435 replies to this topic

[AGTMADCAT]

I've seen a few suggestions about limiting chassis duplication, and I think this is a great idea. I would propose making it fairly strict - don't allow more than 1 of any particular variant, and don't allow more than 2 of any chassis. I'm tempted to say don't allow more than 1 of any chassis, but then you can't pair up with one friend and run (reasonably) matched mechs, which is sad. What I'm proposing would mean that it's not possible for me any a couple of friends to get out our AC/20 Ravens all at once, but we haven't done that in a couple of years anyway, and we can always use various Urbies for that now.

This would eliminate teams boating all the same mech, and enforce some variety on the battlefield. I think we have enough variety in both the Clan and IS stables at this point to make this a viable option, although it would of course cause problems for some individuals with small personal stables. Clan omnipods also weaken this plan, perhaps fatally, since you can build *almost* the same mech out of several different cores. Still, I think it moves in a more interesting direction, and would make games more diverse.

And actually while we're at it - do we still need the separation between solo and group queues? If MM had a bigger pool to pull from, maybe it could do a better job without needing any additional artificial restrictions? Now that we have in-game voice, it might be good to reunify the community. I've had some solo queue games where we've used excellent teamwork and coordination lately, easily on par with some of my recent group queue games (I usually drop in 2s or 3s). If MM was told not to match any group larger than, say, 6 with an all-solo team, this could probably be made to work.

Edited by AGTMADCAT, 09 October 2015 - 08:29 AM.

[Sparkkuwaifu]

daPaule, on 09 October 2015 - 12:15 AM, said:

I like the small vs big group thing though 7+8 doesn't add up to 12. Just make a pub / fun drop and "competition" queue. As a trio of SJR/EMP would still be the knife cutting butter in small groups. Implementing an info to droplead that currently your choice is bad but you could be added to the other queue if u want to

It would be 7+5, 8+4, pulling the 5 and the 4 from the small group queue.

If all you did was make a "fun" queue and a "competitive" queue, you'd get large groups of competitive players going to the "fun" queue to just roflstomp teams for shiggles.

[Talorien]

Please reduce minimum tonnage for group size 2-3:

• 30 tons average
  
• or remove restriction altogether

[Ultra-Laser]

Minimum tonnage is way, WAY too small from top to bottom. I can get not wanting to allow for an entire team of just Locusts but as its presented you can't even have a lance of four 35 tonners, which is an absolute insult when the maximum tonnages allow for a full team of heavies (average minimum for a group of twelve is 50 tons while the average max is 66.25 while for a group of just two its 37.5 and 75). Make the minimum tonnages 2/3rds what they're presented as now and It'll be closer to something workable. Don't give lights more reasons to be neglected, they have enough reasons already.

EDIT: I do like the idea of having a limit on chassis however. 3-4 maximum of a single variant does a much better job of keeping Flavor-of-the-month spam under control. It'll still always be there sure, but at least it will be under control. Better then living in a world where two friends in Urbies is flatly illegal but a team of 12 TDR-5SSs or Stormcrows is totally kosher.

Limiting specific variants this way does a MUCH better job of keeping teams balanced then tonnage or class limits ever could. A team of only lights has all the strengths and weaknesses of lights, same as a team of only heavies or assaults. Weight class limits just shut out the non-meta mechs of each class while tonnage limits take a different approach to reach the same misguided conclusion.

Edited by Ultra-Laser, 09 October 2015 - 07:40 PM.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

AGTMADCAT, on 09 October 2015 - 08:25 AM, said:

... I would propose making it fairly strict - don't allow more than 1 of any particular variant, and don't allow more than 2 of any chassis. ...

This would work fine for Inner Sphere, but not as well for Clans. Only in a very few cases does one Omni Center Torso differ significantly enough from another that it will restrict the ability to bring similar builds.

[Talorien]

Retaining a client side weight class restriction (per group queuing, not per team), together with the new tonnage restrictions, seems to make sense.

3/3/3/3 or 3/4/4/3 should work.

