281 replies to this topic

[TheRulesLawyer]

Dlardrageth, on 21 December 2011 - 11:14 AM, said:

Many more variables, I'd expect. Like one for the classical ELO rating, another for the Mech-specific one of your pilot, yet another for "unit performance" one. (The latter meaning you might be somewhat penalized for having an exceptionally well working lance, but hey, more challenging that way!) Plus "X" others I cannot imagine right now. Now throw all that together and try to get a 12 vs. 12 setup done. So adding up all this individual variables to a set "rating" (modified if you try to join with a whole lance of 4 Mechs) and trying to get 2 balanced teams for a match from that. And the whole thing of course with 2 sets of varaibles, being based 60% on the Mech piloted and 40% on the pilot (I think 60/40 would be a good ratio, only so much a really good pilot can do to overcome unfavourable odds.)

Might take the matchmaker a bit, but I'd rather have it balanced than silly and wait a minute or three, instead of only 10 seconds.

I wonder what the largest group you'll be able to drop with is? One would figure a lance would be it, but if it ends up being 8 vs 8 that is going to be one heck of a tall order to find for a match maker if people are commonly dropping into battle in groups.

I'd rather not see matchmaker modify the BV in that case and instead just try and match the ELO of people first.

[Raeven]

TheRulesLawyer, on 21 December 2011 - 09:34 AM, said:

If you want to argue that the battletech TT rules won't transfer well to a video game you best get to reading them.

Specifically, the Solaris VII The Game World book dueling rules from the old Solaris VII box set that is no longer being published. It's from there the weapon recycle times are derived. It's also from that other special rules were implemented even though many of them have not been seen in a simulation, such as shooting beyond maximum range of the weapon, TIC's, disengaging PPC field inhibitors, hot-loading LRM's, interlocking stream SRM's, as well as overriding weapon recycle time delay.

[MaddMaxx]

TheRulesLawyer, on 21 December 2011 - 11:07 AM, said:

They do it in LoL. Its not as accurate as a individual elo, especially as player numbers go up. Works pretty much the same way there. I don't think individual performance within the match is considered. Just the win or loss.

Should be interesting. A possible Ladder based on Wins and Loses of combat groups numbering between 4 and 12, with the contents of said groups a very flexible entity. Hmmm.

[MaddMaxx]

TheRulesLawyer, on 21 December 2011 - 11:23 AM, said:

I wonder what the largest group you'll be able to drop with is? One would figure a lance would be it, but if it ends up being 8 vs 8 that is going to be one heck of a tall order to find for a match maker if people are commonly dropping into battle in groups.

I'd rather not see matchmaker modify the BV in that case and instead just try and match the ELO of people first.

Given the Contract bidding system, no match maker is required for the Persistent game play side. I Bid, you Bid, they Bid, Bid winners drop and winners gets the Planet. Of course you may face superior groups of 4 or 8 or 12 but that is what having to improve your crew is all about right.

[Dlardrageth]

TheRulesLawyer, on 21 December 2011 - 11:23 AM, said:

I wonder what the largest group you'll be able to drop with is? One would figure a lance would be it, but if it ends up being 8 vs 8 that is going to be one heck of a tall order to find for a match maker if people are commonly dropping into battle in groups.

I'd rather not see matchmaker modify the BV in that case and instead just try and match the ELO of people first.

Well, I was basing what I wrote on the conception that you could team up with a max. of 3 buddies pre-match. And thus join a given battle as a whole lance at max. At least for the "random" game mode. In a campaign mode, this would obviously need to be differently.

So assuming by the 12 vs. 12 battle mode that seems to be preferable for random battles, you'd have to match up 24 different sets of variables, aka individual ratings for the given pilot/Mech combo. Sounds like a lot, but isn't actually with modern computing power (Trying this "by foot" with your old pocket calculator though... ouchie... ).

I do think though it is quite necessary to have ratings for both the pilot in his specific Mech and the Mech itself factored in. Otherwise it could too easily come to vastly unbalanced matches. Apart from it being too easy to "game" the matchmaking. More variables included are your friend, as they up the chance to provide for balanced and interesting matches. At least for the "random" game mode.

Edit: Enough with derailing this thread though, sorry.

Edited by Dlardrageth, 21 December 2011 - 12:12 PM.

[CaveMan]

Well, having read Q&A #2, it sounds like they're going to reward playtime in a single chassis with improved stats for your 'Mech over time.

This makes proper control over the mechlab even more critical than before. They're now actively providing a dis-incentive to switch chassis. That's going to promote the hell out of gunbag/fake omnimech behavior if there's a factory-level mechlab available.

Fortunately, they also provide an easy fix inherent in the system: treat every custom refit as a new chassis that you have to earn XP in.

