74 replies to this topic

[Profiteer]

You know there are no tonnage limits.

So drop in nothing but assaults.

If that's too boring, play something else till limits are introduced.

[Deathlike]

Khobai, on 14 January 2014 - 09:15 PM, said:

Tonnage restrictions have consequences though.

Mechs that are bad for their tonnage simply wont be used anymore. That's quite frankly no better than the current system.

That's not entirely accurate. Bad mechs (hello Spider-5V) will still be used if only to go through the grind (for eliting or mastery)... assuming one does not want to spend massive amounts of GXP to get it over with. So, bad mechs will still be used, but for an entirely different cause (grinding the 5V was worse than grinding the Awesome on a DBL XP weekend, by far - because at least with the Awesome, you could still do some damage, despite the awful CT).

Edited by Deathlike, 14 January 2014 - 09:51 PM.

[Prezimonto]

Deathlike, on 14 January 2014 - 09:50 PM, said:

That's not entirely accurate. Bad mechs (hello Spider-5V) will still be used if only to go through the grind (for eliting or mastery)... assuming one does not want to spend massive amounts of GXP to get it over with. So, bad mechs will still be used, but for an entirely different cause (grinding the 5V was worse than grinding the Awesome on a DBL XP weekend, by far - because at least with the Awesome, you could still do some damage, despite the awful CT).

Actually... the K variant was much, much worse as I ground it out to elite before MG's got tweaked to usefulness. The 5V (while annoying) was a treat to play, just drop in only conquest matches and cap stuff/harass... got the job done if slowly.

Battle value would be better, market based battle value would be much better, real role warfare would be much better. We're not going to see any of that though.

The best I think we can hope for is a rolling ticket of mech picks (like a ranked match in league of legends)... the pre-mades will drop with a defined tonnage... take the rest and randomize the pick order... first player to pick gets 10 seconds to choose something that fits from his drop ship... second player gets less tonnage to pick from if first guy takes a large mech. So sometimes you get the option to play big... sometimes you don't. As someone who plays in all weight categories I don't care. I don't care if the matches have super heavy vs. heavy match ups... whatever... but the total imbalance in tons is bad for game play in general.

Edited by Prezimonto, 14 January 2014 - 10:00 PM.

[Texas Merc]

I got a devkill thingy with a SDR-5V tyvm.

[lsp]

That second lance is a ranger lance lol, that's why there's three dcs and a highlander.

Roland, on 14 January 2014 - 06:08 PM, said:

Bravo lance on the winning team is hillarious with 3 DDC's and the 733C.
You stay classy, Steiner!

THeir rangers.

Edited by lsp, 14 January 2014 - 11:43 PM.

[SgtKinCaiD]

Profiteer, on 14 January 2014 - 09:15 PM, said:

You know there are no tonnage limits.

So drop in nothing but assaults.

If that's too boring, play something else till limits are introduced.

And that's the problem, it's true but sad as the same time.

[Joseph Mallan]

BillyM, on 14 January 2014 - 06:02 PM, said:

...ya think?



Nailed it!

--billyM

Please watch this video! 11 Jenners and a Cicada plague the enemy team!

[BillyM]

You may be a scientific mystery due to the thickness of that cranium... "b.b.b.b.ut look at this extreme-light drop result! By my maths that means something important about something! DUURRRRRRR." What do you think would have happened had those Jenners launched into Alpine or Tourmaline where they needed to approach 12 bunched up Alpha-Assaults? This just in, lights and poptart/assaults are currently the most effective units in the game. This also in, mixed lances cannot all focus a single vulnerability in opposing teams.

You've been a assault-drop apologist for as long as I've been playing the game and simply reading your drivel gets tiring. I've played against you, you're not good, you enjoy getting slaughtered and that's OK, but please stop trying to impress that upon others.

...please understand that both OVERLY HEAVY and OVERLY LIGHT lances absolutely f*ck the matchmaker. You will end up with a mismatch due to the fact that it CANNOT find a suitable opposing team, tryhard groups have been proving this time and time again over the last 6 months and it is taking PGI ENTIRELY too long to fix.

