263 replies to this topic

[WarZ]

I support 3,4,3,2.

3 lights, 4 mediums, 3 heavies, 2 assaults

I would even be tickled to see them put in 5 mediums and then 2 heavies as well.

But one way or the other class matching is severely needed.

[zolop]

What is currently detrimental to the MWO Community is not having tonnage limits per lance. If this is supposedly battletech we should be at max 240 tones per lance right? EDIT (240 tonnage max was from a different ruleset/game, sorry) They should have a Que for any group size with the option of solo players join only if they would want to (by adding a checkoff box prior to launch/drop in UI 2.0 for MWs not in a group).

But this solution is better than what we have now, not the best solution though. Again better than what we have now. Having 5+ assaults on a team with the other enemy team having few makes for less challenging gameplay and less teamwork needed on the team having 5+ assaults.

Personally would much rather just have the option mentioned above with tonnage class limit per lance (1 light, 1 medium, 1 heavy, 1 assault) with a group que option (with solo players able to choose to fill in spots).

EDIT2 AGree significant Role warfare instead of tonnage limits would be a better alternative idea..

Edited by zolop, 18 March 2014 - 02:10 PM.

[Khobai]

If you actually read the command chair post... 3/3/3/3 is going to eventually be accompanied by tonnage matching. Its going to try and match tonnages as closely as possible.

[YueFei]

FupDup, on 17 March 2014 - 10:39 AM, said:

Tonnage Limits, 3/3/3/3, Tiers, Battlevalue....


Why not just have Role Warfare? Why not have maps larger than shoe boxes, so that mobility and scouting are much more important? Why not restructure rewards so that shooting everything that moves isn't the only reliable way to make some cash? Why not give each class (or possibly even chassis, if we're ambitious enough) their own unique XP tree, instead of giving every single mech the same copy-paste that reduces the weaknesses of mechs that shouldn't really be maneuverable (notice how most of the XP tree unlocks are based on making your mech more agile?)? Why not have every class able to be equally valuable contributors to their team, while having vastly different (but complementing) strengths and weaknesses?

...But we can't have that, because PGI prefers their "top tier avatar" system. They want to clearly outline which mechs they want to be the best in the game and which mechs they want to shine the shoes of the top dogs.

1000 times, this.

[YueFei]

Maybe if the NFL mandates that offenses always put 2 running backs, 1 tight end, and 2 wide receivers in on EVERY SINGLE PLAY, the game of professional football will become better balanced and more exciting to watch, too? Oh wait, no it wouldn't, it would remove so much variety, and the NFL has no need to mandate such silly restrictions because they've designed the sport in such a way that there are multiple formations and personnel packages that you can use to succeed, forcing opposing teams to evolve counters to them, and in turn evolving counters to those counters, and so on....

[Khobai]

The superbowl was pretty boring to watch if you ask me. That was some awful matchmaking.

[YueFei]

Khobai, on 17 March 2014 - 08:25 PM, said:

The superbowl was pretty boring to watch if you ask me. That was some awful matchmaking.

Denver played badly.... and Seattle had an excellent game plan on defense. Hell, they have a defense designed to stop an offense where the QB is a severe running threat, they have a scheme that tilts the arithmetic back in their favor when it's a full 11 on 11. With Peyton creating almost zero threat as a runner, it was just that much easier for Seattle.

[Khobai]

yes but I would argue that in the case of the superbowl it wouldve been more enjoyable to watch and less one-sided if the NFL actually had rules which balanced the two teams better.

My point being, the NFL has the exact same problem MWO does now when it comes to games being one-sided.

[Vanguard319]

I doubt 3333 will fix anything, because it's not addressing the real issue: The disparity of skilled players between sides, and the quality of the mechs being piloted. If you have a team of elite players in ace custom lights, versus a team of noobs in stock assaults, then the elites are very likely going to win, just by virtue of them having more experience, and knowing how to use their mechs effectively. You can't really measure that, and the only effective counter is hard-earned experience.

[Daekar]

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.

This isn't to say that class balance doesn't need work. An ideal setup would include provisions that resulted in 3-3-3-3 or 3-4-3-2 drops by the free choice of players. Without nerfing pinpoint damage, fixing SRMs, and scaling down the medium mech models by 25%, I don't really see that happening. Their current plan is probably the best that can be practically implemented under current development constraints. Perhaps after the major feature roll-outs are finished, those other items can be better addressed.

Edited by Daekar, 17 March 2014 - 09:10 PM.

[YueFei]

You all miss the point. The NFL has curbstomps as a result of SKILL and COACHING and GAME PLANNING mismatches. Not because of WEIGHT mismatches.

You don't win NFL games by stacking your entire roster with 350+ pound dudes. I wonder why? Is it possibly because the sport is well designed such that there are ROLES in the game that are better suited to SMALLER and FASTER athletes?

Remember the Role Warfare PILLARS that were PROMISED us at the game's INCEPTION?

Ya'll gave up on that already? Come on, bro.

Edited by YueFei, 17 March 2014 - 09:12 PM.

[Daekar]

YueFei, on 17 March 2014 - 09:10 PM, said:

You all miss the point. The NFL has curbstomps as a result of SKILL and COACHING and GAME PLANNING mismatches. Not because of WEIGHT mismatches.

You don't win NFL games by stacking your entire roster with 350+ pound dudes. I wonder why? Is it possibly because the sport is well designed such that there are ROLES in the game that are better suited to SMALLER and FASTER athletes?

