376 replies to this topic

[Sandtiger]

That is one of my many points to all of this. You are playing a game that promotes min-maxing! Welcome to Mechwarrior where you get to take your giant robot that you paid for, or built up from C-bills, and once you acquire enough money you get to modify it to suit your style of game play. People can hide behind "meta scriptures" all they want. "This doesn't fit with the cannon, that was not how it was done, you NEVER saw that in any of the books, etc..."But to be honest. What is the point of playing this game if you don't get to pilot what you want, when you want to?

Can anyone tell me where in history, any two armies matched cannon for cannon. How about the battle of thermopylae? The Civil War? World War 1, World War 2, to name but a few of the many this blood soaked world has seen. If you can name one, I will be extremely impressed.

And as for my panties being in an uproar Colonel Pada Vinson. I play all classes of mechs. From Commando's to Atlas. I own over twenty mechs, and play them ALL. My favorite right now happens to be a Raven...well ok, thats a toss up between Raven, Shadowhawk, and a Misery. My point however, is this. Tonnage limits are NOT the solution. Instead of promoting restrictions to players, because they use what they have better. How about finding rewards for roll specific warfare. Which is exactly what PGI promised us in the first place. That way mechwarriors have more ways to get C-bills and experience instead of just blowing the {Scrap} out of other mechs. And hey Assaults can go blow the {Scrap} out of things with their buddies, which I believe is the entire idea behind running an assault mech. No?

Edited by Sandtiger, 07 December 2013 - 07:15 AM.

[Whatzituyah]

Sandtiger, on 07 December 2013 - 06:46 AM, said:

That is one of my many points to all of this. You are playing a game that promotes min-maxing! Welcome to Mechwarrior where you get to take your giant robot that you paid for, or built up from C-bills, and once you acquire enough money you get to modify it to suit your style of game play. People can hide behind "meta scriptures" all they want. "This doesn't fit with the cannon, that was not how it was done, you NEVER saw that in any of the books, etc..."But to be honest. What is the point of playing this game if you don't get to pilot what you want, when you want to?

Can anyone tell me where in history, any two armies matched cannon for cannon. How about the battle of thermopylae? The Civil War? World War 1, World War 2, to name but a few of the many this blood soaked world has seen. If you can name one, I will be extremely impressed.

And as for my panties being in an uproar Colonel Pada Vinson. I play all classes of mechs. From Commando's to Atlas. I own over twenty mechs, and play them ALL. My favorite right now happens to be a Raven...well ok, thats a toss up between Raven, Shadowhawk, and a Misery. My point however, is this. Tonnage limits are NOT the solution. Instead of promoting restrictions to players, because they use what they have better. How about finding rewards for roll specific warfare. Which is exactly what PGI promised us in the first place. That way mechwarriors have more ways to get C-bills and experience instead of just blowing the {Scrap} out of other mechs. And hey Assaults can go blow the {Scrap} out of things with their buddies, which I believe is the entire idea behind running an assault mech. No?

I disagree with you on the tonnage limit because well I think it would be better with less assualts on the field they wouldnt care about role warfare they would just want to win.

[Jman5]

Sandtiger, on 07 December 2013 - 06:46 AM, said:

That is one of my many points to all of this. You are playing a game that promotes min-maxing! Welcome to Mechwarrior where you get to take your giant robot that you paid for, or built up from C-bills, and once you acquire enough money you get to modify it to suit your style of game play. People can hide behind "meta scriptures" all they want. "This doesn't fit with the cannon, that was not how it was done, you NEVER saw that in any of the books, etc..."But to be honest. What is the point of playing this game if you don't get to pilot what you want, when you want to?

Can anyone tell me where in history, any two armies matched cannon for cannon. How about the battle of thermopylae? The Civil War? World War 1, World War 2, to name but a few of the many this blood soaked world has seen. If you can name one, I will be extremely impressed.

And as for my panties being in an uproar Colonel Pada Vinson. I play all classes of mechs. From Commando's to Atlas. I own over twenty mechs, and play them ALL. My favorite right now happens to be a Raven...well ok, thats a toss up between Raven, Shadowhawk, and a Misery. My point however, is this. Tonnage limits are NOT the solution. Instead of promoting restrictions to players, because they use what they have better. How about finding rewards for roll specific warfare. Which is exactly what PGI promised us in the first place. That way mechwarriors have more ways to get C-bills and experience instead of just blowing the {Scrap} out of other mechs. And hey Assaults can go blow the {Scrap} out of things with their buddies, which I believe is the entire idea behind running an assault mech. No?

The difference between this and the examples you gave is that this is a multiplayer video game. The developers create rules to promote Fairness and fun. For most people It is not fair and it is not fun to have weight mismatches, especially when there are simple ways to game it in your favor.

I don't care one bit about canon or lore. What I do care about is that when I'm placed on the field I have confidence that this will be a relatively fair fight. When you discover after the match that your opponent had 150 ton advantage at the outset, it really demoralizes me.

The cornerstone of a good competitive game is fairness. That way, the team that plays the best and builds the best wins. The developer's job in all this is crafting rules (balance) so that not only are things fair, but there are plenty of viable approaches to win the game. Right now, that is not the case. Bringing a 4-man of assaults will give your team a weight advantage more times than not, which will give you a greater chance of victory more times than not. The current rules of matchmaker muscle out the lighter mechs.

