367 replies to this topic

[Widowmaker1981]

Reitmeier, on 21 October 2015 - 03:09 AM, said:

Even if they nerf the crow to the ground we will have other new T1 mechs that 12mans can boat

Allowing 12 mans to run all the same speed mechs is stupidly OP. 3/3/3/3 was good in that it forced you to bring assaults WITH mediums and lights, so you have to play around different speeds.

Scrap this dumba$$ tonnage system, bring back 3/3/3/3 and then just let matchmaker ignore 3/3/3/3 - so its required to build groups, but doesnt slow down matchmaking. boom, issue fixed. There might be tonnage disparity with sides made up of smaller teams ending with more assaults.. but i dont see the problem with that since the current system is actually designed to do that on purpose...

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 21 October 2015 - 03:17 AM.

[Dino Might]

I like the tonnage system. Fix the Crows instead of basing the entire game around a few outlier mechs.

The only thing they need to fix is to remove the minimum weight restrictions. I hate that a two man can't bring two Locusts.

Before all the hate and discontent spews forth for this idea, fighting 12 firestarters with heavier mechs is pretty easy peasy. Consider that you can just blast arty and airstrikes anywhere they coalesce, and your standard heavy build will rip a leg off in two shots. We faced down about 8 FS9s at once last night, while two of our team were running Hollander builds. We still won. Min drop tonnage is not needed.

[Widowmaker1981]

Dino Might, on 21 October 2015 - 03:19 AM, said:

I like the tonnage system. Fix the Crows instead of basing the entire game around a few outlier mechs.

The only thing they need to fix is to remove the minimum weight restrictions. I hate that a two man can't bring two Locusts.

Before all the hate and discontent spews forth for this idea, fighting 12 firestarters with heavier mechs is pretty easy peasy. Consider that you can just blast arty and airstrikes anywhere they coalesce, and your standard heavy build will rip a leg off in two shots. We faced down about 8 FS9s at once last night, while two of our team were running Hollander builds. We still won. Min drop tonnage is not needed.

Then they will bring 8 Hellbringers and 4 Arctic Cheetos. Or 10 Wolverines and 2 arctic cheetos.. or 2 Banshees and 10 BJ-1X or...
Its a crap system. Ditch it.

[Daelen Rottiger]

Try playing 6x TDR-5SS MPL Meta + 6x ACH spl/mpl Meta.

It's so much fun!!!!

Seriously...... anybody tell me that PGI didn't see this coming

[Dino Might]

Widowmaker1981, on 21 October 2015 - 03:22 AM, said:

Then they will bring 8 Hellbringers and 4 Arctic Cheetos. Or 10 Wolverines and 2 arctic cheetos.. or 2 Banshees and 10 BJ-1X or...
Its a crap system. Ditch it.

That drop deck wouldn't be so far different from what we normally see...

3 DWF
3 TBR
3 SCR
3 ACH

Or when it's not a 12 man,
5 DWF
4 TBR
1 VND (hilarious token non-meta mech)
2 FS9

At least with the tonnage restrictions they can't boat as many of the heavies/assaults that are probably the best mechs in the game. 8 HBRs is tough, but not quite as tough as a split of 8 DWF/TBR.

[Mawai]

Lol ... it was predicted by lots of folks ... unfortunately, PGI wasn't one of them.

I don't know where PGI gets the idea that just doing tonnage would provide balanced matches when their mechs aren't balanced to start with.

However, the main question is whether average matches are better or worse and not really the outliers like this one. With a 640 ton limit, 12 mans really don't have much selection left.

[Widowmaker1981]

Dino Might, on 21 October 2015 - 03:34 AM, said:

That drop deck wouldn't be so far different from what we normally see...

3 DWF
3 TBR
3 SCR
3 ACH

Yes, it is, because a team with 3 DWs is limited to playing at Dire Wolf SPEED. (or leaving them to die, but thats silly)
3/3/3/3 forces large groups to deal with different speed bands, and when you CAN bring all mechs the same speed, you SHOULD because its very (far too) effective.

