48 replies to this topic

[MaddMaxx]

MustrumRidcully, on 16 June 2013 - 04:56 AM, said:

This is a theory I've heard from other players, too.

But I disagree with it. If you want to have 50 % mediums or whatever, you need to force people to play certain mechs, regardless of whether they enjoy them or not. You might even force them to play mechs they don't even own.

What if I buy 8 assaults but no light, medium, or heavy? Damn me to run trial mechs in those matches, trial mechs we all know suck terribly? Force me to wait eternities for the Queue to get me a match?

I believe the only way you can get a "battletech-conformistic" mech distrubtion, or even just an "equally balanced" mech distribution without forcing people to play mechs they don't want to play would be to make sure that all mech weight classes and all mechs are equally viable and relevant for winning a match. It must be as rewarding to play a medium as it is to play a heavy or assault.

And as true as that may be, and possibly even doable at some level, you will still have a good chunk of players who will not BUY a mixed set to use. As you noted, if someone with only 8 Assaults in the garage wants to play only Assault Mechs, 3 choices then exist.

EVERYONE in any Pug Match they join will have to wait until their need is satisfied.

Provide a Match based filter (defeats the original intent)

The Assault player simply quits and that player is lost.

What CW should do is give that Teams what they want. The Pugs still need a fair playing field as well, especially after the "Teams" get what they want.

[Zyllos]

You can implement an individual tonnage limit with the coming lobby/dropship modes to balance out weight limits without imposing a paticular mech against a person.

[Zerberus]

Zyllos, on 17 June 2013 - 07:03 AM, said:

You can implement an individual tonnage limit with the coming lobby/dropship modes to balance out weight limits without imposing a paticular mech against a person.

... Until the other slots are filled and the guy that wanted to play one of his 8 atlases for the first time in weeks only has 65 tons left for his mech nad gets forced into a trial jag so he can play with his buddies.... let that happen a few times a week, and he`ll eventually stop playing, because the mechs he purchased with real money are no longer viable in teh main part of the game and he can only play what he likes on a regular basis in matches that do nothing for his CW success....

While a limit woldne "hurt" dedicated light pilots poer se, as tehy can fit almost anywhere, having 100 tons left but choosinf a Raven will be seen more and more as a {Richard Cameron} move.. so that pilot too will either jump in a trial mech just so his buddies don`t become his enemies. and eventually quit because his ravens, spiders, and `mandos are all collecting dust.

Don`t get me wrong, I`m not categorically against the idea, but I son`t see any way that it can be implememted without automatically "punishing" at leastr one person in more or elss every match. Not with the multitude of different players and playstyles that exist. It essentially only works for people with multiple types of mech in their garage across all weiight classes, not for weight class specialists, "pure" f2p players (who only have 4 slots to begin with), or newbies that only own one mech.

Edited by Zerberus, 17 June 2013 - 07:17 AM.

[Braggart]

Mediums were not equal to heavies or assaults in table top, and are not in MWO.

You would take 2 centurions on the field for every atlas in table top.

That has absolutely got to be reflected in this game somehow.

Currently it is not, because match making is horribly broken. All you gotta do is take a 4 man group, and pile up as 4 assaults, you will end up with an incredibly mismatched game.

People say its not fair to make people who want to pilot assaults unable. It is just as unfair for people who want to pilot mediums be forced to do it crippled.

Edited by Braggart, 17 June 2013 - 07:27 AM.

[Zyllos]

Zerberus, on 17 June 2013 - 07:08 AM, said:

... Until the other slots are filled and the guy that wanted to play one of his 8 atlases for the first time in weeks only has 65 tons left for his mech nad gets forced into a trial jag so he can play with his buddies.... let that happen a few times a week, and he`ll eventually stop playing, because the mechs he purchased with real money are no longer viable in teh main part of the game and he can only play what he likes on a regular basis in matches that do nothing for his CW success....

