136 replies to this topic

[Shismar]

This is a pure premade againts premade mode. Every team knows what they are going to field. This is not comparable with the closed beta premade vs. pug battles.

Will it work? I don't know. It may be a little too specific in what team setups are valid.

Maybe several tonnage brackets might be better. These could also allow incomplete teams if the group meets a minimum tonnage for a bracket with less players. ELO score brackets replacing tonnage when available.

[BFalcon]

zenstrata, on 03 December 2012 - 06:50 AM, said:

Not all premades want it. I often play with a group and I think tonnage limits are a bad idea. I want to go into every battle not knowing what I will face. I enjoy that sort of challenge. I did not think it was unfair when I ran into whole teams of enemy atlases, jenners, hunchbacks, etc. I Enjoyed that!

For my own group I thought that a diverse group worked best, simply because this sort of team makeup allowed us to cope with a large variety of scenarios.

Of course the best fix would be to put in worlds with huge continent areas like the new planetside has. Then let large teams and groups stomp around on those and fight it out. It would be without a tonnage limit, every battle would be completely random, and the maps would be large enough to have aerospace too.

Oh, I agree with this, but it's just the practicality of it, sadly.

Having huge maps that would need the 48kph mechs to walk solidly across it to be able to get to the cap point in time (with a little leeway, of course) would be very nice - it would allow Lights and Mediums to truly shine... sadly, we don't have those maps and Atlases and other heavier mechs can get into range pretty easily... not to mention the bottlenecks where the Assaults REALLY shine through (they were designed for such things, after all).

If we had maps where the Assaults were in danger of not making their objectives and/or being cut out from the rest of their units and destroyed in detail, then I'd be happy for there to be VERY relaxed limits (and then just to prevent one or two poor mediums suddenly finding themselves facing a full wall of Assaults due to a bug).

Grraarrgghh, on 03 December 2012 - 06:54 AM, said:

Where's the voting option for "who gives a ****, you all take robots way too seriously"?

Ah... was wondering when the "lowtax lads" would get here...

And yeah, I sometimes think you're right...

[deputydog]

How about adding the ability to challenge another specific group so we can make our own laddrs/community warfare? We the players could easily make a great community warfare website/system out of game if we could just pick who we fought...

I dont see it happening as they probably want to control this so we cant take our community warfare out of game..

[BFalcon]

Shismar, on 03 December 2012 - 06:57 AM, said:

This is a pure premade againts premade mode. Every team knows what they are going to field. This is not comparable with the closed beta premade vs. pug battles.

Will it work? I don't know. It may be a little too specific in what team setups are valid.

Maybe several tonnage brackets might be better. These could also allow incomplete teams if the group meets a minimum tonnage for a bracket with less players. ELO score brackets replacing tonnage when available.

You know - this could make an excellent Stage 3 (or 4) when we have enough premades around... my only concern would be not managing to find a game...

deputydog, on 03 December 2012 - 07:01 AM, said:

How about adding the ability to challenge another specific group so we can make our own laddrs/community warfare? We the players could easily make a great community warfare website/system out of game if we could just pick who we fought...

I dont see it happening as they probably want to control this so we cant take our community warfare out of game..

THIS is a MUST as an optional mode, PLEASE PGI...

If nothing else, it'd let us run challenges and practices in a controlled way. Not least, it'd let PGI run another tournament and actually have direct control over who fights who...

[Teralitha]

deputydog, on 03 December 2012 - 07:01 AM, said:

How about adding the ability to challenge another specific group so we can make our own laddrs/community warfare? We the players could easily make a great community warfare website/system out of game if we could just pick who we fought...

I dont see it happening as they probably want to control this so we cant take our community warfare out of game..

As long as they are making money off it, why would they care? I would love to see NBT5- MWO. The best planetary league ever....

[Comguard]

Wonder what will turn out to be the most effective config that all premades will forced to take in order to stay competitive. Only the strongest will prevail.

Why they didn't include even the primitive weight system we have right now where 80 tons equal 100 tons boggles my mind.

[John Norad]

BoomDog, on 03 December 2012 - 06:27 AM, said:

Since their intent is to make all mech classes viable, then I see no reason for any limits.

'Viable' should come down to roles, not combat strength.
Apart from that, if a Centurion is half as strong in combat as an Atlas, but you could have two Centurions instead of an Atlas, then the Centurion is viable, although he is weaker in direct comparison.
Balance is more than comparing 1v1.

Trying to make all mechs equally strong is a futile endeavor.
Properly matching them by 'relative strength', maps, roles and objectives is a much smarter choice

It's bad enough they went for this no-tier approach, making it unnecessarily hard for themselves to create a feeling of progress for new players.

Comguard, on 03 December 2012 - 07:12 AM, said:

Why they didn't include even the primitive weight system we have right now where 80 tons equal 100 tons boggles my mind.

