185 replies to this topic

[Wispsy]

Screech, on 05 November 2013 - 08:21 AM, said:

I am not sure where I said it would. I find it odd that you of all folks would equate assault=win.

If they want to make people solo less they need to make a real reason to group. Also tonnage limits will most likely remove group limits so I highly doubt you will see some mass exodus to solo dropping to run assaults. But if they do, I just can't get concerned about facing an all pug all assault match.

Maybe because whilst playing at the highest Elo assault = win...and seen as people who have made it to the highest Elo have done so by winning...well...if you cannot see how that works I do not think anybody can help you

[NextGame]

it will be really annoying when the latest assault mech™ gets released, you and your friends buy it, and then cant play together because of weight drop limits.

[Almond Brown]

Mister Blastman, on 05 November 2013 - 08:25 AM, said:

PGI sadly makes way more money catering to a Assault-heavy meta.

If true, which it isn't btw, then why did the Phoenix Package have Mechs other than Assaults? Or did everyone buy Phoenix just for the BM and QD...

Making **** up is not helpful.

Edited by Almond Brown, 05 November 2013 - 10:51 AM.

[Mister Blastman]

Almond Brown, on 05 November 2013 - 10:46 AM, said:

If true, which it isn't btw, then why did the Phoenix Package have Mechs other than Assaults? Or did everyone buy Phoenix just for the BM and QD...

Making **** up is not helpful.

I make nothing up. How to get the heavies mechs, you had to pony up the most money and slog through the worthless junk like the Locust. Also look at all the Hero mechs released and chart them versus their sizes. You'll see the majority of Hero mechs are stilted towards the heavier ones.

Otherwise we'd have a hero Jenner, or Spider, or Raven, or Hunchback, or Blackjack... or... or... you get the point.

We DO have ... a Hero Atlas, Highlander, Stalker, Awesome, Victor, Cataphract, Jaeger and Catapult.

See the skewed perspective yet?

Not thinking through **** is not helpful. ;P

[OznerpaG]

people should be able to pilot what they want - unfortunatly the way the game works you need cash to buy things but the only way you can make the max cash is by killing other mechs. the best/easiest way of killing other mechs, especially if you arn't an ace pilot, is with an assault. if the matches were more equal regardless of what mechs people picked then it wouldn't matter so much. or they can make other ways to make good cash in the game, but in the meantime you are stuck with killing other mechs.

i posted this in the suggestions a while back:

Quote

to me it looks like a decent % of 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 as equally as possible so people can pilot whatever they want and still get in a match fast.

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 10ish% per mech added to their weight to make up for the fact they are likely more organized than single players joining

there will still be some games that are unbalanced, but at least the teams will be as balanced as they possibly can be given the 24 mechs in any particular match

http://mwomercs.com/...31#entry2803031

Edited by JagdFlanker, 05 November 2013 - 11:07 AM.

[Screech]

Wispsy, on 05 November 2013 - 09:49 AM, said:

Maybe because whilst playing at the highest Elo assault = win...and seen as people who have made it to the highest Elo have done so by winning...well...if you cannot see how that works I do not think anybody can help you

OK so 1% is off, I am going with Spock on this one. But since assaults are such a win button then tonnage limits will be an appropriate band-aid. It won't fix mediums but it is something they actually can manage to finish. After UI 2.0 of course.

[Sandpit]

once again, you should have to play how I feel the game should be played.

[Wispsy]

Screech, on 05 November 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

OK so 1% is off, I am going with Spock on this one. But since assaults are such a win button then tonnage limits will be an appropriate band-aid. It won't fix mediums but it is something they actually can manage to finish. After UI 2.0 of course.

What? Elo is based off winning and the people who win the most are those who drive assaults...it is not the 1% that is off, it is off everywhere but the fact that the top Elo is all assaults proves that they are more likely to win...else there would be a nice mix of everything as everyone would be able to reach the top in any weight class if they got good enough, not just almost all people who play assaults. Some people so blind :/ OH THE TOP IS FULL OF ASSAULTS BUT AT LOW LEVELS WE SEE EVERYTHING FROM TIME TO TIME SO IT MUST BE BALANCED....no...the top is those who win the most...the people who win the most play the same things...it is based off win/loss...I do not even know what to say to get through to people like you :/ ignorance is bliss eh?

[Joseph Mallan]

Wispsy, on 05 November 2013 - 12:08 PM, said:

What? Elo is based off winning and the people who win the most are those who drive assaults...it is not the 1% that is off, it is off everywhere but the fact that the top Elo is all assaults proves that they are more likely to win...else there would be a nice mix of everything as everyone would be able to reach the top in any weight class if they got good enough, not just almost all people who play assaults. Some people so blind :/ OH THE TOP IS FULL OF ASSAULTS BUT AT LOW LEVELS WE SEE EVERYTHING FROM TIME TO TIME SO IT MUST BE BALANCED....no...the top is those who win the most...the people who win the most play the same things...it is based off win/loss...I do not even know what to say to get through to people like you :/ ignorance is bliss eh?

