263 replies to this topic

[PhoenixFire55]

YueFei, on 17 March 2014 - 07:57 PM, said:

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....

But the difference is that in NFL its always one same type of game, one same type of objective. While in BT/MW there are various objectives beyond 'kill them all'. It is 'kill them all' now in MWO but it shouldn't be.

[Mawai]

Setzz, on 17 March 2014 - 10:47 PM, said:

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.

Personally, I like the bucket idea. The goal is to create more balanced teams, not necessarily the same identically balanced mech distribution in each match.

However, all of these suggestions may not match what the player base actually uses to drop into a match. There are players who own only one class - assault, heavy, medium or light - or even just own only one or two mechs - they don't have a choice. Any fixed mech class distribution that does not adjust to the rate of different mech classes looking for matches will result in large queue times for the mechs with larger numbers entering the queues. Long queues for specific weight classes will not make most of these players try another mech ... it will make most of them rage quit ... which in the end is bad for MWO.

[BLOOD WOLF]

PhoenixFire55, on 18 March 2014 - 02:46 AM, said:

Same thing I'd do in real life situation, same thing they do in BT. BUT ... this happens nowadays just the same, not everyone, but some people still go and hide in order to protect a thing as meaningless as KDR. People who fight to the end will still fight to the end, people who don't still won't. It has nothing or very little to do with R&R.



Cadet bonus is a start, but game very much needs to be changed for new players. In a lot of ways, starting at the fact that they should NOT be dropped in games with people who have 100+ games of experience. Tutorials, better in-game tips and pop-up help screens, you name it. This is huge one, but a separate issue.



Nope. No incentive to cap, no incentive to not-blop. The only reason not every single match is blop vs blop is because people tend to do stupid things time to time (even good players).



One can hope, question is how long one can hope.



Just proves the point really. A guy who does best in light will drive a light no matter what. Its just easier to do well in assaults now thus more people in assaults.

Just one thing, i would say their incentive to cap. When i drop with the wolves, and we drop conquest. More importance is placed on capping, unless the situation calls to just destroy enemy mechs. I guess, the variable change the outcome greatly.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 18 March 2014 - 03:04 AM.

[Lupin]

Looking at this from a different point of view WHY 3-3-3-3.
We know match maker not good, but how much of this is due to players or pre-made team abuse.

No, 3-3-3-3 is not great, but it will help. And likely fine tuning will happen after that.

[PhoenixFire55]

MisterPlanetarian, on 18 March 2014 - 02:17 AM, said:

I don't get why people freak out over a weight class normalization aswell as a 4 man group cap with tonnage matching in 12 man pug mode.

Because when you simply want to play one mech and game hard forces you to play another one it is sad. The less options I have to play the game the way I want to the less I'll play it. This is exactly what happened after MM changes, lots of people just quit.

MisterPlanetarian, on 18 March 2014 - 02:17 AM, said:

People who just wanna run 8+4pugs vs 12 pugs should go back to Call of Duty. Pubstomping is incredibly boring and borderline exploititive when you concider it is incentivized by Cbill rewards.

Nobody ever wanted that. Is it really that hard to understand that some people just want to team up with their friends instead of random individuals. This is a TEAM game, I want to bring MY team, I will rely on MY team and MY team quality will decide if we win or lose, not the random draw of the MM. Let us drop in groups of 2-10 and I will be perfectly happy, I will FULLY expect the other team to be the same 2-10 man groups. There is nothing wrong with haveing 8 man premade and 4 PUGs on one team as long as there is 8 man premade and 4 PUGs on the other.

MisterPlanetarian, on 18 March 2014 - 02:17 AM, said:

Personally I am really looking forward to not be forced into min-maxing all the time. What I really want is a public ingame chat and something that actually fosters unit formations. 84% of games being pure solo or whatever it was is simply a product of the fact that we have no community building tools in the game client.

Nobody is forced into it, its just you are less likely to win if you don't min-max. People who don't min-max don't go too high in Elo rankings and thus they play vs same kind of people. It is a much happier place than the 'competitive' Elo tier. Problem is MM allows a 'competitive' 4-man group to be balanced with a 'casual' one.

