185 replies to this topic

[Blurry]

I run mediums just because out of the trial mechs I enjoyed them the most. I am not a fan of the assaults.
as for the match maker simple- you want to play a mech that everyone else wants to you wait.

You play a lighter you time in q is reduced. I cant wait for limits.

Or you run death match all assault - it will get boring very fast I guarantee you.
Variety is what makes thing fun and a challenge, but if you want to play the favorite - you pay the price -
You WAIT in LINE.

[Sandpit]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 01 November 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

Certainly the introduction of weight limits will not encourage the use of mediums. It will be how many of our favourite heavies/assaults is that if we include a Spider?
If they incorporate multiple objectives it will be mostly Victors, appropriate (fast) heavies and a few lights (if weight limits are included).
The Shawk may be included if it is decided that it is a "viable" mech in the meta.

You do that, I'll happily face off against your 4 Atlases and Spider in a group that could consist of the following
5 HBs
4 Jenners
and maybe a cicada for good measure.

or
5 Spiders
4 HBs
and a Stalker

or....

Well you get the point. Drop weights and/or tonnage limitations would go a loooooooooooong way to making the mech deployment more diversified.

[Jman5]

[Davers]

Sandpit, on 01 November 2013 - 02:56 PM, said:

Well you get the point. Drop weights and/or tonnage limitations would go a loooooooooooong way to making the mech deployment more diversified.

The post about tonnage limits mentioned a 720 ton limit on 12 man drops. Instead of medium mechs I am pretty sure the groups will look a bit more like this:

Spider
3 Jenner
Raven
Quickdraw
2 Cataphracts
Victor
3 Highlanders

[Deathlike]

Jman5, on 01 November 2013 - 03:19 PM, said:

You need to be nerfed.

Seriously though... you should stop experimenting with the Small Lasers...

[Warge]

ProtoKyle, on 31 October 2013 - 08:40 PM, said:

I don't know why the weight matching has been so sub-par lately, but nearly every game I have played tonight has 7+ assaults in it.

New player, old problems. Welcome to MWO, man.

[Sandpit]

Davers, on 01 November 2013 - 03:30 PM, said:

The post about tonnage limits mentioned a 720 ton limit on 12 man drops. Instead of medium mechs I am pretty sure the groups will look a bit more like this:

Spider
3 Jenner
Raven
Quickdraw
2 Cataphracts
Victor
3 Highlanders

and that's too many assaults how.....?

and I don't pilot any of those mechs

[NRP]

In honor of this thread, I just bought a Boar's Head. LOL.

Look people, the reality is the more Assaults and Heavies in a game, the better the game play. There's more fighting, less capping, and certainly a lot fewer troll MG toting lights. In fact, the more lights in a game, the worse the game experience will be.

[Davers]

Sandpit, on 01 November 2013 - 07:07 PM, said:

and that's too many assaults how.....?

and I don't pilot any of those mechs

Not saying too many assaults. Just pointing out that the tonnage limits won't make medium mechs magically appear.

[KHETTI]

More Assaults and heavies results in predictable, repetative gameplay that so many complained about in MW4, MWO was supposed to break away from that, it hasn't, and doesn't actually do it any better than previous MW game.
In fact it does a far far worse job, atleast MW4 had private servers, with many options for setting up games.

MWO=good game, just lacks the fun aspect 99% of the time.

[Xeno Phalcon]

KHETTI, on 01 November 2013 - 07:29 PM, said:

More Assaults and heavies results in predictable, repetative gameplay that so many complained about in MW4, MWO was supposed to break away from that, it hasn't, and doesn't actually do it any better than previous MW game.
In fact it does a far far worse job, atleast MW4 had private servers, with many options for setting up games.

MWO=good game, just lacks the fun aspect 99% of the time.

Dunno iv seen quite alot of shadow hawks at least and usually at least one or two lights on enemy teams but maybe thats just the bracket im in and the fact that iv been launching with my locusts. Match I was just in actually had quite a few mediums on each team though in the end it still was the quick and the hundred tons of death.

[Henry Morgan]

DaZur, on 31 October 2013 - 09:24 PM, said:

Doesn't everyone pilot an assault?

