271 replies to this topic

[Trystan Thorne]

I think that 3x4 is going to help with the balance a bit, but I wish we would get a matchmaker that would also look at the loadouts & equipment and divide the teams as evenly as possible.

Fairly divide the ECM Mech, the LRM boats and others to even out the odds even more.

Anyway, I guess we'll have to wait and see how well the new version of 3x4 will work.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Well said. Even if i argue against a viewpoint it is never a personal attack. I did call you whiners, but to me that is what this thread seemed to be. A whiner is a person who makes frequent complaints, and that was no personal attack. Objectivism is something I studied for years so my words are used by definition only. I leave the feelings out of it so I can not help how someone takes it but I will remember to choose my words carefully. No guarantees, but I will try.

Point is lets wait for the Public test before we start with this thread. Do not get me wrong. This is a wonderful thread but the timing is a little to early. It would be better served after or during the PTS and better yet, after implementation.

I just want to let you know if i argue against you, it is nothing personal. Ideas are meant to be challenged. Sandpit, there are many things you have posted that I have agreed but I will always give you some trouble

I want to use this post to clear the air, let bygones be bygones and start anew. I have explained my disposition, now what say you.

Trystan Thorne, on 23 June 2014 - 03:03 PM, said:

I think that 3x4 is going to help with the balance a bit, but I wish we would get a matchmaker that would also look at the loadouts & equipment and divide the teams as evenly as possible.

Fairly divide the ECM Mech, the LRM boats and others to even out the odds even more.

Anyway, I guess we'll have to wait and see how well the new version of 3x4 will work.

well in terms of balance, this new MM is doing it right. The problem is the variables if you will. Players selection and variation will be key

[Sandpit]

BLOOD WOLF, on 23 June 2014 - 03:14 PM, said:

Well said. Even if i argue against a viewpoint it is never a personal attack. I did call you whiners, but to me that is what this thread seemed to be. A whiner is a person who makes frequent complaints, and that was no personal attack. Objectivism is something I studied for years so my words are used by definition only. I leave the feelings out of it so I can not help how someone takes it but I will remember to choose my words carefully. No guarantees, but I will try.

Point is lets wait for the Public test before we start with this thread. Do not get me wrong. This is a wonderful thread but the timing is a little to early. It would be better served after or during the PTS and better yet, after implementation.

I just want to let you know if i argue against you, it is nothing personal. Ideas are meant to be challenged. Sandpit, there are many things you have posted that I have agreed but I will always give you some trouble

I want to use this post to clear the air, let bygones be bygones and start anew. I have explained my disposition, now what say you.


well in terms of balance, this new MM is doing it right. The problem is the variables if you will. Players selection and variation will be key

Liek I said earlier, I have nothing personal against you or anyone else (well with a very small number of exceptions lol) here. I really just want to have this thread be something that will help improve the game for everyone. I'm doing somethign similar with another thread I started hoping to get PGI to take notice on an issue and design decision that I feel they're making a mistake on so I'm collecting feedback about it.

There's no ulterior motives, it's simply just wanting the game to improve in areas where I feel it can and should be improved. The whole "whiners" thing I take a bit of issue with because to me there's a huge difference between
"This sucks! Woe as me, this game should be "fixed" so that I don't lose as often"
and
"This isn't going to fix anything. This system will not work as touted or advertised because (insert reasons here) and I feel a better way to solve those problems would be (insert ideas here)

I would rather someone challenge an idea I have or suggestion I make because then it shows me that they're actually listening and participating. It also sows where my own ideas would have flaws or problems which often leads the discussion into other areas of how to improve as well. Nothing wrong with debating ideas, that's what the forums are for. I just don't like it when I feel we have a good discussion going on and trolls hit the thread out of personal vendettas (no, I'm not referring to you personally but it's easy to see it in the past, heck I've been guilty of it a few times but usually only when I think a thread is desitned for K Town anyways) instead of contributing ideas to help the thread and PGI out.

