376 replies to this topic

[Fut]

Terciel1976, on 27 November 2013 - 11:11 AM, said:

I still have it all in a box. I even know where it is. All three pocket boxes, deluxe, the Compendium, a bunch of expansions and the dearly loved Uncle Albert's Catalog from (kiss my tookus, filter, I'm ahead of you this time). Man, how awesome would it be to drive around in $1500 cars in an arena online?

It looks pretty *****, but I just found this: http://www.dark-wind.com/

[Snoopy]

I fear the day tonnage limit will be mandatory. Only option worse would be mandatory and predefined tonnage limit from PGI.

• Who wants to be the tonnage-filler and just pick a Mech she/he isn’t used to / doesn’t like just to fulfill tonnage limits?
  
• Why should someone be forced to play a Locust (just for example) to ensure someone else can play her/his desired heavy/assault Mech?
  
• Why should a premade (all lights or all assaults) be allowed to force the rest of the drop to pick a Mech they do not want just to fulfil tonnage limits?
  
• How long will it take to level-up Mechs if “your” needed tonnage slot isn’t available or always taken be others?

I have already seen posts in the forum suggesting that “the others” should “L2P” with lighter/heavier mechs to not delay pre-game team building when tonnage limits are live … Really ?

Because Role Warfare is dead (thanks PGI) - all Mechs should (must?) be balanced and be a viable combat choice. Currently we only have one role needed in each tonnage section – combat (plus maybe ECM/JJ).

Role Warfare could have been the system to ensure a mixed team is the best choice (simplified example: Scouts to track the enemy, fast Counter-Attack & Flanker to catch objectives and rear attacks, Light & Heavy combat for tank and hold options, and so on …) and not forcing it by a hard tonnage cap. I become a Founder after I read the original concept of the Scout Role and Information warfare …. long ago.

But this was never implemented and finally killed by the combination of the current map size/design, same skill tree for each Mech and imho way too flexible hardpoint design. I enjoy the Mechlab and the customization options too, but I still believe it is bad for the long-term experience of the game and is part of the current problem.

Modules were a good step in the direction of Mech individualization, but not enough to make a real difference or even Role. Each Mech can use any Module and only a few modules are worth using. More Module, Mech-specific quirks (5% faster target lock for weapon type x, 10% more radar range, 10% better AMS efficiency, reinforced ammo bins, …), Mech-specific skill trees and Player-specific skill trees would have been a way to enable “Roles” and promote different Mechs with different weight. The skipped options are almost endless …

In theory the current game system gives everybody the option to choose any Mech and have the same options and chances. In the reality of the current game this leads directly to the current state: only-one-or-two-valid-Mechs in each tonnage section.
The one with the best (current meta) weapon loadout possible plus options (like JJ/ ECM). Look at the Mech/weapon payload taken in high-ELO game or watch the last event finals on youtube to see what I mean. This leads to having the same Mech/builds over and over again. But at least everybody could take the “best” option.
Tonnage limit does not solve this in any way. It just enforces that only a few can take the best build. All others have to see what’s left and act as a tonnage-filler.

I do not want a system where people get flamed or called “noob” just for picking the Mech they like and enjoy and not the current state-of-the-meta Mech/build. But forcing people to take Mechs just to match some weight restrictions is not better in any way. Personally I do enjoy picking the Mech I like and just play with it, regardless of its weight

Please try not to see tonnage limit only from the pov of a I’m-here-since-CB-player or 12-man team with max-builds, finished skill trees and dozen of Mechs. Not every player is an organized team-hardcore gamer and MWO is a F2P based game. The huge majority of players will be casual f2p people. In no other way MWO/PGI will be able to survive …

• It constrains new players to buy many different tonnage Mechs to be able to play at all. This is bad or even impossible for new f2p people without spending real money and the need to have 3 variants of each Mech. Bye MWO, Hello Other-F2P-game …
  
• It believe it will result in lower sale rates for Heavy and Assault Mechs (Standard, Champion or Hero likewise) with MC because it will be a gamble if you can play it at all. Maybe you are not “allowed” to ride it because of weight restrictions or you only get a few chances to play with it. Heavy and Assault have the highest MC pice. Why should I pay real money for my Hero Atlas it if I can’t use it ingame? PGI would be stupid if the promote this step.
  
