435 replies to this topic

[Feetwet]

Hann Solo, on 30 September 2015 - 12:56 PM, said:

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.

This right here. My group which was 3-6 through the evening last night, dropped around a dozen times. We ran into groups larger than 4 in more than half of those drops. Hell 3 times against the same 8+ NS team. I remember those because they got ugly. I'm tier 4 by the way...so my view is invalid ;-p

S

[Surn]

Hann Solo, on 30 September 2015 - 12:56 PM, said:

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?

I think what they are saying is the 90% of groups are 4 man or less. Which mean each match needs 6 2-mans for every 12-man.

[Surn]

For God's sake will someone post a table with ton min/max taking into account up to 4 groups per drop side? i am on my phone and it would be a pain.

[GoKuXo]

The problem is some people play to win using only metamech (most of the big group/premade) and other people play for fun using any mech they likes... and all of them end in the same games.

Tonnelage limit change nothing, people is going to use another metamech (probably with less tonnelage) and the other people is going to use another not competitive fun mech... and again all end in the same game.

The hardest hit will be in the people who can not use all his fun mech, becose of tonnelage.

[Roscoeskid FFI]

Not meaning to be disrespectful, are you out of your mind???? REALLY ? I have spent countless dollars on this game between myself "Roscoeskid" and my son "ToxicMaskshot" and you cannot believe how disappointed I am about this. It is going to ruin a lot of fun and time I spend with the players on 122nd Fire Force Infantry. We not only play this because we enjoy the game but the social interaction. We like running assaults together or whatever we want to run. Don't take that away or limit it Please!

Sincerely,

Richard J Racicot

[Kira Onime]

If it hasn't been mentioned before, I'd like to remind people that one of the points of this new MM system is to remove "buckets" from which MM can chose from.

While I agree on some of the suggestions "add tonnage and weight class restrictions", this only adds buckets to M, something that goes against one of the goals.

[ArchSight]

@Russ, I have two tables of tonnages to choose from that will closely enable what I would like you to do but it's conformed into what your asking us to do. Your table gives too much tonnage to bigger groups. My tables reduce larger group tonnages. I hope you take my tables as a good example of how to reduce those larger group tonnages to give smaller groups a ton advantage.

Both of these tables start at 60 tons per player for maximum tonnage and 40 tons per player on minimum tonnage which will create the flexible community warfare drop deck for the smaller groups. It allows friends to swap from playing lighter mechs to heavier mechs and it forces smaller groups to take higher amounts of tonnage to help compenesate for the possible different match ups in the group que. Making these requirments less strict is probably a good idea.

After gaining 4 players in a group it drops in tonnage per player by 5.

			Group Size				Min.				Max.
			2				80				120
			3				120				180
			4				160				240
			5				175				275
			6				210				330
			7				245				385
			8				280				440
			9				270				450
			10				300				500
			No 11 group size				330				550
			12				360				600

Two, three, and four group sizes have 60 tons per player for maximum tonnage and 40 tons per player on minimum tonnage.
Five, six, seven, and eight group sizes have 55 tons per player for maximum tonnage and 35 tons per player on minimum tonnage.
Nine, ten, and twelve group sizes have 50 tons per player for maximum tonnage and 30 tons per player on minimum tonnage.

Three groups of 4 will possibly have a 120 ton difference over a group of 12.
Two groups of 6 will possibly have a 60 ton difference over a group of 12.


After gaining 4 players in a group it drops in tonnage per player by 10.

			Group Size				Min.				Max.
			2				80				120
			3				120				180
			4				160				240
			5				150				250
			6				180				300
			7				210				350
			8				240				400
			9				180				360
			10				200				400
			No 11 group size				220				440
			12				240				480

Two, three, and four group sizes have 60 tons per player for maximum tonnage and 40 tons per player on minimum tonnage.
Five, six, seven, and eight group sizes have 50 tons per player for maximum tonnage and 30 tons per player on minimum tonnage.
Nine, ten, and twelve group sizes have 40 tons per player for maximum tonnage and 20 tons per player on minimum tonnage.

