435 replies to this topic

[Lostdragon]

I don't think you should ever prevent groups of 3 or less from playing any combination of mechs they want. I think the restrictions should start at groups of 4.

[Commissar Aku]

Yea, more punishment for not being a meta *****. I will no longer be able to run assaults in a 2 or 3 man, for what? Because PGI can't be bothered to fix the match maker instead they choose to try every solution but one that work.

[Tarl Cabot]

Why not keep the 3/3/3/3 and use the PSR as indicated? Those who have played CW have seen both the good and bad side of tonnage limits and it will be broken in group queue. You will have even more threads now about the 10/12 vs the "lesser" groups.

Changing to a weight limit instead of a 3/3/3/3 really benefits the larger groups, not the mixture of smaller groups, and more so for those using Clan vs IS mechs.

Quote

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.

Since PSR is now one number regardless of weight class, with the current 3/3/3/3 setup, introduce PSR into the group queue without the matching of weight classes as you propose with weight limits.

PGI should have the data showing what tiers groups are in. Do tier 1/2 players drop in 2-3man groups or are they part of the larger groups?

So my weight limits are basic

• Keep 3/3/3/3 for groups making - not for MM matching - keeps larger groups in line
  
• Use the mech weights for high/low limits - be wrong to have a mix of lights/meds vs a 12-man team while a 12-man team could face heavies/assaults vs 2-4man teams
  
• Use PSR as intended.
  
• With the current system I do not see how Clan/IS differentiation can be introduced unless it is an additive value.
  
• Edited - Allow mech selection to be 4/4/3/3 - that will allow larger units to field another light/med instead of another assault/heavy

And if similar to CW, 12-man (include 8-10) units are slotted first. Make part of the requirement to look for 8/9/10/12 unit first then open up the valves.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 30 September 2015 - 06:37 AM.

[BattleBunny]

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?

this summs up my thoughts as well. Also I think duo lights or duo assaults are a fun way to drop with a buddy. you can compliment eachother greatly. I hope you dont take that away.

[Wintersdark]

Definitely, the two man needs 40/200 limits. A two man group in the Group Queue is basically just solo players mixing it up.

Overall, I can understand the "zomg, 12 Hellbringers!" complaints in the 12 man group options, but to be honest, that's where we're running into what should be mech balance issues and should be addressed there. A lot of the other "complaint" group setups in this thread already happen because, in practice, 3/3/3/3 doesn't happen in the group queue. I've been in MANY group queue matches featuring 6 Dire Wolves, for example.

So, as has been posted a few times in this thread already, mostly as per Ken3tix (sp)'s numbers:

Try to mirror 3/3/3/3 averages more closely in the numbers, but ensure a 2 man group can play anything, and a 3 man group can still run 3 lights or 3 assaults (though not 60/300 for a 3 man group).

I'm not concerned with the idea of teams running massed packs of mediums. That's Battletech, right there. Mediums SHOULD be the most numerous chassis.

This change will enforce a need for more strident mech balancing.

[Cabbage Merchant]

XX Sulla XX, on 29 September 2015 - 02:27 PM, said:

OK I would think you need an average at least on group of 8 maybe even 6 of less than 60 tons. Say 55 instead. Then they have to bring at least mediums and heavies insteadof just all heavies. And on smaller groups you want the average to be in the range so they will need to take a medium and a heavy and not just 2 Timber Wolves. Or maybe to small heavies.

Second.

I want options, but I don't want to see 6+ Timberwolves on one side.

BattleBunny, on 30 September 2015 - 06:05 AM, said:

this summs up my thoughts as well. Also I think duo lights or duo assaults are a fun way to drop with a buddy. you can compliment eachother greatly. I hope you dont take that away.

BUNNY!!!

[SpiralFace]

Commissar Aku, on 30 September 2015 - 05:54 AM, said:

Yea, more punishment for not being a meta *****. I will no longer be able to run assaults in a 2 or 3 man, for what? Because PGI can't be bothered to fix the match maker instead they choose to try every solution but one that work.

I think that is the entire point of this feedback. Its a popular opinion that I support to ensure that 2-3 man teams still have a wide amount of flexibility to play what they want that gets more and more tightly restricted as you add team mates onto your roster.

