376 replies to this topic

[Roadbeer]

Sandpit, on 26 November 2013 - 08:06 PM, said:

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)

That reminds me, we've been running a Megamek Solaris tourney at House Marik, we're just about to wrap up season one. Keep your eye out on the FWLM forum for when we start season two :

[aniviron]

Sandpit, on 26 November 2013 - 08:06 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


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

I support a BV system; my post, if you read it, is saying that tonnage limits are bad for mediums (and lighter heavies). Tonnage is VERY different from BV.

The reason that lights are so dominant compared to mediums right now boils down to the mech's model size. Lights are small, which means it's very hard to target a specific component. The difficulty means that every single light is running an XL engine, which makes them go faster and simultaneously frees weight for a bigger weapons payload, while the higher speed reinforces the difficulty of targeting individual components.

Mediums, however, are (for the most part) gigantic, and it is a trivial matter to blow out the side torso of a medium mech. This means that mediums are forced to run standard engines or die very quick deaths, and so in turn they have a payload comparable to that of a light at half the speed and marginally more armor.

In a tonnage system, mediums actually take more resources than lights even though mediums are forced to use less valuable components.

In a BV system, that Jenner with a 300XL, ferro, endo, and double heatsinks is actually going to cost you more than a Hunchback.

So yeah, a good BV system would be great. Tonnage matching is going to be awful.

[Lightfoot]

In the old days this was part of a bidding process between the two teams. One picks Map, next picks dropweight, next drop zone, etc.

Will be interesting to see how MWO does all this and grants selectable options too.

[FupDup]

aniviron, on 26 November 2013 - 08:12 PM, said:

The reason that lights are so dominant compared to mediums right now boils down to the mech's model size. Lights are small, which means it's very hard to target a specific component. The difficulty means that every single light is running an XL engine, which makes them go faster and simultaneously frees weight for a bigger weapons payload, while the higher speed reinforces the difficulty of targeting individual components.

Mediums, however, are (for the most part) gigantic, and it is a trivial matter to blow out the side torso of a medium mech. This means that mediums are forced to run standard engines or die very quick deaths, and so in turn they have a payload comparable to that of a light at half the speed and marginally more armor.

Shadow Hawks run XL extremely well, in spite of its crazy tall height. The CT hitbox on Shads actually seems to be a tad larger than either side torso in fact, plus you've got arm shields. Load up on MLs, SSRMs, and a UAC/5 or AC/10 (with at least XL275ish engine), and you're gonna have a good time with Shads.

The other mediums do certainly need help, and maybe even the Shaq Hawk could use a minor nudge, but the Shaq is actually useful on its own merits in being a mobile all-rounder that can tank a lot of damage and dish out a good amount as well.


-----

Changing gears, BV has some of the same pitfalls as tonnage. The primary criticism of mine against TL, and one that you seem to agree with, is that it's basically just forcing folks to downsize rather than giving them a non-forced choice to do so via buffing the mechs under 60 tons. BV has a much similar effect in that the low-BV mechs and equipment will only exist for the purpose of reducing your own fun so that your teammates get to run min-max. It also reinforces/justifies leaving several chassis and weapons underpowered, such as the Ravens 4X/2X, Pulse Lasers, Flamers, Narc, etc.

Edited by FupDup, 26 November 2013 - 08:24 PM.

[aniviron]

FupDup, on 26 November 2013 - 08:20 PM, said:

Shadow Hawks run XL extremely well, in spite of its crazy tall height. The CT hitbox on Shads actually seems to be a tad larger than either side torso in fact, plus you've got arm shields. Load up on MLs, SSRMs, and a UAC/5 or AC/10 (with at least XL275ish engine), and you're gonna have a good time with Shads.

The other mediums do certainly need help, and maybe even the Shaq Hawk could use a minor nudge, but the Shaq is actually useful on its own merits in being a mobile all-rounder that can tank a lot of damage and dish out a good amount as well.