Three groups of 4 will possibly have a 240 ton difference over a group of 12.
Two groups of 6 will possibly have a 120 ton difference over a group of 12.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

There has got to be a compromise between those of us who play the game for fun and those of us who will use every bit of slack in the rules to our advantage in order to win. While I understand the desire to get together with two of your friends and goof off in whatever you want, when those of us who plan to win as often as possible see "whatever you want", that is usually translated as "how many DWFs can we bring?" Russ says that the most common group size is about 4, and I have no reason to not believe him.

Using the above unit of measure (DWFs), for a group of 4, how many DWFs is reasonable?
- Four? No way in hell.
- Three? That's what we have now, and while I personally don't think 3 is reasonable, with extreme limits, possibly. By this measure I could understand a tonnage limit of 320 for a 4-man.
- Two? It's probably not reasonable to crank the restrictions up so high that two is impossible, but maybe with significant compromises on the other two 'mechs. 240 (2x100 + 2x20) is probably too light, but is a good starting point for me for argument's sake.
- One? Not reasonable.

Take that same process and apply it to TBRs ... four is not reasonable, three is understandable but really powerful, two is probably about right with some compromise ... 240 (2x75 + 70+20) would limit lances to two TBRs.

Again, but for FS9/RVNs to set the minimum limits ... two is probably about right ... 150 (2x35 + 2x40).

Extrapolate a bit in each direction, loosening the limits for 2-3 man, and tightening them for larger groups, and I come up with something like this:
2: 70-140, 3: 110-190, 4: 150-240, 5: 190-290, 6: 230-340, 7: 275-385, 8: 320-430, 9: 365-475, 10: 410-520, 12: 510-600

Perhaps TBR is not the right unit of measure for the upper end, but it's a start.

Edited by Kageru Ikazuchi, 30 September 2015 - 04:58 PM.

[LCCX]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 30 September 2015 - 04:37 PM, said:

There has got to be a compromise between those of us who play the game for fun and those of us who will use every bit of slack in the rules to our advantage in order to win. While I understand the desire to get together with two of your friends and goof off in whatever you want, when those of us who plan to win as often as possible see "whatever you want", that is usually translated as "how many DWFs can we bring?" Russ says that the most common group size is about 4, and I have no reason to not believe him.

Using the above unit of measure (DWFs), for a group of 4, how many DWFs is reasonable?
- Four? No way in hell.
- Three? That's what we have now, and while I personally don't think 3 is reasonable, with extreme limits, possibly. By this measure I could understand a tonnage limit of 320 for a 4-man.
- Two? It's probably not reasonable to crank the restrictions up so high that two is impossible, but maybe with significant compromises on the other two 'mechs. 240 (2x100 + 2x20) is probably too light, but is a good starting point for me for argument's sake.
- One? Not reasonable.

Take that same process and apply it to TBRs ... four is not reasonable, three is understandable but really powerful, two is probably about right with some compromise ... 240 (2x75 + 70+20) would limit lances to two TBRs.

Again, but for FS9/RVNs to set the minimum limits ... two is probably about right ... 150 (2x35 + 2x40).

Extrapolate a bit in each direction, loosening the limits for 2-3 man, and tightening them for larger groups, and I come up with something like this:
2: 70-140, 3: 110-190, 4: 150-240, 5: 190-290, 6: 230-340, 7: 275-385, 8: 320-430, 9: 365-475, 10: 410-520, 12: 510-600

Perhaps TBR is not the right unit of measure for the upper end, but it's a start.

That is along the lines of how I was thinking, but I think smaller groups need a larger tonnage bonus because, on average, they won't use it all.

[Tarl Cabot]

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.

A combination of B and C. Max group size set at 8man in a 12vs12 drop and/or weight class restrictions for larger groups to avoid potential abuse of the system.

As for the smaller groups "helping" a larger group due to weight of mechs selected, there is still the need to communicate, listening and going with it. And if the group queue selection for the smaller units do not have to follow the 3/3/3/3, as you said, there is the potential for the one side of smaller groups outweighing the larger group.