[maniacos]

Widowmaker1981, on 21 October 2015 - 03:22 AM, said:

Then they will bring 8 Hellbringers and 4 Arctic Cheetos. Or 10 Wolverines and 2 arctic cheetos.. or 2 Banshees and 10 BJ-1X or...
Its a crap system. Ditch it.

This. The crows was just an extreme example showing the flaws of this new system.
It also removes skills from the game as it needs more skills to lead a true dropdeck with different roles allowing interesting tactics instead of just taking somehow the best performance and blow everything up that moves.

[STEF_]

Dino Might, on 21 October 2015 - 03:34 AM, said:

That drop deck wouldn't be so far different from what we normally see...

3 DWF
3 TBR
3 SCR
3 ACH

It's entirely different from 10 crows and 2 bj: u cannot coordinate 3/3/3/3 team in the same manner, with same speed, and facing the same target.
That's why the new patch has brought a new skyrocketed level of unbalance.

I guess even 9 cheetos and 3 ferrets....should be "fun"

Before facing a premade was difficult, now impossible.

[Prof RJ Gumby]

Also, different speeds and loadouts (well, the latter is arguable) allowed having 'unoptimal' mechs that could participate too, not being the dead weight only. If they were slow, or support oriented, they could've stick to the assaults and contribute to their firepower. If they were fast but not outstanding in terms of firepower, they could've scout/harass the flank/back of the enemy formation, cap for points or to force the enemy formation to split.

Now, if you have 11 106km/h mechs and one slower mech, it will be better for the team just to leave him behind. Slowing 11 mechs for that one guy's weapons/armor is just not worth it. You march with the group or you die alone. Some entertainment.

[C E Dwyer]

Reitmeier, on 21 October 2015 - 03:09 AM, said:

Even if they nerf the crow to the ground we will have other new T1 mechs that 12mans can boat

Sure there are other mechs that are T1 that can boat them ebon jag can, but its heavier and wider, Mad dog, not T1 but both these mech throw the sweat spot balance off.

The fault is in how the match maker works, not the methodology and restrictions.

for the 100th time PGI it is not 12 mans that causes this, though now your new method has made the two most broken t1 mechs the sweet spot, Artic Cheaters and Storm Crows. it is the fact that so many times highly skilled small groups are put into the masses by your failing match maker.

Your match maker fails because you to scared to increase wait times to get a balanced game, your match maker can't determine between a T3 that barely stays there to a T3 on their way to T1.

there are so many freaking variables that will only become less of a problem with a bigger population.

All these changes you are making are supposed to be to help the new start that will make things easier, they make it worse, because the buckets open to early.

you want masses stop pandering to the e-sport crowd, you hang on to a very small minority, because you think this is how the game is going, well your asumptions are false, and very wrong

Guild Wars probably the most popular E-sport isn't successful because of E-sport ..e-sport works there because the population is so big and they didn't pander to the Elite, they made the game for the masses.

make T1 themselves and T2
T2 only face T1 T2 T3
T3 only face T2 T3 T4
T4 only face T3 T4 T5
T5 only face T4 T5


There sorted out your solo queue in a few words wait times go up, balance is improved


group queue tighten the way it does the math

if there are more than two T1 players in a group under six people count people under T2 as T2
if there are only T2 people in the group then count T4 and T5 as T3 and because there are false T3 people in the group don't have them face T1 people.

Groups of T3 T4 T5 people should never be facing T1 T2 people which under your current match making system they are on a Very regular basis.

Forcing people into CW by restricting Group play is only going to alienate your player base even further, and you'll lose far more that way, than by increasing wait times and reducing what buckets can face one another.

Edited by Cathy, 21 October 2015 - 05:10 AM.

