91 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

Dimento Graven, on 07 August 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

Not interested in weight limitations. Only interested in weight balance when setting up drops.

Two totally completely different things, only slightly related though:

A weight limitation, puts limits on what types of 'mechs you can drop with.

Weight balance makes sure that no one side has an extreme advantage by bringing 12 assaults when the other team only brought 4...

This I can accept. We had this before Elo. It didn't stop ROFLstomps but there was less ammunition for the bad players to complain with.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 07 August 2013 - 04:47 PM.

[Belorion]

If they implement weight restrictions... and thats a big if (cause I am not sure that is really the solution)

Then the weight for a 12 man should be 600 (660 at the most). By no means should the average be anything but a medium weight.

Which btw would be your reason for bringing locusts and fleas.

Edited by Belorion, 07 August 2013 - 04:23 PM.

[AntiSqueaker]

Belorion, on 07 August 2013 - 04:19 PM, said:

If they implement weight restrictions... and thats a big if (cause I am not sure that is really the solution)

Then the weight for a 12 man should be 600 (660 at the most). By no means should the average be anything but a medium weight.

Which btw would be your reason for bringing locusts and fleas.

I would like to preface this by saying that I am 100% behind drop tonnage limits.

But, I am worried that this is going to make some people "forced" to play ultra-light mechs like the Flea, Locust, Commando, etc etc, so people can bring their 2 ER PPC/Gauss Highlanders. I can see some very competitive teams making their recruits/"bad" players run Locusts so that the cream of the crop has tonnage to spare to bring in the big guns.

Might be a bit of over exaggeration, but it's always nice to try and foresee problems before they happen.

[YueFei]

How about they just balance the weight classes with some actual Role Warfare as originally advertised? Then there's no need for tonnage limits, since every weight class brings a vital role to the team, and stacking an entire team with only 1 weight class will leave a glaring weakness than an opposing team can exploit. You make a balanced game by having unit X beat unit Y, unit Y beats unit Z, and unit Z beats unit X. You don't make a game where X beats both Y and Z, and then force some players to use Y and Z and call that "balanced".

[Trauglodyte]

AntiSqueaker, on 07 August 2013 - 05:39 PM, said:

I would like to preface this by saying that I am 100% behind drop tonnage limits.

But, I am worried that this is going to make some people "forced" to play ultra-light mechs like the Flea, Locust, Commando, etc etc, so people can bring their 2 ER PPC/Gauss Highlanders. I can see some very competitive teams making their recruits/"bad" players run Locusts so that the cream of the crop has tonnage to spare to bring in the big guns.

Might be a bit of over exaggeration, but it's always nice to try and foresee problems before they happen.

That's kind of the point of it, Squeaker. If a team wants to go 5-10 tons heavier on their Assaults or Heavies, they're going to have to sacrifice it somewhere. Do they drop weight on their Mediums or their Lights? If they are forced to run Locusts (I'll try it out when it is delivered to me) or Fleas, that is the balance to their desire to go with something heavier on the other end. And it means that they're opening themselves up to a heavier counter punch of Jenners, for example. If one lance has two Victors and 2 Jenners while the other has 2 Highlanders and 2 Locusts, the Jenners beat the Locusts with ease and the Highlanders and now in a situation where they're fighting a much more nimble Assault force with the Victors on top of having to dispatch what's left of the Jenners.

[VanillaG]

My idea is to scale the team weight based on number of players. Here are the numbers I came out with:

• 2 players - 130 tons
  
• 3 players - 180 tons
  
• 4 players - 230 tons
  
• 5 players - 290 tons
  
• 6 players - 345 tons
  
• 7 players - 400 tons
  
• 8 players - 460 tons
  
• 9 players - 520 tons
  
• 10 players - 575 tons
  
• 11 players - 630 tons
  
• 12 players - 690 tons

That way if the match maker needs to combine smaller teams together the weight doesn't get too skewed. My prediction for when tonnage limits comes there will be a lot of bitter sweet tears because "PGI won't let me play the mech I want with my friends!!!eleventy!!"

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

If you're going to do drop limits, then it should be 4 of each weight class -or- 900 tons.

In both cases it lets a 4-man assault lance do their thing without excessively limiting their company-mates. 4 Atlases under a 900t limit would leave a 500t balance, which should be plenty for the other eight mechs.

Of course, 12-man groups (which would fight only other 12-man groups) should at least have the option of not having limits (my preference would be for them to be unlimited entirely). This would eliminate any problems for an assault company like our Steiner friends favor so heavily. After all, weight imbalance is mostly an issue in PUG games.

[Joseph Mallan]

YueFei, on 07 August 2013 - 05:49 PM, said:

How about they just balance the weight classes with some actual Role Warfare as originally advertised? Then there's no need for tonnage limits, since every weight class brings a vital role to the team, and stacking an entire team with only 1 weight class will leave a glaring weakness than an opposing team can exploit. You make a balanced game by having unit X beat unit Y, unit Y beats unit Z, and unit Z beats unit X. You don't make a game where X beats both Y and Z, and then force some players to use Y and Z and call that "balanced".

