476 replies to this topic

[Belisarius1]

If that halfway decent matchmaker exists, I have yet to see it in any game. Selecting useful compositions is a profoundly heuristic problem that needs to take a huge number of factors into account, including terrain, loadout, player skill, player preference and the in-itself challenging problem of linking chassis based on what's currently queued. Simply tagging 'mechs as "scout" "fire support" "brawler" and trying to achieve equal numbers of each just does not cut it.

I'm not willing to trust my own enjoyment completely to a matchmaker algorithm that will at some point put me in a brawler hunchback in a wide open map against a team of missile boats. It is essential that we be able to change things once we see what's going on.

Edited by Belisarius†, 01 May 2012 - 07:21 PM.

[Kudzu]

Belisarius†, on 01 May 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

If that halfway decent matchmaker exists, I have yet to see it in any game. Selecting useful tactics and compositions is a profoundly heuristic problem that needs to take a huge number of factors into account, including terrain, loadout, player skill, player preference and the in-itself challenging problem of linking chassis based on what's currently queued. Simply tagging 'mechs as "scout" "fire support" "brawler" and trying to achieve equal numbers of each just does not cut it.

The sign of a good player is the ability to use what you have to it's best effect no matter what the situation-- improvise, adapt, survive, win.

Quote

I'm not willing to trust my own enjoyment completely to a matchmaker algorithm that will at some point put me in a brawler hunchback in a wide open map against a team of missile boats. It is essential that we be able to change things once we see what's going on.

That's the risk you run when you chose to run around in a close range specialist... but won't you feel great when you have that same match up on a city map? If you get to change your mech based on where you fight then you'll only see certain designs on certain maps and that's it.

Of course, if the maps are designed well you'll have multiple paths to take that will provide your brawler with cover, give long range mechs room to work with, etc. If you're really that worried about it run a generalist design that will preform decently no matter where you fight.

[StaIker]

Quote

The sign of a good player is the ability to use what you have to it's best effect no matter what the situation-- improvise, adapt, survive, win.

No, just, no. You're 100% wrong and it should be obvious to anyone with a passing understanding of games as to why. Don't clutter up the thread with this sort of inanity.

[Kudzu]

StaIker, on 01 May 2012 - 07:55 PM, said:

No, just, no. You're 100% wrong and it should be obvious to anyone with a passing understanding of games as to why. Don't clutter up the thread with this sort of inanity.

Oh, do go on to tell me why you think this. I'd love to hear you explain why a great player doesn't ever have to adjust to changing situations that aren't always 100% in his favor.

[StaIker]

Quote

it should be obvious to anyone with a passing understanding of games as to why

[Belisarius1]

It's because unfairness should never be something that you intentionally design in. A star football team might be able to win in spite of a biased referee - thus demonstrating their dominance - but that doesn't mean you should intentionally hire biased referees to make the game more challenging for them.

Adverse circumstances will be there in abundance no matter what you do. It's a terrible idea to add a mechanic that makes things more random and less fair, and then justify that by saying that any truly skilled player would just man up and deal with the unfairness. Great pilots will have all the opportunities they need to prove themselves without having that done to them, and to all the other players on their team who might not be so great.

Edited by Belisarius†, 01 May 2012 - 08:37 PM.

[Kudzu]

StaIker, on 01 May 2012 - 08:08 PM, said:

Thank you for adding so much to the conversation, your input is both profound and well regarded. On that note, I think it's basically clear to anyone that anything Stalker advocates is foolish. See how helpful that is? Back up your position or say nothing.

Belisarius†, on 01 May 2012 - 08:37 PM, said:

It's because unfairness should never be something that you intentionally design in. A star football team might be able to win in spite of a biased referee - thus demonstrating their dominance - but that doesn't mean you should intentionally hire biased referees to make the game more challenging for them.

What's unfair about suffering the consequences of your choice? By overspecializing in one area you've made yourself weaker in others. A Huchback 4G is a brutal mech in close but a juicy target at range where it can't respond, this is a balanced tradeoff. If you always have the option to avoid unfavorable match-up's (such as open maps) you will never see it outside of short range maps. How much skill does it really take to meta-game your problems away?

If you can always shift away from that weakness is it really a weakness? Instead of being able to avoid completely what your mech isn't good at the focus should be on adapting to the situation and overcoming your weaknesses. If your Hunchback is on an open map you should try to use any cover available to get in close, have your long range teammates cover you while you close the gap, or find a good spot to cover them from any fast mechs that try to shut them down. An Awesome and a Hunchback would make a great team as they would cover each others weaknesses. If you don't want to make the effort, then you should probably pilot something like a Centurion instead, as it is effective at all ranges while not being overspecialized in any particular one (which is it's tradeoff for balance-- it's not as good as a Hunchie up close nor is it as good as an Awesome at range, but it has fewer weaknesses overall than either.)

Quote

Adverse circumstances will be there in abundance no matter what you do. It's a terrible idea to add a mechanic that makes things more random and less fair, and then justify that by saying that any truly skilled player would just man up and deal with the unfairness. Great pilots will have all the opportunities they need to prove themselves without having that done to them, and to all the other players on their team who might not be so great.

