups sized 2-12, and Russ' tweets that tonnage limits will be implemented for all matches, 12-man included) I can only come to the conclusion that if you're grouped, you will be subject to tonnage limits, no matter if your group is 2, 4, 7, 9 or 12 players big.

So that leaves the solo droppers; will they just be matched where their tonnage fits, or will they be matched without tonnage taken into consideration?

Until we get some word on how the matchmaker will decide on match tonnage, there's no way of telling. But it seems clear that all groups will be subject to tonnage limits in all kinds of matches.

[Sidekick]

Edustaja, on 28 November 2013 - 03:36 PM, said:

I like that solution. It removes the biggest abusers from the pug queue, eg. the 4-man light lance and the 4-man assault lance.

Yes, I see that. But again: Limiting in 2 directions might be too hard on the matchmaking and selection abilities of the players. Thus, I am not sure if/how they would do this.

[kuangmk11]

Sidekick, on 28 November 2013 - 09:56 PM, said:

Yes, I see that. But again: Limiting in 2 directions might be too hard on the matchmaking and selection abilities of the players. Thus, I am not sure if/how they would do this.

This is what they are doing. What is hard about it?

[Jarl Dane]

Roadbeer, on 26 November 2013 - 02:52 PM, said:

I do believe that with the tonnage limits, it was said would be the removal of Max Group Size limitations, so, I'm all for whatever that takes.

This.

[anubis969]

Sidekick, on 28 November 2013 - 09:56 PM, said:

Yes, I see that. But again: Limiting in 2 directions might be too hard on the matchmaking and selection abilities of the players. Thus, I am not sure if/how they would do this.

They will do this by completely removing tonnage from the MM. According to PGI premades will have a min and max tonnage limit dependent on the size of their group. Unless their groups overall tonnage falls between that min and max limit they will not be able to launch. Once they do launch the MM will then find them a game using nothing but Elo.

From AtD44:

Niko Snow, on 12 August 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

The tonnage limit system will put Mech balance in the hands of the player and the match maker then only has to worry about Elo and team player counts. With this system in place, players will be able to launch in groups of 1-12 inclusively.

and Atd45:

miSs, on 23 August 2013 - 08:28 AM, 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):

Group Size	Minimum Tonnage	Maximum Tonnage
2	40	125
3	160	180
4	210	245
5	265	305
6	315	365
7	370	425
8	420	485
9	475	545
10	525	605
11	580	665
12	630	730

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.

Edit: This info is now outdated as of 2^nd December 2013.

Edited by anubis969, 09 December 2013 - 03:05 PM.

[oldradagast]

I am looking forward to this:

1) Battletech has always been about making do with what you have - getting the most out of your gear, not simply having the best gear - and middle weight classes are supposed to be the most common. This change will force that type of meta to exist. You won't just be able to pile on 8 assaults with 4 lights every time without thinking about it. I also REALLY like the idea of the tonnage limit varying in a range for each match. This will break the concept of the "perfect team" since the tonnage limit will float a bit, allowing for different "perfect teams" depending on the limit.

2) Assault Warrior Online currently does not explore the full range of the game. There's more to the game than walking around slowly and sniping. Light mechs means more speed which means more brawls, more dynamic action, and more interest.

3) It'll give an amusing kick to the know-it-all's who think they are the best player every because they have nothing but 4 Atlas / Highlanders and think that anything under 90 tons is just a target and has no purpose in the game.

[Screech]

stjobe, on 28 November 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

So that leaves the solo droppers; will they just be matched where their tonnage fits, or will they be matched without tonnage taken into consideration?

My impressions are that solo droppers will be paired based only on Elo. Though they never have said much, one of the goals of tonnage limits is to remove weight balancing in the MM process, making it "easier" for MM to do it's job.

If this is the case it will be interesting to see how that affects matches where the majority of players are solo droppers as the weights could vary greatly.

[Arctourus]

maybe I misunderstood something, but a few months back in the CW discussion that was posted on youtube, they mentioned garrisoning planets that your faction controls and traveling via drop ships with comments about transporting mechs. I wonder how this will affect tonnage/weight limits. I can understand the attacking party...they load up the appropriate weight before they attack, but does that mean you will have to garrison a planet based on tonnage limits? And will this make part of your mech "inventory" unusable as it's garrisoned light years away?

Honestly, I'd love to see matches with only 2-3 assaults, a similar amount of heavies and then a larger amount of mids and lights. I currently don't much care what my team thinks in pugs...I'll drop in what I want to even if it appears to gimp the match. I am looking forward to a day though when all mechs will have a legitimate role on the battlefield. Of course, when I get the itch to run an atlas, I'd rather not have to wait 15 minutes for a slot in a drop either.....

