22 replies to this topic

[CocoaJin]

It seems I have to preface this thread with a brief summary...since people are so wound up and pig headed that they neglect to read.

This isn't about faction assymetery, it's about class assymetery.

It was touch upon in some respects with talk about 12v10...but that was more faction/lore balanced and apparently had some inherent drawbacks for implementation.

Instead, I'd like to propose a fully dynamic, asynchronous match up based first and foremost on weighted class matchings. I saw it briefly explained on the World of Warships FAQ:

...if player choose a DD, than balancing tool will get another three players on DD in that team slot. Totally there will be 10 slots approximately.

If applied to MWO, we'd have either 4 slots for both sides, or perhaps 3 IS and 2 + 1/2 Aux Clan slots. As an example for discussion purposes, Each slot can filled by 1 Assault, 2 Heavy, 4 Med or 5 lights, the Clan Aux slot would be 1assault, 1heavy, 2 med and 3 lights.

For PuGs, we'd see auto team builds, in CW we could do custom team builds within the slot limits. The MM could do AdHoc filling of slots as necessary to expedite matches, so if there is only one heavy queued, an Assault can be put into the Heavy slot, but it may come at the expense of a medium or light slot...severly reducing the number of players on the Assault heavy team. If there aren't enough lights, then they can be filled in with mediums, without impacting the higher weight slots.

With this mechanic, I'd expect to see the player population choice to disproportionately run heavier chassises compared to mediums and lights brings with it the possibility of being forced to combat swarms of lighter mechs in a match. In fact, if it's far enough out of skew, it might even require a second spawn wave of lights!!!

Edited by CocoaJin, 03 November 2014 - 01:54 PM.

[kapusta11]

Would you like to be on the "fodder" side then?

[Mark Brandhauber]

I'd like to see less downright arrogant and prideful response on the forums.

[kapusta11]

I'd like to see less stupid ideas as well.

[Kain Demos]

kapusta11, on 03 November 2014 - 11:42 AM, said:

I'd like to see less stupid ideas as well.

I'd like to see less stupid terms like "fodder side" used whenever talk of asymmetrical teams comes up.

Edited by Kain Thul, 03 November 2014 - 11:45 AM.

[Alexander MacTaggart]

kapusta11, on 03 November 2014 - 11:11 AM, said:

Would you like to be on the "fodder" side then?

Well, considering that the conceptual balance between IS and Clan forces is that Clan tech is better therefore they field smallergroups then the IS, then the question we should robably as is "Do you like being on the 'fodder' side right now?'

Since, you know, the IS is being handicapped by having to face an equal number of Clan mechs in the current match format.

[Hospy]

I wouldn't mind at least trying it.

[Glythe]

Asymmetrical balance is fine...... you just need things to limit the distance of the asymmetry.

No more than 5% total weight difference in teams... but no rigid formula for mech type.
No more than +1 ECM variance for teams (but you cant have 1 team with ECM and the other without).


Back in the day with 8 vs 8 you sometimes had 6 lights+ 2 mediums fight 8 assaults. I would say about 75% of the time the assaults won (and that was with the lights having super magic lag shields). On the other hand it is suddenly interesting when you might have 4 assaults+4 lights vs 4 heavies+4 mediums.

Edited by Glythe, 03 November 2014 - 11:53 AM.

[Kain Demos]

Even outside of the 10v12 that many of us wanted for Clam vs IS matches I would still like to see the matches matched by tonnage than simply numbers of each class.

I've also been thinking about a few months from now when the Wave II clam 'mechs are mostly available for C-bills what it would be like if separate IS and Clam queues were made for the pug/brawl matches. It would definitely add some immersion and make CW a little more unique. Imagine a player that is new to the game that builds up their 'mechs in this new system only seeing other IS or Clam 'mechs in the PUG matches and then gets into CW and sees the enemy for the first time--I think that would be cool as hell.

Not only that the pug matches would serve as a way of showing the infighting within the two main factions which was always taking place.

[Burktross]

kapusta11, on 03 November 2014 - 11:11 AM, said:

Would you like to be on the "fodder" side then?

Yeah, this is about my reasoning for saying no... as well as needing major redesign...

[Kain Demos]

Burktross, on 03 November 2014 - 12:01 PM, said:

Yeah, this is about my reasoning for saying no... as well as needing major redesign...

If a match was balanced by tonnage instead of numbers/class would you really feel like Fodder if your team had less 'mechs but twice as many assault/heavy 'mechs?

[CocoaJin]

kapusta11, on 03 November 2014 - 11:11 AM, said:

Would you like to be on the "fodder" side then?

What fodder side? This isn't about IS vs Clan assymetery(though I did provide the possibility for it). This is a proposal for class based assymetery.

I guess one could see an extreme case like 4 Assaults verse 16 meds or 20lights...but then I ask again, which side is the fodder side?

Oh, hold on!...did ya'll even read the post before you hit respond?

Edited by CocoaJin, 03 November 2014 - 01:51 PM.

[LauLiao]

The problem with this proposal is that it assumes that every mech in a weight class matches up against every other mech in every other weight class in similar ways and that's just not true.

There are certain assaults that are better than others, there are certain lights that could easily tear up a slow, heavy assault. If there were a straight power progression and Assaults were the top of the heap and everything else was inferior, then this might work, but it's simply not the case.

If you look at the most extreme case you'd be talking 12 assaults vs 60 light mechs. Assuming the pilots are all equally skilled, I'm pretty sure I know who's gonna win that one.

[SweetJackal]

Kain Thul, on 03 November 2014 - 11:45 AM, said:

I'd like to see less stupid terms like "fodder side" used whenever talk of asymmetrical teams comes up.