[TWIAFU]

Reitmeier, on 21 October 2015 - 03:09 AM, said:

Even if they nerf the crow to the ground we will have other new T1 mechs that 12mans can boat

Running meta is not the sole privy of the fabled 12man.

Most groups are NOT 12man pre's, most are 4-6 off latest PGI info I think it was.

This issue is made painfully obvious, thankfully, by the 12man. Issue still persists if you have a couple groups of 6 doing the same thing or 3 groups of 4.

[Mawai]

Oncoshi, on 21 October 2015 - 02:09 AM, said:

Well the real problem here seems to be the matchmaker. If it would match even skilled people against each other you wouldnt get 12-0 stomps. Seems red team were much better in torso twist and aimed better at critical hard points.

The reason Russ suggested this system were two fold

1) Reduce the advantage that 12 man teams have in the group queue due to their inherently better organization
2) Reduce group queue wait times by eliminating the tetris like nature of trying to fit a bunch of disparate groups together while still maintaining the weight class and pilot skill matches.

The problems with Russ' idea are well documented in the feedback thread (which they chose to ignore for some reason). No matter what tonnage limits are imposed ... if you don't have some sort of weight class limits (e.g. 3/3/3/3) then folks will always be able to play min/max taking the best mechs that fit in the available tonnage.

Finally, unless you want to wait a few hours for the perfectly balanced match ... then you have to put up with some slack in the system. Either pilot skills or tonnage might not match that well across teams. The current incarnation is supposed to be matching ONLY on pilot skill and group size (the tonnage limits are supposed so supply balance).

However, PSR doesn't really reflect player skill at all but is more indicative of how many games you have played. Even an average player will reach tier 1 eventually if they play enough games. If there is a hard cap to tier 1 then over time PGI will find a larger and larger fraction of their player base bumping up against it.

In group queue, the matchmaker uses the average PSR for the group ... so a high and low player grouped will give a middle of the road number ... but since PSR isn't really that good an indicator of actual playing skill (other than indicating more experience) ... this will result in all sorts of match ups with high and low ranked players mixed together. It is not the fault of the matchmaker ... it can only really work with whatever groups it is given and then aim for total PSR on each team to be the same.

[Shae Starfyre]

So, I never played CW because of what I read on these forums.

And the one glaring issue I had was that, to me, an organized 12 man team should only be playing other 12 man teams in a league, private matches, or through wait times (should be weekly sponsored, PGI, Leader board events).

CW as a public Queue'esque concept would be only for 2, 4, 6, and 8 man teams to be allowed to make up a 12 man group. This provides enough potential for a motley crew.

I think anything as an odd number might be able to be utilized as fillers, but nothing above 8 people (questioning the 8 man groups as I write this).

As far as my opinion on weight classes or tonnage limits, I have none, as I am not sure if there is a right answer there, as has been said, competitive teams will min/max (not a bad thing; it's competitive), and that is why 12 mans should only play 12 mans (it should be a harsh and unforgiving environment).

If the only requirement for lesser group numbers was to just show up in whatever you had, and was limited to 8 or less, the stomps would be less, and the load-outs and Mechs used would vary more, because it would be more random.

Although, as I write this, maybe 8 man is too much; 2, 4, and 6 mans only, might be the best. No tonnage or chassis limits. And they can be filled into a 12 man team more easily.

If I saw this, I would play CW.

If I were a 12 man elite group, I would want the challenge of an equally viable 12 man competition; organized each weekend or whatever by PGI with leader boards, etc., and use the week before the event to practice and setup the rules, whatever.

If PGI took the time to hold this CW events and had a system in place for the leader boards each week to be reset after the event, CW for the 12 man teams would be e-sport and aggressive and may actually be fun to watch (stream that shite).

Casual CW will be fun for everyone else.

Then I would play it (I would just need to find a buddy if it was only 2, 4, and 6 man teams - maybe, so I don't have to be all social, and to allow more leniency for others, 1,2,3,4, and 6 mans might be more feasible or whatever math would suffice; but anything more than 6 on a team (although the idea of a lance is very appealing) would/could result in what others might see as being unfair).