• All the casual players that already bought a Champion or Hero Mech and now can’t use it anymore and have to buy a new lighter / heavier non-Champion / -Hero just to play?
  
• You suggest PUG teams to think about the team compilation in a pre-match lobby? Tactical discussion with people that insult you ingame because you cap to win a match or they just don’t like your call sign? Trying to promote that they do not use their beloved macro-AC Jaeger and try something lighter? Really?

Tonnage limits looks imho only like a workaround to generate (or more precisely: to force) Mech diversity ingame when in real there is none.
Because of this I believe that tonnage limits will not solve any problem and has the potential to lead to even more problems, hostility and insults.

Any real serious team out there will ruin a PUG anytime. The hardcore-ueber-elite team with TS will spend hours checking every single option and adjust any build to get the most out of every Mech in any weight drop constellation. Result: Perfectly harmonised team builds. Something a PUG can never do.

Like others already suggested: a proper Mech-BV plus player ELO value would be much better. Something like: my-Mech-BV for my-Hunchie-build of 2.389 plus my-ELO of 475 = 2.864. It has proven its value in TT (I know TT … boooh!) and is anytime better than any only tonnage based balancing. BV matching is not perfect, but tonnage matching is broken beyond comparison. If we need any balancing method I would prefer BV anytime over tonnage limits.

A trial Hunchback with no skills is the same tonnage as a full skilled, upgraded (Endo, DHS, AMS, …), optimal weapon payload one. Same weight = Balanced?

At the moment we have only DeathMatch-like Win/Lose and if we win or lose isn’t really of any concern without CW. You can take any Mech you like and get a match fast. Tonnage limits with or with-out CW will change this entirely. If you have to wait for a free tonnage slot for your Mech or still have to level same variants or you are plain not good with the Mech you are forced to pick … I’m not sure if many people will like this.

Sorry for the wall of text ...

[Joseph Mallan]

The only limit to weight in warfare is Logistical.

"Can we transport X tons to Y Location on Z transports?"

"Maybe?"

"Good get it done by 0430 yesterday!"

GoManGo, on 27 November 2013 - 11:06 AM, said:

Your prejudice is not as cool as the Mech in your post.

[Ryan Steel]

Can't wait till tonnage limits. We're finally going to see who can perform the most ton for ton. Medium pilots rejoice!

[Joseph Mallan]

Ryan Steel, on 27 November 2013 - 11:19 AM, said:

Can't wait till tonnage limits. We're finally going to see who can perform the most ton for ton. Medium pilots rejoice!

So I will be limited to an 85 ton Mech?!

[Roadbeer]

stjobe, on 27 November 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

Absolutely. I agree, and please read carefully because I say "may" and "if implemented badly" - it's quite possible they may pull it off, and nobody would be happier than you and me.

But if we end up with people having the choice of dropping in a 'mech they don't want to play with or not playing at all, I'm afraid there's a lot of people that will choose the latter.


Oh definitely. But role warfare needs to come before tonnage limits, because with role warfare implemented, tonnage limits is no longer an issue. If we have as many light/medium pilots as we have heavy/assault pilots tonnage limits won't even be noticed, but currently we seem to have somewhere around 60-70% heavy/assault pilots, and that's not going to cut it.

The thing is that this is this is a perfect example of "Be careful of what you wish for".

Lone Wolfs cried that they were getting stomped by Premade groups of any size. Fix, limit group-size to 4/max group.
Result: HUGE population dump because groups were no longer allowed to play with who they wanted or rather, they had to leave a lot of their friends out as groups became "First come, first serve".

Lone Wolfs cry that Premades are fielding packs of Atali or Lights or (insert FOTM here). Fix, impose tonnage restrictions.
Result: Premades are to be allowed to go back to building the group size they want (I think I've seen that), but are restricted to tonnage limitations.

