65 replies to this topic

[Mirkk Defwode]

Dark Jackal, on 03 April 2014 - 07:59 AM, said:

I do AGREE something better should be done. I prefer a flat bulk tonnage is out per lance and they should discuss with themselves how to fit what 'Mechs within their allotment. After all, the whole Merc Unit with the 18.88 million for a dropship, there is no real excuse not to put that responsibility to the lance to figure it out for themselves. In other words, Lance 1, 2, 3 each has 200 tons for this drop, work it out within your team and get it done. As it stands now, there is no excuse not to maximize tonnages with Herman Cain's 3,3,3,3 plan which if I had the time I would sound byte that into MWO. So we're looking at 3 100t, 3 75t, 3 55t, and 3 35t looking to provide the most bang for the tonnage available. Why lose the alloted tonnage to take a 40t medium instead of a 55t medium? We have a potential to ostricize a certain amount of 'Mechs that does not so easily fit into such a flat number.

People may opt to take what they prefer rather than attempting to always Maximize tonnage. The Commando does fairly well even compared to the Jenner. While they have a 10 ton difference between them.

The Cicada being effectively a super fast but slightly heavier armored and armed mech compared to a Wolverine which is slower and bulky in nature. 15T difference between them.

Where I think it'll hurt is the weapon balance metagame - you'll get the people utilizing the best mechs for what's perceived to be the best weapons in game right now. Which is the AC5+PPC combo - so you may see an increase in the use of mechs that can utilize those weapons best. Which that situation already ostracizes mechs not capable of that.

[Basilisk222]

THE POINT of tonnage at all is this mechanic where you can only deploy so much of it.

Otherwise, hardpoints, weaponry and ammo etc have absolutely no point.

what's the difference between a locust and a jenner?

The jenner costs 15 tons more, fielding two Jenners, you use 70 tons of your cap. Lets say your limit is 200 for a skirmish.

You've fielded two jenners, and with 130 left, you go for a big gun atlas, and drop in another light worth 30 tons. 4 mechs.

another team, same restriction, fields 2 locust, they can field an atlas and medium worth 60.

My point is that in one scenario, despite you using a high end light in the class, there is a drop in support for that mech for choosing it. On equal footing, the Jenner is much more dangerous than the locust, but that the same time, those two locust might have an LRM or SSRM toting Griffin backing them up, in addition to the Atlas.

its still 4 vs. 4, but are two jenners worth using over the possibility of a medium? These questions are why this mechanic is the way it is.

Tonnage implementations change worthwhileness of mechs in a class, the locust, at 20 tons becomes a wingman, not a burden. its 20 tons of support which if used right can strip armor and cause a ruckus while its support beats the crap out of its pursuers. Its expense is low and its good.

Meanwhile, while someone might complain little about a jenner on the field, the pilot needs to be good with it to justify the 75% increase in tonnage.

Fielding 3 of each type completely defeats the point of the tonnage limitation. All mechs in a class should be the same tonnage to make this correct, if you're going to play any mech in a class, the tonnage of the highest has the highest damage and ammo requirements, and pretty much means it will be the best. Its not always true, but still my point stands. This completely imbalances classes as a whole.

Why field a mech that's gimped in some way, this just further makes mechs that aren't loved much, completely pointless, and on top of that, drastically increases burden on teammates. If you field 3 locusts (it'll happen) your team will probably throw a gigantic tantrum.

You'll have pressure to use the best mechs in the class, and it imbalances an already imbalanced mechanic further.

Seriously leave things the way they are or do it right. 3/3/3/3 gets implemented, i'm out.

[Dark Jackal]

When we talk about premade teams, Raw speculation doesn't match real experience. That's what years of league experience taught me going 8 on 8s and trying to get the best out of every situation/ You have to account for the relative skill level of the pilots on board, what 'Mechs they're good at, AND what tonnage you have to fit into your overall strategy.

