435 replies to this topic

[WarHippy]

Jman5, on 29 September 2015 - 12:06 PM, said:

I notice you have 11 man groups there. Does this mean we are going ahead with the plan to allow players to opt into group queue if the MM is 1 short?

Yeah, that is something I would like to know because I have and will continue to be in favor of that option.

[Monkey Lover]

Group size doesn't make you op.Just because we have 12 random people in Marik TS doesn't mean we can compete with 228 comp team. There should be no advantage for smaller groups. Its not like this game doesn't have voip anymore.

If you want to do anything use the tier system. If the 12 man teams has 12 tier 1 players then give the other team lots of help.

Edited by Monkey Lover, 29 September 2015 - 12:10 PM.

[Laset Kazenrete]

The tonnage steps in this proposal are nonsensical.

A 9-man gets 100 more tons than an 8-man, and only has to take 20 more tons than the 8-man did?
But the 8-man only gets 35 more tons than a 7-man, and the min weight bumps up by 80 tons?

The steps between each group size should *never* get larger as the group gets bigger, that seems trivially obvious.

Then separately, a two-man (the way I usually play...) isn't allowed to take two lights, ever?

And without some form of class restriction I can't see mediums *ever* being a good mech to take when you can take a light to make room for an extra heavy or assault, or a heavy to use the spare tonnage, instead, which is sad - mediums are some of the most fun mechs in the game, but they're also kind of bad - taking a few mediums is almost certainly worse than using similar tonnage on lights and heavies.


And then there's an interesting contradiction to prior claims: anyone remember when PGI was saying groups larger than 4-man were a small percentage of the group queue? Now they're claiming that most games have "one extra group" - which would mean the majority of games have groups with at least six members.

So what's with that, PGI?

[XX Sulla XX]

Question for those wanting no lower limit on small groups. The way Russ wants it to work is to not do weight matching in the matchmaker. Would you be OK with one side getting say 3 2 man groups of lights and the other side getting 3 2 man groups of heavies?

[Big Tin Man]

Reading Russ's comments again, it sounds like he's taking 3/3/3/3 out of the match makers calculations, which might be ok. It is unclear if 3/3/3/3 is still required for a group to hit the launch button.

Russ/Paul/Alex/Tina/Anybody: Can you please clarify this? This will have a huge impact on our feedback.

[WarHippy]

XX Sulla XX, on 29 September 2015 - 12:19 PM, said:

Question for those wanting no lower limit on small groups. The way Russ wants it to work is to not do weight matching in the matchmaker. Would you be OK with one side getting say 3 2 man groups of lights and the other side getting 3 2 man groups of heavies?

I would be fine with that because as far as I am concerned the MM should only be concerned with the players and ignore what they are bringing entirely. Groups should have an easier time of adjust and working together regardless of what then enemy team brings. As a groups you should have a game plan set in place and bring the mechs that best fit your needs for that game plan. If that means you bring 8 lights and 4 mediums then so be it. Same goes for if you want to bring 12 assaults.

[Gnume]

XX Sulla XX, on 29 September 2015 - 12:19 PM, said:

Question for those wanting no lower limit on small groups. The way Russ wants it to work is to not do weight matching in the matchmaker. Would you be OK with one side getting say 3 2 man groups of lights and the other side getting 3 2 man groups of heavies?

In theory, yes ... since the MM should be able to do a better job of matching PSR since it's not having to worry about matching Weight Classes as well...but would have to see how it plays out in the "wild".

[DJRes]

My only real major concern is that this tonnage restrictions will affect player (new or otherwise) that do not own a lot of different mechs, and will be required to play trial mechs (and thereby earning mech XP for ones that don't even own) unless the group they're in specifically caters to their need.

This might alienate newer players (for example, those that might join from Steam once it is released there) or those who play infrequently enough not to have a full stable of options.

[Big Tin Man]

Ok, Russ just clarified it on twitter. 3/3/3/3 would be completely gone, only tonnage limits in place to restrict mechs. Talk among yourselves, I need to think what this means.

