86 replies to this topic

[Extraho]

Ok, i did a quick search an didn't find anything about it, so i figured id see xD

So, i saw a thing in the Dev Q&A 2, talking about match sizes, stating it would be a max of 12 v 12 if they can manage it

Original quote:

Quote

How large are you planning to make match sizes in terms of number of players? 4 vs 4, 8 vs 8...etc. –Red Beard

[MATT C][color=#CCCCCC] The current plan is for a maximum of 12 vs. 12 so long as we can ensure a solid play experience for that many players, otherwise we would fall back to 8 vs. 8.[/color]

Tbh, when i saw that, the first thing that came to my head was.... "Why not use drop weights?"

The reason for my sudden memory relapse to MechCommander 1/2 was due to the explanation about how Merc Corps would bid for contracts which ranged from small to how ever big there going to be... add on the "everybody has access to every mech class" thingy... and you have a case of "Atlas lance spam mwahahahahaha munchy munchkins weeee" etc.

As amusing as it sounds... look at it from the point of view of costs. Merc Corps may quite possibly have to buy there own mechs, pay for repairs, weapons.... mebe ammo (would be awesome)... and consider how much it costs to pay for repairs to larger mechs, then compare that to the amount you get from a contract and you have the problem of it costing more to drop the mech's in than you'l earn from the contract.

So... was thinking randomly about assigning max drop weights to licences... for a 5K cbill contract, you might only send a light lance.... for a 50K cbill a heavy/assault... or mebe 2 med's.... what ever mix you like... but within a set limit

would add another layer to the play experience, consider the 100 ton drop limit. you can fit a lance of light mechs, or a single assault mech (or variations of the in-between classes), it would make the lance commander have to actually think about his lance movements (dont want to be in a light mech and turn round a corner only to run up an atlas's exhaust pipe)... as opposed to the standard, run in, shoot at things, mission over, next mission, rinse, repeat, etc.... you'd actually have to think lol xD

also allows for things like ranked/specialised lances within you're merc corp. want to sit in a light mech all the time? form a lance of light mechs without the fear of running into a lance of assault mechs in every mission.

Anyway, i could go on for ever with how using drop weights would be so much better, but i'll let you guys give me all the reasons why its dumb and im just being an ***** xD

Keep in mind, just an opinion lol xD

[Dlardrageth]

There might be something as simple as a technical reason involved. If the know they get a max. of 12 Mechs per team, they can set up the game engine accordingly. If they have somewhat random numbers (e.g. balancing out 12 assault Mechs with lights only could mean a whole lot of Locusts ) they can't any more. Your idea is certainly not dumb with regards to general balancing issues, I just don't see it being very viable to determine the actual numbers of Mechs in a given match.

To implement the game mode without any fixed numbers of Mechs per team would probably require way more and way more complicated coding. And eventually invite more bugs to show up of course. That doesn't mean that in the projected 12 vs. 12 mode there can'T be matches where one team gets balanced with one or two Mechs less, though. I think that will be perfectly possible.

Edited by Dlardrageth, 03 January 2012 - 08:41 AM.

[Oppi]

I'm pretty sure that everybody here (including the devs) is fully aware that a simple "number of players" limit without any weight restriction makes no sense in a Mechwarrior game, where different weight classes were never meant to be balanced in a 1on1 match (sure, you should be able to take out an Atlas while piloting a Jenner, but you should need an extraordinary amount of skill to do it).

I think there'll be a weight limit and a number of players limit, and your team will have to stay inside both limits.

Edited by Oppi, 03 January 2012 - 08:43 AM.

[Omigir]

What he is saying has merrit but perhaps not exactly in reguards to keeping people from atlas spaming. There has been allot of discussion around the forums as sid bar convos about how it might work.

Most people i think are looking for some form of BV/Max wait distrobution to kind of figure out how these things are going to break down.. but I htink PGI is looking at roll maximization. considering how much they talk about roll based combat and the conveniance of having 3x lances. scout lance, brawler/combat lance and then your assault/command lance (cyclops being a command mech and being an assult.. i have not heard of a command mech being anything other than huge, so correct me if im wrong. )

any way, i think its a safe and sound assumption we will see something simular to help keep teams ballanced by having close weight/BV

[Smoking GNU]

in world of tanks there is a system that matches the amount of a certain class for both sides i.e. both sides will have 4 light, 3 med, and 5 assault for example which could be used in this game to balance matches out

[1SgtChuckie]

Drop weight was one thing I loved about MechCommander, and if one were to read into comments made here.

It would stand to reason in a F2P system, that the perfect balancing act to allow Heavy/Assault players like me to start with my AWS-9M Awesome would be this limiting factor. Which BTW would work within canon as well.