Quote

another team, same restriction, fields 2 locust, they can field an atlas and medium worth 60.

Unfortunately for your example, there is too many things happening. What do you want the Atlas and heavy to accomplish and the light 'Mechs to do? They cannot easily complement each other and have such a large gap in capabilities they're a liability to one another. The Atlas is going to be too slow to back up your lights, or your lights aren't going survive enough when that Assault 'Mech is focused upon and goes down after two minutes of combat. That right there is a 100 tons down the toilet that probably should have been better used AND the other team knows you lost half your team with one 'Mech.

More ideally, one team with 200 tons could do some pretty nasty damage fielding a very mobile ops group of two Dragons and Two Cicadas, while being quick, nimble, and can tactically MOVE their players to where they need to with significant armor spread around the team where no one is really going to be a liability. With that much FP and speed complementing each other, you have 4 'Mechs to deal with all the time, not two groups of two in the example you gave. AND, the mobile ops group of two heavies and mediums have a better means of strategically taking ground and maneuvering so that your team is at a disadvantage.

At lower weights, fielding an Assault is normally a liability when most of the field is going to be packed with very mobile groups actively looking to make engagements be lopsided, like 4 on 2 situation you would find yourself if you took the Atlas liability. Assaults only come into play when you have the bandwidth with higher tonnages to allow for complementary Assault strategies, but these are reserved for higher drop tonnages.

Whilst I may sound like I'm arguing against your point, I'm actually not in the sense that tonnages in of themselves with premades are essentially enough to plan strategically and tactically in a drop. So I do agree with your point in that premade 3/3/3/3 doesn't make much sense in premades.



Personally, I think this is mainly for PUG matches considering the video mentions there would not be more than 1 premade group in a PUG match per side. So that means you will get somewhat balanced random play.

Edited by Dark Jackal, 07 April 2014 - 04:28 PM.

[King Arthur IV]

Kilgorin Strom, on 07 April 2014 - 02:46 PM, said:

THE POINT of tonnage at all is this mechanic where you can only deploy so much of it.

Otherwise, hardpoints, weaponry and ammo etc have absolutely no point.

what's the difference between a locust and a jenner?

The jenner costs 15 tons more, fielding two Jenners, you use 70 tons of your cap. Lets say your limit is 200 for a skirmish.

You've fielded two jenners, and with 130 left, you go for a big gun atlas, and drop in another light worth 30 tons. 4 mechs.

another team, same restriction, fields 2 locust, they can field an atlas and medium worth 60.

My point is that in one scenario, despite you using a high end light in the class, there is a drop in support for that mech for choosing it. On equal footing, the Jenner is much more dangerous than the locust, but that the same time, those two locust might have an LRM or SSRM toting Griffin backing them up, in addition to the Atlas.

its still 4 vs. 4, but are two jenners worth using over the possibility of a medium? These questions are why this mechanic is the way it is.

Tonnage implementations change worthwhileness of mechs in a class, the locust, at 20 tons becomes a wingman, not a burden. its 20 tons of support which if used right can strip armor and cause a ruckus while its support beats the crap out of its pursuers. Its expense is low and its good.

Meanwhile, while someone might complain little about a jenner on the field, the pilot needs to be good with it to justify the 75% increase in tonnage.

Fielding 3 of each type completely defeats the point of the tonnage limitation. All mechs in a class should be the same tonnage to make this correct, if you're going to play any mech in a class, the tonnage of the highest has the highest damage and ammo requirements, and pretty much means it will be the best. Its not always true, but still my point stands. This completely imbalances classes as a whole.

Why field a mech that's gimped in some way, this just further makes mechs that aren't loved much, completely pointless, and on top of that, drastically increases burden on teammates. If you field 3 locusts (it'll happen) your team will probably throw a gigantic tantrum.

You'll have pressure to use the best mechs in the class, and it imbalances an already imbalanced mechanic further.