[madhermit]

Quote

If 6 groups of 2 bumped into a single group of 12, what should the tonnage advantage be?

6 groups of 2 should NEVER EVER 'bump into' a single group of 12. I don't care even if it would completely DESTROY the wait times for 12 mans or 2 man groups. If you want to make AUTOMATED matchmaking and want to make it BALANCED with BALANCE as FIRST PRIORITY then you SACRIFICE QUEUE TIME.

I'm getting so sick of this. All you need to do is add a freaking ladder for 12 mans, IRC (Internet Relay Chat for you 2000's kids) with full IRC functionality (chat rooms, passwords) and make official channels for 12 mans to arrange their matches against who they want to play and when.

SERIOUSLY. If you have a unit, that has enough organization that it can field 12 people to drop simultaneously, then that unit has enough organization to arrange a match against another 12 man unit. A FULL TEAM unit does NOT need automated matchmaking! All it needs is to see how high/low they are in the ladder and who they need to challenge! TWELVE MAN UNITS ARE NOT JUST BUNCH OF RANDOM GROUPS OF 2-3'S THAT HAPPENED TO DROP TOGETHER IN SAME TEAM BECAUSE SOME AUTOMATED SYSTEM DECIDED SO. HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE THIS? YOU CAN'T BALANCE AROUND THIS!

But seeing as this is your "last attempt" (and first) so I give up. This system of overly convoluted and complex tonnage/psr/unit size/tonnageadvantagenormalizationbull will fail or, at best, won't change a thing.

This is what you get when the cornerstones for foundation of a game are "laziness", "player underestimation/appreciation", "streamlining" and "automation". This is the true reason why you can't fix and will not fix matchmaking. Creating a ladder would probably require so much restructuring of the game client that it's borderline impossible. Hell. Considering how buggy, slow and clumsy the menu UI is, I'm certain I'm right. God I HATE modern game industry. I want my 90's back!

I shouldve demanded a refund. I'm a bitter old man now! Screw friends and small group play! Full units MUST HAVE their automated matchmaking system because REASONS.

[bar10jim]

Laset Kazenrete, on 29 September 2015 - 12:18 PM, said:

And then there's an interesting contradiction to prior claims: anyone remember when PGI was saying groups larger than 4-man were a small percentage of the group queue? Now they're claiming that most games have "one extra group" - which would mean the majority of games have groups with at least six members.

So what's with that, PGI?

I would read the "one extra group" as meaning that most games have a situation in which one team has "one extra group", i.e., one team has 2 groups, the other has 3, or one has 3 and the other has 4, etc.

Edited by bar10jim, 29 September 2015 - 12:57 PM.

[XX Sulla XX]

madhermit, on 29 September 2015 - 12:47 PM, said:

6 groups of 2 should NEVER EVER 'bump into' a single group of 12. I don't care even if it would completely DESTROY the wait times for 12 mans or 2 man groups. If you want to make AUTOMATED matchmaking and want to make it BALANCED with BALANCE as FIRST PRIORITY then you SACRIFICE QUEUE TIME.

I'm getting so sick of this. All you need to do is add a freaking ladder for 12 mans, IRC (Internet Relay Chat for you 2000's kids) with full IRC functionality (chat rooms, passwords) and make official channels for 12 mans to arrange their matches against who they want to play and when.

SERIOUSLY. If you have a unit, that has enough organization that it can field 12 people to drop simultaneously, then that unit has enough organization to arrange a match against another 12 man unit. A FULL TEAM unit does NOT need automated matchmaking! All it needs is to see how high/low they are in the ladder and who they need to challenge! TWELVE MAN UNITS ARE NOT JUST BUNCH OF RANDOM GROUPS OF 2-3'S THAT HAPPENED TO DROP TOGETHER IN SAME TEAM BECAUSE SOME AUTOMATED SYSTEM DECIDED SO. HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE THIS? YOU CAN'T BALANCE AROUND THIS!

