Battalion Vs Battalion (36 Vs 36) Private Matches
#1
Posted 26 July 2014 - 07:27 PM
#2
Posted 26 July 2014 - 07:52 PM
#3
Posted 26 July 2014 - 09:24 PM
#4
Posted 26 July 2014 - 11:00 PM
Edited by Katotonic, 26 July 2014 - 11:01 PM.
#5
Posted 27 July 2014 - 05:30 AM
1) We need bigger maps than we already have.
2) We need more mechs than we have.
3) We need better weight balance than we have.
I feel we need bigger maps because 36v36 is rather monstrous. It would be fantastic for sure, but I'd like to see more mech chassis than we have. If it was a balanced 3/3/3/3 x 3 on both sides, we'd run out of mechs in a single match. I mean obviously it's not like we can't have duplicates but it'd be nice to see more variety.
And finally, we need better weight balance than what we have to run those types of matches. What I mean is, right now it just seems like if you're not in a heavy or assault mech with as many ballistic hardpoints as you can find, you're not gonna have a good time. Granted that's not an absolute, but it feels like mediums and lights have no role to play in the current game. I don't want to see 36 Ilya Muromets vs 36 Thunderbolts.
I'd like to see an actual battalion vs an actual battalion. So long story short, yes, but not anywhere in the near future.
#6
Posted 27 July 2014 - 05:59 AM
#7
Posted 27 July 2014 - 07:24 AM
ExAstra, on 27 July 2014 - 05:30 AM, said:
1) We need bigger maps than we already have.
2) We need more mechs than we have.
3) We need better weight balance than we have.
I feel we need bigger maps because 36v36 is rather monstrous. It would be fantastic for sure, but I'd like to see more mech chassis than we have. If it was a balanced 3/3/3/3 x 3 on both sides, we'd run out of mechs in a single match. I mean obviously it's not like we can't have duplicates but it'd be nice to see more variety.
And finally, we need better weight balance than what we have to run those types of matches. What I mean is, right now it just seems like if you're not in a heavy or assault mech with as many ballistic hardpoints as you can find, you're not gonna have a good time. Granted that's not an absolute, but it feels like mediums and lights have no role to play in the current game. I don't want to see 36 Ilya Muromets vs 36 Thunderbolts.
I'd like to see an actual battalion vs an actual battalion. So long story short, yes, but not anywhere in the near future.
I agree with you on point 1 and partially on point 2 but not on point 3.
Point 1 is a given as previously discussed. Although as stated, it could work in some cases.
Point 2 I would completely agree that 36 ilya's vs 36 jager's or the like would be silly. But! Have you looked at a drop breakdown recently? Generally we are talking very diverse group of mechs and I believe that you see enough variety to make this work. Besides, lorewise, seeing a few mechs that are the same chassis in any unit was very common due to access that said unit had to various mech types.
Point 3, i agree completely, but disagree completely at the same time. How you ask? 3/3/3/3 would be ridiculous in this setting. But do not forget I am not talking PUGs here, I am talking private matches and in that case we already have a system in place to make it work (max tonnage). You could do max tonnage by company individually or by battalion as a whole. Either way for a private match like this, we throw out 3/3/3/3 and just go with max tonnage. If you get stomped, that is your problem as you had the tonnage and choices to play with.
DI3T3R, on 27 July 2014 - 05:59 AM, said:
I agree it might take a while to get organised, but we are talking private matches here. No need to wait on the matchmaker to figure out ELO. Just get two units who can get their troops together and in order and go. No different than 40 man raids in WoW or any other big mmo.
#8
Posted 27 July 2014 - 07:37 AM
If it were to go public, however, lights and mediums would definitely need to be more attractive.
And I'm not saying we have to have a different mech for each of the 72 mechs on field, I don't really care about that. It's more of just it'd be nice to have a more diverse selection. For example, a CPLT-C4 and a CPLT-C1 are so close they are practically the same (stock). A Thunderbolt TDR-9SE is a different chassis, different looks, different feel, different weapons placement, but the same tonnage and is practically the same as a CPLT-C1.
So if you don't like the Catapult's looks, or loadout, or anything like that.. you can grab a Thunderbolt. It'd just be nice to have those sorts of "options" and diversity in a match with that many mechs.
#9
Posted 28 July 2014 - 03:15 PM
#10
Posted 28 July 2014 - 09:55 PM
#11
Posted 30 July 2014 - 03:25 AM
They're initial code couldn't handle 24 mechs and they had to chop it to 16 in Closed Alpha/Beta.
With the code improvements, it could be worth a public test to see what it can handle.
#12
Posted 30 July 2014 - 04:50 AM
#13
Posted 30 July 2014 - 05:09 AM
#14
Posted 30 July 2014 - 06:13 AM
It'd be like trying to get a chicken to swallow a basketball whole.
#15
Posted 30 July 2014 - 08:03 AM
#16
Posted 31 July 2014 - 02:41 AM
skorpionet, on 30 July 2014 - 05:09 AM, said:
The problem is not the size of the maps, it's the lack of opportunities:
- the starting positions are again at a point where they have become well-known, meaning the battles are always fought in the same areas.
- the capture-points are always at the same position
If the victory-condition were connected to a random event that you can't control (e.g. your scouts have to find a ship that crash-landed somewhere on the map) that would make matches more unbalanced but also much more interesting.
Increasing to 72 players would also drastically alter the dynamics, because you could cover more area, but it would also make the game more unbalanced because it would increase stomps.
#17
Posted 31 July 2014 - 06:57 PM
#18
Posted 31 July 2014 - 07:09 PM
Arctcwolf, on 28 July 2014 - 03:15 PM, said:
DI3T3R, on 30 July 2014 - 04:50 AM, said:
Exactly, this would hopefully encourage more actual military tactics. Currently, if a team flanks with 3 or 4 mechs it can be devastating to the enemy. Imagine if it were company scale? And I agree, a command structure would definitely be necessary. This is why I suggested private matches only for now. Most player units already have command structures in place and with teamspeak this is very possible. Also with 36 players on a team if a commander takes 30 seconds to input in the (granted bulky and not overly developed) in-game command prompts it is a lot less of a problem than in 12v12 where it is much more important for absolutely everyone to pull their own weight.
Fiona Marshe, on 30 July 2014 - 03:25 AM, said:
They're initial code couldn't handle 24 mechs and they had to chop it to 16 in Closed Alpha/Beta.
With the code improvements, it could be worth a public test to see what it can handle.
Techorse, on 30 July 2014 - 06:13 AM, said:
It'd be like trying to get a chicken to swallow a basketball whole.
This could be a problem, granted. But they have updated it to 12v12. Even if 36v36 isn't possible right now (and it might be) it shows that it can be upgraded and done.
Also, I LMAO at this image techorse.
Edited by Katotonic, 31 July 2014 - 07:12 PM.
#19
Posted 01 August 2014 - 09:40 AM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users