While a limit woldne "hurt" dedicated light pilots poer se, as tehy can fit almost anywhere, having 100 tons left but choosinf a Raven will be seen more and more as a {Richard Cameron} move.. so that pilot too will either jump in a trial mech just so his buddies don`t become his enemies. and eventually quit because his ravens, spiders, and `mandos are all collecting dust.

Don`t get me wrong, I`m not categorically against the idea, but I son`t see any way that it can be implememted without automatically "punishing" at leastr one person in more or elss every match. Not with the multitude of different players and playstyles that exist. It essentially only works for people with multiple types of mech in their garage across all weiight classes, not for weight class specialists, "pure" f2p players (who only have 4 slots to begin with), or newbies that only own one mech.

I don't think you understand what I was getting at.

Each player has their own individualized tonnage limit (I would suggest 200t). They can play with up to 4 different mechs all weighing <= 200t.

That means, regardless of the number of mechs and tonnage your other teammates are running, that you still have the same limit. It is a limit on a per player basis, not as a whole team basis.

What this does is that if all 8 players want to run just Assaults, that is fine. But in a 8v8 game, they will only have 16 mechs, where the team that runs 4 Heavies/Mediums/Lights, would have 32 mechs.

[Gallowglas]

Without the ability for players to pick multiple mechs in some sort of prioritzed list to drop with, I suspect all a weight limit would do would be to increase queue times. The thing is, you can't even just say that people will eventually learn to queue with a balanced team because, honestly, no one knows how the weight distribution falls at any given time. Just allow players to pick a few different mechs of differing weights (or perhaps different weight classes) in some sort of priority and I think it would work out.

[Zerberus]

Zyllos, on 17 June 2013 - 07:35 AM, said:

I don't think you understand what I was getting at.

Each player has their own individualized tonnage limit (I would suggest 200t). They can play with up to 4 different mechs all weighing <= 200t.

That means, regardless of the number of mechs and tonnage your other teammates are running, that you still have the same limit. It is a limit on a per player basis, not as a whole team basis.

What this does is that if all 8 players want to run just Assaults, that is fine. But in a 8v8 game, they will only have 16 mechs, where the team that runs 4 Heavies/Mediums/Lights, would have 32 mechs.

I was in fact on a different pace than you, I was assuming a team limit.

However, even a 235-300t /pilot limit directly punishes assault specialists. Everybody else can bring 3-4 mechs, assault pilots only get 2-3 tops. So they`re forced into a significant tactical disadvantage. Intelligent enemies will specifically target assault mechs first, in hopes of crippling the enemy team in the coming rounds (assuming a 4 round battle scheme). Taking an assault will like inviting people to gank you, leaving your team shorthanded in later rounds, making it that much harder.

I don`t think adding encounter-level tactical considerations to the mechbay is a good idea, becasue frankly most people simply can`t think that far.

[MustrumRidcully]

MaddMaxx, on 17 June 2013 - 06:54 AM, said:

And how exactly does that get accomplished without directly overshadowing the Mechs in the tier above..

Why has Vassago provide the How?

But if it can't be done, PGI should delete their "Role Warfare" Blog before anyone else accidentally spends money on this game because he believed they could achieve this and make MW:O different from all the other Mechwarrior games.

Maybe the "drop ship mode" idea could work for this. You get 200 tons worth of mechs per player, and if you die, you get the next mech in the dropship.
Maybe it requires new maps or game modes where mediums can serve a more meaningful role.

Maybe it is just not possible. Knowing that, PGI could also develop the game around this.

THat Multiplayer Battletech game that was closed after a year of development, MPBT 3025, had mechs only be supportable in certain regions, close to your main cities. So if you want to run combat further out, you could play mediums without any risk.
eSports wise, you could simply have a "medium mech" league. I am sure that would be more fun then "stock mode".