-----

Changing gears, BV has some of the same pitfalls as tonnage. The primary criticism of mine against TL, and one that you seem to agree with, is that it's basically just forcing folks to downsize rather than giving them a non-forced choice to do so via buffing the mechs under 60 tons. BV has a much similar effect in that the low-BV mechs and equipment will only exist for the purpose of reducing your own fun so that your teammates get to run min-max. It also reinforces/justifies leaving several chassis and weapons underpowered, such as the Ravens 4X/2X, Pulse Lasers, Flamers, Narc, etc.

Okay, I will give you that. The SHDs are all excellent mechs, with versatile hardpoints, good speed, jumpjets, and surprising durability (though on that note, I would not be at all surprised if there was some Centurion-syndrome going on with the SHD given how much more durable the SHD is than the KTO, at the same tonnage). Even still, it's at the very upper end of the middleweight bracket, and in a tonnage-based system, I'm still not convinced you're better off with two SHDs instead of a Jenner and an Orion/Victor.

And yeah, you won't hear a peep of objection from me about your second point. The fact that tonnage and/or BV are being implemented means that the design pillars have cracked and fallen, and the truth is coming out: weight matters more than role, just like in every past MW game. If a Raven were truly as good as an Atlas because it could do useful things for your team that the Atlas could not, there would be no reason to balance by tonnage, since a light mech would get more utility per ton than an assault. BV has the same problems (plus it means we have to trust PGI to balance every piece of equipment's BV) but at least it can be tuned to try and make the best of the system, unlike tonnage. That's why I'd rather see BV than tonnage; at this point, I don't think we're ever really going to get that great role warfare system we were sold on, or at the least it won't be in for years to come. If we assume that role warfare has been discarded, then yes, it does make sense to implement some sort of matching system, even if that system makes bad assumptions about how the players want to play the game.

[Sandpit]

Roadbeer, on 26 November 2013 - 08:10 PM, said:

That reminds me, we've been running a Megamek Solaris tourney at House Marik, we're just about to wrap up season one. Keep your eye out on the FWLM forum for when we start season two :

oh i'll happily jump in on some MM goodness. Mekwars has just kinda died out so not many playing the campaign anymore but I started playing back when McWiz put it all together. Helped moderate and admin that community for a few years actually.

[YueFei]

I mainly pilot Hunchbacks. And I say NO to tonnage limits.

The NFL doesn't impose team weight limits. And yet you'll see anything from 140 pound speedsters to 325+ pound hulks, with all kinds in between. And every single one of those players contributes an important role in executing each play.

ROLE WARFARE is where it's at. Larger maps, multiple objectives, with each objective influencing the match (e.g., one base contains the artillery batteries for your team). That's really all it would take.

[Bounty Dogg]

....You know what would've taken care of ALL of this foolishness?

Repair and Rearm.......

[Xanquil]

GalaxyBluestar, on 26 November 2013 - 07:13 PM, said:

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.

JagdFlanker, on 26 November 2013 - 07:36 PM, said:

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

The scariest part of the idea is how simple it is, and how easy it would be to adjust for Clan mechs. (+10% weight tax)
Even better it won't keep people from playing in what mech they want to. However it will cause problems for premade groups, but tonnage limits are coming for that too.

[Prezimonto]

JagdFlanker, on 26 November 2013 - 05:29 PM, said:

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?

But wait there's more!

While I love the changes they've made to scouting/spotting roles in terms of XP gain (it's a helluva lot of fun if you've got a few missile boats on your team and the XP is totally viable).... it makes money so badly it's sad. BECAUSE, they seem to think that a critical piece of equipment for the role (UAV) should be only a paid component. So why the hate to role warefare by adding in XP bonuses that enforce a heavy cbill nerf for playing that way?

aniviron, on 26 November 2013 - 08:34 PM, said:

Okay, I will give you that. The SHDs are all excellent mechs, with versatile hardpoints, good speed, jumpjets, and surprising durability (though on that note, I would not be at all surprised if there was some Centurion-syndrome going on with the SHD given how much more durable the SHD is than the KTO, at the same tonnage). Even still, it's at the very upper end of the middleweight bracket, and in a tonnage-based system, I'm still not convinced you're better off with two SHDs instead of a Jenner and an Orion/Victor.

