476 replies to this topic

[Victor Morson]

One thing I think the majority of us can agree on is that we positively need a drop limiting factor in the game to determine how much equipment each team can bring to a mission - otherwise, you will end up with 11 assault 'mechs and a recon guy, almost every single time, if past experience is any indicator.

Really there's two ways to do this by traditional thinking: Tonnage Limitations and "Battle Value." Tonnage is obvious - a team can take X number of tons of 'mechs onto the battlefield. This is how most Leagues have operated in the past, largely because the games allowed full customization and it was the only way to fairly balance it.

The second method, which might apply more to MWO, is Battle Value / total C-Bill Value. This is how the board game typically handles things, as tonnage might not mean much - someone dropping with a lance of Tech 2 Mediums could likely obliterate a lance of Tech 1 Assaults in many cases. Even within the tech class, all 'mechs aren't created equal - some 60 tonners are simply put, at the end of the day, worth less than others.

This leads me to my major question I'd love to bring up at the next Q&A - how is this going to be handled along with the idea of people owning personal 'mechs; will people be allowed to own multiple chassis so they can better fit into missions? Otherwise, I simply don't know how the system will end up working out. If the late game is all "Atlas vs Atlas vs Atlas, and the recon guy" you'll end up seeing burn out very fast so I really hope that missions are equipment restircted in some fashion.

So all that said, which style do you prefer?

Edited by Victor Morson, 06 March 2012 - 02:21 PM.

[Bluey]

Team tonnage is best way to balance.

[Victor Morson]

Bluey, on 01 March 2012 - 08:39 AM, said:

Team tonnage is best way to balance.

I would say that, except that in MWO it's clear that 'mechs will be of the same chassis and different capabilities. Really the thing that got me thinking most about this was Living Legends, where the very same 'mech can range from terrible to extremely powerful and the price reflects that.

Say we have two teams with 4 Hunchbacks. Team 1 has 4 Hunchbacks with AC/20s or Medium Lasers. Team 2 has 4 Hunchbacks with Gauss Rifles, UAC/20s and LBX/20s. Really, despite both weighing in at 200 tons, one team has a massive advantage.

As a result, another positive thing I like about the BV/C-Bill system is that less effective 'mechs that aren't "min/max'ed" serve a very important role as simply being easier to fit into missions. I would rather that a 'mech sporting 5 ER Large beams of death be balanced by increasing it's cost and making it harder to fit into a drop (requiring other sacrifices to do it) than I would it be artifically nerfed in some way or left unchecked.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Tonnage is a terrible way to do it, especially with lostech available and the clans around the corner. A clan mech of the same tonage could be worth upto 3-4x what on IS model might be. (2-3x is more normal) Its really really easy to see how that might lead to some serious balance issues. Some sort of BV system is the way to go. C-bills is closer than tonnage, but expensive doesn't mean effective.

[Aegis Kleais]

Voted No Limits.

Restricting a player to use a Mech of significantly less value or tonnage merely because other players have already taken up the "quota" is not only unfair to the player but then forces them to either (a) HAVE such a Mech of value/tonnage in their possession, and then to utilize a Mech that they have little to no experience in, reducing their overall entertainment value and effectiveness on the team.

[Aegis Kleais]

In addition, if you have players that choose to go all Assault, if the game is truly balanced in that it allows for multiple objectives (many of which are not best suited by Assault classes), then it's wrong to assume that tonnage alone is going to win the war. With objectives that can rely on speed, and the ability for multiple lights to easily take down and overwhelm an assault, forcing players into unfamiliar chassis due to tonnage/bv just seems restrictive.

[Halfinax]

My knee **** reaction has been BV since this topic first started appearing in November, but I think we need to see how, beyond what we've already been told, PGI balances the game. I'm sure they are aware of the possible issues, but right now I say wait and see.

[Duke Pitt]

Tonnage seems most realistic to me, I understand how BV helps with balance but I have hard time seeing how it would be implemented in a believable way.

[Outlaw2]

BV would be the best way.
Give every player a certain amount of BV at the beginning of the match. This amount can be different for each match/map or random even.
Give players bonus exp/cbills for going under the BV amount they were given. Excess BV goes to a team pool for other teammates to use.

As much as I'd want to believe PGI can balance mech classes by some other means, I think they should save themselves the headache and implement a BV system.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 01 March 2012 - 12:45 PM.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Aegis Kleais™, on 01 March 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

Voted No Limits.

Restricting a player to use a Mech of significantly less value or tonnage merely because other players have already taken up the "quota" is not only unfair to the player but then forces them to either (a) HAVE such a Mech of value/tonnage in their possession, and then to utilize a Mech that they have little to no experience in, reducing their overall entertainment value and effectiveness on the team.

Or you could just join the queue with the mech you want to use and it'll find you a team where you fit. No need to be forcing anyone into anything with a little bit of forethought.

