24 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

Ok so there's been a few complaints lately regarding 2mans in the group queue.

I've been pondering on this for a while now and think I might have a solution. If you are in a 2man with a new player still under cadet bonus (which I think should be extended but I digress) should play at the new player's Elo instead of having their Elo inflated by the group handicap.

This allows new players to continue playing at their personal Elo but prevents them from running into higher tier players.

There's no exploit that I can see with this system as it's in the group queue. It only applies to 2mans and only applies when a new player is in the group.

[Sandpit]

nobody? really?

[DeeSaster]

It artificially deflates Elo. That is not good. Even more so since creating throwaway accounts is free. I think your idea needs work.

[Sandpit]

DeeSaster, on 07 August 2014 - 12:25 PM, said:

It artificially deflates Elo. That is not good. Even more so since creating throwaway accounts is free. I think your idea needs work.

new players already have their Elo artifically deflated, then they get it inflated if they drop in a group with a buddy. That defeats the purpose of having a new player's Elo adjusted in the first place

[Deathlike]

The only way this would work as an Elo level/average that you would have to meet for it to be allowed.

The problem however is that once you are "over" said limit, then you'll never be back there. This would be an "ideal" circumstance for farmers, but honestly people do need to progress over a certain level and eventually "L2P" and not actually try to screw people over.

I'm not exactly happy when smaller premades that do their own thing, get destroyed, and often times shift the chance of a win in favor of the opfor, because they couldn't try to "work with everyone else".

Mind you, group play does demand quite a bit from you... so I get that it needs an intermediate level to bridge the gaps between "hardcore 2-4 man" and "casual 2-4 man" (which, I've made suggestions to, to no avail).

In teamplay (particularly in the group queue).. group players that don't wish to play as a team... drive me nuts.

Edited by Deathlike, 07 August 2014 - 12:57 PM.

[Sandpit]

Deathlike, on 07 August 2014 - 12:57 PM, said:

The only way this would work as an Elo level/average that you would have to meet for it to be allowed.

The problem however is that once you are "over" said limit, then you'll never be back there. This would be an "ideal" circumstance for farmers, but honestly people do need to progress over a certain level and eventually "L2P" and not actually try to screw people over.

I'm not exactly happy when smaller premades that do their own thing, get destroyed, and often times shift the chance of a win in favor of the opfor, because they couldn't try to "work with everyone else".

Mind you, group play does demand quite a bit from you... so I get that it needs an intermediate level to bridge the gaps between "hardcore 2-4 man" and "casual 2-4 man" (which, I've made suggestions to, to no avail).

In teamplay (particularly in the group queue).. group players that don't wish to play as a team... drive me nuts.

I understand and I agree with some of what you said, I'm just trying to come up with some solutions to help out those 2mans that are legitimately just a guy trying to help a friend enjoy the game a bit more. There's got to be SOMETHING that can be done. We know moving them to solo queue is a no no for many reasons.

Private matches are a bit of an overkill for 1-3 players (1-2 of which are new)

So the only thing I can think of is an Elo adjustment. Not giving them the regular group handicap means they play closer to the new player's Elo. I don't see how this would create a farming situation. 2man teams are NOT going to sway the battle the vast majority of time, especially with a new player.

It only lasts as long as the new player's "cadet protection" does so after that, they'd be dropping under the normal handicap.

[Deathlike]

Sandpit, on 07 August 2014 - 01:07 PM, said:

I understand and I agree with some of what you said, I'm just trying to come up with some solutions to help out those 2mans that are legitimately just a guy trying to help a friend enjoy the game a bit more. There's got to be SOMETHING that can be done. We know moving them to solo queue is a no no for many reasons.

Private matches are a bit of an overkill for 1-3 players (1-2 of which are new)

So the only thing I can think of is an Elo adjustment. Not giving them the regular group handicap means they play closer to the new player's Elo. I don't see how this would create a farming situation. 2man teams are NOT going to sway the battle the vast majority of time, especially with a new player.

It only lasts as long as the new player's "cadet protection" does so after that, they'd be dropping under the normal handicap.

I simply want a tiered system.

Solo Queue - As is, only people launching Solo.
Small Group Queue - New queue, 2-4 man premades (solos can opt in for this, with some reward/bonus).
Large Group Queue - Current/revised queue, 5-10 man with solo and small premades who can opt in for this (gaining a small reward/bonus).