But seeing as this is your "last attempt" (and first) so I give up. This system of overly convoluted and complex tonnage/psr/unit size/tonnageadvantagenormalizationbull will fail or, at best, won't change a thing.

This is what you get when the cornerstones for foundation of a game are "laziness", "player underestimation/appreciation", "streamlining" and "automation". This is the true reason why you can't fix and will not fix matchmaking. Creating a ladder would probably require so much restructuring of the game client that it's borderline impossible. Hell. Considering how buggy, slow and clumsy the menu UI is, I'm certain I'm right. God I HATE modern game industry. I want my 90's back!

I shouldve demanded a refund. I'm a bitter old man now! Screw friends and small group play! Full units MUST HAVE their automated matchmaking system because REASONS.

Really? Most groups of 8-12 are not very good. If you have a not very good 12 man vs very good pilots in 2 and 3 man groups I do not mind a bit.

What is hard is when you have say an EMP or SJR or another top comp team 8-12 man. There are just no easy ways to balance this.

Edited by XX Sulla XX, 29 September 2015 - 01:03 PM.

[hideyourkids]

Love the idea in concept. But i would lower the small group minimums further so that they can play lights together. My main fear with this MM is that mediums are going to be phased out. Generally a light and a heavy are better than 2 mediums.

[Postal0311]

So a friend and I wouldn't be able to drop together in Atlai or King Crabs? That would take the fun out of playing with friends.

[Mawai]

Here is my feedback on the suggested changes to the group queue:

TL;DR .. in my opinion the idea will break for several reasons and not deliver on the desired goals of better balance and game play in the group queue.

-----------

1) Light mechs will always be a detriment to your team balance

If you thought light mechs were scarce before this ... I don't think you will see ANY in the group queue after this.

Not only that, but anyone in a small group that WANTS to play a light mech will be a serious disadvantage to their side in terms of tonnage balancing.

Look at the numbers.
2 players - max 150
- if a player in a 2 player group takes a light mech then the maximum for the group is 135 and their side is automatically gimped by 15 tons

3 players - max 220
- if a player takes a locust then the other two have to take 100 ton assaults ... likely ... no.
- Even a 35 ton light must be paired with two 90+ ton assaults to use the tonnage

4 players - max 285
- 1 player takes a 35 ton light and leaves 250 between 3 players or about 85 tons/player ... 1 light requires 85 ton assaults in the group to balance.

What is the bottom line? If you take a light then you force your team mates into assaults ... OR ... the entire tonnage balancing idea becomes broken.

5 player - max 365 ... a 35 ton light requires the other four to be in 80+ ton assaults on average.

2) Team optimization and maximum utilization of the least balanced mechs

12 man group - the previous standard was 3/3/3/3 ... so 3 x 35 ton lights is 105 tons ... leaving 690 tons to be split among 9 players. Average of 76 tons/player. It will be HILARIOUS (and broken) to see 12 man teams dropping in 9 x Timberwolves and 3 Arctic Cheetahs.

... and this leads into the second problem with tonnage limits instead of weight class limits. Not only will individuals min/max the meta to get the maximum performance from individual mechs. Entire TEAMS will extend this to min/max the team composition. You WILL see competitive sides with things like 9 Timberwolves and 3 Arctic Cheetahs ... simply because it will be the best team composition. Previous rules LIMITED the use of the number of most broken and unbalanced mechs ... but the tonnage limits completely break that paradigm. Unless the best mech is a 100 tonner, you will likely be able to put as MANY of them as you like on your team.

So, if you want a prediction, any tonnage limited scheme like the one described here is going to BREAK the group queue even worse than it is now. A coordinated 12 man with 12 optimaxed mechs vs. any combination of groups with anything less is going to STOMP against anything except another 12 man. On top of that, ADDING tonnage to smaller groups WON'T fix the problem since the smaller groups are more likely to be casuals, are more likely to play what they want to play (which may not be assaults) and are less likely to coordinate on the battlefield. Add to this that an organized 12 man will utilize every ton while this is much less likely for smaller groups and I think it is a recipe that won't work.



