435 replies to this topic

[Big Tin Man]

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.

Here's what I've been playing with:



What I've been seeing here, is even crushing groups of 12 down to 50 ton average weight, powerful meta's can still be run without some form of weight class restriction. Squeezing large groups down to that low of an average tonnage kills off the ability to come up with creative mixed groups as well for the non-comp/meta crowd. If something like 8/6/3/3 was put in, you could safely float back up to a 60 ton average for big groups without as much of a meta issue.

As far as 3/3/3/3 or high averages for smaller groups: that is their advantage. I thought the problem was with the 8+ player groups stomping everyone.

And as for lowering the minimum: some of the most fun C4 has had was running around in a wolfpack of 12 ECM ER large ravens poking Timerwolves from all sides. The light wolfpack ran well can be a hard counter to the meta. Don't lose sight of that.

edits: clarity, grammar.

Edited by Big Tin Man, 29 September 2015 - 02:49 PM.

[Big Tin Man]

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.

[Big Tin Man]

...and thinking about it more, the light wolfpack helped keep the assaults and global weight gain honest. If people know there is a chance they may be up against a team with 6 great light pilots working as in a group, they may rethink about ALWAYS using their 50 kph mech after they get eaten by lights time and time again.

And buff flamers and MG's already.

[Kin3ticX]

playing with these numbers can be tough, anyways heres my attempt at it.

12 players - 10 HBRs and 2 ACH or FS9 still possible. 5 DWFs and 7 ACH possible.


10 players - 8 HBRs and 2 ACH or FS9 possible. 3 DWF, 2 TBR, 5 ACH possible

8 players - 3x TBR, 3x HBR, 2 ACH possible.

4 players - 2xDWF, 2xACH possible, 4xHBR possible


Are we willing to go below 60 tons per player? To me, it looks like we really have to think about it.

this one is a notch more conservative

Edited by Kin3ticX, 29 September 2015 - 03:52 PM.

[Eggs Mayhem]

So to look at this mathematically:
Currently the most ideal situation is 3/3/3/3 which can exist exclusively within 600 - 795 tons so this should probably be the inner bounds proportional to group size, which seems to be the case in the suggested limits for 12-mans. The most extreme team comps that are seen in SoloPUG are 1/1/5/5 and 5/5/1/1, and these can exist exclusively between 440 - 965 tons so this should be the weight range for groups consisting of all 2-man groups if we're going to enforce that type of team comp. So a 2-Man group weight should be 75 - 160 tons. Assuming we move linearly between these two points (and round on 5s):

Size Min Max
2 Man 75 160
3 Man 125 225
4 Man 180 285
5 Man 230 350
6 Man 285 415
7 Man 335 475
8 Man 390 540
9 Man 440 605
10Man 495 670
11Man 545 730
12Man 600 795

I'm still unsure if I'd want to even bother enforcing anything on 2-Mans, since with these^ restrictions you can go 2L or 2A. But either case, I think this looks good. Potentially, 6 2Man groups can make 12/0/0/0 or 0/0/0/12 but from looking at the odds of this just from solo pug queue sizes (15%L, 20%M, 40%H, 25%A) this shouldn't occur often enough and will likely be a fun match anyways

EDIT: I nearly got ninja'd, Kin3ticX has similar numbers
EDIT2: I can't math today, 2L in a 2man aren't possible here

Edited by EmperorMyrf, 29 September 2015 - 03:55 PM.

[Christof Romulus]

I still don't think that Tonnage is, forgive the pun, weighed correctly.

The Timberwolf is the literal apex of a mech. It is 75 tons. There exist 14 mechs (73 variants!) that are INFERIOR to the Timberwolf, but in this system are weighted more heavily and are considered an "advantage".

In this system, 9 players in a 12 man can pilot Timberwolves, with the remaining 3 being in Arctic Cheetahs.

Why? Because Tonnage isn't an advantage. Rate the mechs into Tier, then do this crap by tier.

[Dracol]

12 man with max tonnage 795 could bring 1 Arctic Cheetah, 3 Stormcrows, and 8 Timberwolves.
It will be interesting to see teams in group queue fielding teams that currently can only be seen in CW.

