435 replies to this topic

[Gyrok]

I think the smaller groups should have a lighter minimum. Say you want to run 3-4 light mechs in a lance? The high end of that weight would cap at 140 tons, the low end of that would be a mere 80 tons. The max tonnages seem fine to me...I see no reason they would be problematic; however, the lower tonnages in the 2-4 groups should be closer to something like 140 for 4 mechs.

Hopefully this does away with 3/3/3/3 as well.

Edited by Gyrok, 30 September 2015 - 10:03 AM.

[SpiralFace]

Ok Russ as promised, here is my feedback using only tonnage numbers. But first:

IMPORTANT FEEDBACK FOR EVERYONE'S PROPOSED NUMBERS!!!

While looking into these numbers, I came across a potential issue in what everyone is proposing.

Mainly, if the stated goal of these tonnage restrictions is to provide teams with the "larger group size" the tonnage disadvantage, then there is an important aspect that is being overlooked in the form of how large groups PAIR with another group if they do not form a ten man.

Mainly, If you where to form a "2 group side" with a large group, while the Large group DOES have less tonnage to play around with, the fact that these large groups need to be paired with smaller groups with MUCH more favorable total tonnage can STILL see large groups actually KEEP a larger team wide tonnage advantage because people's numbers do not currently account for what the groups are going to be paired with.

Consider the following number that others have proposed:

2 man: 200 ton max
3 man: 260 ton max
6 man: 360 ton max
9 man: 540 ton max
10 man: 600 ton max
12 man: 720 ton Max.

Now on the surface, it still looks like the smaller groups have a tonnage advantage individually (better averages per player.)

But then consider when you match these groups up into total tonnages for the entire team:

10 man + 2 man: 800 total tons, 67 ton average
9 man + 3 man: 800 total tons, 67 ton average
6 man x 2: 720 total tons, 60 ton average

Despite the same number of groups, you are actually giving a tonnage ADVANTAGE to the team that contains the larger group in many of these proposed numbers because the groups on the other side do not offset one another, leading to the biggest groups STILL having a larger team advantage because they must be paired with smaller groups.

I implore EVERYONE who has proposed solid numbers for the dev's to review to PLEASE look at what a 2 team average for 10 mans and bellow will be, because many of these numbers are still giving the side with the larger teams a much larger total tonnage advantage due to the way they are distributing their overall tonnage. As this could be something that could be an issue that would cloud the system if it is not accounted for.

That being said, My proposed numbers:



TWO GROUP AVERAGE:

As explained above, the way these numbers are structured is to curb the overall impact of large groups by preventing them from having a greater average team advantage simply by the virtue of having to be paired with smaller groups to fill in the gaps for players that they haven't included.

In this proposed system, a pairing of two 6 mans should garner the best "average" across their forces when paired against a large 10 man that must be paired with a 2 man.

Multiple Groups:

Despite looking at the two group average, these numbers STILL should allow for smaller groups to garner a tonnage advantage in the long haul. With the milestones being 2 man having 100 ton average, a 4 man having a 70 ton average, and a 6 man having a 65 ton average before leveling out across the rest of the curb.

This should provide them wiggle room with only a bit more restriction from what they see now to curb top heavy spam groups, ( a 4 man can no longer triple dire / timberwolf drop.) and bring things a bit more in the middle while still providing a bit of a tonnage advantage.

Why do 12 man's get a higher average then 10 mans?

Because the 2-10 man lopsided total tonnage due to team pairings meant that if you where to keep them skewed at a similar (but still lower) level then a 10 man with a 2 man, you would have to roll some of that average weight back into the larger group.

This seems weird when looking at just the list in isolation, but makes more sense when you see that a 10 man + 2 man has a 60 ton average weight across the team, while a full 12 man carry's a 57.5 average tonnage across the team.

Min tonnage:

Min tonnage is tricky because the more variance you give, the more unpredictable it is to balance teams. For a 2 man, I put 60 min only because taking 40 tons in group queue is considered by most to be detrimental under the current game environment. I'm not married to this idea either, but I would say that you need to tighten restrictions on min-tonnage as quickly as a 4 man in order to keep average tonnages consistent throughout the group queue.

I'm not as married to the numbers as I am the max tonnage, but they should account for something.

[SpiralFace]

Russ Bullock, on 30 September 2015 - 09:50 AM, said:

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.

Sounds good to me.

I think many of us pushing for the weight class restrictions just want to make it clear that we feel this is a potential point of abuse on the high end of the spectrum no matter what the tonnage is set to.

KNOWING that you guys at least have this on the radar is good enough for me. I don't mind having it be a point that we can potentially evolve to if we need to, I think many are simply worried that the course of action would be to restrict player choice through total player numbers or other player choice means OVER refinements to the proposed tonnage system.

As I think many players are much more happy with this direction then the other options on the table, we just want to make sure it doesn't solve one issue only to bring up another one.

Thanks for at least keeping it as a possible option we can expand to later.

Edited by SpiralFace, 30 September 2015 - 10:23 AM.

