435 replies to this topic

[V O L T R O N]

There is a problem with not having a minimum thou. I see lots of complaints about it, but this is to simplify matchmaker. To get quicker drops and more balanced drops. If match maker is just grabbing teams. Some team that decided to go super light and get rekt completely screws their team. This will happen and it will happen a lot.

[Cael Rhythyr]

I must say, I am liking the direction MWO has taken these last couple of months I've been back. Everything tells me that PGI sees the problems and is making an effort to counter them. Nice job.

[TigerOne]

I think this might be a step too far... I would have liked to see 3x4 in place, but only client-side so the MM could decide to match small vs. large groups however it wanted.

Maybe add the rule that you can't bring more than 3 of the same kind of mech in a drop. That would prevent Stormcrow spam.

Overall, though, I'm happy with the idea and look forward to trying it. I would by no means call it a "last attempt," just work out the kinks in the process.

[BluefireMW]

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.

of course with 3/3/3/3 active

[BluefireMW]

Tuku, on 01 October 2015 - 09:12 AM, said:

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.

it's the point to prevent ppl to take 2 of the smallest and 2 of the largest, because that make that happen, what's wrong at present.
But for sure, because of the system ment to be, that last will at least get a tonnage of about 60 perhaps a little less, but not just 20.

[Duran Farshore]

A few thoughts:
1.
The current 4x3 system requires groups to select mechs of different weight classes. By removing this requirement and making only the weight limit count it may drive some teams to field a narrow range of mechs that fit into the "meta" of the day. For example, a team of 12 could bring all Hellbringers and Ebon Jaguars and still have a couple tonnes left over based on a 795 drop weight. I do not think that reducing the variety of mechs in a match will make the game more interesting to play. This may need to be considered before implementation.

As a suggestion:

7 and less have no class restrictions
8 man teams require 4x2 up to the max tonnage for the drop
9 & 10 man teams require 4x2 and have 2 unrestricted selections up to the max tonnage
12 man teams require 4x3

2.

I think at the smaller group sizes the tonnage limitation should be non-existent to start. This is because it is good fun to play with friends with similar class / speed mechs. I would prefer to see a less restrictive start of:

Max tonnage by group size:

2 - 200
3 - 300
4 - 375
5 - 450
6 - 525
7 - 580
8 - 635
9 - 690
10 - 725
12 - 795

The values could be made more restrictive if 12 man teams are getting destroyed by 6 groups of 2 players...


3.

Consider giving a bonus to xp, cbills or both for teams on wins (not on losses) or teams that deliberately drop under weight. This may give a small incentive for the better team to try their luck...

If at the match summary the screen showed the tonnage difference between the team and if any groups were running under-tonne it may make for interesting post match discuss.


Duran

Edited by Duran Farshore, 04 October 2015 - 10:14 AM.

[Hydrocarbon]

12-man combos:

6 cheetahs, 6 dires
9 stormcrows, 3 dires
12 heavies (timbers, jags, hellbringers, thunderwubs...you get the idea)


PLEASE restrict max per weight limit to 6x, or a chassis to 3x. Think about the trolling that can happen otherwise.

[100mile]

I see a lot of different ideas in this post and one thing that shows up regularly is restricting the number of one type of chassis...example no more than 3 storm crows or 3 thunderbolts per team. This only needs to be applied at the 8 person team and above. 7 person and below can be regulated with tonnage limits.

[Kausteck]

I LOVE the idea. With the current system there is little incentive to take any other mechs besides the max allowable for that weight class, the ideal comp is always 3 35 tonners, 3 55 tonners, 3 75 tonners and 3 100 tonners.

This gives groups so much more flexibility in that it forces us to be more creative with tonnage usage rather than just automatically take the fattest mech possible.

[Leopardo]

for 6-12 man groups there going to need some rule - agree! like it was to prevent the spam of shassie

[L Y N X]

PGI if you go this route then please make it so that players on a team must make tough choices. A Team of 3 should not be able to run three arctic cheetahs or firestarters, They should not be able to run 100 tonners either. One Hallmark of a good game design promotes tough choices for its players, not easy ones.

