534 replies to this topic

[Lt Blackthorn]

This mode suffers from objective rushing as a cancerous playstyle as is. It sucks the fun out of the mode because it leads to repetitive matchflow and overly quick matches.Increasing payouts for it is a step in the wrong direction.

[slide]

Tonnage based restrictions won't work. If matches are already being lost 48 to <12 then a tonnage restriction is already effectively in place. The fact is in that instance the teams were woefully mismatched before the game even launched.

Also tonnage isn't an effective measure of a mechs performance. As a general rule Clan mechs are the equivalent of IS mechs 10-15 tons heavier. Not to mention the relative effects of hard points, hit boxes, engines size, etc etc. Is the 90t Cyclops with 2 LBX20 and 3ERML like I drive the Equivalent of the 90Ton Mauler MX90 with 4 or 5 UAC5's? Probably not.

To have even a remote chance of balancing sides (skills being equivalent) then every mech and every build needs to be ranked, which I guess is just about impossible to do given the number of variables involved. The closet you might be able to come might be (Alpha/Armor)*tonnes which might give some relative value but doesn't take into account Alpha v DPs or even bracket builds which most stock mechs tend to be and which hard points are loosely based around.

Using that equation:
Hellbringer: 86 Alpha, 300 Armor, 65 tonnes. BV =18.6
Thunderbolt 50 Alpha, 300 Armor, 65tonnes. BV=10.8

We all know in a stand up fight the Hellbringer is going to win and the BV reflects that (skill being equal)

Combine the BV with Paul's skill rating above and have match maker work from there.

Skilled players with optimized builds against unskilled players in non optimal builds just exacerbates the size of the stomp. By factoring something like the above MM will be able to close the gap between teams even more (number of players online permitting). If there are insufficient players to select equivalent matches then the MM can offer one side or the other the option to take a bonus to match the other team. IE +10% match earnings to reduce or Increase BV to match the other team. I would offer this to the side with the largest group as they will be the ones best suited to change their drop decks.

Doing something like this has 3 main advantages:
1) New players aren't disadvantaged/excluded by having few or low skilled (skill tree) mechs
2) Increase match variety by matching BV and skill, rather than just having a min/max tonnage which lock people into specific decks. This means you could go for a very light deck, say 120 tonnes and challenge people to match based on BV+SSR
3) Better balanced matches based on what you want to play, rather than whatever the meta is.

Note this applies to QP too.

[Nightbird]

slide, on 06 December 2018 - 09:23 PM, said:

Tonnage based restrictions won't work. If matches are already being lost 48 to <12 then a tonnage restriction is already effectively in place.

If the stronger team is restricted to 80 tons over 4 mechs, and therefore can only take 20 tonners, will they still get 48-<12? If no, no team is good enough to consistently 48-<12 with 12 fleas/piranha/locusts, then I guess tonnage restrictions do work.

[Big Tin Man]

Paul,

I'm glad to see this thread. I was frankly a bit too upset after the announcement at mechcon to talk with you or Russ because I felt like I'd probably start spouting off in a bad way and that wouldn't be constructive. In the spirit of MAKING FP GREAT AGAIN, I'll offer two more idea to put in the hat.

1. I already started this one to fix scouting smoke diving right over here: https://mwomercs.com...-with-this/

This change to scouting uses mechanics that already exist within the game. I don't know how difficult it would be copy them into this use and implement, but I know there is nothing I hate more than waiting for that last ECM cheetah to come running into the box with 0:02 seconds left and we have 4 fresh mechs in there waiting to pounce on it. The cheetah wins and the 4 of us are salty.

2. "Logistics"

So for the sake of argument I'm going to assume we're way to far along to have the kind of full blown logistics that many of the lore hounds and sim nuts want. That's fine. Here's my go at some "Logistics' that isn't too complicated.

My base idea at its core: your dropdeck weight is penalized if you hold more planets on the map than your supply line score. Your supply line score is the difference between the number of planets held on the map vs. the number of planets secured as reconciled at a bi-monthly event.