Remember the Role Warfare PILLARS that were PROMISED us at the game's INCEPTION?

Ya'll gave up on that already? Come on, bro.

Point well made about the determining factors in NFL games. I agree with you about role warfare - like I said, in a game with clearly useful roles for all weight classes, the 3-3-3-3 drop deck would happen voluntarily. I still hold out hope for that kind of balance, but mandatory company structures will do for now.

[Bagheera]

FupDup, on 17 March 2014 - 10:39 AM, said:

Why not just have Role Warfare? Why not have maps larger than shoe boxes, so that mobility and scouting are much more important? Why not restructure rewards so that shooting everything that moves isn't the only reliable way to make some cash? Why not give each class (or possibly even chassis, if we're ambitious enough) their own unique XP tree, instead of giving every single mech the same copy-paste that reduces the weaknesses of mechs that shouldn't really be maneuverable (notice how most of the XP tree unlocks are based on making your mech more agile?)? Why not have every class able to be equally valuable contributors to their team, while having vastly different (but complementing) strengths and weaknesses?

...But we can't have that, because PGI prefers their "top tier avatar" system. They want to clearly outline which mechs they want to be the best in the game and which mechs they want to shine the shoes of the top dogs.

So much this.

[xMEPHISTOx]

WarZ, on 17 March 2014 - 07:00 PM, said:

I support 3,4,3,2.

3 lights, 4 mediums, 3 heavies, 2 assaults

I would even be tickled to see them put in 5 mediums and then 2 heavies as well.

But one way or the other class matching is severely needed.

None of that is right, a simple weight matching would be quite sufficient, the proposed 3-3-3-3 will just increase wait times that are already long enough presently.

[Kyle Wright]

Daekar, on 17 March 2014 - 06:26 PM, said:

Given that you've played enough to accumulate that many mechs, I would be embarrassed for you if you couldn't. Just because I'm a Founder doesn't mean I'm good at the game, and my skill level has nothing to do with my ability to evaluate the impact of weight balancing. I'm at an ELO level that gives me drops that oscillate between totally random drops and complete metafests... that variety is fine with me.

Thats fine and understandable. Yeah ive put a lot of time into this game and do suffer the drops where you get a nice balance and stomp the other team, or am stomp in turn by 4Victors, an Atlas, Highlander, etc... Every now and then you get matchs that go mech for mech but they are rare. I just think 3,3,3,3 will just create cookie cutter builds at different weight classes to exploit the limited tonnage, furthering the lack of chassis precent on the battlefield. I mean why would you ever choose a Blackjack or Trenchbucket over a Shadowhawk or Wolverine. They have more tonnage to carry more armor and more weapons.

[Setzz]

They gave their reasons why they're doing 3/3/3/3, I understand their concept, I have to say it's better than nothing at all, but personally I'd like to see it more like:

• A "loose"-ish 3 weight buckets: 2-4 Lights / 6-8 mix of Mediums and Heavies / 2 Assaults
  
• Or in a stricter scenario, 4 weight buckets: 2-4 Lights / 4-6 Mediums / 2 Heavies / 2 Assaults

Numbers are approximate but to me that seems to fit the whole MWO logic and lore better.

[PhyroPhyre]

This discussion ended when FupDup posted.

[Rubidiy]

Well, at least a majority of players here agreed that something has to be changed. No matter the downsides of offered changes, current situation with matchmaking is awful. I'm not overstating, because when 9 matches out of 10 are ended with score 12-3 or 12-0, it means an awful game balance for me. Matchmaker should be changed drastically, because both winning 12-0 and loosing 0-12 is no fun.

Edited by Rubidiy, 17 March 2014 - 11:24 PM.

[PhoenixFire55]

FupDup, on 17 March 2014 - 10:39 AM, said:

Tonnage Limits, 3/3/3/3, Tiers, Battlevalue....


Why not just have Role Warfare? Why not have maps larger than shoe boxes, so that mobility and scouting are much more important? Why not restructure rewards so that shooting everything that moves isn't the only reliable way to make some cash? Why not give each class (or possibly even chassis, if we're ambitious enough) their own unique XP tree, instead of giving every single mech the same copy-paste that reduces the weaknesses of mechs that shouldn't really be maneuverable (notice how most of the XP tree unlocks are based on making your mech more agile?)? Why not have every class able to be equally valuable contributors to their team, while having vastly different (but complementing) strengths and weaknesses?

...But we can't have that, because PGI prefers their "top tier avatar" system. They want to clearly outline which mechs they want to be the best in the game and which mechs they want to shine the shoes of the top dogs.

Can't be QFT anywhere near enough ...

[PhoenixFire55]

Khobai, on 17 March 2014 - 11:59 AM, said:

3/3/3/3 is far from ideal but I wouldnt say its detrimental. Its a HUGE improvement over what we have now: which is absolutely nothing.

What you mean nothing?

Elo is there for a long time and "working as intended^TM". All matches are close and end up with just one mech left standing at 25% health. All game modes are very fun to play and offer a superb variety of tactical choices so people always bring different chassis into games.
[/sarcasm]

Tell me ... if matchmaker is already "working as intended^TM" as they claim, why change it? The next one will be just as great and just as "working as intended^TM". PUGs will cry just the same because its the only thing they can do, until we'll be forced into yet another "working as intended^TM" MM hellhole PGI comes up with and this circle will repeat itself ...