[Snitchkilla]

Oh look a lance of atlases!... said no one in cannon battle tech ever,now some of you will cry "this is not battle tech... blah blah blah" but frankly from a mech warrior vet of 20 years plus this is a welcome sight. mediums are the most used mechs in the battle tech universe and should be the most common on the field . assaults are very rare in the inner sphere and these changes will force the game to reflect that. sorry this will be yet another thing that makes the meta gamers QQ. but as i always say less QQ more PEW PEW,if ya practiced shooting mechs and adapting to change as much as you QQ about the changes you would have a lot less to QQ about , tonnage limits will also kill 12 man all assault groups yay, so lame either your team has 8-10 assault and 2-4 lights or you lose . tonnage limits have been apart of battle tech since the 1980s and this is not only welcomed by me and my whole merc unit (the Rum Runners of Tortuga prime )but cheered on with enthusiasm ! soon you will be out of cheese and all you will have left is your wine

Edited by Snitchkilla, 30 November 2013 - 11:56 PM.

[Alex Warden]

i´m completely with you on that, Snitchkilla

[Sandtiger]

Sandpit, on 28 November 2013 - 10:38 AM, said:

This is about the truest statement I've read posted on the forums in a very long time.

This is what balance is really about. All things are even for all players.
"But, but, if they do this it will destroy the meta!"
No, no it won't It will CHANGE the meta because everyone playing the game will play under the same rules and mechanics.

Right now every build, strategy, and tactic really does have a counter. I don't see a single thing int he game that gives you a 100% chance to win. There's nothing in the game currently that forces all players to use it or lose. Just because you can't run the exact same mech and build EVERY single time you drop without running into some extended search times once in a while does NOT mean you can't run what you want.

This is the exact same argument we had in CB and OB about R&R. Players were complaining because they couldn't run certain builds every single game every single time and make good money every single time if they suffered a bad loss due to having to actually pay for rearming and repair.

I don't understand why some players feel that they should be able to buy one mech, outfit it, and then play nothing but that mech every single game without deviation and without having to wait a little longer in queues. That's not balance, that's "I wanna play my way and right now!"

Really? I don't remember you paying for my boars head that I paid $30.00 for? I don't remember you paying for my Misery?, or my awesome pretty baby?, or my highlander Heavy Metal? Frankly, I really don't want to play a game where I cannot use what I paid for, WHENEVER I want to use it. You sound like one of those people who voted for Obama. Telling me how I can use my wealth, and how it would be best suited. Time for a wake up call. It doesn't matter about tonnage. It matters how well you play. People like you make me ill. Just because you can't win all the time, you need to impose limits on players who can actually pilot their Mechs. Oh, I play all of the classes, its not that I'm stuck on assaults. I simply don't like the fact that other players who have a problem keeping up, cry for "Balance". You know what happens when I get my round arse kicked square in a match? I learn. I learn to pilot my Mech better, and use better strategy. And what do you know. I get BETTER! Tonnage limits are pathetic. Role warfare has been repeatedly mentioned, and is the TRUE solution, the one promised from the very beginning of this game. When are they going to deliver on that? PGI putting in tonnage limits is a lazy and *ineffectual* way out.

[Corvus Antaka]

Sandtiger, on 05 December 2013 - 03:37 PM, said:

Really? I don't remember you paying for my boars head that I paid $30.00 for? I don't remember you paying for my Misery?, or my awesome pretty baby?, or my highlander Heavy Metal? Frankly, I really don't want to play a game where I cannot use what I paid for, WHENEVER I want to use it. You sound like one of those people who voted for Obama. Telling me how I can use my wealth, and how it would be best suited. Time for a wake up call. It doesn't matter about tonnage. It matters how well you play. People like you make me ill. Just because you can't win all the time, you need to impose limits on players who can actually pilot their Mechs. Oh, I play all of the classes, its not that I'm stuck on assaults. I simply don't like the fact that other players who have a problem keeping up, cry for "Balance". You know what happens when I get my round arse kicked square in a match? I learn. I learn to pilot my Mech better, and use better strategy. And what do you know. I get BETTER! Tonnage limits are pathetic. Role warfare has been repeatedly mentioned, and is the TRUE solution, the one promised from the very beginning of this game. When are they going to deliver on that? PGI putting in tonnage limits is a lazy and *ineffectual* way out.

so use your piggy.

