435 replies to this topic

[Agent 0 Fortune]

I have a plan that will preserve the spirit of 3/3/3/3 and offload some of the workload from the matchmaker. The matchmaker will only be responsible for finding the correct player count and PSR (as applicable). Each weight class is assigned a value of 0 to 3. Each whole number represents the number of mechs in that weight class they are allowed to drop with.

However some weight class will include fractions, and some of those fractional mechs can be adjusted up or down a weight class. To clarify this concept I have included a diagram of each drop category (2-12 man) in the spoiler tags below.

Keep in mind this represents a concept of weight class balancing, and be fine tuned if more flexibility in drop deck is needed.


2-man drop deck options

Spoiler

2-man group possible combinations. (NOTE: No doubling up on weight classes for 2 man)
1/1/0/0 (keep light half-mech on light, slide heavy half-mech to medium)
1/0/1/0 (keep light half-mech on light, keep heavy half-mech on heavy)
1/0/0/1 (keep light half-mech on light, slight heavy half-mech to assault)
0/1/1/0 (slide light half-mech to medium, keep heavy half mech on heavy)
0/1/0/1 (slight light half-mech to medium, slight heavy half-mech to assault)
0/0/1/1 (not possible)

3-man drop deck options

Spoiler

4-man drop deck options

Spoiler

5-man drop deck options

Spoiler

6-man drop deck options

Spoiler

7-man drop deck options

Spoiler

8-man drop deck options

Spoiler

9-man drop deck options

Spoiler

10-man drop deck options

Spoiler

12-man drop deck options

Spoiler

[Brut4ce]

Hey All!

Russ and team, nice update and really excited about the coming month.

First of all, i think you are on the right path on match maker changes taking tonnage into account. It should help public matches imo. However, i would like to add that maybe the battle value of the mechs should be taken into account as well. At present, as in the past with ELO, only the skill of the pilot has been taken into account. At some point during the summer, there was a post from the team on some thoughts introducing a battle value system as well, if i recall correctly. I know introducing such a system could be a programming nightmare, but would like to know how far down the road did you explore the possibility.

Furthermore, i agree that, this has been probably the best year in development of MWO yet, as you commented, and we saw quite a lot of features coming out. However, Community Warfare has been left on the "back burner" a bit, and it is beginning to "stagnate" imo.

To conclude, it is my strong belief that what is probably needed from now on, is to provide more depth, content and lore in Community Warfare, and immerse the players of MWO into a game with the feeling of being part of a living, breathing universe, fighting for something, other than "Dots", bringing to the game the true feeling of Battletech.

Thanks for reading,

Brut4ce

[bad arcade kitty]

so 12 men can run anything between 600 and 795

i don't see any real reason behind the minimal bar but w/e

it means they can bring like 12 hellbringers/ebon jags or 6 timber wolves and 6 stormcrows and stomp anybody

[One of Little Harmony]

Please change the minimum to allow two lolcusts to group up. Also, allow 3 players to be like... 90 tons.

[Leopardo]

agry with kitty - dear PGI - its going to be a MADNESS drops!!! plz turn on 3 3 3 3 rule!

[Sean Ward]

Thanks for continually trying to improve the game I really enjoy playing. I like the new restrictions and it has the potential to make the group que much more competitive.

As to what i would suggest is that a 2 or 3 man group should be a bit more free in taking mechs that compliment reach other. I would like to reduce the minimum for 2 man's down to 60 or 65 so you could field 2 35 tonners or a 30 tonner.

On the high end it would promote taking weight if you could also take paired assaults. While i think it's fair to stay away from 200 maybe 170 could let you have a 90 and an 80 ton for example.

You could then extrapolate this thinking to 3 man groups but I think as soon as you get to 4 the restrictions should be much more stringent. That could then fall in line with what you have proposed but i do think that at least 2 mans and possibly 3 mans should be less restricted.

Hope this helps.

Edit:

I do believe that the averages should still favor the team with smaller groups so this would mean that 9 - 12 mans will be severely restricted. I think this is a good thing.