The end result is going to be that groups will be happy with the shorter wait times, the ability to play with their friends and a more robust play experience through balancing. Unfortunately the remainder of the team is going to be filled in with Lone Wolves who are going to have to wait for matches where their desired mech matches with the tonnage that is left over.

As far as Roles, the Lone Wolves aren't going to be interested in role warfare, they just want to hop in their preferred mech and do whatever they feel like.

Moral of the story, you're not going to make everyone happy, all you can do is make it where the largest segment is happy. This is NEVER the ideal solution.

[stjobe]

Roadbeer, on 27 November 2013 - 11:20 AM, said:

The thing is that this is this is a perfect example of "Be careful of what you wish for".

If by "this" you mean tonnage limits, I agree.

Roadbeer, on 27 November 2013 - 11:20 AM, said:

Lone Wolfs cried that they were getting stomped by Premade groups of any size. Fix, limit group-size to 4/max group.
Result: HUGE population dump because groups were no longer allowed to play with who they wanted or rather, they had to leave a lot of their friends out as groups became "First come, first serve".

It wasn't Lone Wolfs that cried, it was just about anyone not able to put together an 8-man.

Roadbeer, on 27 November 2013 - 11:20 AM, said:

Lone Wolfs cry that Premades are fielding packs of Atali or Lights or (insert FOTM here). Fix, impose tonnage restrictions.
Result: Premades are to be allowed to go back to building the group size they want (I think I've seen that), but are restricted to tonnage limitations.

The end result is going to be that groups will be happy with the shorter wait times, the ability to play with their friends and a more robust play experience through balancing. Unfortunately the remainder of the team is going to be filled in with Lone Wolves who are going to have to wait for matches where their desired mech matches with the tonnage that is left over.

That surely is one possibility; after all that's what they've been saying about Lone Wolfs all along; we're fillers in faction matches.

Roadbeer, on 27 November 2013 - 11:20 AM, said:

As far as Roles, the Lone Wolves aren't going to be interested in role warfare, they just want to hop in their preferred mech and do whatever they feel like.

Are you sure you mean Lone Wolves? Because I'm a Lone Wolf and I'm very interested in role warfare.

Roadbeer, on 27 November 2013 - 11:20 AM, said:

Moral of the story, you're not going to make everyone happy, all you can do is make it where the largest segment is happy. This is NEVER the ideal solution.

While you cannot make all the people happy all of the time, you can at least avoid actively ******* off large segments of your population.

Although come to think of it, that doesn't sound like PGI...

Edited by stjobe, 27 November 2013 - 11:31 AM.

[TercieI]

Fut, on 27 November 2013 - 11:14 AM, said:

It looks pretty *****, but I just found this: http://www.dark-wind.com/

Lost me at "turn-based." That's not what I want from a PC game. No, thanks on MWT for the same reason. If I want a boardgame, I play one of the very best (ASL).

[Joseph Mallan]

Is a PUG the same as a Lone Wolf for this conversation???

[Roadbeer]

stjobe, on 27 November 2013 - 11:30 AM, said:

It wasn't Lone Wolfs that cried, it was just about anyone not able to put together an 8-man.

We're going to have to disagree on that.

stjobe, on 27 November 2013 - 11:30 AM, said:

That surely is one possibility; after all that's what they've been saying about Lone Wolfs all along; we're fillers in faction matches.

Would you do me a favor and explain that to almost every other Lone Wolf then?

stjobe, on 27 November 2013 - 11:30 AM, said:

Are you sure you mean Lone Wolves? Because I'm a Lone Wolf and I'm very interested in role warfare.

You, good sir, are an anomaly then.

stjobe, on 27 November 2013 - 11:30 AM, said:

While you cannot make all the people happy all of the time, you can at least avoid actively ******* off large segments of your population.

Although come to think of it, that doesn't sound like PGI...

Don't confuse the threadnauts where 10 people have 60 posts in them making a thread 150 pages long as a large segment of the population.

But yeah, I think you and I are on the same page.

[Screech]

Tonnage limits won't affect lone wolves, yet another reason for your hatred.