How this would work:

Within the game a counter exists for how many planets each faction has. Add the number of planets up for the IS and the number for Clan. For discussion we'll say a fresh map has 600 secured IS planets and 40 secured clan planets. The idea is this: as a war rages on, the length of supply lines increase and decrease the distance you travel from your homeworld, thus increasing your logistics cost. This logistics costs will be felt by the player as available dropship tonnage.

For example: Let's set both Clan and IS decks at 250 tons. Clans start with 40 planets. At the end of the first 8 hour cycle, clanners taken 4 planets (44 total clan planets, 596 IS). Clanner supply lines would be stretched to get mechs, weapons, etc to the front. Let's call it a reduction of 1 ton per planet taken from the max dropdeck weight for 'Logistics';. So now the clanners can only take a 246 ton deck (round it to 245). Dropdeck tonnage is updated every 8 hour cycle based upon the map.

'But if the one side makes a huge push they will exhaust their tonnage before they get anywhere!!!'

That's right. They'll need to reinforce their supply lines, put down resistance on taken planets, and frankly clanners shouldn't be able to make a run from the edge of the map to Terra in 2 weeks. So let's make a bi-monthly event to reinforce the supply lines. This would be a tuk style event where both sides are fighting to re-establish their number of secured planets. It would be a tug of war starting in the middle at a base change of 0 planets from the previous cycle, but it could go either way up to the number of planets taken this period.

So let's say the clanners made a huge push and netted 20 planets on the map in the first two weeks. In this example, the first event would have a tug of war bar showing 20 planets in the fight to be secured to adjust the base number of planets

0------0---*----20

(yes, you start in the middle and if the IS wins, it gets deeper into a zero change. No last second rushes)

The event starts with the planet count and supply chain score from the last regular 8 hour round of play, so the clanners are coming in with a 230 ton dropdeck while the IS has 250. Let's say the clans are overextended, they have a huge tonnage disadvantage and only secure 8 planets at the end of the event. The number secured planets is now (48 clan, 592 IS), but the map still shows (60 clan, 580 IS). This would mean an initial supply line score of -12 for clans, and +12 for IS at the start of the next cycle which would be applied to their base dropdeck weights of 250. Clans start the next cycle with a 238 ton dropdeck (round to 240), and IS gets 262 (round to 260). Begin second cycle.

What this would need from the game engine:
(*) A second method of counting planets for the secured planets score
(*) A method to adjust drop deck tonnage every 8 hour cycle
(*) Math

I wrestled with the idea of allowing the event to possibly break the supply line and allow the clanners to lose secured planets. I think this makes the idea a bit too complicated and leaves a potential for wild swings, but it could be explored

Edited by Big Tin Man, 06 December 2018 - 10:28 PM.

[DarklightCA]

Nightbird, on 06 December 2018 - 09:59 PM, said:

If the stronger team is restricted to 80 tons over 4 mechs, and therefore can only take 20 tonners, will they still get 48-<12? If no, no team is good enough to consistently 48-<12 with 12 fleas/piranha/locusts, then I guess tonnage restrictions do work.

Time and time again I've seen tonnage do nothing at all to balance skill. Sure it's not easy like it would be taking assaults or heavies but your using 20 ton mech restrictions to prove your point and I'm still doubting that. A group of fast mechs in the hands of skilled pilots against unskilled, unorganized players can do a lot of damage.

Edited by DarklightCA, 06 December 2018 - 10:29 PM.

[slide]

Nightbird, on 06 December 2018 - 09:59 PM, said:

If the stronger team is restricted to 80 tons over 4 mechs, and therefore can only take 20 tonners, will they still get 48-<12? If no, no team is good enough to consistently 48-<12 with 12 fleas/piranha/locusts, then I guess tonnage restrictions do work.

Ok in that extreme situation maybe so. However I would say that it is less a restriction and more dictation. But consider a more realistic restriction 160 tonnes. The player is simply going to take an Ultra optimized Assault and pad the rest with light mechs.

In the right hands a swarm of lights against unsuspecting pugs could be just as deadly anyway. I've seen plenty of 1st and second wave mechs wiped out by lights.

[Nightbird]

DarklightCA, on 06 December 2018 - 10:27 PM, said:

Time and time again I've seen tonnage do nothing at all to balance skill. Sure it's not easy like it would be taking assaults or heavies but your using 20 ton mech restrictions to prove your point and I'm still doubting that. A group of fast mechs in the hands of skilled pilots against unskilled, unorganized players can do a lot of damage.

