263 replies to this topic

[Modo44]

Joseph Mallan, on 18 March 2014 - 05:47 AM, said:

1) Why 6/6/6/6? If we are constructing this Why MUST the sides be balanced on this?

I just added it to include current PGI plans. Presumably, it is designed to kill the premade advantage, 4xCarrylander or 4xJenner groups. It may not be necessary if the solo queue is separated. (Personally, I would rather see group weight limits, because 3/3/3/3 still allows you to game any system by skewing your premade setup.)

Edited by Modo44, 18 March 2014 - 05:51 AM.

[Shermburger]

PhoenixFire55, on 18 March 2014 - 01:07 AM, said:

I still prefer assault mechs in every MW/BT game.

Of course you do.

[Joseph Mallan]

Modo44, on 18 March 2014 - 05:50 AM, said:

I just added it to include current PGI plans. Presumably, it is designed to kill the premade advantage, 4xCarrylander or 4xJenner groups. It may not be necessary if the solo queue is separated. (Personally, I would rather see group weight limits, because 3/3/3/3 still allows you to game any system by skewing your premade setup.

My problem is I look at this from a old Dog's perspective. There is nothing wrong with using every trick (legally) in the book to win. So If I bring an Assault to fight you and you bring a Medium, you made your choice, if you didn't bring your best, its your fault you lost and if you did, then its MY fault you lost.

[Modo44]

Hence my approach: Make the worst system gaming literally impossible by design. I think it would be easier achieved at the group level, rather than by the matchmaker.

[Artgathan]

My biggest concern with the 3/3/3/3 system is that it's going to punish certain already bad mechs - specifically those at the low end of their weight class. At least with a tonnage-based system you could justify the presence of certain mechs. "Yeah, we took a Locust because we needed a spotter and extra tonnage to upgrade one of our assaults to an Atlas."

Now if you bring certain mechs you're just sandbagging your team. Why take a Locust instead of a Jenner? Why take a Dragon or Quickdraw instead of a Cataphract? A Cicada instead of a Shadowhawk?

[PhoenixFire55]

Shermburger, on 18 March 2014 - 05:52 AM, said:

Of course you do.

If you have smth to say apart from trying to pick a fight please say it. Otherwise please stop picking one phrase out of context.

[Roachbugg]

The only thin and i do mean the only thing that i see as a negative about 3/3/3/3 is the fact that me and my friends can no longer run our Steiner recon lance. And thats it seriously. yesterday i had at least 30 of the 50 matches I played yesterday the enemy team had mine out tonned by over 200 tons im sick of getting the short end of a 7 and 10 assault stomp blow or a wall of Meta Slayers curse pgi for ever adding jump capable assaults that could even make it off the ground.

[Mystere]

Reitrix, on 18 March 2014 - 02:41 AM, said:

In the current system, when i enter the queue, i just get to hope to hell i have enough Assault/heavies on my own team to last long enough to win.

Well, I on the other hand care more about the quality of my team members and opponents, and less about the hardware they bring. Nitwits in assaults and heavies are dime a dozen in this game. Any good veteran in any mech can deal with those inconsequential folk.

[Shermburger]

PhoenixFire55, on 18 March 2014 - 06:37 AM, said:

If you have smth to say apart from trying to pick a fight please say it. Otherwise please stop picking one phrase out of context.

I believe it was quite clear. Your favorites are assaults, and therefor you don't like that the game will no longer be completely dominated by a deluge of assaults rolling off the matchmaker.

3-3-3-3 isn't perfect. But it does promise more balanced game play than what we have now. There are certainly things I'd rather see done, but I have a feeling that assault jockies wouldn't like anything that marginalizes their complete and total dominance of the game, as it has been since the dark ages of NetMech.

[Nightfire]

The problem with the 3/3/3/3 is that it is, like every other intervention PGI has introduced, lazy reactionary thinking.

