164 replies to this topic

[Jonathan Paine]

Going on Russ saying that he would listen to a very clear player majority, and that we should take on something easier than ECM:

How do we feel about 10 Clan vs 12 IS? Enough of us feel that this is worth the extra programming hassle?

[Darian DelFord]

Nope Took them 2 years to get the MM to where it is now. And it still sucks

[Quxudica]

Jonathan Paine, on 16 September 2014 - 09:47 PM, said:

Going on Russ saying that he would listen to a very clear player majority, and that we should take on something easier than ECM:

How do we feel about 10 Clan vs 12 IS? Enough of us feel that this is worth the extra programming hassle?

I'm not sure how much this would help, it worked in previous iterations but the prevalence of high pinpoint alpha gameplay really gives a large advantage to the side with more players, every additional mech is potentially a lot more firepower that can be focused on single parts of mechs. I don't know if the advantages of clantech in MWO are enough to balance that out.

[El Bandito]

Jonathan Paine, on 16 September 2014 - 09:47 PM, said:

Going on Russ saying that he would listen to a very clear player majority, and that we should take on something easier than ECM:

How do we feel about 10 Clan vs 12 IS? Enough of us feel that this is worth the extra programming hassle?

It will be balancing nightmare. There are very good reasons why most popular MP arena games have same number of fighters per side. By implementing 10 v 12, PGI will be acknowledging flat out superiority of the Clans and the intention of keeping them that way, resulting most of the playerbase to naturally flock to the strong side, leaving the canonically more populous IS side sadly depopulated.


10 v 12 was not a good idea from inception. Leave that to campaign missions, if there will be any.

Edited by El Bandito, 16 September 2014 - 10:00 PM.

[Russ Bullock]

Darian DelFord, on 16 September 2014 - 09:50 PM, said:

Nope Took them 2 years to get the MM to where it is now. And it still sucks

Well technically it took Karl a complete rewrite in about 1-2 months. I don't know many other MM's that can match combinations of 4 weight classes, groups ranging from 2-12 and different skill levels into account and end up with exact weight class matching on each side.

I see I need to put up another post clan balance feedback and dispel the notion that it's all about the technical risk. I would love 10v12 but please name a successful online PVP game that has uneven numbers and technology per side and is still around for 5+ years.

Yes a new post would likely be best.

[Divine Retribution]

Regardless of whether or not we want it, I think it is a simpler question for players to answer in order to prove the "council" concept. It's not a yes or no answer now, it's just a topic for proving the council that I disapprove of.

[Russ Bullock]

El Bandito, on 16 September 2014 - 09:57 PM, said:

It will be balancing nightmare. There are very good reasons why most popular MP arena games have same number of fighters per side. By implementing 10 v 12, PGI will be acknowledging flat out superiority of the Clans and the intention of keeping them that way, resulting most of the playerbase to naturally flock to the strong side, leaving the canonically more populous IS side sadly depopulated.


10 v 12 was not a good idea from inception. Leave that to campaign missions, if there will be any.

This is unfortunately undeniably true.

[Impyrium]

Yeah, the way the game's balanced, 10v12 just isn't going to work. Better tech or not, it's still an extra two players, and the players tend to be the biggest deciding factor, not the 'Mechs.

[Russ Bullock]

Divine Retribution, on 16 September 2014 - 10:02 PM, said:

Regardless of whether or not we want it, I think it is a simpler question for players to answer in order to prove the "council" concept. It's not a yes or no answer now, it's just a topic for proving the council that I disapprove of.

Yes there is validity there - if the council says what I am saying you will believe it

AUSwarrior24, on 16 September 2014 - 10:02 PM, said:

Yeah, the way the game's balanced, 10v12 just isn't going to work. Better tech or not, it's still an extra two players, and the players tend to be the biggest deciding factor, not the 'Mechs.

Yes it either goes that way or all the other way - it won't find balance. Can we please start spreading the word on this so it's not about PGI passing the buck on a hard task please - it's not about the work

[Mirkk Defwode]

Jonathan Paine, on 16 September 2014 - 09:47 PM, said:

Going on Russ saying that he would listen to a very clear player majority, and that we should take on something easier than ECM:

How do we feel about 10 Clan vs 12 IS? Enough of us feel that this is worth the extra programming hassle?

No.

I'd rather see core systems fixed like the Elimination of Ghost heat, Corrections done to ECM as balance factors. Getting a balanced BV system functional in the existing matchmaker. There is a myriad of other issues by far more impactful on the end user experience than this and it should sit on the backburner until quite a bit else is done.

[Solomon Ward]

Just give custom choices for private matches so we can set up 10 vs 12 with standard or superior Clan weapon values.

[Jonathan Paine]

Russ Bullock, on 16 September 2014 - 10:01 PM, said:

Well technically it took Karl a complete rewrite in about 1-2 months. I don't know many other MM's that can match combinations of 4 weight classes, groups ranging from 2-12 and different skill levels into account and end up with exact weight class matching on each side. I see I need to put up another post clan balance feedback and dispel the notion that it's all about the technical risk. I would love 10v12 but please name a successful online PVP game that has uneven numbers and technology per side and is still around for 5+ years. Yes a new post would likely be best.

Starcraft springs to mind...

[Divine Retribution]

Mirkk Defwode, on 16 September 2014 - 10:07 PM, said:

No.

I'd rather see core systems fixed like the Elimination of Ghost heat, Corrections done to ECM as balance factors. Getting a balanced BV system functional in the existing matchmaker. There is a myriad of other issues by far more impactful on the end user experience than this and it should sit on the backburner until quite a bit else is done.