Absolutely, I think even with 80 tons the skilled team can win. The important question is, will the losing team feel like clubbed seals, as they do when the skilled team pushes in with 12 assaults, murders the first wave, and proceed to instagib mechs when that fall out of the dropship? Will the final score still be 48-<12 or something like 48-30?

Edited by Nightbird, 06 December 2018 - 10:39 PM.

[Tamerlin]

I have two problems with FP:

• 90% of matches are rolls
  
• Spawn camping

The proposed FP MM changes may help with #1, so I will wait and see.

MWO is the only game that allows spawn camping with this kind of game mode. Yes, it means your team got totally smashed, but it is soul killing to drop out of the drop ship 1 or more times with the whole enemy team insta-killing you. Suggestion: keep the drop ships over the spawn area permanently as fire support.

[Nightbird]

slide, on 06 December 2018 - 10:33 PM, said:

Ok in that extreme situation maybe so. However I would say that it is less a restriction and more dictation. But consider a more realistic restriction 160 tonnes. The player is simply going to take an Ultra optimized Assault and pad the rest with light mechs.

In the right hands a swarm of lights against unsuspecting pugs could be just as deadly anyway. I've seen plenty of 1st and second wave mechs wiped out by lights.

Thank you for see it that way. I'm not saying tonnage restriction is some cure-all that will fix everything, it will improve things. If you're only willing to move the tonnage a moderate amount, it will bridge a moderate skill gap. If you're willing to move it an extreme amount, it will bridge even an extreme skill gap. I hope that is a fair assessment?


Bottom line, restricting tonnage will do something to improve things. Not doing anything (as is proposed in the current list) will lead to nothing happening. All the Lore/UI in the world amounts to naught if the battles are pretty much always one-sided.

Edited by Nightbird, 06 December 2018 - 10:43 PM.

[Monkey Lover]

Paul Inouye, on 06 December 2018 - 05:29 PM, said:

Just want to throw this out there. There's talk here about the tonnage restrictions for high level teams.

Earning 'Mechs and buying 'Mechs is an invested part of MWO. Limiting an entire team by a significant tonnage difference is a rather steep wall of saying "you can't play those 'Mechs because you're too good in them". Also, as others have pointed out... a team of well organized, high-level players is still going to win even with a big tonnage restriction in-place.

Pgi had no problem limiting my tonnage in group q because i played with a few friends taking no account for skill of the team. But now its a problem?

If a well organized team had less mechs they could kill even the worst team. The only questions is how many.

Paul Inouye, on 06 December 2018 - 05:29 PM, said:

The MM doesn't know of a team's reputation from previous wins. Does the 8392th Deuces always drop 12 man? What if there are 2 players from 8392th Deuces on a team with a bunch of random pugs? Do the rest of the pugs get hit with the tonnage restriction because of those 2? Take an average W/L? An average is not going to work because there are so many permutations to a player's success rating that an average will favor high skilled players because averages pull top players down and bottom players up. 4 high skilled players far outweighs the 4 lower skilled players on the team in terms of battlefield success.

Right now you have nothing. Something is better than nothing! A balance around average match score would be helpful.
You say 4 high skilled players outweigh 4 lower skilled players? Ok, then why dont you balance around this. Give more "weight" for high skilled and less for low skill. (weight in this case is not tonnage but influence)

Paul Inouye, on 06 December 2018 - 05:29 PM, said:

Does the tonnage restriction change based on the team ranking? That's going to be a logistical nightmare for teams having to change drop decks on the fly (even after we increase the number of drop decks you can have). If you're on the lower 'ranking' team, who gets the extra tonnage? Who's allowed to take heavier 'Mechs now that the team you're facing is 'better' than yours?

You're making this sound like no game has handicaps or real balance systems. Tonnage is only 1 way you can help a team. You own the game you can change anything, you can change quirks on the fly, you can increase or decrease number of mechs, you can change spawn points, you can allow low skill players to have radar, you can decrease the caps on one side or other, you can change the number of kills too be counted as a win, or dozen other things.