just means one of your teammates has to ton down.

and if yur so bad all your entire 12 man can run you can always do a private match with 1200 tons

[Sandtiger]

oldradagast, on 30 November 2013 - 08:00 AM, said:

I am looking forward to this:

1) Battletech has always been about making do with what you have - getting the most out of your gear, not simply having the best gear - and middle weight classes are supposed to be the most common. This change will force that type of meta to exist. You won't just be able to pile on 8 assaults with 4 lights every time without thinking about it. I also REALLY like the idea of the tonnage limit varying in a range for each match. This will break the concept of the "perfect team" since the tonnage limit will float a bit, allowing for different "perfect teams" depending on the limit.
Yes and no. Battle tech was also about what you could afford. What you and those like minded are trying to do is dumb down our ability to play what we want and when. Are you telling me that Hanse Victor Davion would have piloted a Jenner when his prized victor was available? Or how about Kai Allard Laio? He loved his Centurion....but that's not fair! Lets put him in a Commando!!!! Really? I don't think so.
2) Assault Warrior Online currently does not explore the full range of the game. There's more to the game than walking around slowly and sniping. Light mechs means more speed which means more brawls, more dynamic action, and more interest.
And I have had many lights, and mediums kick the Schnock out of me...not because they had better equipment. But because they were better pilots. So again, I'm not buying that one either.
3) It'll give an amusing kick to the know-it-all's who think they are the best player every because they have nothing but 4 Atlas / Highlanders and think that anything under 90 tons is just a target and has no purpose in the game.

See my quote above. That's EXACTLY what I am saying. Tonnage limits will solve NOTHING. It is how you pilot your Mech, not about how fat you are.

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 05 December 2013 - 03:39 PM, said:

so use your piggy.

just means one of your teammates has to ton down.

and if yur so bad all your entire 12 man can run you can always do a private match with 1200 tons

That's just it, my team mates should not have to "Ton Down" if they don't want to. Maybe they would like to use the mechs they paid for, so they can play what they want, when they play with me. Perhaps your team mates, should stop crying and start learning to shoot better ~grins.

Snitchkilla, on 30 November 2013 - 12:42 PM, said:

Oh look a lance of atlases!... said no one in cannon battle tech ever,now some of you will cry "this is not battle tech... blah blah blah" but frankly from a mech warrior vet of 20 years plus this is a welcome sight. mediums are the most used mechs in the battle tech universe and should be the most common on the field . assaults are very rare in the inner sphere and these changes will force the game to reflect that. sorry this will be yet another thing that makes the meta gamers QQ. but as i always say less QQ more PEW PEW,if ya practiced shooting mechs and adapting to change as much as you QQ about the changes you would have a lot less to QQ about , tonnage limits will also kill 12 man all assault groups yay, so lame either your team has 8-10 assault and 2-4 lights or you lose . tonnage limits have been apart of battle tech since the 1980s and this is not only welcomed by me and my whole merc unit (the Rum Runners of Tortuga prime )but cheered on with enthusiasm ! soon you will be out of cheese and all you will have left is your wine

You know I haven't heard that before.... but I have heard. OMG its the Dreaded Northwind Highlanders!!!!! =p

[Roadbeer]

20 post rule...

[Corvus Antaka]

Sandtiger, on 05 December 2013 - 03:51 PM, said:

That's just it, my team mates should not have to "Ton Down" if they don't want to. Maybe they would like to use the mechs they paid for, so they can play what they want, when they play with me. Perhaps your team mates, should stop crying and start learning to shoot better ~grins.

Fine with me. Im betting PGI will have some assault bracket for the steiners and others. Heck, why not? This way the assault babies are happy too.

Just because some of us no longer care for the ease of play that comes with hitting slow, immobile objects and will use lower tonnages doesn't mean you need to get your panties all twisted up and demand we keep having to fight lances 500+ tons heavier because you need someone to stomp on with the "mech you paid for"

Edited by Colonel Pada Vinson, 05 December 2013 - 04:15 PM.

[Hexenhammer]

I'm tossing this question out as I don't know how I feel about tonnage limits yet. But won't tonnages limits help prompt / make meta build even more prevalent? Seeing them in competive play is one thing but now ever ton counts and players may feel a need to min max their builds no matter what.

[Whatzituyah]

I think this is beginning to sound like a necessary evil.
As much as I hate the tonnage limits because that means we cant drop as a wolf pack anymore I sorta think its needed the rest of me say LTP!

Edited by Whatzituyah, 05 December 2013 - 04:55 PM.