29 replies to this topic

[BillyM]

I would like for this to be a productive and thought-provoking conversation on how to reduce stomps within the game. One thought that I have been tossing around is the use of "Dynamic Difficulty". A few examples could be the following and a good balance may be using some or all to a certain degree:

Artillery/AirStrikes
-When exceeding 4:3 (12-9 or 4-3) the winning team cool-down timer is tripled
-When exceeding 2:1 (12-6 or 6-3) the winning team artillery is unavailable
-When exceeding 3:1 (12-4 or 6-2) the losing team has artillery refilled!

Coolshot
-When exceeding 4:3 losing team coolshots do an additional 25% heat reduction.
-When exceeding 2:1 losing team coolshots do an additional 50% heat reduction.
-When exceeding 3:1 losing team is given a coolshots or theirs gets refilled!

Mech efficiencies and modules
-When exceeding 4:3 winning team loses Elite-level efficiencies if so equipped.
-When exceeding 2:1 winning team loses Basic-level efficiencies if so equipped.
-When exceeding 3:1 winning team modules go "offline" for some made-up reason.

Chance to crit or ammo/gauss explosion
-When exceeding 4:3 winning team chance-to-crit decreases by 25%
-When exceeding 2:1 winning team chance-to-crit decreases by 50%
-When exceeding 3:1 winning team chance to crit decreases by 75%

Damage received
-When exceeding 4:3 winning team damage reduced to 90% of stats
-When exceeding 2:1 winning team damage reduced to 75% of stats
-When exceeding 3:1 winning team damage reduced to 60% of stats

These are just a few simple ideas and the numbers are for example and would certainly need some time through the test servers to normalized.

Secondly, I know there will be push-back from those who disagree, but I implore you to please explain your thoughts, reasoning, or alternatives in a way that continues discussion forward.

I for one would love to see those last remaining few guys see their mechs become 25-30% more resilient or effective in comparison to the 6-7 opponents remaining.

Thoughts? Ideas? Hate it?

--billyM

[Joseph Mallan]

Its a well thought out idea but landslides happen. Look at the Superbowl Yesterday. The two best teams in Pro football came together and instead of a hard fought game to end all games. We watched a slaughter. Did the Seahawks let up on the Broncos cause they had a 22 point lead at the half?

Nobody ever tied a hand behind their back to give me a chance when I game, and if they did I wouldn't game with them again. Bring your best game or go home. In one year of Gaming here I have rage quit playing once. And it was because I was not performing up to snuff. Next day I was back to playing for 6-10 hours.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 03 February 2014 - 08:36 AM.

[Szegedin]

So more arbitrary rules in the name of nanny-state hand holding?

In my view a system like this would both punish players for winning (bad) and reduce the awesomeness of unlikely team comebacks (also bad).

And you're operating from a view that all lopsided games are bad games, which is not necessarily true. If a team has better coordination and position it deserves the steamroll.

And if you're pugging and concerned about the presence of TS premades remember you have just as much chance to get the good ones on your side.

Do you like the idea of your entire team being nerfed just because you dropped with an effective experienced lance?

[Khobai]

another terrible idea in the same vein as ghost heat.

how bout we just balance teams to begin with?

[Almond Brown]

Couple of issues right off.

Arty Strikes re-fill for Losing side? What happens if the remaining losing mechs do not actually have Arty/Air on-board? They would be provided a Bonus that they can't utilize. Not really a Bonus.

Cool shots, same as above.

Efficiencies and Modules?

I have been out Scouting, nary took a scratch and suddenly all my Elite and or Basic Efficiencies suddenly drop off? Better be a damn good reason (a nuclear EMP affects ALL Mechs btw), other than the other team doesn't have its %^&* together this Match.

Damage reductions?

Wouldn't be needed if the enemy just did a better job when applying theirs.

Edited by Almond Brown, 03 February 2014 - 09:05 AM.