All opt in, and bonuses provided for those opting in. Ideally, opting in won't increase your c-bill growth much if you aren't going to play as a group.

[Sandpit]

Deathlike, on 07 August 2014 - 01:13 PM, said:

I simply want a tiered system.

Solo Queue - As is, only people launching Solo.
Small Group Queue - New queue, 2-4 man premades (solos can opt in for this, with some reward/bonus).
Large Group Queue - Current/revised queue, 5-10 man with solo and small premades who can opt in for this (gaining a small reward/bonus).

All opt in, and bonuses provided for those opting in. Ideally, opting in won't increase your c-bill growth much if you aren't going to play as a group.

based on what we've seen though I don't know that MWO can support a third queue AND a CW queue. I think that's really the deciding factor. I don't know that we have enough players (if clan sales are any indication being outsold by founders) to support more queue splits.

[Sandpit]

I wonder if breaking mechs down into tiers would work.....

hmmm...

I'm thinking here just brainstorming

front line
second line
reserve
etc.

So "front line" mechs would be like tier 5 (or the highest tier)
second line next tier down
reserve one tier lower
and whatever needed after that

They wouldn't be broken down by weight class but instead broken down by tier based on popularity. So the popular meta builds would be the highest tier (both IS and clans)
the next most popular and so on and so forth

That way if you wanted to take a locust (arguably the lowest tier), you'd be facing off against mechs in the same tier as you regardless of weight class but still dispersed under the same rules governing the MM.

Example:
Locust = tier 1
Jenner = Tier 4

Even though both are the same weight class, they would be different tiers. Your Elo is then used to boost your tier. So a high Elo player in a Locust might be playing at tier 2 or 3. They can always go up but never down. So if a low Elo player jumped in a Jenner, they'd still be playing at tier 4.

I've always thought this is one of the underlying issues with mech variety and MM in general. Without any kind of progression or tiers, it's impossible for some mechs to become "viable" and compete with others. A locust is nowhere near as dominating as a Jenner in the majority of cases.

[Deathlike]

Sandpit, on 07 August 2014 - 01:18 PM, said:

based on what we've seen though I don't know that MWO can support a third queue AND a CW queue. I think that's really the deciding factor. I don't know that we have enough players (if clan sales are any indication being outsold by founders) to support more queue splits.

I think Small Groups aren't the minority... there's more of them naturally. I think Big Groups are a minority simply because of the #s required to field them. I'll just invoke "math" as my answer.

Even a "small premade" (2-4 players) would appreciate this when they aren't the force expected to carry.

[Deathlike]

Sandpit, on 07 August 2014 - 01:23 PM, said:

I wonder if breaking mechs down into tiers would work.....

hmmm...

I'm thinking here just brainstorming

front line
second line
reserve
etc.

So "front line" mechs would be like tier 5 (or the highest tier)
second line next tier down
reserve one tier lower
and whatever needed after that

They wouldn't be broken down by weight class but instead broken down by tier based on popularity. So the popular meta builds would be the highest tier (both IS and clans)
the next most popular and so on and so forth

That way if you wanted to take a locust (arguably the lowest tier), you'd be facing off against mechs in the same tier as you regardless of weight class but still dispersed under the same rules governing the MM.

Example:
Locust = tier 1
Jenner = Tier 4

Even though both are the same weight class, they would be different tiers. Your Elo is then used to boost your tier. So a high Elo player in a Locust might be playing at tier 2 or 3. They can always go up but never down. So if a low Elo player jumped in a Jenner, they'd still be playing at tier 4.

I've always thought this is one of the underlying issues with mech variety and MM in general. Without any kind of progression or tiers, it's impossible for some mechs to become "viable" and compete with others. A locust is nowhere near as dominating as a Jenner in the majority of cases.

Sandpit, on 07 August 2014 - 01:23 PM, said:

I wonder if breaking mechs down into tiers would work.....

hmmm...

I'm thinking here just brainstorming

front line
second line
reserve
etc.

So "front line" mechs would be like tier 5 (or the highest tier)
second line next tier down
reserve one tier lower
and whatever needed after that

They wouldn't be broken down by weight class but instead broken down by tier based on popularity. So the popular meta builds would be the highest tier (both IS and clans)
the next most popular and so on and so forth

That way if you wanted to take a locust (arguably the lowest tier), you'd be facing off against mechs in the same tier as you regardless of weight class but still dispersed under the same rules governing the MM.