-----------------

So ... what should they do? Instead of weight class matching they could sum up total tonnage actually in each group. As the match is assembled the matchmaker will aim to give the side with more groups an advantage in total tonnage. It requires more coding, it is similar to Russ' idea, and it could possibly work ... but ONLY if actual tonnage matching is included as a factor in the matchmaker and not just throwing the groups together assuming they have whatever maximum tonnage is allocated to that group.

This still does not prevent team composition optimization by simply taking all of the best mech available. The only way I see to limit that issue is to impose both weight class and tonnage limits at group formation time. This is done in the front end and does not impact the matchmaker. If 12 mans had to be 3/3/3/3 with a tonnage limit then team min/max'ing for large groups would be reduced (though they could still field 3 Dire wolves, 3 Timberwolves, 3 Stormcrows and 3 Arctic Cheetahs with a 795 ton cap).

Edited by Mawai, 29 September 2015 - 01:32 PM.

[luigi256]

Big Tin Man, on 29 September 2015 - 12:41 PM, said:

Ok, Russ just clarified it on twitter. 3/3/3/3 would be completely gone, only tonnage limits in place to restrict mechs. Talk among yourselves, I need to think what this means.

Oh. Tonnage limit would eliminate the 3/3/3/3 rule huh. Well I guess that is why he wants the minimum weight limit. Ah to see the days of large groups of lights running around again. Those were silly times. Not to mention streak crows would have a field day with them now.

[madhermit]

XX Sulla XX, on 29 September 2015 - 12:58 PM, said:

Honestly? Most groups of 8-12 are not very good. If you have a not very good 12 man vs very good pilots in 2 and 3 man groups I do not mind a bit.

What is hard is when you have say an EMP or SJR or another top comp team 8-12 man. There are just no easy ways to balance this.

Advantages of official ladder system for 12 mans:
- See who is truly the best unit in the game.
- Way more balanced than any automated matchmaking system will ever be.

Disadvantages of official ladder system for 12 mans:
- Requires (small) effort from unit leader/captain to issue challenge against another unit.
- Requires (relatively medium) effort from entire unit to be ready to fight at designated date and time.

The reason WHY some 12 man units are so bad that they can't beat bunch of 2's and 3's is because they are most likely these freaking humongous units who just recruit everyone they see, organize no practice sessions ever and just "organize" "group" simply by inviting 60 of the currently online players in their unit with "first-come first served" philosophy. This is exactly the same as just dropping in solo.

Current automated system is just faceless and pointless where nothing really matters. Closest thing to a "ladder" system we have currently is CW.

I honestly don't know what Russ wants this game to be. Does he want this game to revolve around individual skill or organized teamplay? Current version of the game only promotes individual skill. However individuals get decimated by even basic level of organized play. Unfortunately this organized play is promoted nowhere but maybe in CW.

But idk why I keep ranting about ladders. They will not be implemented in any timely manner. Rebuilding the menu client to facilitate ladder, communication, unit information and challenge system would require WAY too much work. To put it simply it would be too big of a risk.

Edited by madhermit, 29 September 2015 - 01:22 PM.

[Mawai]

[ repeat post deleted]

Edited by Mawai, 29 September 2015 - 01:18 PM.

[Summon3r]

at first glance without putting a lot of thought into numbers those tonnage numbers look very good. this is a promising change to the game for me personally.

i like for example the min tonnage of a 2 player group prevents stuff like dual firestarters or arctic cheetahs and hte max prevents obvious cases on the heavy end

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Why are you still bothering with matchmaking.

Server browser, shards run as dedicated server rooms each server room can have it's own flavour, high tonnage per player, mixed low, mission play whatever idea you can come up with.
People can freely opt to join servers with groups in or avoid it and choose another server to play in.

That's the way it worked in the past games spanning decades, people came and went of their own choosing, why we need to spend 3 years arguing about the best way to balance team play is beyond me.

Spend your time doing something worthwhile with the game instead of retracing your neverending steps

Edited by DV McKenna, 29 September 2015 - 01:22 PM.