11 replies to this topic

[Geeks On Hugs]

Look at an alternate balance solution. There are many reasons 3/3/3/3 is a bad idea described in many threads. I can reiterate them if anybody wants. Here I'd like to highlight what has been proposed as alternate balancing mechanisms which wouldn't be so limiting.

First, my personal favorite, is a TON limit threshold. This puts a limit on the DIFFERENCE in weights of competing groups. This would allow for balance while preserving maximum choice.

Second is a hard TON limit. This is the all out simplest solution but not necessarily perfectly balanced. The threshold is a greater refinement on this idea.

Third I'll just mention a catch all for complex battle formulas. This takes into account various factors and itself it's own topic.

Finally the most original idea I've heard so far is that rather than replace 3/3/3/3 use it as the seed for a template based system where you have other templates. So the 3/3/3/3 template would be one but there would be other templates with different ratios. Then you could have templates that WOULD ALLOW a light wolfplack lance or the type of battle you want to fight, giving back player control and maintaining balance.

Which do you like best if these options? Please reply here and/or vote in this poll.

Edited by Geeks On Hugs, 06 May 2014 - 10:45 AM.

[Summon3r]

Geeks On Hugs, on 06 May 2014 - 10:34 AM, said:

Look at an alternate balance solution. There are many reasons 3/3/3/3 is a bad idea described in many threads. I can reiterate them if anybody wants. Here I'd like to highlight what has been proposed as alternate balancing mechanisms which wouldn't be so limiting.

First, my personal favorite, is a TON limit threshold. This puts a limit on the DIFFERENCE in weights of competing groups. This would allow for balance while preserving maximum choice.

Second is a hard TON limit. This is the all out simplest solution but not necessarily perfectly balanced. The threshold is a greater refinement on this idea.

Third I'll just mention a catch all for complex battle formulas. This takes into account various factors and itself it's own topic.

Finally the most original idea I've heard so far is that rather than replace 3/3/3/3 use it as the seed for a template based system where you have other templates. So the 3/3/3/3 template would be one but there would be other templates with different ratios. Then you could have templates that WOULD ALLOW a light wolfplack lance or the type of battle you want to fight, giving back player control and maintaining balance.

Which do you like best if these options? Please reply here and/or vote in this poll.

this ^ ..... anything but the 3/3/3/3 or what ever garbage is going on as of late

[Thorqemada]

Its a honorable effort PGI undertakes though if the life environment of the game does not allow 3333 it would be nice if we could get at least Weightclassmatching and if a mismatch happens the Teams should have at least a tonnage as close as possible.

CW could offer scenarios were weigthclasses be restricted to any mix possible in several different combat theatres.

[Wildstreak]

I think they should just evolve Private to replace Public PUGging.
Allow Lobbys where you can join any team even if not on a Friends List.
Allow a toggle to turn on and off XP and CB rewards.
Private, even though I have not tried it, reading the features leads me to believe we, the community, have been given a tool that will and should evolve into allowing us to arrange balanced fights barring player skill. I said so here and posted here interesting ways Private could be used now.
Just evolve the Private Match feature, then hold the wake and funeral for Public PUGging.

Edited by Merchant, 06 May 2014 - 07:06 PM.

[Buso Senshi Zelazny]

I have played dozens of private matches with my friends, and from my experience strict tonnage matching doesn't guarantee a fair match. My friends and I have played mostly 4v4, and at first we just matched tonnage. We soon realized that if one team had 1 light and 1 assault plus med/heavies, while the other only had a mix of heavies and mediums, at equal tonnage, the team with the light had a distinct advantage almost every time. Spreading your tonnage to the extreme categories (Lights and Assaults) was more advantageous than bringing 4 mechs of similar tonnages.

What I think this boils down to is disparity in the capabilities of the mechs on the two teams. Having a light mech to scout the enemy position, and then harass and distract your enemy while your heavier mechs attack was way more successful than having say 2 mediums and 2 heavies. The light mech would draw the focus of at least one enemy, if not two, giving the team with the light either a tonnage advantage in a 3v3, or even worse, a 3v2. We then changed our rules to force each team to have one mech from each weight category, or to force all participants to pilot a mech from the same category. This resulted in much more balanced matches, and more fun for everyone involved.

Extrapolating this out to a full 12v12, you see the same thing, tonnage matching alone is not going to guarantee balanced matches. In the public matches we have now, the most successful teams are those with a mostly assaults, heavies, and a few lights, maybe the odd medium. 3/3/3/3 is a step in the right direction, but I think it is way too strict and is definitely a factor in the unacceptably long wait times experienced when it was implemented for a short time.

At the very least, I think we should have weight category matching between teams, so a 4/3/4/1 fights a 4/3/4/1. Personally, I think they should keep 3/3/3/3, but allow each category to be +/- 1, so at most you have 4 of one category, and the least you have would be 2. If they want to add tonnage matching after the "rough" category matching, then that would let some mechs at the bottom of their weight class (Dragons,Locusts, etc) be more viable in public matches. You would still have a worst case scenario of 4/4/2/2 vs. 2/2/4/4 in terms of tonnage disparity, but this would be mitigated by including tonnage restrictions to limit the tonnage difference between the teams.

[jackal40]

Frankly, as long as issues with hit detection exist - no amount of balancing by types is going to work. While I favor tonnage limits, I'd rather see something along the lines of a battle value which takes into account a players skill on that mech. While this might be difficult to assign a value to, this would be the best means to balance a match.

I don't see 3/3/3/3 as viable at all.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

I'd prefer to see a total ditching of Elo and a simple "if-then" statement limiting a single premade to each side.

Besides, as long as I have private matches, screw the PUG queue.

[T0rmented]

Buso Senshi Zelazny, on 12 May 2014 - 07:55 AM, said:

At the very least, I think we should have weight category matching between teams, so a 4/3/4/1 fights a 4/3/4/1. Personally, I think they should keep 3/3/3/3, but allow each category to be +/- 1, so at most you have 4 of one category, and the least you have would be 2. If they want to add tonnage matching after the "rough" category matching, then that would let some mechs at the bottom of their weight class (Dragons,Locusts, etc) be more viable in public matches. You would still have a worst case scenario of 4/4/2/2 vs. 2/2/4/4 in terms of tonnage disparity, but this would be mitigated by including tonnage restrictions to limit the tonnage difference between the teams.

^^ This so much

[Appogee]

I still think 3-3-3-3 could work ... if PGI ever gets the programming chops to make it work.

[Domoneky]

everyone loves 3/3/3/3. Everyone.

[Bilbo]

Domoneky, on 16 May 2014 - 01:06 PM, said:

everyone loves 3/3/3/3. Everyone.

I don't know about everyone, but I sure can't wait till it's back in.

[POWR]

I'm not really interested in playing till it's back.