• There is a problem with and the effect on new solo players ... restrict group sizes down and stop larger groups!
  
• There is a problem with players boating weapons ... introduce ghost heat and and penalize players for doing exactly what Battletech actually does!
  
• There is a problem with players combining certain high damage weapons ... Gauss charge mechanic to further nerf that weapon and make it more difficult to use with other weapons!
  
• There is a problem with matchmaker taking too long to form matches ... Widen the ELO range until it is effectively meaningless!
  
• There is a problem with mismatched tonnage ... restrict the players options in what they can take or face longer match queue times!

Each one of these decisions smacks of an adversarial approach, that the decision was approached from the stand point of this being PGI against the players and the players must be shown that they will play MWO the way PGI wishes them to play or suffer consequences! With each decision PGI has made, I've seen more and more hardcore Battletech fans drift away from the game. The more PGI makes decisions from the stand point that they must crush errant behavior, the more they will chase players away.

Adding tonnage to the 3/3/3/3 weight class system will only exasperate the situation. The more conditions that must be met to form a match (ELO matching, weight class, tonnage) the longer it takes to meet each condition and finally form a match. With these short sighted, adversarial decisions chasing players from an already shrinking player base, it isn't going to help.

A system that is simple to evaluate at matchmaking time but capable of being expanded to encompass complex, detailed criteria (such as a BV type system) is the obvious and simple answer that doesn't start implicitly restricting players choices if they don't want to suffer for their choice of weight class being a popular one.

I'm left wondering if PGI has ever considered implementing solutions that help players and add depth rather than just punishing undesired behavior.

[Joseph Mallan]

Shermburger, on 18 March 2014 - 06:48 AM, said:

I believe it was quite clear. Your favorites are assaults, and therefor you don't like that the game will no longer be completely dominated by a deluge of assaults rolling off the matchmaker.

3-3-3-3 isn't perfect. But it does promise more balanced game play than what we have now. There are certainly things I'd rather see done, but I have a feeling that assault jockies wouldn't like anything that marginalizes their complete and total dominance of the game, as it has been since the dark ages of NetMech.

Oh us Assault jocks will still be Assault Jocks. However the IP this game is from has units that are not 3/3/3/3, They may be 2/4/4/2, or 1/1/5/5 or any number of combinations. Forcing vanilla will not make the game better.

[Mystere]

BLOOD WOLF, on 18 March 2014 - 12:31 AM, said:

what a second, i keep hearing this thing about predictability. this will have no effect on what mechs people take as it is still up to the player what he would want to bring. talking from a view of solo drops. A player is able to choose the mech he likes, the matchmaker will just sort them out.

But if they strictly stick to the 3-3-3-3 composition, what will happen to those 8-light wolf packs, Steiner scout lances, Highlander poptart lances, and all the other <censored> groups that people love to QQ about. Unlike those folks, I love facing such opponents. So yes, compared to now, 3-3-3-3 is more boring than vanilla.

And when a new mech is released, what happens to the wait times of those who try to level them at the same time. If wait times significantly increase for those people and the QQ trains start rolling again, will PGI be forced to relax the rules again?

[Shermburger]

Joseph Mallan, on 18 March 2014 - 06:52 AM, said:

Oh us Assault jocks will still be Assault Jocks. However the IP this game is from has units that are not 3/3/3/3, They may be 2/4/4/2, or 1/1/5/5 or any number of combinations. Forcing vanilla will not make the game better.

Better than 3/1/4/4, or 2/1/4/5 like we typically get these days. It's not like there's actually any missions in this game. It all boils down to tdm. Even Conquest often just boils down to tdm, with the team that actually went to capture the arbitrary flags being punished for doing so because the enemy team deathballed.

Since there exist no tactical considerations that might make a heavy/assault less than optimal, there has to be some sort of balancing mechanic. 3-3-3-3 is easier than making larger maps and reworking where objectives are placed on those maps and/or making game modes which benefit the lighter half of the mech family. And even if there were, some heavy mechs keep pace handily with mediums, regardless.

