376 replies to this topic

[LawDawg]

Mycrus, on 26 November 2013 - 04:36 PM, said:

Neg.

A group of seven thwee thwee charlees get rushed by fast brawlers and supported by lurms and lights is kibble.

They don't have the speed to fight a brawling match.

The problem with 12-man is that players have all stagnated into the long range "meta" and have actually forgotten how to brawl.

What is funny is the squadron panic you notice when the l33t 12-man playurz succumb to a good 'ole pug zerg rush!

So in a very intended pun - L2P 12s

You need video evidence?

And that is why "Weight Matching" is needed. Cause as it is now, its the (Seven Thwee Thwee Charlees) that are the "Meta". They stack and reign. Ya there are work arounds, but in a pug, only so much you can.

This will STOP the 8 Highlanders / 2-3 D-DC's and 1-2 Light's on the battlefield. In Sync and 12s.

Im sorry you have to adjust, Im SORRY you liked stepping on pugs and other groups and you probly cant do that anymore. Play the game and strats for your Mediums and Heavies. Adapt and Overcome!

[Rattlehead NZ]

LawDog, on 26 November 2013 - 05:01 PM, said:

And that is why "Weight Matching" is needed. Cause as it is now, its the (Seven Thwee Thwee Charlees) that are the "Meta". They stack and reign. Ya there are work arounds, but in a pug, only so much you can.

This will STOP the 8 Highlanders / 2-3 D-DC's and 1-2 Light's on the battlefield. In Sync and 12s.

Im sorry you have to adjust, Im SORRY you liked stepping on pugs and other groups and you probly cant do that anymore. Play the game and strats for your Mediums and Heavies. Adapt and Overcome!

Time to dust off the Jenner.

[OznerpaG]

there is a very good reason why people pilot the big guys - THEY MAKE YOU CASH. the whole point of this game is to MAKE CASH to buy more mechs and accessories.

i'd LOVE to pilot my jenner more often, but it only makes me half the cash my victor does so i'm not going to waste my time in it. i'd LOVE to pilot my hunch more often (or even ever), but my victor goes as fast as it and is way more survivable, and surviving longer means you have a better chance of doing more damage, and more damage makes you MORE CASH

if all weight classes had a way of making an equal amount of cash in a game by doing it's specific job (i assume this is what people are talking about in regards to this 'role warfare' thing), then all weight classes would be used. but if you had a choice of working a job that makes $10/hr or a job that makes $20/hr doing the exact same work, which do you think you are going to pick?

Edited by JagdFlanker, 26 November 2013 - 05:30 PM.

[GalaxyBluestar]

you know i'm goign to utterly hate weight limits? because it means i have to learn more playstyles and i'm already limited on speedy mechs because of my standard laptop performance.

well know this...

the game will be BETTER for mixing up mech classes under tonnage, at last patrols of mech classes can have a role instead of all swarm in fast mechs all blob up in assault mechs derp play which is the pug ghetto lifestyle that's strangled the game ever since open beta.

i for one welcome our tonnage and playstyle strategist overlords. even if it limits my options andf taxes my capabilities because i'm pov.

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 26 November 2013 - 05:31 PM.

[Deathlike]

Because, the MM can troll you "equally":

[keith]

this was asked for about 1st couple weeks of CB beta. GG pgi on a mandatory thing in a MW title taking 2+ years to get in.

[Victor Morson]

Hellcat420, on 26 November 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

so with tonnage limits what is there to stop a team from throwing a few locusts on the team then loading the rest up with heavy and assault mechs? tonage limits are not the way to go to have more balanced matches.

A: The team then has two Locusts in the mix. That's enough of a downside.

Trust me, in league games nobody runs a Locust even on the very lightest drops, despite tonnage limits.

stjobe, on 26 November 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

No, we need more reasons to take our sub-60 ton 'mechs on the field; more reasons to do so and be a productive and contributing team member. And the only way to do so is to have some sort of role warfare in place before tonnage limits - to do it the other way may well spell doom for MWO.

I still hold that BV is superior to tonnage for a lot of reason. If Awesomes took as much out of a team as a Quickdraw, they'd be way more attractive than taking the resources of a Victor.

Edited by Victor Morson, 26 November 2013 - 05:52 PM.

[Sandpit]

Well, the QQ is exceptionally delicious tonight. A little entitlement mixed with burger king syndrome (cuz you always have to have it your way ya know), sprinkled with a little what do you mean I can't drive my 100 ton assault mech in every game every single time I drop?