Edited by Sean Ward, 30 September 2015 - 11:28 PM.

[Widowmaker1981]

edit: nevermind. Its too specific to me.

Please consider raising the upper limits so 2 and 3 man groups can bring whatever the hell they like.

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 01 October 2015 - 01:19 AM.

[Surn]

Here is a google doc with Russ' original numbers, you can edit any number and see how it plays out for per player or any number of group combos.

https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing

Keep in mind, I chose some group combos based on Russ' weights. If you change a value it might be prudent to rethink min/max tonnage for a particular number of groups.


Further, it is 3 am here.. and I may have not found the right min max tonnage for all group combinations.

Edited by MechregSurn, 01 October 2015 - 02:16 AM.

[50 50]

There will be endless combinations possible using the tonnage system and that is what is exciting about it.
I think we need to give it a go and see what happens.
If the proposed limits are not favoured, I suggest we use the existing scale based on the 3/3/3/3 limit.



Tweak it from there.
It will be interesting to see if this has an affect on average group sizes.

I have a feeling that it will probably evolve into more of a scale based on average group size or perhaps according to a lance weight allowance.
But we can think about that later on after we have given it a go.

However, after some musing and playing with the numbers how does this look?
The scale here reflects that a small group of 2 or 3 can take what ever they like.
Get to 4 and you need to spread it out a little but can still take 4 assaults or 4 lights.
5 or 6 players and you need to break into mediums but can still average the low end assaults.
7 players and the maximum average drops to heavies.
etc

Edited by 50 50, 01 October 2015 - 03:37 AM.

[Chemie]

Widowmaker1981, on 01 October 2015 - 12:53 AM, said:

edit: nevermind. Its too specific to me.

Please consider raising the upper limits so 2 and 3 man groups can bring whatever the hell they like.

NO NO NO....then we are back to one side having 12 assaults....even 6 assault and 6 heavies made from 6 2-mans is stupid.

[50 50]

But how often do you actually expect that to happen Chemie?
Sure,a unit like the 228 might have enough members to try and sync drop and do it.
But a bunch of random groups?
Across 3 servers?
With 3 different game modes?
And 5 PSR tiers?

Not saying it isn't possible.
But it doesn't seem that probable.
Won't know till we try anyhow.
If it becomes the norm, then the min and max get tweaked.

Edited by 50 50, 01 October 2015 - 04:03 AM.

[SpiralFace]

50 50, on 01 October 2015 - 03:00 AM, said:

However, after some musing and playing with the numbers how does this look?
The scale here reflects that a small group of 2 or 3 can take what ever they like.
Get to 4 and you need to spread it out a little but can still take 4 assaults or 4 lights.
5 or 6 players and you need to break into mediums but can still average the low end assaults.
7 players and the maximum average drops to heavies.
etc

These numbers are ludicrously high. A 6 man being able to average out to an assault class will see most groups continue to drop extremely heavy and doesn't solve the issue that most have where the weight is restricted enough once you start moving up in 4 man groups that you can't simply drop soley assaults and heavies. The numbers in the middle in general need to come down, because your numbers will actually get you WAY to wide of a variance to balance the system out (because remember, weight matching in general is going out the window for easier matchmaking.)

Also, REMEMBER that Russ states that 2-4 mans are the most common groups, and MOST matches in group queue are matched against groups of 2-4's without any kind of restriction. With this knowledge, and your numbers, the group queue turns into the wild west since weight matching is being removed. With the ability to AVERAGE into the assault chassis across even an entire 4 man, those numbers are just WAY too much. As most people will see this as a negative change when they try running mediums in 2 man but nearly half the other team is legitimately heavy and assault spam in 3-4 mans with these numbers.

I'm glad these numbers addressed the issues I brought up earlier about the 2 group size, and it does look like your 6x2 also affords the best overall average. But I think that your 12 man numbers are too punishing. in comparison to total team size.

