6 replies to this topic

[LordSkippy]

A/B/C/D Drop Templates - Modified 3/3/3/3

This suggestion isn't to do away with 3/3/3/3, but to modify it to be more flexible.

Modification #1:

Instead of having a set 3/3/3/3 drop template, have a pool of different templates. These templates can be either lore based, such as 4/4/2/2 and even 3/6/2/1 to represent more light and mediums with fewer heavy or assaults. Or the templates can be based on a sampling of the current queue populate, so if the queue has a larger number of mediums and heavies a template of 2/4/4/2 can be used.

Modification #2:
Keep the maximum of one 2-4 man team per side, but allow the 2-4 man team to bring any combination of 'Mechs. Then, have the match maker use a template to allows that combination. For instance, if group A takes four mediums and group B takes four assaults, a 2/4/2/4 or 3/4/1/4 template could be used based on the queue populate of lights and assaults.

Modification #3:
Display the drop template on the ready up screen for easy reference.

Pros Of 3/3/3/3 Kept:

The advantage of 3/3/3/3 is that it keeps the groups even and balanced. A/B/C/D still keeps the even and balanced groups, because both teams will have the same weight class composition and similar tonnage.

Advantages:

Not only does this modified version of 3/3/3/3 allow players to take the 'Mech they want without worring about restrictions, and give better diversity of drops. Not all drops will be exactly 3/3/3/3. With 4/4/2/2 one round, 4/2/2/4 the next, and 4/6/2/0 the next, the drops will stay fresh and different.

Also, since the templates can be picked based on the weight class makeup of the queue, match times can be reduced. Faster drops, means more fun!

[Bobzilla]

I'd have to say 3/3/3/3 because the mix template would cause more people picking the same class. If the majority of mechs are assault and heavy, then drops could be faster for assault and heavy, so even more people will pick them causing less waits for them causing more people to use them....and so on.

People tend to pick what's used most and migrate towards similarity. Also with less heavy and assault being filled with mediums and lights, it benifits mediums causing them to be used more.

[LordSkippy]

Bobzilla, on 25 April 2014 - 04:46 AM, said:

I'd have to say 3/3/3/3 because the mix template would cause more people picking the same class. If the majority of mechs are assault and heavy, then drops could be faster for assault and heavy, so even more people will pick them causing less waits for them causing more people to use them....and so on.

People tend to pick what's used most and migrate towards similarity. Also with less heavy and assault being filled with mediums and lights, it benifits mediums causing them to be used more.

I disagree. I don't think you are realizing the flexibility potential in having multiple templates. At high population times, more games can follow the 3/3/3/3 template, or even more lore based templates such as 4/4/2/2, 4/5/2/1, 4/4/3/1. Which actually gives more games with a lean to mediums and lights, while keeping drop weight times low.

However, when the queue population is low, like during the LM public test last night, wait times skyrocketed due to certain weight classes being under represented. I literally left to eat dinner after waiting for ten minutes, and still made it back in time to play. Being able to shift the template from a lore based template or the 3/3/3/3 template to one that matches weight class distribution in the queue would dramatically reduce that wait time.

You might point out that a 4/4/3/1 drop template would cause assault pilots wait times to go up even during high population times. And that would be true, if that was the only template being used. However, since each drop can use a different template, an assault heavy template can be used to clear out assault pilots waiting in the queue.

All that really matters is that the average weight class drop number is in line with the queue's population of that weight class. For instance, if the queue has an even population across weight classes, then drops of 4/4/2/2, 2/2/4/4, 3/3/3/3, 6/2/2/2, 2/6/2/2, 2/2/6/2, and 2/2/2/6 will meet the queue's population need, give balanced teams, and diversity. However, if the queue is a little assault heavy and light on mediums, template drops of 4/3/3/2, 3/2/4/3, 3/1/3/5, 4/2/2/4, 3/2/3/4, and 4/2/3/3 can be used to field more assaults and less mediums. While, at the same time, only one drop out of the six was overly assault heavy, only two had more assaults than other classes, three were assaults weren't the most populous, and one even had less assaults than other classes.

With A/B/C/D you get balance with diversity, instead of the same weight class make-up game, after game, after game, after game.

[Mechteric]

I wouldn't mind some diversity, but probably should never have more than 4 of any one type in the possible combinations.

[Durant Carlyle]

The devs have said that they might modify the 3/3/3/3 once they have statistically significant telemetry data -- they specifically mentioned 3/4/3/2 as a possibility, but I imagine other templates will be as well.

[LordSkippy]

CapperDeluxe, on 25 April 2014 - 06:39 AM, said:

I wouldn't mind some diversity, but probably should never have more than 4 of any one type in the possible combinations.

Smaller changes from 3/3/3/3 over a longer period of time can be just as effective as larger changes over a shorter period of time. However, every once in a blue moon, it would be kind of nice to get in a drop with 5 or 6 mediums or lights on each side.

[Lostdragon]

I'd rather they not impose any restrictions and let people play whatever they want. When they put 3/3/3/3 in I predict rivers of tears will be shed over the long wait times some people will have to play their favorite mechs because there are not enough people playing lights and mediums. As long as teams are roughly equal in tonnage I could care less how many assault mechs there are, that's just more big slow targets for me to rip up. Let people play what they want.