[Unrelenting Farce]

"To compensate for the shortcomings or their High Command, the Lyrans are known for their use of large 'Mechs. Using their well-established industrial base, the LAAF fields a higher ratio of Assault 'Mechs than any other nation in the Inner Sphere. This has not always been a boon, however, as their enemies have been able to use more balanced forces to outmaneuver and defeat the Lyrans on many occasions."

-Sarna, on Lyran Commonwealth (House Steiner) http://www.sarna.net...i/House_Steiner

[Sir Wulfrick]

Implementing an enforced total drop weight would be a shame. Logically I can see a reasonable argument for it, however as others have pointed out forcing people to play in ways they do not wish to do will encourage them to simply play other games. I drive an Atlas. Have done since around '87 or thereabouts. Not many people around with more time in the old girl than I have.

I do not want to be forced to play a different weight class. I do not want to be forced to play a different mech. My AS7 is what I'm best at and what I'm most effective as a team member whilst piloting. If all I have to look forwards to is drinking rather a lot of coffee while I wait endlessly for a drop slot... I'm seriously ince3ntivised to take my really rather limited gaming time elswhere.

I can see the problem but weight restrictions really aren't the answer. I don't really see many disadvantages with a per-mech calculated BV system.

[MaddMaxx]

MustrumRidcully, on 17 June 2013 - 08:00 AM, said:

Why has Vassago provide the How?

But if it can't be done, PGI should delete their "Role Warfare" Blog before anyone else accidentally spends money on this game because he believed they could achieve this and make MW:O different from all the other Mechwarrior games.

Maybe the "drop ship mode" idea could work for this. You get 200 tons worth of mechs per player, and if you die, you get the next mech in the dropship.
Maybe it requires new maps or game modes where mediums can serve a more meaningful role.

Maybe it is just not possible. Knowing that, PGI could also develop the game around this.

THat Multiplayer Battletech game that was closed after a year of development, MPBT 3025, had mechs only be supportable in certain regions, close to your main cities. So if you want to run combat further out, you could play mediums without any risk.
eSports wise, you could simply have a "medium mech" league. I am sure that would be more fun then "stock mode".

His solution was incomplete, that is why. Saying "Just make Mediums good?" WTF does that even mean?

So if someone was to say. "Just make MWO good!" Would asking that person How, would be a bad thing?

What makes Mediums good is different for many. Likely Vassago knows that and as such simply didn't provide his own idea, yet again, doesn't mean the reader should have go look it up, even though they know it may exist.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 17 June 2013 - 10:58 AM.

[Boogie Man]

Sybreed, on 16 June 2013 - 06:52 AM, said:

No, everyone picking an assault is a symptom of the bad balancing, not a cause. PGI fixes the bad balancing, perhaps people go less inclined to pick assaults all the time. BUT, I agree, there needs to be a tonnage limit.

I would like to see assault mechs turn and torso twist much slower than they currently do. Right now only the fastest light mechs can sorta stay behind them.

[Braggart]

Sir Wulfrick, on 17 June 2013 - 10:39 AM, said:

Implementing an enforced total drop weight would be a shame. Logically I can see a reasonable argument for it, however as others have pointed out forcing people to play in ways they do not wish to do will encourage them to simply play other games. I drive an Atlas. Have done since around '87 or thereabouts. Not many people around with more time in the old girl than I have.

I do not want to be forced to play a different weight class. I do not want to be forced to play a different mech. My AS7 is what I'm best at and what I'm most effective as a team member whilst piloting. If all I have to look forwards to is drinking rather a lot of coffee while I wait endlessly for a drop slot... I'm seriously ince3ntivised to take my really rather limited gaming time elswhere.

I can see the problem but weight restrictions really aren't the answer. I don't really see many disadvantages with a per-mech calculated BV system.

I dont want to be forced to always face you in atlas, when i am in a medium, because It should be 2 mediums against your atlas. I shouldnt be forced to take an assault to try and compete with other assaults.

If I am consistantly forced to play against mechs that are twice as powerful as me, then I am more likely to move on and play something else.