[LORD ORION]

Welcome to 9 heavies and 3 lights

[Veritae]

Well, Russ. It seems basically unanimous that the tonnage limits should be lower for big groups and more relaxed for groups of two and three. Whatever specific value the team decides on, I think it must meet this criteria.

[Naduk]

have you considered faction incentives for this system (as a bonus feature)
for example a tonnage bonus for taking all IS mechs or perhaps if you take all clan mechs earn a % Cbill boost based on how far under tonnage you are, maybe loyalty points if your group is all in the same faction
or some other kind of "flavor" enhancers to encourage people to do more than just min/max

overall like the idea of tonnage limitations to lighten the load of the MM

i still want to see game mode selection removed from the MM

[PrometheusTNO]

I want to echo the "remove 2 person group tonnage limit" opinion. Just set min/max tonnage to 40/200. You can slide right back into the proposed scale at 3 players. Please make sure group queue gets fun again for 2 person groups.


Also seconding the request to keep 3/3/3/3. Twelve coordinated medium mechs will be a nightmare.


Thanks!

[Kanya Pryde]

This idea negatively effects light and assault pilots. It artifically bloats medium and heavy ques. Teamwork trumps tonnage everytime. Secondary indicators of victory are meta vs junk mechs. Why not pull the 3/3/3/3 idea altogether and just match groups based on tiers?

[Surn]

State this info in per player min/max. That is what everyone is calculating anyhow.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Kin3ticX is on the right track.

[Veritae]

Remember folks. Rather than ask for an entirely different design scheme, please limit your suggestions to implementation of the announced plan. This is your chance to give real feedback and have a direct impact. Please don't miss that opportunity. The devs are actively reading this thread. Everyone is asking for small groups to have the biggest weight range. Ideally 40-200 for a 2 man. Any other constructive thoughts?

I stated my scheme above, but on a conceptual level, wouldn't it be fun to start from a point where a 12 man had a hard time hanging with 6 2 mans? Above 3 players, team size should average somewhere from 50-60 tons, with the lowest average tonnage going to the biggest teams.

[Surn]

I concur with the above statement that tonnage is not the best measure in this game. We need a battle value for each mech based on player performaNce.

[Surn]

As a compromise, how about allowing more weight for innersphere mechs? 5tons universal per player...just report tonnage as 5 tons less whe doing the validation coding.

[Setun]

SpiralFace, on 29 September 2015 - 11:16 AM, said:

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.

This right here. The 3/3/3/3 system has to stay in place because if given the opportunity people will choose the most popular mechs and just run them (i.e. all the Stormcrows, Timberwolves, and Hellbringers)

[Surn]

As a compromise, how about allowing more weight for innersphere mechs? 5 tons universal per player...just report tonnage as 5 tons less when doing the weight validation coding.

Edited by MechregSurn, 29 September 2015 - 11:21 PM.

[Trevelyas]

MechregSurn, on 29 September 2015 - 04:21 PM, said:

I concur with the above statement that tonnage is not the best measure in this game. We need a battle value for each mech based on player performaNce.

I linked this earlier but I'll quote it directly for convenience:

Quote

In its final form, a player's PSR (or Elo or whatever rating system is ultimately used) should actually be a tree structure. Your global "base" PSR would be the root of the tree, and each branch would store a "difference PSR" in the following hierarchy:
Global -> Weight Class -> Chassis -> Variant

Your PSR for MatchMaker would be calculated as the Global + the PSR difference nodes leading to your currently selected variant.

After every match your PSR adjustment gets applied 100% to your current variant, some smaller fraction (say, 75%) applied to the Chassis, and so on up to your global PSR.
When you buy a new Mech its PSR value gets seeded from the closest available node on the PSR tree.

The elegance of this hierarchy is that it automatically accounts for each player's performance in all their Mechs affected by each variant's individual strengths and weaknesses. Also, having Mech performance influence reflected directly within the PSR tree means that the MatchMaker can relax some of the hard Mech-focused restrictions it currently has to deal with (Tonnage, 3/3/3/3, etc.) when trying to create balanced matchups.

There should also be separate PSR trees for solo and group queue.

Of course, all of this hinges on PSR ACTUALLY being a measure of player skill.


Edited for formatting.

Edited by Trevelyas, 29 September 2015 - 04:47 PM.