376 replies to this topic

[stjobe]

Everyone that sees tonnage limits as some kind of salvation for MWO seem to think it's not them who will be forced to drop in the Locust so that their team mates can have fun in their heavies and assaults.

I'm with Fup on this one; role warfare is way more important to the future of MWO than tonnage limits.

[Corvus Antaka]

Hellcat420, on 26 November 2013 - 01:59 PM, said:

this is exactly why i will play other games instead of this game when they add tonnage limits. im not here to be forced to play some mech i dont want to play. they are probably going to lose a lot of players over this, they should go back to weight class matching. nothing like paying up to $40 for a mech then not being able to use it because of stupid a$$ tonnage limits.

you can still play what you want to play. but your team will need to be in the same tonnage range.

I love watching the QQ swing from 10 assaults per team to "if i cant do what i want, im not paying" whines like this.

hopefully some day PGI will be able to add 3 tonnage variances, 1 for a light/med/hvy ton drop, 1 for a full range drop, and 1 for the assault babies that cant handle anything unless their suckling from the teat of the 733C.

[Sug]

NRP, on 26 November 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

Hmm, if "tonnage limits" mean I can't play the mechs I want to play, then I guess I'd be out too.

Why the **** do people think weight limits mean they can't play what they want? We're not talking about a 400 ton weight limit for 12 people...

Edited by Sug, 26 November 2013 - 02:51 PM.

[Alex Warden]

stjobe, on 26 November 2013 - 02:49 PM, said:

Everyone that sees tonnage limits as some kind of salvation for MWO seem to think it's not them who will be forced to drop in the Locust so that their team mates can have fun in their heavies and assaults.

I'm with Fup on this one; role warfare is way more important to the future of MWO than tonnage limits.

i gotta agree, i don´t think that weightlimits would be a "one serves all" solution... it´s just the lesser evil, and better than nothing...

i think i was one of many people with alot of ideas for rolewarfare during CBT, but i doubt that PGI aims for anything that comes close to our dreams, so i´ll pick - i said it - the lesser evil

Edited by Alex Warden, 26 November 2013 - 02:53 PM.

[FupDup]

stjobe, on 26 November 2013 - 02:49 PM, said:

Everyone that sees tonnage limits as some kind of salvation for MWO seem to think it's not them who will be forced to drop in the Locust so that their team mates can have fun in their heavies and assaults.

I'm with Fup on this one; role warfare is way more important to the future of MWO than tonnage limits.

On a side note about the Locust...tonnage limits will actually KILL the Locust even worse than it already is. Why? Because TL will mean a dramatically higher proportion of medium and light mechs on each team. Mediums and lights are the most efficient classes for hunting and killing light mechs. The Locust won't stand a snowball's chance in Mordor against the flood of fast-moving mechs. A Locust sometimes has a chance to outmaneuver an assault or even heavy at times, but against mediums or lights it's ggclose.

Edited by FupDup, 26 November 2013 - 02:52 PM.

[Hellcat420]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 26 November 2013 - 02:49 PM, said:

you can still play what you want to play. but your team will need to be in the same tonnage range.

I love watching the QQ swing from 10 assaults per team to "if i cant do what i want, im not paying" whines like this.

hopefully some day PGI will be able to add 3 tonnage variances, 1 for a light/med/hvy ton drop, 1 for a full range drop, and 1 for the assault babies that cant handle anything unless their suckling from the teat of the 733C.

lol well you should probably keep your assumptions to yourself. i have only piloted a 733c to get it mastered then never touched it again. i play mostly medium mechs since the heat system gimps my blr-1g.

Edited by Hellcat420, 26 November 2013 - 02:52 PM.

[Roadbeer]

I do believe that with the tonnage limits, it was said would be the removal of Max Group Size limitations, so, I'm all for whatever that takes.

[Deathlike]

Hellcat420, on 26 November 2013 - 02:37 PM, said:

do you even comprehend what you read? i want weight class matching, not tonnage limits. weight class matching will have more balanced matches than tonnage limits.

You want an Awesome vs Atlas match?

GG CLOSE.