[Ray Mason]

Supposing the game is relatively balanced...:

PUGs - Shouldn't be limited (you jump in to play XXXX, it's never about balanced line-up, it’s never about what’s best to play, teams will not be balanced). The game mode would be similar to “all pick”.
Custom games – Should offer a variety of game modes (types of limitation).
Ranked games – Here it gets difficult but there should be a couple of official game modes available.

I’m not sure I’m using the right terminology but by game modes I mean the staple MOBA modes such as DotA modes:
http://www.playdota.com/learn/commands

I’m probably going against the tradition of BattleTech but neither team tonnage nor team Battle Value should be the only defining factor. If the picking happens before the game and you automatically join a game where both sides have similar team tonnage/BV it would make the team composition very stale and boring.
I can understand that in a 12v12 setting a captain’s mode would take a long time, but so would a discussion of who takes what so that the 12 people fit the team tonnage limit. You could jump in and play an all pick game with no restrictions, you could go all random if you feel like making the best of the random setup you get. The best competitive setup IMO is captain’s mode where the sides take turns in picking and there are several factors which influence the process and it makes for very nail-biting team fights.

All in all the choice is very important so I’d like to see:
team tonnage, team BV, all pick, all random, captain’s mode.

[Aegis Kleais]

TheRulesLawyer, on 01 March 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

Or you could just join the queue with the mech you want to use and it'll find you a team where you fit. No need to be forcing anyone into anything with a little bit of forethought.

This would prevent me from playing with my friends by spreading us along different servers where we would fit depending on our Mechs of choice. The only people who benefit from BV/Tonnage restrictions are those who pilot lights. And what would you do if the entire other team took 35 Ton Mechs? That would force your team to HAVE to do the same, otherwise you'd have a higher tonnage/bv than they.

You CANNOT expect people to bend backward and coordinate with 23 other players on what chassis they have to use to be "fair". People want to choose a chassis they want, for whatever reason, and drop into play.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Aegis Kleais™, on 01 March 2012 - 01:33 PM, said:

This would prevent me from playing with my friends by spreading us along different servers where we would fit depending on our Mechs of choice. The only people who benefit from BV/Tonnage restrictions are those who pilot lights. And what would you do if the entire other team took 35 Ton Mechs? That would force your team to HAVE to do the same, otherwise you'd have a higher tonnage/bv than they.

You CANNOT expect people to bend backward and coordinate with 23 other players on what chassis they have to use to be "fair". People want to choose a chassis they want, for whatever reason, and drop into play.

How so? Join as a lance and it could try and match up the rest of the team as pubs. That's exactly how WoT does it and it can work okay. I does prevent larger groups unless you're doing full pre-made groups.

The issue you're talking about is only as issue if you pick mechs once you're found a match. I'd expect random matches to work like that so you don' have to negotiate over what you can take as you seem to fear. Full pre-made company on company battles are another matter. I'd expect those to work out like you're talking about. You request a match at a certain drop limit/BV limit and then every picks mech and launches when ready. However with a pre-made group you should have all that stuff worked out. Its only random drops that you'd need to worry, and that could be an entirely different system.

[Aegis Kleais]

Going on the assumption that all players sit in a lobby until the game starts (unless we know the game to operate otherwise), if we utilize tonnage restrictions, those who arrive late to the lobby are punished by having the remaining tonnage forced on them.

12v12, Team 1 selects 800T of Mechs, and by the time 8 players on Team 2 use up 800T, what do the other 4 players do? They have no tonnage to select a Mech. They either can't join, and it's a 12v8 or you have to sit there and yell at one another to free up tonnage for other people so they can get the chassis they have experience/perks in.

In the event we're talking about instances where I am not in a lobby and I just pick a 75T Mech, the game randomly throws me to a server where they need a 75T Mech to keep the game fair, then how do I ensure that I can play with friends if the game chooses which server to move players to?

I'm not seeing the solution here that allows people to simply play with friends and choose the Mechs they want.

[Outlaw2]

Aegis Kleais™, on 01 March 2012 - 02:28 PM, said:

Going on the assumption that all players sit in a lobby until the game starts (unless we know the game to operate otherwise), if we utilize tonnage restrictions, those who arrive late to the lobby are punished by having the remaining tonnage forced on them.

12v12, Team 1 selects 800T of Mechs, and by the time 8 players on Team 2 use up 800T, what do the other 4 players do? They have no tonnage to select a Mech. They either can't join, and it's a 12v8 or you have to sit there and yell at one another to free up tonnage for other people so they can get the chassis they have experience/perks in.

Reserve tonnage/BV for each player. Lets say for a particular match its 1000 BV per player. A new player will always start with 1000BV to play with. Reward players for going under their allotted BV/Tonnage. Throw the excess in a team pool for other to ton/BV up with.

Without a BV restriction, it always promotes taking the best mech one can afford for a certain class/role. It will limit variety since taking less optimal mechs is always a disadvantage. With a BV system specifically, less optimal mechs will have a place even in competitive environments.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 01 March 2012 - 03:21 PM.

