136 replies to this topic

[meteorol]

Man, this somehow reminds me of... PUG dungeons queues always failing because there are not tanks and priests

[Zerberoff]

I like the Idear somehow, the only issue i have with it is, if there is a new Mech a couple of my Friends and myself want to play and level up, we wouldnt be able to do so as a team and at the same time, that sucks... but i do want to give it a try.

[Fuggles]

It's obvious the focus of the upcoming MM changes are focused on making pug games fair and even. Fair and even isn't the most fun choice but that's what they are including private matches for.

I'm not saying that 3-3-3-3 is going to prevent stomps but it's a lot harder system to game and overall I'm really looking forward to the new launch mode.

Will this prevent meta mechs? No, there are meta mechs of every class. The awesome and the victor are both 80 tons, but make for interesting challenges when balancing matches. Solution is fix the mech imbalance.

Will this prevent 6 atlas teams or 6 firestarter teams, yes. Will this prevent 6 victor 6 ember groups or 6 ddc 6 ecm spider groups, yes. It will also prevent conquest losses becuase your team has no lights. It will also prevent people from Simply not having a mech that fits in the tonnage restrictions because 3 people decide to run atlases.

Again, from a make pug matches as fair as possible, this seems like the best option.

[Edustaja]

Only thing I'd like to see added would be weekly or daily rotating group compositions.

MRBC now has four different comps and having that many really makes for more diverse games.

[Sug]

4-4-2-2

[Shae Starfyre]

I think they will gain more meaningful metrics with the 3/3/3/3 approach for future game balance design changes.

This also hints to two, currently unknown, metrics:

1.) possible increase in players or more players than we thought were actually playing.

or

2.) That they have determined that regardless of ELO there are basically an equal number of players who play each class of mech (lights, mediums, etc.) that wait times will not suffer much.

I think that if these two metrics were not true by a huge margin, they would not implement this at all.

Edited by Aphoticus, 04 March 2014 - 09:47 AM.

[Sug]

Either they're trying to cater to the 84% that are tired of random tonnage imbalances or they're trying to bring back 12v12 by forcing you to not take 11 highlanders and an Ecm spider.

[Dymlos2003]

Should be 1/2/6/3

[CeeKay Boques]

I think Weight x ELO inside of a weight limit of 800 is the way to go... but hard to calculate. 3-3-3-3 is... uh... beta?

[Bagheera]

Dirus Nigh, on 03 March 2014 - 09:31 PM, said:

PGI is trying to address the issue of uneven drops. That is the most important thing right now. We need to give the upcoming drop restrictions an honest try and see how it goes. PGI can always try some thing different later on.

How does 3/3/3/3 address the issue of L1 mechs with standard structures and SHS being matched against L2 mechs with endosteel and DHS (+FF in the case of some builds)?

Edited by Bagheera, 04 March 2014 - 07:54 PM.

[Belorion]

Sug, on 04 March 2014 - 09:19 AM, said:

4-4-2-2

3-4-3-2

[SubXulu]

Chemie, on 02 March 2014 - 05:28 AM, said:

it is especially bad if the queue does not have enough of a weight class so then no one can play...

And I think it's going to get worse.
I usually play 12-20 hours per weekend (fri,sat.sun) with 2 other friends, but Friday night passed without the usual Steam message "Fancy some MW?" .... I played 2 games Saturday but the 'flying victor monotony ' effect soon kicked in so logged.
Then Sunday I didnt even consider it and my friends were both playing something else.

Groundhog syndrome has taken its toll.
I will keep reading the forums though as I believe a correctly balanced match is the key, on a nightly basis a 'good-even' match happens maybe 1 in 20 .... this is not a good ratio for customer 'satisfaction' :|

Edited by SubXulu, 05 March 2014 - 08:31 AM.

[ImperialKnight]

3-3-3-3 is just overengineering a solution to a simple problem.

I don't care if the enemy team has 12 assaults, IF MY TEAM has 12 assaults as well.

The problem was tonnage balancing. The tonnage difference between 2 teams should not vary by more than 20 tons IMO.

3-3-3-3 will just decrease tactics available in the game. playing 12 heavies and 6 lights with 6 assaults require very different tactics.

