435 replies to this topic

[Master Pain]

I don't support any system that doesn't allow a 2 man group to bring 2 locust or 2 king crabs or anything in between.

[Surn]

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

This spreadsheet allows you to play and compare the impact of tonnage across combinations of groups.

It also displays the PER PLAYER weight restrictions.

[Tuku]

I really dont like this system at all. 2 lights cant run together 2 assaults cant either....As a clanner if someone is running a Wale I want to run one to in most cases to match speeds since we can't actually change our speed in any way shape or form. That is simply an example but there are many cases where this gets in the way of very basic mech sellection. Forcing 3/3/3/3 isn't so bad but forcing the guy who hops into the group last to take the light because that is all the tonnage that is left is a horrible idea. You wont get the tonnage right to eliminate these problems.

On the other hand if you go back to 4/12 you still have the problem of high end players placed in the same game with low end ones. This means there will be a clear advantage somewhere. You aren't going to fix this problem until you get more players logging in at a given time.

[Felio]

MechregSurn, on 01 October 2015 - 09:00 AM, said:

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

This spreadsheet allows you to play and compare the impact of tonnage across combinations of groups.

It also displays the PER PLAYER weight restrictions.

This is amazing. Thank you for your dedication.

[AdamBaines]

Peiper, on 29 September 2015 - 10:58 PM, said:

WE HAVE NEVER TRIED BATTLE VALUE. Let's try that instead. Otherwise, leave it alone and concentrate on important stuff like adding an economy, supply lines, salvage and battle types to CW.

I like this new approach PGI is taking IF it includes 3/3/3/3. We can figure out the Min/Max.

But I also like the Idea of BV, I just wonder how they would calculate it. I guess a Base BV for a mech, then +/- for the variant used, then +/- for loadout, engine variance, modules used, etc?

[Peiper]

AdamBaines, on 01 October 2015 - 09:27 AM, said:

But I also like the Idea of BV, I just wonder how they would calculate it. I guess a Base BV for a mech, then +/- for the variant used, then +/- for loadout, engine variance, modules used, etc?

Yes. I worked out a rudimentary BV system once for this game. 200 points for the mech (representing a mech with a pilot running around, no gear, no weapons). A fully tripped out Dire Wolf would be a total of 400 points. 200 for the mech, plus clan XL, AC/5's, ammo tonnage is taken into account, double heat sinks, armor value, etc... It's pretty complicated, but once you have it set up, the computer does the math.

When it comes to drop, matchmaker adds the PSR with the battle value for matchmaking. The players would know the mech's battle value for construction and drop deck purposes, but of course PGI would be the ones with the pilot information.

It could be that the 200 representing mech and pilot in my formula could be the PSR rating, but that would be up to PGI. When it comes to fighting uneven matches, one team with an extra locust and a couple small lasers can make a HUGE difference. So I make half my battle value simply due to the fact that a player is in a mech of any kind.

Let's say, for instance, a Dire Wolf is 400 BV and a Dragon is 300 BV. For MM purposes, the game could actually be 4 dragons vs. 3 dire wolves. I'm sure there would be a lot of public test realm stuff to figure out balance, and it would be tough too, because player of different skill would perform differently in an identical mech.

However, you could get rid of quirking (other than quirks required to make a mech playable at all) because matchmaking would be done with battle value instead of tonnage. I kinda picture Timber Wolves and Maulers about equal, my impressions. So, in a simplistic example, you could see 12 T-Wolves vs. 12 Maulers. However, Firestarters and Arctic Cheetahs may end up around equal? It wouldn't be easy, but neither is balancing in general, so why not try it?

I still stand by that matchmaking right now in public drops is fine. Teamwork may be overpowered, but 1. bad teams will be made up of people with bad PSR's and 2. this is a team game, and the game balance should do nothing to take away from that. So, I repeat, my feedback to this tonnage or 3/3/3/3 idea or whatever is basically, just leave it alone.

But, I guess, Russ, if you want my actual tonnage numbers for this, I would say that if nothing else, don't have a bottom end to the tonnage, just have a max tonnage. It's hard enough to find good light pilots.

And Russ, if you're going to fix an existing mechanic, make PSR based more on what you do for a team and less on win/loss ratio. I could have a great game on the losing team and lose PSR, but play in the corner by myself on a winning team and watch my PSR go up. It's silly.

