65 replies to this topic

[Escef]

Shar Wolf, on 22 April 2014 - 11:22 AM, said:

And how will that be prevented in any way, short of splitting the ques, which PGI has repeatedly said they will/can not do?

Thank you for missing MY point.

I don't know if you have noticed, but the people screaming most about PGI ignoring them, tend to be the people who keep insisting PGI do things they have said they will not.

Coincidence? Or conspiracy?

There's no way to prevent it, but tonnage balancing, without an ELO system, will have that green player regularly being placed opposite experienced players in kitted out Victors. That was my point. I'm not asking for split queues, and I'm saying that tonnage balancing, at least alone, is not the answer. But some people think it should, and these are the folks that think assault mechs are easy mode.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Escef, on 22 April 2014 - 01:01 PM, said:

There's no way to prevent it, but tonnage balancing, without an ELO system, will have that green player regularly being placed opposite experienced players in kitted out Victors.

In theory at least.

Note: I would prefer tonnage limits over most other balance limits, but I can also see why PGI doesn't do it that way.

[L Y N X]

If you are looking for ideas to better balance drops then # of matches completed should be a factor such that NEW Players with less than say 100 matches should not be pitted with players with over 1000 matches, and players under 1000 matches should not be pitted vs players with over 10,000 matches.

I have over 10,000 matches, I prefer fighting with and against more experienced players.

[Escef]

Shar Wolf, on 22 April 2014 - 01:37 PM, said:

In theory at least.

Note: I would prefer tonnage limits over most other balance limits, but I can also see why PGI doesn't do it that way.

While I understand that sometimes trying to take on an assault heavy force when one is severely out-tonned might feel like attacking a tank with a toothpick, I've also been on both sides of assault mech vs. light mech fights that greatly favored the light. And regardless of what size mech you are in, there are few things in this game scarier than a pack of 3 to 5 lights. At least assaults I can outrun in most of my mechs, but lights? Ugh.

7ynx, on 22 April 2014 - 11:38 PM, said:

If you are looking for ideas to better balance drops then # of matches completed should be a factor such that NEW Players with less than say 100 matches should not be pitted with players with over 1000 matches, and players under 1000 matches should not be pitted vs players with over 10,000 matches.

I have over 10,000 matches, I prefer fighting with and against more experienced players.

A problem here is that some players learn more in 100 matches than others do in 10,000. I've seen experienced players that couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. However, I think finding some way to factor number of drops into the match maker is not an inherently bad idea.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Escef, on 23 April 2014 - 12:23 AM, said:

While I understand that sometimes trying to take on an assault heavy force when one is severely out-tonned might feel like attacking a tank with a toothpick, I've also been on both sides of assault mech vs. light mech fights that greatly favored the light. And regardless of what size mech you are in, there are few things in this game scarier than a pack of 3 to 5 lights. At least assaults I can outrun in most of my mechs, but lights? Ugh.

Well, until we get a game mode (or players using the game modes we have) that is more than team-deathmatch, outrunning the assaults means little in pugland.

Escef, on 23 April 2014 - 12:23 AM, said:

A problem here is that some players learn more in 100 matches than others do in 10,000. I've seen experienced players that couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. However, I think finding some way to factor number of drops into the match maker is not an inherently bad idea.

Perhaps more a problem that different people learn differently - and some people don't learn by experience (needing more to be hear things with their ears to learn them, or to read them, or a variety of other learning methods)

[Escef]

Shar Wolf, on 23 April 2014 - 09:02 AM, said:

Well, until we get a game mode (or players using the game modes we have) that is more than team-deathmatch, outrunning the assaults means little in pugland.

I heartily disagree with that one. There have been plenty of times while in a heavy or assault I've rounded a corner and faced off with 2-5 heavies and assaults, and would have gladly traded half my weapons for an extra 10-15 kph so I could get away and to cover (they can follow me back around the corner as fast as I can get there) before being shot to bits. In a light or fast medium? Not near as much of a problem unless I'm already damaged or they are very good shots.

Edited by Escef, 23 April 2014 - 12:23 PM.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Escef, on 23 April 2014 - 12:23 PM, said:

I heartily disagree with that one.

As with everything in pugland it comes with a massive YMMV tag.
Usually when I turn a corner into 1/3 to half the enemy team, I am dead before I can turn around or do much of anything.

There are those times though (and I feel them so much more in the slower mechs, IE: I can very easily see your point)

-so yeah, PuG = YMMV.

[Alaskan Nobody]

That is really not a very good poll.

It could be a lot worse, mind.

[ShinVector]

knightsljx, on 10 March 2014 - 06:04 AM, said:

In my opinion, I don't care if a team has 12 assaults or 12 lights, as long as the tonnage between the 2 teams are relatively balanced.

I don't have a good number so I'll throw one out there, say 5% variance. Taking extremes for example. A team with 12 Atlas will not be matched with a team with less than 1140 tons. A team with 12 Locusts cannot be matched with a team heavier than 252 tons.