Because if the drop is a (2x200 max drop) @ lances of 4, and its 8v8, then you have to choose between mechs and pilots.

Dropping alongside my Awesome and a Hunchback you could have either (2) Urbies or A Catapult.

Along with whatever is on the drop ship.. Say an Atlas and 2 Hunchbacks or (3) Urbies..

This would be the great equalizer in a F2P Model, Dropship weight and amounts of mechs you can have. Utilizing dropwieght a good pilot would have to have in his "storage" a good Heavy, Assault, lights, scout and urban.. but because its F2P.

FREE Players have 1 or 2 slots. Basically they will make money on Mechs and storage.

If that's what they have done, not only is that going to make the game perfect.. I am in their head and they need to get me to sign a NDA ASAP. IF they want me to quit reading their minds that is..

BTW Piranha.. I will ONLY sign a NDA if given a Beta Key

[Dlardrageth]

Zavaz, on 03 January 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

in world of tanks there is a system that matches the amount of a certain class for both sides i.e. both sides will have 4 light, 3 med, and 5 assault for example which could be used in this game to balance matches out

Only problem is that the WoT MatchMaking is pretty terribad in most aspects, especially balancing. If anything similar to their joke of a matchmaker is implemented, you'll end up with one side having 4 assault Mechs and the other only 1, and more lighter ones to "compensate" or similar crap. Using what WG calls a "matchmaker" for WoT as a basis for MWO spells disaster IMNSHO.

[KingCobra]

I remember when the new Mechwarrior5 was anounced and the devs were saying soon 50Vs50 battles would be possible and that was back in 2004 then microsoft toasted the whole PC mechwarrior comunity for there greatness and dumped us on our assets.I think with todays advanced net.code IP6 and the game engine they are using a 25-50Vs25-50 is possible if they make nodes in da clouds thousands of battles could be run off of 1 server and 1000 nodes.If you have a pool of players that are not team linked it might be a random draw based on tonnage say 6lights,10mediums,8heavys,4assaults,ect all unknown to each other dumped on a map with the same mission.Then there are teams linked together like say 25 dumped on a random mission map to play other linked teams of 25 in a que.Of corse the singleplayers would be on a que themselfs waiting there turn as a new battle node opened up.No matter how you drop it should conform to the contract rules of how many tons and how many mech type chassis per drop.

[karish]

Don't forget they have said you will be able to train for one play style at a time so you won't be able to jump from a recon to a command

[Raeven]

Dlardrageth, on 03 January 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

Only problem is that the WoT MatchMaking is pretty terribad in most aspects, especially balancing. If anything similar to their joke of a matchmaker is implemented, you'll end up with one side having 4 assault Mechs and the other only 1, and more lighter ones to "compensate" or similar crap. Using what WG calls a "matchmaker" for WoT as a basis for MWO spells disaster IMNSHO.

The balance in WoT is only bad because weapons aren't equal across the board. If a T1-Cunningham could do damage to a IS4 with every hit then it would balance out. In WoT, the armor penetration model makes it so that the starting equipment of any tank can barely penetrate the armor of tanks in it's same class, let alone a class or two above it.

[Dlardrageth]

Raeven, on 03 January 2012 - 10:20 AM, said:

The balance in WoT is only bad because weapons aren't equal across the board. If a T1-Cunningham could do damage to a IS4 with every hit then it would balance out. In WoT, the armor penetration model makes it so that the starting equipment of any tank can barely penetrate the armor of tanks in it's same class, let alone a class or two above it.

Nah, it's also the fact that at least on the NA server you get matches which seem totally FUBAR balancing-wise. Had one just today again, our side got 1 Tier-10, 1 Tier-9, 4 Tier-8 and some lower stuff. The enemy team got graced with 1 Tier-10, 4 Tier-9s and 1 Tier-8 and lower stuff. Yeah, had a lot of fun trying to do anything to those 4 IS-4s, I can tell you! It's sadly not about weapons only, it's armor, agility and target profile size and what not factoring in. Main point though is probably either the ineptitude or attitude of WoT's dev team (which of the two, depends on your PoV).

And yes, one random example is no proof etc, etc., but this hasn't been a solitary occurence in my experience. Instead it has been one of the main reasons why game clans like mine are bleeding members in WoT constantly. Anything like this exercise in failure they call "matchmaker" over there is major bad karma/juju. For any game IMO.

Edited by Dlardrageth, 03 January 2012 - 10:32 AM.

[Dihm]

It wouldn't surprise me if they handle this somehow, for mercs anyway, with the contract system. As of now though, we don't have enough game mechanic information. I can't imagine player count is their only means of balance.