Thats the basic idea, and they are looking for numbers that they feel will address that.

[Gest Asmunderson]

Two man teams need more tonnage range. I want to do runs in my Locusts or Mist Lynx with a friend.

Edited by Gest Asmunderson, 30 September 2015 - 07:23 AM.

[Fightgar]

I have a love/hate with this new system. In a large group it would work out pretty good. But in the smaller groups if you wanted to run 3 100 ton mechs with your friends you can't. Or even 3 assault in the lower weight like 80 to 85 tons. I just don't care for that type of limitations. And maybe have a max of 6 of any one weight class. Just my 2 cents

[Weaselball]

I don't yet have a minimum tonnage limit, but speaking with a few guys in my unit we think this feels a bit closer to what it should be:

2 = 160 tons
3 = 240 tons
4 = 300 tons
5 = 375 tons
6 = 420 tons
7 = 455 tons
8 = 520 tons
9 = 540 tons
10 = 600 tons
12 = 660 tons

2-3 man = 80 ton average.
4-5 man = 75 ton average.
6 man = 70 ton average... no 6x Timberwolves. But still, perhaps a bit heavier than it should be.
7-8 man = 65 ton average.
9-10 man = 60 ton average.
12 man = 55 ton average.

[Wolf Clearwater]

Ideally, there should be a lance size restriction as well as a weight restriction for bigger groups. You should be able to take a full lance of a weight class.

There needs to be an Urbanmech exception. 12 man Urbie drop needs to be a thing.

[LCCX]

Trevelyas, on 29 September 2015 - 01:55 PM, said:

To my pal Paul specifically:
If you still have players' latest Elo values archived from before the switch to PSR, I recommend generating a scatter plot of all players (who have played enough matches since January to "even out" their current PSR, maybe 4000+ matches) with Elo on the vertical axis and PSR on the horizontal and examine it. Ask yourself, "is there a strong positive correlation? Is it roughly linear?"
My suspicion is it will have very poor correlation, with players who have PSRs putting them in tier 1 and 2 having wildly different archived Elos (points on the right side of the graph heavily scattered vertically).

http://mwomercs.com/...-tiers-and-psr/

I'm not sure that would happen, Trevelyas, because of how strongly correlated winning is with PSR changes. The lower your ELO rank, the more games you would have to play in order to make it into Tier-1 PSR without "belonging" there -- to the point that 3rd-quintile ELO players would have to play on the order of perhaps 20,000 matches to end up in Tier-1.

[grayson marik]

STOP using tonnage! START using BV+PSR!

[WarHippy]

Grifthin, on 29 September 2015 - 01:55 PM, said:

Please consider lowering the Tonnage numbers for groups. As the current proposed numbers stand every single person in your group can take a Timber/Hellbringer/Ebon Jaguar. Please consider lowering it a bit.

Medium mechs should be the most common sight on the battlefield, not 7-8+ heavies every single round.

See this is an example of why we as a community will never be able to agree on anything. To me the proposed numbers are already way to freaking low and need to be increased or not bothered with at all, and yet others think it is too high.

[Peiper]

grayson marik, on 30 September 2015 - 07:58 AM, said:

STOP using tonnage! START using BV+PSR!

I don't know that I fully understand a battle value that fluctuates over time, but it's far better to try something new than what we already know doesn't work. What we have now is tonnage + PSR. Battle Value + PSR really isn't any different, only that mechs are valued on what they can do, not on what they weigh.

Russ and friends, it seems you guys like to think inside the box because a box is simple and you get stuck in a belief that there is only the box. Let's try battle value instead of tonnage. If you want, you can even limit battle value per team in drop creation, but I don't even know that it is necessary with battle value. If people want to take a ton of dire wolves, they'll face dire wolves (not atlases and king crabs versus Dire Wolves). And if one team does take all super-meta mechs, maybe they'll face MORE players with lesser mechs because of it? Battle value allows for lopsided team numbers, where tonnage does not. I know that's WAY outside your box, but think forward, think different, instead of thinking backwards.

Or, just stop messing with it, and give us more content so the whiners can whine about something else.

[n4sty]

The tonnage limits MUST be combined with current class restrictions!! Dropping the 3/3/3/3 restriction will just destroy the group queue... reactions will be devasting!