[Raeven]

TheRulesLawyer, on 21 December 2011 - 11:23 AM, said:

I wonder what the largest group you'll be able to drop with is? One would figure a lance would be it, but if it ends up being 8 vs 8 that is going to be one heck of a tall order to find for a match maker if people are commonly dropping into battle in groups.

I'd rather not see matchmaker modify the BV in that case and instead just try and match the ELO of people first.

I always liked choosing by 'Mech class, over BV. BV goes out the window when you can actually control the 'Mech. If it is used, a new set of values will have to be generated for all 'Mechs because of the nature of translating 'Mechs into 3d changes BV a great deal also. If the weapons aren't properly balanced, the BV changes. 'Mech chassis modelling and hitboxes change BV values unintentionally.

For example, in MPBT, the Atlas wasn't nearly as great as other 'Mechs because LRM's were too strong (full damage 60/40 spread) and it was just too slow on long range maps. The Orion chassis was a deathtrap because it had a huge CT. The Catapult chassis was too strong because you couldn't hit the CT from the front.

So long as the players know what type of map they will be dropping on beforehand I think a mission requirement of a number of specific 'Mech classes would work. That way, you can get company's of 12 people together and they set their 'Mechs to compliment each other based on the map. So, urban maps will see more Hunchbacks and short range monsters with a mix of slow but durable mediums and heavies. Ranged maps will see more Catapults and long range beasts with quick scout light 'Mechs. Forested maps (if well implemented) will be a whole new category that will change 'Mech selection.

So long as you know the type of Map, not the exact makeup of it, you can make pretty good choices of 'Mechs based on the tactics you plan to use. The newbs can bring the heaviest 'Mechs from those classes, but would quickly and easily get beaten by a more complimentary 'Mech selection that takes advantage of the terrain being fought over.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Trying to move the matchmaking stuff to a new thread
http://mwomercs.com/...03-matchmaking/

[MaddMaxx]

Perhaps in another thread lads. I started one just in case. Unless this thread about MechLab has been thusly resolved.

[Phades]

TheRulesLawyer, on 21 December 2011 - 10:09 AM, said:

Sure, break points are one of the things they could fix going to a PC. Unfortunately it would also break many TRO designs. However it would be interesting if an engine gives you X amount power and your tonnage varied it, even unused tonnage and expended ammo. I think there may be optional rules to cover some of this. Honestly a lot of the TT to RT conversion issues are addressed in the more advanced rules that people rarely play with.

If they had full blown customization and went whole hog with it, I would love to see undefined perks to some things that aren't listed in the core rules. If for nothing else, create more variation within the builds themselves. Hell, I wouldn't even mind seeing a reactor rating correlating over to a max power output to potentially limit the type and quantity of energy weapons present, or force introduction of power amps as seen with ICE engines.

TheRulesLawyer, on 21 December 2011 - 10:09 AM, said:

Yah ELO isn't perfect, but its the best we have. I've never come across a better overall ranking system. Perhaps it could track Elo per class and have a minimum difference between your min and max scores?

That solves one element. If stock variants are only allowed, how do you address multiple accounts with the same user? IE ELO guys on a team range from 2000-2400. They create new accounts and they are pegged at 1000 each. They get matched with people + or - 200 ideally. They would basically shed their handicap associated with the BV and proceed to roflstomp average players (happened quite a bit in Guildwars). This would force you to disallow resource sharing within merc groups as a byproduct.

Dlardrageth, on 21 December 2011 - 11:14 AM, said:

Many more variables, I'd expect. Like one for the classical ELO rating, another for the Mech-specific one of your pilot, yet another for "unit performance" one. (The latter meaning you might be somewhat penalized for having an exceptionally well working lance, but hey, more challenging that way!) Plus "X" others I cannot imagine right now. Now throw all that together and try to get a 12 vs. 12 setup done. So adding up all this individual variables to a set "rating" (modified if you try to join with a whole lance of 4 Mechs) and trying to get 2 balanced teams for a match from that. And the whole thing of course with 2 sets of varaibles, being based 60% on the Mech piloted and 40% on the pilot (I think 60/40 would be a good ratio, only so much a really good pilot can do to overcome unfavourable odds.)

Might take the matchmaker a bit, but I'd rather have it balanced than silly and wait a minute or three, instead of only 10 seconds.

Would need to be player based on mission, chassis load out, BV tiers, who they played with, their merc outfit, and performance variables within each game (can't simply be based off win/loss or kills as that would skew the figures as well).

Good thoughts though.

Edited by Phades, 21 December 2011 - 12:30 PM.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Phades, on 21 December 2011 - 12:26 PM, said:

That solves one element. If stock variants are only allowed, how do you address multiple accounts with the same user? IE ELO guys on a team range from 2000-2400. They create new accounts and they are pegged at 1000 each. They get matched with people + or - 200 ideally. They would basically shed their handicap associated with the BV and proceed to roflstomp average players (happened quite a bit in Guildwars). This would force you to disallow resource sharing within merc groups as a byproduct.