It's not weight matching, it's class matching. Assault=assault..
If at least a 'class' had any kind of perk or unique trait.. like shock dampeners for assault mechs. So that matching an Atlas with an Awesome would make more sense than matching that Awesome with a Cataphract..
It would also be only half as bad if upgrades or being a trial mech was factored in. Still bad, but not horribad.

Edited by John Norad, 03 December 2012 - 07:21 AM.

[TheFuzzyBunny]

I would like to see BV, or tonnage max, or at the very least a list of what each pilot is driving on load up.

[BFalcon]

John Norad, on 03 December 2012 - 07:13 AM, said:

'Viable' should come down to roles, not combat strength.
Apart from that, if a Centurion is half as strong in combat as an Atlas, but you could have two Centurions instead of an Atlas, then the Centurion is viable, although he is weaker in direct comparison.
Balance is more than comparing 1v1.

Trying to make all mechs equally strong is a futile endeavor.
Properly matching them by 'relative strength', maps, roles and objectives is a much smarter choice

It's bad enough they went for this no-tier approach, making it unnecessarily hard for themselves to create a feeling of progress for new players.

While I agree with you, it's a very complex comparison...

For example: That Centurion might, on a very large map, be more flexible than the Atlas who's slower and needs more time to get anywhere, so cannot bring his superior firepower and armour to bear on any target, while a slightly lighter Awesome or even a Stalker might be much more useful on the same map. Neither would work anywhere near as well, however, on a smaller map with one or two close-in bottlenecks (eg Frozen City) where that Atlas can be close enough to lend support on both areas with only a slight warning needed.

[BFalcon]

TheFuzzyBunny, on 03 December 2012 - 07:15 AM, said:

I would like to see BV, or tonnage max, or at the very least a list of what each pilot is driving on load up.

I'd actually disagree on that last point, in that I like to be surprised a bit...

I think BV is where we're headed though... it's the only real way to balance DHS, Endo Steel, FF Armour, BAPs, ECM and every other weapon system out there, as well as the clan weapons and tech that's incoming, without going completely insane. That might well make the Trials worthwhile again, since they'll likely be much lower than the souped up mechs, so the same system could be implemented in the PUG side of things too (which would make a trial mech and a stock owned mech around the same value, so able to be pitted against each other).

Edited by BFalcon, 03 December 2012 - 07:23 AM.

[John Norad]

BFalcon, on 03 December 2012 - 07:19 AM, said:

While I agree with you, it's a very complex comparison...

Yeah I know, but I was merely talking about game balance in general there ;-)
For matchmaking it's hard to say, since there are so few maps and game modes.

Personally, if I were a MWO dev, I wouldn't spend too much time on it at this point of development and just go for something along the KISS principle.
Like:
1. Restriction: max 3 mechs of the same class
2. Matching teams of similar tonnage

Class restriction to curb potential balance issues. Tonnage matching because a 'different approach' / 'different advantages+weaknesses' argument can not always be applied. Take two brawling teams, 8 Hunchbacks vs. 8 Atlases. Similar concept and tactic, but very different potential.

Imho those two rules would be very easy to implement and completely sufficient for the time being, that is, until a well thought-out MM arrives.

Edited by John Norad, 03 December 2012 - 07:38 AM.

[BFalcon]

John Norad, on 03 December 2012 - 07:32 AM, said:

Yeah I know, but I was merely talking about game balance in general there ;-)
For matchmaking it's hard to say, since there are so few maps and game modes.

Personally, if I were a MWO dev, I wouldn't spend too much time on it at this point of development and just go for something along the KISS principle.
Like:
1. Restriction: max 3 mechs of the same class
2. Matching teams of similar tonnage

Class restriction to curb potential balance issues. Tonnage matching because a 'different approach' / 'different advantages+weaknesses' argument can not always be applied. Take two brawling teams, 8 Hunchbacks vs. 8 Atlases. Similar concept and tactic, but very different potential.

Imho those two rules would be very easy to implement and completely sufficient for the time being, that is, until a well thought-out MM arrives.

Yeah... problem is that the Medium and Heavy brackets are pretty busy now though... with some wanting to use Heavies for LRM support, others using the Cataphract for brawling... Mediums with all the Medium classes being seen regularly (which is fantastic - that's precisely where most tonnage should be - the Mediums are SUPPOSED to be the workhorse weight class!).

I think it'll be a "wait and see" subject for a while.

[Lykaon]

There is one reason that 8 v 8 has no mech class matching.

There are not enough 8 man premades in the match maker pool at any one time to allow for reasonable drop times.

If this is the case then the only limits that can be imposed need to effect all 8 man teams equaly.Be it an overall cap or a limit on the number of any given mech class or what have you the limitations need to encompass every 8 man team.

