44 replies to this topic

[Asmudius Heng]

tl;dr version -

Would you swap 3/3/3/3 class limits in the group queue for filling up all the class buckets before you can chose another of the same class.

• 1
  
• 1/1
  
• 1/1/1
  
• 1/1/1/1
  
• 2/1/1/1
  
• 2/2/1/1
  
• 2/2/1/1
  
• 2/2/2/1
  
• 2/2/2/2
  
• 3/2/2/2
  
• etc

FULL POST

For those not on twitter there has been some discussions there (as much as you can have in 140 words a post ..) about how to help the matchmaker and group queue dynamics.

Right now it is very easy to break the group queue especially in off peak times when there are less choices to put together teams. While groups need to conform to the 3/3/3/3 rule, this means larger groups tend to come in relatively balanced (apart from always bringing Daishi's and Madcats) but smaller groups cause the main issue.

When you have a group of 4 or so people tend to ton up to assaults and heavies often because they feel they need to have that tonnage advantage to help 'carry' their team as they simply do not know the quality of the other groups they will be matched with. People might also ton up simply because they want to output more damage too or are scared of the frailty of meds and lights just like the solo queue.

This means there is a matchmaker CLOGGED with smaller groups all running bigger mechs leading to matches that either are even but incredibly top heavy - or completely unbalanced tonnage wise.

If i can find my image i posted for proof i will but this may have been started by posting an image where my team had 1 assault i think and the enemy had 5 or 6 nearly all Daishi's. It does not matter if the other team had a lower Elo.

This happened 4-5 games in a row where the MM would break and just chuck groups together and for some reason my team always ended up undertonned. We only won one match where we were undertonned due to enemy bunching and being artied enough to scrap a victory through.

So that is the problem - and an example. Maybe you have seen the same?

The proposed solution:

Group would have to take one of every tonnage class before they can choose another of the same class.

So:

• A group of 2 would need to take one of any class, and one of another class
  
• A group of 3 would need to take three different classes of any type
  
• A group of 4 would be 1/1/1/1
  
• A group of 5 would be 2/1/1/1 where the 2 can be any class
  
• A group of 6 would be 2/2/1/1
  
• and so on.

This would be the same as the 3/3/3/3 rule for 12 mans, but it would stop smaller groups maxing out the higher tonnages and breaking the MM. there is still flexibility and the higher classes will still be chosen more often when there is a choice, but that means when the MM breaks it will have more options to keep classes even at least.


As Russ stated it would be like putting a jigsaw together.

PROs:

• Shorter wait times
  
• More even class/tonnage
  
• Less strain on the MM overall
  
• More diversity

CONs:

• More restrictions on what people can play
  
• More fiddling around when making your group drop deck
  
• No solution to still bringing the heaviest in each weight class

---

Alternative solution - Tonnage limits

This will probably not go over well but its worth considering to address the point of bringing the heaviest in each weight class.

What if we had a tonnage limit for group queues? I personally think it would not work well but its worth discussing at least.

If you put in a tonnage limit of 60T per person then you might solve the not bringing the heaviest in each weight class.

This would match tonnage exactly, but it comes with natural downsides

• Less choice in your team, someone takes a Daishi, you have to take a locust no 2 ways about it.
  
• LOTS more fiddling around to fit in the tonnage limit before a drop
  
• Lots of arguments about who takes what etc

In MW4 on the NBT servers we ran with tonnage limits and it was ok, but that was because you could choose any mech at all. Also the tonnage would change if i remember correctly so no every map had the same tonnage limit when the server cycled.


The challenge of putting this into the current group queue would be immense because of the nature of F2P and so forth, however i would be interested to see if anyone had a solution to using tonnage limits for the group queue as to not be too fiddly or exclusive.

---

So what do we thing group players?

Personally i would love to see the modified class limits done ASAP. Why? Because i want matches to be close to tonnage balances with a range of different mechs on the field even if the meta mechs are most common. I want to find matches faster, and i want the matchmaker to be able to make better choices overall.

Mostly though, i think we are all wearing big boy pants in the group queue and will not have a toddler meltdown if we cannot always play out prefered mech in the interests of a better game.

Thoughts?

Edited by Asmudius Heng, 13 October 2014 - 02:52 PM.

[Dock Steward]

I'd rather have the mismatched matches than restrict the smaller groups (some of whom already have issues with the queue). That being said, I usually run in large groups, and we'd be fine with the change. Everyone enjoys running different weights.