Seriously leave things the way they are or do it right. 3/3/3/3 gets implemented, i'm out.

how do we like more?
in case anyone missed this. read it, its how i feel and what iv been trying to say for a long time as well.

currently 59% we need ot get more votes in.

[Basilisk222]

Dark Jackal, on 07 April 2014 - 04:04 PM, said:

When we talk about premade teams, Raw speculation doesn't match real experience. That's what years of league experience taught me going 8 on 8s and trying to get the best out of every situation/ You have to account for the relative skill level of the pilots on board, what 'Mechs they're good at, AND what tonnage you have to fit into your overall strategy.



Unfortunately for your example, there is too many things happening. What do you want the Atlas and heavy to accomplish and the light 'Mechs to do? They cannot easily complement each other and have such a large gap in capabilities they're a liability to one another. The Atlas is going to be too slow to back up your lights, or your lights aren't going survive enough when that Assault 'Mech is focused upon and goes down after two minutes of combat. That right there is a 100 tons down the toilet that probably should have been better used AND the other team knows you lost half your team with one 'Mech.

More ideally, one team with 200 tons could do some pretty nasty damage fielding a very mobile ops group of two Dragons and Two Cicadas, while being quick, nimble, and can tactically MOVE their players to where they need to with significant armor spread around the team where no one is really going to be a liability. With that much FP and speed complementing each other, you have 4 'Mechs to deal with all the time, not two groups of two in the example you gave. AND, the mobile ops group of two heavies and mediums have a better means of strategically taking ground and maneuvering so that your team is at a disadvantage.

At lower weights, fielding an Assault is normally a liability when most of the field is going to be packed with very mobile groups actively looking to make engagements be lopsided, like 4 on 2 situation you would find yourself if you took the Atlas liability. Assaults only come into play when you have the bandwidth with higher tonnages to allow for complementary Assault strategies, but these are reserved for higher drop tonnages.

Whilst I may sound like I'm arguing against your point, I'm actually not in the sense that tonnages in of themselves with premades are essentially enough to plan strategically and tactically in a drop. So I do agree with your point in that premade 3/3/3/3 doesn't make much sense in premades.



Personally, I think this is mainly for PUG matches considering the video mentions there would not be more than 1 premade group in a PUG match per side. So that means you will get somewhat balanced random play.

Really my point is not what's picked (Cicada's and Dragon's in your example) and fielded its the relative cost. Don't get lost in the dynamics of battle here. My point is that 3 locust vs 3 jenner is not even close to fair. The jenners by all rights should mutilate the locust. but there is a tonnage difference of 45. that's 2 of the other guys. that match should be 5 locust vs 3 jenner. Is that even? possibly. I'd say 5 locust working as a team could probably stand a good chance in a battle like that.

I'm not using what people might actually pick in the example, its weight per usefulness. I keep going to the locust because this is why its 20 tons. for 20 tons, the mech is very fast, scouts well, and in a pinch or with a good pilot, it can do good damage. it doesn't waste its 20 tons. All the same its NOT as good as a spider, jenner or raven. But as I said, it can be used to field an extra mech, or field a bigger one. remember, its also the smallest mech in the game right now, meaning that a value of 15 under the weight limit is a wasted 15 tons before the match starts, while 20 under could get you ammo bait or a fast scout, or even in the case of the 3m, a pretty effective way to chase and clean up mechs injured on the field. The ENTIRE point of the locust is it is inferior, but because of weight, you can field a swarm (hence the name) and they become very dangerous, because their loadouts can hurt.

Yes we're saying the same thing, I just wanted to iterate that even in very low ton situations field presence could be drastically changed by choosing the lowest weight in the class.

Its ridiculous to assume that classing mechs and only allowing 3 per weight class will help. under the very worst scenarios:

there are 15 tons difference between each upper and lower class of mech totalling a possible 45 difference in tons in each class from the best to worst scenarios.

