435 replies to this topic

[jaxjace]

First, why is this the last attempt at balancing the group mode? it has been a problem for literally years and the only solution i have ever seen is 3/3/3/3, not a bad place to start but this proposed system is complicated at best. Theres more than one problem, there needs to be more than one solution, i get that, but tonnage restrictions are going to piss a lot of people off.

Wait times<Balance in this mechwarriors opinion. Also, make PSR an infinitely counting up tier level, not a maxed out 5 tier system, that's honestly just a bad idea and not exactly sustainable, would help alleviate some of the unbalance.

[Tarogato]

Just out of curiousity, thinking about dropdecks that would fit under certain tonnage limits. Going under the premise that you start at groups of two with 100 tons per player, and go down gradually until you reach the game average tonnage of about 60, here's what the most meta dropdecks could be:


Focusing on spamming DWFs:

12: 60 ton average --- 720 total ---- Four DWF, five SCR, and an IFR.
(11) 60 ton average --- 660 total -----
10: 60 ton average --- 600 total ---- Four DWF, two SCR, four ACH
9: 60 ton average ---- 540 total ----- Four DWF, four ACH, and a LCT
8: 65 ton average ---- 520 total ----- Four DWF and four ACH
7: 65 ton average ---- 455 total ----- Three DWF, a HBR, and three ACH
6: 65 ton average ---- 390 total ----- Three DWF and three ACH
5: 70 ton average ---- 350 total ----- Three DWF, an ACH, and a LCT
4: 80 ton average ---- 320 total ----- Three DWF and a LCT
3: 90 ton average ---- 270 total ----- Two DWF and a SMN/GHR
2: 100 ton average --- 200 total ---- Two DWF

---

Focusing on spamming Clan heavies:

12: 60 ton average --- 720 total ---- five TBR, a HBR, four SCR, and two ACH
(11) 60 ton average --- 660 total -----
10: 60 ton average --- 600 total ---- five TBR, three SCR, and two ACH
9: 60 ton average ---- 540 total ----- five TBR, a HBR, two FS9 and an ACH
8: 65 ton average ---- 520 total ----- three TBR, four HBR, and a FS9
7: 65 ton average ---- 455 total ----- three TBR, three HBR and a FS9
6: 65 ton average ---- 390 total ----- two TBR, two HBR, two SCR
5: 70 ton average ---- 350 total ----- four TBR and a NVA
4: 80 ton average ---- 320 total ----- four TBR
3: 90 ton average ---- 270 total ----- three TBR
2: 100 ton average --- 200 total ---- two TBR

---

After theorycrafting those out, it makes me realise that the max tonnages that Russ posted in his table are a bit too heavy. I think a limit of 700 tons would be reasonable for 12-mans .... I feel like 720 gives just a little too much, and certainly 795 seems crazy high to me. Then of course the max tonnage for two mans would be 200, and just fill in the gap between the 200 and 700 limits for each group size.

[generalazure]

If people are afraid of seeing 95% certain OP mechs in game, nerf the damn mechs. Rigging the matchmaker to specifically suppress the number of unbalanced mechs is a bloody hack and will end horribly, as usual.

[Amsro]

I feel like the tonnage numbers need to me more biased towards smaller groups.

2 - 40 Min/ 200 Max
3 - 60 Min/ 300 Max
4 - 145 Min/ 280 Max
5 - 205 Min/ 340 Max
6 - 265 Min/ 400 Max
7 - 325 Min/ 460 Max
8 - 405 Min/ 520 Max
9 - 455 Min/ 580 Max
10 - 505 Min/ 640 Max
12 - 555 Min/ 700 Max

This way groups of 2 or 3 would essentially have no limits, while groups from 4-10 would have consistently increasing limits. And 12 mans being the most tonnage limited.

Perhaps the limits should be more excessive as the group gets bigger. Only way to know is to try it.

I vote this new group balance idea should hit the PTS at least once before going live.

[Leopardo]

Yeh guys give it a try in PTS!!!!!!

Edited by Leopardo, 02 October 2015 - 06:33 AM.

[Nik Reaper]

I wounder if this means another cbill earning reduction.. as a big group might go against a lot of weight means big damage farming opportunity = more cbills.
I hope they don't touch that.

[Nik Reaper]

Leopardo, on 02 October 2015 - 06:32 AM, said:

Yeh guys give it a try in PTS!!!!!!