But this is why we have such loud complaints about Capping and a stupid new Capping nerf. Bad players that cannot accept that there is more than one way to skin a cat have whined long and hard to get more fighting and less thinking.

Before Elo we had better weight balancing, it wasn't perfect, But if you brought a Light the enemy had a light too. Me personally, I still don't care if I am out massed, if my team is better I should win even if handicapped. If we aren't better... well what did we expect? Easy mode!

[Viper217]

DanNashe, on 07 August 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

I actually like using tonnage to balance 12s, and weight class to balance pugs, with pugs having max tonnage of 300 per 4 man group queing. It helps with variety.
300 also lso prevents 4 assault mechs, but allows pretty heavy lances.
But 320 is doable. ( 4 awesomes)

I like this idea, the limits on 12 mans should not be the exact same as pug games.

[hellcatq]

Just my personal preference, but 1 assault , 1 heavy, 1 medium, and a light make a decent lance. So 225 tons per lance or so?

[YueFei]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 August 2013 - 06:15 PM, said:

But this is why we have such loud complaints about Capping and a stupid new Capping nerf. Bad players that cannot accept that there is more than one way to skin a cat have whined long and hard to get more fighting and less thinking.

Before Elo we had better weight balancing, it wasn't perfect, But if you brought a Light the enemy had a light too. Me personally, I still don't care if I am out massed, if my team is better I should win even if handicapped. If we aren't better... well what did we expect? Easy mode!

Yep, anytime I've lost to a cap I could see that there was always something that I or my team could have done differently to prevent it. A strategy is only abusive if there's no way to counter it, but even then the responsibility for balancing that is on the makers of the game, not the players. Stopping a cap doesn't necessarily involve sitting someone on the base, either. It can involve that, but it can also involve spreading the team out on the initial march, and covering the various avenues of approach. It can mean not pushing out too far from base until you've figured out what the other team is doing. If the other team is full of light mechs threatening to cap you if you stray too far from base, and your own force is on the heavy and slow side, you can split your forces and start an aggressive push on the enemy base, and if the lights try to stop you, you stand on the base and force them into suicidal close combat to defend their base, and if the lights try to cap you, you sacrifice a couple heavy mechs to hold and defend the base while the offense takes the enemy's base first.

But some people just like to mindlessly march to the center of the map and then cry when they get capped. Don't get me wrong... I play this game to mess around, and I will also sometimes just mindlessly march to the center of the map looking for some quick action, but if I do that and get capped I don't cry about it. Life's too short to cry over a game, I just laugh and move on to the next game.

[Davoke]

I've seen big groups of lights beat big groups of assaults. And yes, it is unfair that classical full-assault companies don't get their stuff. I'd rather let lore, personal mech preference, and people thinking of tactics other than PUGDERDERP win this round.

[East Indy]

I agree that 675 is about right.

A few weeks ago I experimented with 650 tons, focusing on specific lore-based lances and sensible weight complements (Command, Assault, Strike, Fire, Support, Pursuit, Recon). With a plurality of mediums, it looked good.

Edit: To elaborate, I think it could benefit the game to incorporate weight limits roughly by lance, via lance type above, as players might have an easier time selecting a 'Mech and preparing for teamwork in a role with finer subdivisions — instead of twelve people trying to flip 'Mechs in and out to meet a limit, they see open slots and pick something that's best for the lance.

Edited by East Indy, 07 August 2013 - 07:31 PM.

[Sean von Steinike]

As someone mentioned earlier, it might be interesting if they changed up the weight limits every two weeks or so, anywhere from 650 to 1000. It would keep things fresh and always changing the way you think about your fights. I also like East Indy's idea with filling lance slots.

[Dimento Graven]

After thinking about it for a while, here's my pipe dream I wish I could see put into the match making system:

Following user configurable options:

SOLO MODE (ie: you're not part of any sort of pre-made):
- 4v4 solo, all 8 'mechs will be solo pugs.
- 8v8 solo, all 16 'mechs will be solo pugs.
- 12v12 solo, all 24 'mechs will be solo pugs.
- 4v4 team space filler, put in a slot in any compatible group trying to drop in pre-made 4v4.
- 8v8 team space filler, put in a slot in any compatible group trying to drop in pre-made 8v8.
- 12v12 team space filler, put in a slot in ay compatible group trying to drop in pre-made 12v12.

PRE-MADE MODE:
- 4v4 premade, weight limit, up to XXX weight: any size group 2 to 4 people, empty slots filled from above solo players, ELO adjusted matches
- 4v4 premade, weight balanced within X% range: any size group, 2 to 4 people, empty slots filled from above solo players, ELO adjusted matches
- 4v4 premade, unlimited class (no balance or limits or ELO), 2 to 4 people, empty slots filled.