I still say the Elo should be based on our Kill/death. 11 Good players can carry 1 bad player to the top, But if what I personally do dictates my Elo then I cannot stand in anyone's shadow.

[PEEFsmash]

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. Ruins the fun, ruins the strategy. Someone really should bring that number down to about 4 max, so it's not a shitstorm of derp every game.

There are so many assaults because Assaults are the best mechs in the game. Make Medium and Light mechs as good as Assaults, and there won't be so many Assaults.

[Sandpit]

lol @ Assaults are "best in the game"

So tell me, what makes them the "best"? You grab your Atlas, I'll grab a Jenner and we can go 1v1, I'd be willing to bet I beat ya most of the time

[DaZur]

We can wax poetically over Elo, match-making and weight balancing while donning our fashionable aluminum foil bonnets all day... but the pink elephant no one wishes to discuss in regards to the high proliferation of assaults (and to a greater extent heavies) is the glaring omission of any form of mech ownership economy.

Assaults conically were rare and prized mechs, owned by either the most skilled, the luckiest or the most financed. Making the Heavies the the battlefield stalwarts and the mediums the truest everyday plots mechs...

What we are talking about is some form of R&R...

The reason MW:O is inundated with Assaults is because any pilot with enough time or disposable income can own an Assault. What compounds this fact is there is no downside post purchase for ownership of said mech...

- Cost to pilot an Assault? = $.0.00
- Cost to drive it like a Leroy Jenkins? = $0.00
- Cost to take it out and beat it like a $5.00 Craigslist purchase? = $0.00
- Cost to sit in the back and expend million dollars worth or ordinance? = $0.00

Get the picture?

Throw out all these middle-level efforts to mold the make-up of a teams drop... Inject some repercussion for piloting a fatty and you will see the battlefield un-tilt and, matches will automatically balance and you will see pilots unfit to pilot assaults and or not financially viable to run assaults culled from the herd.

Yes, it disenfranchises the have-nots and creates a skill-based barrier to circumvent... But it will solve more issues than it creates, those who have the means and the skill will be rewarded and vindicated and pilots will be given a conscience and will appreciate the repercussions of their actions or inactions.

PGI needs to be done with mollycoddling the polar extremes...

Edited by DaZur, 05 November 2013 - 12:50 PM.

[Screech]

Wispsy, on 05 November 2013 - 12:08 PM, said:

What? Elo is based off winning and the people who win the most are those who drive assaults...it is not the 1% that is off, it is off everywhere but the fact that the top Elo is all assaults proves that they are more likely to win...else there would be a nice mix of everything as everyone would be able to reach the top in any weight class if they got good enough, not just almost all people who play assaults. Some people so blind :/ OH THE TOP IS FULL OF ASSAULTS BUT AT LOW LEVELS WE SEE EVERYTHING FROM TIME TO TIME SO IT MUST BE BALANCED....no...the top is those who win the most...the people who win the most play the same things...it is based off win/loss...I do not even know what to say to get through to people like you :/ ignorance is bliss eh?

So up on Olympus the heaviest team automatically wins?

I am well aware of the advantages of being the biggest in a fight, professor. That is why I am fine with tonnage limits to control it. Any other idea will never get done, it's called settling.

I just don't think tonnage is the only factor in wins. You think I am wrong, I will survive.

[Wispsy]

Screech, on 05 November 2013 - 01:05 PM, said:

So up on Olympus the heaviest team automatically wins?

Yes...

there are 2 ways you will lose in top Elo games:
1- One team gets an extra premade of good people whilst the other team gets noname randoms used just to create the game.
2-You are lighter. If you are 100 tons lighter and both teams know how to play, you will lose barring some exceptional carry effort from one individual who pulls out one of those rare "everything went my way" games.

They are literally full of assaults. If they are not, the premade that lost, goes and gets their assaults to carry harder because that is likely why they lost. Ever watched JagerXII's stream? The proof is out there.

