64 replies to this topic

[Mike Townsend]

One thing I don't understand (and maybe it's actually doing this behind the scenes and it just isn't obvious) is why they don't do a two phase matchmake. It looks like it assigns people to teams as it locates a match for them. It seems like it would make much more sense to match people into a game by mech class WITHOUT assigning them to a team, and then distribute the players between the two teams based on actual weight and/or other criteria. Halo 4 appears to do this. It find players with the same skill ranking within a game type to shove into a match, then once it has the full roster of players it balances the teams. If you run multiple rounds, it rebalances the teams as people come and go. It also puts you on voice with your team automatically.

[pistolero]

Anony Mouse, on 10 February 2013 - 11:49 PM, said:

Thats basically Battle Value you're describing, and as for Elo adjustments, it needn't be inclusive to BV but rather a BV modifier. Elo is comparative, so a 0.X multiplier would be applied to a high Elo player vs a low Elo player, alternatively a 1.X multiplier could be applied to a low Elo vs High Elo. Think of it as handicapping.

haha great i reinvented the wheel

i think it is no secret that we badly need a BV system in this game .... matching weight classes against each other does not work very well ( yesterday i had a match with 3 Awesomes on my team ... the other team had 0 Awesomes ... guess the result )

ELO is a nice start ..... but i think it will not be the"solution"

as far for the ELO modifier

my thought was that:
average ELO (the starting ELO) = x 1
a mech will be more valuable the better the pilot is (everythiny above the average ELO) --> so a 1.xx multiplier
a mech will be less valuabe the worse the pilot is ( everything with less than the average ELO) --> so a 0.xx multiplier

so i do not see ELO in this "BV" system as a handicap where players are compared with each other
i see it as an optional BV modificator
optional because ELO is meaningless in 8 v 8 or 12 v 12 games so you can ignore it there

[Fred013]

I would like to see games where one team will have the same weight as the other.

[Anony Mouse]

Fred013, on 11 February 2013 - 01:45 AM, said:

I would like to see games where one team will have the same weight as the other.

Thats good as a baseline, but I can see that stagnanting. With a battle value system (as in a numerator based on how useful a unit actually is) we can see 2-1 odds, with assaults versus lights, that kind of stuff.

[Wispsy]

A hunchback is worse then anything, weight based drops will not change this. A light can be more useful then an assault, as can a heavy. Calling them inferior is simply wrong.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

In the previous MW titles you could set a floor and a ceiling. Don't wanna play in a match with lights at all? Set the floor at 40 tons. Tired of seeing everyone in assault mechs? Set the ceiling at 75.

Having lobbies where one can select tonnage floors and ceilings, maps, player size, game mode, etc would be ideal. But for now, I'd prefer a BV system.

But I'll take this next phase of MM. Anything to prevent the "death blossom" or the need to PUG wrangle.

[pistolero]

JohanssenJr, on 11 February 2013 - 02:26 AM, said:

........

Having lobbies where one can select tonnage floors and ceilings, maps, player size, game mode, etc would be ideal. But for now, I'd prefer a BV system.

....................

A Lobby is an ABSOLUTE MUST HAVE imho .... nearly endless options to keep the same old 4 maps interesting, setting up groups or lances before the match starts, a leader before the start, etc.
I realy can not understand why it is at a low priority for the developers .....

[Khobai]

The problem with balancing by weight is that not all mechs of the same weight class are equal. For example, a hunchback with a bunch of flamers is not equal to a centurion with a bunch of SRM6s and MedLas.

Thats why BV is a much better way of balancing. Because then you can play that low BV hunchback with a bunch of flamers and the game will balance it out by giving the other team a lower BV.

A BV system really wouldn't be that difficult to implement.

1) assign BV values to weapons based on a preset formula like: ((dps/tonnage+heat)*rangemod*miscmod)
2) assign BV values to equipment based on what "feels right"
3) use ELO stats to figure out a 1.X modifier for player skill
4) Use a formula like ((weapon BV + equipment BV) * player skill modifier) to determine someone's BV
5) Matchmaker then just tabulates the BV of one team and tries to match them with another team with BV within +/- 10% or so.
6) Team with disadvantage in BV gets some kind of advantage in game to help offset the BV imbalance (like maybe they start with more resource points for using command console abilities or something).

Edited by Khobai, 11 February 2013 - 07:17 AM.

[jay35]

While a weight limit sounds good in theory, the only practical impact of it will be to create longer wait times when trying to find a match, as the matchmaker would need to find 8-16 players trying to play at the same time that also combine mech weights just right to fit within the limit, whatever number it ends up being.

Edited by jay35, 11 February 2013 - 07:33 AM.

[EvilCow]

No to arbitrary limits, yes to limits if teams can agree on them beforehand: launch lobby.

[Wizard Steve]

Weight is a bad way to balance mechs. They should be balanced in the first place.

240 tonnes won't stop groups of four 3Ls after all.

[Braggart]

Tonnage is the best way to balance the game, and without forcing specific mechs all the time. One team could be lights and assaults, another mediums and heavies.

There is something called battle value in tabletop. It is how they make sure a match is balanced. Bv wont work here though. Since heavy and assault mechs can boat multiple weapons that all hit the same spot at the same time. Alpha strikes dominate in a way that is not possible in TT.

Now with a max tonnage limit, you can limit the amount of damage on the battlefield. Giving a place for meds and lights to have a place.

