28 replies to this topic

[Homeless Bill]

I'm biased as an Awesome pilot, but I agree with this sentiment. Right now, you're just short-changing your team to an extent by bringing the lightest in a class.

Performance obviously outweighs (pun not intended) tonnage in terms of value to the team, but there should be some tradeoff for bringing lighter 'mechs. Hell, the Awesome is as close to a Dragon as it is to an Atlas looking strictly at tonnage (and if you're doing it right, the 9M/PB plays more like one, too).

Edited by Homeless Bill, 17 April 2013 - 11:12 AM.

[Eddrick]

A Mech on the lighter side of the Weight Class can move at the same pace as a member of the lower Weight Class.

Not sure about Weight Matching. I wouldn't be able to work perfectly with gaps in weight. It would need some tolerance for wight differances or you would have people in specific Mechs waiting a long time for a match.

[Phoenix Gray]

Slaytronic, on 17 April 2013 - 08:54 AM, said:

just wait for hunchbacks with masc
http://doompaul.ytmnd.com/

Three steps and a lockup! Targeting now...

[Colin Thrase]

Shumabot, on 17 April 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

Does the spreadsheet incorporate the fact that a dragon is six times the size on screen as a commando, and is thus massively easier to shoot? That's the primary problem with down-armoring and up-engining heavier mechs. They can't shrink heir hitboxes, so even if you make all other things equal, an awesome is still much easier to shoot than a jager or cataphract.

It doesn't, but you make a great point. It also doesn't take into account that some mechs have lousy hardpoints, so even if they are optimized for speed, they don't necessarily work well. It took me a long time to finally settle on an acceptable Dragon loadout.

[Belorion]

Eddrick, on 17 April 2013 - 11:18 AM, said:

Not sure about Weight Matching. I wouldn't be able to work perfectly with gaps in weight. It would need some tolerance for wight differances or you would have people in specific Mechs waiting a long time for a match.

Which would make the total weight matching a much better way to go. There are many more combinations of mechs that can fill each slot that way, especially if you are trying to run with 0 tolerance. For example the only thing that could match a cicada is another cicada, but two Cataphracts weigh the same as a Cicada and an Atlas.

[jay35]

Roadbeer, on 17 April 2013 - 08:17 AM, said:

See, I just can't wrap my brain around this argument.

When I'm dropping with a group, we bring what we're best at, not what the metamech is. I see a lot of guys running Jenners, Cicadas, etc... I knew one guy who'd even bring a Dragon, he was often mocked for it, but you couldn't argue the results he'd have.

What he's talking about is the new weight matching being put into the matchmaker.

If it's done poorly, it will be merely weight class matching, rather than total drop weight matchnig. That means it would consider an atlas (100t) to be matched by an awesome (80t) and ignore the extra 20 tonnes difference.

Four pairings like that in a game leaves an 80 tonne difference. That's a whole additional Awesome's worth of tonnage the team that was assigned the four Awesomes is short compared to the team that got the Atlases.

If weight matching is done properly, it totals up the combined weight and balances with that number, which ensures such a massive disparity won't happen.

Edited by jay35, 17 April 2013 - 11:32 AM.

[Belorion]

They have not really released any specifics to how the 0 tolerance weight matching will work. It could just be class to class, or it could be mech to mech. If it is matching on weight that strictly I think it will end up throwing elo out the window. If it is class to class elo matching will work fine, but then people tend to only take mechs from the top end of the range (this is what happened last time).

[Belorion]

Phoenix Gray, on 17 April 2013 - 11:24 AM, said:

Three steps and a lockup! Targeting now...

?

[Denolven]

There is another strange factor which turns the gameplay in favor of bigger mechs. If you take a big one, you are likely to face big ones. That means not only are you rewarded with having more firepower, you are also rewarded with big juicy targets, meaning that being in a big mech is actually double profitable. Also, if we take the currency rewards into account, it's actually a triple bonus, because bigger opponents = more overall damage done = more loot.

So overall there is a number of smaller issues that ultimately lead to the conclusion that the most efficient mech is the biggest one. That is sad, because ideally the system should offer ways to make everything a viable choice, depending on the context. Meaning everything has both advantages and disadvantages when compared to other mechs. Not just disadvantages.

Typical use case, happened to both me and my friend independently:
I see Spider, I see Laz0rz, I see jump jets, I think "AWESOME!!!". I go play some games, I don't do anything and pwned by Raven 3L everytime. So I adapt and avoid fighting and do other stuff. Then I get 50xp cap reward, game ends. Raven is top damage dealer with 400+, I am bottom with 20, or 100 if I went fighting.

Now the problem is not that I suck, or that the Spider sucks. The problem is that some mechs don't have any noteworthy advantage over the bigger ones, thus making parts of the game dead material. Neither the players nor the producers want that.

Edited by Denolven, 17 April 2013 - 11:55 PM.