I personaly do not advocate any limitations.Just take what you will and let the cards fall where they may.I have memories of back in closed beta before the match maker paired mech classes.I experienced some amazing battles where we were pitted against 2 assault lances with our mechs being mostly mediums and lights.I know pilot skill can overcome lopsided matches like these because I saw it happen.

But I digress...

Possible matchmaker limits if the community demands such a thing that will work without slowing down drop rates ....

Overall tonnage caps ie. no more than 500 tons on a drop

Limiting numbers of a type of mech class. ie. up to 2 assaults up to 3 heavies up to 4 mediums up to 2 lights.

Enforced composition ie must have 2 of each mech class.

[Mister Blastman]

In NBT/ADL/MACL, we never had tonnage limits for drops. We had whatever mechs were on the planet or our dropships to use and the other team had to DEAL WITH IT.

I want no such limits in 8v8. Let the other team DEAL WITH IT. That is what piloting is all about. If the other team wants to run 8 trollmandos, well, that's their choice. If another team wants to run 8 fatlaii, then they can!

Now, all this is pending proper weapon balacing (streaks, ahem) but aside from that, lets add diversity. If my team picks four lights for instance, it'd be nice to know I'm not immediately going up against another light mech swarm.

[Teralitha]

TheFuzzyBunny, on 03 December 2012 - 07:15 AM, said:

I would like to see BV, or tonnage max, or at the very least a list of what each pilot is driving on load up.

BV would be fine to implement also, however, I think it would be a coding nightmare for them.... tonnage would be alot easier and would suffice just fine

[Teralitha]

Mister Blastman, on 03 December 2012 - 09:19 AM, said:

In NBT/ADL/MACL, we never had tonnage limits for drops. We had whatever mechs were on the planet or our dropships to use and the other team had to DEAL WITH IT.

You have a bad memory sir.. NBT was all about tonnage limits. Pretty sure ADL was too, never heard of MACL.

With NBT Your thinking of garrisons limits. A planet would hold a max of 500 mechs in its garrison and was limited by its industry rating. That actual wardrops were limited by tonnage. Recons were limited 250, raids limited to 450, Guerrila raids were random and I think randged from like 300 tons per drop to 550 tons per drop. Planatary assaults were similar to Graids with a random tonnage limit, of like 350 to 600. One drop might be 600 tons, and the next might be 500 and so on... was all randomly selected in their automation. And yes, a planet could run out of mechs, but it could take weeks and months if neither side was winning the PA, or one side was running out of mechs to fight with, those turned into a battle of attrition. but the individual matches were always limited by tons.

Even a few of NBT's public servers were limited by tonnage. Some were limited by the size of mech where you were ony allowed to bring a no larger 55ton mech, or 75ton mech. These pub games were extremely popular. Also their custom mission play servers that had 1 base, 1 attacker, 1 defender, also very popular, it was hard to get a spot on those servers cuz they were always full.

Actually, NBT is still up and running.... (im surprised) though it is probably mostly inactive. http://www.netbattle...-mp3/index.html

Edited by Teralitha, 03 December 2012 - 12:08 PM.

[Ransack]

I voted for FFA.

Reasoning, is that this is supposed to be a battle simulator. In a battle, you never know what you will be up against.

[Coolant]

Teralitha, on 03 December 2012 - 12:36 AM, said:

"The new 8-player group system DOES NOT have a Mech weight class balance requirement. It will be up to the player base to determine what Mech classes they wish to drop with."

Did you really think this is what premade teams wanted? A total unbalanced free-for-all??

oh yes...

[Zylo]

Teralitha, on 03 December 2012 - 04:54 AM, said:

Closed beta was without any restrictions and many complained when one team was too light and the other was too heavy, and was also when ppl coined the phrase "atlaswarrior online'. So this already has been tested.

Yes, clearly testing an 8 player pre-made team against 8 random players is an accurate test.

[Zylo]

Teralitha, on 03 December 2012 - 06:19 AM, said:

Right... so all those matches where you jumped into your favorite hunchback and dropped and were randomly matched with 7 other mediums and lights, then you go off toward enemy base. Then you run into an atlas... and your like... oh an atlas... look out, then you see another.... and another.. and realize your facing 8 atlas and next thing you know your the only left alive on your team and you have 8 atlas bearing down on you...

If thats your idea of fun then I cant help but wonder what might be wrong with you.

If that team of combined mediums and lights were not able to use greater speed than the 8 atlas team to split them up and take them down 1 at a time, or cap their base then the problem was not with matchmaker but with the tactics used by the team of mediums/lights. If they tried to brawl 1 on 1 with the Atlas team it would be expected that they would lose the match.

I remember many matches in early close beta going against the 8 Atlas team. All we had to do for an easy win was convince them to fight away from base, get them to fight 8 of them vs 7 of us while our light capped their base. Easiest wins ever!