How is it fair to the generalist mech that it will never have a time to shine or a real role to play? Under your system it would be "City map, bring out your Hunchies" or "Open map, bust of the Catapults".

Edited by Kudzu, 01 May 2012 - 10:38 PM.

[Belisarius1]

Absolutely. And then knowing that I'm likely to see catapults on an open map, I can fight fire with fire or I can switch to an AMS-equipped fast infighter or a poptart to counter them, and they can add 'mechs to counter those. Suddenly there's a lot of different options on the field that only exist because both sides are free to make informed choices.

You seem to be working under the assumption that removing information to push people to generalised configs produces diversity. In fact, it does the opposite, because taking a specialist becomes such a dice roll that smart players will be forced to run a jack-of-all-trades every drop. And since you have no intel, there's no reason to take one jack-of-all-trades over another beyond the mood you woke up in that morning.

Knowing it's a cold map will bias players towards hot 'mechs, and deserts to cool 'mechs. I'm not sure why you think that's a bad thing. Both get to see action in situations where they make sense. There's nothing that says players have to be taking hot 'mechs on hot maps before the game can be considered diverse.

Edited by Belisarius†, 01 May 2012 - 11:54 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Aegis Kleais™, on 01 May 2012 - 03:41 PM, said:

You CANNOT force people to comply with a single player's consensus on a server. It. Will. Not. Happen.

People want to join a server, pick the Mech in their garage that they have, and play. They don't want to join a server, have to coordinate efforts with people they don't even know, and then be forced to use a chassis they either don't have or are not proficient in.

That's partially why I would accept an extremely simplified system like the "free slots" things for classes. Lots of people do accept when they say, join a locked TF2 server and there are already maximum medics. People would accept if there were only 2 assault slots and both were taken, they'd have to take a medium.

It's really the least detailed approach and it'd have a ton of drawbacks, but I'd neither be surprised nor angry to see it. Matches need to be extremely fast to setup, not like NBT rounds.

There is one good solution to it, though, which is to combine the match making system (that tries to match teams in BV) with the slot system (meaning teams will have varied weight classes), which would help greatly in balancing the T1/T2 mechanics. i.e. a mission has 4 assault, 4 heavy, 4 medium slots. Once all those are filled on a team it begins match making against teams with the same restrictions based on equipment quality.

Edited by Victor Morson, 02 May 2012 - 12:49 AM.

[StaIker]

Quote

The sign of a good player is the ability to use what you have to it's best effect no matter what the situation-- improvise, adapt, survive, win

You really need to be told why this statement is stupid? It's because when you tell one player to suck it up and think smart and use what abilities he might have when he is at a disadvantage... the guy he is fighting against is doing exactly the same! And that means if one player starts with a big advantage, he keeps his big advantage because he is not a mindless target drone, he is actively trying to win too.

[Aegis Kleais]

Victor Morson, on 02 May 2012 - 12:46 AM, said:

That's partially why I would accept an extremely simplified system like the "free slots" things for classes. Lots of people do accept when they say, join a locked TF2 server and there are already maximum medics. People would accept if there were only 2 assault slots and both were taken, they'd have to take a medium.

It's really the least detailed approach and it'd have a ton of drawbacks, but I'd neither be surprised nor angry to see it. Matches need to be extremely fast to setup, not like NBT rounds.

There is one good solution to it, though, which is to combine the match making system (that tries to match teams in BV) with the slot system (meaning teams will have varied weight classes), which would help greatly in balancing the T1/T2 mechanics. i.e. a mission has 4 assault, 4 heavy, 4 medium slots. Once all those are filled on a team it begins match making against teams with the same restrictions based on equipment quality.

Oh man, I hated those servers. Basically you KNEW they were run by the same type of people whom when you're in a game they pipe up and say "Do we really need X [ class here ]?" as if they were somehow the authority on how a pub should roll.

My beef with TF2 was that, even if you added a server to the blacklist, they had ways of getting themselves off it, so that you'd accidentally join the server again unknowingly.

[MaddMaxx]

Cobweb, on 01 May 2012 - 02:22 PM, said:

Assuming there are variations on weaponry, using tins is a bad idea, you run a tech level 1 reinforced lance vs. a tech lvl. 3 Level Two with C3i and let me know how you do with equal tonnage.

And would you be so kind as to enlighten us why in the name of Sam Hill anyone would do, or want to do, such an obviously brain dead Stupid thing as that???? Please...

[MaddMaxx]

I think we are getting ahead of ourselves here. From the Info we have, there are only 2 Modes at Launch. DropShip and DM (persistence based.. hopefully)

In DropShip, there will be no Teams dropped. The ( a set of) Map will be running Instances, you will select a stable of 4 Mechs, and start getting dropped on the Map and then proceed to kill whatever the other Color(s) is. Points awarded based on whatever criteria is set for that mode. Lose 4 Mechs, your out and have to reset, rinse repeat. Repair funds (+ left over) and Glory will be your Prize.