What I really don't understand is why the matchmaker didn't swap Bravo lances on the two teams (what I think needs looking into the most) which would have resulted in MUCH closer tonnage.

--billyM

Edited by BillyM, 15 January 2014 - 06:39 AM.

[NextGame]

If I had to come up with some crazy convoluted ELO system I would do the following.

1) Discount pilot skill. A multiplayer online shooter should always be skill based, not hold-your-hand-because-you-lose based. This means no win/loss or kill/death ratio in the calculation. It should *all* be about the equipment brought to the field. I suppose for the big cry babies amongst us you could bring w/l ratio into the equation, but if you did, you would have no integrity and should be required to tear up your man card henceforth.

2) Assign a rating to each weapon. Perhaps based on DPS, tweak it maybe just a little based on whether it deals immediate pinpoint damage, or damage over time, or if the hit registration is broken. Whatever, give each weapon on a players mech a score. This should make up perhaps as much as 60% of the matchmaker calculation for an individual mech. Note* this would not take into account the quantity of ammunition brought to the field for ammo based weapons, and does not account for heat sinks/ecm/modules and whatnot. You could go down that route if you like, but it would become a lot more complex, and this is just an example for the purposes of chewing the fat.

3) Assign a rating to each engine, with a very slight downgrade on XL score due to the side torso killing the mech mechanic. This should be in the ballpark of 20% of the matchmaker calculation for an individual mech.

4) Sum up armour points rating on arms, legs and cockpit and back facing CT/ST.

5) Sum up forward facing armour on CT and STs with 1 point of forward facing armour being worth marginally more than armour points in #4. 4 and 5 should be worth maybe about 20% of the total.

Those percentages of what the total score should be are obviously pulled out of my backside, but you get the idea, someone has to decide which equipment is worth the most and assign value to it in terms of what it contributes to the battlefield order to balance it.

Basically at the end you sum 2-5 up and that gives (to use battletech terminology) a battle value for the equipment used, therefore you can have a matchmaker that can balance team constitution with a maximum acceptable difference margin.

Edited by NextGame, 15 January 2014 - 07:29 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

BillyM, on 15 January 2014 - 06:33 AM, said:

You may be a scientific mystery due to the thickness of that cranium... "b.b.b.b.ut look at this extreme-light drop result! By my maths that means something important about something! DUURRRRRRR." What do you think would have happened had those Jenners launched into Alpine or Tourmaline where they needed to approach 12 bunched up Alpha-Assaults? This just in, lights and poptart/assaults are currently the most effective units in the game. This also in, mixed lances cannot all focus a single vulnerability in opposing teams.

You've been a assault-drop apologist for as long as I've been playing the game and simply reading your drivel gets tiring. I've played against you, you're not good, you enjoy getting slaughtered and that's OK, but please stop trying to impress that upon others.

...please understand that both OVERLY HEAVY and OVERLY LIGHT lances absolutely f*ck the matchmaker. You will end up with a mismatch due to the fact that it CANNOT find a suitable opposing team, tryhard groups have been proving this time and time again over the last 6 months and it is taking PGI ENTIRELY too long to fix.

What I really don't understand is why the matchmaker didn't swap Bravo lances on the two teams (what I think needs looking into the most) which would have resulted in MUCH closer tonnage.

--billyM

I'm not an Apologist I am an Assault Pilot. I just watched 11 lights and a Medium destroy a heavier opponent AND I applauded the effort! I have supported players bringing what they want to the dance and proving they are as good as they think they are. That video put to rest that a Fast attack unit cannot beat a bigger opponent.

On Tourm or Alpine, if the enemy played the same as they did here and the Jenners ran their race... They'd have won again! At the end of the Match IIRC the Bruce of Jenners lost ONE Mech?!? maybe two. That is a very telling result. I would bank they could do it on any map against a similar opponent. Do I think a group of higher skilled Bigger mechs could beat them? Yes I do!

I never said I was good, I said I was pretty average. My record speaks to that fact. I don't enjoy getting slaughtered but I do look in the mirror and know where the blame lies when it happens unlike to many players here. An all light or an all Assault group does not Ruin the matchmaker it is the ability of the team to work together that wins a match. If your team sucks at teamwork you will lose! Its really just that easy.

