MischiefSC, on 20 June 2014 - 02:08 PM, said:
3/3/3/3 is a brilliant solution to a number of problems.
For one, it puts a hard limit in place on force escalation. People get ganked by bigger, better armed mechs so they bring a bigger, better armed mech.
For another it creates inherent limits to the viability of the big/slow/over-armed mechs be that the Stalker LRM boat or the Dire Wolf, well, anything. Between 3 and 6 mechs on the other team every match will be geared towards and eager to find and kill them.
Because of the above it creates a strong reward/motivation for pug teams to stick together. You only need to get trounced a couple of times because you left your heavies/assaults behind when the other team didn't to adapt your tactics.
Even for premades it serves a benefit. It allows them to build a 4man that can then more reliably fit into a group of 8 pugs. If they build the heavies and assaults they know the pugs will all be lights and with 3/3/3/3 there is a strong, consistent reward for pug lights who are supporting their teams. If they run lights/mediums they are in a much better position to get the pugs to go with their plan.
It rewards, or at least punishes way less, taking sub-peak builds and alternate tactical options. You know the other team isn't going to be 10 assaults and 2 spotter ravens and that the other team will have 3 or 4 lights and 3 or 4 mediums, so you can pack a light hunter or fast harasser and know you'll have adequate targets. You can risk moving into engagement range more readily because you know the other team isn't a row of assaults who will focus you down before you can get back to cover.
It minimizes LRMs and poptarts and light swarms and assault rolls.
We all have a laundry list of major weapon and equipment rebalances we'd love to see. The reality is though we're not going to see those lists get whittled down by any measurable amount for a long time. In the interim, 3/3/3/3 is a solid solution for suppressing the symptoms of that. It's a simple, predictable, easy and reliable system for balancing mech populations and thus firepower/build populations in every match and better equalizing teams.
I'm of the opinion that CW should be anything goes so long as it's faction specific mechs on each side. For pugging though, 3/3/3/3 is excellent.
I wanted to discuss this with you in a thread, since doing it in game is woefully inefficient. So, let me state my case here.
One of the issues that this system DOES NOT fix is actually
people's willingness to play other classes. The current MM readout does not lie.. everyone tons up
because they can. While the system will "enforce" 3/3/3/3 in matches, it will NOT dramatically change the state of the MM's selection. If anything, it will prolong the search times for many people. It's great when someone volunteers to go small to "give relief" to the MM (as an aside, you CANNOT see the MM's info when you're in a premade) but I'd suspect a majority will "use what they are going to use".
What is LIKELY to happen is those "release valves" being hit early and often. Many of the MM iterations had that done, but always resulting into "disproportionate" tonnage EVEN while the games were close. Part of the problem was the "human element", reacting to something that they had no control over. It is understandable. I don't like running Steiner Scout lances, but they still happen in this game. While 3/3/3/3 will "remove them" from the equation, it won't make the mechs LESS DESIRABLE.
What you need to consider is that the MM indicator is "accurate" for the entire queue.
The problem: It is
totally inaccurate for the Elo bucket you are in.
Remember Paul's long post with pics? If we segment the population with 3 Elo buckets (newbie, average, veteran/elite), then you will immediately understand that there's a
very disproportion population that plays this game (heck, even the new account-underhive testing shows they play a
vastly different game than the rest of us).
If you are understanding of statistics is proper AND knowing the balance between the mechs in their appropriate weight classes, you will understand that what we're doing right now (<15% medium and <15% light) will just exacerbate the issue... IN ADDITION to disproportionate levels of skill/Elo that people demonstrate AND that YOU have
4 different Elos - one per each weight class. This becomes incredibly more difficult to address.
Some people can be deficient in Lights and be proficient in Assaults... that's just the human element. While I'd like to think I have an OK Light Elo, I get the feeling that my Elo in Assaults is far greater. So, even then, it's hard to compare equally.
In essence, you need to look at how this all breaks down. I could probably address the points in your argument (if I'm bored enough or as a request, I could do it) and show you that it isn't as clear cut as you'd think.
Jman5, on 20 June 2014 - 02:15 PM, said:
The numbers fluctuate, but I agree that lights and mediums are clearly the least played.
I'm really looking forward to this getting back into the game because I am so sick of going up against masses of heavies and assaults every game.
You and your hunchies!
*shakes fist*
Sandpit, on 20 June 2014 - 02:45 PM, said:
I agree with a lot of what you said except this. The rule of 3 isn't going to affect 4mans like that. What it will affect is the ability for players to find matches and lock up the assaults and 1 heavy nearly every time they drop in a team. We'll see but I forsee some loooooooong wait times for those players. Although that doesn't seem to matter much given the past 6 months of "position at the time" regarding groups.
I have always said 3/3/3/3 would definitely be a good thing for seeing more variety in weight classes. it's not going to affect which mechs within those weight classes are taken but it will force a little more variety in weight classes
4-man premade construction isn't hindered... just the ability to drop "quickly" will be significantly hampered if it isn't MM favorable.
I think the "release valves" will most likely be hit though... and there's a very high chance that this could be exploited intentionally and unintentionally due to the popularity/unpopularity of a mech at the time. When you "know" what the result of the "release valve" happens to be due to team construction, you can readily predict the outcome (kinda like sync dropping to a degree).
Pygar, on 20 June 2014 - 03:01 PM, said:
I have always thought that they should make 4 mans do 1/1/1/1, A: Theoretically 4 mans should be the most prepared to change mechs if needed and also the most likely to actually use the intended team roles. (which is a major reason to even do the 3 rule in the first place) and also B: letting 4 mans pick whatever is actually what the matchmaker has the hardest time with when trying to do the 3 rule.
Some people don't like this idea (both the 3 rule in general and the 4man 1/1/1/1 split) but the truth is, to have balance you have to have firm rules....letting people do whatever they want because: "Freedom!", is a major cause for many of the balancing headaches PGI has to deal with in MWO.
That's not going to work. You have to strongly consider the new player to this game. First off, you ASSUME that you have one mech OF EACH WEIGHT CLASS to accommodate such a result. That is UNLIKELY to happen as you START WITH 4 MECHBAYS. Given how the current game system works where
you must get 3 variants of the same chassis to progress, this becomes GREATLY problematic. I mean, you "could" avoid not eliting out a mech, but you're handicapping yourself long term. So, in essence, your proposal becomes very non-newbie friendly. I mean, yes you could tell them "buy some mechbays", but that assumes they are willing to put up with this game.. as this is a hard game to get through its initial stages.
IOW, it's not that simple.
6
I've been here and there. I read the forums even though I haven't posted much. (You can thank Russ' twitter comments about "true support" for me getting riled up enough to post lol)