[Asmudius Heng]

Dock Steward, on 13 October 2014 - 02:56 PM, said:

I'd rather have the mismatched matches than restrict the smaller groups (some of whom already have issues with the queue). That being said, I usually run in large groups, and we'd be fine with the change. Everyone enjoys running different weights.

Really it just imposes similar restrictions on small groups that large groups already have.

I simply have to disagree with you i guess ... i would rather closer tonnage and more variety in weight classes than longer wait times and very mismatched drops.

I have just seen a huge shift towards people filling out the higher tonnage slots so groups of 4 are often running more heavies and assaults so the matchmaker breaks because there are no corresponding teams running meds and lights to group together.

So we either end up with heavy mismatchs, or just very heavy drops where half the team are 75+ tons each which is also dull to me

[Dock Steward]

Asmudius Heng, on 13 October 2014 - 03:26 PM, said:

Really it just imposes similar restrictions on small groups that large groups already have.

I simply have to disagree with you i guess ... i would rather closer tonnage and more variety in weight classes than longer wait times and very mismatched drops.

I have just seen a huge shift towards people filling out the higher tonnage slots so groups of 4 are often running more heavies and assaults so the matchmaker breaks because there are no corresponding teams running meds and lights to group together.

So we either end up with heavy mismatchs, or just very heavy drops where half the team are 75+ tons each which is also dull to me

I mean, I guess I don't care, but I would think the small groups wouldn't like it. I suppose I shouldn't be speaking for them, though.

[Asmudius Heng]

Dock Steward, on 13 October 2014 - 03:30 PM, said:

I mean, I guess I don't care, but I would think the small groups wouldn't like it. I suppose I shouldn't be speaking for them, though.

I frequently run small groups, i know some would be annoyed, but we certainly were more annoyed by lopsided games that in some cases felt like a waste of time.

I would be happy to ton down knowing i would be facing more similar weight breakdowns too. I often give up and take my most effective mechs which ends up being higher tonnage just so i know i can compete more readily with the enemy i know will be loaded with certain mech types.

[DrXitomatl]

I have another idea that I think is better. Asmudius's idea doesn't allow a two man group to both run, for example lights. I have an idea that would be less restrictive to those wanting to run lighter, but still restricts a group of 2 from running 2 assaults, or even one assault plus one heavy, thus preventing a large number of small groups from being matched together to form a top heavy team.

I'll call my idea the Class Point System, in which we assign a simple point value number to each weight class.

Lights =1 pt
Mediums=2 pts
Heavies=3 pts
Assaults=4 pts

Each player in the group gives the group 2.5 points to spend, rounded down for odd numbered groups. Groups would not have to spend all points available to them if they don't want to.

For a two player group, the total points available would be 5, so options include one medium + one heavy, one assault + one light, two mediums, two lights, or one light + one medium

For three players, the total is 7.5, so rounding down that’s 7 points. They could do assault + medium + light (4+2+1) or heavy + medium + medium (3+2+2) OR they could choose to not spend all their points and run 3 mediums or 3 lights if desired.

At four players, this brings us back to the 1/1/1/1 thing because 4 x 2.5 pt = 10 points = 4 + 3+ 2 + 1 so one of each class. However this system doesn't force a 4-man into running 1 of each class. At the same time, it prohibits the 4 man from running 3 assaults and one heavy, which is currently allowed. However, they could choose to run a pack of lights if that what these 4 players enjoy doing together.

Got a 5 man group? 5 x 2.5 = 12.5 points, rounding down to 12 points. At 5-man group sizes and up, it becomes apparent why we must round down, not up. If they had 13 points, they could run 4 heavies and 1 light. That’s too much – imagine if two 5-man teams got matched together and each had 4 Timberwolves for a total of 8 Timberwolves on one team! I think we can all agree that that would be no bueno. Even if we kept the current restriction of 3 max for each class, they could run 1/1/2/1, which is actually potentially even heavier than 1/0/4/0 at a maximum weight of 340 tons for 1/1/2/1 vs 335 tons max for 1/0/4/0. To solve this problem, we simply round down the points for odd numbered teams. With 12 points available, a 5 man could run as 1/2/1/1=12pts or 1/2/3/0=12 pts or 0/4/1/0=12pts, or even, if they wanted to, 0/5/0/0 for 10 pts. That's freedom, but with reasonable restrictions.

Etc.

What do you guys think?

Edited by WM Xitomatl, 14 October 2014 - 06:00 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

While i hate hate hate hate the True Lance System - I'm totally opposed to a system that forces the usage of even more light Mechs.
Couldn't we sell all Mechs below 40t at militias & davions?