There are a lot more folk (myself included) who could not pilot an assault out of a wet paper bag... and are far more productive in heavies and lights...

Mediums are still our red head step-mechs however...

Heh, actually I like playing my mediums. Right now, with no real weight/tonnage balancing in the match maker, the Assaults do seem to be the way to go for "easy mode" playing. I continue to like my mediums and will still primarily play them. Whenever they decide to do any weight/tonnage balancing, I figure the mediums might come back into acceptance again.

[Stardancer01]

(1) If there are too many of any mech class at a time they should not be shoe horned and squeezed into normal battle matches but into death arena matches with mechs of their own weight scale.
Favouritism should be shown to mediums and light assaults (80-90ton) over supper assaults (95-100ton) to get placement in common matches.

(2) Newbs should not be allowed trial assaults until they own their first mech. Nearly every time I see a disconnect it is an assault mech.

(3) Assault mechs and heavies in closed beta were kept under control by repair bills. When repair was done away with, assaults became a free for all. Assaults should have an earnings and experience tax/debit of 20% for assaults (90-100ton), 10% for heavies and 15% for light assaults (80-85ton).

(4)Stop premades dropping with more than one assault. Or set a drop tonnage limit
1mech 100tons, 2mechs 175tons, 3mechs 225tons, 4mechs 275tons…

Edited by Stardancer01, 02 November 2013 - 05:16 AM.

[Sandpit]

Stardancer01, on 02 November 2013 - 04:00 AM, said:

(4)Stop premades dropping with more than one assault. Or set a drop tonnage limit
1mech 100tons, 2mechs 175tons, 3mechs 225tons, 4mechs 275tons…

Yay, let's put yet ANOTHER roadblock in being able to team up and play this game. No thanks

If you REALLY want to start with changing the mechs seen on the field then start with the economy.

As mroe assault mechs are purchased have their price rise. It continues to rise until that price becomes very prohibitive to buying. Then another mech will be purchased in lieu of that. As that mech is purchased its price begins to rise as well. As the popular mechs continuously rise you see a rise in other mechs being purchased due to good pricing.

(All numbers are just examples)
Atlas: 8 million c-bills base price, price increases 10% per 5 mechs bought (this is all chassis not just a singular variant)
1-5 mechs sold = 8 million
5-10 mechs sold = 8.8 million
10-15 mechs sold = 9.7 million
15-20 mechs sold = 10.6 million
so on and so forth

This encourages players to buy other mechs as well as simulates how rare mechs and components were in the universe. Even when production ramps up and mech production facilities are back in operation they are still costly to design, prototype, test, and build.

You could also do the same with weapons. As one weapon system is sold the price increases due to demand.

Then you offer discounts to certain mechs and variants for each house that encourage various mechs being purchased.

Then you offer game modes where taking assaults isn't going to make winning a very viable option. What we have now is stomp and shoot game modes. Nothing more. ow do you win modes like that? You take more weapons and armor than the other guys. (Yes I understand that's an extreme simplification to cap strategies, using ecm, cover, lrm spotting, etc.) Offering a game mode where the winning mechanic involves getting to a point and holding a target lock to "upload intel and data" from a command center before the timer runs out discourages an entire team comprised of assaults by its very nature.

Tonnage limits of sub-500 for a 12 man team for certain mission types or game modes will do the same.

As it stands right now there's no reason other than personal bias and preferences to take anything other than an assault. Until there is a reason to, it's working as intended.

Those are jsut a few ideas on how to balance things and create more diversity on the field.

[YueFei]

No, let's not put in tonnage limits or economic hurdles to piloting mechs, please. That just makes it even harder for newer players to grind their way up to compete on an even footing.

True balance comes from creating larger maps and multiple objectives, so that role warfare can flourish, and teams must naturally compose themselves from a variety of weight classes.

After all, the NFL doesn't impose "team weight restrictions". And yet the sport is well-designed so that you see anything from 140 pound speedsters to 350 pound hulks. There are vital roles for all kinds of sizes and shapes of athletes in American Football, so teams just naturally and organically form themselves with a mixture of players in different weight classes. If you filled your entire roster with nothing but 350 pound hulks, you'd get scored on everytime the other team touched the football, and on offense you wouldn't have the speed to take care of the edge rushers.

