So, with the new Launch Module details posted (HERE) I'd like to hear people's opinions. Personally I'm happy that we will finally have some launch options and a pseudo weigh limit system. The only gripe I have with the 3/3/3/3 system will (probably) create much longer matching times. There is also the issue of 4-man groups. According to the flow-chart, Matchmaker will look at weight classes after checking ELO, during the "launch" process. What if all four group members currently have heavies selected? Will it allow the group to be made, but fail to launch because weight-class matching will be impossible? Also, the 1/1/1/1 concept is not very clear. Will each LANCE, by default, be allowed 1 of each weight class? Or will the 3/3/3/3 rule be applied to the team as a whole? This is confusing because a Lance restriction would mean that a 4-man group MUST take a mech from each weight class. I would HATE to see this, because it would remove a key element for playing certain roles on the battlefield. Another issue I see is the "1 group per team" feature. I think this is adding too much to matchmaking all at once and it will lead to new issues that will be difficult to solve. For example. What if a 4-man group in 2-mediums and 2-lights is matched against another 4-man group with 2-assaults and 2-heavies. I see this as a huge potential problem. Personally I would like to see a opposing groups matched based on the weight-class of their mechs as-well-as ELO. Also, am I the only one who thinks there should be a total ELO reset with this launch? Seems like it is called because A) This new system will balance matches much differently than before B) It would provide much better data-over-time for PGI to make corrections in the following months.
I think they were using the 1/1/1/1 as an idealized case for a lance makeup, where you would want to bring an equal amount of mechs from each class. They realise that this isn't practical to require each lance to be made up of one of each class, but if you require each company to have at least three of each class then an individual lance can take multiple of a certain class while still allowing the company as a whole abide by the 1/1/1/1. Also from what I've read a lance can only have three mechs from the same weight class. The fourth person needs to choose a different class or you can't drop your lance into battler. As for one group per team, I thought I also read that they wanted to match the groups by class, and hopefully weight too. Although I wasn't pay close attention to that part when I read it so I'm not 100% sure. Finally I've heard they are doing a stats reset. I'm not sure if this includes ELO, but it makes sense that it would.
stats reset is just because of the achievement system they'll introduce - separate topic from this MM.
1.) Why fail, Chattahah? 2.) ELO needs resetting. 3.) One thing I think would vastly improve matchmaking - while earning your cadet bonus, you are only matched against other cadets. You get 25 games before getting tossed amongst the sharks... also you should get a free 'Mech at the end. My vote would be for a Medium of some sort. 4.) I suspect that a four man won't be able to take four heavies. Once three people pick heavy, the fourth will have to go light, medium, or assault.
Removed the promise of groups over 4. (my main bitch) Forcing more lights and mediums than ANY 12-man uses. "Matchmaker Fix" makes time taken to FIND a match increase exponentially.
From my understanding you can still do groups of 5-11, but they can only be in the paid private module. I kind of see their reasoning for it too.
I see their reasoning as well, but it's still frustrating. Maybe they should have added more options to the dropping system. Such as: 1) Solo Drop (matched with other solo drops) 2) Group Drop (groups matched first, after a time-limit the empty slots are filled with solo droppers) 3) Private Drop (free/paid, whatever) #2 apparently goes against their data showing that there are far more solo drops than group drops, which seems like very surprising data to me... not sure how to take it TBH. regardless of their data, this type of system would create the separated environments they claim to want. Where one team cannot be dominated by another because of group stomps.
I like the complexity and clarity of the explanations and I see many of the problems they hope to solve. Are all of them good solutions? Maybe not, will see. It's certainly a compromise to give most of us what we want. Weight balancing had to happen, as a BF server owner of many years I know all about unbalancing a team with large groups of players running teamwork over coms and I certainly see both sides of that coin. Cautious pre-implementation approval from me actually.
Same here. The only thing bothering me is the 3/3/3/3 repartition. I'm afraid that 1/ it might take ages to find games and 2/ always similar team composition gets boring over time. I'd prefer something less strict, for example: weight class balancing (one heavy in a team => one on the other team) and maximum 4 or 5 mech of the same weight class per team.
Yeah, I have the same thoughts and fear the time it will take to match up. Matching weight classes may have been a better idea though I have no idea how weight, elo and build effeciency would interplay. I mean, even if you have a Atlas it doesn't mean you are high elo or that the build is able to play well on the map etc...there are a huge number of factors involved if you really want to level the field. I like that they are trying to do something. Maybe I'd have liked to see a different weighting towards mediums as they are in lore the more common...but then again, some merc companies or indeed house troops had a heavier concentration (or lighter). I guess that's where the group composition comes in. I do not like, at all, the last bit about paying ontop of premium to get custom matches. I am guessing that they will charge MC for such match setups. Who the *hell* will want to pay money for a game per match? Set a secondary premium level or something for company leaders (WarAdmins) with a higher cost, then they have a steady income instead of a spiked one-off-per-game. I totally get that it's going to cost server space and runtime, no problem there but I truely think people will balk at paying MC per match...
I'd like this "premium" being totally unrelated to the "reward bonus" premium. I mean, I really don't care about c-bill bonus and stuff. But I would definitely pay (if it's not too expensive of course) to host a custom server where I can play with my friends under custom settings.
Every game: 3x Raven 3Ls, 3x Shadowhawks, 3x Cataphract 3Ds, 3x Highlanders/Victors... Wheeeee. Thanks for the "balance." I would much prefer a set weight limit or a match based on total weight matched per team... If each team has 6 lights, 6 assaults? Great. If each team has 12 Atlas? Great! Limit the lopsided matches, don't force certain classes to drop. Yes, this would result in what I am reminded of in Warcraft. In the automated "Looking For Raid" groups, there are times when either Tanks or Healers can queue nearly instantly and DPS have to wait for upwards of 30 minutes. Now, in MW:O, it wouldn't be THAT extreme, but, a light may have a faster queue than an assault (or a 4-man lance of assaults) However, I would much rather see matched teams rather than forced team compositions.
I have Mixed Feelings. I am Glad they Introduced the Weight class restrictions. But i do not like the MUST haves... If we want a 4th Assault make us take an extra Light but that does not work either because i have seen 6 atlas with 6 Firestarters and that is OP. But maybe a min of 2 and a max of 4 of any class might be better My group used to play with 2 Lights and 4 Assaults with 4 heavies and 2 mediums this is not Possible now. But it is Not possible for any group either.