I repeat: YOU HAVE TO KEEP WEIGHT CLASS RESTRICTIONS!

Then you may decide whether you want to use the proposed tonnage limit or whether you prefer to apply "dymnamic" wheight class restrictions depending on group size (i.e. 2-4 => 1/1/1/1, 5-8 => 2/2/2/2, 9-12=> 3/3/3/3). The latter will have very similar outcomes than the the tonnage limits, maybe even a bit more restrictive for group sizes at the upper end of each category (e.g. groups of 4 won't benefit from not choosing heavy assaults)


PS: If it was actually planned to drop the 3/3/3/3, I'd like to ask if you guys at PGI did really learn nothing from CW? Obviously 55t-75t mechs constitute the apex of power relative to wheight, thus people will choose those mechs when wheight is constrained.

[Big Tin Man]

So after 8 pages, it appears there is a consensus building around the following (excluding the completely different ideas thrown out that Russ told us not to discuss here):

1. 3/3/3/3 or a slightly more relaxed form of it (i.e. 4/4/3/3 or 6/4/3/3) must remain. It may not be required in MM decision process to balance the sides, but solely to stop large groups from spamming a single mech. This will not affect small groups which are the majority of the groups out there.

2. Most people dislike a hard minimum for tonnage, especially at low group size

3. Most people that have posted max numbers seem to descend from 90 tons to 60 tons as the group size increases.

[Russ Bullock]

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..

[Russ Bullock]

Big Tin Man, on 30 September 2015 - 09:21 AM, said:

So after 8 pages, it appears there is a consensus building around the following (excluding the completely different ideas thrown out that Russ told us not to discuss here):

1. 3/3/3/3 or a slightly more relaxed form of it (i.e. 4/4/3/3 or 6/4/3/3) must remain. It may not be required in MM decision process to balance the sides, but solely to stop large groups from spamming a single mech. This will not affect small groups which are the majority of the groups out there.

2. Most people dislike a hard minimum for tonnage, especially at low group size

3. Most people that have posted max numbers seem to descend from 90 tons to 60 tons as the group size increases.

I agree on #2 we can lower it - I am nervous about giving it no restrictions at all on the lower end. Imagining a team put together of 6 groups of 2 and were depending on them running more tonnage than the other side. A pair of really good 35 ton lights sure, but a pair of locusts, not even with the best pilots I doubt. possibly around 60 tons minimum for a group of 2 so lightest combo is locust and a Cicada but can still run duel spiders.

But as to #1 - its not a quick thing to change it from 3/3/3/3 to something else like 4/4/3/3 especially for what amounts to at most 10% of groups. This might be controllable by being smart with tonnage limits especially on the groups of 10 and 12.

Weaselball, on 30 September 2015 - 07:27 AM, said:

I don't yet have a minimum tonnage limit, but speaking with a few guys in my unit we think this feels a bit closer to what it should be: 2 = 160 tons 3 = 240 tons 4 = 300 tons 5 = 375 tons 6 = 420 tons 7 = 455 tons 8 = 520 tons 9 = 540 tons 10 = 600 tons 12 = 660 tons 2-3 man = 80 ton average. 4-5 man = 75 ton average. 6 man = 70 ton average... no 6x Timberwolves. But still, perhaps a bit heavier than it should be. 7-8 man = 65 ton average. 9-10 man = 60 ton average. 12 man = 55 ton average.

I like a lot of this.

[Russ Bullock]

Again as to weight class restrictions whether that be 3/3/3/3 or some newer form like 4/4/2/2/

Here is where I am at - I don't think we should put that out at the same time nor could I at this point. I feel the best way to approach this is to release the new tonnage system. Together as PGI and the community spend a couple weeks fine tuning the tonnage values for all group sizes.

Once we feel we have it dialed in as well as we possibly can - that will expose what we need to do in the best way. The options it will expose will be:

A ) leave the dialed in tonnage system as is don't mess with it anymore and leave out class restrictions
B ) Its good but we need to put back in weight class restrictions for larger groups
- define exactly what the weight class restriction should be
C ) some other determination like reducing max group size etc.

I hope you will buy in with this proposed plan - it really does need live numbers data not PTS.