But imagine if the NFL had a football field only 30 feet wide, instead of 160 feet wide as it currently is. Then the sport really would be filled with only 350 pound dudes, because there wouldn't be enough room on the field for faster players to outpace the larger and heavier ones. It would become a poorly-designed sport with none of the depth of tactics and strategy that it currently has.

THAT is the current problem with MWO. Most of these maps are far too small, and unimaginative in the scenarios and objectives. Let's compare the classic Hunchback against an equivalent Cataphract:
With the Hunchback you'll go 90.9 kph, carry an AC/20 and 3 medium lasers, 10 DHS, and it requires you to shave armor from the arms and legs (34 points of armor shaved).
On the Cataphract-3D, you'll go 82.7 kph, carry an AC/20 and 4 medium lasers, 12 DHS, be jump-capable, and carry almost full armor (just 4 points of armor shaved)

The Cataphract is superior in every way except speed. But on a small map, the Hunchback can't even use that speed advantage in a meaningful way. Run 300 meters to go from one side of a firing line to the other, and the Hunchback gets there in 11.88 seconds. The Cataphract arrives in 13 seconds. Not a significant differerence.

But if you had to run 3 kilometers to get to an objective, then in the Hunchback, you'll arrive at that spot 12 seconds faster than the Cataphract. Still not a tremendous difference, but enough to fire 3 salvos before the Cataphract even arrives. And maybe that helps tip the battle in your favor.

Edited by YueFei, 02 November 2013 - 10:23 AM.

[Sandpit]

YueFei, on 02 November 2013 - 10:22 AM, said:

No, let's not put in tonnage limits or economic hurdles to piloting mechs, please. That just makes it even harder for newer players to grind their way up to compete on an even footing.

True balance comes from creating larger maps and multiple objectives, so that role warfare can flourish, and teams must naturally compose themselves from a variety of weight classes.

After all, the NFL doesn't impose "team weight restrictions". And yet the sport is well-designed so that you see anything from 140 pound speedsters to 350 pound hulks. There are vital roles for all kinds of sizes and shapes of athletes in American Football, so teams just naturally and organically form themselves with a mixture of players in different weight classes. If you filled your entire roster with nothing but 350 pound hulks, you'd get scored on everytime the other team touched the football, and on offense you wouldn't have the speed to take care of the edge rushers.

But imagine if the NFL had a football field only 30 feet wide, instead of 160 feet wide as it currently is. Then the sport really would be filled with only 350 pound dudes, because there wouldn't be enough room on the field for faster players to outpace the larger and heavier ones. It would become a poorly-designed sport with none of the depth of tactics and strategy that it currently has.

THAT is the current problem with MWO. Most of these maps are far too small, and unimaginative in the scenarios and objectives. Let's compare the classic Hunchback against an equivalent Cataphract:
With the Hunchback you'll go 90.9 kph, carry an AC/20 and 3 medium lasers, 10 DHS, and it requires you to shave armor from the arms and legs (34 points of armor shaved).
On the Cataphract-3D, you'll go 82.7 kph, carry an AC/20 and 4 medium lasers, 12 DHS, be jump-capable, and carry almost full armor (just 4 points of armor shaved)

The Cataphract is superior in every way except speed. But on a small map, the Hunchback can't even use that speed advantage in a meaningful way. Run 300 meters to go from one side of a firing line to the other, and the Hunchback gets there in 11.88 seconds. The Cataphract arrives in 13 seconds. Not a significant differerence.

But if you had to run 3 kilometers to get to an objective, then in the Hunchback, you'll arrive at that spot 12 seconds faster than the Cataphract. Still not a tremendous difference, but enough to fire 3 salvos before the Cataphract even arrives. And maybe that helps tip the battle in your favor.

No,the nfl implemented salary caps, free agency, and 53 man roster limitations. All of which are economical hurdles. This isn't the same comparison.

