435 replies to this topic

[Poppaukko]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 01 October 2015 - 03:22 PM, said:

For everyone asking to allow basically anything for 2-4-man groups, how would you gradually tighten the requirements for those 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.

"Basically anything" is asked for only 2-man groups, perhaps 3-man groups as well. I really don't care what groups sizes 4-8 have, I just don't want the game to tell me that "You can't take your favorite mech because you are playing with your friends and having fun, take something else and wish you would have never paid any money to this game."

2-man groups in the group queue rarely decide the match outcome, no matter the tonnage.

And good for you, I hope you have fun min-maxing, instead of trying something different.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Quote

And good for you, I hope you have fun min-maxing, instead of trying something different.

You've seen me in group and solo queue enough to know that I rarely run full meta. Most nights we don't strap on the hard core gear until we've been rolled a couple of times by 3-4 small groups that include sometimes as many as 4-6 DWFs between them.

Quote

I really don't care what groups sizes 4-8 have ...

I hope this isn't true, because that means that your fun is more important to you than a balanced game.

[Poppaukko]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 01 October 2015 - 03:52 PM, said:

You've seen me in group and solo queue enough to know that I rarely run full meta. Most nights we don't strap on the hard core gear until we've been rolled a couple of times by 3-4 small groups that include sometimes as many as 4-6 DWFs between them.

True. But I still keep my duct tape and bubblegum gear on my mech because I like playing them, they are my mechs. I don't want to change my playstyle because some arbitrary number tells me I can't do it.

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 01 October 2015 - 03:52 PM, said:

Poppaukko, on 01 October 2015 - 03:39 PM, said:

I really don't care what groups sizes 4-8 have

I hope this isn't true, because that means that your fun is more important to you than a balanced game.

That was a brainfart on my side. Of course there should be tonnage/class limits on what they can have. But the limits should be more open to the smallest groups.

Edited by Poppaukko, 01 October 2015 - 05:10 PM.

[Escherichio]

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

I don't think the tonnage difference will really make an impact in the large groups crushing small groups problem. Coordinated play at any tonnage will smash smaller disorganized players. You could easily fit 3 Stalkers, 3 Timber Wolves, 3 55 tonners of your choice (Stormcrows or Wolverines here) and 3 ACH easily in the limit. Does that sound like a "restricted" team? You could even play around with reducing the TBRs to EBJs or HBRs and get a DWF or two in there. It's just not a way to fix this problem, but it WILL strangle fun grouping with a couple of friends, which nobody currently has a problem with.

After skimming all the tonnage numbers and fear of folks stacking the drops with only 'OP' units, why not simply limit chassis duplication? Use min/max tonnage & 3 limit on chassis? So a group can bring stack tonnage yet only have 3 of a chassis (DW, AC, TBR, etc.) regardless of variants or loadouts. This gives some rigidity of the 3/3/3/3 format and the enhance variety of going by tonnage. If we're really daring, lower the chassis limit to 2, and really take all the mech stacking out of the group queue.

This forces players to diversify. For example, ACH is good for a lot of reasons. The RVN, FS9, KFC can fill similar roles depending on the team's needs. The limit just needs to be high enough that folks can play something they want and low enough limit stacking.

A flaw is multiple groups sync dropping to try and avoid the chassis limits. A possible event that could easily result in them on opposite sides of a fight or (more likely) in separate battles.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Quote

Here are some initial placeholder values that we are working with for this system:

The differences in total weight of each group size seem extraordinarily arbitrary. Going from 5 to 6 members increases your tonnage allowance by 35, but going from 8 to 9 members increases it by 100?

Are these values 'completely placeholder' (i.e. just numbers put here to look like numbers), or supposed values (i.e. this seems like around the right place)?

It would make more sense (and be more comprehensible) to use a different set of steps than this initial blurg- either the same increase in minimum tonnage and the same increase in maximum tonnage for each added player, or steadily shrinking increases in maximum tonnage and either consistent or steadily growing increases in minimum tonnage.