[HRR Insanity]

I would place the weight at 50-55t per player. Medium 'Mechs should be the most common.

[jay35]

EvilCow, on 11 February 2013 - 07:15 AM, said:

No to arbitrary limits, yes to limits if teams can agree on them beforehand: launch lobby.

That includes selecting the map they want to play on before choosing mechs. This current random map thing is silly.

HRR Insanity, on 11 February 2013 - 07:32 AM, said:

I would place the weight at 50-55t per player. Medium 'Mechs should be the most common.

The limit should be adjustable by the host or by agreement of a majority of the people planning to play the match, as some people would like to play heavier matches and others would like to play lighter matches. Forcing everyone to only one or the other only turns people away and creates a negative experience.

Edited by jay35, 11 February 2013 - 07:36 AM.

[EvilCow]

jay35, on 11 February 2013 - 07:36 AM, said:

That includes selecting the map they want to play on before choosing mechs. This current random map thing is silly.


The limit should be adjustable by the people planning to play the match, as some people would like to play heavier matches and others would like to play lighter matches. Forcing everyone to only one or the other only turns people away and creates a negative experience.

Of course, and possibly other conditions too.

It should be noted that being able to select a map beforehand would encourage players to seek configurations optimized for specific environments, this could translate in more potential sales for PGI (mech bays, hero mechs).

Edited by EvilCow, 11 February 2013 - 07:39 AM.

[HRR Insanity]

jay35, on 11 February 2013 - 07:36 AM, said:

The limit should be adjustable by the host or by agreement of a majority of the people planning to play the match, as some people would like to play heavier matches and others would like to play lighter matches. Forcing everyone to only one or the other only turns people away and creates a negative experience.

You misunderstand. Most implementations of weight limits involve a 'weight trading' system.

Example: Everyone starts with a default of 55T. If someone selects a 'Mech that is lighter than 55T, the remaining tonnage is freed up and put into the team pool. Anyone else can then select a heavier 'Mech using that free tonnage until the free tonnage is used up. So, if some people on your team want to drop down to a 25-35 ton 'Mech, other people on the team can use that 20-30 tons to upgrade to 2x65T or one player could upgrade to an Assault.

This was the mechanism in MW4 and worked quite well to limit the # of assaults while still providing a fair way to distribute the tonnage. Light pilots were very much loved because they 'donated' tonnage to other team members regularly.

EvilCow, on 11 February 2013 - 07:38 AM, said:

Of course, and possibly other conditions too.

It should be noted that being able to select a map beforehand would encourage players to seek configurations optimized for specific environments, this could translate in more potential sales for PGI (mech bays, hero mechs).

Exactly. Matchmaking should be:

1. Match the players.
2. Select the map.
3. Give everyone 20 seconds to select a 'Mech from their DropShip or 'MechLab (potentially selecting paint/camo as well if they ever allow us to save those things). Weight trading would occur here potentially.
4. Drop.

[OneEyed Jack]

I don't currently play 8v8, never have and don't plan to in the immediate future, but many years of playing a variety of game systems and a little common sense tell me a few things.

Zylo, on 09 February 2013 - 11:02 PM, said:

1) Weight matched using class - A team with 2-3-1-2 (AHML) will be matched against a team with the same number in each weight class. Same system used at the end of closed beta before matchmaker phase 1.

The problem with this is that the previous matchmaker could select from all players currently awaiting a match, whereas with 8v8, 12v12, 4v4 or whatever, you would be trying to find a team that happened to have the exact same make-up. You'd really just end up with teams of all Assault other than the teams running specific stuff for fun (like 4 Ravens).

The problem with any forced restriction of weight or class is that there will always be an optimized set-up. It will quickly be discovered and everyone wanting to be competitive will play it. Everyone. If you just want everyone playing the same thing, there's no point in changing anything. What that set-up is would shift as people built teams specifically to face it, which would spawn teams specifically built to face them in turn, ad nauseum.

A point system of some kind is the only way to encourage true diversity, and only if it can be very, very well balanced. This would require months of intense testing by a large group of people smart, devious and skilled enough to win, but willing to take losses for the advancement of the system.

BV wouldn't work as it's based on TT where the relative usefulness of various items is vastly different. But it might make a decent starting place.

Edit: I would add, having scanned a few more of the posts herein, if they ever choose to add what people are referring to as "lobby matches" where you get to pick you opponents, those matches would have to be entirely off the books or they would would quickly alienate a large part of the playerbase.

Edited by OneEyed Jack, 11 February 2013 - 08:29 AM.

[Roland]

Quote

A point system of some kind is the only way to encourage true diversity, and only if it can be very, very well balanced. This would require months of intense testing by a large group of people smart, devious and skilled enough to win, but willing to take losses for the advancement of the system.

If you determine BV based upon usage of mechs across all games, then you'll get a BV system which directly and dynamically reflects the actual usability of mechs and weapons in the game. My sig contains a writeup on a proposed system for achieving this, and I suspect it would be better than any kind of statically defined balancing mechanism.

[Ripnfly]

Some really great ideas in the last about 15 posts, I really want to touch on the idea of match making having weight pre built into the group system meaning we have a weight of 240 Tons (my suggested number) and players having to work together to form a cohesive build.

If you have come to the back to read posts, thank you for your votes: - page 3 of the replies has some very good ideas.

[Ripnfly]

Really the more I talk about this type of limitation the more people really want to see it atleast in some form in the game.

We really want to see Atlas' be omfg an Atlas when we play.