Trauglodyte, on 26 November 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

I get what you're saying and I'm not out right flaming you for what you want. But, the biggest plague in this game right now is that many of the weight classes aren't being represented because they can't compete with the 3-4 top tier mechs which all happen to be heavies and assaults. You're saying that you shouldn't be forced to drive a mech that you don't want to be in and yet you're forcing others into driving mechs that they might not want just so that they can match up with what you're driving. See what I mean? Neither is a good method for game play but at least the weight limitation will open up other mechs to drive so that players in a match know that it won't be 8 Highlanders, D-DCs, and 3Ds. And, if nothing else, it provides a chance for people, especially the top tiers, to look at currently chastized mechs and see if they are in fact viable.

I would have preferred a more flexible system. I don't have a problem with people wanting to go 4 Atlases/Lolcusts as they choose, BUT, they have the caveat of having longer wait times. Those closer to the middle of the tonnage average would be able to get into a match quicker.

That would be the fairest compromise as it primarily solves the newbie premade tonnage issue.

Note: The lopsided weights are there for 2 to 4 man premades. Anything above that has tighter limits.

Edited by Deathlike, 26 November 2013 - 02:54 PM.

[Trauglodyte]

Look at it like this. Here is my current list of mechs:

Locusts (3 - thanks Talon package)
Commando
Cicadas (5)
Blackjack
Centurion
Hunchback
Shadowhawk
Jagermech
Cataphract
Awesome
Victor
Highlander
Atlas

Now, in today's "meta", it is encouraged that I take the Phract, Victor, HIghlander, or my D-DC. That leaves me with 12 mechs that I can't drive (or 11 if you think that the Shadowhawk can be fit in there) because I'm discouraged from doing so as they don't fit the meta. Given the concept of a weight limit, now the other chassis open up because the team can't be 8 3Ds and Highlanders with a D-DC and a few Jenners.

Top tier players say that they're uber competitive and I agree with them. I am too and I love the concept of taking a frame and making it cutting edge. I did it in other games and was one of the leads in modeling and talent smurfing in WoW for Hunters of the EJ boards. Taking a lump of coal and turning it into a diamond is epic. Taking that diamond and blowing everyone out of the water is legendary. So, those same top tier players should take this as a challenge to being awesome in something unconventional. Ask Wispy how well he did in his Dragon. That guy was an assassin in his Jenner and was just as deadly in something that should never leave the staging area let alone being on the battle field.

Skill trumps builds and this will just encourage those with creativity and skill to showcase it.

[Blurry]

Alex Warden, on 26 November 2013 - 02:34 PM, said:

exactly... if people are that unflexible that they HAVE to drive their Fatlas or whatever, i guess you can easily say "well, bad for you"...
most of us agreed, and so did PGI, that a " play the heaviest or eat dust" metagame is not wanted...
the only "problem" is, that it´s coming far too late, now that all newer players (Open Beta and later) adapted to the "bigger is better" playstyle that currently poisons the game...

at least we have more balanced loadouts than we used to have earlier this year, but i seriously can´t wait for the tonnagelimits...

a big part of this game is about collecting mechs anyway (well, at least when people can get more mechbays via achievements etc., which PGI stated would be the case) , so most players should be able to switch their tonnage if needed. plus the more chassis we get, the more mechs for any taste are available in the different weightranges...

It wont be that they wont be able to play it will just be that they wait longer in the Q. If it is a popular weight class then there are more to distribute. And if they only want to play when it is an unfair fight well then you are correct ........

But this helps offset the one sided pubstoms then it cant come soon enough.

Edited by Blurry, 26 November 2013 - 02:56 PM.

[PropagandaWar]

Alex Warden, on 26 November 2013 - 02:34 PM, said:

exactly... if people are that unflexible that they HAVE to drive their Fatlas or whatever, i guess you can easily say "well, bad for you"...
most of us agreed, and so did PGI, that a " play the heaviest or eat dust" metagame is not wanted...
the only "problem" is, that it´s coming far too late, now that all newer players (Open Beta and later) adapted to the "bigger is better" playstyle that currently poisons the game...

at least we have more balanced loadouts than we used to have earlier this year, but i seriously can´t wait for the tonnagelimits...

a big part of this game is about collecting mechs anyway (well, at least when people can get more mechbays via achievements etc., which PGI stated would be the case) , so most players should be able to switch their tonnage if needed. plus the more chassis we get, the more mechs for any taste are available in the different weightranges...