Would need to be player based on mission, chassis load out, BV tiers, who they played with, their merc outfit, and performance variables within each game (can't simply be based off win/loss or kills as that would skew the figures as well.

Good thoughts though.

Yah, smurfing. Or at least what it was called in LoL. I don't really know what you can do to stop it. Other than the fact you only have a few mechs to play with. I know there was a newbie isolation zone as well. Basically once you got out the the newbie area you were more or less protected from the smurfs. Too much trouble to level a smurfing account to continue harassing people when you could report the player after the game and they'd get banned eventually. I know that ELO is set highly variable initially as well in the game with new accounts. That was if someone is particularly good or bad their ELO reflects that quickly. The other option is no player ranking system and you end up with matches based on length of play time (rank) or just plain random which can lead to really lopsided battle all the time, not just in the newbie area.

[Phades]

Yeah, smurfing, it burns us like the sun. Just makes me think there has to be another way to rate teams as "balanced".

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Would loyalty points and XP +MXP be enough to mke it not worth it to smurf? The other thing is matches on the campaign map are going to be unbalanced. Say you have a Merc Co who wins it made up of vets. To start with we are all "equal" - the people defending can't get 12 people together and it's a "pick up" group of lone wolves etc or just a group of house noobs? It will level to an extent but I can see that if there isn't some form of balancing. imagine if there was a merc company or house unit that had say 20 of the top 30 ranked pilots. If it was your merc planet being attacked and your group were all part timers ranked about 10000, I can guess the result if it is 12 v 12.

[Threat Doc]

Red Beard, on 21 December 2011 - 09:05 AM, said:

That's funny. You only want to read the opinion of those that agree with your, powerfully biased opinion? Somehow I am not surprised.

Well, no, and it's already been pointed out before, but I just don't like to listen to extraordinary ignorance.

(shrugs) The rest has already been said, RB. Good luck, buddy.

[kaziem]

Okay, I read 10 pages. Time for 2 cents.

There's a few ways around the problem of minmaxing. The first way is to make every single repair, edit, upgrade, swap, and polish cost money. Serious money. And time, too. The main reason mercs don't do upgrades in the BT universe is because it's very expensive and time-consuming to get right. The main reason House units don't do upgrades is that individual warriors may or may not own their mechs personally, and may or may not get permission to get repairs or edits done, assuming that someone has the dough to pay for it. This makes it expensive to edit things, as the BT universe says it is. Then when omnimechs show up, owning and repairing them is expensive, but swapping is easy, for the pod-mounted items.

The second way is some kind of hardpoint or critical-limiting system, sorta like the modification rules for the BT tabletop.

The third way is to make people have to hire techs of various skills, the more efficient and skilled, the higher the salary. Or, a crappy tech can't handle omnimechs or omni equipment.

I think the best way to do it is a combination. First make people pay for everything in both time and c-bills, including repairs, edits, swaps, etc. Second, make the more complicated swaps more expensive and time consuming than simple swaps. Third, make the available techs dependent on how they get paid: house units have techs as default, they don't need to be hired but they may not be the best. Mercs would have to hire, but they could get very good if they wanted.

Or something. Basically, the reason it's easy to min-max is because it's cheap: that is, actually rearranging the weapons on your mech does not cost the player anything, in time or in-game currency or real-world currency. If we attach some kind of deterrent cost, that will make minmaxing not cost-effective.

[Excalibaard]

Eegxeta, on 27 November 2011 - 05:32 PM, said:

I just put this together to see what people thought and if anyone had any good ideas on ways to improve it. I was mostly trying to introduce a more complex weight system to the mech lab. Hard-points aren't a bad idea they were just poorly implemented. If the hard-points didn't restrict weapon type I think the MW4 mech lab could work as the base for the MWO mech lab.

The hard-points work like MW4 except the hard-points don't restrict type. Weapon hard-points should have a limit to how much weapon tonnage it can carry based on where it is on the mech a torso would be able to carry more weapon tonnage than an arm or a pod. There should also be a limit to the number of weapons that can be installed onto a hard-point based on the mech design, example the large shoulder cannon on the Hunchback should only be able to carry one weapon because it was only designed to carry one weapon. Omi weapon hard-point shouldn't have a limit number of weapons you can fit into the space available. The weapons also have a visual effect on the mechs the standard load-out for a mech dictates the base look of the mech( back to the hunchback) if you were to put a Gauss rifle in the shoulder cannon of a hunchback there should be a visual change such as an elongated barrel. That would make it look like the Hollander II big brother

How does this sound? I believe this fixes the problem everyone is having with the hard-points.

Or you can keep the typed hard-points and just make it take longer or cost a little more to put a weapon of a different type in.