Sandpit, on 05 November 2013 - 12:25 PM, said:

lol @ Assaults are "best in the game"

So tell me, what makes them the "best"? You grab your Atlas, I'll grab a Jenner and we can go 1v1, I'd be willing to bet I beat ya most of the time

Are you kidding me? Seriously? First off, Atlas is not the best assault, highlander is. However, that being said, an Atlas should never lose 1v1 to a Jenner unless there are some very serious differences in skill level. Even if you do not have SSRMs (which equal instant win, Jenner cannot, do anything, ever, to that atlas, unless he is a 2erll and sniping from 900m whilst constantly moving, only works on some maps too, will take about 15mins) then you literally will get shot coming within weapon range (every single viable competitive Jenner uses medlas). Staying behind one that knows how to move is literally physically impossible. I mean not "oh you are not skilled enough to do it" I mean PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE UNLESS THEY USE A STANDARD 240 OR SOMETHING. Not only that, they can stand next to a wall or a base... Then we have to point out that, you have hundreds of points of armour and torso twisting to spread laser damage is VERY effective, it should take them a very long time to kill an Atlas focused solely on a Jenner. Then We should look at the difference in firepower. It is a big one. Now...whilst the Jenner is taking an awful long time to kill this Atlas, guess how many times he has to be hit before he is screwed...twice. And that is only with the AC20. If you have say 2 large lasers...well just think for a moment how much damage 2 large lasers does to a Jenners amount of armour...compared to how much damage 6 medium lasers do to an Atlas's armour...if you think they compare....rofl I guess maths is below you eh?

The only kind of assault you can solo as a Jenner is one full of ppcs or lrms, that is, unless they are too busy licking their windows to shoot in your general direction. Dear god I mean I kill assault mechs all the time, but at least I understand that I am only doing it because they are bad amd I understand that if they knew how to play I would lose. You really think light mechs move that fast? YOU CAN TRACK A LIGHT MECH RUNNING AT FULL SPEED PERFECTLY WITHOUT EVER LOSING HIM, the only reason people ever miss them is bad aim or total outplay(preemptively dodging, because hsr means you cannot even just dodge when they shoot, it has to be before they actually shoot at the precise time they will)...you would literally have to miss 30+ shots in a row to die or completely ignore the fact that one can torso twist and just stare at him till you get cockpit shot.

Edited by Wispsy, 05 November 2013 - 02:03 PM.

[Sandpit]

Quote

Jenner "I" cannot, do anything, ever, to that atlas, unless he is a 2erll and sniping from 900m whilst constantly moving, only works on some maps too

I went ahead and fixed that for you. Just because YOU can't do something doesn't mean nobody else can. Once again, this thread boils down to nothing more than "I want everyone else to conform to my views and what I consider fun" and you proved that mentality with the statement I just quoted from you.

I am not, will not, and SHOULD not have to base my view of fun and what it is possible for me to accomplish based on what YOU are able or unable to do. Just because YOU can or cannot do something does not dictate what MY abilities allow me to do

[YueFei]

Sandpit, on 05 November 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

this is where I disagree. You just stated why we DO need tonnage limits. There are certain situations where it is completely ludicrous to drop with a slow plodding 100 ton assault mech. Scouting and recon missions come to mind right off the bat. The same scenario you just laid out works both ways. You don't always put your jumbo set out there. There are certain situations where having a slow moving assault mech shouldn't be allowed. Tonnage limits on their own are not going to be what does it. It has to b comprehensive. Example: Recon mission: 12 mechs in the recon team and all must have a minimum speed of 80/kph and weigh no more than 70 tons. That places tonnage limits on a specific mission type where speed, stealth, and mobility are far more important than armor and firepower. The mission objective could easily be "Must hold lock on a specific item located at the enemy encampment for xx amount of seconds and return to your base with the intel" There's a huge difference in what I just suggested as "There's too many assaults, they should be limited because I don't like seeing that many assaults. Other players should have to play to and cater to how I want to play the game." Do you see the difference and understand what I'm getting at? if you really want to see an example of how this type of system works check out megamek and the mekwars campaign some time. Their mission types determine weight, speeds, types, etc. of mechs that are allowed. If you want to drop in assault class mechs all day long that's fine but you aren't going to do certain mission types with that composition

I do not think we disagree. I think we are on the same page here. Like I said, players should be allowed to run whatever mechs they want. Just like an NFL team can bring their jumbo package for 3rd down and 10 if they want. Does not mean it will be smart, but they should not be *disallowed* from bringing that package on such a down-and-distance by the rules.

In that spirit, I do not want tonnage limits, or economic limits, or battle value, or what-have-you. If a map and its mission objectives call for mobility, then let the players figure that out and bring the appropriate mechs. But they should be *allowed* to bring a slew of slow Heavies and Assaults if they want to. Just like if its a small map that you know is gonna be a close range slugfest, teams should still be allowed to bring 12 Locusts if they want to. It is just going to fail miserably but give players the freedom to chose and experiment with what they want to try.

Just as long as the game and its maps and missions are designed well enough and varied well enough, we will see different drop decks be successful at different types of maps and missions.

[D04S02B04]

Games are won and lost by the quality of your assault mech players.

