88 replies to this topic

[James The Fox Dixon]

East Indy, on 08 August 2013 - 06:31 PM, said:

As mentioned in another thread, I played around with 650-ton companies like this:

Lances
Command Lance: 300 tons
Assault Lance: 300 tons
Light Command Lance: 250 tons
Fire/Strike Lance: 250 tons
Support Lance: 200 tons
Pursuit Lance: 150 tons
Recon Lance: 100 tons

650-ton Combinations
Company 1: Command Lance, Support Lance, Pursuit Lance
Company 2: Command Lance, Strike Lance, Recon Lance
Company 3: Light Command Lance, Assault Lance, Recon Lance
Company 4: Light Command Lance, Fire Lance, Pursuit Lance

Sounds to me like you like to run Striker/Light Horse style limits or close to it. It's things like this that makes the game better than 8 assaults+4 whatever else people bring in to a match. This prevents the game from getting stale and allows tactics to evolve over time.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Mackman, on 08 August 2013 - 06:22 PM, said:

That sounds like it'd actually be really fun... each different weight limit would likely have differing styles of play ("metas"), which would be pretty interesting... of course, after losing a match earlier because my team decided to just take the loss rather than bother splitting up to cap points, I don't have a whole lot of faith in the MWO community's ability to adapt.

It is fun when it was done for MW3 and 4 in the leagues I was part of.

The people that are against tonnage limits are going to be in for a shock since in the last patch notes the developers said, "Players can launch in groups of 1,2,3,4,12. Numbers between 4-12 will be addressed when we get tonnage limits into the game." Tonnage limits are coming regardless if people like them or not, so the question is now how to accomplish it? I want BT Universe tonnage limits since this is supposed to be based in the BT Universe.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Niko Snow, on 09 August 2013 - 07:18 AM, said:

Moving to Feature Suggestions

Thank ya Niko.

[XANi]

James The Fox Dixon, on 08 August 2013 - 03:22 PM, said:

Umm you do know that there is a thing called UI 2.0 that is coming next month, so that takes care of that problem.

Yes I know. I'm just not sure that will take care of that problem, and PGI didn't said much about any kind of lobby/weight limit

I just don't have much hopes after horribly-complicated-and-not-really-working-that-well ghost heat.

A lot of changes in game seems to be addressing symptom, not causes of the problems

[James The Fox Dixon]

XANi, on 10 August 2013 - 02:38 AM, said:

Yes I know. I'm just not sure that will take care of that problem, and PGI didn't said much about any kind of lobby/weight limit

I just don't have much hopes after horribly-complicated-and-not-really-working-that-well ghost heat.

A lot of changes in game seems to be addressing symptom, not causes of the problems

I agree that a lot of what they are doing addresses only the symptoms and not the root cause. The proposed system addresses the root cause and fixes it. By going against what is stated in the Battletech Universe they have created more problems than they know of.

[XANi]

James The Fox Dixon, on 10 August 2013 - 06:40 AM, said:

I agree that a lot of what they are doing addresses only the symptoms and not the root cause. The proposed system addresses the root cause and fixes it. By going against what is stated in the Battletech Universe they have created more problems than they know of.

It's not that. It is picking some parts of system unchanged while changing other stuff. You can't port everythong 1:1 or it would be very boring FPS BUT that also means pretty much everything needs to be changed and rebalanced accordingly. Simplest example would be PPC, in TT 10 damage for 10 heat dealt to random component is balanced, but when you port it while removing randomness suddenly it becomes hard to balance.

Weight limits are a good start but typical PUG player will still pick up heavy over medium, as it is now, there is really not much reason to pick medium mech instead of other class (maybe xcept picking cicada and pretending to be light). Don't get me wrong, I love my 4SP, but heavies just pack more punch for same size and similiar speed.

[James The Fox Dixon]

XANi, on 10 August 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

It's not that. It is picking some parts of system unchanged while changing other stuff. You can't port everythong 1:1 or it would be very boring FPS BUT that also means pretty much everything needs to be changed and rebalanced accordingly. Simplest example would be PPC, in TT 10 damage for 10 heat dealt to random component is balanced, but when you port it while removing randomness suddenly it becomes hard to balance.

Weight limits are a good start but typical PUG player will still pick up heavy over medium, as it is now, there is really not much reason to pick medium mech instead of other class (maybe xcept picking cicada and pretending to be light). Don't get me wrong, I love my 4SP, but heavies just pack more punch for same size and similiar speed.

You missed this part of the first post, "This should be the ideal drop weights based upon what a unit is classified as. Lone wolves would have to adopt this structure for CW drops." This sentence near the end of post stipulates that this is for Community Warfare.

You should know me by now as I don't talk about the short term. I almost always post about the long term in regards to changes.