[Ngamok]

Joseph Mallan, on 15 January 2014 - 07:44 AM, said:

I'm not an Apologist I am an Assault Pilot. I just watched 11 lights and a Medium destroy a heavier opponent AND I applauded the effort! I have supported players bringing what they want to the dance and proving they are as good as they think they are. That video put to rest that a Fast attack unit cannot beat a bigger opponent.

On Tourm or Alpine, if the enemy played the same as they did here and the Jenners ran their race... They'd have won again! At the end of the Match IIRC the Bruce of Jenners lost ONE Mech?!? maybe two. That is a very telling result. I would bank they could do it on any map against a similar opponent. Do I think a group of higher skilled Bigger mechs could beat them? Yes I do!

I never said I was good, I said I was pretty average. My record speaks to that fact. I don't enjoy getting slaughtered but I do look in the mirror and know where the blame lies when it happens unlike to many players here. An all light or an all Assault group does not Ruin the matchmaker it is the ability of the team to work together that wins a match. If your team sucks at teamwork you will lose! Its really just that easy.

Since there is no chat system in place to coordinate 3 lances in pug matches, the tonnage mix match will usually produce lopsided results.

Edited by Ngamok, 15 January 2014 - 07:57 AM.

[3rdworld]

Khobai, on 14 January 2014 - 09:15 PM, said:

Tonnage restrictions have consequences though.

Mechs that are bad for their tonnage simply wont be used anymore. That's quite frankly no better than the current system.

Exactly. If you are going to do tonnage, you need to modify its value towards the matchmaker versus the chassis effectiveness.

Like an atlas-K would only count as say 75 tons or (points) to the matchmaker, where the Highlander would cost the entire 90 (p variant not withstanding).

Err... the matchmaker would consider every mech not a Highlander, Victor, Cataphract, Shadow Hawk, or Jenner to be less tonnage than it actually weighs. The difference would vary by chassis. Like the RVN-3L is nearly competitive with a Jenner so it would only lose say 5 points or tons to the matchmaker. Where junk like the T-Bolt would lose 10 or more tons.

Edited by 3rdworld, 15 January 2014 - 08:09 AM.

[Roadbeer]

3rdworld, on 15 January 2014 - 08:03 AM, said:

Exactly. If you are going to due tonnage, you need to modify its value versus the chassis effectiveness.

Like an atlas-K would only count as say 75 tons or (points) to the matchmaker, where the Highlander would cost the entire 90 (p variant not withstanding).

Err... the matchmaker would consider every mech not a Highlander, Victor, Cataphract, Shadow Hawk, or Jenner to be less tonnage than it actually weighs. The difference would vary by chassis. Like the RVN-3L is nearly competitive with a Jenner so it would only lose say 5 points or tons to the matchmaker. Where junk like the T-Bolt would lose 10 or more tons.

Chassis bias much?
Now lets hear all about "The competitive scene" ...

[Chip Danger]

I'll I'm seeing with the screen shots is there is just not enough players anymore for match maker to work right.

[3rdworld]

Roadbeer, on 15 January 2014 - 08:08 AM, said:

Chassis bias much?
Now lets hear all about "The competitive scene" ...

If you aren't good enough at the game to recognize those as the best mechs, than you really have no place in discussing mwo balance.

Also a weighted system would deal nearly exclusively for pug matches. So I don't know what comp mwo has to do with it

Edited by 3rdworld, 15 January 2014 - 08:16 AM.

[Deathlike]

Prezimonto, on 14 January 2014 - 09:56 PM, said:

Actually... the K variant was much, much worse as I ground it out to elite before MG's got tweaked to usefulness. The 5V (while annoying) was a treat to play, just drop in only conquest matches and cap stuff/harass... got the job done if slowly.

Battle value would be better, market based battle value would be much better, real role warfare would be much better. We're not going to see any of that though.