Look at your 2 group averages based on the numbers you post:

6x2: 960 total, 80 average
7+5: 940 total, 78.3 average
8+4: 920 total, 76.7 average
9+3: 900 total, 75 ton average
10+2: 820 total, 68.3 average

This is WAY too much of a dip for just being 2 man down. Most 10 or 9 mans can preform just as lethaly as a 12 man, and you are pretty much trying to invalidate 12 mans, but at the cost that EVERYONE else is riding in assaults, which I think hurts the overall experiance for the team of 3-4 that want to drop in mediums, and end up getting matched against teams of nothing but timberwolves with these numbers. (a 6 man can run PURE timberwolf spam with these numbers. Thats nuts.)

[Widowmaker1981]

Chemie, on 01 October 2015 - 03:40 AM, said:

NO NO NO....then we are back to one side having 12 assaults....even 6 assault and 6 heavies made from 6 2-mans is stupid.

Who cares? honestly, thats completely fine with me, especially as for there to be 12 assaults it would have to be 6x 2 mans. Against a 12 man, they would need the help...

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 01 October 2015 - 05:11 AM.

[SpiralFace]

Widowmaker1981, on 01 October 2015 - 05:03 AM, said:

Who cares? honestly, thats completely fine with me, especially as for there to be 12 assaults it would have to be 6x 2 mans. Against a 12 man, they would need the help...

I just want to be able to run a Dire, ever.
Cant run in solo because left behind and killed
Cant run in large group because all enemies dead before i see them
Cant run in small group because new system disallows it.

How so? Its common feedback that 2 mans should be allowed 100 tons to play with, and everything else is tracking for having plenty of tonnage to distribute with a well balanced team to include Direwolves.

Just don't count on the system allowing you to spam 3 dires 3 timbers like the previous system did that was ridiculous to begin with.

I think people stating the death of dires are greatly over exagerating their demise when most suggestions are showing 70-80 ton averages for small teams.

[Wintersdark]

SpiralFace, on 01 October 2015 - 05:13 AM, said:

How so? Its common feedback that 2 mans should be allowed 100 tons to play with, and everything else is tracking for having plenty of tonnage to distribute with a well balanced team to include Direwolves.

Just don't count on the system allowing you to spam 3 dires 3 timbers like the previous system did that was ridiculous to begin with.

I think people stating the death of dires are greatly over exagerating their demise when most suggestions are showing 70-80 ton averages for small teams.

Yeah.

I've maintained, a small group with 40-60 min 200 max is very important (because, really, let two people use whatever mechs they want) but as group size increases, bigass mechs need to be curtailed.

The reality is the current game sees, very frequently, extremely heavy teams overall. Tighter tonnage restrictions on larger teams may still allow certain "good" decks (swarms of EBJ's, SCR's) but at least it prevents 12 mans rolling with eg. 3 DWF, 3 TBR's, 3SCR's, 3ACH's; and 2x6 mans not being able to roll with 6 DWF/6TBR.

All the while, keeping things open for the small groups, who are at a disadvantage so long as the large group elects to use the tools available to it, such as familiarity even if only over a few drops - teamwork IS OP.

You know what? I'm really excited to see less 3/3/3/3. I understand that I'm in the minority here, but I really didn't like it much overall. While in the Old Days, it kinda sucked to see the queue packed up with massive mechs, one thing I did like was that you never knew what you'd be facing, and wouldn't know anything about the rest of a team just because you saw one lance.

That had problems in the totally unregulated days, but given that the group queue struggles heavily to live up to 3/3/3/3 anyways (and generally fails utterly) it seems like a good place to dump it entirely, while leaving 3/3/3/3 in place in the Solo queue.

This ensures you face a disparate but *potentially* heavier enemy team or a unified but lighter enemy team. And really, as I said earlier: If the enemy team elects to run nothing but a swarm of Mediums or light Heavies? That's perfectly OK. Lots of Mediums on a team is very much exactly how Battletech should be.

[Widowmaker1981]

Wintersdark, on 01 October 2015 - 05:27 AM, said:

Yeah.