In DM, we assume a Contract will be in place, we may have to put up a "force composition" and then the enemy/defenders get to match up against that "force composition" and when the Contractor is satisfied, both Teams drop into an Instance and proceed to obtain their Objectives, assuming it is just not straight TDM (again hopefully)

Let's remember, we will be under the MVP screen going in, so worrying to much about PUGS and the like may require more Modes be put in play.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 02 May 2012 - 07:08 AM.

[Outlaw2]

Cobweb, on 01 May 2012 - 02:22 PM, said:

Assuming there are variations on weaponry, using tins is a bad idea, you run a tech level 1 reinforced lance vs. a tech lvl. 3 Level Two with C3i and let me know how you do with equal tonnage.

MaddMaxx, on 02 May 2012 - 06:52 AM, said:

And would you be so kind as to enlighten us why in the name of Sam Hill anyone would do, or want to do, such an obviously brain dead Stupid thing as that???? Please...

What I want to know is what will prevent that from happening. Obviously few want that to happen.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 02 May 2012 - 08:27 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

=Outlaw=, on 02 May 2012 - 08:26 AM, said:

What I want to know is what will prevent that from happening. Obviously few want that to happen.

Ummm, my guess would be... everyone plays using the same Tech Levels.

Ok, I will redo my first thought. Those that do that, play L1 Tech vs L3 Tech are:

1) Simply either brain dead stupid or

2) Insert your most loathed IS House here.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 02 May 2012 - 08:56 AM.

[Kudzu]

StaIker, on 02 May 2012 - 01:11 AM, said:

You really need to be told why this statement is stupid? It's because when you tell one player to suck it up and think smart and use what abilities he might have when he is at a disadvantage... the guy he is fighting against is doing exactly the same! And that means if one player starts with a big advantage, he keeps his big advantage because he is not a mindless target drone, he is actively trying to win too.

So in effect, the better player is the one who can overcome his disadvantages and beat the one with the advantages... which is the entire basis of my statement.

[Victor Morson]

Mad Pig, on 01 May 2012 - 06:41 PM, said:

No limits. Equal Tonnage != Balance.

Bring what you got to the field and to the victors go the spoils. You want to go all assault and not have any recon and get pounded by artillery for 15 minutes while you trundle around at 51 kph then have fun paying the repair bills. You want to be smart and reap the rewards, then pay attention to the role warfare.

Seems simple enough to me. No drop limits required.

May your slop be golden.

Just out of curosity, did you read the thread at all? Because that line of thinking is really flawed and the reasons for that are really detailed out here.

The biggest problems are is, again for new readers: Why pick a Hunchback over an Atlas? They both move at similar speeds and have similar weapons, but the Atlas has way more armor and firepower. There is literally no advantage to a Hunchback. Ultimately this leaves only Fast heavies, Assaults, and Recon Lights in the useful category.

Literally noone is suggesting that a recon light is a bad idea or useless. But this falacy that the alternative is this slow pondering, zero recon assault company is silly. The problem is without limits, you end up in a scenario where only a handful of 'mechs are worthwhile (Recon, Sniper/Raider, Heavily gunned assault) and every single thing else has no purpose in a no-limits environment.

No limits outdates about 70% of the 'mechs in the game and I'm fairly sure you don't want that. You need to think this through.

[990Dreams]

=Outlaw=, on 01 May 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:

So...whats your point? If you want to talk about canon, "Battle Value" is something the tabletop also used.
However things like this shouldn't dictate game balance.

Well, table top isn't RTS (real time strategy, for those who don't n=know what RTS is) like this.

[Victor Morson]

Kudzu, on 02 May 2012 - 09:32 AM, said:

So in effect, the better player is the one who can overcome his disadvantages and beat the one with the advantages... which is the entire basis of my statement.

There's an alarming number of people that feel that pilots should be able to heroically overcome odds, which can sometimes happen against weaker players.

But at the end of the day, if you have two pilots of even slightly different skill (say 10% difference, for the sake of argument), the one with the firepower/armor advantage is going to win. Now, if you figure this into a focus-fired team situation (1 medium vs 1 heavy can be done; 4 mediums vs 4 heavies cannot, due to in the inability to exploit blind spots) it just gets worse.

If you put a slightly worse pilot in a Dire Wolf and made them face a Hunchback, the Hunchback pilot is toast. If you swap it, you end up with the same results, shy of damage. If you amp that to 4 Dire Wolf vs 4 Hunchbacks and upped the skill disparity to 5x the Hunchbacks would be lucky to even get some shots in. It's just a reality of how balance in BattleTech works. It's not the fault of the Hunchback pilots that they "didn't overcome the odds."

This is like pitting a small time lightweight boxer against a heavy weight and then saying "Well the lightweight could have overcome the odds!" It's just wrong.

[MaddMaxx]

I could see BV being used "IF" when I select my Mech, I see only its BV (and name) and cannot change the load out. Then when I drop, I see what load out is on the Mech and begin setting up firing groups etc etc and join the Lance/ Company.

Sound like fun? I don't know either, never played a Mech game that didn't make me select a Mech by anything other than Tonnage (and name)...