Over all im not going to comment anymore we already did this 4 months ago, im done. Sad part this is just 1 of cw issues.

Edited by Monkey Lover, 08 December 2018 - 09:58 PM.

[Arend]

For Invasion Maps the most important change would be to reduce the Chokepoints!

[Fess Faulk]

Holy **** im hype. I've been playing for under two months and the most fun by far I've had was that massive faction fight. being able to do group 12s on a more consistent basis sign me the hell up!

[Appogee]

fess21, on 06 December 2018 - 11:16 PM, said:

I've been playing for under two months and the most fun by far I've had was that massive faction fight.

When a FP match is good, it's very very good.

[El Ares]

> Bring back queue count.

I think this is a very good idea, because nothing is more frustrating not to know if you are alone in the queue and a match will "never" start or there are already 20 ppl waiting.

Edited by El Ares, 07 December 2018 - 12:02 AM.

[Yondu Udonta]

[color=#00FFFF]
Game Mode/Hooks[/color]

• More reward kickers based on player behavior.
  
• Planet/event specific map selection.
  
• [color=orange]Adjust launch countdown.[/color]
  
• Queuing integrated into LFG

Would love if you could elaborate on these 4 points.

[denAirwalkerrr]

Paul Inouye, on 06 December 2018 - 05:29 PM, said:

Just want to throw this out there. There's talk here about the tonnage restrictions for high level teams.

Earning 'Mechs and buying 'Mechs is an invested part of MWO. Limiting an entire team by a significant tonnage difference is a rather steep wall of saying &quot;you can't play those 'Mechs because you're too good in them&quot;. Also, as others have pointed out... a team of well organized, high-level players is still going to win even with a big tonnage restriction in-place.

The MM doesn't know of a team's reputation from previous wins. Does the 8392th Deuces always drop 12 man? What if there are 2 players from 8392th Deuces on a team with a bunch of random pugs? Do the rest of the pugs get hit with the tonnage restriction because of those 2? Take an average W/L? An average is not going to work because there are so many permutations to a player's success rating that an average will favor high skilled players because averages pull top players down and bottom players up. 4 high skilled players far outweighs the 4 lower skilled players on the team in terms of battlefield success.

Does the tonnage restriction change based on the team ranking? That's going to be a logistical nightmare for teams having to change drop decks on the fly (even after we increase the number of drop decks you can have). If you're on the lower 'ranking' team, who gets the extra tonnage? Who's allowed to take heavier 'Mechs now that the team you're facing is 'better' than yours?

For the love of Christ no, main reason I hate group queue to the depth of my soul is these tonnage restrictions while FP is a fair condition in that terms for both teams.

Also, Paul, one thing that HUUUGELY bothers me is what do you mean by PSR? Is that separate FP one or it’s coming from Solaris?

[GweNTLeR]

Just wanna express my gratitude for FINALLY making those green essential items scheduled for the next patch. It is not sufficient, but definitely a good start.
Thanks.

[Djinnhammer]

Nema Nabojiv, on 06 December 2018 - 02:54 PM, said:

No-invasion solo Q or dont bother.

Solo focus has been the bane of this game since it's inception. Solo players who refuse to be social also don't help.

[Peter2k]

Appogee, on 06 December 2018 - 05:01 PM, said:

I make these comments as someone desperate to not see this game - your game - wither and die.

Hear hear.
I think no one that is on the forums, no matter the amount of salt we throw, actually want something bad happen to MWO or PGI.

We just see the game we love decline because of choices made be its developer and our friends list to grow shorter.

[TWLT S]

Please do something for solo players in FP. There must be some kind of separation of premades and solo or small groups. And dont overestimate the units advices in this regards. I think solo and casual players have not enough lobby in the game anyways.

And please also realize that the friendslist, the LFG, calls to Arms and chat are complex !, that have to be tied toghether somehow. Best thing regarding this is, that the other parts of the game would also greatly benefit from bringing this elements together. E.G. solaris 2man teams although I dont care about it.

Solo and casual players would really benefit from this and hence stay in the game instead of leaving it.

Edited by TWLT S, 07 December 2018 - 05:00 AM.