Not a realistic option, a few people would go do it for a short time, a more realistic option would be to ether do it on live with an easy recall function, in case it's a problem, or to give real incentive to PTS testers in relation to how much time/games they spend in the PTS.

Every PTS I go online and test it, but usually when it begins like most players, and you find a few games quickly and test what's new, that is done in 45min~1 hour tops, and that is that.
Most do it that way and unless they have a few friends who want to try something later they are done with the PTS for that session.
After all we are not payed QA testers and we gain no cbills fot the main account by using our time there so it makes sense to spend about 1h testing but not a day or two that would be needed to get a quantifiable data sample if it works well or not.

Edited by Nik Reaper, 02 October 2015 - 06:50 AM.

[Amsro]

Nik Reaper, on 02 October 2015 - 06:49 AM, said:

Not a realistic option, a few people would go do it for a short time, a more realistic option would be to ether do it on live with an easy recall function, in case it's a problem, or to give real incentive to PTS testers in relation to how much time/games they spend in the PTS.

Every PTS I go online and test it, but usually when it begins like most players, and you find a few games quickly and test what's new, that is done in 45min~1 hour tops, and that is that.
Most do it that way and unless they have a few friends who want to try something later they are done with the PTS for that session.
After all we are not payed QA testers and we gain no cbills fot the main account by using our time there so it makes sense to spend about 1h testing but not a day or two that would be needed to get a quantifiable data sample if it works well or not.

That was true for the last PTS, as it was a complete joke and no where near ready for testing.

[AdamBaines]

KisumiKitsune, on 01 October 2015 - 12:49 PM, said:

I'd be wary of stating things as "it's going to be". The guarantee of PGI actually listening to and being in touch with the community, even when they directly ask for feedback from it, is still at times a bit shaky, though it has vastly improved since they dropped IGP, to be fair. I wouldn't be surprised to see things launch with these values in spite of the current bandwagon. I'd love nothing more to be proven wrong in this instance. Do it PGI! DO ET!

I never stated "it's going to be". I was stating the general sentiment here in this thread for small groups.

PGI does listen. They have made many changes based on community feedback. Now are they the ones each individual may want? Sofar, for me their record is decent (since the departure of IGP as you mentioned) for you its not as good. Ok. And really, when they make their decision, it maybe somthing you and I like, but maybe not the other 40% of the population who post here on the boards. Thats the way it will be. As long as the game is playable and fun (which it generally is now for me) Ill be happy.

[Escherichio]

KisumiKitsune, on 02 October 2015 - 04:58 AM, said:

Y'know, that seems like a step in the right direction I dare say. Tonnage limits are completely arbitrary, as the best mechs are really all over the dang place and bigger is not better in tonnage. However, chassis limits would do... uhh... something. It's still arguably just as bad to have a team bring 2 DWF + 1 KGC, 2 TBR +1 HBR, 2 SCR +1 WVR, and 2 ACH + 1 FS9, but at least it's not 3 ACH, SCR, TBR or DWF.

It's better than the tonnage limit, but it's still not a fix. Maybe scale it with group size. 1-4, stack away. 5-8, max 2. 9-12, no stacking at all. It'd at least force some diversity.

I like the varied stacking until i have to explain it to people, since that puts another kink into building a team. If your buddy joins just before a drop, you might have to rebuild the group as a result. Part of the idea behind the chassis limits is that PGI already tracks weight classes, so there is an existing flag in game that could be converted to chassis.

Quote

Still a nasty team, but a good bit more diversified in what they can do. It's not as easy to set all of those up in carbon-copy gauss + laser vomit builds. Well, maybe still the heavies and assaults, but the medium / light meta has really different roles for all of them. Ravens and Firestarters don't do the same thing.

Ravens and Firestarters don't, and that's the intent. Do you want SRMs, ECM, and/or jumpjets? People will try to min/max everything and this pushes folks into other mechs. Right now, 3/3/3/3 is biased to 35/55/75/100 mechs to maximize tonnage per weight class. We see the same consistent builds, with ECM being the only item to get people into lighter units.

I dont expect this to magically get all units viable played. It will keep groups from taking advantage of building a coordinated team of ideal OP units so other players are on par. I fully expect good teams to still win through skill.

[100mile]

Either put a restriction on the number of chassis you can run, example: maximum 3 of any chassis per group. So no more than 3 timbers and 3 stormcrows and leave the weights as they are or lower the 10 to 12 man groups weights to a 55 ton average. Otherwise we will have all Timber/Crow drop decks all the time and the game will go away.

