111 replies to this topic

[Kyle Polulak]

Hello MechWarriors!

Please leave us your feedback on Russ' post regarding Matchmaking

Russ Bullock, on 06 June 2014 - 01:48 PM, said:

Matchmaker

In the latest Vlog, I stated that I would update everyone on the status and ETA of the next MM update within two weeks. We're getting back on schedule in this regard and I wanted to post at least an early update here today.

In short, Karl Berg has been working on the Matchmaker rewrite these past couple of weeks and things are going well. In fact, I can confirm that internally we are testing out 3/3/3/3 (4x3) well beyond anything that went live previously. In fact, I would declare that aspect to be complete and working.

At this point Karl is working on some stretch goals concerning tonnage matching and Clan 'mech matching. We are quite confident we can test and release a new Matchmaker utilizing 4x3 the patch after the clan release.

There are some bonus grouping items that we're currently developing and testing that can be a part of the same initial release, though I am going to hold those closer to my chest a little longer until we complete our testing.

Bottom line, I am very pleased to report that we should see a new MM release much sooner than I was initially hoping, Target is set as the patch after the Clans!

Thanks MechWarriors!

[Imperius]

Quote

"There are some bonus grouping items that we're currently developing and testing that might be a part of the same initial release, though I am going to hold those closer to my chest a little longer until we complete our testing."

Well guess I'm still waiting... Only time will tell. I hope testing ends in success and we get 5+ groups.

Related topic after today's CC posts.
http://mobile.twitte...087465061957632

Edited by Imperius, 06 June 2014 - 11:03 PM.

[StillRadioactive]

Karl Berg, getting **** done as always.

[One of Little Harmony]

I am going to miss the Steiner Scout Lances. =( I wish you would allow some variability as I don't think too many people would complain about games that were 4/4/4.

[Jin Ma]

so a 100 ton dire wolf gets matched against a 105 ton ______ ???

Edited by Jin Ma, 06 June 2014 - 05:07 PM.

[Deathlike]

Wait...

His ETA is literally 1 month from now.

July 1 2014 is "the patch after the Clans".

Edited by Deathlike, 06 June 2014 - 05:08 PM.

[StillRadioactive]

Deathlike, on 06 June 2014 - 05:07 PM, said:

Wait...

His ETA is literally 1 month from now.

July 1 2014 is "the patch after the Clans".

... and the problem with that is?

Dude has literally rewritten the matchmaker FROM SCRATCH, and PGI is taking their time testing it before release.

I mean, do you want another broken matchmaker patch that has to be hotfixed the same night? Cause I'm pretty sure you remember how awful it was last time.

[MonkeyCheese]

More good news today!

and possible clan number balancing in the future too even better.

[Butane9000]

Well he gave us an update.

[Deathlike]

StillRadioactive, on 06 June 2014 - 05:11 PM, said:

... and the problem with that is?

In context, what is being done isn't really "early", but rather being "on time". Even Russ in his previous statement was hoping to take 2 weeks (which is giving him too little time IMO) and 1 month sounds "about right" anyways.

Quote

Dude has literally rewritten the matchmaker FROM SCRATCH, and PGI is taking their time testing it before release.

I keep hearing this, but that didn't "escape" testing. Frankly, a "real load" through "extended" PTS time would actually be a lot more useful (as in, not "a block of time", rather a week+ of extended time is preferable).

It has to simulate REAL LOADS, not "idealistic"/optimal loads, as many posts with "really bad light mech ratios" have validated that there are actual problems with said distribution. You don't even need a tourney to cause it to happen.... just a "normal mech release" would tip the scales in favor of the new mech.

Quote

I mean, do you want another broken matchmaker patch that has to be hotfixed the same night? Cause I'm pretty sure you remember how awful it was last time.

I remember it, because it was broken before that (PTS) and then some (following patch day).

Edited by Deathlike, 06 June 2014 - 05:21 PM.

[Cimarb]

Russ Bullock, on 06 June 2014 - 11:12 AM, said:

At this point Karl is working on some stretch goals concerning tonnage matching and Clan 'mech matching.

Can we get some clarification on this one? Does that mean Clan mechs will be matched differently than IS mechs? If so, is it based upon a certain sliding scale, loadout, or what?

Edited by Cimarb, 06 June 2014 - 05:34 PM.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Great work! Please keep us informed as this develops ... we've been teased with 4x3, etc. for about two months.

[tucsonspeed6]

I'm glad this is going to be put back sooner than I had expected, and while I'm mostly on board with the 3/3/3/3 model, I think there were a lot of valid points made against it as well; primarily that matches will be TOO balanced, removing any interesting matchups with variety. When the servers were running into problems after release, and the MM rules were loosened to the 4x4 model, I thought that would be an excellent compromise to both camps: There would be more variety to each match, and the 4x4 model offered a 'close enough' solution to match making, as all complaints about it otherwise were about extreme weight imbalances, not minor ones.

I really just wish we could have stuck with the 4x4 model instead, even if it wasn't the intended solution initially.

[slide]

Karl for the win!

[Xolin]

Holy **** this is awesome news!

[Leigus]

Still iffy about 4x3 and the potential implications (both for matchmaker and gameplay). While having a mix of weight classes is *important* for dynamic gameplay the most important thing is the pairing of weight classes across teams (I brought a Medium, someone on the other team brought a Medium, etc.)

I was online during some of the "max 4" testing (an alternative to 4x3) and was intrigued by what I was seeing, but feel like that would mesh well with a "min 2" rule in addition. By applying this rule, potential setups expand to 3-3-3-3, 3-3-4-2, and 4-4-2-2, still forcing for a diverse composition, but allowing for a bit more flexibility for the matchmaker's sake, and still ensuring balance from each team.

A few last thoughts regarding how this would relate to premade groups:

Spoiler

12 Mans: Why not a 720 ton limit rather than 3/3/3/3? There's no weight-class matchmaker for the 12 man queue and allowing teams to diversify what they bring increases the competitive strategy of that queue.

4 Mans: I feel that these would be better balanced by tonnage than by weight class restrictions. Premades are often pegged as being "OP" and in the current design, 3 Victors, 1 Cataphract is still a legal composition). Imposing a steep tonnage limit would serve both to restrict how heavy groups with coms can be, as well as to make the process of putting together a 4-man more intuitive. "We can't bring 4 Hunchbacks? What's the problem with that?"
Possible group tonnage numbers:
2 Players -- no limits
3 Players -- no min - 220 tons (1 Locust, 2 Atlas; 2 Cataphract, 1 Victor)
4 Players -- 180 tons - 240 tons (Low: 3 Raven, 1 Orion; 4 Blackjack High: 2 Locust, 2 Atlas; 2 Jagermech, 2 Shadowhawk)

Edited by Leigus, 06 June 2014 - 08:37 PM.

[Cerlin]

Cool. Please be sure to give clan mechs appropriate separation and/or balancing in MM. If they just run all over everything I will be sad.


Binary vs Company please...

[SgtKinCaiD]

Does this include the ELO buckets ?

[MountainCopper]

Where can I read up on match making Clan vs IS Mechs? Tonnage equivalent factors and similar...

[Rubidiy]

Greatest concern:
Say, a new popular mech is released. Everyone jumps into it and needs to drop multiple times to level it up. How the hell are we supposed to do this, if everyone wants to play this mech, not just a quarter of players???
I do understand reasoning behind 3/3/3/3, as well as I understand that it's not gonna make players' experience better at all.

Edited by Rubidiy, 07 June 2014 - 01:07 AM.