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 10 August 2013 - 12:55 PM.

[XANi]

James The Fox Dixon, on 10 August 2013 - 12:55 PM, said:

Lone wolves would have to adopt this structure for CW drops." This sentence near the end of post stipulates that this is for Community Warfare.

This could work if that was communicated well to a player, for example when Lone Wolf queuing it should give a little popup or sth saying "if you queue as assault, average wait time is 4 minutes, if you queue as med, its 30s".

Or else there will be a lot of whining about long queue time just because some newbie players will just buy heaviest mech possible (because "bigger is better") and then wait for ages because every other newbie did same

As for CW, it all needs a good lobby system in addition to matchmaking. It's all good and well if you go premade vs. premade but the moment you add some Lone Wolfs into mix it could lead to all sorts of random stuff, like few randoms picking 100t mechs and now rest of the unit have to run in lights.

You could go by limiting "x of given mech size in a given match type", but more limits you place on matchmaking, the slower it becomes and at some times (on less "busy" parts of the day) it would just not be able to find that 2 meds to fiil your lance. There is also a problem that mechs on edges of weight limit can be played as both (say cicada can be played as med or light)

Or just go by MOBA rule and go "sorry, you are lastpick and there is not enougth tonnage left, you have to pick light or medium" but that would require either:

• Allowing trial mechs in additon to 4 selected ones, so player always have light/med/heavy/assault to choose from. That would also require them to be at least good builds, not assaults with damage output of cicada...
  
• Requiring player to have at least one mech below X tons before queuing for CW (which is reasonable enough)

[Pht]

Having read the thread as it stands;

I've seen this sort of thing, just at a smaller scale, in some of the old third-party leagues for MW4.

It as a pretty good thing - of course, that was a voluntary league environment, so you had people who were a bit more dedicated than in open servers and who expected more boundaries.

Making this "work" in open servers I think would require, instead of the iron hand of a drop restriction, the velvet glove over the iron hand - because people in open servers expect (rightly, I think) to be able to just screw around more and just do what they think is fun.

The "velvet glove" is basically a carrot to the iron hand's stick. For instance; the iron hand is the numerical balance in teams - it's just there for overall fairness - and the velvet glove is, perhaps, an MC or XP bonus for the side that closest conforms to the desired drop configuration.

As far as for community warfare, this could work well, because CW is somewhat equivalent to the old third party leagues in that people expect some more "format" to these sorts of games. However, if you give a bonus to normal open non-CW games, you'd want to give at least some bonus to the CW games as well; for simple equality.

Doing this in CW format also has another twist - one that you might well research - different houses, merc units, and other factions tend to "drop" with a certain setup of 'mechs and configurations. The best place for you to research this would be on the http://bg.battletech.com/forums/ - there are people there who likely could give you the basic configurations off the top of their heads, far beyond the old "steiner assault recon lance" joke. You can also get a lot of information about what specific mechs usually pop up from from HeavyMetalPro's random unit selector tables and the extra tables for it from here, for free, totally legit : http://www.pryderock...me_aids.php#RUS

I don't get into that end of things very much - I'm far more into the technical end of the universe.

[grayson marik]

Overall, it sounds well put to me. details might differ for certain tastes but in general.. good approach.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Updated the first post with four of the five Houses with their drop limits. Liao will take some time to figure out since they're listings are very chaotic.

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 12 August 2013 - 07:25 AM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Bump because I added in the Clans drop limits to the first post.

[Johnny Z]

I always thought the lance make up was more like:

Recon: 3 lights, 1 medium, or 4 lights
Medium: 1 light, 3 mediums
Heavy: 1 medium, 3 heavy, or 1 light, 1 medium, 2 heavy
Assault: 2 assault, 2 heavy
Used for base assault and defense mainly because of heavy lift, slow movement
restrictions. And not risking them in the field. Lack of recon.

Edited by Johnny Z, 18 August 2013 - 06:26 AM.

[Randalf Yorgen]

OP, all fine and dandy, now who are you going to force to pilot the mechs that they don't want to pilot? As was stated this will work well on a closed server but on an open server you cannot just walk in and impose what YOU think is right. ( just look at the kuffuffle around 3PV, R&R and the new C-B Rewards from the last patch to see what I mean) That's why I said a few days ago that the drop limits would be great as long as they are set at 1200T min/max (you could put bonuses in for a team that saves the most tonnage and wins but then are are getting into Batchalls and they just aren't here yet.) A different system that could allow an outlet for this is something I have pyned about here on the threads several times and that would be Arena Matches where you can actually call out another team for a Rumble in the Jungle and you can set up all the boundries and limits that you want between yourselves.