I've maintained, a small group with 40-60 min 200 max is very important (because, really, let two people use whatever mechs they want) but as group size increases, bigass mechs need to be curtailed.

The reality is the current game sees, very frequently, extremely heavy teams overall. Tighter tonnage restrictions on larger teams may still allow certain "good" decks (swarms of EBJ's, SCR's) but at least it prevents 12 mans rolling with eg. 3 DWF, 3 TBR's, 3SCR's, 3ACH's; and 2x6 mans not being able to roll with 6 DWF/6TBR.

All the while, keeping things open for the small groups, who are at a disadvantage so long as the large group elects to use the tools available to it, such as familiarity even if only over a few drops - teamwork IS OP.

You know what? I'm really excited to see less 3/3/3/3. I understand that I'm in the minority here, but I really didn't like it much overall. While in the Old Days, it kinda sucked to see the queue packed up with massive mechs, one thing I did like was that you never knew what you'd be facing, and wouldn't know anything about the rest of a team just because you saw one lance.

That had problems in the totally unregulated days, but given that the group queue struggles heavily to live up to 3/3/3/3 anyways (and generally fails utterly) it seems like a good place to dump it entirely, while leaving 3/3/3/3 in place in the Solo queue.

This ensures you face a disparate but *potentially* heavier enemy team or a unified but lighter enemy team. And really, as I said earlier: If the enemy team elects to run nothing but a swarm of Mediums or light Heavies? That's perfectly OK. Lots of Mediums on a team is very much exactly how Battletech should be.

See im absolutely fine with that. Let me run a 2 man of 2 Dires/Crabs/FS9s, and my objections are gone.

[SpiralFace]

Widowmaker1981, on 01 October 2015 - 05:37 AM, said:

See im absolutely fine with that. Let me run a 2 man of 2 Dires/Crabs/FS9s, and my objections are gone.

Most of the suggestions, even conservative ones like mine, allow for 2 Dires 2 firestarters with a little bit of tonnage on the side. That's still top weight brackets in both assaults and lights with 10 tons to shift around to up scale one of the starters if you want to. That's still plenty of tonnage to play with especially if your trying to spam Dires.

[Felio]

So Russ, you have a wealth of historical data. Here is what I'm wondering.

If you were to take tonnage and calculate how strong of a predictor it is for victory, then take group size and calculate how strong of a predictor it is for victory, then do some math voodoo to give every team an equal chance, what would that table look like? Not even a tonnage range, just exact numbers to start with.

I am not asking you to answer here, but I suggest it may be worth setting one of your minions on researching.

[Big Tin Man]

Kira Onime, on 30 September 2015 - 03:44 PM, said:

If it hasn't been mentioned before, I'd like to remind people that one of the points of this new MM system is to remove "buckets" from which MM can chose from.

While I agree on some of the suggestions "add tonnage and weight class restrictions", this only adds buckets to M, something that goes against one of the goals.

That is not what I was suggesting. I was suggesting to relax weight class restrictions to allow more mediums and lights in a group, but ONLY to have weight class restriction be a lock on the launch button. MM would not consider the weight classes in trying to make a match. Maybe after it has 24 people matched up, maybe it could try to switch groups from side to side to attempt to balance weight a bit, if the group sizes allowed it.

Still eliminates the MM bucket for matching weight classes, while preventing big groups from spamming single mech drops.

Edited by Big Tin Man, 01 October 2015 - 08:16 AM.

[Kira Onime]

Big Tin Man, on 01 October 2015 - 08:15 AM, said:

That is not what I was suggesting. I was suggesting to relax weight class restrictions to allow more mediums and lights in a group, but ONLY to have weight class restriction be a lock on the launch button. MM would not consider the weight classes in trying to make a match. Maybe after it has 24 people matched up, maybe it could try to switch groups from side to side to attempt to balance weight a bit, if the group sizes allowed it.

Still eliminates the MM bucket for matching weight classes, while preventing big groups from spamming single mech drops.

M quote wasn't targeted at anyone in particular.

Do like your suggestion tho.