Edited by Aphoticus, 21 October 2015 - 05:37 AM.

[sycocys]

Widowmaker1981, on 21 October 2015 - 03:48 AM, said:

Yes, it is, because a team with 3 DWs is limited to playing at Dire Wolf SPEED. (or leaving them to die, but thats silly)
3/3/3/3 forces large groups to deal with different speed bands, and when you CAN bring all mechs the same speed, you SHOULD because its very (far too) effective.

If you have 9 cheetahs those 3 dires could be afk and it wouldn't make much difference. lol

[Mawai]

Cathy, on 21 October 2015 - 05:08 AM, said:

Sure there are other mechs that are T1 that can boat them ebon jag can, but its heavier and wider, Mad dog, not T1 but both these mech throw the sweat spot balance off.

The fault is in how the match maker works, not the methodology and restrictions.

for the 100th time PGI it is not 12 mans that causes this, though now your new method has made the two most broken t1 mechs the sweet spot, Artic Cheaters and Storm Crows. it is the fact that so many times highly skilled small groups are put into the masses by your failing match maker.

Your match maker fails because you to scared to increase wait times to get a balanced game, your match maker can't determine between a T3 that barely stays there to a T3 on their way to T1.

there are so many freaking variables that will only become less of a problem with a bigger population.

All these changes you are making are supposed to be to help the new start that will make things easier, they make it worse, because the buckets open to early.

you want masses stop pandering to the e-sport crowd, you hang on to a very small minority, because you think this is how the game is going, well your asumptions are false, and very wrong

Guild Wars probably the most popular E-sport isn't successful because of E-sport ..e-sport works there because the population is so big and they didn't pander to the Elite, they made the game for the masses.

make T1 themselves and T2
T2 only face T1 T2 T3
T3 only face T2 T3 T4
T4 only face T3 T4 T5
T5 only face T4 T5


There sorted out your solo queue in a few words wait times go up, balance is improved


group queue tighten the way it does the math

if there are more than two T1 players in a group under six people count people under T2 as T2
if there are only T2 people in the group then count T4 and T5 as T3 and because there are false T3 people in the group don't have them face T1 people.

Groups of T3 T4 T5 people should never be facing T1 T2 people which under your current match making system they are on a Very regular basis.

Forcing people into CW by restricting Group play is only going to alienate your player base even further, and you'll lose far more that way, than by increasing wait times and reducing what buckets can face one another.

The fundamental assumption you make here is that the tiers actually represent player skill and that a tier 1 is better than 2 who is better than 3 and so on.

This is not true. The PSR calculation system has a upward bias to it. If you win you go up. If you lose you can still go up, stay even or might drop. If you throw an average player into this mix then over time they will rise depending on the number of games they play.

However, you might say that they will rise to a level where they affect their team negatively and start losing since their skill isn't as high so their PSR will plateau. This might be true except for the fact that every other player in the game is rising at the same time. The ones who play more rise faster based on number of games and not intrinsic skill so you get a lot of "average" folks rising to tier 1 just by grinding it out.

The main truth is that tier 1 players should be more experienced and thus on average better just because of the number of games they have played if for no other reason.

However, if they were going to do an experience based system then I would have suggested using your MECH XP on the mech you are currently using combined with your total GXP earnings to get an idea of how much experience a player has .. then maybe analyse the individual player mech stats to obtain an "effectiveness" or "skill" rating for the mech they are driving ... and feed that data into the matchmaker instead of the PSR system.

P.S. A system like that might give you an on the fly battle value that is reasonably easy to calculate and which applies to the specific mech the player is dropping in.

Edited by Mawai, 21 October 2015 - 05:42 AM.