I was just thinking of the post where something simpler than ECM should be done (from the player standpoint, not from a programming standpoint) first as proof of concept. I think this is a very simple starting point for that... Once the player voting method and council system is worked out, that's when I'd go after more complicated issues.

Edited by Divine Retribution, 16 September 2014 - 10:19 PM.

[Mirkk Defwode]

Divine Retribution, on 16 September 2014 - 10:18 PM, said:

I was just thinking of the post where something simpler than ECM should be done (from the player standpoint, not from a programming standpoint) first as proof of concept. I think this is a very simple starting point for that... Once the player voting method and council system is worked out, that's when I'd go after more complicated issues.

I don't want a player "council" I could see a good method of allowing users to vote being created as a methodology but the people who visit the forums are a fraction of the total player base and I don't believe we have the right to vote for those people as well. So whatever is done should be done within the title despite requiring a bit more overhead to get that working in the UI or it needs to path people out to the forums to ensure some additional visibility..

I also don't trust a player "council" to accurately or properly represent the interests of the community. They'll each have their own agenda they bring to the table and that's more likely the issue they'll look to fight for and want to keep anything they like as is even if others don't care for it. We actually see this sort of behavior in real world politics the world over with business interests taking precedent over that of the constituents of the area the representatives are supposed to actually represent. Now in the real world they don't leave them hanging out to dry, but I could easily see that happening here in this pseudo ruling body.

[Divine Retribution]

Mirkk Defwode, on 16 September 2014 - 10:26 PM, said:

I don't want a player "council" I could see a good method of allowing users to vote being created as a methodology but the people who visit the forums are a fraction of the total player base and I don't believe we have the right to vote for those people as well. So whatever is done should be done within the title despite requiring a bit more overhead to get that working in the UI or it needs to path people out to the forums to ensure some additional visibility..

I also don't trust a player "council" to accurately or properly represent the interests of the community. They'll each have their own agenda they bring to the table and that's more likely the issue they'll look to fight for and want to keep anything they like as is even if others don't care for it. We actually see this sort of behavior in real world politics the world over with business interests taking precedent over that of the constituents of the area the representatives are supposed to actually represent. Now in the real world they don't leave them hanging out to dry, but I could easily see that happening here in this pseudo ruling body.

Agreed. But it (council) is happening, so now I'm trying to make the best of it. In-game voting also seems the best option to me, as the 1%(?) of the population that posts in the forums don't represent the masses.

[Mirkk Defwode]

Divine Retribution, on 16 September 2014 - 10:34 PM, said:

Agreed. But it (council) is happening, so now I'm trying to make the best of it. In-game voting also seems the best option to me, as the 1%(?) of the population that posts in the forums don't represent the masses.

Actively resist the council and it may not happen.

It was a suggestion that's now run rampant. And without a charter or a set of service they're intended to do that even regulate what they do I won't even acknowledge their existence because this is going to just turn into politicking that I don't want to deal with.

[Adiuvo]

Jonathan Paine, on 16 September 2014 - 10:17 PM, said:

Starcraft springs to mind...

Starcraft is a 1v1 game with a player controlling entire groups of variable sizes. It's not the same.

A more apt comparison would be making 12 players zerglings and 10 of them zealots. Why would you ever choose to be the zergling?

[Mirkk Defwode]

Russ Bullock, on 16 September 2014 - 10:01 PM, said:

Well technically it took Karl a complete rewrite in about 1-2 months. I don't know many other MM's that can match combinations of 4 weight classes, groups ranging from 2-12 and different skill levels into account and end up with exact weight class matching on each side.

I see I need to put up another post clan balance feedback and dispel the notion that it's all about the technical risk. I would love 10v12 but please name a successful online PVP game that has uneven numbers and technology per side and is still around for 5+ years.

Yes a new post would likely be best.

Weight classes isn't normally a factor for most other matchmakers...

Though TruSkill and ELO are often accounted for when it comes to balancing those parties.

[Jonathan Paine]

Adiuvo, on 16 September 2014 - 10:37 PM, said:

Starcraft is a 1v1 game with a player controlling entire groups of variable sizes. It's not the same.

A more apt comparison would be making 12 players zerglings and 10 of them zealots. Why would you ever choose to be the zergling?

Howabout EVE?

[N0MAD]

Russ Bullock, on 16 September 2014 - 10:01 PM, said:

Well technically it took Karl a complete rewrite in about 1-2 months. I don't know many other MM's that can match combinations of 4 weight classes, groups ranging from 2-12 and different skill levels into account and end up with exact weight class matching on each side.

I see I need to put up another post clan balance feedback and dispel the notion that it's all about the technical risk. I would love 10v12 but please name a successful online PVP game that has uneven numbers and technology per side and is still around for 5+ years.

Yes a new post would likely be best.

Can i pull you up on a couple things here.
MM does not match up 4 weight classes it matches up 4 Chassis types as in Light, medium etc which still creates unbalanced weight matches. And i dont know about you but in Most i repeat most matches i play Heavy and Assault mechs still outnumber the Light/Mediums.
As far as matching skill levels i remember coming back to play couple months ago (after the new MM) after not playing for close to a year and after an ELO reset and first games being thrown into matches against Top tier comp players i know.
Even now when i play and i got to say altho im not leet ive been doing quite well over last couple months (all those years of previous MW titles and close to 18 months MWO play) im consistently scoring several Kills multiple assists and an average of 350-500 points (most games) im am still pitted against the Elite comp players AND complete Newbs (new players in trial mechs) in the same game.
How about Warthunder...well you asked.