Bigger maps changes the weapon dynamics, not the mech versatility. I can pack on LRMs on assaults just the same as I can lights. Larger maps change nothign except optimal loadouts and strategies.

That doesn't impede new players at all. All it may impede is their ability to buy an atlas within the first week of playing the game. After a chassis sale number slows down and begins to drop then the price drops as well to reflect the smaller demand. I agree wholeheartedly that the maps are too small for the most part but that isn't going to encourage mech diversity. Without any real ladder to climb in order to get to assaults there's no other way to slow down their purchase and deployment.

Mission objectives and tonnage limits are going to be the foundation to diversifying the mechs you see on the field. Increasing prices for certain mechs due to supply and demand isn't going to stop new players from getting into anything but the absolute most populat chassis form the get go. Just because one assault mech becomes more expensive due to popularity doesn't mean every other assault will do the same. If anything it will pump assault mechs up which will encourage MC sales to purchase them (even though c-bill price goes up MC cost would stay the same). So instead of having a fully customized assault mech as your first ride you begin in a medium or heavy instead. That's hardly what I'd call an impediment.

This game is very unique as other than earning enough cbills or spending cash there is no process to leveling up or "earning" the biggest and baddest units in the game. Every other game you invest hours in, in order to get to top tier and level units. You don't drop in and have them available to you from day 1. There's a huge difference in that alone

I do find it interesting that you think a player must pilot an assault to be on even footing though. With tonnage limits that wouldn't be the case regardless. They would be on even footing because they would be dropping into games that are much more even.

[GalaxyBluestar]

assualts are popular because

A} most rewards are made by cbills and destruction and killing is the most rewarding since cap rewards are less and there's nothing else being offered. kill or be killed is the name of the game modes that we have which leads me to...

B} more firepower and armour gives you better chances, if you can couple that with manuverability you'll do better than the rest which leaves...

C} the movement mechanics and stability {HSR and lag} favours the fastest and the jump jettiest of mechs. if not then you need the most armour, hense mediums and heavies don't make it to the top they lack the speed and armour. jacks of all trades get outdone by masters.

D} buff and nerfed weapons too play a part, and the most used mechs are the ones with the most appropriate hadrpoints, taking advantage of showing the least of your mech for the most punch means high mounted JJ mechs are top, if not the fastest. so highlanders and some victors are romping it with phract d's along with raven-jenners, all other mechs slowly degrade as all rounders but not masters or speed-armour-firepower.

until the above is changed you'll see more assaults as they can cover the majority of those points.

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 02 November 2013 - 08:23 PM.

[YueFei]

Sandpit, on 02 November 2013 - 07:18 PM, said:

No,the nfl implemented salary caps, free agency, and 53 man roster limitations. All of which are economical hurdles. This isn't the same comparison.

The salary cap is imposed on the entire team. But a player isn't worth more because they weigh more. There is no team weight restriction in place to force teams to put a bunch of 160 pound guys on the field. If a team wants to, they can put 350 pound guys at every position. But it wouldn't succeed, because the sport is balanced organically, not from an external rule imposed on weight limits.

Quote

Bigger maps changes the weapon dynamics, not the mech versatility. I can pack on LRMs on assaults just the same as I can lights. Larger maps change nothign except optimal loadouts and strategies.

No. Bigger maps need not be Alpine-like in terms of length of sight lines. You can easily make large maps that feature CQB areas as well as areas with long sight lines. The key is to make it so that there are multiple objectives on the map where the travel time difference is meaningful between mechs with marginally different speeds.

Quote

That doesn't impede new players at all. All it may impede is their ability to buy an atlas within the first week of playing the game. After a chassis sale number slows down and begins to drop then the price drops as well to reflect the smaller demand. I agree wholeheartedly that the maps are too small for the most part but that isn't going to encourage mech diversity. Without any real ladder to climb in order to get to assaults there's no other way to slow down their purchase and deployment.

Making a chassis more expensive will not stop players who already own the popular mechs from continuing to operate those mechs. It's only impeding others from eventually owning them. But eventually they are gonna own them anyways, so how does this achieve the goal of ultimately making the game balanced in a way that teams want and need to bring a variety of weight classes?

