435 replies to this topic

[Tina Benoit]

Hello MechWarriors!

Please submit your Feedback here, on the MIN/MAX tonnage for each group size from the information quoted below on Russ's October Road Map thread!

Russ Bullock, on 29 September 2015 - 08:20 AM, said:

- New group creation min/max tonnage system. As mentioned in a recent Town Hall, I am making a last attempt to improve the quality of play in the group queue while trying to maintain the feature of having groups of any size.

In order to do this we need to allow the matchmaker to think about less options while making sure it is able to use PSR to match similarly skilled players for fights while also accounting for the power gap between many small groups vs one larger one.
The values of this new system can be tuned on the live servers without the need for patches or downtime, so we can make quick changes as necessary with minimal fuss. This is an important aspect of this system, as we want it to be able to react to your feedback and metrics as the new system plays out in the wild.

With this new feature you will be creating your groups with a minimum/maximum tonnage indicator instead of the weight class restrictions. This is designed to try and keep as much flexibility in the players hands as possible, but also as a means to try to provide teams that may be comprised of a few separate groups extra tonnage to compensate, or at least have access to extra tonnage, versus an opposing team that may be comprised of just one or two large groups.

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

Group Size	Min	Max
2	75	150
3	120	220
4	200	285
5	220	365
6	260	440
7	320	495
8	400	530
9	420	630
10	460	705
12	600	795

Now is the opportunity for you as players to comment and make suggested tonnage changes. Please provide that feedback in this thread here.

Here are some points I want you to keep in mind when providing feedback there.
The point here is to allow the matchmaker to run with some simpler metrics; therefore the MM will not be adding up tonnage or looking at the composition of the groups. It is the groups responsibility to utilize the tonnage as they see fit. This is important because if the MM finds the perfect set of players to play against each other we do not want to have to reject that match for any reason. The goal is to make sure they fight for the best quality match. Therefore we have to be smart about our min/max tonnage settings.
Also keep in mind again that we can tune all of these values in realtime, so any changes that we make to the initial values after this system goes live are not locked in to patch windows.

So keep these aspects in mind:

- If 6 groups of 2 bumped into a single group of 12, what should the tonnage advantage be?
- How restrictive should we become on the minimum tonnage while still allowing flexibility for a small group that may want to run light - keeping in mind that we're hoping to give extra tonnage to the side with more groups.
- Keep in mind most matches generally average to having only one extra group on one side.
- Please provide your feedback on what the min/max tonnage should be for each group size.

[Deathlike]

So... CW Phase 3 in at least Nov.

I see.

60 ton average for bigger group sizes is something to really think about. I can see some potential abuse for the small group tonnage levels though.

Edited by Deathlike, 29 September 2015 - 11:37 AM.

[SpiralFace]

Russ, I love this system in theory and I really want this to be successful.

That being said, I think 3/3/3/3 SHOULD still exist, but put it to the client side IN ADDITION to the weight restrictions for getting into group queue.

I am going to say this now, With raw tonnage restrictions, you WILL see large groups drop in nothing but similarly tonnaged mechs in order to death ball swarm the opposing team.

The raw tonnage system will curb groups dropping pure Dire / Timberwolves, but it will more then likely replace it with them just all dropping in 6 Storm crows and still have all the perks of having a perfectly synergized team running wild against opposing players.

Keep the broad 3/3/3/3 restriction, but keep it client side and COMPLIMENTING the tonnage restrictions.

On the players end, this will ensure that large groups still have to structure their drop deck requirements around fully formed teams instead of cutting out assaults to spam more heavies or mediums, while providing PLENTY of flexibility with the 3/3/3/3 system to allow smaller teams the flexibility to take almost anything they want.

On your Dev side, this shouldn't affect anything with match making buckets. You make it a requirement to enter the matchmaker to begin with like you see in the live client now, while ensuring tonnage balance, and you still have no need for adding weight matching buckets, because that is handled player side before they enter the system.

Overall, I am VERY happy with this direction, and I hope it succeeds.

