217 replies to this topic

[Moadebe]

PelinalWhitestrake, on 02 February 2025 - 03:41 PM, said:

The playerbase is getting even smaller, players hate curbstomps on each tier because of cookie cutter one shot builds, and there is the case of MW5 and now the shitshow happening at the battletech community over 2 individuals and CGL vs the community like the "thou shal not be remembered" incident of years ago that made the eridani unviable.

What?

Like wtf was even all of that. You put like 3 topics together that only have battletech as a common thing...

[GreyNovember]

Tangentially related to the concept of a matchmaker, how well would BV balancing help in terms of at least raw hardware potential of mechs on each team?

Very, very roughly, there are bad and good builds. The exact nuances of what makes a mech good or bad can be argued endlessly, but the basic premise should be universally agreeable.

The more factors you can identify in a mech that synchronize well ( Range, cooldown, burst damage, movement speed, armor, cooling), the more the mech's worth in BV points. Invert this relationship for undesirable traits.

This would in theory, roughly distribute mech potential somewhat evenly, even if the pilots behind them can't be distributed by the nature of who is available.

Worst case scenario I'm seeing is one team can sandbag with stock urbanmechs or something, to bring more valuable mechs on their team to bear.

[BlueDevilspawn]

BV is a horrible way to balance MWO. It's a TT mechanic and nothing else.

There are 3 ways to lose in MWO,
1. In the mechlab before you even make it onto the field
2. Positioning and movement (e.g., nascar or getting stuck low ground)
3. Mechanics (e.g., reaction time and accuracy)

When you consider that the very best players often play stock (with armor redistribution) to give themselves a challenge, it's no contest. I've seen perfectly good builds get headshot because they stared at a target for too long. There are many things that make a good player and BV will not come close to reflecting it.

Additionally, making a new mechanic, adding ratings, and then inputing it to Matchmaker is going to require coding time and that is not going to happen.

[LordNothing]

way i see it there are too many mechs and not enough warriors. you can build the most meta brawler, then have a team that glues itself to the ground far outside of your optimal range, leaving your only early game options hide and wait or yolo and probibly die. the latter actually being the better option because it usually inspires others to join you.

same goes if you build a meta range boat and your team wants to nascar. you end up spending more time repositioning than trading, and those builds require a great many trades to be effective. all while getting closer to the enemy thus stripping away the range advantage.

in almost all cases you are often better in a mid range build to give you something to work with in all situations. better be slightly better than mediocre all the time than spectacular sometimes and useless other times. if players would behave as if they belong in battle rather than at some pacifists convention, then the interesting situations would materialize. but it is not the warriors way to let that interfere with their performance. perhaps play a few rounds to gauge what the other players are doing at the time, and then change up builds accordingly to dominate that situation. or just use an all rounder that can find something to do in all situations.

[GreyNovember]

BlueDevilspawn, on 03 February 2025 - 04:23 PM, said:

BV is a horrible way to balance MWO. It's a TT mechanic and nothing else.

There are 3 ways to lose in MWO,
1. In the mechlab before you even make it onto the field
2. Positioning and movement (e.g., nascar or getting stuck low ground)
3. Mechanics (e.g., reaction time and accuracy)

When you consider that the very best players often play stock (with armor redistribution) to give themselves a challenge, it's no contest. I've seen perfectly good builds get headshot because they stared at a target for too long. There are many things that make a good player and BV will not come close to reflecting it.

Additionally, making a new mechanic, adding ratings, and then inputing it to Matchmaker is going to require coding time and that is not going to happen.

So there's no merit whatsoever in an attempt to balance by what you bring to the fight?

Because unless I'm mistaken, there is some kind of tonnage balancing system that tries to keep forces even-ish.

Would this not be a greater refinement and thus a net benefit? You can't control pilot actions, but reducing variables ( in this case mechs and equipment) would create a more even footing, no?

Ignoring whether or not it would actually be implemented. I'm speaking purely in theoreticals.

[pbiggz]

GreyNovember, on 03 February 2025 - 09:50 PM, said:

So there's no merit whatsoever in an attempt to balance by what you bring to the fight?

Because unless I'm mistaken, there is some kind of tonnage balancing system that tries to keep forces even-ish.

Would this not be a greater refinement and thus a net benefit? You can't control pilot actions, but reducing variables ( in this case mechs and equipment) would create a more even footing, no?

Ignoring whether or not it would actually be implemented. I'm speaking purely in theoreticals.

The first release valve to open when the matchmaker is forming matches, is weights. Its the least directly impactful. Madguy himself constantly whines about how oppressive light mechs are, so balancing by weight and loadout is no simple thing. Whats more, by what heuristic do you objectively rank people's builds against one another so you can matchmake them? Because which ever one you choose, I could think of a dozen "edge cases" that arent really edge cases.