For instance:

2: 80-150
3: 130-215
4: 180-280
5: 235-345
6: 285-410
7: 340-475
8: 390-540
9: 440-605
10: 495-670
11: 545-735 (Not an allowable group size, but provided to show the similarity in tonnage changes.)
12:600-800

(That's 52 tonnes of increase per added member on the minimum number, and 65 per member on the maximum.)

Would be steps of the same size as both sides, and could serve as a much saner place to start. It would be much easier to adjust (and understand the results of adjusting) something that's consistent to begin with like this, than it would to start with weird, shifting step sizes.

If you wanted to weight things towards more tonnage for lighter groups, then you could easily alter that by, say, making each increase five tonnes less than the previous one for maximum tonnage, thus making the tonnage per player smaller as the group size increases in a less-linear fashion.

This would then yield:

2: 80-175
3: 130-260
4: 180-340
5: 235-415
6: 285-485
7: 340-550
8: 390-610
9: 440-665
10: 495-715
11: 545-760 (Not an allowable group size, but provided to show the similarity in tonnage changes.)
12: 600-800

Edited by Quickdraw Crobat, 01 October 2015 - 05:35 PM.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Quote

If we're really daring, lower the chassis limit to 2, and really take all the mech stacking out of the group queue.

I really like this idea. If there is a truly OP chassis, that is dominating the game, then at least the effect will be somewhat contained.

So, for everyone who is focused on freedom for small groups to choose what they want ... how much freedom is too much?

Assuming that 2-man groups are unlimited (40-200), what is OK for a 3-man?
- Is 3xDWF (300) OK? 2xDWF, 1xTBR (275)? 1xDWF, 2xTBR (250)? 3xTBR (225)?
- Will you be OK with running into four 3-man groups with these combinations on the opposing team?

Similarly, at what point do we need to force diversity on the low end? 1/1/1/1 is 200-265 ... do we need to open this up a bit?

With any system, there will always be a "best" or "most effective" way to work within the system to win. With a purely tonnage-limited system, it will be very difficult to prevent massing of powerful medium or lower-tonnage heavy 'mechs, but it will probably encourage more diverse playing styles than the current trend of massing the heaviest 'mechs you can bring.

[Kanajashi]

My thoughts, in video format:

Edited by Kanajashi, 01 October 2015 - 05:46 PM.

[Mawai]

Russ Bullock, on 29 September 2015 - 02:14 PM, said:

Please focus less on how you disagree with the place holder tonnage amounts we listed and focus more on suggesting different ones.

Also I understand the point about keeping 3/3/3/3 in place WITH the new tonnage limits but when you consider that like 80% of groups are groups of 2 and 3 those will not be effected by the 3/3/3/3 aspect anyhow.

Better to work on the tonnage ranges to allow or disallow certain combinations.

So far I have heard good points to allow lower tonnage limits in smaller groups, and potentially a lower limit for the bigger groups.

Would like to see more suggestion on actual tonnage ranges.

Dear Russ,

The problem with any tonnage RANGES is that they will never ensure balanced matches. It is fine to allow lower minimum tonnage limit for smaller groups (or any groups for that matter) in order to increase the flexibility of player choice of mechs (i.e. taking groups of 2 or 3 light mechs). However, any team which does this will be breaking your matchmaking balance paradigm since the group can be at the minimum tonnage value and thus the team it is placed on will likely be at a tonnage disadvantage.

Unless the matchmaker also tries to roughly match total tonnage thus intentionally giving an advantage to the side with more groups then there will be no way to ensure balance given that groups could be anywhere between their minimum and maximum tonnage values.

The second issue with just a tonnage limit rather than a weight class limit is that the opportunities for entire team min/maxing to choose the best and most effective mechs are then unlimited. At least with 3/3/3/3 the team was restricted to 3 of the best mechs in each weight class. WIth generous weight caps and no class restrictions the 10 to 12 man organized sides will optimize their team composition as well as individual mechs.