I will add on to what is repeated by many players in this thread and that is the ability of light, mediums or heavies to shine are all restricted by the ability of the Assault mechs. Why would you willingly let a complete stranger, most of which are bad players or bad mechs (trial Atlas mech) lose the game for you? You taking the assault mech reduces an ***** on the team (assuming you're a decent player).

[ShinVector]

Wispsy, on 05 November 2013 - 07:37 AM, said:

Which is why it will be 4 hour wait times...think about it, at top Elo almost everybody plays assaults. Wait times can already be over an hour during most of the day if you are trying to drop solo. If it is looking to not only find games relatively close in Elo (and relatively is not really that close in this game and it still struggles) whilst finding enough mediums and lights to make a game happen? lol...always wanted a game that would only let me play twice a week...oh wait...

And saying that it will be fine because people will play mediums....peoples mediums are not high enough to get in those kinds of games. Not to mention that when highly competitive players lose, they will want to win, best way to win ton up, oh look, suddenly everybody at the top is queueing as an assault again and nobody can get a match because it wants at least 4+ mediums/lights per game. The person who drops down, then gets **** on, because they are in a medium and mediums always get **** on in high Elo games, and tons back up again wanting to win...


game should be balanced without the need to force people into bad roles. I am not against tonnage limits, it is fine to stop the full light(well I do not really see this happen but I guess it must) or full assault teams at the very ends of the spectrum from happening (because too much of one thing should be bad) but I do not like the idea of forcing people who want to play into mechs that will get **** on just to find a game, like a game of patience, whoever holds out the longest wins.

Also consider this, what happens if you go "oh well tonnage limits make everything balanced and I cannot get a game in my highlander so I will just drop down into a light and it will all be ok" then you get matched with Elo balancing assaults (as in, they are there so the game happens, pilots who are not as experienced and need to be carried). On the other team, a 4man competitive team waited just that little bit longer then you, and they get Elo balancing mediums whilst their 4man highlander/3d team DESTROYS THE HELL out of your bad Atlas water flanking maneuver. BALANCED RIGHT. 4 lights/mediums can do nothing at all to 4heavies/assaults unless they are outskilled by a stupid amount or just wander off into a corner doing nothing and wait for their base to get totally capped.



Edit: Also consider this from a new players perspective. If your group is limited in how much it can weigh, and you just made a friend and you are both in your new assault mechs which you used all your cadet bonus to buy....oh look...one of you has to jump in a trial mech for another 75 matches if you actually want to play together....totally fair :/

Wispy,

I think you missed my point. It has nothing to do with wait times or ELO. Some of the things you mention will just be impossible once the hard limits comes in.

I can't find the dev post with the draft tonnage limit plan but it goes something like this.

==
4 Man group - Max Weight 250 Tons - Min Weight 150 Tons.
==

Trying to run a 4 Man CTF team will fail the Max Weight limit.
You can run a team of 3 CTFs but 1 person will have to be a 40 ton medium or less.

Trying to run a 4 Man 35 light team will fail the Min Weight limit.
You can run a team of 3x35 ton lights but 1 person will have be a 45 ton medium or more.

You can run a 4 man 50 medium team with no problems.

--

TOP ELO 4 man Highlander teams can go fly a kite.
You can have 2 Higlanders but the other 2 persons on the team must be 35 ton lights or less.

I cannot perdict how thing will work out but it should prove interesting.
It should be less likely for a match to be nothing but Assault mechs or light mechs for that matter.
Unless of course everyone came in as SOLO pugs.

Edit: I guess you might be talking about solo TOP ELO assault pug drops. Yeah not finding a match might happen or there will be enough fragmentation in weight class and ELO to slot them in here and here.
Really not sure what is going to happen.. Only time will tell.

Edited by ShinVector, 05 November 2013 - 07:00 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Gotta love how everyone is all, You need to play the game this way. You bring what you want, We'll bring what we want, best team wins. That is competitive.

[DaZur]

Joseph Mallan, on 06 November 2013 - 05:40 AM, said:

Gotta love how everyone is all, You need to play the game this way. You bring what you want, We'll bring what we want, best team wins. That is competitive.

But..but...but... If MW:O is to be a "competitive" gaming arena, all things must be equal?

This is something that chaps my arse... MW:O is derived from a Universe embroiled in war and political infighting. As a military asset you go where they tell you to go, with the equipment they give you, undertaking the orders given... You as a military asset, do not have the luxury of demanding equality in opposing forces on the planet you deem most favorable, making decisions of you own volition...

​IMHO this is the crux of what keeps MW:O form finding it's equilibrium... There are players who want to play futuristic "war" with big stompy robots... and there are players who what to play MW:O like it's a competitive e-sport arena.

The two can't coexist because the needs and wants from the core games are largely diametrically opposite... In short our definitions of "competitive" are not necessarily the same.