Enjoy.

[Zyllos]

kuangmk11, on 27 November 2013 - 10:22 AM, said:

Can somebody point me to the info on total drop weight limits is. All I can find is group drop weight limits.

Your total drop weight limit is based on adding each group drop weight limit together.

What happens here is a group of 12 will most likely end up having less total weight on the field than three groups of 4, or six groups of 2.

[Roadbeer]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 November 2013 - 11:37 AM, said:

Is a PUG the same as a Lone Wolf for this conversation???

I interchange them, but for our purposes, lets say yes.
I can be correctly argued that the bulk of premades are just 4 PUGs dropping together in a group on a VoIP. But I think that for the most part it is implied that Lone Wolf = PUG.

Screech, on 27 November 2013 - 11:40 AM, said:

Tonnage limits won't affect lone wolves, yet another reason for your hatred.

Enjoy.

[Citation Needed]

If a 10 player group takes 600* of the available 720* tons available, how does that NOT effect the Lone Wolves?

*figures are for demonstration purposes only

[YueFei]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 November 2013 - 11:19 AM, said:

The only limit to weight in warfare is Logistical.

"Can we transport X tons to Y Location on Z transports?"

"Maybe?"

"Good get it done by 0430 yesterday!"

There's more strategy to it than that. It's more about *where* do you put your tonnage at? More of it at X, or more of it at Y? We used friggen inflatable balloons to look like tanks to fool enemy recon in WW2. Isn't ECM supposed to generate ghost signatures???

[Joseph Mallan]

Zyllos, on 27 November 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

Your total drop weight limit is based on adding each group drop weight limit together.

What happens here is a group of 12 will most likely end up having less total weight on the field than three groups of 4, or six groups of 2.

Just double checked this 2man top weight 125 Tons times 6 750 tons, a 12 man max is 730...

[Fut]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 November 2013 - 11:48 AM, said:

Just double checked this 2man top weight 125 Tons times 6 750 tons, a 12 man max is 730...

Hopefully this isn't how PGI is planning on determining the weight limits.

[kuangmk11]

Zyllos, on 27 November 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

Your total drop weight limit is based on adding each group drop weight limit together.

What happens here is a group of 12 will most likely end up having less total weight on the field than three groups of 4, or six groups of 2.

That only works if the entire team is premades, If there are pugs queued with you the total drop weight will vary depending on what they took. There are no hard total drop weight limits.

We don't really know how things will add up, the numbers are not set yet. It is possible that they will set them as you said

[stjobe]

Roadbeer, on 27 November 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

I interchange them, but for our purposes, lets say yes.
I can be correctly argued that the bulk of premades are just 4 PUGs dropping together in a group on a VoIP. But I think that for the most part it is implied that Lone Wolf = PUG.

Lone Wolf = (currently) no faction affinity.
PUG = happens to drop solo.

They are not interchangeable.

House or Merc players can be PUGs just as well as Lone Wolfs can be premades.

Edited by stjobe, 27 November 2013 - 11:51 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

YueFei, on 27 November 2013 - 11:48 AM, said:

There's more strategy to it than that. It's more about *where* do you put your tonnage at? More of it at X, or more of it at Y? We used friggen inflatable balloons to look like tanks to fool enemy recon in WW2. Isn't ECM supposed to generate ghost signatures???

I'd guess that was above my paygrade in the Corps. I spent a few hours as "cargo" In a C130 transport along with the better part of my Company, a few Vehicles and "supplies moving from Oki to Korea. Do not forget. a soldier is equipment same as a HumVee.

Fut, on 27 November 2013 - 11:49 AM, said:

Hopefully this isn't how PGI is planning on determining the weight limits.

Dude... PGI and numbers!!!

[Zyllos]

kuangmk11, on 27 November 2013 - 11:49 AM, said:

That only works if the entire team is premades, If there are pugs queued with you the total drop weight will vary depending on what they took. There are no hard total drop weight limits.

We don't really know how things will add up, the numbers are not set yet. It is possible that they will set them as you said

That is true, this is only based on preliminary data and should be considered speculative.