Edited by 7ynx, 04 October 2015 - 06:21 PM.

[Poppaukko]

7ynx, on 04 October 2015 - 06:20 PM, said:

PGI if you go this route then please make it so that players on a team must make tough choices. A Team of 3 should not be able to run three arctic cheetahs or firestarters, They should not be able to run 100 tonners either. One Hallmark of a good game design promotes tough choices for its players, not easy ones.

If it comes to this, the only tough choice to make at this point is to choose another F2P game. If PGI is the one who chooses which mech I have to take when I'm playing with 1-2 friends, they can go... do whatever they do to get their rocks off.

I don't want the dev to tell me what is fun, I already know what fun is. Sometimes I get to stomp the enemy, sometimes I get stomped. But who'd have known, most of the matches are quite close, ending around 6-12, with mostly dead mechs on the winning team.

Edited by Poppaukko, 05 October 2015 - 08:29 PM.

[BluefireMW]

Poppaukko, on 05 October 2015 - 08:22 PM, said:

If it comes to this, the only tough choice to make at this point is to choose another F2P game. If PGI is the one who chooses which mech I have to take when I'm playing with 1-2 friends, they can go... do whatever they do to get their rocks off.

I don't want the dev to tell me what is fun, I already know what fun is. Sometimes I get to stomp the enemy, sometimes I get stomped. But who'd have known, most of the matches are quite close, ending around 6-12, with mostly dead mechs on the winning team.

I guess it is not the idea to say which mechs you have to use.
It's the idea to prevent to use special combinations, to try to keep the game alive with a group setting from 2-12 (without 11).

the feeling of how good that group works you are in depends highly from the average Tier your group gets. The type of mech is the second part of it.

To play this game with 6 mechs from the same weight class, as it is at present, it's no fun as a group if there are 6 dires or 6 king craps walking through field and if you are pity, then without the 6 assaults as counterpart in the enemy team.

Edited by BluefireMW, 05 October 2015 - 10:14 PM.

[Pezzer]

I'd just like to comment, stating that it's rather frustrating to see this suggestion finally get implemented into the game 1 1/2+ years after it was originally posted. The community can definitely steer this game in the wrong direction sometimes, but back then posts suggesting things like tonnage-based group limits were detailed and plentiful. I just wish PGI had gone indie sooner, as it's almost insulting to see the slow pace of change come to a positive conclusion such as this one.

It's like telling someone a good piece of advice over and over again, just to see them finally use it years later and go "Wow, wish someone had told me this sooner!". Very frustrating.

That being said, this is a great step in the right direction! I hate to be so negative in my post, but seeing this implementation in particular finally take root really hit a nerve somewhere. Great work PGI, I hope we can see a good weapons rebalance soon too. Announcement of new IS weapons and a jump in the timeline maybe?

Edited by Pezzer, 05 October 2015 - 11:17 PM.

[Surn]

Reminder...

You can use this spreadsheet ( https://docs.google....#gid=1106495122 )
To come up with your own solution. Just edit the blue text and see how it affects average tonnage or tonnage combinations in many combinations. You can then save off your own version and post it here!

Example:

[Wibbledtodeath]

Big Tin Man, on 29 September 2015 - 03:01 PM, said:

Math re-run for 8/6/3/3 at slightly higher avg. tonnages



I really do think this is how you fight the issues with large groups. As for the groups from 2-4, maybe you lower that to 90/80/75 for average tonnage. Hard to say without the metadata that pgi has on that.

THIS is a good reply and a good solution. Remembering that the weight class limits apply to each group (not to the team- so MM doesn't have to worry about it=fast and balanced games. hardly limits small groups at all- hard limits larger groups). I just don't think weight limits alone will work re stopping 12 man stomps- although it may be a bit funny to see a few games with 12 of the same mech, so long as it gets fixed in the next patch!.