A 6-man premade cannot send 6 Ebons (regardless of weight restriction)

A 12-man premade cannot send 12 Stormcrows or 6 Dires/6 Cheetahs (regardless of weight restriction)

[Maelstrum]

I mostly play in small groups of 2 or 3. Max 4. I enjoy piloting both ends of the tonnage spectrum: a Direwolf (100t) and an Arctic cheetah (30t). My friends' favorites (aka only owned mechs) are the Timber Wolf (75t), the Vulture (60t) and the Arctic Cheetah (30t).

With the current tonnages, I can't play duo at all with our mech combinations.

Group 2: Min 75t - Max 150t

• Direwolf + Timber Wolf : 100+75 = 175t
  
• Direwolf + Vulture : 100+60 = 160t
  
• Direwolf + Arctic Cheetah : 100+30 = 130t... yay!

Also, I cannot play wingman with our two Arctic Cheetahs.

• Arctic Cheetah + Arctic Cheetah : 30+30 = 60t

The 3 mech group tonnage is allright for most of our combination but one:

• Direwolf + Timberwolf + Vulture : 100+75+60 = 240t

I can play in other mechs when we are a big group to alleviate the tonnage. That doesn't bother me. But for the 2 mech groups, the tonnages are too restrictive. No dual-assault. Most assault-heavy combinations are impossible. And all dual-lights are also impossible. Those are pretty attractive and fun combinations that most of the players will want to play with a friend while bigger groups still have no trouble finding an OP well coordinated fit.

I'm struggling to see how we're going to juggle Fallout 4, Battlefront and MWO. This is the kind of irritant that will surely push us towards the other games. And I'll be left to play my Marauder solo coming december.

BTW, excellent job to PGI. I came back a couple months ago after about a year or so of absence (because of the first wave Clan Invasion uproar) and am enjoying a lot the new direction. The marketing is a lot less intrusive, more appealing, the balancing is great and the new mechs are very interesting. Kudos.

[Nightbird]

Suggest generating dynamic battle value based on chassis and player performance using them (updated once per day or once per week). Place drop limits not on tons but on battle value.This will mean picking the best metamechs will not be possible.

[grayson marik]

ironnightbird, on 10 October 2015 - 09:56 PM, said:

Suggest generating dynamic battle value based on chassis and player performance using them (updated once per day or once per week). Place drop limits not on tons but on battle value.This will mean picking the best metamechs will not be possible.

Thank you for your backup for my system :-)

[C E Dwyer]

Russ Bullock, on 30 September 2015 - 09:37 AM, said:

Everyone is forgetting or is unaware of some really important information.

Remember 3/3/3/3 does not effect groups of 2 and 3 anyhow, so what this means is that around 80% of the games groups will now actually have more tonnage and weight class variety then we have now. Now so many of those groups just roll 3 heavies or 3 assaults. Now some of those combination just won't be possible, taking a DW will mean your buddy can't take his.

So once again 99% of the angst comes from the fact that 1-2% of groups are 12 mans or that ~10% are groups of 5+ who may have less class variety than currently.

The key is to give good feedback on what tonnage limits should be for each group so the bigger your group gets more tonnage negotiation between each other there is.

Back to the 90% of groups that are 4 players or less, there is likely more variety of class in these groups and isn't it better in the end for the MM to quickly find that last group of equal tier status than waiting 3 minute before release valving and finding the final group of much lower tier in a pair of lights.

What I need I proposed tonnage ranges - let's make it so that infrequent large 10+ group is going up against a lot of tonnage on the other side - we will try this out and see how it goes..

Actual number crunching weights and limits is on P.G.I's part making assumptions about the make up of certain groups.

Far more often than not, in anything but CW, 2 groups of 6 are far more competitive and organised than 1 group of 12, and this system is proposing giving them a tonnage advantage, and those 12 mans that are 'that good' simply won't drop as a 12 anymore but will attempt to sync drop 2 groups of 6, knowing that they will probably win even if they end up in different matches, and if they end up facing one another, they can have fun shooting the crap out of each other.

Making Group play even more unbalanced and even more of a stomp.