You mean to tell me that (like every other single game out there that is a team based game and has restrictions on limits of certain units [unless you really want to believe MWO is the first in gaming history to do this]) and pushes a shift to help bring reasons to see something besides an assault mechs.

Of course this is the same community that raged over a 60 second timer, QQs over capping, whines about ballistics, lrms, heat, and hardpoint restrictions so I'm not too surprised.

Never mind that they've already announced an alternative to this if you really don't want to play in this manner. It's called private matches.
It's called deathmatch

But some would rather just QQ because they can't play a free game without any kind of restrictions.

[aniviron]

FupDup, on 26 November 2013 - 02:43 PM, said:

You know...a more effective solution than tonnage limits would be role warfare, right? You know, give people a specific reason to play mediums and lights, rather than forcing them to do it?

But nope, this community wants their fat robots to remain stronger than the skinnier robots, and would rather have their teammates drive the little robots so that they can continue to drive fat robots, rather than making the little robots more desirable to have on one's team.

I'm afraid that this is exactly the problem right here, this is the million dollar post (well, some of the mediums are fatter than the heavier mechs, but we all know he means weight ). Good teams are going to be dropping in highlanders, victors, and jenners. Weight limits are probably going to spell death for the medium weight class more surely than all the horrible balancing failures that PGI has implemented so far. Not much will change in the short term, but as people buy and sell mechs, it's going to become obvious that lights hit far harder than mediums for the tonnage they consume. We're in a spot where lights do as much damage as a medium, but live longer and move faster, and now lights get the additional benefit of freeing 10-30 tons up for their teammates to run even heavier mechs, which is only going to help the team even more.

[Roadbeer]

Nope

[FupDup]

aniviron, on 26 November 2013 - 06:13 PM, said:

...We're in a spot where lights do as much damage as a medium, but live longer and move faster...

My Shadow Hawk begs to differ (except for the speed part).

But other than that, yeah people are definitely over-hyping TL big time. They would rather have tonnage warfare than role warfare...

Edited by FupDup, 26 November 2013 - 06:23 PM.

[Deathlike]

FupDup, on 26 November 2013 - 06:17 PM, said:

But other than that, yeah people are definitely over-hyping TL big time. They would rather have tonnage warfare than role warfare...

Well, the Lolcust's only role is being roadkill, so I guess that's acceptable to PGI.

[Jonathan Paine]

I want class and tonnage matching. I'm willing to run in a less than optimum mech. I'm willing to ready up more than one class of mech to help set up an equal match. How about you?

[Xanquil]

I have a radical idea. Make a 600-700 ton limit and get rid of the 12v12 set up. Keep 12 as the most you can have on one side but you are running 6 atlas than that is all you have. It would make for an interesting test if nothing else.

[gjnii]

This will have the opposite effect on overall tonnage per match.
Ask yourself the following:
Which group do I think is larger:
The group that will switch down from their $40 boarface atlas?
OR
The group that will switch UP on the opposing team from their locust grinding, when the Boarface pilot refuses to switch down?

You just watch.

[GalaxyBluestar]

Xanquil, on 26 November 2013 - 06:52 PM, said:

I have a radical idea. Make a 600-700 ton limit and get rid of the 12v12 set up. Keep 12 as the most you can have on one side but you are running 6 atlas than that is all you have. It would make for an interesting test if nothing else.

that's something to consider... you have CW, ladder/league and "free for all" systems and each one comes with it's own rules on the amount of mechs - tonnage like mech commander {great game} and premade style lobbies give you your own settings and clans have their own tonnage - amount of mechs limits vs IS mechs.

sounds like the game we were supposed to have. who knows what will happen when ui 2 hits.

[OznerpaG]

Xanquil, on 26 November 2013 - 06:52 PM, said:

I have a radical idea. Make a 600-700 ton limit and get rid of the 12v12 set up. Keep 12 as the most you can have on one side but you are running 6 atlas than that is all you have. It would make for an interesting test if nothing else.

the same way we played TT - brilliant actually. individual mech tonnage should be modified according to match score rating though - someone in a 50t mech with a low match score might only be worth 40t, while someone with a high match score in a 50t mech might be worth 60t

[WarZ]

LawDog, on 26 November 2013 - 05:01 PM, said:

And that is why "Weight Matching" is needed. Cause as it is now, its the (Seven Thwee Thwee Charlees) that are the "Meta". They stack and reign. Ya there are work arounds, but in a pug, only so much you can.

This will STOP the 8 Highlanders / 2-3 D-DC's and 1-2 Light's on the battlefield. In Sync and 12s.