Under absolute worst conditions that's 180 tons difference.

in heavy and assault classes this difference isn't all that much and its manageable. but in medium and light classes, its massive. it's a whole mech.

its not just bad for premades its bad for everything. it undermines the core mechanic which is the entire fulcrum in which this game balances itself. This type of thing would work for Hawken, it does not work here because of the complications in differences in tonnage amongst the class. All mechs aren't created equal on purpose based on that they sacrifice usability, armor, and weaponry to save WEIGHT, to do more with less potentially. otherwise, designers would just make mechs as big as possible in their class, or you could make mechs lighter or heaver in the class (trade weapons for speed or trade speed for weapons) up to a certain value (35 ton locust for instance) via mods.

This implementation isn't just not canon with the universe, it actively betrays it.

[Basilisk222]

Here's an idea, split teams into XvsXvsX

Players then choose what team they want to go into.

with tonnage limits at fair levels, you could have players round out a group based on tonnage by just having the players pick where they want to go. if a party system is implemented they could get first dibs to fix the possibility of a conflict.

so solution, let the players pick teams, that way they still can play what they want and people don't throw fits.

[Koniving]

Of the choices.. Give me tonnage balancing. But with the removal of class balancing.

That said...

Everyone, everyone, please.

My signatures.
On the left, we have the what was told to us about Community Warfare at the Launch Party (seen here and time skipped to what is specifically talked about) now taken away from us. In essence, what this 3/3/3/3 system has cost us.
On the right, we have the feelings of someone who has put over 800 dollars into this game.. who has seen it go from something incredible to a few steps away from Call of BattleHawkenHalo.

Edited by Koniving, 09 April 2014 - 10:36 AM.

[King Arthur IV]

Koniving, on 09 April 2014 - 10:33 AM, said:

Of the choices.. Give me tonnage balancing. But with the removal of class balancing.

100% tonnage balancing for me too!!

the video is too painful to re-watch.

[FupDup]

How about http://mwomercs.com/...3-role-warfare?

[Ovion]

Just had a thought that would help with either the 4x3 system, or pure tonnage, and add a bit more interest to the game.

Rather than select 1 mech, you have a group of 'active' mechs.
Be this 2, 3, or even 4. (Maybe start with 2 and unlock up to 2 more with GXP?)
Maybe 1 light, 1 medium, 1 heavy and 1 assault slot?


Then when dropping you get put into a drop, you receive a ticket and can choose from your active mechs for the mission.
You have say, 10 seconds to choose and if you fail to in time, you go to the bottom and if you fail twice, one is picked at random / within the limit left.

This would have the added benefit of say, choosing to run a cooler mech on Terra Therma, easing some peoples rage at the map.

[Escef]

Koniving, on 09 April 2014 - 10:33 AM, said:

Of the choices.. Give me tonnage balancing.

I'd rather abstain than vote for tonnage balancing. There's no way in hell you are going to convince me that a stock 8Q Awesome and a kitted out Victor are balanced with each other. Or that a Locust and a Highlander duo is balanced against a pair of Shadowhawks.

[Bhael Fire]

Ideally, I'd love to see a 1:1 weight matching per mech (instead of team tonnage).

That is, if one team brings a 55-ton mech, the other team gets a 55-ton mech. If one brings a 20-ton mech, the other team will have a 20-ton mech.

But as I've mentioned in my earlier post, I think it's a matter of keeping waiting times between matches to a minimum.

If they introduced a solo-only queue this wouldn't be an issue at all, but the group queue would see significant wait times...However, I think MANY groups would easily acquiesce to longer wait times if it meant not having to deal with 3/3/3/3 and limited group sizes.

[Koniving]

Escef, on 09 April 2014 - 01:29 PM, said:

I'd rather abstain than vote for tonnage balancing. There's no way in hell you are going to convince me that a stock 8Q Awesome and a kitted out Victor are balanced with each other. Or that a Locust and a Highlander duo is balanced against a pair of Shadowhawks.

If you change one thing about MWO's mech building, they would be. In both cases.