9 Timberwolves and 3 arctic cheetahs are an option under the current 12 man tonnage limit. So are 12 hellbringers and any number of completely broken other options. Without weight class limitations in addition to tonnage for the larger groups ... the balance can only end up worse than the current 3/3/3/3.

You folks own the game and can push forward any agenda and any changes that you wish. However, realistically, the proposal on tonnage limits, no weight class limits and just throwing the groups together in the match maker balancing on the assumption that each group has taken the maximum tonnage ... is just not going to work ... it will not end up producing better matches.

Unfortunately, this is similar to the current version of PSR that is likely also not producing better matches... take a look at your metrics and I doubt that they show any improvement at all over Elo ... and it will likely get worse over time.

[CainenEX]

Kanajashi, on 01 October 2015 - 05:45 PM, said:

My thoughts, in video format:

Always enjoy your work Kanajashi. Thanks for the informative video.
So I would have to agree with you in that we should be combining the weight restriction with the tonnage class system. It would certainly not be fun to run into a 12 man of hellbringers, or dire wolves and cheetahs.

Hopefully PGI is listening to the constructive criticism. A lot of people on here just want to help make the game better.

[Skarlock]

Russ Bullock, on 30 September 2015 - 11:08 AM, said:

that is a hard limit on the servers ability - its maxed out.

would need to be like 8vs16 - keeping total mech count locked

Hey Russ,

Have you considered letting the players themselves lock group slots? So for example, say Steel Jaguar or BMMU or EmP or what not want to play together as a big team. They take a 10 man group into the queue but lock the last 2 player slots, meaning their 10 man + 2 empty slots now has a lower combined PSR so they can get faster games, and they as a 10 man group will be fighting 12 man units. This would allow them to get faster games while still retaining a more balanced and reasonable match for their opponents, at least I hope it would have that effect.

Edited by Skarlock, 01 October 2015 - 06:38 PM.

[MadMax805]

I won't spend any money on this game until this idea is scrapped.

"I shouldn't have to choose between playing with friends and playing the mech that I want and may have spent money on"

I won't spend any money on this game until this idea is scrapped.

"I shouldn't have to choose between playing with friends and playing the mech that I want and may have spent money on"

[50 50]

It doesn't matter how the tonnage minimum and maximum is scaled, it is impossible to avoid groups from electing to all take the same mech if it fits within the allowances for a group of a certain size.
What we may end up see happening is more standard group sizes emerging, but we won't know that until we try it.
Also keep in mind that a tonnage minimum and maximum is not going to be any different than a battle value minimum and maximum, it still presents the same problems.

Something that hasn't been discussed yet is making groups fit within a team tonnage limit.
At the moment one of the factors for a match is getting 12 players into a team. This is also the maximum that can be fielded as it seems we have a capped limit of 24 players to a match.

@Russ, it would be very informative to know more about this and whether it is a player limit, mech limit or something else.

Anyway, back to the point at hand.
With class restrictions, the maximum tonnage for a team is 795 tons.
For a lance the maximum is actually 375 tons as we can currently take 3 Atlas/Dires and a 75 ton mech without breaking the class restriction.
If a class restriction was in place at a lance level of 1/1/1/1 then the tonnage maximum is 265.

What if we set up some limits for groups and as an overall team tonnage limit?
Meaning that take the required 12 player minimum out of the group equation.
If a group soaks up more tonnage leaving less for other groups when combining for a match then they may have less numbers in their drop.

For example:
Using the 375 tonnage maximum for a lance.
If two groups of 4 combine, that leaves 45 tons out of the maximum of 795 meaning that only 1 or 2 extra players can join that team.
The team has hit it's tonnage limits and drops with 9 or 10 players and the other two spots do not get filled.
ie. It might be 6 Atlas, 2 Orions and a Vindicator. (There are other combos)

Would that then create the balance everyone is worried about while still allowing us to use any mech we want?