[DrXitomatl]

Karl Streiger, on 14 October 2014 - 05:36 AM, said:

While i hate hate hate hate the True Lance System - I'm totally opposed to a system that forces the usage of even more light Mechs.
Couldn't we sell all Mechs below 40t at militias & davions?

"Even more light mechs?" What are talking about? That implies that there is currently already an over-abundance of light mechs. There is not. Hover your mouse over the "Play" button in the game's user interface and take note of the breakdown of percentages. It's almost always mostly heavy and assault.

It makes more sense that the bigger, heavier and therefore more expensive mechs would be less commonly seen on the battlefield. The Class Point System would NOT force you to run light packs; in fact, you wouldn't have to run light mechs at all. It just shifts the balance a bit by forcing you to allocated resources, so you could do 2 mediums instead of a light and a heavy if your preference not to run lights.

It should be kind of a big deal to see god damned Direwolf on the battlefield; a moment in which the **** sphincter does battle with the contents above it, rather than a moment of "Geeze Louise, another freaking Direwolf -- how many of these things to they have?!?" EDIT: odd that I am allowed to say damned but not an-al...

Edited by WM Xitomatl, 14 October 2014 - 06:04 AM.

[Ultimax]

I think before going the full heavy restriction route, PGI should implement incentives to go 1/1/1/1 etc.

This worked very well for the most part on one of the recent challenges granting higher bonuses to lances that did this.


Otherwise your idea isn't bad, but I don't want it to be biased towards lights / mediums in that you would have to fill out those classes first.


So if it's 1/1/1/1 of anything, followed by the next set of 1/1/1/1 of anything then I'd be more apt to support this idea.

[Sprouticus]

The key for this conversation is that Russ feels that we need to do SOMETTHING to fix the Elo disparity in the gorup queue. I tend to agree. The group population is just not alrge enough right now to support a relaxed structure.


I would personally be fine for the proposed format. It is basically making the small gorups work exactly like 12 man groups. I could forsee issues with 2-3 man groups where people have a small number of mechs, and everyone likes the same weight class.

But if it helps keep things more balanced, reduces ΔElo and makes games more fun for the entire community. It also prevents large groups from weighting themselves up to carry as well as smaller ones.

[Karl Streiger]

WM Xitomatl, on 14 October 2014 - 05:48 AM, said:

"Even more light mechs?" What are talking about? That implies that there is currently already an over-abundance of light mechs. There is not. Hover your mouse over the "Play" button in the game's user interface and take note of the breakdown of percentages. It's almost always mostly heavy and assault.

You don't solve this by FORCE. (have seen the poison with the "FORCE" of GameMode Vote)
You can solve it by Reward.

Dropping in a group with true lance - get more C-bills and XP. But it should not be a "fixed" setting

Edited by Karl Streiger, 14 October 2014 - 05:52 AM.

[DrXitomatl]

Karl Streiger, on 14 October 2014 - 05:51 AM, said:

You don't solve this by FORCE. (have seen the poison with the "FORCE" of GameMode Vote)
You can solve it by Reward.

Dropping in a group with true lance - get more C-bills and XP. But it should not be a "fixed" setting

That only goes so far. The intrinsic value of the reward of victory will always trump c-bill and xp bonuses for running a couple more lights, and you'll certainly win more with all assaults and heavies if you're allowed to do that.

I do not feel that the Class Point System is overly restrictive or forceful. You'll still be able to run your assaults. You just can't ALL run assaults. Remember, this is a game. Games have rules.

Edited by WM Xitomatl, 14 October 2014 - 06:03 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

WM Xitomatl, on 14 October 2014 - 05:59 AM, said:

That only goes so far. The intrinsic value of the reward of victory will always trump c-bill and xp bonuses for running a couple more lights, and if you'll certainly win more with all assaults and heavies if you're allowed to do that.

I do not feel that the Class Point System is overly restrictive or forceful. You'll still be able to run your assaults. You just can ALL run assaults. Remember, this is a game. Games have rules.

I like Mediums and Assaults - little bit indifferent about heavys - that is not founded by any META or other MWO related stuff -its my habit from TableTop - give me lights and i suck hard.
Give me a light in my Lance that i should lead - and i usually think about two options:

• commissary action - kill the light for better moral
  
• laissez-faire - ey LIGHT do what you want but please be silent

I know that the current system don't work - usually get headache when my Centurion or Wolverine are the lightest Mechs

[Sprouticus]

Ultimatum X, on 14 October 2014 - 05:48 AM, said:

I think before going the full heavy restriction route, PGI should implement incentives to go 1/1/1/1 etc.