This can go to really show the difference between an organized unit vs a co-op with a weight advantage. Will it actually be an advantage? Only if the co-op communicates, but almost similar to the solo queue it does not happen as much as it should.

[LCCX]

LCCX, on 30 September 2015 - 02:21 PM, said:

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 increased 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 Cheetah, 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.

Someone asked about what team weights would look like, since teams involve mixed groups. Given my above suggested tonnage limits, the team tonnage limits would be:

Max Group Size On Team	Min Tonnage	Max Tonnage
2	240	1050
3	240	965
4	340	960
5	370	880
6	405	880
7	440	795
8	470	790
9	480	680
10	470	655
12	530	540

There are a couple jumps in possible tonnages, but overall I think it's quite steady and results in progressively larger tonnage advantage to the team with the smallest group sizes.

[LCCX]

If it is ever the case that 6 pairs (2-man groups) get dropped together on the same team and all of them have taken Locust mechs, then the server should broadcast "For the swarm!" because that would be an amazing Easter egg.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

LCCX ... I apologize for this being a bit sloppy ... my work browser doesn't do [ quotes ] right on these forums.

"smaller groups ... larger tonnage bonus ... on average, they won't use it all"

Russ stated earlier that "so many of (small groups) just roll 3 heavies or 3 assaults".

In my timezone (Oceanic), at the Tier 1-2 level, this is true. It's not usually the semi-casual ISRC 12-man that Cashel slaps together that causes my semi-organized 228th IBR 4-8-man to put on our "try-hard pants", get organized and start rolling either the heavy meta or our door-kicking brawler deck ... it's the 2-3 groups of 3-6 JGx, EMP, BMMU, OMC, etc. ... each bringing meta Clan heavy/assault laser-gauss combos. Once we get our crap together, the fight almost always goes our way ... but there needs to be compromises to get better diversity and balance.

The ability for 50+ damage alpha TBRs and 80+ damage DWFs (for example) to represent over 50% of the 'mechs on the field significantly decreases time-to-kill and makes the game un-fun for most. I'm not saying that it happens even most of the time, but if we're going to put severe restrictions on 8+ man groups (which my proposals do), there also needs to be some similar restrictions on smaller groups.

Edited by Kageru Ikazuchi, 30 September 2015 - 05:38 PM.

[Chemie]

1. Why not allow single players in the queue then?
2. You realize this will become the heavy queue? No point leaving tons on the table so those smaller teams will all take heavies. In fact, it will be likely the timberwolf queue. You will have 6 2-mans with TBR so 12 TBR vs a 12-man. hmm...
3. Why not just allow 2,4,6,8,10,12 teams instead of silly heavy queue design?
4. Or just allow single players so it is easier to fill out teams and match the 3/3/3/3?

I think the timberwolf queue design is silly.

[DasSauerkraut]

So the thing I don't get for this is the minimum tonnage limit. It actively screws over people who like to run lights with their friends. For instance, my friends and I like to run a 3 man locust swarm, if the tonnage table goes into effect, we would only be able to do this if we boosted our tonnage by running a 5 man with two assaults.

Asides from the nonsensical minimum tonnage requirement, if this replaces the 3/3/3/3 system we have now, it will make the group queue the heavy queue and actively encourage metamechs. I'm not playing this game for it's balance, I'm playing it for fun. This system would actively remove enjoyment from my friends and I. It is unlikely that we would continue to play if this was implemented in its current state.

Also, my first post! Woo!

Edited by DasSauerkraut, 30 September 2015 - 06:32 PM.

[SirSoggyDog]

Teamwork is OP, it's cliche and overused I know, but it is entirely true, particularly in a game like this. It's much easier to coordinate when your using similar mechs. Since mediums and heavies will be able to run homogeneous lances, it will be easier for them to reap greater benefits from teamwork. The same cannot be said of light and assault lances, who will have to run a few assaults for a few lights. The members of the latter composed lance will have vastly different playstyles, and will have a vastly harder time coordinating.