As another example.
Team limit of 795 tons.
Groups of 2 players all using 100 ton assaults for a combined total of 200 tons per group.
At maximum, 3 of these groups could fit within the team tonnage limit.
That leaves 195 tons to be filled as close as possible.
Maybe that ends up getting filled by a 3 player group all using 65 ton mechs and happens to use all the remaining tonnage.
That is a 9 player team vs potentially a 12 player team.
Maybe another 2 player group both using 90 ton Maulers joins that team, 15 tons wasted in the team (so what) and they only have 8 players. (Seems ok for a team with nothing but Assault mechs)

Let's not forget the mighty midgets though.
At the minimum end of the scale, we can currently put a lance together that would have a minimum tonnage of 100 tons. (3x 20 + 1x 40) using 3 lights and one medium.
A single 4 player group leaves a lot of excess tonnage (695 tons) available for other groups to join, chances are they will end up forming a team of 12.
Potentially it could be 3 teams all of the same makeup and they leave 495 tons unused.

The question then becomes, how would a 12 player team consisting of 9 Locusts and 3 Cicadas fare vs a 9 player team of 6 Atlas, 2 Orions and a Vindicator?

We can adjust the tonnage limit according to group size, though perhaps it should be based on a lance limit.
If the team tonnage also has an adjustable maximum (and possibly a minimum) is that the balancing aspect we need to make it work?

[L Y N X]

My thoughts...

45-55 tons per player.
5%-20% weight advantage to the side with the most groups.
i.e. a 12 man team vs 6x 2man groups the six pairs should have the option to bring up to 20% more, where 3x 4 man group only get 10% more and two groups may only see a 5% advantage.

I want to see fewer assaults, more heavies mediums and lights. This enables more movements.

I want to see larger MAPS, maps so BIG that the map border is not an effective tool to limit an enemies' ability to flank.

I want to see PROGRESS in CW!!!! I am seeing talk just like we had in Beta and at launch around CW but no real progress. There has be talk going around of restarting our player sponsored N.O.P.E. campaign again on our unit websites.

You should want to avoid that "Not One Penny Extra" campaign until CW make forward progress. The best way is to make incremental improvements to CW Each and every month. Not one big change once or twice a year.

[Nika Romanova]

A friend and I have been dropping pubs in assault mechs. If I'm understanding the changes we would no longer be able to do that which would be sad.

[GreyGray]

Yeah WTF... Find another way to make it balanced rather than forcing people to play whatever mech

[Wintersdark]

Nika Romanova, on 01 October 2015 - 08:13 PM, said:

A friend and I have been dropping pubs in assault mechs. If I'm understanding the changes we would no longer be able to do that which would be sad.

you're not understanding the changes. A group of two will be able to field basically any two mechs, following the consensus here.

[Wintersdark]

GreyGray, on 01 October 2015 - 09:10 PM, said:

Yeah WTF... Find another way to make it balanced rather than forcing people to play whatever mech

you realise that a small group can essentially play whatever mechs they want under the new system (again, as per Russ, don't focus on the initial values), and under the current system a large group still is forced to use specific weight classes, right? It's not really very different in that sense at all.

The point of this is to at least allow small groups the option to bring more tonnage than a large group can. And remember, a small group - or even two of them - could bring 3 locusts into a group queue match right now, giving one team 6 locusts. So, that's somewhat of a red herring of a problem with the new system.

Edited by Wintersdark, 01 October 2015 - 10:05 PM.

[Leopardo]

just dont understand - guys small groups syncro drops - with same mechs - meta mechs...no 3 3 3 3 rule - its more problem then solution.

[Leopardo]

awesome idea - and with it we have - WHAT ALL CLANS SEE IN DREAMS - 10x12 clams vs IS

[jaxjace]

First, why is this the last attempt at balancing the group mode? it has been a problem for literally years and the only solution i have ever seen is 3/3/3/3, not a bad place to start but this proposed system is complicated at best. Theres more than one problem, there needs to be more than one solution, i get that, but tonnage restrictions are going to piss a lot of people off.

Wait times<Balance in this mechwarriors opinion. Also, make PSR an infinitely counting up tier level, not a maxed out 5 tier system, that's honestly just a bad idea and not exactly sustainable, would help alleviate some of the unbalance.