[Big Tin Man]

Russ: is the main issue with the current MM process that there just aren't enough groups with mediums/lights, and it is waiting to blow the release valves, either then bringing in lights/meds of a much different PSR (thus leading to stomps), or bringing in larger mechs which makes big total weight disparities between sides?

I understand that changing from 3/3/3/3 to 4/4/3/3 or some alternate would take some back end work, but having been around during the days of 12 Atlas D-DC's on a side... I don't want to see what 12 stormcrows/hellbringers/arctic cheetahs looks like. Would it really take that long to put it in solely as a restriction on the group launch screen? It sounds like you already have the new MM system ready to roll, but keeping the group size restriction limited to the group lobby wouldn't affect that.

I posted up the numbers I was running for max tonnage on page 4, and without absolutely crippling groups larger than 8, there will be a horrifically OP big group composition out there (which I understand is the 1% 12-man comp team boogyman that everyone complains about). I don't think it is practically avoidable, the math doesn't support tonnage restrictions being enough to control it with the best mechs in the game weighing 30, 55, 65 and 75 tons.

As for min tonnage and small groups, you have a point with the six groups of 2 all running locusts, but if MM is trying to keep the number of groups per side even (and doing pretty well at that), could it also attempt to balance actual tonnage per side once it selects the groups to use? Using your example, you would have 11 groups total, 10 groups of two and 1 group of four. MM doesn't have to put all the lights on one side. All that said, I could get behind an average minimum tonnage of 25/mech climbing linearly to 45/mech as group size increases, and with lights in their current state I don't see this being an issue at all.

I'm willing to go along with trying this out as an iterative process so you can gather data, but please watch the numbers carefully and be willing to shut it off if things start getting really bad with single mech spam. I don't think anyone would be happy if it were left for 2-4 weeks while the next iteration of tonnage restrictions or group restriction coding was completed.

I really think the best solution is a combination of weight class restriction (only required to launch, not a factor in MM decisions), and tonnage limits is the way to go. Hopefully we can get there.

[WarHippy]

Russ Bullock, on 30 September 2015 - 09:50 AM, said:

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.

Pretty much all of the proposed looks terrible to me, but if this is the way you are going to go then I will probably just have to move on from here. I know you and many if not most others don't care if I or any other random person leaves, but it is what it is and I won't be leaving alone.

Let solos queue with the groups if they wish(I know I would).
As much as I hate with a passion skirmish and the idea of not being able to avoid it completely it would be a sacrifice I could live with if I could play whatever mech I want with my friends without any of them having give up what they want to play in particular money was involved with the purchase of said mechs. I really don't want weight or class restrictions. Will we have times when teams are made up of nothing but Dire Wolves? Yes, but so what? Let the groups of whatever size come up with new strategies for dealing with situations like that instead of just saying "no you can't do that" in some misguided attempt at forcing balance and player behavior.

[Cricket504]

well seeing the max tonnage for 12 man is the max weight of 3/3/3/3 and you are looking to give some advantage to the small groups that are 90% of the group count. So Start the weight restrictions at groups of 3+. groups of 2 run what they want and give the bonus your looking for when that 12 man hits the small groups.

[God Particle]

Is there some reason we aren't just adding some players to the teams we're trying to balance? Why not let 12-man's match with 15-man smaller groups/singles. I would love more targets as a 12 man and as a pub! Why the devotion to 12 v 12 only?

[Russ Bullock]

God Particle, on 30 September 2015 - 11:01 AM, said:

Is there some reason we aren't just adding some players to the teams we're trying to balance? Why not let 12-man's match with 15-man smaller groups/singles. I would love more targets as a 12 man and as a pub! Why the devotion to 12 v 12 only?

that is a hard limit on the servers ability - its maxed out.

would need to be like 8vs16 - keeping total mech count locked

[Felio]

I love the idea. It needs to be more restrictive, however. You are still allowing a group of 12 to take 12 heavies.

[BluefireMW]

Veritae, on 29 September 2015 - 11:39 AM, said:

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.

And, from quirk changes back to normal states .... (which is important)
there should secondary be 3/3/3/3 stay life to prevent the 12 Heavy Mechs as group.

[WarHippy]

Russ Bullock, on 30 September 2015 - 11:08 AM, said:

that is a hard limit on the servers ability - its maxed out.

would need to be like 8vs16 - keeping total mech count locked

That actually sounds interesting as a game mode.

[Tynan]

I have a pretty strong personal stake in this one--I usually run solo, but when I don't I'm almost always a light duo. Because of their nature as harassers in a group of two, if one person's running light I've found it usually makes sense for the other part of the duo to run something at similar speed.

By setting the lower limit at 75 you're effectively eliminating the ability to do that. A Cataphract can compliment a Zeus (at the upper end) in a way that, for a example, a Shadowhawk won't compliment a Jenner. The only two combination the tonnage limit breaks is light / light and assault / assault, and in my opinion this has a disproportionately ugly effect on lights. I realize all mechs work best when they coordinate, but I don't think that's more true for anything than it is a harassing light lance. These tonnage limits basically say you can't run as a pair of lights, or a light lance.