[Nick Makiaveli]

So a group of two couldn't run two mechs under 40 tons. Taking a Locust would mean teaming up with at least a 55 tonner.

So much for 2 man wolfpacks.

[Surn]

Reminder, here is a google doc that will let you test your tonnages and shows both per player and total group tonnages in different combination of groups that add to 12 players.
https://docs.google....#gid=1106495122
(edit the blue section, you can also adjust the group combinations with a warning...dont break it)
note: you can save a copy for yourself under "file"

Here is my personal settings that seem to get close to what was asked for by the devs...


edit: I made a minor adjustment to my spreadsheet and updated the graphic
edit2: cleaned up the format of the spreadsheet and updated graphic.

Edited by MechregSurn, 02 October 2015 - 11:38 AM.

[NiuqOteen]

Restrictions on 2 player groups is terrible idea, at least from a newer player perspective.
Imagine you just finished your first 30 ish games and purchased a mech. Few days later you get a friend to play MWO, currently your group of 2 is throw in with skilled players.
New tonnage only type restriction, you would literaly get throw to the Wolves.

This may be viewed as blasphemy.

Allow groups of 2 into the solo cue at one pair per team, matched at the highest Psr of the two players.

Allow games in the group cue to start with under 12 players perhaps 11 even 10 if mm times reach a threshold.

Just a thought, probably just make things more complex.
From a newer player perspective it seem detrimental to play with your buddy, getting thrown against the min maxing group MM.

[Zeus X]

Please watch this video PGI.

[Surn]

Zeus X, on 02 October 2015 - 02:12 PM, said:

Please watch this video PGI.

I am glad that I am not the only Analytical on this problem.

[SpiralFace]

The problem with that video is that it is only normalized in the context of single groups.

I respect Kanajashi's opinion, but his numbers actually still end up favoring larger groups because he appeared so focused on normalizing the curbs for single groups that his numbers still allow for large groups of 9 and 10 mans to be paired with 2 and 3 mans and still average to a higher tonnage then groups with better distribution of more even groups.

So under his numbers a 10 man matched with a 2 man ends up having almost 100 max tonnage more across the team compared to what a better distributed 6x2 group will have.

Still providing the side with the larger group the overall match tonnage advantage.

[Kael Posavatz]

Oh the problems with this...

I like the idea in general, and I recognize the proposed numbers are hypotheticals, but as it is there are, shall we say, issues.

1) Smaller groups have more tonnage to work with. In my experience, I am more likely to see a couple of light mechs when dropping with one or two friends than I am to see ANY lights in a group of nine or fewer. Above nine someone has to bring a light mech.

2) As soon as teams aren't forced to bring light mechs, they will disappear. Oh, there will be some that insist on bringing a light mech, but generally the return for bringing a mech of less mass isn't sufficient to offset it's relative lacks. Furthermore, its mission role--scouting/spotting--doesn't currently exist to a degree that a heavier mech cannot perform it good enough, even if 'good enough' is less capable in that role than a dedicated light mech.

3) These tonnage brackets are going to encourage teams to bring mechs of uniform, or near-uniform mass, especially for the larger, organized groupings. A murderball of a dozen stormcrows would be very unpleasant for a team of mixed groups, regardless of how much extra tonnage. Mixed dragons for direct-fire, backed with a couple mad dogs, same deal. Or Cauldron Born, Hellbringers, and maybe a Jaeger or two...

4) Those small groups aren't going to know ahead of time that they are being paired with a 12-man so they may not be taking advantage of that extra tonnage. With the proposed minimum cap, matches of teams comprised of small groups are going to be heavy-fests without the variety of mech weight classes currently observed. (And I cannot see large groups being much better)



PS, has anyone noticed that the min size for a 12-person team is 3/3/3/3 with 20, 40, 60, and 80 ton mechs, and the max is 3/3/3/3 with 35, 55, 75, and 100 ton mechs? I rather strongly doubt that organized teams are going to take the hint.

[Livewyr]

Did someone say Six Dire Wolves (over various kinds) and 6 Arctic Cheetahs (ERSL/SPL) ?

Yes.. seems like a good idea to me.

[Wintersdark]

Leopardo, on 01 October 2015 - 10:55 PM, said:

just dont understand - guys small groups syncro drops - with same mechs - meta mechs...no 3 3 3 3 rule - its more problem then solution.

They can do that right now, though. If your sync dropping, you could bring 4x3 Dire Wolves if you felt so inclined.