This whole discussion is based on the pretext that the matchmaker is punishingly bad. That pretext is false.

Edited by pbiggz, Yesterday, 10:04 PM.

[BlueDevilspawn]

GreyNovember, on 03 February 2025 - 09:50 PM, said:

So there's no merit whatsoever in an attempt to balance by what you bring to the fight?

Because unless I'm mistaken, there is some kind of tonnage balancing system that tries to keep forces even-ish.

Would this not be a greater refinement and thus a net benefit? You can't control pilot actions, but reducing variables ( in this case mechs and equipment) would create a more even footing, no?

Ignoring whether or not it would actually be implemented. I'm speaking purely in theoreticals.

To be blunt, there are people I would rather have on my team no matter what they pilot and there are people who will throw in the strongest mech with the strongest build. I'd rather have a Div A compie in a Locust than a rando in a Dire. I look at the latter a sack of HP for me to farm.

[Void Angel]

GreyNovember, on 03 February 2025 - 09:50 PM, said:

So there's no merit whatsoever in an attempt to balance by what you bring to the fight?

Not really what he said. BV isn't really viable for the purposes of MWO for the same reasons that it was rather flawed in Tabletop, from what I'm told. There are synergies at play with 'mech loadouts that are difficult to quantify to a computer.

Now, you could try to get a ballpark on what build strategies are most effective by statistically analyzing match results - but so much of what a build can do is based on the pilot, so you have to factor in the player and what they're likely to bring when you evaluate match performances. Congratulations: you've just invented PSR.

[GreyNovember]

Void Angel, on 04 February 2025 - 05:52 AM, said:

Not really what he said. BV isn't really viable for the purposes of MWO for the same reasons that it was rather flawed in Tabletop, from what I'm told. There are synergies at play with 'mech loadouts that are difficult to quantify to a computer.

Now, you could try to get a ballpark on what build strategies are most effective by statistically analyzing match results - but so much of what a build can do is based on the pilot, so you have to factor in the player and what they're likely to bring when you evaluate match performances. Congratulations: you've just invented PSR.

I was thinking more frequency of usage giving weights to pieces of equipment and chassis, sprinkling in human judgement to modify the end result if the algo used is lacking.

Though to be completely honest, the secondary goal was to have more use out of less commonly fielded mechs. Originally considered this as a means of diversifying a CCG's matchmaker, and thought it'd apply to MWO considering how construction goes.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

GreyNovember, on 04 February 2025 - 07:51 AM, said:

Though to be completely honest, the secondary goal was to have more use out of less commonly fielded mechs.

Making them more fun to play would be the easier approach tbh, and that typically means making a mech better.

GreyNovember, on 04 February 2025 - 07:51 AM, said:

I was thinking more frequency of usage giving weights to pieces of equipment and chassis, sprinkling in human judgement to modify the end result if the algo used is lacking.

TBH, if you've figured out how to use an algorithm to appropriately rank equipment/mechs, then you've already got balance figured out and can also make every mech more useful rather than try to do a "tier" approach. This game doesn't have an economy in general play, it isn't like Counterstrike, so we can stop trying to do this lest we end up with WoT or pokemon PvP where you have tiered levels of play.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, Today, 08:34 AM.

[BlueDevilspawn]

To the comment on mech popularity I'll say this.

There is a big "shiny new mech" syndrome in MWO. The most popular mechs tend to be those that were recently adjusted or newly released. Also lore mechs (e.g., Timby, Urbie, Atlas) tend to be very popular.

A less popular mech is not indicative of its strength nor is that rationale for a buff. It's simply not popular.

[KahnWongFuChung]

Look there is a easy solution to the MWO matchmaker for balance it is get rid of teams in solo quick play and put them in a bracketed 8v8 system for game play. Quick play restored to 12v12 solo players needs no balance just a check for exploiters gaming the system.

When we had 8v8 coordinated team play the only problem was unbalanced power weapon and skill sets in play that made for lopsided matches this could be fixed by a tier system based on match wins vs losses. or another system.

[Bigbacon]

Arnetheus, on 17 December 2024 - 09:10 AM, said:

The complaints and self-contradictions are all over the place, weird thread.

TC seems to fail to realize (like most of MWO players, for some reason) that there is no lobby matchmaker at all. Despite it being a repeated and open information over the years.
Tiers are only used to gather people for the lobby, that's it. Then, they end up on 1 of 2 teams randomly.

People who claim to "play for fun" sure care a lot about "systems keeping them down", huh.

I play for fun...the major issue I have with MM is the group drops. 4 man groups shouldn't be in solo queue period. they single handedly make or break the match for one side by either being super group or a memedrop, sometimes giving no craps about the rest of their team in order to do their own idiot things.