[DEMAX51]

Yeah, no. I like the effort you put into your idea, but I don't think this would be good for the game. Some games are just going to be stomps - sometimes it's because one team is significantly more skilled than the other, sometimes it's because one team has significantly more tonnage than the other, and some times it's a simple as one or two people on a team making a single mistake and getting killed.

Hopefully matchmaker improvements and tonnage restrictions will help with the first two, but people are always going to make the occasional mistake and get themselves killed. As to that last point, I don't think the devs should try to "fix" that.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

Instead of Elo, they should consider a system that accomodates BV and tonnage.

A stock Atlas with a standard engine, no endo and single heat sinks should score low in the BV rating, but high in tonnage.

A BlackJack with an AC20, XL <whatever>, endo, DHS, and JJ should score relatively high on the BV rating, but low on the tonnage rating b/c its 45 tons.

Both mechs are about of equal worth to each other, and honestly is about as even as you can get.

Player skill should just be broken up as such. You either have done less than 60 games or you've done more than 60 games. New players should be put in brackets entirely with new players (if at all possible, fillers maybe with super low BV mechs from non-new players).

Everyone else that is above 60 games is in the regular player pool. Done.

Bring a 733C or Victor every match? You'll be playing against mostly other high BV players. Want to take a Stock Dragon? You'll be playing mostly with other mechs of that caliber.

Done.

[Mister Blastman]

OP: So you are suggesting we go back to Atari 2600 Football, where when you get the ball and try and run it, your guy suddenly runs slower than the runners on the other team trying to catch you?

I present to you Exhibit A: How to be a badass while under pressure.




(not to showboat or anything but...)


I don't really like the idea of auto-gimping the winning team when they start... winning. Your idea is well-explained but for some reason, I can't wrap my arms around it.

Fix the matchmaker, remove Elo, have a PUG-Only queue (no pre-mades at all), institute tonnage limits and balancing and most importantly, fix the netcode and weapons balance.

Edited by Mister Blastman, 03 February 2014 - 10:46 AM.

[IceSerpent]

mwhighlander, on 03 February 2014 - 10:30 AM, said:

Instead of Elo, they should consider a system that accomodates BV and tonnage.

I would say not instead of Elo, but in addition to properly implemented Elo. If you use Elo difference ranges Paul mentioned in his last Command Chair post and convert them to the actual expected chances to win, you will instantly see why Elo "doesn't work" - it really does what it's supposed to be doing, but it's set up in a way that produces no results whatsoever. It's similar to setting up RL speed limits to 300mph - technically concept still works, but serves no useful purpose any longer.

Quote

A stock Atlas with a standard engine, no endo and single heat sinks should score low in the BV rating, but high in tonnage.
A BlackJack with an AC20, XL <whatever>, endo, DHS, and JJ should score relatively high on the BV rating, but low on the tonnage rating b/c its 45 tons.
Both mechs are about of equal worth to each other, and honestly is about as even as you can get.

Tonnage as a separate metric is not necessary here IMHO - it's included in BV by definition, as less tonnage implies less stuff you can pack into your mech. Ideally, heavier mechs would get BV increase due to more weapons / equipment / armor, and BV decrease due to lower speed. Lighter mechs are the other way around. Depending on the exact loadout, a "good" lighter mech should be equal in terms of BV to a "bad" heavier mech.

[Sandpit]

I want to understand so a question first.

If my team wins a match by the ratios you described then the next game I'll be facing a handicap?

Also, this doesn't take into account that teams are random outside of 12mans so even if I'm dropping in a 4man, the other 8 players my next game are going to be completely different from the previous match. So that means you could have 12 pugs all handicapped for their next match and all dropping in different games.
So you could have 12 players in 12 different games runnign around handicapped and handicapping their teams because they had a good round prior to that game.

[Wispsy]

This can be easily abused by groups.

[BillyM]

Sandpit, on 03 February 2014 - 12:56 PM, said:

I want to understand so a question first.

If my team wins a match by the ratios you described then the next game I'll be facing a handicap?