[Artgathan]

Shermburger, on 18 March 2014 - 06:48 AM, said:

I believe it was quite clear. Your favorites are assaults, and therefor you don't like that the game will no longer be completely dominated by a deluge of assaults rolling off the matchmaker.

3-3-3-3 isn't perfect. But it does promise more balanced game play than what we have now. There are certainly things I'd rather see done, but I have a feeling that assault jockies wouldn't like anything that marginalizes their complete and total dominance of the game, as it has been since the dark ages of NetMech.

I think this will actually have the effect of making teams that run 3 Assault + 1 Heavy stronger. Why? Assault mechs represent a disproportionate amount of their team's firepower. Handing control over that to a single coordinated group will allow that group to direct their team's power more efficiently.

I know I'm not explaining it well, so think of it like this:

Currently if you drop into a match you can have anywhere from 0 - 12 Assault mechs. If a premade group of 4 brings 4 assault mechs, and they land in a match where both teams have 8 assaults, the premade has smaller chances of winning than if they had landed in a match where they were the only 4 Assaults on their team, and the other team only had 4 assaults. Why? 4 coordinated mechs will roll 4 uncoordinated ones. 4 coordinated + 4 uncoordinated vs 8 uncoordinated... now the answer is less clear, because the coordinated unit represents less of the firepower.

EDIT: In short, I think 3/3/3/3 MM will make Assault mechs more dominant.

Edited by Artgathan, 18 March 2014 - 07:05 AM.

[Mystere]

Daekar, on 17 March 2014 - 09:04 PM, said:

Anyone who thinks US football doesn't suffer when teams are poorly matched hasn't watched enough football. Roflstomps aren't desirable in any sport, virtual or otherwise.

Well, the Superbowl is supposed to be played by the best two teams of that season. Well, millions witnessed the absolute massacre that was the last one.

[Joseph Mallan]

Fox Teeth
4L
5M
3H
Sorensen's Sabers
4L
4M
1H
3A

I would be hearing much pouting on the boards for the mismatch this is.

The Black Widow Company Wolf's Dragoons
4L
2M
6H

Nope no 3/3/3/3 balance here.

[PhoenixFire55]

Shermburger, on 18 March 2014 - 06:48 AM, said:

I believe it was quite clear. Your favorites are assaults, and therefor you don't like that the game will no longer be completely dominated by a deluge of assaults rolling off the matchmaker.

LOL You really believe it? If assaults are so dominant why would I not be happy about haveing LESS of them in my games? If only it makes it easier for me and my favorite assaults. I'd rather blow up 3 mediums than 1 assault.

Shermburger, on 18 March 2014 - 06:48 AM, said:

3-3-3-3 isn't perfect. But it does promise more balanced game play than what we have now.

No it does not.

[Voivode]

I have this crazy idea.

Why don't we judge it AFTER we try it?

*packs up logic and carries it away*

[PhoenixFire55]

Voivode, on 18 March 2014 - 07:07 AM, said:

Why don't we judge it AFTER we try it?

Because we've already been through this multiple times with multiple issues. People said Elo won't work and it isn't working. PGI says its working as intended and then change it. One whole year of working on MM ... wasted. How many years till no one will bother to play a broken game?

[Joseph Mallan]

Voivode, on 18 March 2014 - 07:07 AM, said:

I have this crazy idea.

Why don't we judge it AFTER we try it?

*packs up logic and carries it away*

Cause we had Class matching back in Beta... the crying was just the same as it is now.

Someone is going to bring
3x 35
3x 55
3x 75
3x 100

Or 695 Tons
2x Highlanders+ 1 Victor
3x Cataphracts
3x ECMCicada
3x ECMSpiders

And let the fair and balanced begin. No matter how balanced YOU want the ame someone WILL find a way to bring more bang than you want them to have.