12's usually will stomp a few buddies that group up for the fun of it and find themselves in a team of 4 possibly 5 different group and finding themselves facing said 12 man.

This new proposed system will not stop that, in fact is far more likely to cause them to be stomped harder facing a competitive 6 man, 4 man, with 2 pals out for a laugh.

The only way you will truly find balance in this game isn't by weight but by using a dynamic B.P.V which somehow takes into consideration the chasis (not weight a Timberwolf is clearly a better mech than an Orion or a Black knight) the weapons on the chasis, and the players skill level, which P.S.R clearly isn't, as it's been stated that if you play enough games everyone should at some point become T1.

One thing I am 100% certain of, if you use a system that prevents two people dropping in a pair of locust, or a pair of big assaults it is a very bad system.

Edited by Cathy, 11 October 2015 - 08:01 AM.

[Nightbird]

grayson marik, on 11 October 2015 - 05:07 AM, said:

Thank you for your backup for my system :-)

I took a look, I think implementation at such a detailed level would be challenging to start, and hard for most people to understand.

My short suggestion is to do it on the chassis level. Certain mechs are just better than others, no problem. Suppose some chassis average 1.5KDR and some 0.5 KDR, then for a drop if 6 people want to bring 1.5KDR metamechs, then the other 6 have to bring 0.5KDR clearance sale mechs. This will allow 12 lights going against 12 assaults, it'll be fun and interesting, plus you'll see more varied mechs on the battlefield.

[grayson marik]

ironnightbird, on 11 October 2015 - 08:48 AM, said:

I took a look, I think implementation at such a detailed level would be challenging to start, and hard for most people to understand.

My short suggestion is to do it on the chassis level. Certain mechs are just better than others, no problem. Suppose some chassis average 1.5KDR and some 0.5 KDR, then for a drop if 6 people want to bring 1.5KDR metamechs, then the other 6 have to bring 0.5KDR clearance sale mechs. This will allow 12 lights going against 12 assaults, it'll be fun and interesting, plus you'll see more varied mechs on the battlefield.

Indeed, how fine grained such a system would be implemented is a matter of taste, money and time.
For a first level implementation chassis based BV would be sufficient. Who knows, maybe that would already be enough to balance the game.

I would be perfectly fine with a chassis based BV System.

[50 50]

@Captain Artemis
I like where you were going with that idea Captain.

Quote

Tonnage rule does not bring the solution to this problem in a long term at all, some people tend to min max everything they can. So instead of counting the tonnage limit per group size, maybe it's time to think outside the box? As some people have pointed out, we can even end up in the situation where light mechs can be very rare on the battlefield.

I am aware that this post does not bring the answer to match making mechanics, instead here is the place where "Role Warfare" can be introduced, with three different lances having specific role on the battlefield.

Recon Lance
Tonnage limit: 160 tons

Support Lance:

Tonnage limit: 240 tons

Assault Lance:

Tonnage limit: 320 tons

I had some thoughts along those lines as well, though from a slightly different aspect.
If we consider the following points:

• Players don't want to be restricted to what mech they want to take into battle.
  
• Players also would like to group up with their friends and also not be restricted in their choice.
  
• The 3/3/3/3 creates some diversity in the teams and some level of balance.
  
• A tonnage limit alone based on group size is not a feature that will help to balance a match, but may speed up the match making process.

I have reached the conclusion that we expect too much from the match maker.

The algorithm for trying to get a match together is complex, particularly for groups, and often the matches can be very one sided or do not follow the 3/3/3/3 anyway.

My thoughts are that we should not have an automated process for the match maker.
I believe it should come down to players selecting a battle to join and making it our own responsibility and choice.

If we look at what we have in CW at the moment, we could elaborate (ie. change the interface) on how we can find and join a match in the public queue as well as improve and standardize the process for both CW and public match making.

While I have got some rather lengthy thoughts and data to go along with this idea I shall try and provide a simple summary here:

• No tonnage limit for players - when we look at the tonnage or even average tonnage in a lance it fits within a certain range. Either Light, Medium, Heavy or Assault.
  