[FinnMcKool]

BT 3025 had some planets that you only could drop with light mechs

anyone remember all the drop rules for 3025 ?

there was only so many slots and you didnt always fill them, sometime people who only had light mechs droped along with on the maps that where for heavier Mechs
after a certain amount of time yuou would drop or forfeit if the opposition way out classed your side.
After so many battles the planet control would switch to the House that won .

[SilentObserver]

Aegis Kleais™, on 01 March 2012 - 11:58 AM, said:

In addition, if you have players that choose to go all Assault, if the game is truly balanced in that it allows for multiple objectives (many of which are not best suited by Assault classes), then it's wrong to assume that tonnage alone is going to win the war. With objectives that can rely on speed, and the ability for multiple lights to easily take down and overwhelm an assault, forcing players into unfamiliar chassis due to tonnage/bv just seems restrictive.

But there won't be multiple lights per assault. there will be 11 assaults and some poor sap in a raven. So each one of your mechs basically has to take down an assault mech. The only way you get a two on one is if the assault company makes a big mistake and splits up.

I'm not sure what type of objectives they can put in, besides just a race to somewhere where taking as many of the heaviest mechs you can wont be the right answer.

[Maverick Howell]

Aegis Kleais™, on 01 March 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

Voted No Limits.

Restricting a player to use a Mech of significantly less value or tonnage merely because other players have already taken up the "quota" is not only unfair to the player but then forces them to either (a) HAVE such a Mech of value/tonnage in their possession, and then to utilize a Mech that they have little to no experience in, reducing their overall entertainment value and effectiveness on the team.

also an atlas being dropped kinda shows that i don't think there will be tonnage limits. limits sound like something that would cause team arguments and issues. also it doesn't seem that there would really be a great way to balance this out no matter what.

[Maverick Howell]

well said.

Aegis Kleais™, on 01 March 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

But that's the thing, they don't. The hope is that the game will not be 100% focused around KILLING other Mechs. If PGI has done their job well, there will be objectives in the game that light Mechs can excel at (getting from 1 point to another, or arriving at one point first to secure something, etc.) Assaults will be at a clear disadvantage, especially if the lights can just ignore the Assaults and leave them in their dust as they complete objectives.

On top of this, even for an Assault, it's not wise to take on 3-4+ Lights. They can combine arms and disorientate the pilot and even bring him down, especially out in the open.

Even more so, just the time it takes for Assaults to get to objectives, even ones where they have to defend or do things they excel at, a pack of lights can specifically target an Assault's leg, cripple him and then leave him as he becomes a near immobile tank that is 2 clicks from his objective, moving at 15KPH.

[Outlaw2]

Aegis Kleais™, on 01 March 2012 - 03:26 PM, said:

OK, I'm trying to understand this. But when, tactically, would you ever NOT want to take a Mech that you are skilled in? If I can take a Mech that has a BV of 1000, it would be understandable that there could be configs out there above that, meaning they could not ever be used unless someone else decided to go with a lower BV Mech? So you have to rely on other player generosity of going into battle with either Mechs that are smaller, and thus have a lower BV or picking a larger more BV-prone Mech chassis and then stripping it of any gear down to the point where it's not as effective.....

I'm just not seeing the harm in letting 24 different people choose whatever Mech they have in their personal hangars. No weight class or amount of goodies put into a Mech is going to give it more/less impact in the game than how that pilot utilizes it. I put more emphasis on it being an even number of players vs each other than BV/Tonnage. Sure, if one side has more skilled players, chances are they're going to win, but it's not like the other team can blame "Well, we didn't have the available tonnage or BV to equip Mechs that we felt could have turned the tide" Without those restrictions, it comes down to player skills.

And hopefully, if the game is balanced well, going 100T Assault won't be the solution to every game. (though this is to be seen depending on how ranked games play out; I'm just hoping for a highly objective-based gameplay)

Heh, well if you were in my unit, and you told us you were only good at one mech, you'd probably get the boot. Thats a liability as a player, since tactics change depending on many different variables, and you won't always take the same mechs or configs.

You don't have to rely on generosity. Like I'm suggesting, reward players for going lower with added XP and/or C-bills. People power leveling/ cbill farm will always ton/bv down. You might even see too much an overflow as players are tying to maximize their grind

In Battletech, a major theme is that majority of the mechs are outclassed by advanced versions. And im not just talking about 100 Tonners. I talking about the best mech for each class weight and role. The harm with zero restrictions is that most mechs/configs will only be handicaps to the team. Lets not fall into idealistic ideas of all mechs are created equal and that a mech is as good as its pilots. From what Ive seen playing competitive mw4 for 8 years, thats not based in reality. The best team will fail if put in crap mechs with crap loadouts.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 01 March 2012 - 03:49 PM.