[Joseph Mallan]

Sandpit, on 23 June 2014 - 02:56 PM, said:

I just don't think the rule of 3 is going to work well in general.

I'd actually be interested in your ideas and thoughts on this one Joe. I don't always agree with ya but I've always respected your opinions.

I am a fan of random or (Merc)Company choice. I wanna see the Dragoon's Zeta Galaxy/Battalion, or the Killer Bees. I wanna see a Clan Wolf/Jade Falcon/Ghost Bear Assault Trinary as well as Battle Trinaries. I want it all. Cause if We are good enough, we can overcome any mass advantage. As I frequently say, The best team wins.

[Sundervine]

I like the idea of the 3x4 myself. However it is a flawed system from the beginning for one simple reason.

Player A in Mech A of the same weight class does not equal Player B and Mech B of the same weight class.

If we take into effect ELO and take it for granted that it will actually make Player A and Player B equal, and if the MM does actually match weight as well as weight class as it is intended, then there is still, for example the 55 weight class which has Four mechs in it. (thank you for the reminder Deathlike ^^)

a shadowhawk, a griffen, a kintaro, and a wolverine are not equal in ability. Sure the right pilot in each will be able to perform as well as any other, however there is a reason the wolvie is not ni competitive play. It is not equal to a shadowhawk. Thus the MM will not work for this alone. Lets however say they even fix that...

Player A brings Mech A with loadout A, versus the same for B.
player A did not have the money for all the upgrades on mech A yet thus it underperforms. Thus player A does not equal Player B still yet.

Lets say however they are both fully funded upgrades, well then we have something right... Well no since mech A might have a supperior build than B. Thus still not equal.

You can see just by this without a points system per mech for matching this system might improve matches some but it will not be team A equals team B.

Edited by Sundervine, 23 June 2014 - 05:06 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

For the Open Que... sure, for CW... Not as much.

[Deathlike]

Sundervine, on 23 June 2014 - 04:11 PM, said:

I like the idea of the 3x4 myself. However it is a flawed system from the beginning for one simple reason.

Player A in Mech A of the same weight class does not equal Player B and Mech B of the same weight class.

If we take into effect ELO and take it for granted that it will actually make Player A and Player B equal, and if the MM does actually match weight as well as weight class as it is intended, then there is still, for example the 55 weight class which has three mechs in it.

There's actually four mechs in the 55-ton IS bracket. People forget the Kintaro... for good reason.

[MonkeyCheese]

Deathlike, on 23 June 2014 - 04:25 PM, said:

There's actually four mechs in the 55-ton IS bracket. People forget the Kintaro... for good reason.

I have seen some scary kintaros now that the srm fix is here, but I have seen a few players in griffins perform the best.

But now that the matchmaker is changing we may see some new mech trends and not just multiple 4 mans of one weight class all the time

[Sandpit]

One thing that I think often gets overlooked is the following scenario

Ok, with how Elo works now new players start in the middle of the pack. Regardless of personal skill, experience and understanding how to put together "effective" builds (because not all builds are equal and some builds are just outright inferior and poorly thought out) a new player is going to be outclassed by a player a vet of equal Elo rating. This is one of the biggest missteps PGI has had regarding MWO in my opinion. New players dropped into matches with vets while still trying to learn the nuances of the game are one of the primary causes of roflstomps.

This is one area I think could definitely be tweaked
a lot

Starting new players at the bottom of the Elo brackets and keeping them in their own separate queue are surefire ways to help mitigate that issue.

[Deathlike]

MonkeyCheese, on 23 June 2014 - 04:56 PM, said:

I have seen some scary kintaros now that the srm fix is here, but I have seen a few players in griffins perform the best.

But now that the matchmaker is changing we may see some new mech trends and not just multiple 4 mans of one weight class all the time

KTO's are primarily threatening if they go use LRMs. Brawling KTOs are setting themselves up for failure more often than not (weapon hardpoint locations not ideal, compare to even the classic Cent-A).