• Change the group function to work on lances - this means breaking up the screen a little so it looks more like the drop preparation screen and also include the ability to shift players between lances.
  
• Battles are instead selected from a list, by the players.
  
• The list of battles available are filtered by tier. You can select yours or above and we can have some incentives (c-bills and xp) to battle in a higher tier. Average group tier is used for groups.
  
• Battles also show map, mode (and could include CW modes if we think ahead) and lance classifications.
  Edit: Showing the Battlevalue of the lance here would be ideal and could be nicely displayed as Elite, Veteran, Regular, Cadet or something.
  As I understand, the recent tests on the test server were for sorting out a BV for the mechs.
  It would also be handy to see unit tags in the battles for groups over a certain size. ie. a lance or more.
  
• Therefore when we select our mech to drop solo or group up and form a lance or part of one, we fit into a certain classification and that is where we can jump into a battle.
  
• The balance between teams then comes down to matching the same lance classifications on each side meaning it is entirely possible to have games of all one type (ie. Assault or Light) but it is a choice we make and define.
  
• Groups can create a new battle on the same map and wait in a queue for opponents to join.
  
  So if a big 12 player group decides to run three light lances of Urbanmechs, they can by creating one. The opposing team has to also join in using three light lances. We create our own balance.

There is more we can do in terms of how to present the battles, show the information and provide players with their own choices by doing it this way.

It also allows some future options for events, combining CW matches into the public queue (ie scout missions and more) and has many other immediate and future benefits.

Edited by 50 50, 11 October 2015 - 07:32 PM.

[Leopardo]

ironnightbird, on 11 October 2015 - 08:48 AM, said:

I took a look, I think implementation at such a detailed level would be challenging to start, and hard for most people to understand.

My short suggestion is to do it on the chassis level. Certain mechs are just better than others, no problem. Suppose some chassis average 1.5KDR and some 0.5 KDR, then for a drop if 6 people want to bring 1.5KDR metamechs, then the other 6 have to bring 0.5KDR clearance sale mechs. This will allow 12 lights going against 12 assaults, it'll be fun and interesting, plus you'll see more varied mechs on the battlefield.

i think its kinda similar with BV system and seems have the same point of view. we have some system that give a number or value to every mech, and we have summary the drop number or value - and we can use any of mechs under this summary number points or value as you like it....with or without 3 3 3 3 rule. for PUG its really good - but i think to group que its more difficult.

[Leopardo]

Dear PGI read this topic plz very immportant i think and need a poll! http://mwomercs.com/...-actually-works

[Javin]

I would like to drop the minimum weights.

[Helios Norlund]

why did u never come tp the idea player can sign up for a drop and choose multiple mechs from different weightclasses to reduce search times
so u can keep the 3/3/3/3 ruleset

this way if someone just wana play one special mech he might be wait ab hit longer

and for all others with multiple mechs selected the engine will be much easyer able combine the selected mechs in a way to fill the 3/3/3/3

[Felicitatem Parco]

So, to reitterate my comment from page 1.

Will the weight limits be changed so I can drop in a Jenner with my other Founder Friends and their Jenners?

[Leopardo]

its good idea to people in drop see what weight class needs to this drop - like in cw - so your team can fast reorganize if they want fast drop
- also -
LFG mode - mb if im PUG - we can create group of solo players - and this group will play against solo random pugs - or against same groups - of solo players. and not against group que.
fast matches and easy to switch between groups!

[Visconte Cobram]

I agree to balance the game , so that they can play against pug pug , and premade against premade . Even in cw now known increasingly abundant disconnections groups pug when they face the premade , and honestly I can not blame him ; remember that the pug and who does not play in pro -mode , are the majority of players and can be significantly more depressing losing many cw row because we find ourselves facing increasingly premade or pro - clans , with the result that you disconnect from the cw and bet on matches normal , until you find the cw with opponents more balanced. I think we all know what it would mean for the playability of all , not pro or pro , if this phenomenon began to spread.

Edited by MasamuneITA, 13 October 2015 - 02:12 AM.