I like the typeless hard-points better personally.

This is a nice suggestion in my opinion that has been overlooked.

Myself I thought of a similar system, but instead I think variant mechs should be added for the Lore-fans.

Bear in mind: I am in the MW4 newbies category. I did play MW2 (bought the CD in a second-hand store) but i was too young to be fully immersed in the story or far more advanced lab at that time. Nevertheless, I've played the games to death, and apart from the games feeling like a real cockpit with all the different buttons, there was one other thing that I loved, and I could happily spend days with. Customizing my mechs. I think I was like 9 at the time i got that MW2 CD and played MW4, and it was as awesome as playing with LEGO, especially MW4 (probably because of the shapes)

I think that there could be chassis types on the first, variants on the second, and customization on the third level. This means that you can buy a certain chassis, later buy an upgrade to a certain variant, and the stock model and variants have different hardpoints. According to which variant you choose as a basis you can use those hardpoints to build a mech to your liking, with details to the model that indicate the customizations. they shouldn't be lagfest-inducing, so just rescales or something would be more than sufficient.

Another thing that was not used to full potential in MW4 was splitting the cells. the raven had 2x 1 beam slot i believe but that's all I can remember. you can prevent exchanging the UAC2 with an LBX 20, by changing how many slots are linked for example. if they'd so desire to get an LBX 20 they'll have to find a variant that has hardpoints that support that kind of heavy duty weaponry. The limited tonnage per location like the quoted guy said could be another good option, as well as some recoil/knockback factors on some weapons.

people who care more about the lore than about the customization can just buy variants and not customise them, and everyone should be happy right? since both creative persons and story persons can experience the game in their own way, and it's not like MW4 that the model doesn't change at all and you suddenly get a couple of gauss cannons in your face from some random non-Hollander medium class mech.

Even if that wouldn't work, maybe faction could be limited to variants, mercs could make a few adjustments like described above because they're not as restricted as some faction's rules, and Lone Wolves could essentially be able to be even more creative with buying something like hardpoint editing kits (and to give LW's a more viable reason to be picked, much like the quote's suggestion)

Edited by SubjectSeven, 21 December 2011 - 05:24 PM.

[John Frye]

SubjectSeven, on 21 December 2011 - 05:22 PM, said:

Even if that wouldn't work, maybe faction could be limited to variants, mercs could make a few adjustments like described above because they're not as restricted as some faction's rules, and Lone Wolves could essentially be able to be even more creative with buying something like hardpoint editing kits (and to give LW's a more viable reason to be picked, much like the quote's suggestion)

I think the last Q&A had something about all items being available to all players, however the price may vary. I would guess that would extend to variants as well, but without knowing how the customization is going to be handled, that might be pointless speculation.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Yeah, we have no information on Mech customization or variant capacity, so we can only speculate and beg.

Please, make customization possible. This is for one main reason: We, as pilots, will be getting Chassis-specific experience points. That means players will be rewarded for choosing a chassis and sticking to it. We should have the capacity to at least slightly modify a chassis so we can experiment with a new laser or missile pod here-and-there without having to forgo all our accrued chassis-points. Just make customization expensive. Charge us a lot of c-bills to remove a weapon, or a heatsink, or a ECM suite... and then charge again to install a new part. Well-trained BattleTech Universe technicians are few and expensive by-the-hour, so they should charge a good penny to spend hours of their time to carefully remove a gigantic laser from your Mech without damaging any of the circuitry, software configurations, or mounting brackets. And then they should charge you for the labor to put in a new part, configure it, and all that jazz.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 21 December 2011 - 08:32 PM.

[CaveMan]

If you change a 'Mech to a huge degree, it should wipe your chassis experience points, because you've basically just rebuilt your whole 'Mech. I'm not talking about swapping out your AC/5 for a PPC, but if you go and strip all the equipment off a 'Mech and completely rearrange it, especially if you change something major like the engine, you've essentially got a new 'Mech and the game should treat that accordingly.

[Dlardrageth]

CaveMan, on 21 December 2011 - 08:40 PM, said:

If you change a 'Mech to a huge degree, it should wipe your chassis experience points, because you've basically just rebuilt your whole 'Mech. I'm not talking about swapping out your AC/5 for a PPC, but if you go and strip all the equipment off a 'Mech and completely rearrange it, especially if you change something major like the engine, you've essentially got a new 'Mech and the game should treat that accordingly.

Also you should lose your Mech's name and denomination on a complete revamp. After that, you would be piloting a MU-NK-N Munchkin Mech.

I still think there needs to be some limit to customization,but hey, if people totally want a light Mech with the UAC/20 and PGI allows it, so be it... Not sure why "all items avaialbale to all players" makes more sense than a variant progression path for each MEch chassis, but I reckon PGI will have its reasons.