Taking something in the middle, a team of 12 SHDs cannot be matched with a team more than 693 tons or less than 627 tons.

This way, premades are still free to take whatever they want and everyone knows the teams will be relatively balanced in terms of tonnage.

Of course, ELO does not go away.


Not sure if this is popular opinion over 3/3/3/3

Dude.... I think you have not understood that PGI was trying to do with match making the whole time...
They been trying to do as you describe but with priority being ELO.
But it fails because there is nothing stopping people from bring the biggest baddest assault mechs out there when they want to have the advantage to win...

The only thing that prohibited this in the past was the high cost of repairing expensive mechs when Repair and Refit was still around.

The current problem of often weight mis-matched matches is due to ELO match making dividing the MWO player pool into separate bands and there is simply not enough players playing all weight classes.
The problem get increased even more when Pre made groups come in either all assaults or all lights.

By limiting what mechs, groups bring into the battle field... It should make it easier for the match maker...
But I am having my doubts... Since this is not the true unpopular 'Tonnage Limits'...
Nothing stopping people from bring in 2 Highlander + 2 CTF 3D premade group meta builds...

I am expecting lots of problems with the coming MM... No real incentive given on bringing mediums and lights..

Edited by ShinVector, 23 April 2014 - 07:18 PM.

[Kmieciu]

The concept of 3/3/3/3 is flawed. It's a band-aid solution to mech balance.

Assaults are still going to rule the battlefield. Assault pilots will have to wait longer to get into a match, but when you do, they'll have easier time. If you manage to drop with your premade (3A+1H), the worst case scenario is that you will fight another 3A+1H premade on the other team.

If all the weight classes were equally rewarding to use, we wouldn't have needed class balancing. Look at Warthunder: there are fighters, heavy fighters, ground attack planes and bombers. All of them are equally important to victory. You can pick whatever fits your play style and feel you are contributing to victory.

I like to goof around in a light or medium mech, but those Highlanders and Victors are so much rewarding to pilot. When you kill 4+ enemies in a match you really feel like you are making a difference.

[Amberite]

3/3/3/3 is going too restrictive, Tonnage balance will be more flexible. Limiting by class will vastly reduce the matching probabilities for matchmaker and will probably force it to breach the ELO ratings quite often to find matches of a suitable class.

Think on it this way. You have X number of players players at any given time. X/4 number of those players need to be running each class for all players to find matches.


3/3/3/3 assumes that: A- There will be sufficient players of each class online and not in matches already to make new matches. B- It assumes that there is no tendency in players to favour certain classes in general. C- It assumes that people don't enjoy running certain grouping types (eg light wolfpack or mediumlance Flank hammers).

[Warrior UK]

Tonnage all the way, here's hoping the 3/3/3/3 rule is a flop........

[Cart]

Balance by tonnage has also the flaw, that we would probably see 6 assaults an 6 lights then...or thing's like that...I don't really like the Idea of fighting against 6 D-DCs and 6 ECM-Ravens or Spiders sniping my back with ER-PPCs or ER-LL. This would make 6x100t+6x30t=780t which could by matched with a more moderate Team on the other side.
Or do think of matching the tonnage "Mech by Mech"? That would make the time to find a Match quite long...
So, a true Solution would have to be a comination of both...

Edited by Cart, 28 April 2014 - 12:02 AM.

[King Arthur IV]

well with 3333, we could go up against 4 raven3L/ spider, 4 DDC, 4 Cicada 3m.... omg that's 2 more ecm then tonnage balancing!!!!! ARHJG@#$SDFG#$TDGR%^$^#$%

6 assault and 6 light has a huge flaw. one group is slow as and the other is weak as. if you manage to take the lights out really fast, then the assaults are naked.

i dont get why people choose to focus on the worse case scenario and think that, that is the end of the world.

i am still opposed to 3333. original tonnage balancing was more flexible, creative, lighter variant friendly no restrictions on what you bring unless in 12man. there was just more in terms of creating team compositions and counter play and different styles of play.

Edited by King Arthur IV, 28 April 2014 - 02:54 AM.

[Flaming oblivion]

3./3/3/3 first may as well they're hardly going to pull it back now they've developed it , If there's more balance needed sure go for it but 3/3/3/3 is here to stay I feel. And I suspect can only help make it harder on premades/ meta builds (not impossible) Just harder to really exploit and make games unwinnable by sheer rawr fire power, which can only be good.

[Cart]

King Arthur IV, on 28 April 2014 - 01:01 AM, said:

well with 3333, we could go up against 4 raven3L/ spider, 4 DDC, 4 Cicada 3m.... omg that's 2 more ecm then tonnage balancing!!!!! ARHJG@#$SDFG#$TDGR%^$^#$%

6 assault and 6 light has a huge flaw. one group is slow as and the other is weak as. if you manage to take the lights out really fast, then the assaults are naked.

i dont get one people choose to focus on the worse case scenario and think that, that is the end of the world.

i am still opposed to 3333. original tonnage balancing was more flexible, creative, lighter variant friendly no restrictions on what you bring unless in 12man. there was just more in terms of creating team compositions and counter play and different styles of play.

