12 replies to this topic

[Geeks On Hugs]

In reference to my patch feedback:

http://mwomercs.com/...ith-but-rather/

I wanted to poll the suggestion forum on favorite alternative to 3/3/3/3 (even if you prefer 3/3/3/3 which I'll give you the opportunity to say in the poll as well).

[CDLord HHGD]

Battle Value, we already have the figures in-game...



Armor+Firepower+Heat+Tonnage+50 each for Jump ability (any number of JJ), ECM, AMS, and ARTY.
592+60+123+100+50=925
My Atlas as configured has a BV of 925.

Does this account for everything? No. And it doesn't have to either. Raw data, better balancing than anything we got thus far. Done.

[Kmieciu]

How about encouraging people to use light and medium mechs instead of forcing them to use one or face long wait times?

Why do people PUG? To earn C-Bills and XP.

Just apply a "light mech bonus" and "medium mech bonus" to all the earnings. Simple as that.

Wait a week. Check mech class statistics. Adjust the bonus as needed.

[Cart]

The 3/3/3/3 mode was deactivated right after it was introduced...meaning most probably no one of you already played a game with 3/3/3/3...but there already exist about 10 threads/polls for an alternative or whatever.
Why don't give it a chance...play some rounds, when it is reintroduced...you won't be dying over it...

[FlipOver]

Cart, on 07 May 2014 - 05:39 AM, said:

The 3/3/3/3 mode was deactivated right after it was introduced...meaning most probably no one of you already played a game with 3/3/3/3...but there already exist about 10 threads/polls for an alternative or whatever.
Why don't give it a chance...play some rounds, when it is reintroduced...you won't be dying over it...

Had a chance to play 3/3/3/3 rules while playing in the Public Test Server.
Me and a buddy found it to help a lot on the match balance.
Since then, never ever played 3/3/3/3 rules again. So without playing it and judging how it goes, can't find this poll relevant.

[FupDup]

Role Warfare.

http://mwomercs.com/...-3-role-warfare
^^Just a general idea, not the final implementation by any means


Give people an actual strategic reason to use mechs under 65 tons, rather than adding artificial matchmaker handicaps for doing so (i.e. 3/3/3/3, tonnage limits, ButtValue, etc.).

[Geeks On Hugs]

cdlord, on 06 May 2014 - 12:04 PM, said:

Battle Value, we already have the figures in-game...



Armor+Firepower+Heat+Tonnage+50 each for Jump ability (any number of JJ), ECM, AMS, and ARTY.
592+60+123+100+50=925
My Atlas as configured has a BV of 925.

Does this account for everything? No. And it doesn't have to either. Raw data, better balancing than anything we got thus far. Done.

I like this idea. It could constantly be fine tuned as well. They could even write code to auto-tune it over team.

Kmieciu, on 06 May 2014 - 10:39 PM, said:

How about encouraging people to use light and medium mechs instead of forcing them to use one or face long wait times?

Why do people PUG? To earn C-Bills and XP.

Just apply a "light mech bonus" and "medium mech bonus" to all the earnings. Simple as that.

Wait a week. Check mech class statistics. Adjust the bonus as needed.

That's an interesting suggestion, thank you.

Cart, on 07 May 2014 - 05:39 AM, said:

The 3/3/3/3 mode was deactivated right after it was introduced...meaning most probably no one of you already played a game with 3/3/3/3...but there already exist about 10 threads/polls for an alternative or whatever.
Why don't give it a chance...play some rounds, when it is reintroduced...you won't be dying over it...

Not true. I didn't know I was against it until I played it. I realized the obvious fact that we can't build our force how we want. The solution should not entail reducing player choice where there are options that can balance without limiting the choice (or at least not limiting choice so badly).

flipover, on 07 May 2014 - 05:44 AM, said:

Had a chance to play 3/3/3/3 rules while playing in the Public Test Server.
Me and a buddy found it to help a lot on the match balance.
Since then, never ever played 3/3/3/3 rules again. So without playing it and judging how it goes, can't find this poll relevant.

It certainly does help with match balance. That's not the point of discussion. The point of discussion is that just as certainly as it helps balance the match it limits player choice. For me specifically I enjoy running a four light 'Mech 'Wolf Pack' which becomes impossible with this system.

FupDup, on 07 May 2014 - 09:42 AM, said:

Role Warfare.

http://mwomercs.com/...-3-role-warfare
^^Just a general idea, not the final implementation by any means


Give people an actual strategic reason to use mechs under 65 tons, rather than adding artificial matchmaker handicaps for doing so (i.e. 3/3/3/3, tonnage limits, ButtValue, etc.).

