42 replies to this topic

[Screech]

Kitane, on 22 September 2013 - 07:44 AM, said:

Devs already described what they are planning to do:

- it will support weight limits for groups from 2 to 12
- it will enable teams larger than 4 to enter the queue.
- every size of a group will have a minimum and maximum allowed weight (something like 40-60t average). So every assault will have to be paired with a light mech to stay in the weight range.

How are 12 man incorporated when they play in 1PV only?

[Kitane]

Screech, on 22 September 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

How are 12 man incorporated when they play in 1PV only?

I can only guess that they would not be allowed to enter the random queue, but weight limits would still apply to 12 vs 12 matchmaking.


It comes from this

[Screech]

Kitane, on 22 September 2013 - 09:19 AM, said:

I can only guess that they would not be allowed to enter the random queue, but weight limits would still apply to 12 vs 12 matchmaking.


It comes from this

Yeah I knew about that, I just assumed it has changed since, well, they changed it. I thought the idea of the weight limits were to allow groups of all sizes into the normal queue and just match by group size and Elo. Hopefully they will clarify what they are going to do because all we can do at this point is guess.

[Nubsternator]

Give teams something like a 650 ton limit. There would also have to be notification on the launch page (where you select your mech and stuff) to tell you that you, or your team in that case, is taking up x of 650 tons. If your 4-man team wants to play as 4 D-DC Atlases for S and G's, then you shouldn't have a 12 man team, or at the very least have a bunch of lights. This gives people the choice of either having big guns or more smaller guns.

[FupDup]

I'm going to quote myself from earlier in this thread:

FupDup, on 21 September 2013 - 06:07 PM, said:

I'm not opposed to tonnage limits per se, but TL alone aren't going to solve the issue. People take heavies and assaults more often than lights and mediums because they're more useful in combat. TL does not improve the effectiveness of mediums or lights, it simply reduces the number of enemy heavies and assaults shooting at them. Mechs under 60 tons would be still cannon fodder, all that changes is that there's a lot more fodder and fewer cannons.

The ultimate fix would be to implement the thing PGI typed as ROLE WARFARE, but they somehow forgot about that concept somewhere along the road of developing this game. The point is, all mechs should be "asymmetrically equal," meaning that they all are desirable to have on your team for whatever individual (different) role they fulfill, and that lacking mechs of that role would put your team at a significant disadvantage. This is unlikely to be implemented, however, because hero mechs of the heavy and assault classes are gobbled up like candy by this game's MC whales and because PGI believes assault mechs to be "top tier avatars."

It would seem that either nobody has noticed this post, or nobody wanted to get into an argument with me. It would seem that much of the community doesn't want actual role warfare, and would prefer tonnage warfare where their "top-tier avatars" are simply better than medium mechs and they want other people to fulfill the cannon fodder role on their behalf.

[WarZ]

JagdFlanker, on 22 September 2013 - 07:00 AM, said:

considering that it often takes me 1+min to find a match (and i have 30 ping), tonnage limits would just make that wait longer. i think we might need more players playing MWO before starting to impose limits

That works if you would like to continue giving new players one sided matches because MM cant make effective matching half the time. Therefore hemmoraging more new players as they join and quit because they get thrown into joke matches half the time or more.

New players have enough issues to overcome coming to grips with this game. Learning curve, most mechs on the field better kitted and they are severely outclassed, getting owned because of poor kitting, etc, etc. But yea lets leave in hugely imbalanced matches as well. Putting that newbie into a a** ****** match as well will keep them playing ?

LoL

[Nubsternator]

FupDup, on 22 September 2013 - 04:30 PM, said:

It would seem that either nobody has noticed this post, or nobody wanted to get into an argument with me. It would seem that much of the community doesn't want actual role warfare, and would prefer tonnage warfare where their "top-tier avatars" are simply better than medium mechs and they want other people to fulfill the cannon fodder role on their behalf.

Either a hard team tonnage limit would work or the Role warfare would be good. I see the tonnage limit being easier to code and implement into the game, whereas the role warfare would be a much more satisfying, but more complicated (to code and incorporate, anyway) end to this problem.

[OznerpaG]

to me it looks like the matches are 1 sided because players are assigned to teams BEFORE all the players have joined. if the matchmaker waited until all the players joined, THEN assigned players to teams it could make sure each side had equally distributed tonnage and skill so there was at least a chance of an equal fight. no need for tonnage limits, just distribute each match's tonnage equally

and each player's mech weight should be modified by his match score average - someone with a match score average of 16 in a 50t hunch might only be worth 50t+16%= 58t, while someone with a match score average of 90 in a hunch might be worth 50t+90%=95t. also if a group wanted to enter a game they should get an extra 20ish% added to their weight to make up for the fact they are likely more organized than single players joining

[Tarl Cabot]

Class limits may be possible if the dropship type setup was utilized. 4 dropship bays, one for each weight class, with stock/trial mechs filling in the empty spots.

I thought to have the class limits set for the day but it would be more flexible if set for hourly or set amount hour rotation. One time interval would be 2 assaults/2 heavies/4 mediums/4 lights.

In the mix would be the selection of preference in weight class. ie Player A selects light/heavy/med/assault whereas Player B selects assault/light/heavy/medium.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 23 September 2013 - 08:00 AM.

[HammerSwarm]

FupDup, on 22 September 2013 - 04:30 PM, said:

It would seem that either nobody has noticed this post, or nobody wanted to get into an argument with me. It would seem that much of the community doesn't want actual role warfare, and would prefer tonnage warfare where their "top-tier avatars" are simply better than medium mechs and they want other people to fulfill the cannon fodder role on their behalf.