[FartSniffer87]

The tonnage restrictions is penalizing small groups pretty hard, and those are the only thing I enjoy these days.

It's not a good thing when you make it harder and harder to play robots with friends, especially for the mass of new players incoming from Steam who don't have a lot of mechs available.

[AdamBaines]

TheB33f, on 01 October 2015 - 10:47 AM, said:

The tonnage restrictions is penalizing small groups pretty hard, and those are the only thing I enjoy these days.

It's not a good thing when you make it harder and harder to play robots with friends, especially for the mass of new players incoming from Steam who don't have a lot of mechs available.

Well it think the general consensus right now is for the smaller groups...2-3 that there would not be a lower limit. The upper side is pretty much limitless as well.

Are you defining "smaller" more in the 4-7 range?

[God Particle]

If we can't (in the short term) balance by just having more mechs on one side than the other (and I think we should fix that), I like this Battle Value idea in the short term.

Assigning a battle value to the mechs will help balance IS vs. Clan without quirks and nerfs. Also, overlaying PSR with that will let a pilot and mech (or any group of pilots and mechs) enter the matchmaker with a summed-up battlevalue. Then the Matchmaker's job is VERY simple, no reason to restrict by 3/3/3/3, just mix the BV with other groups or individuals of approximately the same BV and that's it.

Now the issue of balancing against 12-mans comes into play. For this, you just simply assign a BV booster to that size group. 12-mans would get a BV multiplier that is the highest, 6-man a lot lower, 4-man even lower, 2-man the lowest and single players have no boost. Then the matchmaker's job remains very simple. Since we have "pre-loaded" the BV to account for the group advantage, all the matchmaker has to worry about is BV.

Good idea!

[AdamBaines]

KisumiKitsune, on 01 October 2015 - 12:06 PM, said:

Read the OP, they have a table with the restrictions. 2 person groups are 75 tons to 150 tons. That means that people won't be able to bring dual lights or dual assaults, won't be able to bring 3 lights for a wolfpack, and will generally have to do nothing but Blackjack-to-Timber Wolf death squads. As far as I can see, this really fixes nothing.

I did read the OP. and he also clearly stated these are starting points. And that they want feedback on those limits. And the consensus, generally speaking, sofar with the posts here is that the 2-3 groups should have no lower limit. Which was what I was replying to DaB33F about.

Edited by AdamBaines, 01 October 2015 - 12:20 PM.

[BluefireMW]

Master Pain, on 01 October 2015 - 09:00 AM, said:

I don't support any system that doesn't allow a 2 man group to bring 2 locust or 2 king crabs or anything in between.

and always gets in the powered 2 mans who want there 2x100t.. ppl.
how about take 2 times 60?
it should be, that a 2 man can't take that, especially the 2x100t... that is the point.
I prefer the 120 for 2 variant. but 110 or less can be interesting, too.
who just needs 2x100t to be effektive, should try that in a private match against friends who wait for that.
100t Assault mechs are normally not the normal size that should be the common part in this game.

[Void2258]

If you want balanced matches we need battlevalue, not simple weight class. You can have 2 mechs that are exactly the same weight but have different enough battlevalue to completely throw the match. Only when you take into account what the mech brings to the fight, not just how much it weighs, will it be possible to achieve good balance. Until then, meta builds (aka those that max out battlevalue/tonnage) will continue to dominate.

Edited by Void2258, 01 October 2015 - 12:49 PM.

[TygerLily]

Someone smarter than me can says why this is a bad idea but:

I think 2 or 3 mans should have no limit.

Everything else, 60-tons per person max. This puts the squeeze on teams in a meaningful way.

60 btw is the mean tonnage between highest and lowest a person coudl take (20 tons plus 100 tons divided by 2). Because its the mean, that means for one to go up, another must go down.

[LCCX]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 30 September 2015 - 05:30 PM, said:

LCCX ... I apologize for this being a bit sloppy ... my work browser doesn't do [ quotes ] right on these forums.

"smaller groups ... larger tonnage bonus ... on average, they won't use it all"

Russ stated earlier that "so many of (small groups) just roll 3 heavies or 3 assaults".