What this argument is trying to demonstrate is that better teamwork is an undeniable advantage, and that mechs at either end of the tonnage limits will have a harder time coordinating with their lance members. Thus lights and assaults, already regarded as the hardest mechs to play, will become even harder to viably play. The issue is exacerbated as units become smaller.

[Frytrixa]

New tonnage rules for smaller groups is a good thing but I would give them less.

- A heavier patched 12 man lance with high tonnage is slower against fast acting 12 premade
- surviveability with mediums and light mechs is greater against 12man premade
- no more 8 Assault mechs per team = more fluid game expirience, less camping.

[ShinVector]

I will just say.
Small groups should have huge tonnage advantage vs. big groups.

Make 2MAN Group (T1-3) x6Assault VS. 10-12MAN Group T1 possible !!
Supposedly 2MAN T1 Groups should not be easily exploitable as a huge group of T1s.

[God Particle]

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

Is this a hardware limitation or software? Either way it is hard to believe we are "stuck" with that limit. The Crytek engine can do a lot more than 24 players, and you can get 32 core, SSD, GPU servers by the hour on Amazon Wed Services. If it's game code you might need some hard-core programmers to optimize things. I would fix that 12 v 12 limit because that would free you up to *really* balance Clan vs. IS without artificial quarks and nerfs, as well as address issues like this one.

[BluefireMW]

ArchSight, on 30 September 2015 - 03:46 PM, said:

@Russ, I have two tables of tonnages to choose from that will closely enable what I would like you to do but it's conformed into what your asking us to do. Your table gives too much tonnage to bigger groups. My tables reduce larger group tonnages. I hope you take my tables as a good example of how to reduce those larger group tonnages to give smaller groups a ton advantage.

Both of these tables start at 60 tons per player for maximum tonnage and 40 tons per player on minimum tonnage which will create the flexible community warfare drop deck for the smaller groups. It allows friends to swap from playing lighter mechs to heavier mechs and it forces smaller groups to take higher amounts of tonnage to help compenesate for the possible different match ups in the group que. Making these requirments less strict is probably a good idea.

After gaining 4 players in a group it drops in tonnage per player by 5.

			Group Size				Min.				Max.
			2				80				120
			3				120				180
			4				160				240
			5				175				275
			6				210				330
			7				245				385
			8				280				440
			9				270				450
			10				300				500
			No 11 group size				330				550
			12				360				600

Two, three, and four group sizes have 60 tons per player for maximum tonnage and 40 tons per player on minimum tonnage.
Five, six, seven, and eight group sizes have 55 tons per player for maximum tonnage and 35 tons per player on minimum tonnage.
Nine, ten, and twelve group sizes have 50 tons per player for maximum tonnage and 30 tons per player on minimum tonnage.

Three groups of 4 will possibly have a 120 ton difference over a group of 12.
Two groups of 6 will possibly have a 60 ton difference over a group of 12.


After gaining 4 players in a group it drops in tonnage per player by 10.

			Group Size				Min.				Max.
			2				80				120
			3				120				180
			4				160				240
			5				150				250
			6				180				300
			7				210				350
			8				240				400
			9				180				360
			10				200				400
			No 11 group size				220				440
			12				240				480

Two, three, and four group sizes have 60 tons per player for maximum tonnage and 40 tons per player on minimum tonnage.
Five, six, seven, and eight group sizes have 50 tons per player for maximum tonnage and 30 tons per player on minimum tonnage.
Nine, ten, and twelve group sizes have 40 tons per player for maximum tonnage and 20 tons per player on minimum tonnage.

Three groups of 4 will possibly have a 240 ton difference over a group of 12.
Two groups of 6 will possibly have a 120 ton difference over a group of 12.

that would prevent a 12 man Heavy, i guess, very well
the less tonnage you get into field in big groups the more competetive it is and the chance this 'last' chance will work finally is larger then allow that useless everybody needs a 75t mech that was in the annoucment table.