42 replies to this topic

[Agent 0 Fortune]

Mister Blastman, on 21 September 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

Now that the matchmaker is closing the gap in terms of skill (not perfectly and still quite broken), it'd be nice for PGI to implement tonnage limits to allow the games to be far more diverse. We currently see matches full of 4 - 7 assaults, the rest being heavies and maybe a light. Medium mechs are non-existent again.

Sadly, mediums are super fun to play. However, if you're the only medium on a team... well, that usually doesn't end well.

So tonnage limits/class limits/something would be nice to end the assault/heavy weighting and smooth things out to more "classical" BT levels. For PUG drops, at least. 12-mans should remain anything goes.

PGI has already done a 180 on the matchmaker upgrades since patch (they are now set to the prepatch level) becuase a outlying elo players would get repeated "failed to find match". Assigning tonnage limits will only exacerbate the issue (even if you had 16 high elo players ready to go, if they all have assaults, it is a no-go).

[Screech]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 23 September 2013 - 01:35 PM, said:

Assigning tonnage limits will only exacerbate the issue (even if you had 16 high elo players ready to go, if they all have assaults, it is a no-go).

They would place the tonnage limits on the groups and not the matchmaker. The matchmaker would never take tonnage into consideration as it would have already been addressed. The matchmaker only considers group size and Elo to balance. This means a full pug group could consist completely of Stalkers because single players have 100 ton limit.

This is not my idea, this is just what PGI has said they might be doing. But it probably might be better to talk about actual (possible) plans and their pros and cons and not dwell on our own ideas which they are going to ignore. Though, I think I am on an island on this one.

[FupDup]

HammerSwarm, on 23 September 2013 - 09:47 AM, said:

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.

Who ever said that a 50 ton mech would be always better than a 100 ton mech? In role warfare, mechs each have their own different duties to fulfill, and lacking any of those roles would put your team at a noticeable disadvantage at whatever that role is (i.e. no fire support = brawlers smash your face in, no light hunters = ankles being bitten, etc.). More tonnage is not supposed to inherently improve a mech's effectiveness, it's just supposed to increase armor and weapon capacity (and decrease maneuverability).

HammerSwarm, on 23 September 2013 - 09:47 AM, said:

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.

Repair and rearm don't incentivize team diversity, they just force space poors into using low-tier avatars. Experienced/established players would still do as they please. Mech destruction wouldn't help either, because larger mechs are harder to destroy and better at destroying enemies.

HammerSwarm, on 23 September 2013 - 09:47 AM, said:

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.

Still doesn't solve the underlying issue I'm concerned about, it's more of a bandaid that's trying to disguise the wound. "Oh don't worry, your Awesome isn't inferior in every single possible way to a Stalker or Battlemaster! Your sacrifice lets your teammates drive mechs better than yours!" All you're doing is reducing the number of cannons and increasing the amount of fodder. Mechs like the Flea and Locust would still be terribad under tonnage limits because they can be crippled/destroyed by a single volley of Medium Lasers. They would be taken out in record speed by larger lights or fast mediums, and then the whole enemy team would dogpile on the remaining large assault mechs on the Flea/Locusts' team.

Edited by FupDup, 23 September 2013 - 02:15 PM.