The best suggestion really! :-)

[Kmieciu]

This is why 3/3/3/3 will never work:

Karl Berg, on 09 May 2014 - 03:11 PM, said:

I have some recent numbers, this is for a single day of telemetry:

Light: 16%
Medium: 21%
Heavy: 35%
Assault: 28%

[fandre]

I had suggested the following idea in another thread:

Count the number of weapons/equipment/JJ/ECM on each side and try to equal the numbers with 12 mechs ignoring tonnage or weight class.

Example: One team has 24 ML, 3 ECM, 4 PPC etc. The other team should have nearly the same number +- something.

For me, it is more logical than pure firepower/dps/armor etc. because these values do not nearly represent weapon or loadout effectiveness.

Edited by fandre, 12 May 2014 - 01:56 AM.

[LordSkippy]

Kmieciu, on 11 May 2014 - 11:04 PM, said:

This is why 3/3/3/3 will never work:

Karl Berg, on 09 May 2014 - 06:11 PM, said:
I have some recent numbers, this is for a single day of telemetry:

Light: 16%
Medium: 21%
Heavy: 35%
Assault: 28%

And those numbers will fluctuate over time, but are almost always not going to be 3/3/3/3. Which is why I suggested, in another thread, that they have a pool of drop templates to pick from, and then different sets of pools to use based on the population distribution of the queue. For the day Karl saw, they could use a heavy Heavy pool that averaged out to roughly 2/3/4/3 over the day, but not every drop template in that pool would need to be 2/3/4/3. Just that over time, more Heavies and less Lights were represented in the drop templates, so that daily drop distribution matches as closing to the 16%/21%/35%/28% queue population distribution as possible.

Every so many drops/minutes a sample of the queue distribution could be taken, and change which pool of drop templates are used. This would reduce the wait time for any given weight class due to over population in the queue that would plague a strict 3/3/3/3, or any set drop template, system. It also gives variety in drops. While at the same time, giving the same balancing. Plus, the drop templates in any give pool can be set up in such a way as to not have every drop heavy in the over populated weight class, just as long as enough of the templates have more of that weight class to reduce it's population.

Edited by LordSkippy, 12 May 2014 - 07:17 AM.

[Exarch Levin]

Why do we need any sort of ton/mech type balancing? This is supposed to be a bona fide battle, not some Solaris-style mech "prize fight". Constantly fighting with 3 types of each mech was a foolish idea from the start as it kills variety and immersion.
Ton limits seem similarly unnecessary and ridiculous from an "in world" perspective as it too turns what are supposed to be battles into contrived prize matches.

Before PGI lost its senses and amped up LRMs there was a time when 12 lights could give 12 mediums/heavies/assaults a serious match. Perhaps they still can. The only way in which matches should ever be balanced is by pilot skill. Tonnage means little: In the hands of a skilled pilot, even a mech like the Spider-5V is lethal. A DDC in the hands of a neophyte is useless.

Edited by Exarch Levin, 15 May 2014 - 10:59 PM.

[DAEDALOS513]

Exarch Levin, on 15 May 2014 - 10:58 PM, said:

Why do we need any sort of ton/mech type balancing? This is supposed to be a bona fide battle, not some Solaris-style mech "prize fight". Constantly fighting with 3 types of each mech was a foolish idea from the start as it kills variety and immersion.
Ton limits seem similarly unnecessary and ridiculous from an "in world" perspective as it too turns what are supposed to be battles into contrived prize matches.

Before PGI lost its senses and amped up LRMs there was a time when 12 lights could give 12 mediums/heavies/assaults a serious match. Perhaps they still can. The only way in which matches should ever be balanced is by pilot skill. Tonnage means little: In the hands of a skilled pilot, even a mech like the Spider-5V is lethal. A DDC in the hands of a neophyte is useless.

Only way to find out is to implement tonnage limits and see what happens. Run it for a week and count up how many matches ended in 12-0 or 12-1 wins.

I still believe tonnage is the simplest way to balance teams that won't seriously affect wait times. It will also allow more flexibility for lance forming (ie 4 lights, or 4 assaults).

[Malleus011]

So long as we're doing nothing but team deathmatch, tonnage matching or weight limits seem like the easiest solution. They certainly work best in private matches - bring what you want, just not more than X tons for the drop. That way, you don't know exactly what the enemy has, just that the fight is roughly even.

Once we get to CW (assuming that ever happens) then the drop balancing should be handled by the strategic decisions of the front commander, not the matchmaker or some arbitrary number of mech types.