Akulla1980, on 22 September 2014 - 01:35 PM, said:
Problem is. You provided a system that was fun for small groups, then took it away from us.
Which completely SUCKED for anyone who had a medium sized group or was trying to build to a large group. Nobody is happy.
Akulla1980, on 22 September 2014 - 01:35 PM, said:
Then u have the large organised groups rubbing their hands together going bring it on. Stats padding time. These groups whining about loosing the farming abilities.
Blatant trollbait that I will not dignify with a response, since obviously you have a bias.
Russ, you say the metrics show that adding in the mode vote selection, over the hard stops that exist now,would allow for better decks to be stacked against each other. Great, pull the trigger. I'm all for it.
We knew going into the new group system, that there would be edge cases that would suck for people. And the small, casual, group (<5) appears to be taking the brunt in those edge cases. Unwanted in the solo queue and smashed in the group queue.
IMO, the "easy" solution would be (in addition to the mode "vote")
Allow <5 into the "solo" queue, but only if there can be a group matched on the OP4 of equal size, otherwise they're placed in the group queue.
In this, I think it would have been better if when groups were reintroduced (and it's not too late) that groups could be built in increments of 2 (2, 4, 6, 8, etc). It's much easier to find 1 more than it is to find 3 more or 7 more when building groups (which was always my argument with the 4/8, 4/12 caps). It's also easier to build to 12 with even numbers.
The HARD solution would be...
Honestly, right now I think the biggest problems with Match Maker are that you've kind of backed yourself into a corner with Elo and 4x3 as the overruling factors.
1. Elo really only works for solo players. Though you have a "group" average, you've never stated (IIRC) if you've put in a modifier for the force multiplier of communication. It's always been said that a group of 5 on VoIP can overpower a group nearly twice that size that isn't. It's the wildcard of communication that's hard to put a value on.
2. Weight class matching by itself doesn't really address the differences between an Awesome and an Atlas, or even a Raven 2x vs. a 3L. It's a generalization which may "work" it's not "optimal"
Taking those two things into account.
Put VoIP in the game? This is a band aid. Not everyone is going to come off their TS/Vent servers to use it, so you still have the same communication problem between large and small groups (solos), just slightly less.
Ultimately, I think the BEST solution (and this is just my opinion here) would be to create a Battle Value system of sorts.
Ok, before anyone says anything... STOP. I know that the BT Battle Value system WON'T work in this, that's why I said "Create a Battle Value system of sorts"
First would be to assign a rating to the variant. Like I mentioned above a RVN 2X is NOT a RVN 3L. A CPLT C1 and C4 are close, but not the same. So, create a point system that each variant has its place on it.
Second would be to assign a rating for all weapons. Say set the Medium Laser as the baseline, and base all other weapons around it. (This would also allow you to make changes to the weapon without buff/nerf. You change its rating and its weight on the MM without fundamentally changing the way the weapon works, unless there is some glaring problem with it, oh, and remove Ghost Heat)
Third is to assign a rating for all equipment: TAG, ECM, Modules, etc.
Combine those 3 things, then add in a faction multiplier, say IS = 1, Clan = 1.5 (something else you are able to modify w/o constant nerfs/buffs to equipment) and there is your base Mech Battle value.
Then add in Elo as a representation of pilot skill. Mech BV + Elo = Battle Value.
From there, you can throw on a Group Multiplier to the BV based off of the size of the group. (Solo is 1, 2 player is 1.2, 4 player is 1.5 and so on.)
I *think* this would give you an easier and more accurate formula to use in your match making.
Pick apart as you please.
9