I'll bite. More tonnage inherently improves a mech's effectiveness. A 100 ton mech is larger and better than a 50 ton mech; that part is obvious. If a 50 ton mech was always better than a 100 ton mech then why would you even invent 100 tons mechs. That said if a 100 ton mech is always better than a 50 ton mech why wouldn't you want twelve 100 ton mechs?

For one mobility, if 100 ton mechs were as mobile as smaller mechs you would want them for when mobility was an issue.

Other factors are less limiting due to game design decisions. Cost is barely a factor because mechs are a one time investment due to a lack of repair, rearm, and mechs being destroyed. Tonnage is not a factor because you can have a 1200 pound 12 man drop if you so desire.

In this way tonnage limits are an artificial limitation placed on a drop to limit your choices to prevent you from bringing the premium assault mechs. This creates a strategic trade off in game design allowing different mechs to fill different roles at different tonnages. By this I mean where as a light mech would be limited to a scout role in an unlimited tonnage drop, that same mech can have a direct fire support role in a tonnage based meta, simply because you have slots to fill at lower tonnages.

By artificially constricting mech weight you make mech/team design more diverse by forcing players to make due with less tonnage and still have the same roles. Want a missile boat? Only have 55 tons? That's a Kintaro. Have 100 tons? Maybe an atlas D-DC would be a better choice. Need some direct support fire? Have 45 tons? That's a Black Jack sir! Have 100 tons? That's an Atlas RS. In a world without tonnage limitations the largest baddest mech is king. With tonnage limitations? Every atlas you bring now forces the real choice of what you don't bring to even that tonnage out.

A Raven and a Battle Master or an Atlas and a Flea?
Two Cataphracts or an Atlas and a cicada?
Two Victors or an Atlas and a Quick Draw?

This continues out to 12 members at whatever tonnage limit you set.

Edited by HammerSwarm, 23 September 2013 - 09:50 AM.

[Livewyr]

My 80kph Victor of DOOOM hungers.

(Assault mech armor, Almost Assault mech firepower, Almost medium mech speed/maneuverability, absolute death for light and medium mechs.)

Edited by Livewyr, 23 September 2013 - 11:07 AM.

[Prezimonto]

Victor's are going to really shine once tonnage limits go in. They're already great direct fire support and decent brawlers. The awesome will also be more appealing by extension, though it takes a superior awesome pilot got rack up anything near the scores an average victor pilot does.

[Alistair Winter]

RandomLurker, on 21 September 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

Tonnage is too vague an indicator of the power of a mech. Some version of Battle Value would be better.

I'd like that if it was very, very simple. Like tier 1, tier 2 and tier 3 mechs. Spider 5V is a tier 3 mech. Atlas D DC is a tier 1 mech.

[AussieGiant]

Yes role warfare would go a long way to making lights and mediums relevant again.

The death of mediums came as soon as they removed repair and rearm. Mediums are the work horse because they are affordable and can be repaired and sent back out without costing a fortune. Until some type of mechanic comes into play in role and community warfare that supports this, then there is simply no clear reason to take them. Tonnage limits might do something about it but classes would perhaps be a good compromise.

Edited by AussieGiant, 23 September 2013 - 11:56 AM.

[The Boz]

Alistair Winter, on 23 September 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:

I'd like that if it was very, very simple. Like tier 1, tier 2 and tier 3 mechs. Spider 5V is a tier 3 mech. Atlas D DC is a tier 1 mech.

Go back to World of Tanks, we don't want your kind around here.

[HammerSwarm]

Alistair Winter, on 23 September 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:

I'd like that if it was very, very simple. Like tier 1, tier 2 and tier 3 mechs. Spider 5V is a tier 3 mech. Atlas D DC is a tier 1 mech.

What could be more simple than every component having a cost? and your team having a maximum number?

[Alistair Winter]

The Boz, on 23 September 2013 - 11:56 AM, said:

Go back to World of Tanks, we don't want your kind around here.

Never played it.

I think I'll stick around.

HammerSwarm, on 23 September 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

What could be more simple than every component having a cost? and your team having a maximum number?

That wouldn't really work too well, because the cost doesn't reflect the value of the mech. Some mechs are inherently better than others due to hardpoints, geometry, etc.

[Hanz Blitzer]

This will be hard to put into practice because it does not in any way restrict what tonnage a person takes. If everyone plays in assault mechs for example, the matchmaking system would just split them up to come under the tonnage limitation. There would have to be a system that forced people to choose lower weight mechs. Otherwise, we would have insanely long matchmaking times as the game looked for the smaller amount of players in lights and mediums. Until there are incentives for taking lighter mechs, a ton limitation is not practical.

[The Boz]

Hanz Blitzer, on 23 September 2013 - 01:09 PM, said:

This will be hard to put into practice because it does not in any way restrict what tonnage a person takes. If everyone plays in assault mechs for example, the matchmaking system would just split them up to come under the tonnage limitation. There would have to be a system that forced people to choose lower weight mechs. Otherwise, we would have insanely long matchmaking times as the game looked for the smaller amount of players in lights and mediums. Until there are incentives for taking lighter mechs, a ton limitation is not practical.

That is why the tonnage limit must be fluctuating, determined on a per-match basis. Lots of assaults queue up? 12 assaults vs 12 assaults it is. Lots of lights and mediums? 9 lights, 3 mediums vs 8 lights, 4 mediums then.
ENFORCING a certain ratio of tonnage limits without actually REWARDING it with role warfare or similar mechanics is not a wise course of action.

[Orkhepaj]

tonnage limit wtf? where a jenner is as powerfull as a heavy? are u serious?