84% drops are solo ... 2-man drop actually involves 2 people, thus it should add twice as much into population % and so on. Also, the more people are in a group the slower is your drop rate, you just do less drops per hour.

MisterPlanetarian, on 18 March 2014 - 02:17 AM, said:

With the launch module You can create all kinds of artificial matchmaking rules for 12v12 even in the free games

As long as you always have at least 23 friends online ...

MisterPlanetarian, on 18 March 2014 - 02:17 AM, said:

and do even more rediculous stuff like 12v10 in the premium games.

And pay to have fun in the free-to-play game or have no fun in PUGs for free.

Edit:grammar

Edited by PhoenixFire55, 18 March 2014 - 03:16 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Eddrick, on 17 March 2014 - 10:58 AM, said:

It's a substitute for Tonnage Limits. But, like FupDup said, Role Warfare would go much farther with balancing Mechs and Weight Classes.

Tonnage limits are great and all. But why can't my friends and I be an Assault Company or a Skirmisher Company? This universe IS very diverse. But what many people here want is not diverse at all. You can take anything you want... So long as you only take it this way! You have to bring what I want to fight. I don't like those weapons so leave them out... THIS is you idea of diversity? Its a fighting game but all I keep reading is, "Oh I don't like fighting that, its to powerful... This is a game of giant robot warfare. And fighting isn't about fair and Player vs Player games should be, you bring your best I bring mine. Caustic Valley, Noon (-5 GMT).

Instead all I keep reading is,
"Oh that's to hard to beat!"(Nerf this)

"Billy's not playing fair!"(Nerf Pop Tarts)

"Johnny brought an Atlas again!"(Weight limits)

You are grown Men & Women. Start acting like it.

This game lets us all use the same equipment. All of it. We can use. If we choose to limit ourselves and our opponent doesn't, So long as it is allowed by PGI it is fair and it is legal. Quit whining, accept you lost because you didn't plan properly. Evaluate the situation, and adapt.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 18 March 2014 - 03:25 AM.

[wanderer]

*sighs*

PGI's math on the whole thing was borked.

Roughly 1 in 3 players is dropping in a group at this point,even with the abominable system we have now.

Truth is, we'd have more group-droppers if PGI actually had a decent grouping system in place- and simply separated PUGs from it unless said PUG player toggled a "I don't mind being filler" button.

[PhoenixFire55]

BLOOD WOLF, on 18 March 2014 - 03:03 AM, said:

Just one thing, i would say their incentive to cap. When i drop with the wolves, and we drop conquest. More importance is placed on capping, unless the situation calls to just destroy enemy mechs. I guess, the variable change the outcome greatly.

Perhaps. But just how many mechs you 'invest' into capping? Thats same amout of mechs less in a fight. The outcome of the match does not depend on how good you cap, it depends on how long the rest of your team can hold against an overwhelming odds of entire enemy team. If they hold long enough, even if they all die, enemy team won't have time to spread out and cap all the points. If they don't, well ... you lost because now you are facing even worse odds. And you can't tell me that the capping mechs will pick enemy one by one, because they aren't in a group themselves or otherwise they can't cap effectively. And if they capped everything, took no damage and then gathered - I'm gonna tell you that such level of cohesion will bring you the victory in most games no matter what you choose to do, cap or fight.

Lupin, on 18 March 2014 - 03:09 AM, said:

We know match maker not good, but how much of this is due to players or pre-made team abuse.

About as much as PUG abuse.

[sokitumi]

Another inadequate, contrived, and convoluted mess. Total drop weight difference +/- 50 tons too difficult? Equal amount of pre-mades per side beyond comprehension? Good ideas in this thread so far, but why are you bothering anymore? Have we learned nothing over the last 2 years? Now go buy another hero....

Wouldn't a proper lobby system solve all kinds of these problems? You know where a player could setup the drop conditions - game type, weight/chasis limits etc etc.

pgi guy1: "Lets reinvent the wheel!"
pgi guy2: "Great idea bro! Let's make it square."
pgi guy1: "You're a genius."
pgi guy2: "No you're a genius."
forum guy 1: "a square wheel is terrible idea."
forum guy 2: "They know what they're doing! It's a beta wheel work in progress!"
pgi guy 1: "Can we get this guy moderator status?"
pgi guy2: "That's my alt..."