[L A V A]

Nope... it won't work, at least not as they intended.

I've played with lots of dedicated light pilots and most have just disappeared.

Only a handful left now...

Most here will rejoice.

[Mindwipe]

I think 3x4 will be step in the right direction but won't really fix the stomps or meta choice. At least I can take my lights and be assured of not hurting my team. And taking a light hunter won't be a waste of time. It offers some choice with payoff we don't have currently, but overall I doubt the playstyle will change much. I suppose I'm lucky I prefer lights and use them most of the time despite the constant gameplay attacks on them.

I still think we need a better overall MM system though. I know lots of people have advocated for using the TT Battle Value system and I'm in favour of that as well since it would give PGI a way to balance weapons and equipment without nerfing them into the ground. Just adjust their BV so that the universally regarded weapons cost more BV. If you balance by BV then you could well get four DS' meta'ing away but their BV cost could be high enough that they get a bunch of far less optimal mechs against a better balanced team. This system would replace tonnage as more tonnage really only buys you more potential BV.

The other thing I think they could do is to replace Elo with a multiplier based on that Mech's win/loss record. So if you have a 1000 BV Mech and have an even W/L you would be worth 1000. If you have a 0.5 W/L you would count for 500 BV. I suppose this could be abused by tanking a certain Mech but overall would help balance things.

It wouldn't be a perfect solution but it would give PGI a new balancing tool while not really restricting players in their choices. Odds are if you are an awesome player (not Awesome player) in the uber meta Mech than you are either going to be matched against something roughly your equal or you're going to have to carry very hard to offset things.

Don't know if this would be really fair to what are the extremes of our current Elo system but at least this way one could take a new Mech out and not be horribly punished for raising your Elo with another chassis.

Sorry if someone else brought this up before, but I'm kinda with Sandpit on this one, 3x4 isn't going to fix much of anything, though as a light pilot my personal games will hopefully improve in 'fun' as opposed to being the lone light against a sea of assaults.

[Kampfer]

I'm still very excited for the rule of 3, too often I see light mechs only making up >10% of the player base as evidenced by the play now button.

[Sandpit]

Kampfer, on 24 June 2014 - 10:44 AM, said:

I'm still very excited for the rule of 3, too often I see light mechs only making up >10% of the player base as evidenced by the play now button.

No doubt that it will add more variety in weight classes. I just think there are better ways to do that.

[ztac]

All that is going to happen is that people that like to play the more popular mechs will probably stop playing after having to sit in long queues as there probably will not be enough lights and mediums to go around..... Especially as generally lights tend to have high survivability due to their high speed armour(I have to laugh at that combination every game....).

Personally I really don't like playing the lighter mechs and this is certainly no guarantee of sorting out the current bad matches, there is a lot more to it than just the matchmaker.

Edited by ztac, 24 June 2014 - 12:57 PM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

I just made it to the PTS.

[Sandpit]

BLOOD WOLF, on 24 June 2014 - 03:51 PM, said:

I just made it to the PTS.

I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts on it

[BLOOD WOLF]

Sandpit, on 24 June 2014 - 03:53 PM, said:

I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts on it

The first match i got, the 3's didnt work. It was 4 assults, 4 heavies, 2 meds, 2 lights.

It was dang close,

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 24 June 2014 - 04:01 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

10 man team 3/3/1/3...

BLOOD WOLF, on 24 June 2014 - 04:01 PM, said:

The first match i got, the 3's didnt work. It was 4 assults, 4 heavies, 2 meds, 2 lights.

It was dang close,

Thats a good Assault Company!

[Dymlos2003]

BLOOD WOLF, on 24 June 2014 - 04:01 PM, said:

The first match i got, the 3's didnt work. It was 4 assults, 4 heavies, 2 meds, 2 lights.

It was dang close,

It wasn't close dude. Haha. Team acted stupid and we lost. While we were 4/4/2/2 so was the other team.

Edited by Dymlos2003, 24 June 2014 - 04:04 PM.