But PLEASE consider that large group players will fully cut out assaults in order to spam more Timber wolves if you give them tonnage restrictions WITHOUT any kind of class restrictions.

*edit*

Per Russ' request, I have made a go at this system using only raw numbers here. If anyone is going to be proposing numbers, PLEASE look at the first part I posted, as there is some math stuff that is important when it comes to large groups that are not 12 mans.

I still feel 3/3/3/3 is going to be needed to curb abuse by large groups, but Russ seems to be clearly aware of the issue now and can at least keep a close eye on it.

Edited by SpiralFace, 30 September 2015 - 10:27 AM.

[luigi256]

I think it would be great if you could put the light limit at none. Not a lot of people want to run a group of three lights but I sure wouldn't want a minimum value to prevent people from doing it.

Is it possible to get this onto the pts for testing? I know a lot of people won't want to do it but if you give a good reward for testing it i'm sure droves of people will come to it. Like some c-bills or MC or even a mech for a players live account.

[Domenoth]

I would agree you should look at essentially removing minimum tonnages for groups of 2 and 3. In my experience, when you're in small groups like that, you often don't want to be the only one who can't keep up.

[BanditB17]

Group size 11? Does this mean group and solo queues will be combined?

[Skexy]

With this spread for the smaller groups either people are going to have to run lights alongside assaults or smaller groups are going to tend towards medium and heavies. If this is in place as is, perhaps 12 mans should be limited to 2 lights and 2 assaults in a group as that's what they're likely to be facing.

-skexy

[hero2zero]

I don't like the min tonnage restriction for 2 and 3 players: why deny me the option to play a Kit-Fox while my group-mate plays his Raven? I can understand why the limit is there for larger groups, or groups of 3 cheetah's but why keep people from playing 2-3 lights in a group? Why not just add an exception to that rule, ie - remove min limit for groups of 2 and 3, but block a group of 3 cheetahs.

[AGTMADCAT]

I think this is a great idea, however I'd like to suggest loosening or eliminating the restrictions on the smallest groups. This is obviously a hunch, since I don't have access to all your data, but I suspect that 2-player groups are not the main cause of imbalance. With the restrictions as proposed, it means that it's impossible to run any two lights or any two assaults together. That makes practicing with a single partner very difficult. For example, if myself and one of my regular lancemantes are supposed to be in the two assault mechs in our lance, we can't practice our coordination unless we can get a third player on to sit in a Locust. Likewise, the two lights in a lance can't practice without some heavier friends along.

Up at the top of the scale, I think the restrictions look great, all the way down to 4-player groups. The 3-player feels a little restrictive, but not totally unreasonable, but that 2-player limit is harsh. Maybe widening it up to something like 60t minimum, 180t maximum? Stops the outermost extremes, but still allows paired play in all weight classes.

Either way, keep up the great work! =)

[Veritae]

I have previously stated that the tonnage should run at 60 tons per player, with bonus to teams of 2 or 3 players.

2: 180 Tons

3: 210 Tons

4: 240 tons

5: 300 tons

6: 360 Tons

7: 420 Tons

8: 480 Tons

9: 540 Tons

10: 600 Tons

12: 680 Tons


Note, a 12 man team gets a small tonnage penalty to help make up for the obvious advantage of being coordinated, versus two teams of 6 for instance.

ETA: Also, due to the most recent Hit Reg fix, I am in favor of having no minimum tonnage limit. Once a 12 man full of firestarters encounters a 6 man of Streakcrows, they are going to reconsider. If it becomes a clear problem, then you can always add the minimum. But to start, I would leave it open and see what happens.

Edited by Veritae, 29 September 2015 - 11:48 AM.

[JohnnyWayne]

Small groups, so two and three man groups, should not be restricted in what they take to a battle. There are two reasons for this:

• Small group gameplay is already hardmode for MWO: Allow them to take more tonnage than other combinations of groups to cope with bad MM choices. MM chooses about 30% of times to let me compete against a premade of 5 or more players with a mixed bag of random small teams on my side. Tbh, I shouldnt even face something bigger as an 8 man without at least having an equal premade on my side.
  