And yeah, you won't hear a peep of objection from me about your second point. The fact that tonnage and/or BV are being implemented means that the design pillars have cracked and fallen, and the truth is coming out: weight matters more than role, just like in every past MW game. If a Raven were truly as good as an Atlas because it could do useful things for your team that the Atlas could not, there would be no reason to balance by tonnage, since a light mech would get more utility per ton than an assault. BV has the same problems (plus it means we have to trust PGI to balance every piece of equipment's BV) but at least it can be tuned to try and make the best of the system, unlike tonnage. That's why I'd rather see BV than tonnage; at this point, I don't think we're ever really going to get that great role warfare system we were sold on, or at the least it won't be in for years to come. If we assume that role warfare has been discarded, then yes, it does make sense to implement some sort of matching system, even if that system makes bad assumptions about how the players want to play the game.

Market based BV is the way to go in the long run. Balance the game through economy. This mech/engine/weapon/upgrade is popular and rare... the BV on your mech goes up. That mech is a dog at the moment and everyone hates it, through a common engine in and a mediocre weapon load out.... your mech might suck but it might get paired against something that is also not so good. Nothing like actual economics to balance the game on the fly.

And now the raging will commence about how people will quit if you can't play your uber mech all the time. I guess I just don't care. This game's biggest virtue is the customization and ability to change things up out of game. If you think your fotm build can hack it against something that's unpopular but 20 to 30 tons bigger... by all means take it for a spin. If the build is too op everyone uses it until it's paired against something that's no longer viable, then people move along to a new meta and it's BV goes back down.

Edited by Prezimonto, 26 November 2013 - 11:19 PM.

[Prezimonto]

Deleted to consolidate.

Edited by Prezimonto, 26 November 2013 - 11:20 PM.

[Rhys Erlykov]

So... I assume you'll simply select which mech you wish to play, then hit ready and sit in a queue until the MM finds an appropriate team for your selected mech. This may increase wait times for matches... and may not bode well for the section of the community that gets pissed when players don't hit the ready button in the pre-game lobby.

Edited by Rhys Erlykov, 26 November 2013 - 11:47 PM.

[fluffypinkbunny]

my unit has been practicing 12 man, with weight limits for a while now, and we're holding our own just find vs some max tonnage groups.

I don't mind weight limits, in fact bring on the lowered weight's my hunchback will love it. I don't see how people claim it's a bad mech.

[Corvus Antaka]

fluffypinkbunny, on 26 November 2013 - 11:53 PM, said:

my unit has been practicing 12 man, with weight limits for a while now, and we're holding our own just find vs some max tonnage groups.

I don't mind weight limits, in fact bring on the lowered weight's my hunchback will love it. I don't see how people claim it's a bad mech.

its not. Ac/20 hunchback has some significant advantages over the shadowhawk even in the current meta. including the fact that the hunchie holds a standard engine much better and is way faster in general with it's torso twist and it has way better arm range being able to shoot behind itself.

Mediums are only struggling because of lack of tonnage limits and because lights are smaller & faster. but mediums already make amazing light killers and 2 hunchies can easily rip an atlas apart, giving much better tonnage efficiency.

we too have been using mediums to great effect in 4 mans and 12 mans, and TBh I find the cries of mediums being underpowered a bit silly when it's bluntly obvious that the struggle for mediums is primarily being massively out-tonned.

[-Natural Selection-]

Play like you have some sense, and not like you think you are going to one shot everything. Problem solved, next.

[Victor Morson]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 27 November 2013 - 01:15 AM, said:

its not. Ac/20 hunchback has some significant advantages over the shadowhawk even in the current meta.

Hahhahaa how about no? It doesn't. Not a single one.

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 27 November 2013 - 01:15 AM, said:

including the fact that the hunchie holds a standard engine much better and is way faster in general with it's torso twist and it has way better arm range being able to shoot behind itself.

Better arm range is hardly a selling point, and the Shadow Hawk holds a standard engine even better than the Hunchback. The Hunchback has that crazy bad hunch hitbox, it's also unable to jump. So even in the arena of the AC/20 setups, the Shadow Hawk is infinitely superior from the get go.

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 27 November 2013 - 01:15 AM, said:

Mediums are only struggling because of lack of tonnage limits and because lights are smaller & faster. but mediums already make amazing light killers and 2 hunchies can easily rip an atlas apart, giving much better tonnage efficiency.