[Kira Onime]

Mawai, on 21 October 2015 - 05:24 AM, said:

The problems with Russ' idea are well documented in the feedback thread (which they chose to ignore for some reason). No matter what tonnage limits are imposed ... if you don't have some sort of weight class limits (e.g. 3/3/3/3) then folks will always be able to play min/max taking the best mechs that fit in the available tonnage.

Pretty much.

Edited by Kira Onime, 21 October 2015 - 05:51 AM.

[padebra]

1/ Coordination > all
2/ People don't give a f*** about game mode objective
3/ People know exactly where the enemy is (and will be, assuming at every game teams are spread like hell and need to regroup first)

So finaly nascar and death ball meet and become the cheese. We can't blame player for that.

What beats a slow and blind 3x4 man nascar ?
a 12 man faster nascar...
Nascar has become muscle memory ... every unorganized team's move is predictible and unorganized team CAN'T defeat a simply performed nascar.

Please PGI fix spawn points and game modes. Facilitate teamplay and give player strong simple UNIQUE win objective.

Tonnage limit is ok IMO.

Edited by padebra, 21 October 2015 - 06:33 AM.

[Dimento Graven]

Mawai, on 21 October 2015 - 05:38 AM, said:

...

If you throw an average player into this mix then over time they will rise depending on the number of games they play.

...

I'm sorry but that is an outright lie.

While yes, the PSR system is biased towards upward movement it requires TWO things:

1. When on the winning side your performance is at least good enough to register the smallest PSR increase allowed.
2. When on the losing side your performance is at least good enough to not register a PSR loss.

Even if you play 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 games, if the majority of your games do not meet those two requirements, your PSR will go down. There's no formulaic 'forgiveness' after a certain number of games where your PSR starts going up in spite of craptastic performance.

This is why we have so many people who have played thousands of games since 2015/01/15 who are NOT Tier 1. So the theory that some 'intangible' value like 'experience' will start increasing their scores over time isn't always true.

Believe it or not, the PSR system as a 'skill ranking' system works quite well in determining an overall player performance over the past 10 months, 6 days. So those people might actually in fact be skilled players, but are OCD in leveling/maxing out 'mech skills on every 'mech they own, probably have a lower Tier. Once PGI slows down on producing new 'mechs and 'mech packs and they stop handicapping themselves by 10%-20% their performance will increase and their PSR will trend upwards.

Then there are the people who play the same 'mechs everyday but refuse to learn tactics, are incapable of comprehending strategy, have absolutely no situational awareness beyond "what is directly in front of them", who will have low, low, low PSRs, and it won't make any difference how many games they play.

We see some of these people posting on the forums every day complaining about losing streaks and how PSR must be broken because they haven't started winning at least 50% of the time...

As far as the tonnage limitations one of the things I noticed very clearly was that MM seemed to be constructing IS vs. Clan as much as possible, at least when I was playing in the group queue. I repeatedly ended up in groups that were mostly comprised of IS 'mechs while the opposing side comprised almost entirely of Clan 'mechs.

I guess maybe PGI is 'acquiring more data' on the Clan OP situation or something.

I suppose it's possible, if you have the population, to dynamically arrange Clan vs. IS and grant the IS side more tonnage, but, the problem is the default weight restrictions means the only way to ensure something like that is to take a bunch of 2 to 4 man IS heavy groups and set them against larger Clan groups. I don't see this working out at all, especially with the lack of population this game is apparently suffering.

In the solo queue I did not notice the same level of one side having the majority of IS and the other the Clans.

Anyway, just wanted to clear up a fallacy you were stating there.

Edited by Dimento Graven, 21 October 2015 - 06:13 AM.

[Tanus Dimitrov]

The average score I have seen is 3 or 4 deaths to 12 and this has been going on for a most of this year. The issue isn't balancing mechs, the issue is the complete failure to balance teams against one another. One team almost always seems to be a tier above the other team.

PGI, it is past time to admit your matchmaking code is rubbish and focus on fixing that instead of continuously nerfing mechs, weapon systems, or tonnage.