The best I think we can hope for is a rolling ticket of mech picks (like a ranked match in league of legends)... the pre-mades will drop with a defined tonnage... take the rest and randomize the pick order... first player to pick gets 10 seconds to choose something that fits from his drop ship... second player gets less tonnage to pick from if first guy takes a large mech. So sometimes you get the option to play big... sometimes you don't. As someone who plays in all weight categories I don't care. I don't care if the matches have super heavy vs. heavy match ups... whatever... but the total imbalance in tons is bad for game play in general.

I remember where I championed the "PGI Dev should master the Spider-5K" challenge. Those were fun days to point out clear and obvious imbalances.

The 5V is the new version of the terribad 5K (although, the 5V has always been regarded as a running joke).

Texas Merc, on 14 January 2014 - 09:57 PM, said:

I got a devkill thingy with a SDR-5V tyvm.

Turn off your hax.

Roadbeer, on 15 January 2014 - 08:08 AM, said:

Chassis bias much?
Now lets hear all about "The competitive scene" ...

TBH, if the Awesome was considered 55 or 60 tons instead of the 80 tons of uselessness, I would actually consider that fair (leave the Victor @ 80 tons, because it is worth all that 80 tons).

3rdworld, on 15 January 2014 - 08:15 AM, said:

If you aren't good enough at the game to recognize those as the best mechs, than you really have no place in discussing mwo balance.

Spider-5V said:

Everything is viable, AMIRITE GUYS?

[Roadbeer]

3rdworld, on 15 January 2014 - 08:15 AM, said:

If you aren't good enough at the game to recognize those as the best mechs, than you really have no place in discussing mwo balance.

Has absolutely nothing to do with it, This would be effecting the entire MWO system, including the general queues where you have terribad Highlander pilots and outstanding Hunchback pilots. You're talking about a methodology that revolves around a FOTM meta. It's a horrendously stupid idea.

[3rdworld]

Roadbeer, on 15 January 2014 - 08:21 AM, said:

Has absolutely nothing to do with it, This would be effecting the entire MWO system, including the general queues where you have terribad Highlander pilots and outstanding Hunchback pilots. You're talking about a methodology that revolves around a FOTM meta. It's a horrendously stupid idea.

Since when has poptarting been FoTM? Last I checked it has been the most effective way to play the game for nearly a year.

And it can easily be automated if they have the "data" collection systems they claim to have in place. It would actually be one of the first real time balancing mechanics ever seen in a game. As soon as any new FoTM is identified through statistics, it would immediately be adjusted to its actual performance value. Instead of letting in run rampant.

It also isn't really changing anything other than how much or how little the matchmaker values a mech. It is a improvised BV system that doesn't require the tons of individual weights and measures that an actual BV system would require.

Edited by 3rdworld, 15 January 2014 - 08:26 AM.

[FupDup]

Roadbeer, on 15 January 2014 - 08:21 AM, said:

Has absolutely nothing to do with it, This would be effecting the entire MWO system, including the general queues where you have terribad Highlander pilots and outstanding Hunchback pilots. You're talking about a methodology that revolves around a FOTM meta. It's a horrendously stupid idea.

If Elo were more effective at grouping players of similar "skill" (however we choose to define it), then that wouldn't be an issue.

(Or we could just buff the underperforming mechs and not add MM handicaps for using them, but buffing things is heresy).

[Roadbeer]

3rdworld, on 15 January 2014 - 08:24 AM, said:

Since when has poptarting been FoTM? Last I checked it has been the most effective way to play the game for nearly a year.

And it can easily be automated if they have the "data" collection systems they claim to have in place. It would actually be one of the first real time balancing mechanics ever seen in a game. As soon as any new FoTM is identified through statistics, it would immediately be adjusted to its actual performance value. Instead of letting in run rampant.

It also isn't really changing anything other than how much or how little the matchmaker values a mech. It is a improvised BV system that doesn't require the tons of individual weights and measures that an actual BV system would require.

Should have started with this man, your "These are the only cool mechs, always will be" post you ran first... well... whatever, this makes sense, your first post didn't.

FupDup, on 15 January 2014 - 08:25 AM, said:

If Elo were more effective at grouping players of similar "skill" (however we choose to define it), then that wouldn't be an issue.

Too True.

EDIT: 1st coffee spelling

Edited by Roadbeer, 15 January 2014 - 08:33 AM.