48 replies to this topic

[Pater Mors]

StandingCow, on 16 June 2013 - 01:51 AM, said:

I don't think the issues in MWO are/were poptarts, I don't think the issue is high alpha builds, or lack of heat. I don't even think the issue is pinpoint accuracy. I think all of those, and other issues are symptoms of one major flaw in MWO....

The major issue is lack of weight balancing/limiting. You shouldn't see more than 2 assault battlemechs on the field in 12v12 let alone 8v8, hell I would argue no more than 1. You are supposed to have mostly mediums, a couple heavies... and maybe an assault. And you and your team should be scared to death of that one assault chassis.

So, PGI needs to scrap this idea of just extra incentives to run a balanced team, they need a hard limit put in place by either:
- Make it so you still have to have 12 mechs, but they can't go over a certain limit as a team.
- Make it so you can bring whatever you want, but you might be bringing a smaller team to stay under the limit.

Partly. But all the things listed in your opening paragraph are still problems.

2 Assaults per team on the battlefield just means more targets for them to 1 shot.

[Braggart]

Sir Wulfrick, on 17 June 2013 - 02:20 PM, said:

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.

I was using a battle value system.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Highlander Highlander BV is 2227
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Trebuchet Trebuchet BV is 1191


The 2 PPC cicada still has to land atleast 5 alphas to a highlander L/R torso to destroy it, while a highlander only needs at most 3 to tear out a torso, and a Cicada is running an XL.

Both players being equally skilled. The highlander will win. Before any says thats not fair, the Cicada and Highlander are not equal. Thats kinda the point. Stop pairing highlanders in matchmaking when it should have been another medium.

Those mechs were not equal in tabletop, and they are not equal here. I am perfectly fine with those mechs not being equal, but when matchmaking throws 4 assaults on 1 team and a couple heavies, and our team has 2 assault, and a couple heavies and some mediums. The fight is in no way fair.

Edited by Braggart, 17 June 2013 - 02:37 PM.

[Zerberus]

Braggart, on 17 June 2013 - 02:30 PM, said:

I was using a battle value system.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Highlander Highlander BV is 2227
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Trebuchet Trebuchet BV is 1191

However, these are the base values w/o pilot. Add a great pilot to the treb and a n00b to the highlander and the Treb has a higher BV. Of course different loadouts change BV too and blablahyaddayadda.

Edited by Zerberus, 17 June 2013 - 02:35 PM.

[Tombstoner]

Braggart, on 17 June 2013 - 02:30 PM, said:

I was using a battle value system.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Highlander Highlander BV is 2227
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Trebuchet Trebuchet BV is 1191

i dont think BV would translate into MWO very well. new valuse would have to be generated for each mech. it could be done. but a tonnage system would also work.

[Vodrin Thales]

Artgathan, on 16 June 2013 - 06:51 AM, said:

In general if you need to impose restrictions on players to 'balance' a game, the game is inherently unbalanced. Suggesting that weight balancing will fix problems is the same as saying 'well if PPCs are unbalanced, we'll just make it so that a team can only bring 4 PPCs in their drop'. It doesn't fix the problem - it simply attempts to artificially reduce it.

If PGI creates better game modes (perhaps the objective based modes they've been hinting at) that create a need for different weight classes we'll see players automatically start bringing more balanced forces to the field. The problem is that in the current modes there is no need for medium battlemechs - they're not as fast as lights (so they're not great at capping) and they're not as well armed / armoured as assaults or heavies (so they're not great at fighting).

The problem with this thought process is the medium mech. In classic BT medium mechs essentially had no combat advantages over heavy and assaults. They were not substantially faster, did not have more fire power, and had less armor. Their only advantage was in being easier to obtain and being cheaper. So how exactly do we translate that without limiting drop tonnage?

[Vodrin Thales]

Zerberus, on 17 June 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

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.

Actually that sounds much more fair than any other system I have seen proposed.

[Braggart]

Zerberus, on 17 June 2013 - 02:34 PM, said:

However, these are the base values w/o pilot. Add a great pilot to the treb and a n00b to the highlander and the Treb has a higher BV. Of course different loadouts change BV too and blablahyaddayadda.

anytime anything regarding balance is brought up, It should always be considered the the opponent is of equal skill. When people tell people to torso twist away to protect themselves, then it should also be assumed that the opponent is also skilled in this and how to counter it. you shoot him with 1 laser to convince him he can turn back to release a volley, and thats when you hit him.

Battle values are important even though they are from table top, because they are a good example of what to expect from that mech on the field. The trench was never an equal to the highlander, but the team that took the trench has the ability to bring something extra to even the field.

That does not exist in MWO. For some reason they think it is perfectly ok to constantly have unbalanced weights, that some how have a medium is equal to an atlas.

They have done nothing in mwo to make a medium mech stand out, to make them useful on the battlefield, unlike lights where are way smaller in this game, than they are suppose to be, then tag in that small size with incredible speeds, you have a mech that will do everything a medium can do, only survive better, and carry a comparable armament.

Vodrin Thales, on 17 June 2013 - 02:43 PM, said:

The problem with this thought process is the medium mech. In classic BT medium mechs essentially had no combat advantages over heavy and assaults. They were not substantially faster, did not have more fire power, and had less armor. Their only advantage was in being easier to obtain and being cheaper. So how exactly do we translate that without limiting drop tonnage?

The other being that you could field more of them.

[Purlana]

We could have a 2-2-2-2 drop mode.  

Edited by Purlana, 17 June 2013 - 03:13 PM.

[Petroshka]

StandingCow, on 16 June 2013 - 01:51 AM, said:

I don't think the issues in MWO are/were poptarts, I don't think the issue is high alpha builds, or lack of heat. I don't even think the issue is pinpoint accuracy [...] The major issue is [...] You shouldn't see more than 2 assault battlemechs on the field

So, it turned out the issue WAS what i thought it was (among other things).