Quote

Mission objectives and tonnage limits are going to be the foundation to diversifying the mechs you see on the field. Increasing prices for certain mechs due to supply and demand isn't going to stop new players from getting into anything but the absolute most populat chassis form the get go. Just because one assault mech becomes more expensive due to popularity doesn't mean every other assault will do the same. If anything it will pump assault mechs up which will encourage MC sales to purchase them (even though c-bill price goes up MC cost would stay the same). So instead of having a fully customized assault mech as your first ride you begin in a medium or heavy instead. That's hardly what I'd call an impediment.

This game is very unique as other than earning enough cbills or spending cash there is no process to leveling up or "earning" the biggest and baddest units in the game. Every other game you invest hours in, in order to get to top tier and level units. You don't drop in and have them available to you from day 1. There's a huge difference in that alone

We both agree that having proper mission objectives will go a long way towards encouraging the use of a variety of weight classes. I just don't think economic hurdles or tonnage restrictions are the way to go. After all, the grind in this game is really very minor, compared to MMOs, it's pretty quick to level up a mech of your choice. Making it take longer to obtain a desirable and popular chassis doesn't solve an imbalance between different chassis... it just means it'll take a bit longer before every competitive player is using it.

As for tonnage restrictions, we've seen what happens when you do that in player-run tournaments. Teams still tend to stack heavies and assaults, with a smattering of lights.

Quote

I do find it interesting that you think a player must pilot an assault to be on even footing though. With tonnage limits that wouldn't be the case regardless. They would be on even footing because they would be dropping into games that are much more even.

The matches overall might be even because both teams have the same tonnage, but not all players will be able to make equal contributions to the match outcome, even given equal skill. That's the problem. Some folks will get to pilot the heavy hitters, and others will be in inferior machines.

The developers of this game touted Role Warfare as being a big design pillar, a central part of the gameplay. But we don't have it yet, so here we are.

I don't advocate nerfing Assault mechs or Heavy mechs. They *should* be better in direct combat against lighter mechs. We just need to change the maps and game modes, and we should be fine.

Hell, just picture a Conquest match on a large map. One team fields nothing but 12 Assaults. But they need to take and hold at least 3 bases to win. An opposing team with a balanced composition can scout the all-Assault team's deployment, and then use speed to avoid or to rally and gain local numerical superiority to overwhelm them piecemeal.

For example, if the 12 Assault team splits into 3 groups of 4 to take 3 bases, the balanced team can harass at two other cap points, and then break off and use their speed to converge all 12 mechs to 1 base, leaving the other 8 enemy Assault mechs in the dust, and crush the 1 lance of enemy Assault mechs, 12 vs 4.

Or, if the 12 Assault team tries to deathball their way from base to base, your scouts track them, and you just avoid them while keeping the other bases capped. If they assault Epsilon, you abandon it and cap Gamma. When they stomp their way to Sigma, you leave it and cap Epsilon.

Of course, I think Conquest is silly and unimaginative (let's stand in squares and these oil rigs collect "resource points", LOL). But you can imagine a game mode where you've got multiple bases that actually mean something. An aircraft hangar that gives you access to air strikes. A munitions depot that lets you re-arm. Another base with artillery batteries. A communications station that puts your team in contact with support elements of air recon and air cav, infantry, armor, and allows the team commander to coordinate them. I mean, there are all kinds of possibilities here.

[Red squirrel]

DaZur, on 31 October 2013 - 09:24 PM, said:

Doesn't everyone pilot an assault?

There are a lot more folk (myself included) who could not pilot an assault out of a wet paper bag... and are far more productive in heavies and lights...

Mediums are still our red head step-mechs however...

I love Shadowhawk, Hunchback, Centurion, Cicada and Blackjack
I never understood the problems people are having with mediums.

Just build your mech for a specific role and stick to that role.

[mike29tw]

Red squirrel, on 03 November 2013 - 02:56 AM, said:

I love Shadowhawk, Hunchback, Centurion, Cicada and Blackjack
I never understood the problems people are having with mediums.

Just build your mech for a specific role and stick to that role.

The problem is a light or a heavy is better at every role you build for your medium mechs.