[MisterPlanetarian]

wanderer, on 18 March 2014 - 03:23 AM, said:

*sighs*

PGI's math on the whole thing was borked.

Roughly 1 in 3 players is dropping in a group at this point,even with the abominable system we have now.

Truth is, we'd have more group-droppers if PGI actually had a decent grouping system in place- and simply separated PUGs from it unless said PUG player toggled a "I don't mind being filler" button.

I agree completely.

I'm mainly in favour of 3/3/3/3 for pugs with weight matching because I can finally play a Dragon or a Hunchback without shooting myself in the foot. You can get "even teams" with ten highlanders and two cataphracts sure but if you're fine with that then why even bother releasing medium or light mechs at all?

Before you say "buff mediums" you have to understand it's not that simple. If an AC20 weighs the same on a Hunchback as it does on a Victor how in the world can the Hunchback ever be a viable alternative? The only way to solve that is to break with battletech rules completely even if that means leaving the weapon alone. You could give the Hunchie a 360 Torso twist and it would still struggle against a 65 ton mech simply because of how tonnage translates into firepower and protection on a perfectly linear scale.

Edited by MisterPlanetarian, 18 March 2014 - 04:13 AM.

[R Razor]

Shermburger, on 17 March 2014 - 01:31 PM, said:

Cute.

It's a problem with the game, and they are making a genuine attempt to deal with it. Ignoring the problem doesn't make it any less of a problem.

You'll notice that his favorite mechs are either a light with the hit boxes of a Spider and the firepower of a medium, or an ECM Spider with, well, the hit boxes of a Spider..........both very hard to consistently put damage on, both capable of fighting well outside of their weight class in even unskilled hands, and both detrimental to the game when not restricted in number on the battlefield.

You have to expect people like that to cry when they know their advantage is going to go the way of the Dodo Bird.

Joseph Mallan, on 18 March 2014 - 03:23 AM, said:

Tonnage limits are great and all. But why can't my friends and I be an Assault Company or a Skirmisher Company? This universe IS very diverse. But what many people here want is not diverse at all. You can take anything you want... So long as you only take it this way! You have to bring what I want to fight. I don't like those weapons so leave them out... THIS is you idea of diversity? Its a fighting game but all I keep reading is, "Oh I don't like fighting that, its to powerful... This is a game of giant robot warfare. And fighting isn't about fair and Player vs Player games should be, you bring your best I bring mine. Caustic Valley, Noon (-5 GMT).

Instead all I keep reading is,
"Oh that's to hard to beat!"(Nerf this)

"Billy's not playing fair!"(Nerf Pop Tarts)

"Johnny brought an Atlas again!"(Weight limits)

You are grown Men & Women. Start acting like it.

This game lets us all use the same equipment. All of it. We can use. If we choose to limit ourselves and our opponent doesn't, So long as it is allowed by PGI it is fair and it is legal. Quit whining, accept you lost because you didn't plan properly. Evaluate the situation, and adapt.

Planning isn't planning and options aren't options if you can only choose one set of something in order to be competitive.......surely you realize this.

[Joseph Mallan]

R Razor, on 18 March 2014 - 04:13 AM, said:

Planning isn't planning and options aren't options if you can only choose one set of something in order to be competitive.......surely you realize this.

And Competitive isn't Competitive if you are not fighting every and anything that can come your way.

[Modo44]

Lupin, on 18 March 2014 - 03:09 AM, said:

We know match maker not good, but how much of this is due to players or pre-made team abuse.

It is not "abuse" when it remains within the game rules. It is on PGI for allowing, and even generating silly team mismatches. Yes, generating, because a big part of the problem comes from the matchmaker building teams instead of entire matches.

[Joseph Mallan]

Modo44, on 18 March 2014 - 04:16 AM, said:

It is not "abuse" when it remains within the game rules. It is on PGI for allowing, and even generating silly team mismatches. Yes, generating, because a big part of the problem comes from the matchmaker building teams instead of entire matches.

What do you mean by building Matches? This sounds interesting(in a good way)!