As the group size grows there's more reason for a lower limit, but at the duo range specifically saying that you can't run two of the heaviest lights, you need one medium, is incredibly disappointing. Every time I group with one friend of mine, that's what we've done, for years now.

[Helsbane]

Honestly, the tonnage restriction concept is just another way to make for a frustrating situation and suck more of the remaining fun out of the game. I spend a lot of time leveling mechs, have spent money on mechs, and just want to run what I want to run without worrying about what the other members of my group are taking. Stop adding hoops I have to jump through to just play a damn game.

[Surn]

Without a way to balance mech meta, i think the inner sphere mechs need to be counted as 2.5 tons lighter, with leeway given for below min tonnage. Just make the tons available to teammates grow.

Edited by MechregSurn, 30 September 2015 - 03:00 PM.

[Hann Solo]

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..

If 90% of the people playing drop in groups of 4 or less then why are we catering to the 10% of people by not restricting groups to 4 or less? And I play in the group que most nights and rarely do I go against a team with less than a 4 man. Most groups we run into are 6-10 mans all night long. No way group que is 90% less than 4 mans.

[Solis Obscuri]

Max tonnages looks pretty good, not as sure about minimums - might be too restrictive of people wanting to run a recon lance.

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 solo players to opt into group queue if the MM is 1 short?

This, I am curious about.

[Appuagab]

I totally dislike values on 2 group and it's slowly growing to something adequate as group size grows. Me and my friend often drop on two 'mechs of same weight class. And it's usually two assaults or two lights. So both minimum and maximum values totally ruin our teamplay.

[Peiper]

Russ Bullock, on 30 September 2015 - 11:08 AM, said:

that is a hard limit on the servers ability - its maxed out.

would need to be like 8vs16 - keeping total mech count locked

This doesn't scare me. Thought even one mech more on an opposing team, of any kind, can make a HUGE balance difference. However, with battle value and getting rid of the crazy quirk system, we could have true clan tech versus true IS tech and if that means 10 v 14, well, Clanners, better up your game! It's gonna be a rough ride - but man, would it be a fun challenge!

[LCCX]

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.

If 80% of groups are size 2-3 and the matchmaker will not include tonnage within the matchmaking process, then yes it is imperative that you prevent 2x Dire Wolf and 3x Timber Wolf groups from dropping. I am less concerned about minimum weights because relatively few people will go around all running Locusts (and if they start then the minimums can be increaed later).

Beyond that, I'll suggest:

Group	Min	Max	Max/player
2	40	175	87.50
3	60	220	73.33
4	180	260	65
5	230	310	62
6	285	355	59.17
7	340	400	57.14
8	390	440	55
9	420	460	51.11
10	450	480	48
12	530	540	45

CONSIDERATIONS & REMINDERS TO READERS:
- These weights give most groups (2-man and 3-man) a lot of leeway in picking mechs, but do not permit dual Dire Wolf or triple Timber Wolf.
- Because most groups are size 2-3, much of the "extra" weight they are permitted will not be used in many matches, which means that large groups will have to be forced down further in order to create a weight disparity/advantage.
- The weights I've suggested here:
... - try to give 6x 2-man a 100% potential tonnage advantage over a single 12-man (of which I'd expect half, on average, to actually get used; the 2-mans *are* uncoordinated)
... - give a 4-man group half the advantage of a 2-man over a 12-man
... - give a 8-man group half the advantage of a 4-man over a 12-man
... - give a 6-man group half the advantage of a 3-man over a 12-man
... - let any group potentially add 1 player without any existing player needing to change mechs
... - give smaller groups progressively more tonnage flexibility
... - interpolate intermediate values

- Mech and weapon balancing will continue. Although these weights would permit some people to run all-meta builds (currently Cheeta, Crow, Wolves), that will not always necessarily be the case. So long as tonnage eventually means an advantage instead of a disadvantage (e.g. Timber Wolf vs. Atlas right now), then this is a good direction.
- Making the match maker more complex by using additional math or factors is not currently on the table. We may have some good ideas about what those could be, but it seems clear that such content would not gain traction right here, right now.

Edited by LCCX, 30 September 2015 - 02:25 PM.

[Luscious Dan]

Tynan, on 30 September 2015 - 12:25 PM, said:

I have a pretty strong personal stake in this one--I usually run solo, but when I don't I'm almost always a light duo. Because of their nature as harassers in a group of two, if one person's running light I've found it usually makes sense for the other part of the duo to run something at similar speed.

That's actually how many players form their groups for tabletop. You don't necessarily need everyone in the lance to be the same role, but it can be helpful to have them grouped by similar speed so your maneuvers aren't totally messed up ("Wait for me, guys! I'm too slow to be useful!").

Trying to wrap my head around the issues of the group and solo queues, and various game modes. So far an elegant solution eludes me (I don't think it has anything to do with a group tonnage min/max as proposed here), but I'm still working at it. I'd be pretty pleased with myself if I can come up with some sort of idea to deal with the match maker, as it's so crucial to everything that happens in this silly game.

Edited by Luscious Dan, 30 September 2015 - 02:49 PM.