Two anything can rip an Atlas apart.* Honestly I'd pit a single Shadow Hawk against an Atlas, though, in a one on one.

The thing with weight is it becomes a bigger issue the more numbers you get. A Jenner can beat a Highlander in a one on one fight, but four Jenners are not going to beat four Highlanders.

* Locusts not included.

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 27 November 2013 - 01:15 AM, said:

we too have been using mediums to great effect in 4 mans and 12 mans, and TBh I find the cries of mediums being underpowered a bit silly when it's bluntly obvious that the struggle for mediums is primarily being massively out-tonned.

I agree with the message but the Hunchback > Shadow Hawk stuff is really off.

fluffypinkbunny, on 26 November 2013 - 11:53 PM, said:

I don't mind weight limits, in fact bring on the lowered weight's my hunchback will love it. I don't see how people claim it's a bad mech.

It's not bad. It's not terrible in the way the Kintaro is terrible or anything. It is a victim of some wonky systems that leaves it with an outclassed engine, a bad hit box, etc.

If the Hunchback had a S1 armor location like MW4/MW:LL had (not counting things like pods as part of the torso - this will be a huge issue with the Mad Cat), the Hunchback's value would go up immensely. If it's engine cap got bumped up following that, it would go up again. Then we'd have it being a contender with the Centurion.

Still wouldn't beat a Shadow Hawk though, not until it can jump. The 4SP sees limited competitive use yet as a laser boat, basically, but it's more a gimmick than anything.

[ Hero Hunchback with a bigger engine, smaller hunch and/or jump jets? Yes, please! ]

Edited by Victor Morson, 27 November 2013 - 01:49 AM.

[Blurry]

Why are they using twitter and not the official forums.
Sorry but I am sick and tired of devs using farcbook and Tw*tter.

I will not connect to those and if you cant communicate here to the players playing the game why bother. It seems like such a douche move to me. To have communication ect elsewhere but not on the Forum.

[Tolkien]

I hope weight matching comes with lobbies where you can line up against the same foes a few times.



Way back in the day in this game you would have a 4v4 line up in multiple lobbies on each world. Matchmaking was handled by the players seeing what mechs and equipment the other side was taking and mutually deciding what was 'fair'. It generally worked pretty well, and it also lead to some very interesting situations:

1) If one team wins a few matches in a row, the other team would generally be allowed a small tonnage advantage (since at that point it's obvious that the teams aren't skill matched).
2) If both teams are cool with it you can get crazy matches going for fun and variety - e.g. an all panther/commando/hunchback drop.
3) Makes it very easy for larger groups to scrimmage against themselves and refine tactics.
4) Leagues can run scenarios, or 3025 loadout matches, or anything you can dream up.

Another massive benefit of this type of scenario is that it gives the players a hand in choosing their battles, which makes them 'own' the outcome. If your team keeps losing when you have been given a 100 ton beneficial handicap, maybe it's not the game's fault....

Another big side benefit is it would free up developer effort from balancing and re-balancing the matchmaking system to just put it in the hands of the players.

Edit: Another thought - the concept of community warfare doesn't even seem compatible with a matchmaker since it's specific attacking and defending outfits on each side. May as well start working with a lobby system now to be ready.

Edited by Tolkien, 27 November 2013 - 02:38 AM.

[Fooooo]

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.

Yup, if the game was balanced / had proper role warfare, then these problems of people always taking assaults/heavies would not be happening in pub matches or 12man games. (just normal 12mans + comps with no restrictions, although it would still help restricted comps / leagues as well imo.)

restrictions (tonnage / BV / weight class) can help relieve some of the problem , or at least slow it down a little, but it will never make mechs useful that were not before. They might get "used" but wont really be useful, they will just be taking them because they have to , to fit the limits etc. (so basically some players have to "take one for the team" so to speak)

So yeah, balance + useful role warfare would be better imo.........

[Edustaja]

Tonnage limits made RHoD more interesting. I'd specify a weekly rotation on drop weight for the 12-man regular queue though.
Maybe even an additional chassis limitation eg. max 2-4 of one chassis