Remember that Every Limitation in the Mechlab is an artificial slap job made by PGI. Hardpoints. Engine limits. Etc. Awesomes aren't limited to 300 engines, every single Awesome could use the same engine as the Awesome 9M and those that the Victors can use too. Same speeds in source are capable. Same armor. You can even make a Victor carry an Awesome's equipment and you can make an Awesome carry twin UAC/5s with some lasers and missiles.

So lets think about that. Hardpoints, artificial. Engine limits, artificial. What is the one thing that isn't limited in MWO in a way that isn't native to tabletop? Think on that.

Mind you "stock" is hardly ever fair but then again that kitted out Victor should be losing money and going space poor with all the shit he's got in there. But honestly even the stock 8Q would kick a kitted out Victor's ass in this case after this one change.

What is the one thing that makes using any mech unfair against another mech of inferior hardpoints and speed?
What is the one thing that obsoletes 90% of the mech variants in MWO yet is perfectly balanced in Tabletop?

Ready?
Your mind is about to be blown.

Spoiler

Armor.

Seriously.
Lets take armor and change the rule. Instead of all mechs of this weight class gets equal armor, lets go with stock armor + 3 tons = new max armor.

Now, what's the stock of an Awesome 8Q?
480 points of armor.

What's the stock of a Victor? Lets use any one except the OP Dragon Slayer.
9B. 368 points of armor.
9K. 400 points of armor.
9S. 336 points of armor.

Lets say our new armor rule is a per variant rule. Variant stock armor + 3 tons, universally spread throughout the entire game.
Lets look at the mechs again. 3 tons of standard armor is 32 points each (96).

Awesome 8Q has 480. Since it's stock we won't mess with it. But so you know it'd max at 576.
What about the Victors?
9B. 368 points of armor. Maxed out 464.
9K. 400 points of armor. Maxed out at 496.
9S. 336 points of armor. Maxed out at 434.

Well, it's pretty close. Of course no one drives stock unless there's a repair and rearm, and you wouldn't see the two in the same ELO anyway.

That's your 80 ton versus 80 ton issue.

Edit: I apparently forgot the second scenario! Ready?

Spoiler

Highlander, 90 tons. All variants have equal armor.
First how much armor? 558. Except this is an invalid number; the 90 ton armor limit isn't an interval of 0.5. To properly consume the remaining 0.6 tons, it is now 560.
560 divides by 32 exactly 17.5 times. 17.5 tons of armor. + 3 tons is 20.5 tons.
20.5 tons of standard armor is 656 points of armor.

You said Highlander and a Locust. So Locust next.
As before all variants have 128 points of armor. They max at 138 currently. But our rule changed that.
128 + 3 tons worth (96) = 224 armor. The Locust of course has to dedicate 7 tons to this!
There's also a Ferro clause, you can see that in the Raven thing below.

Up against two Shadowhawks. Since I don't know which two, we'll find out the stats for all of them.
Shadowhawk 2D2. 208 points (it's a RAVEN!). 304 points max.
Shadowhawk 2H. 304 points. New max 400.
Shadowhawk 5M. The one with the WORST hardpoints gets... the most armor! Interesting, no? I found this to be the universal case across all of MWO's non-hero mechs. 336 standard. It becomes 432 points.

So assuming worst case scenario, two Shadowhawk 5Ms with their crappy hardpoints and 864 points total armor against a good Highlander's 656 points of armor and a Locust's 224 points of armor (non ferro) 882, combined with the speed differences..

Gotta say that fight could go either way.

If you're interested in more on this, over time as I begin to give a damn I'll be hashing out the armor and engine overhaul proposal.

In the mean time, here's what happens to Ravens.

Spoiler

Raven
3-L
161 -- INVALID NUMBER.
160 = 5 tons.
256 max standard.
288 max ferro.

2X
6.5
208
304 max standard.
342 max ferro.