Also, this doesn't take into account that teams are random outside of 12mans so even if I'm dropping in a 4man, the other 8 players my next game are going to be completely different from the previous match. So that means you could have 12 pugs all handicapped for their next match and all dropping in different games.
So you could have 12 players in 12 different games runnign around handicapped and handicapping their teams because they had a good round prior to that game.

It would need to be real-time dynamic to function the way I have in mind. ...that means as soon as you get the other team down 3-0, arty timer triples for your team, your chance to crit reduces 25%, damaged reduced 10%, etc... This would not carry game to game, but only work to allow that last remaining lance to do something super-human and eek out a win after being down 8-0...

--billyM

[Sandpit]

BillyM, on 03 February 2014 - 01:51 PM, said:

It would need to be real-time dynamic to function the way I have in mind. ...that means as soon as you get the other team down 3-0, arty timer triples for your team, your chance to crit reduces 25%, damaged reduced 10%, etc... This would not carry game to game, but only work to allow that last remaining lance to do something super-human and eek out a win after being down 8-0...

--billyM

Ahhhhh ok, I see what your'e saying now. I could see some cooldowns on the consumables, that wouldn't be too bad. Just no on damage and crits and such though. I shoot and kill 3 enemy mechs so my weapon magically stop doing as much damage? No thanks to that one.

I still dont' see this as a good way to balance things. That's just encouraging a nanny type game play where a team can take 3 sacrificial locusts and rambo them out into the open just to handicap the enemy team. It also encourages bad play. Instead of being hampered by playing badly you're punishing a player for doing well?

[BillyM]

...you kill their 3 sacrificial lolcusts and get hit with a 5% dmg nerf and can't spam arty. ...but keep in mind, the minute they kill one of you, BAM, you're back to full strength. Thus the "Dynamic" part it. ...and honestly, the effects would be truly minimal and likely not noticed until you outnumber the enemy 2:1, and very noticeable when you outnumber them 3:1 (but honestly, when it's 12v4, no one will mind a little help for the underdogs at that point).

So how many folks would be interested in seeing something like this occur on the test server? I'm not saying make it law, just want to experience a 3-fold increase in the number of nail-biter matches....

--billyM

Edited by BillyM, 03 February 2014 - 02:17 PM.

[Sandpit]

I just don't think your'e going to garner much support for your idea as it is. When you break it down what you essentially have is punishing a team for doing well and rewarding players for losing.

[LauLiao]

I've been in games that started out 0-3 then ended up 12-3. Did we really need "advantages" early on? Also, if the imbalance becomes too great, what's to keep teams from "sacraficing" lights, out of ammo, or heavily damaged mechs just to keep the ratio close and keep the remaining enemy from getting bonuses?

[Sandpit]

LauLiao, on 03 February 2014 - 02:33 PM, said:

I've been in games that started out 0-3 then ended up 12-3. Did we really need "advantages" early on? Also, if the imbalance becomes too great, what's to keep teams from "sacraficing" lights, out of ammo, or heavily damaged mechs just to keep the ratio close and keep the remaining enemy from getting bonuses?

That's another issue. What's to stop a few heavily damaged mechs on my team from running out and going down in a blaze of glory alpha striking everything in their path just to give the rest of the team a bonus instead of pulling back and trying to survive? I just don't see it as a good way to balance stomps

[Bhael Fire]

It's an interesting idea, but I think there are better (i.e., less punitive) ways to balance matches.

[Xmith]

Forget it. Too many variables. Way to complicated.

[Roland]

Stomps are generally always gonna happen, purely due to the nature of mechwarrior. Even with two perfectly matched teams, it's likely that a match will end up with very lopsided results... and it generally is going to hinge on who makes the first mistake. It's rare that in games with really good players that you're going to have a 12/11 match or something like that.

There are times when a lone mech can make a comeback, but generally since PGI continually nerfs individual weapons, and throws greater numbers of mechs into a game, the ability for a smaller force to make a comeback is reduced.