[HammerSwarm]

I can't yell loud enough, long enough, or persistantly enough about how much I don't like the idea of 3/3/3/3 balancing. Stop the Madness PGI.

[NRP]

PenitentTangent, on 02 March 2014 - 04:09 PM, said:

I really want a matching of 3/4/3/2 instead. Makes Assaults more threatening, adds more mediums.

???

One or two Assaults are little more than food for lighter, faster mech packs. Assaults are only a threat when there are a few of them (3 is probably the minimum number, if they stick together), or if you are stupid enough to attack them head on.

And where are people getting the idea that we need more Mediums? Mediums are just about all I see in game these days. And Firestarters. Mediums and Firestarters. Hell, we could use more Steiner Scout Lances, not fewer.

[Dirus Nigh]

Bagheera, on 04 March 2014 - 07:53 PM, said:

How does 3/3/3/3 address the issue of L1 mechs with standard structures and SHS being matched against L2 mechs with endosteel and DHS (+FF in the case of some builds)?

It does not. This change will help the drastic weight difference that has been occurring in matches. No more teams with 5 assaults going up against a team with one, or nun. Mediums will be seen more often in games. That is the issue that this will effect. This is not perfect, but it does not have to be. PGI can and will adjust the match maker in the future.


However I think it might be to restrictive. I saw a suggestion on the forums in a similar thread for giving some leeway in the chassis restriction. They wanted a base 2/2/2/2 with the remaining four mechs be open slots. I liked this idea because it would still curtail drastically uneven teams by weight, as well as alowing for variety in a team make up.

I would love to have a stock mode only option. An optional rookie only mode would be interesting to try out. The biggest problem is the have and have not of voice coms. So long as MWO does not have voice then groups on TS will have a huge advantage.

Edited by Dirus Nigh, 10 March 2014 - 02:07 PM.

[HammerSwarm]

meteorol, on 04 March 2014 - 12:24 AM, said:

Man, this somehow reminds me of... PUG dungeons queues always failing because there are not tanks and priests

I was thinking the same thing.

[Riptor]

Have fun at being cussed and bitched at for bringing not the best of a certain class of mechs into battle from the entirety of the rest of the team

Show up in an Awesome? Prepare to enhance your vocubulari of colorfull descriptions of your sexual orientation and your mothers preferences in lovers.

[Elthionel]

Fuggles, on 04 March 2014 - 09:00 AM, said:

It's obvious the focus of the upcoming MM changes are focused on making pug games fair and even. Fair and even isn't the most fun choice but that's what they are including private matches for.

I'm not saying that 3-3-3-3 is going to prevent stomps but it's a lot harder system to game and overall I'm really looking forward to the new launch mode.

Will this prevent meta mechs? No, there are meta mechs of every class. The awesome and the victor are both 80 tons, but make for interesting challenges when balancing matches. Solution is fix the mech imbalance.

Will this prevent 6 atlas teams or 6 firestarter teams, yes. Will this prevent 6 victor 6 ember groups or 6 ddc 6 ecm spider groups, yes. It will also prevent conquest losses becuase your team has no lights. It will also prevent people from Simply not having a mech that fits in the tonnage restrictions because 3 people decide to run atlases.

Again, from a make pug matches as fair as possible, this seems like the best option.

This This THIS.

Skill can much more overcome people trying to game the system by only running Jenners/Firestarters if you have a Commando or Raven.

What's the worst case scenario, if everything breaks even?

3 Firestarters + 3 Shadowhawks + 3 Orions + 3 Atlas
vs
3 Locusts + 3 Blackjacks + 3 Thunderbolts + 3 Awesomes?

Not a ton of fun, but that's a much better balance IMHO. And the stars have to align pretty weirdly for that to happen in the new model.

[Clownwarlord]

3 lights, 3 mediums, 3 heavies, and then 3 assaults

Sounds good to me ... less likely to be out weighed by 5 assault mechs to 1 when a new light mech or medium mech is released.

As for swarm of lights that only works if the swarm is working together but in random drops the issue a lot of high elo players face is getting in matches and when they do they get in drops with multiple pre-mades and there isn't one or only one on your side. Team Work is OP sadly pugs don't have the brain to pour a pee out of the boot if the directions where written under the heel.

So PGI bring down the 3/3/3/3 can't be any worse.