In my timezone (Oceanic), at the Tier 1-2 level, this is true. It's not usually the semi-casual ISRC 12-man that Cashel slaps together that causes my semi-organized 228th IBR 4-8-man to put on our "try-hard pants", get organized and start rolling either the heavy meta or our door-kicking brawler deck ... it's the 2-3 groups of 3-6 JGx, EMP, BMMU, OMC, etc. ... each bringing meta Clan heavy/assault laser-gauss combos. Once we get our crap together, the fight almost always goes our way ... but there needs to be compromises to get better diversity and balance.

The ability for 50+ damage alpha TBRs and 80+ damage DWFs (for example) to represent over 50% of the 'mechs on the field significantly decreases time-to-kill and makes the game un-fun for most. I'm not saying that it happens even most of the time, but if we're going to put severe restrictions on 8+ man groups (which my proposals do), there also needs to be some similar restrictions on smaller groups.

That is a good point, and if it is borne out in practice under the new system then I'd agree that 2-man and 3-man maximum group tonnages should be dropped (i.e. try it some way for a week and if tiny groups are using 95% of their permitted weight on average instead of 75%, then drop the maximum permitted launch tonnage and see what the new average launch weights are; rinse and repeat for a month and re-check monthly to keep up with any new meta pairings).

[Linkin]

AdamBaines, on 01 October 2015 - 12:10 PM, said:

I did read the OP. and he also clearly stated these are starting points. And that they want feedback on those limits. And the consensus, generally speaking, sofar with the posts here is that the 2-3 groups should have no lower limit. Which was what I was replying to DaB33F about.

Instead of tossing in my own two cents, I simply say: I conform with the consensus! Favorite thing has been 2 man light runs

[BluefireMW]

I would prefer at least smaller groups then estimated at present.
Larger it can be made easily.
To make that more interesting in skill and tactics, my suggestion would be the above table.

GrpSize min max Max average min average
2 60 80 40 30
3 90 120 40 30
4 120 160 40 30
5 150 200 40 30
6 180 240 40 30
7 210 280 40 30
8 240 320 40 30
9 270 360 40 30
10 300 400 40 30
12 360 480 40 30

finally, something like a table

Edited by BluefireMW, 01 October 2015 - 01:35 PM.

[Poppaukko]

BluefireMW, on 01 October 2015 - 01:19 PM, said:

GrpSize min max Max average min average 2 60 80 40 30 3 90 120 40 30 4 120 160 40 30 5 150 200 40 30 6 180 240 40 30 7 210 280 40 30 8 240 320 40 30 9 270 360 40 30 10 300 400 40 30 12 360 480 40 30

What? I think you forgot the table.

Edited by Poppaukko, 01 October 2015 - 01:22 PM.

[Poppaukko]

BluefireMW, on 01 October 2015 - 01:19 PM, said:

I would prefer at least smaller groups then estimated at present.
Larger it can be made easily.
To make that more interesting in skill and tactics, my suggestion would be the above table.

GrpSize min max Max average min average
2 60 80 40 30
3 90 120 40 30
4 120 160 40 30
5 150 200 40 30
6 180 240 40 30
7 210 280 40 30
8 240 320 40 30
9 270 360 40 30
10 300 400 40 30
12 360 480 40 30

finally, something like a table

I'm guessing you are not serious with this? 12 man groups would be 1 Dire surrounded by 11 Arctic Cheaters, everything else would just be Arctic Cheaters.

E: Or 12 man group could be one 100ton mech, one 80ton mech, ten Cheaters.

Edited by Poppaukko, 01 October 2015 - 01:47 PM.

[WarHippy]

Poppaukko, on 01 October 2015 - 01:41 PM, said:

I'm guessing you are not serious with this? 12 man groups would be 1 Dire surrounded by 11 Arctic Cheaters, everything else would just be Arctic Cheaters.

E: Or 12 man group could be one 100ton mech, one 80ton mech, ten Cheaters.

His suggestion is almost as ludicrous as the two a couple pages back limiting 12 man groups to only 45 ton mechs, or the 20-40 ton average.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

For everyone asking to allow basically anything for 2-4-man groups, how would you gradually tighten the requirements for larger groups in a way that would prevent min-max try-hards* (like me and my team mates) from running 75% (or more) TBRs (with the other 25% or less filled out with ACHs) in 4-8 man teams?

You know we will.

And the game will be even more stale than it was two years ago.

* I use term "min-max try-hard" with all the affection it deserves for those of us who will always do our best to figure out the most efficient way to win.

Edited by Kageru Ikazuchi, 01 October 2015 - 03:36 PM.