[MaddMaxx]

Tonnage Limits works well. Given our known Mechs to date and a 250T drop limit a Commander has many, many choices. This will assume he also knows the Planet specs for the drop and the builds suit the environment.

2 Atlases + 1 Hunchie
1 Atlases + 3 Hunchies
2 Cat's + 1 Hunchie _+ 1 Jenny
5 Jenny's + Hunchie
etc, etc....

Edited by MaddMaxx, 03 January 2012 - 10:51 AM.

[David Decoster]

Totally agree with Dlardrageth and Raeven concerning the WoT balancing failure. Even moreso, such a setup makes it very hard for you to play together with a number of clanmates over the set platoon maximum. The company battles don't really solve this problem AFAIMC, since there's such a large gap between the platoon size (3), and the number required for a worthy company (10-12 depending on weight class). Let's say there's 6 of you online and you want to play together. Well, in WoT, you're pretty much ****ed since all you can do is time the Start Battle 'click' and hope the matchmake puts you in the same game AND on the same side. Pretty lousy if you ask me.

[Omigir]

lets face it two lances of scout mech's or players loaded up in scout based roll mechs, will not comete againt 1 lance of brawlers or the like. WoT matchmaking wont work. Weight alone is not enough to make a ballanced lance. Lets face it, raven's are not meant to deal damage. end of story. if they dont have fire support, they as evnen a lance are not going to be able to effectivly compete with 1 assault, let alone 1 assault and 3 other mechs of various size.

[Ulric Kell]

KingCobra, on 03 January 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

I remember when the new Mechwarrior5 was anounced and the devs were saying soon 50Vs50 battles would be possible and that was back in 2004 then microsoft toasted the whole PC mechwarrior comunity for there greatness and dumped us on our assets.I think with todays advanced net.code IP6 and the game engine they are using a 25-50Vs25-50 is possible if they make nodes in da clouds thousands of battles could be run off of 1 server and 1000 nodes.If you have a pool of players that are not team linked it might be a random draw based on tonnage say 6lights,10mediums,8heavys,4assaults,ect all unknown to each other dumped on a map with the same mission.Then there are teams linked together like say 25 dumped on a random mission map to play other linked teams of 25 in a que.Of corse the singleplayers would be on a que themselfs waiting there turn as a new battle node opened up.No matter how you drop it should conform to the contract rules of how many tons and how many mech type chassis per drop.

There's a lot more going on than meets the eye here. At some point graphics have to be rendered. If you render in the cloud, you're sending seriously large chunks of data to the end point, which isn't really feasible today with slow internet speeds in many countries. If you render graphics on the client, 50 mechs on the screen firing a kaleidoscope of lasers and missiles would make the beefiest machines collapse on themselves.

To have true balance you would use a combination of Players and Tonnage. This requires critical thinking and strategy. You could balance high and low. You could allow 5 players to pilot assault mechs and defend against 10-12 players using light/medium and maybe a heavy/assault or two.

[Ulric Kell]

Omigir, on 03 January 2012 - 11:11 AM, said:

lets face it two lances of scout mech's or players loaded up in scout based roll mechs, will not comete againt 1 lance of brawlers or the like. WoT matchmaking wont work. Weight alone is not enough to make a ballanced lance. Lets face it, raven's are not meant to deal damage. end of story. if they dont have fire support, they as evnen a lance are not going to be able to effectivly compete with 1 assault, let alone 1 assault and 3 other mechs of various size.

I disagree with this. There are plenty of cases in the BT books and in real world combat situations where under armed forces have prevailed. 10 ravens against 5 atlas would have 10 dead ravens. But 10 ravens against 1-2 assault and 1-2 heavy could in the right scenarios do what is needed. High ground, obstacles, speed and agility. All of these things play a part.

[David Decoster]

Ulric Kell, on 03 January 2012 - 11:22 AM, said:

I disagree with this. There are plenty of cases in the BT books and in real world combat situations where under armed forces have prevailed. 10 ravens against 5 atlas would have 10 dead ravens. But 10 ravens against 1-2 assault and 1-2 heavy could in the right scenarios do what is needed. High ground, obstacles, speed and agility. All of these things play a part.

I think Ulric has a point here. A big part in making this work in MWO, would be in having no time limit on matches though. That way lighter mechs can take their time wearing down heavier opponents Mechs as well as their patience (lack of which often leads to fatal mistakes being made).

[Kudzu]

Tonnage is the absolute worst balancing mechanic to use.

[Grayson Pryde]

Kudzu, on 03 January 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

Tonnage is the absolute worst balancing mechanic to use.

Could you please explain that?

I have seen it enough in WoT and just a 12vs12 will never be fair. And i think clasify all mechs in tiers wont help either. Maybe teh Battle value system could work.