Because this is the richest BattleMech Universe I've ever seen anyone can have anything with just a few days work, there is no shortage of supply with regards to Mech Chassies here even though the Innersphere is just comming out of 300+ years of the most destructive warfare humanity has ever seen. This is the biggest goof-up PGI did with the game and although it is the most passive it is also the most destructive to the nature of the game. Closed servers or the abilitie to challenge other units and set up the drops how you want them is just about the only solution that could come close to working. Open Warfare you have to live with the 1200T weight limit because you cannot enforce heavy restrictions without ruining the game for many players, especially the lone wolves out there who only want to drop in assaults and many of them in an Atlas.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Johnny Z, on 18 August 2013 - 06:24 AM, said:

I always thought the lance make up was more like:

Recon: 3 lights, 1 medium, or 4 lights
Medium: 1 light, 3 mediums
Heavy: 1 medium, 3 heavy, or 1 light, 1 medium, 2 heavy
Assault: 2 assault, 2 heavy
Used for base assault and defense mainly because of heavy lift, slow movement
restrictions. And not risking them in the field. Lack of recon.

I used to think the same way when I first started playing BT 2nd Ed. It wasn't until the original House books came out that told me different.

[Johnny Z]

James The Fox Dixon, on 18 August 2013 - 06:29 AM, said:

I used to think the same way when I first started playing BT 2nd Ed. It wasn't until the original House books came out that told me different.

Either way very well done, just seemed a bit on the heavy side.

I hope they add these sort of realistic battlefield units with slots in the queue's to allow players to mount up and prep for drop. I dont see a need for specific names of units looking at it now, more the roles and such.

Edited by Johnny Z, 18 August 2013 - 06:49 AM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Randalf Yorgen, on 18 August 2013 - 06:28 AM, said:

OP, all fine and dandy, now who are you going to force to pilot the mechs that they don't want to pilot? As was stated this will work well on a closed server but on an open server you cannot just walk in and impose what YOU think is right. ( just look at the kuffuffle around 3PV, R&R and the new C-B Rewards from the last patch to see what I mean) That's why I said a few days ago that the drop limits would be great as long as they are set at 1200T min/max (you could put bonuses in for a team that saves the most tonnage and wins but then are are getting into Batchalls and they just aren't here yet.) A different system that could allow an outlet for this is something I have pyned about here on the threads several times and that would be Arena Matches where you can actually call out another team for a Rumble in the Jungle and you can set up all the boundries and limits that you want between yourselves.

Because this is the richest BattleMech Universe I've ever seen anyone can have anything with just a few days work, there is no shortage of supply with regards to Mech Chassies here even though the Innersphere is just comming out of 300+ years of the most destructive warfare humanity has ever seen. This is the biggest goof-up PGI did with the game and although it is the most passive it is also the most destructive to the nature of the game. Closed servers or the abilitie to challenge other units and set up the drops how you want them is just about the only solution that could come close to working. Open Warfare you have to live with the 1200T weight limit because you cannot enforce heavy restrictions without ruining the game for many players, especially the lone wolves out there who only want to drop in assaults and many of them in an Atlas.

You assume that nobody wants to pilot anything less than an assault, which isn't the case. You also assume that the Go Big or Go Home meta is fine and dandy for just assault pilots. Let me tell you, but there are a lot of people that will pilot just about any weight class if given the opportunity to do so in balanced matches. Right now, there is no weight balance and that is a problem as evidenced by Paul and the developers asking for ways to make light and medium mechs viable. These drop limits makes all mech weights viable.

With your proposal of a min/max of 1200 tons does absolutely nothing to help non-assaults. Your objection to actual drop limits based upon the BT Universe is ludicrous.

Also note that this is for Community Warfare and is to be used in conjunction with an actual meta-economy in place that limits what is available to purchase in a marketplace as well as providing a reason to having Loyalty Points.

EDIT: You also assume that a person only has one mech and that it's an Atlas. That is not the case as many people have as many mechs as they have mech bays which everyone gets 4 for free. Although, some people like a friend of mine just happens to own every mech in the game to date and has the mech bays for them.

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 18 August 2013 - 06:53 AM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Updated the unit compositions to minimize min/maxing and to balance them out further.

[Johnny Z]

Using lance configs like this makes more sense than weight limits on drops. Will be interesting to see how this works on the deployment interface/queue if there is such a thing added.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Johnny Z, on 22 August 2013 - 04:42 AM, said:

Using lance configs like this makes more sense than weight limits on drops. Will be interesting to see how this works on the deployment interface/queue if there is such a thing added.

I believe it would make more sense, so let's hope that people are letting the developers know that we want this.

I altered the original post a bit to make it more readable and understandable. I also fixed a lot of the tonnage weights as the math was off.