- 8v8 premade, weight limit, up to XXX weight: any size group 2 to 8 people, empty slots filled from above solo players, ELO adjusted matches
- 8v8 premade, weight balanced within X% range: any size group, 2 to 8 people, empty slots filled from above solo players, ELO adjusted matches
- 8v8 premade, unlimited class (no balance or limits or ELO), 2 to 8 people, empty slots filled.

- 12v12 premade, weight limit, up to XXX weight: any size group 2 to 12 people, empty slots filled from above solo players, ELO adjusted matches
- 12v12 premade, weight balanced within X% range: any size group, 2 to 12 people, empty slots filled from above solo players, ELO adjusted matches
- 12v12 premade, unlimited class (no balance or limits OR ELO), 2 to 12 people, empty slots filled

Another option to allow solo players and team to select battle mode:
- Any
- Assault
- Conquest
- Tower Defense
- Tower Attack
- Run the gauntlet
- BE the gauntlet
- Hide and seek, be the hider
- Hide and seek, YOU'RE IT
- New mode X
- Now mode Y

And also an option for teams and solo players to select map preferences:
- Preference #1
- Preference #2
- Preference #3
- Preference #4
- Any maps EXCEPT #1
- Any maps EXCEPT #2
- Any maps EXCEPT #3
- Any maps EXCEPT #4
- No preference, whatever's available.

And the final option to add to tie it all together would be a player/team leader configurable match making timer:

- Default mode sets match maker to select off of chose SOLO/PRE-MADE mode.
- After X seconds, try [user selected] primary alternate mode.
- After X more seconds, try [user selected] secondary alternate modes.
- After X more seconds, abort match maker, giving the team to change mechs, battlemode, add/remove people, maps

For organized competition, each pre-made team could assign them selves a name when the group is created, allowing a VERSES mode (I know in my unit, we like practicing against each other, had 24 players on tonight for several hours, and early on had issues dropping against each other), so that you can select !!!CHALLENGE!!!, type in the name of the other team (or browse a pop-up, though that might be resource prohibitive), and BLAMMO, you're battling your friends or some other unit that you've having friendly smack talk with.

Once the challenge team has selected the team they want to fight total number of 'mechs and total weight of the team show up, and map preference, and for craps and giggles, you could put the combined ELO score for the team as well.

No need for the match making system to do weight balancing or limitations, or keep the number of 'mechs equal, or any ELO calculations with this option, it's completely player controlled if 5 mechs want to fight 12, let 'em. At most you could put in a warning stating, "Your team of 5 'mechs at 320 tons is challenging a team of 12 'mechs of 1200 tons, are you SURE?"

Something like this would be the MOST player friendly setup possible, allowing each solo player and team to setup their preferences and tune their experience to be as enjoyable as possible.

AND THAT is how you could implement weight balance, ELO balance, competitive balance, PUG balance, no more expletive pre-made pug stomping and all that rot, in one very large FELL SWOOP.

If I'm going to dream, THAT would be my IMPOSSIBLE DREAM...

Edited by Dimento Graven, 07 August 2013 - 10:26 PM.

[Corvus Antaka]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 August 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

And what about those of us who want to be an Assault Company???
<-------- Notice the Mailed Fist.

you get to fight OTHER assault companies

[Joseph Mallan]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 07 August 2013 - 10:36 PM, said:

you get to fight OTHER assault companies

Well that's just Assaulting Col.

[Xipe Totec]

I'm a 750 guy generally, but not just because of the fist.

I want unbalanced wings in the drops, with standard lances being 240 and command lances being 270. While 50 jumps to mind as the mean weight, the structure of the game is such (and is on TT as well) that 50 is actually not the correct mean, I haven't done the math, but 60 feels about right.

Command lances should be bit bigger IMO, because commanders generally seem to prefer the meatier mechs, at least in the IS and I loves me some fluff.

This is all a set-up for my dream of having selected group commanders and combat bonuses if someone pike's him or her, as well as smaller bonuses for piking lance leaders. Nothing huge, but a temporary mini-map scramble if the headman gets whacked, or a bonus to capping for the next minute after a lance leader gets his would add a little bit of flavour to matches and encourage organized drops to function more like units (and grant incentives for working hard to get those promotions, so some berk occasionally steps up to take a shell for ya).

[WarMonkey14]

this is perfect for pugs. just dont put it in premade 12v12 and we're good (bloody steiners).

[Borengar629]

@OP:
I think it is more likely Tonnage will be balanced for lances not companies.
It is more logical since you can drop with up to 4 people. What if you queue with 4 atlases... that would limit the rest of your company to 275 t altogether in you example.

More likely we will see a restriction of about 240 t per lance. That would result in 1 light, 1 medium, 1 heavy and 1 assault per lance. That would be a good mixup when you extrapolate this to companies.