The entire concept of "Fodder" exists when you design the team balance around the idea that some players will have more raw impact than others. This often leads to issues with player psychology which will have the vast majority of your average players wanting to play said units that are designed to have more impact. This can be seen with the DPS classes in the traditional MMO Trinity and with the infighting that often occurs in DOTA styled games over Carries and Lane Claiming.

This is why for MWO's survival they must avoid a dangerous level of asymmetrical balance as each player only controls one mech. Designing a side to be balanced by having fewer teammates requires an admittance that the side with fewer units is more powerful by design and given the choice the majority of players will want to play that Power role or unit over playing weaker or support units.

Such gravitation will cause a drought of players in one side or role and will force a match redesign to deal with said drought to fix the wait times. Which means that content produced for the game and that players have spent time and possibly money on will be obsolete, which hurts purchase satisfaction and has the potential to drive away players that do not want to play as certain factions or units.

[Walluh]

This idea would make sense if assaults were objectively better than heavies are objectively better than mediums are objectively better than lights.

But they aren't.

Not to mention the 80-60-40 weight classes would be taking up a higher slot, when most of the time they're basically sliiiiightly bigger versions of the previous weight class.

And with 20 you get lolcusts.

Edited by Walluh, 03 November 2014 - 02:53 PM.

[cSand]

RE: faction/class or any kind of assymetry

Edited by cSand, 03 November 2014 - 03:27 PM.

[CocoaJin]

LauLiao, on 03 November 2014 - 02:36 PM, said:

The problem with this proposal is that it assumes that every mech in a weight class matches up against every other mech in every other weight class in similar ways and that's just not true.

There are certain assaults that are better than others, there are certain lights that could easily tear up a slow, heavy assault. If there were a straight power progression and Assaults were the top of the heap and everything else was inferior, then this might work, but it's simply not the case.

Better chassises within the class and the difficulty in balancing for them is an inherent shortcoming of the MM, it is no more a reason to throw out this proposal than the current MM or just about any game MM out there. Plus, the player population naturally controls for that by generally choosing the better chassises in the class...thus, most mechs filling class slots will likely be on the better end of their class spectrum. Even if it's an unproven assumption that there is an inherent advantage in heavier chassis weight, the player populations has already more or less proven the point as a natural and organic method of trial and error whose results can be easily seen in the queue. It's no accident Assaults and heavies readily require longer waits to enter games due to higher queuing of heavier classes.

Not to mention, a perfectly balanced match is a pipe dream. There is no need to try and get perfectly balanced matches at the expense of wait times in the queue, all thatncan be expected is a MM that attempts to maintain balance within a reasonable range of error/divergence. I'm more inclined to believe that a class based asymmetrical MM would have the flexibility to create match ups with balance within a smaller tolerance of error.

Quote

If you look at the most extreme case you'd be talking 12 assaults vs 60 light mechs. Assuming the pilots are all equally skilled, I'm pretty sure I know who's gonna win that one.

There wouldn't be 12 Assaults, the max would be 4-5...and that would be at the expense of any other mechs on that side. The minimum team size would be 4 or 5 players, all assaults, with a max being up to about 20 players if all lights....or some number in between balanced by the number of chassis for each class.

cSand, on 03 November 2014 - 03:25 PM, said:

RE: faction/class or any kind of assymetry

My equally simple rebuttal:

Edited by CocoaJin, 03 November 2014 - 04:41 PM.

[KamikazeRat]

ok, so... ill admit a half-hearted scan, enough to get the basic idea...and i would like to propose...some sort of Battle Value....

not weight class, too broad.
does Victor=Direwolf?

Balance by tonnage is closer
but does Orion=Timberwolf?

some sort of "Battle Value" (BV) system would balance mechs by their effectiveness. instead of what PGI is currently trying to do with balance and give each mech a BV of lets say "1" (hypothetically if every mech had a BV of 1, the game would be perfectly balanced). some mechs are clearly above 1, some are clearly below. even different loadouts can alter the mech's BV.

however, i doubt this will ever come to be. its too much of a task to create a dynamic formula for BV, and factor in player skill, which would also have to calculate synergy between roles, (balancing a ratio of brawlers/skirmishers/support/spotters) to create evenly balanced matches.

Edited by KamikazeRat, 03 November 2014 - 05:03 PM.

[Alexander MacTaggart]

Battle Value is based on tabletop mechanics and performance though, MWO being real-time with player aim throws ALL that out.

[KamikazeRat]

Alexander MacTaggart, on 03 November 2014 - 05:02 PM, said:

Battle Value is based on tabletop mechanics and performance though, MWO being real-time with player aim throws ALL that out.

thats why i mention it as "some sort of Battle Value system", definitely not TT battle values exactly, because any rules from TT need thrown out the window or at least ran through a blender before they get into MWO.

it would have to be a system within this system....ok so an awesome is worth .98, an atlas is worth 1.12 as an example of what it would look like in my head. (totally pulled those numbers between me and the chair if you know what i mean.) and each mech and weapon system would have multipliers upon these numbers. and then factor in player skill. and then factor in how much more effective a LRM boat is if it has a dedicated spotter...and how many LRM boats can effectively run off a single spotter, how many brawlers do they need for protection, how many skirmishers do they need to pick off the weak targets....

all of those things go into "balance" of the matches. in order to get a perfect match, all of those factors and the numbers associated with them need to be in harmony(even if we don't have them quantified, there are mathmatical odds based on these factors, it would just take a super-genious to design the super-computer to calculate all this)

Edited by KamikazeRat, 03 November 2014 - 05:10 PM.