Im sorry you have to adjust, Im SORRY you liked stepping on pugs and other groups and you probly cant do that anymore. Play the game and strats for your Mediums and Heavies. Adapt and Overcome!

He he, agreed.

Tonnage / class matching cant get here fast enoug in my opinion. I want it. Many many others want it. I'm positive based on chats with friends and clan groups that MOST players want it. I know it will be good for the game.

The only ones it wont be good for are the above mentioned poptarting assault pug stompers.

Truly this should have been part of the game by open beta, at the very worst at launch. Its mind boggling its taken this long for such a basic necessity of balance and matchmaking.

Here's hoping it gets here before the year is out.

[Sandpit]

aniviron, on 26 November 2013 - 06:13 PM, said:

I'm afraid that this is exactly the problem right here, this is the million dollar post (well, some of the mediums are fatter than the heavier mechs, but we all know he means weight ). Good teams are going to be dropping in highlanders, victors, and jenners. Weight limits are probably going to spell death for the medium weight class more surely than all the horrible balancing failures that PGI has implemented so far. Not much will change in the short term, but as people buy and sell mechs, it's going to become obvious that lights hit far harder than mediums for the tonnage they consume. We're in a spot where lights do as much damage as a medium, but live longer and move faster, and now lights get the additional benefit of freeing 10-30 tons up for their teammates to run even heavier mechs, which is only going to help the team even more.

how is limiting weight going to make mediums extinct?

Another way to help was something we used in megamek.

It was a dynamic BV (works similar to the dynamic economy i've suggested in a few threads)


As that mech becomes popular and its use increases and players win with that mech its BV goes up. Mechs that don't get used or suffer from a high number of losses have their BV drop.

Mech A has BV of 2000
It becomes popular and pilots using it win a lot in it. Every 10 wins increases the BV by 50
So for example, highlanders are very popular in 12 mans. They earn a lot of kills and do well. It's BV beings to climb limiting its usefulness due to inflated BV. Eventually it hits 4000 BV. With BV limits in place eventually it will be very prohibitive to use this mech

Mech B has a BV of 2000
It isn't very popular and doesn't get used often. When it does it has much lower win and kill rate than Mech A. As it sits in hangars unused its BV slowly begins to depreciate. The BV then becomes 1000 and becomes more popular and useful due to its lower BV.

Think of it as a separate ELO for the mech itself. This is completely separate from a pilot's ELO but works in the same manner. The "better" the mech, the higher cost in BV. They "worse" the mech, the lower cost in BV

WarZ, on 26 November 2013 - 07:53 PM, said:

pug stompers.

You had me and my enjoyment of your post until this. Can we please stop making a scapegoat out of people who just want to play and hang out and goof off with people they enjoy playing with? Players who group up have absolutely no control over who they drop against. They don't go out looking for anyone to stomp. Premades lose just like pugs do. Stop trying to make them into a boogeyman scapegoat please

[42and19]

Sandpit, on 26 November 2013 - 08:03 PM, said:

how is limiting weight going to make mediums extinct?

Another way to help was something we used in megamek.

It was a dynamic BV (works similar to the dynamic economy i've suggested in a few threads)


As that mech becomes popular and its use increases and players win with that mech its BV goes up. Mechs that don't get used or suffer from a high number of losses have their BV drop.

Mech A has BV of 2000
It becomes popular and pilots using it win a lot in it. Every 10 wins increases the BV by 50
So for example, highlanders are very popular in 12 mans. They earn a lot of kills and do well. It's BV beings to climb limiting its usefulness due to inflated BV. Eventually it hits 4000 BV. With BV limits in place eventually it will be very prohibitive to use this mech

Mech B has a BV of 2000
It isn't very popular and doesn't get used often. When it does it has much lower win and kill rate than Mech A. As it sits in hangars unused its BV slowly begins to depreciate. The BV then becomes 1000 and becomes more popular and useful due to its lower BV.

Think of it as a separate ELO for the mech itself. This is completely separate from a pilot's ELO but works in the same manner. The "better" the mech, the higher cost in BV. They "worse" the mech, the lower cost in BV

GAH

THIS

It has frustrated me to NO END that pgi hasn't picked up the BV mechanics from other battletech communities and the main TT

Not only would it help with weight limits and such it would also help with balanced matchmaking in general. BV counts not only pilot skill but also LOADOUT something that the current system does not. You want to stack 2 ac/20s...sure...you're going to face much tougher opponents.