4X
224 stock
7 tons
320 max standard
360 max ferro.

Huginn
232 = 6.444444 tons INVALID. Rounding to nearest 0.5.
234 = 6.5 tons Ferro.
342 Ferro max.
304 standard max

Hope you enjoyed a few seconds of rebalancing with Koniving!

Edited by Koniving, 09 April 2014 - 01:57 PM.

[Basilisk222]

Koniving, on 09 April 2014 - 10:33 AM, said:

Of the choices.. Give me tonnage balancing. But with the removal of class balancing.

That said...

Everyone, everyone, please.

My signatures.
On the left, we have the what was told to us about Community Warfare at the Launch Party (seen here and time skipped to what is specifically talked about) now taken away from us. In essence, what this 3/3/3/3 system has cost us.
On the right, we have the feelings of someone who has put over 800 dollars into this game.. who has seen it go from something incredible to a few steps away from Call of BattleHawkenHalo.

I'm glad this was posted.

I started playing in november of last year and even in this time frame i've seen this game just develop so little.

its been 6 months, in this time frame they've released the locust, Shadow Hawk, Thunderbolt, Battlemaster, Griffin, Wolverine, Firestarter, and Banshee and probably 1 or 2 I missed. In that time, we got 1 map. ONE. The moon base one.

We got UI 2.0 which works a bit worse than the old UI. at least when I went to buy a mech in the previous UI I freakin knew what was installed on it. I'd love for a car dealer to showcase a car and display nothing at all about it. If you ask any questions the dealer just says "That's Classified" You'd just stop shopping. AND, I have by the way.

No new weapons, (woops - SRM 6 forgot) no new mechanics, no indication there's GOING to be new mechanics. Just new mechs, and they're 55 bucks a pop.

Now the devs are again skimping on CONTENT with the way weight will be implemented. It just makes me bitter I spent anything at all. It's downright shameful a studio that COULD implement something just doesn't.

I keep reading "but we're small and we don't have X" I'm sorry, that's not an excuse. I don't go to work everyday and tell my boss i'll fix something and proceed to put it off or fix it in a way I would say is barebones, I'm a professional and my work should be done in a way that indicates I delivered what was asked for by my client, and what I promised them to do. If I cannot live up to the client's expectations, I can stop and tell them they should hire another person more knowledgeable or I can work something out in a way that gets them what they need in a way I can effectively deliver. I do not cheat them by doing a crappy job and say, well I couldn't do a good job because I have too much work.

I see it over and over we can't do this or that, you want to know why we're mad? That's why, its 2 years of patches for hero mechs, additional mechs, physics and graphical changes, and weapon balancing for a game that has very little actual point. You're developing metagame content for a game with little content. What is there, ain't much. Its like having one track in a racing game with 500 cars to race. It gets old, even if the experience is fun.

Every single time a major feature is promised, it just gets done in a way that people would question the workers behind it. UI 2.0's lackluster usability (being nice) The launch, with no clans or community warfare. Weight limits being slated for 3/3/3/3 because its easier.

YOU HAVE A CUSTOMER BASE THAT WANTS TO PAY YOU TO DO A GOOD JOB. Is there a reason you can't do anything you promise to do? Better yet, why is everything you MANAGE to achieve watered down. Is it just incompetence? No, I don't think so. It's a desperate attempt to make the numbers work in a F2P model.

So to recap, 3/3/3/3 is going to be released, and like always it'll have to be fixed, it'll be their weight balancing we so wanted, despite the fact its just a bit of server code with a 3 extra hoppers for matchmaking, you know, what we have now but with more filters. Copypasta really. More to come, yep. Clan equipment i'm sure will be handled right. Community warfare's coming too! Dangling carrot, dangling carrot, dangling carrot.

I feel played.

Edited by Kilgorin Strom, 10 April 2014 - 07:59 AM.

[Xarian]

From a programming standpoint, tonnage balancing is much easier than 3/3/3/3 when you are optimizing the matchmaking system.