Example:
Locust = tier 1
Jenner = Tier 4

Even though both are the same weight class, they would be different tiers. Your Elo is then used to boost your tier. So a high Elo player in a Locust might be playing at tier 2 or 3. They can always go up but never down. So if a low Elo player jumped in a Jenner, they'd still be playing at tier 4.

I've always thought this is one of the underlying issues with mech variety and MM in general. Without any kind of progression or tiers, it's impossible for some mechs to become "viable" and compete with others. A locust is nowhere near as dominating as a Jenner in the majority of cases.

Any sort of tiered system is subjected to scrutiny... and it makes those that field the "top tier mechs" to be accountable. However, most of that does not account for player skill. There's a difference between what a "Lord" does with a mech than a newbie. If you want to combine this with some form of Elo adjustment, then it would probably work better, but that's not going to solve things.

How things "should be balanced" is a more difficult proposition.. something Paul should "L2B", but I doubt he reads ANY of what I have to say (I expect nothing at this point).

Here's a simple balance exercise. Do you believe that a Commando is better than the Spider-5V? If the answer is yes, does this mean the Commando needs a nerf, or the Spider needs a buff?

Now, obviously the Commando and Spider are not directly comparable. The Spider has JJs and is ballistic dependent on the 5K... while the Commando is purely energy and missile based. When doing this particular comparison, you need to really think hard and long what the consequences are to changing a mech.

Of course... I've simply come to the opinion that the 5V simply needs an energy hardpoint in the arm. That's all. Now, just do the theorycrafting and whatnot on your own, but ultimately... mechs needs to be balanced within their own tonnages/variants (like the Stalker-4N having zero role/benefits over the other variants) and between the next bigger/smaller tonnage, to see if stuff needs to be tweaked.

Balance literally has to be a bit more "comprehensive"... not something that is decided over a random event and take some thought to. That's what making mechs and "tiers" a bad method on the grander scheme of things. You need to make the mech viable, but not garbage. It might never reach elite tiers and that's fine... but you need to give it a purpose.... otherwise it gets underused and mocked outright (hello Locust).

[Sandpit]

Deathlike, on 07 August 2014 - 01:35 PM, said:

Any sort of tiered system is subjected to scrutiny... and it makes those that field the "top tier mechs" to be accountable. However, most of that does not account for player skill. There's a difference between what a "Lord" does with a mech than a newbie. If you want to combine this with some form of Elo adjustment, then it would probably work better, but that's not going to solve things..

that's why I also suggested having Elo add a "boost" to the tier. So if you're a high Elo player in a Tier 1 mech, you may be fighting 1-2 tiers above your mech's rated tier.

It can also be dynamic. The mech popularity could determine tier ranking

[Sandpit]

It doesn't involve "balancing" the individual mech, it's more of separating them and offering a more evenly balanced MM overall.

Except in very rare or extreme cases (IE outliers) a Locust is simply not going to perform as well as a Jenner, yet according to MWO and the MM system they are equal when it comes to matching against opponents. Nevermind that the locust is 15 tons lighter. The goes for all of the weight classes. There are some mechs that are lumped into their weight class that really shouldn't be. I think it's time we started looking at ways to distinguish the difference between a 20 ton mech and a 35 ton mech because I think that really would help the MM overall

[Deathlike]

Sandpit, on 07 August 2014 - 01:42 PM, said:

It doesn't involve "balancing" the individual mech, it's more of separating them and offering a more evenly balanced MM overall.

Except in very rare or extreme cases (IE outliers) a Locust is simply not going to perform as well as a Jenner, yet according to MWO and the MM system they are equal when it comes to matching against opponents. Nevermind that the locust is 15 tons lighter. The goes for all of the weight classes. There are some mechs that are lumped into their weight class that really shouldn't be. I think it's time we started looking at ways to distinguish the difference between a 20 ton mech and a 35 ton mech because I think that really would help the MM overall

With respect to that part... it's really about having multiple Elo values for each chassis... ideally with each variant (not so much if you have multiple copies of the same variant though). I think Homeless Bill had a post last Christmas (2013) that discussed how one would go about it. That's essentially the "best" way of dealing with it.

[Bhael Fire]

Sandpit, on 07 August 2014 - 01:18 PM, said:

based on what we've seen though I don't know that MWO can support a third queue AND a CW queue.