• Smaller premade groups ideally specialize into roles: I have to be able to get a 3 man of lights rolling as an coordinated scout and harras group. Same goes for at least 2 100 ton mechs and a medium / heavy (3 might be a bit too much to ask considering the 3 man troll DWF premades I meet). Larger groups usually have to fulfill multiple roles in the first place so no problem here with roles. But I see it happen, that these groups take timberwolfs and stormcrows only into matches.

Edgecases as light or assault premade groups aren't considered in your setup for premades and coordinated rolecombat is not something I am willing to sacrifice for the pure amusement of lame ass big premades.

[WarHippy]

I'm at work so I don't have the time to make a large post, but those tonnage limits in your example are terrible. We can alleviate pressure on the MM by getting rid of the entire concept of tonnage limits or class restrictions. Groups that want to take all lights, all assaults, or some other combo should be able to do that . The fact that I can't group with one or two other people and take similar or even identical light/assault mechs is repugnant. I shouldn't have to choose between playing with friends and playing the mech that I want and may have spent money on. Some of us only enjoy certain types of mechs which means you are asking us to sacrifice our enjoyment for some marginal gain in match making time which could be better fixed my not bothering with tonnage or mech class entirely.

[Cricket504]

Mixed on this. Its going to push the matches to focus more on Medium\Heavies. I think the lower number of players in the group, It ensures you can't go out in 2 lights or 2 assaults. Running some of the numbers its trying to create a 3/3/3/3 or 4/4/4 with a group of 4 likely having to do a 1/1/1/1. If MM is not looking at tonnage, its going to see odd groupings. This could hinder larger groups as there fitting more to the 1/1/1/1 vs 2 and 3 man where it might be 0/1/0/1 or 1/1/0/0 type that can turn into rather lopsided matchups. Imagine a 4/4/4 facing a 0/6/0/6 or 6/0/6/0

Edited by Cricket504, 29 September 2015 - 12:08 PM.

[Girth Fillmore]

So a two man group can't run two lights, but two Timberwolves are ok?

Six 2 man groups could form Voltron and have a 12 TBR dropdeck. Wouldn't that be fun? How about 12 Marauders?

Per the above, relaxing the restrictions on groups of 4 or fewer is the way to go, but this whole idea just seems... eeeeeeeeh.

[Tennex]

Thanks for the roadmap

[Felicitatem Parco]

Girth Fillmore, on 29 September 2015 - 11:55 AM, said:

So a two man group can't run two lights, but two Timberwolves are ok?

Yeah, I don't like that too much. I can't run Jenners with my friends.

[Gnume]

Not liking the Minimum Tonnage Requirements for 2 and 3 man groups. There should not be a Min for those in my opinion. If I want to run a light with 1 or 2 of my friends, we should be able to do so.

These current Min requirements wouldn't stop my team from having say 3 Lights, it would just prevent me or my friends from being one or more of the pilots of those other 2 lights simply because we chose to group together.

[Big Tin Man]

Please tell me that this is in ADDITION to 3/3/3/3, because the thought of going up against a 12 man with 12 Dragon 1N's, 12 thunderbolts, or 10 Timberwolfs + 2 ecm commandos makes my stomach flip.

Other than that, for balancing the weight classes, drop the min tonnage to 40/60/100 for small groups. A pair of good light players working together in a group can punch well above their weight.

[Jman5]

I notice you have 11 man groups there. Does this mean we are going ahead with the plan to allow solo players to opt into group queue if the MM is 1 short?

Edited by Jman5, 29 September 2015 - 12:31 PM.

[VanguardMk1]

Jman5, on 29 September 2015 - 12:06 PM, said:

I notice you have 11 man groups there. Does this mean we are going ahead with the plan to allow players to opt into group queue if the MM is 1 short?

Curious about this too, I'll likely opt in for it but I hope we'll get some clarification on this.