[Prezimonto]

Joseph Mallan, on 18 March 2014 - 03:23 AM, said:

Tonnage limits are great and all. But why can't my friends and I be an Assault Company or a Skirmisher Company? This universe IS very diverse. But what many people here want is not diverse at all. You can take anything you want... So long as you only take it this way! You have to bring what I want to fight. I don't like those weapons so leave them out... THIS is you idea of diversity? Its a fighting game but all I keep reading is, "Oh I don't like fighting that, its to powerful... This is a game of giant robot warfare. And fighting isn't about fair and Player vs Player games should be, you bring your best I bring mine. Caustic Valley, Noon (-5 GMT).

Well the nice thing about tonnage limits is that you can create games with a variety of tonnage limits, but keep the variation low per team per match.

So if you take an Assault lance, expect to face roughly equal tonnage.

There's nothing that says all matches have to have a player average of 200±10 tons per lance... maybe you drop in a game and the player average is 350±10 per lance and everyone's got an assault.

It just limits the unequal tonnage match ups, saving those for the private matches where hopefully people know what they're doing.

[Caswallon]

TIME OUT!!!

I have misgivings too however lets play it for say oh I dunno a week then dissect it. Nothing can make up for broken promises "change of positions" etc but lets not get bogged down. See how it plays THEN give real feed back.

[Joseph Mallan]

Prezimonto, on 18 March 2014 - 04:24 AM, said:

Well the nice thing about tonnage limits is that you can create games with a variety of tonnage limits, but keep the variation low per team per match.

So if you take an Assault lance, expect to face roughly equal tonnage.

There's nothing that says all matches have to have a player average of 200±10 tons per lance... maybe you drop in a game and the player average is 350±10 per lance and everyone's got an assault.

It just limits the unequal tonnage match ups, saving those for the private matches where hopefully people know what they're doing.

Why? Why do I NEED to expect it? I would be more afraid of a Hussar/Skirmisher force than another Assault force. The Game I am here for is the CW Battle v The Clans, not this touchy feelly its gotta be fair malarkey I keep reading. I have yet to see a build I thought would be "Unfair" for a Clanner to have. I have had good success against all of them as well... Which does make my enemy to weak. If your a Hussar unit, you better have the ability to win using speed and hit and run tactics against all but the best heavy units.

[Modo44]

Joseph Mallan, on 18 March 2014 - 04:17 AM, said:

What do you mean by building Matches? This sounds interesting(in a good way)!

First, gather 24 players based on the current team restrictions times two (6/6/6/6 and similar skill). Once you have that, further refine the match by moving them between teams. Heck, if you RNG a map, you can use that map's win stats to spawn the weaker team on the stronger side (you know they are not equal, admit it). You know all players+mechs, and the map, so the second round of skill+weight balancing comes down to sorting with weights on a very small dataset. That second step does not exist in the current matchmaker, and with a time limit, the highest/lowest skill brackets routinely force match imbalances.

Edited by Modo44, 18 March 2014 - 04:36 AM.

[wanderer]

Not to mention that community warfare doesn't equal what we're doing here.

PGI has yet to discover the ability to make game modes that require, say, speed vs. pure weight crushing firepower. Until they do, balance is pretty much required.

[Joseph Mallan]

Modo44, on 18 March 2014 - 04:34 AM, said:

First, gather 24 players based on the current team restrictions times two 1)(6/6/6/6 and similar skill). Once you have that, further refine the match by moving them between teams. Heck, if you RNG a map, you can use that map's win stats to spawn the weaker team on the stronger side (you know they are not equal, admit it). You know all players+mechs, and the map, so the second round of skill+weight balancing comes down to sorting with weights on a very small dataset. That second step does not exist in the current matchmaker, and with a time limit, the highest/lowest skill brackets routinely force match imbalances.

Some questions:
1) Why 6/6/6/6? If we are constructing this Why MUST the sides be balanced on this? I am personally for players who group up bringing their best against one another and seeing who wins. That match up does not need t be 6/6/6/6. I remember getting trampled by an 8 man of YLWs and we were a Heavy/Assault 8 man with 2 lights for spotters.

2) I like the idea of giving the supposed weaker team the "home field advantage".