I don't think CW is going to be standard queue, per se...but rather hosted events. Kind of like Dungeon Raids and Seiges in other MMOs (where players sign up for the hosted events).

At least that's impression I got from what Russ was saying about Public, Faction, and Private play.

That said, I do like the idea of lowering the Elo of small groups and perhaps increasing the Elo of large groups more so than creating a new queue. That would help keep very small groups away from matches with larger groups.

Edited by Bhael Fire, 07 August 2014 - 02:30 PM.

[Sandpit]

Deathlike, on 07 August 2014 - 02:13 PM, said:

With respect to that part... it's really about having multiple Elo values for each chassis... ideally with each variant (not so much if you have multiple copies of the same variant though). I think Homeless Bill had a post last Christmas (2013) that discussed how one would go about it. That's essentially the "best" way of dealing with it.

I agree 100% with that, but PGI doesn't seem to be too keen on it. Each variant should have its own Elo ranking. That helps mitigate farming and gaming the Elo system. You can be an ace Jenner pilot, but use your Locust to deflate your Elo, thus keeping your Jenner in a low Elo bracket increasing the chances that you're playing well below your "normal" Elo bracket. Same goes for all weight classes, I just used those 2 and lights as an example.

Having individual Elo for each mech eliminates that

[Deathlike]

Sandpit, on 07 August 2014 - 02:27 PM, said:

I agree 100% with that, but PGI doesn't seem to be too keen on it. Each variant should have its own Elo ranking. That helps mitigate farming and gaming the Elo system. You can be an ace Jenner pilot, but use your Locust to deflate your Elo, thus keeping your Jenner in a low Elo bracket increasing the chances that you're playing well below your "normal" Elo bracket. Same goes for all weight classes, I just used those 2 and lights as an example.

Having individual Elo for each mech eliminates that

I honestly wonder if it's laziness, or a database related thing.

The more mechs you have... the more database space it would consume.

At the rate they are creating mechs, just having one Elo for a chassis would be sufficient really.

Revising the MM wouldn't be too hard to look for the different database values at that point.

Remember that the database DOES store all the XP for each variant...

Edited by Deathlike, 07 August 2014 - 02:31 PM.

[Sandpit]

Bhael Fire, on 07 August 2014 - 02:25 PM, said:

I don't think CW is going to be standard queue, per se...but rather hosted events. Kind of like Dungeon Raids and Seiges in other MMOs.

At least that's impression I got from what Russ was saying about Public, Faction, and Private play.

I don't see that one either. CW has to be an "always on" campaign of some type and Russ has stated several times (usually in response to me asking about the group situation before the reinstated any size groups) that all matches would count towards CW and groups wouldn't be excluded from that. Of course this is all conjecture at best because we simply have no idea how PGI is going to handle this. That's the problem when a huge feature like CW is delayed for nearly 3 years.

We have players who have played this game and now feel that the deathmatch style game play is the "norm" so now PGI faced the additional adversity of battling that as well (although they've got no one to blame but themselves for that particular mess)

[Sandpit]

Deathlike, on 07 August 2014 - 02:29 PM, said:

I honestly wonder if it's laziness, or a database related thing.

The more mechs you have... the more database space it would consume.

At the rate they are creating mechs, just having one Elo for a chassis would be sufficient really.

Revising the MM wouldn't be too hard to look for the different database values at that point.

I don't see how it can be a database issue. That's a relatively small amount of data to keep. Even if a player owned 100 mechs, we should still be talking less than 1MB per mech, probably closer to 100KB or so. Database storage isn't hard to do. My job requires that one person be able to store and recall hundreds of pages of digitally scanned paperwork. Even with a current population over 2000, it's still well under 1TB in storage space (that includes archives for every student dating back to 1960)

So I don't see how it can be a database or storage issue.

[Deathlike]

Sandpit, on 07 August 2014 - 02:30 PM, said:

I don't see that one either. CW has to be an "always on" campaign of some type and Russ has stated several times (usually in response to me asking about the group situation before the reinstated any size groups) that all matches would count towards CW and groups wouldn't be excluded from that. Of course this is all conjecture at best because we simply have no idea how PGI is going to handle this. That's the problem when a huge feature like CW is delayed for nearly 3 years.

I think they have to be "always on" because of the playerbase... because there might not be enough in one faction or another to influence things. Having a progressively different state is not a bad thing and it has been used before on other games (Paul would actually know a thing or two here, ironically due to his background).