[Waking One]

Make assaults torso twist a lot slower, and heavies a bit slower (depending on tonnage of course). The idea was that the smaller mechs could outmaneuver them... not so much now except for lights.

[MustrumRidcully]

Waking One, on 17 June 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:

Make assaults torso twist a lot slower, and heavies a bit slower (depending on tonnage of course). The idea was that the smaller mechs could outmaneuver them... not so much now except for lights.

I like this idea, so I worry it might make lights too good. But maybe that worry is unfounded.

Currently, torso twist speed is a function of engine rating only (unless I am mistaken). If it was a function of engine rating / weight, we might be getting somewhere.

(And if I am mistaken, then maybe the function needs to be adjusted so that lower mechs get more out of rating/tonnage).

The Hunchback has a surprisingly good torso twist range for a mech with fully articulated arms. Maybe all mediums need this quirk?

[Tombstoner]

Without fixing the other issues the OP has listed and being solved by weight limits... all your doing is giving an advantage to those lucky few who get to play the assaults. it will force MM to wait longer to get the needed mechs. if you force player to que one mech of each type then it would be spaced out kinda fair, but what if i only have 2 mechs and i really want to play one of them not the other.... this hurts the game.

[Vodrin Thales]

Reno Blade, on 16 June 2013 - 03:10 AM, said:

The problem with that would still be the min-max of like 6 assaults and 6 lights instead of mostly medium weight classes on the field.
How do you "push" back the teams in mostly medium with some heavy/lights than only a very few assaults?
The lights can outrun any medium mech and go cap bases or swarm slow targets while the assaults just bring more firepower than med/heavy mechs.

I think this needs to be part of the system, but is not the only knob to tweak for a final solution.

If it would be something like BV (Battle Value) where you could have cheap mediums (some lights are even more expensive) and expensive assaults, then even with upcomming technology (like Clans) the balancing could be used.
Certain BV limits for certain modes to "force" lighter mech classes or lower tech (trial mechs with tech1 stock loadout) for the teams would also give diversity between the modes.

I'd take that matchup of an Assault/ Light team if I was running a more balanced drop deck of the same tonnage. If your mediums are set up as light killers you should be able to take them easily if you play smart. Drop total tonnage limit is really all that is required for balance this way.

[Vodrin Thales]

Vassago Rain, on 16 June 2013 - 03:13 AM, said:

You make mediums good.

Sure that makes sense, but how exactly do you pull that off? Mediums have been significantly weaker than heavies/assaults in every battletech, and battletech based game ever made. This is the first one where lights were ever any good, and that some mediums were ever viable in online play. Mediums could definitely have a smaller profile and that would help, but that certainly would not improve mediums to the point they could compete directly in a game without tonnage limits. Anyone see something I am missing here? Because I don't see any way to make a medium mech as good as an assault without completely changing the nature of the game.

Edited by Vodrin Thales, 17 June 2013 - 12:49 PM.

[Team Leader]

If only the solutions were as simple and clear as the problems. This is the hardest part of game design, making it all mesh with itself properly so that you have an enjoyable and balanced game.

[Sir Wulfrick]

Braggart, on 17 June 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

I dont want to be forced to always face you in atlas, when i am in a medium, because It should be 2 mediums against your atlas. I shouldnt be forced to take an assault to try and compete with other assaults.

If I am consistantly forced to play against mechs that are twice as powerful as me, then I am more likely to move on and play something else.

I agree with you: if you want to pilot a medium then you should absolutely be allowed to do so. I don't necessarily think that 2 x mediums = 1 x assault, particularly with the current advantages that are given by any class of mech being able to carry multiple heavy weapons (the 2 x PPC Cicada comes to mind. I mean... Really?) but this is why I don't think that a simple weight limit is the solution. A battle value or similar system is, to my mind, much more likely to match the combat effectiveness of mechs rather than a comparative system based only on chassis weight.

Edited by Sir Wulfrick, 17 June 2013 - 02:21 PM.