KahnWongFuChung, on 04 February 2025 - 09:01 AM, said:

Look there is a easy solution to the MWO matchmaker for balance it is get rid of teams in solo quick play and put them in a bracketed 8v8 system for game play. Quick play restored to 12v12 solo players needs no balance just a check for exploiters gaming the system.

When we had 8v8 coordinated team play the only problem was unbalanced power weapon and skill sets in play that made for lopsided matches this could be fixed by a tier system based on match wins vs losses. or another system.

this....

[LordNothing]

there is a reason they took away group queue. the population simply doesnt support it. limited groups is the way it should have been from the get go. then nobody would have been angry when they took it away. it even makes sense for a slightly less dead version of fp.

[KahnWongFuChung]

LordNothing, on 04 February 2025 - 11:41 AM, said:

there is a reason they took away group queue. the population simply doesnt support it. limited groups is the way it should have been from the get go. then nobody would have been angry when they took it away. it even makes sense for a slightly less dead version of fp.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is just not a true statement The reason they took away 8v8 que for coordinated team play was a very bad match system that favored which team had more meta mechs and skilled players not because of the population of the game. Once these individuals teamed together, they knew it would always be lopsided matches in favor of their teams thus stomps were more prevalent and other teams started to complain to PGI about it and instead of fixing the issues with the game mode they just deleted it just like all game modes in MWO they could not fix it was the AXE.

Edited by KahnWongFuChung, Today, 12:06 PM.

[pbiggz]

KahnWongFuChung, on 04 February 2025 - 12:06 PM, said:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is just not a true statement The reason they took away 8v8 que for coordinated team play was a very bad match system that favored which team had more meta mechs and skilled players not because of the population of the game.

You made that up.

KahnWongFuChung, on 04 February 2025 - 12:06 PM, said:

Once these individuals teamed together, they knew it would always be lopsided matches in favor of their teams thus stomps were more prevalent and other teams started to complain to PGI about it and instead of fixing the issues with the game mode they just deleted it just like all game modes in MWO they could not fix it was the AXE.

You made that up too.

You cant ban people from the game because you think having friends is OP. Find something else to be obsessed with. This has been litigated to death, exhumed, litigated again, and then buried again. There's no point in having this discussion. There's nothing to discuss. You aren't losing matches because other people have friends. You're losing because you bring half-cooked builds into games and dont coordinate with your team.

Edited by pbiggz, Today, 12:17 PM.

[KahnWongFuChung]

pbiggz, on 04 February 2025 - 12:16 PM, said:

You made that up.



You made that up too.

You cant ban people from the game because you think having friends is OP. Find something else to be obsessed with. This has been litigated to death, exhumed, litigated again, and then buried again. There's no point in having this discussion. There's nothing to discuss. You aren't losing matches because other people have friends. You're losing because you bring half-cooked builds into games and dont coordinate with your team.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trying to make this a personal issue because you know it's the truth won't help the game it never has this same problem has been around forever affecting every game mode in MWO I'm surprised PGI has not even Axed Faction play by now.

But the game might not survive much longer I have enjoyed playing this game from beta and if they ever make a MWO 2 I would hope it's not like this version of MWO I even remember talking to Russ and Brian about MWO before the game was made and our group tried to get them to make a newer updated version of MechWarrior 4 and its expansions and all thought that was what PGI was making for our 5 million dollars in startup money But instead we got a Mech version of World of Tanks with mech skins we were very surprised and disappointed it was not a true MechWarrior game.

But it is what it is PGI has kept this game alive for 12 years on the hopes it might turn around, but the Cash Cows have all almost left the game and MechWarrior 5 or Clans found out MechWarrior fans will not be fooled again.

[Bud Crue]

KahnWongFuChung, on 04 February 2025 - 12:06 PM, said:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is just not a true statement The reason they took away 8v8 que for coordinated team play was a very bad match system that favored which team had more meta mechs and skilled players not because of the population of the game. Once these individuals teamed together, they knew it would always be lopsided matches in favor of their teams thus stomps were more prevalent and other teams started to complain to PGI about it and instead of fixing the issues with the game mode they just deleted it just like all game modes in MWO they could not fix it was the AXE.

THIS is not a true statement.

GQ died when the player base dropped to the point where it simply became untenable (right around the time MW5 was released and Russ stated explicitly that MWO was and would be in maintenance mode for the foreseeable future). The brief revival of it with 8v8 was a very short lived experiment which many of us enjoyed but which Paul insisted had unacceptable wait times. Most of us who played regularly asked that the mode be modified to have a solo player opt in function to address the wait time issue, but Russ/Paul said that solo players didn't want to play with groups. The current soup queue where small groups would be allowed to drop with the solos was instituted instead, and was seen as a compromise that, at the time, pleased few if any of us. Regardless, that is how the death of GQ played out and it had nothing to do with "a very bad match system that favored which team had more meta mechs and skilled players".