Oh, and please don't listen to those wanting tonnage limits for smaller groups (for "team balance"- not that it would, or for pretty mathematical curves) as they don't have the ability to allocate tonnage across more group members- so this hard restricts options disproportionately (and can result in new players being unable to take anything but trial mechs, and that's not fair or fun- for them or their team).

But I am liking the direction this is taking and can't wait to see it applied for more varied games with my (very few) friends!!!!

Edited by Wibbledtodeath, 06 October 2015 - 03:50 AM.

[Prof RJ Gumby]

My 3 cents:
Max 3 of a weight class Must stay as a requirement to get into the group queue. Matchmaker don't need to worry about it, players need to.

Weight restrictions for small groups IMHO: (no. of players: min weight/max weight)
2: 40-200 - 2 friends should be able to play whatever they want. 2-mans aren't overpowered.
3: 60-280 - because there should be no premade lances of 100-tonners that don't pay for it with anything
4: 105-320 - you want to take 3 assaults, somebody will have to play in a light or a med.

Big groups:
Big groups should not be allowed to take big boys only.
I would set the max weight for 12-mans way below Russ'es 795. 795 allows taking all the biggest mechs of all the weight classes (35x3+55x3+75x3+100x3=795), virtually providing no restriction to the 12-mans, while there would be tons of restrictions for smaller groups. I would set max for a 12-man around 735, to prevent them from taking only the big boys. At 735, either all the players use a mech 5 tons below class limit, or somebody's max weight limit is balanced by somebody else having a mech 10 tons below the limit.

[ShinVector]

Quote

[color=#959595]Not liking the Minimum Tonnage Requirements for 2 and 3 man groups.[/color]

Yep... that sucks...

[Nerdboard]

I like the general idea but the drop weights are still too high. Also there should still be a limit of 3 for each weight class. Just imagine an 8 man group running 4 Direwolves and 4 Cheetahs, horrible.


edit: Min tonnage on 2-3 man groups is good imo.

Edited by Nerdboard, 06 October 2015 - 09:50 AM.

[Asterisk]

Big Tin Man, on 29 September 2015 - 01:41 PM, said:

Ok, playing with an excel sheet and I see this making some very ugly waves. Here's a brief story on how we got here and what to do about it:

The old old problem: no restrictions on group composition. 12 D-DC's? Sure. 12 Embers back when machine guns were good? Yup. OH GOD HERE COMES CLAN WAVE 1. Everything is bad and broken, clans have a huge advantage with the holy trinity.

The old old solution: 3/3/3/3 kept big groups from dropping too many heavies/assaults, and forced big groups to take a variety of mechs.

The old problem: MM tried to make each side 3/3/3/3, which lead to delays and long wait times when combined with regional servers, game mode choice, psr restrictions, etc.

The new solution: ditch 3/3/3/3 and rely only on tonnage limits to match groups together.

The problem with the new solution: average weight for groups is too high if you base max tonnage on a mixed group of mechs (i.e. 3/3/3/3 = 795). This average allows grossly OP sets of mechs to drop as it meets the tonnage requirements (i.e. all lighter heavies). This makes for very boring gameplay, all OP meta builds, is against lore, etc etc. Lots of bad things. Mawai wrote it up really well. 9 TBR's + 3 ACH = ggclose. The weights of mechs do not allow for any sort of balance in this manner.

The main issue with only running tonnage restrictions, is somehow capping the number of particular OP medium, heavy and assault mech's in a group.

A new [bad] solution: force max weights for groups larger than 6 to under 50 tons on average. This will incite rage among big groups, but could potentially achieve some sort of balance, while pissing off all of the heavy and assault pilots.

A hybrid idea: change 3/3/3/3 to 8/6/3/3 combined ALONGSIDE tonnage limits. Only use 8/6/3/3 as a restriction for the group to launch, and do not take 8/6/3/3 into consideration for the matchmaker. The tonnage restrictions takes it from there. Why 8/6/3/3? It allows groups some balance if they want to take a three 100 ton mechs, they may not be able to bring heavies, depending on the weight restrictions, so there will need to be more mediums and lights to make up for it.

I like these words.