Thing is Fatlases Suck. Easy to kill etc., etc. Oh I know there's some real badArses out there heh. Other mechs though yeah it can be a problem and Weight is needed. If it's a problem leave the exsisting queue for non CW stuff. However all CW games should force Tonnage limits.

[OneEyed Jack]

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.

You mean... aside from the fact that they'd have to bring Lolcusts...?

[FupDup]

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.

The problem with your example is that tonnage limits will royally shaft the Locust harder than any other mech. What you need to keep in mind is that tonnage limits will increase the number of medium and light mechs on the field, and both of those classes are the most effective Locust-hunters available.

Edited by FupDup, 26 November 2013 - 02:58 PM.

[Deathlike]

FupDup, on 26 November 2013 - 02:58 PM, said:

The problem with your example is that tonnage limits will royally shaft the Locust harder than any other mech. What you need to keep in mind is that tonnage limits will increase the number of medium and light mechs on the field, and both of those classes are the most effective Locust-hunters available.

Commando > Lolcust

5 tons more to troll = WORTH IT.

[LawDawg]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 26 November 2013 - 02:49 PM, said:

you can still play what you want to play. but your team will need to be in the same tonnage range.

I love watching the QQ swing from 10 assaults per team to "if i cant do what i want, im not paying" whines like this.

hopefully some day PGI will be able to add 3 tonnage variances, 1 for a light/med/hvy ton drop, 1 for a full range drop, and 1 for the assault babies that cant handle anything unless their suckling from the teat of the 733C.

Valid point. I "Know" clans that will just stack the Highlander (733c) and a few Atlai. Gonna love to see how this effects them and their "Strats". God forbid we have some variance in the game and start making ALL mechs a little more useful........even its forced.

[Alex Warden]

FupDup, on 26 November 2013 - 02:58 PM, said:

The problem with your example is that tonnage limits will royally shaft the Locust harder than any other mech. What you need to keep in mind is that tonnage limits will increase the number of medium and light mechs on the field, and both of those classes are the most effective Locust-hunters available.

besides the fact that nearly any mech can punch a locust pretty well, if the pilot can aim... but yea, the ammount of lightcounters would rise significantly, no doubt

[Trauglodyte]

One thing to note, and I've been championing this for a while, if PGI would allow players to queue up multiple mechs at a time, some of this may not even be that much of an issue. If I can queue up all 15 of my mechs, which range from 20 tons to 100 tons, it would inject 15 different weights and 4 different ELO ratings into the system. If we assume that there are, and I'll be optimistic, 1000 people on during prime time and that each player has 5 mechs, that is 5000 different mechs from which to choose along with maybe 4000 different ELOs (at max) with which to create a 24 man match.

As to the weight matching, I welcome it because I want to see more mechs out there. Bring on the horror of Trebuchet packs

[Hellcat420]

FupDup, on 26 November 2013 - 02:58 PM, said:

The problem with your example is that tonnage limits will royally shaft the Locust harder than any other mech. What you need to keep in mind is that tonnage limits will increase the number of medium and light mechs on the field, and both of those classes are the most effective Locust-hunters available.

the reason to bring a few locusts is to load the rest of the team up with heavy and assault mechs.

[FupDup]

Hellcat420, on 26 November 2013 - 03:02 PM, said:

the reason to bring a few locusts is to load the rest of the team up with heavy and assault mechs.

The problem is that those Locusts are going to have a hard time contributing to the outcome of the match, due to how utterly pathetic the Locust is as a unit. It'll basically be like an asymmetrical battle between a whole enemy team of mediums/whatever, versus a small squad of assault mechs. My bet goes on the medium team, especially if they're spamming Shadow Hawks. Despite technically equal tonnage, the medium team has more "effective" players than the assault/Locust team does.

Edited by FupDup, 26 November 2013 - 03:05 PM.

[stjobe]

Alex Warden, on 26 November 2013 - 03:00 PM, said:

besides the fact that nearly any mech can punch a locust pretty well, if the pilot can aim... but yea, the ammount of lightcounters would rise significantly, no doubt

And is that really the direction we want the game to take? More reasons not to drive a light?

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.