If they ever let you choose your mech after finding a match, tonnage balancing won't be all that easy - 3/3/3/3 becomes much easier.

Also, I would really love to see matches with 10+ lights. Would be hilarious.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Koniving, on 09 April 2014 - 01:45 PM, said:

Hope you enjoyed a few seconds of rebalancing with Koniving!

Dude - he the fact that he was comparing stock anything to fully kitted out anything (let alone stock awesome to kitted victor) should have told you something about the value of trying to argue with him.

[Basilisk222]

The simplest way of fixing these things is to adjust how maps work. Currently, i'd say most maps are fully capable of fielding three teams instead of two.

Accounting for that, and allowing players the ability to choose teams before the match starts, or automatically assigning teams with the intent on weight balancing with a number in grand total of 2400 will solve the problem in a way that effects no core gameplay, in a way that leaves weapon balancing in check, in a way that does not undermine the feel of the game, AND also allows players to play in actual loadouts that might be used by actual militaries, (lets say cap is 700 Per team, you could get whatever you wanted up to the cap, with points left over, you could queue a mech too) Which would allow you to drop one of the current trial mechs with points left over or one of your own, with the distinction that you cannot use a mech you own more than once. The reason i say this is that each team still has the cap of 12 players. EDIT: still 24 in the match, it would still be possible to have 12 vs 6 and 6 or 12 vs 12 vs 0, or 11 vs 11 vs 2 and so on.)

Under these rules if every SINGLE person brought a 100 ton assault, they still could all play with no fighting. Every person knows what they're bringing and the actual act of choosing a team (you get 10 seconds to choose or the computer chooses for you) Most of the time you'll hit matches in about the same time as normal. When choices are done, the map begins, or if that happens to be too difficult, have the computer average team loadouts between all mechs present and assign to teams that way, making sure to list total resources left somewhere, so when someone dies they get to choose another drop. Continue until match is over.

This truly would not be epically hard to implement, the map spawns were already adjusted once, so we know that can be done, adding another team would not be hard either. Getting a computer to find optimal averages in teams would also not be hard.

All of these implementations would make matches more hectic, and strategic, longer, and would be more new player friendly as generally newer players die first and they'd get to drop in a trial a second time (at team expense of course) or more as the points dwindle.down until no mechs can be fielded anymore.

This also would play well with clans, as possibly in the future these teams could be adjusted in a way a clan mechs or IS mechs or even members of the same faction could be assigned to one team in particular.

Edited by Kilgorin Strom, 10 April 2014 - 05:42 AM.

[Escef]

Shar Wolf, on 09 April 2014 - 03:37 PM, said:

Dude - he the fact that he was comparing stock anything to fully kitted out anything (let alone stock awesome to kitted victor) should have told you something about the value of trying to argue with him.

My point, which you did an great job of missing, is that someone will drop in a stock Awesome. And that someone will likely be a very green player wasting his cadet bonus.

As for Koniving, his idea of balance is to make it pointless to have different mechs of the same tonnage, because they could all mount any engine, any weapons, jump jets, etc. It's only balanced if the core of your game mechanics are balanced. In a game based on table top Battletech? Ha! TT isn't balanced, either.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Escef, on 22 April 2014 - 11:20 AM, said:

My point, which you did an great job of missing, is that someone will drop in a stock Awesome. And that someone will likely be a very green player wasting his cadet bonus.

And how will that be prevented in any way, short of splitting the ques, which PGI has repeatedly said they will/can not do?

Thank you for missing MY point.

I don't know if you have noticed, but the people screaming most about PGI ignoring them, tend to be the people who keep insisting PGI do things they have said they will not.

Coincidence? Or conspiracy?

[L Y N X]

3/3/3/3 is much easier to code, PGI have it nearly done. Don't ask them to do hard things, you might not see it for years to come. I voted 3/3/3/3. (But one would think balanced weights btwn teams should have been in at launch)