Just to mention it again: 3/3/3/3 means, 3 Assault, 3 Heavies, 3 Mediums and 3 Lights. This makes 4 D-DCs, 4 ECM-Cicadas or 4 ECM-Ravens/Spiders/Commandos hardly work, or not?
So let me calculate this for you: 3 D-DCs+3 ECM-Cicadas+3 ECM-Lights (no ECM-Heavies exist), makes 9 ECM-Mechs at max. With tonnage-limit it's easily possible to start with 12 ECM-Mechs, thats 3 more. But that wasn't the point...the point ist, that 6 assaults and 6 lights vs a mix of all weight-classes wouldn't be an even match.
And most arguments against 3/3/3/3 are also based on worst-case scenarios...
I don't say, that 3/3/3/3 is the philosophers stone itself, but it's worth a try and like Flaming oblivion already wrote... :

Flaming oblivion, on 28 April 2014 - 01:03 AM, said:

3./3/3/3 first may as well they're hardly going to pull it back now they've developed it , If there's more balance needed sure go for it but 3/3/3/3 is here to stay I feel. And I suspect can only help make it harder on premades/ meta builds (not impossible) Just harder to really exploit and make games unwinnable by sheer rawr fire power, which can only be good.

...it's incoming, wether we're whining or not...so let's give it a try...

Edited by Cart, 28 April 2014 - 02:22 AM.

[Magna Canus]

Tonnage limits are great for organized play, and that is the key word here; organized.
This means that for a group of people who have the means of communicating with each other AND the will to find some sort of balance agreement by ceding tons to team members will be able to use tonnage limits effectively, efficiently, and in a timely manner.

Place a pure tonnage limit system in the hands of 12 plug-and-play randoms who neither know each other, nor care if their 100t Atlas takes up "too much space" in the dropship and you have a disaster waiting for you. Force these 12 to find some sort of agreement before they enter combat and it may take them half an hour to finally "get it right". No thanks, I don't need 11 random guys wasting my time when I PUG, or 8 when running with my Team.

In PUG play 4x3 is the closest you can get to tonnage limits while still allowing the MM to pick and choose who to stick where. I don't like the system and would much prefer all the ideas Koniving places on the table, but we have to deal with what is practical vs. what is optimal. Purely matching randoms ton to ton is not going to work out well with the suspected low population. How many people are really running around in a 20 ton mech at any given time of day on any particular day of the week?

I think private matches should use the pure tonnage limits, at least there you can choose with whom you are playing and what the "rules of engagement" are.

Personally I like the idea of the GGClose types having to "give up" a 4th assault for a heavy (e.g. trade a HGN for a CTF3D). Even if it is only a small concession, it is still a concession.

[Flaming oblivion]

They'll have to do more then that if they want to farm the PuGs they generally feed on not to mention the other side will have a guaranteed premade to now, And if they want to roll 3 assaults and a heavy all on meta builds, seriously good luck to em they better hope there's gaps in the que in there elo range for 3 assaults not to mention another premade waiting , I sense all the bad things about this game are about to get at worst slightly better.

[King Arthur IV]

Cart, on 28 April 2014 - 02:09 AM, said:

Just to mention it again: 3/3/3/3 means, 3 Assault, 3 Heavies, 3 Mediums and 3 Lights. This makes 4 D-DCs, 4 ECM-Cicadas or 4 ECM-Ravens/Spiders/Commandos hardly work, or not?
So let me calculate this for you: 3 D-DCs+3 ECM-Cicadas+3 ECM-Lights (no ECM-Heavies exist), makes 9 ECM-Mechs at max. With tonnage-limit it's easily possible to start with 12 ECM-Mechs, thats 3 more. But that wasn't the point...the point ist, that 6 assaults and 6 lights vs a mix of all weight-classes wouldn't be an even match.
And most arguments against 3/3/3/3 are also based on worst-case scenarios...
I don't say, that 3/3/3/3 is the philosophers stone itself, but it's worth a try and like Flaming oblivion already wrote... :

...it's incoming, wether we're whining or not...so let's give it a try...

aw shit my mistake, long day can't count.

my position is still "12 ecm... so what?" my point is 6 assault and 6 lights might have a counter where as 3333 is too rigid.

[ImperialKnight]

I wish people would stop distorting my ideas.

There is NO tonnage limit on the team. Which part of that do people not understand? It's pure tonnage balancing while accounting for ELO. Solos and premades can bring whatever the hell they like. 12 Atlas vs 12 Atlas is a perfectly possible scenario.

If you wish to discuss a tonnage limits system, please start your own thread

3/3/3/3 reduces the possible permutations on the team, it places your heavy firepower in the hands of people you may not trust when you drop in a light/medium, it ends many possible tactical/strategic possibilities, for e.g. the light swarm. no one will ever feel the rush of a 8 light team beating the odds and destroying a heavier team.