This worked very well for the most part on one of the recent challenges granting higher bonuses to lances that did this.


Otherwise your idea isn't bad, but I don't want it to be biased towards lights / mediums in that you would have to fill out those classes first.


So if it's 1/1/1/1 of anything, followed by the next set of 1/1/1/1 of anything then I'd be more apt to support this idea.

This is actually a good idea. PGI has been doing a lot of 'soft' limits where they give people options but still reward play that is better for the community. Mayne a 5% CB or XP bonus for teams of 2-10 that qualify. Something small but there.

If that doesnt work, then move to a hard limit.


The other thing I would like to see is how the new reward system plays into this. If the new reward system encourages people to play other weight classes, then perhaps forcing folks into a weight class based limit would not be needed?

Lastly, there is still the option for a soft game mode limit. I know this was not popular with folks in the solo queue, but I really think being more flexible in the group queue would be more tolerable for people since the problems that crop up in the solo queue (one lance going off and dying on its own in conquest, last mech hiding in Skirmish, etc) would be less common in the group queue.

[Lily from animove]

gameplaywise it makes sense, but from the rest not so much.

So I play in groupqueue with ym buddy, I play a nova and m buddy heavy. Now we meet others there probably another guy in a nova. We make freidnship, I can not play with him again both in Novas becquse of that restriction. That sounds not so good. And I guess some Units will now try to synchdrop by some strange laodouts making the MM force them together die to some probably working incompatibilities.

but then the lance challanges with true lances offering 50% more boni were really a great experience in much better MM balance.

Edited by Lily from animove, 14 October 2014 - 06:24 AM.

[DrXitomatl]

Lily from animove, on 14 October 2014 - 06:23 AM, said:

gameplaywise it makes sense, but from the rest not so much.

So I play in groupqueue with ym buddy, I play a nova and m buddy heavy. Now we meet others there probably another guy in a nova. We make freidnship, I can not play with him again both in Novas becquse of that restriction. That sounds not so good. And I guess some Units will now try to synchdrop by some strange laodouts making the MM force them together die to some probably working incompatibilities.

but then the lance challanges with true lances offering 50% more boni were really a great experience in much better MM balance.

I would like to point out that the Class Point System would allow you both to be in Novas... take as many lights or mediums as you please with CPS. With the OP's system, you are correct, you would not be able to do it.

[Sprouticus]

WM Xitomatl, on 14 October 2014 - 06:27 AM, said:

I would like to point out that the Class Point System would allow you both to be in Novas... take as many lights or mediums as you please with CPS. With the OP's system, you are correct, you would not be able to do it.

I don't hate this, but I wonder how much back end coding it would take. The 1/1/1/1 system is already in place and easy to implement.

[Karl Streiger]

Sprouticus, on 14 October 2014 - 06:29 AM, said:

I don't hate this, but I wonder how much back end coding it would take. The 1/1/1/1 system is already in place and easy to implement.

The class system in its first form with 2.5 points per player - is only important for the "lobby" group finding. No coupling with the Matchmaker - but a final point value.
Don't have to be so much different from the current system.

The question is: is a light + assault equal to an medium + heavy? Are two Lights + Two Assaults equal to two mediums and two heavys?

[Dock Steward]

I could definitely see the Class Point System working, but I feel like the other ideas here operate under the assumption that a group of less than 12 is always maxing tonnage. That's just not the case. There are often times my unit doesn't get a full 12 and we run what people were going to run when we thought there would be 12. Which is to say, we don't just go with 3 assaults, 3 heavies and 3 mediums when we have 9 players. Sometimes we might be short an assault and a medium and a light or any other combination. It all depends on who is there and what their weight preference is.

Point being, any system that would force small groups into lighter mechs is flawed. The Class Point System doesn't do that, so, right now, it seems like a pretty decent idea to me.

Edited by Dock Steward, 14 October 2014 - 07:10 AM.

[Revis Volek]

WM Xitomatl, on 14 October 2014 - 06:27 AM, said:

I would like to point out that the Class Point System would allow you both to be in Novas... take as many lights or mediums as you please with CPS. With the OP's system, you are correct, you would not be able to do it.

This will never work, this is why they put in the 4x3 restrictions on large groups because 12 man light wolf packs created so much grief people were quitting. Its the opposite of an all Assault team which we also got a while back if anyone remembers before they added the MM changes.

Just create better incentives and make it cheaper per game to run lights and mediums....problem solved.