We need weight caps and total team weight limits to make the game fair and to have a functional matchmaker.

At the same time, private matches are coming which will allow players such as yourself to craft customized games. You can have mismatched teams (in number and weight) and create all sorts of fun scenarios. I think those can be great fun, but it doesn't have a place in a competitive environment such as community warfare.

[Ngamok]

ssm, on 27 November 2013 - 05:55 AM, said:

120 tons? Let's say a Jagermech and Shadow Hawk.

No to mention limit will probably be set lower than 720 tons (6xAtlas, 6x Locust)

I bet it's closer to that than you think. If you run a 3,3,3,3 set up and think ok, Lights, 30t, mediums 50t, heavies 65t, assaults 85t than that comes out to 690 tons.

[Corvus Antaka]

Ngamok, on 07 December 2013 - 12:11 PM, said:

I bet it's closer to that than you think. If you run a 3,3,3,3 set up and think ok, Lights, 30t, mediums 50t, heavies 65t, assaults 85t than that comes out to 690 tons.

having to take a locust to allow for an atlas would definitely make things more challenging. Sadly this would possibly lead to 6 spiders with ECM and 6 highlanders all pop-tarting in unison.

and yet if we then saw 6 BAP equipped shadowhawks or kintaros and 6 ac/20 jaeggers to counter this, I doubt the highlanders and spiders would be gaurenteed success.

as noted from what I have read it seems clear that private matches will let you ton out however you want, and hopefully in CW we will have options for tonnage limits of 300 tons for a 12 man for pure light vs light fights too, as well as 1200 for assault vs assault.

the main goal is probably to just insure both teams have nearly = tonnage, which in and of itself will make a significant improvement to game balance, since the minute 1 team has 50+ tons on the other team a inherint handicap is in place.

[YueFei]

Jman5, on 07 December 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:

The difference between this and the examples you gave is that this is a multiplayer video game. The developers create rules to promote Fairness and fun. For most people It is not fair and it is not fun to have weight mismatches, especially when there are simple ways to game it in your favor.

I don't care one bit about canon or lore. What I do care about is that when I'm placed on the field I have confidence that this will be a relatively fair fight. When you discover after the match that your opponent had 150 ton advantage at the outset, it really demoralizes me.

The cornerstone of a good competitive game is fairness. That way, the team that plays the best and builds the best wins. The developer's job in all this is crafting rules (balance) so that not only are things fair, but there are plenty of viable approaches to win the game. Right now, that is not the case. Bringing a 4-man of assaults will give your team a weight advantage more times than not, which will give you a greater chance of victory more times than not. The current rules of matchmaker muscle out the lighter mechs.

We need weight caps and total team weight limits to make the game fair and to have a functional matchmaker.

Or they could deliver on Role Warfare mechanics that make it desirable to take a wide variety of weight classes.

The NFL doesn't have rules that ban an offense from putting 11 men on the field who all weigh 350+ pounds. It simply wouldn't work well on any situation except a short-yardage situation. The NFL has a sport that's 1000% better designed than MWO.

If the NFL were like MWO, the field would be 30 feet wide instead of 160 feet wide, and the forward pass would be illegal. Then you'd see nothing but 350+ pound guys in there from teams trying their hardest to win.

[Snoopy]

Tonnage Limits ….

Got laughed at before to call potential problems but I will repeat myself:
Tonnage limits are exactly that: limitations – nothing else. And showing the potential for, using PGI words, a “griefing tool”. It will only add the illusion of balance and is the coffin nail for real Clan Tech.

A just bought off the shelf Hunchback with no skills is the same tonnage as a full skilled, upgraded (Endo, DHS, AMS, …), optimal weapon payload Hunchback.
Balanced Tonnage? = yes
Balanced contribution to combat? = hardly

Basing everything on tonnage / weight only is the end of dreaming for any real Clan Tech. You can’t match Clan and IS tech on weight only without changing every weapon stat, which will generate something different but not Clans we knew from lore & books.
I can only speak for myself: I’m not in the least way interested in playing a IS-tech-pseudo-only Clan faction. Imho Clans are and should be: superior tech, lower numbers. If it looks like a TimberWolf/MadCat, but works like a Orion, it is a Orion.

And how will tonnage limit interact with the mentioned levelling system?
Will we see a level-3 stock 50t Hunchback fighting against a lev-60 full skilled & modified 50t Hunchback?

A proper Mech-BattleValue plus player ELO value would be much better balancing instrument.
Something like: my-Mech-BV for my-Hunchie-build of 2.000 plus my-ELO of 275 = 2.275. It could solve the problem matching IS and Clan fights. It has proven its utility in TT and is anytime better than any only tonnage based balancing attempt.
BV matching is not perfect, but tonnage matching with unlock-able skill trees and different Tech is broken beyond comparison. If we need any balancing method I would prefer BV + ELO anytime over tonnage limits.

The planned system is ok for all the guys who want to have a tonnage limit. But what is with the other players that just want to ride the Mech they like (regardless of tonnage, light or assault)? Not everybody wants to ride every Mech and not everyone owns multiple different Mechs (full skilled and modified) in different tonnage classes. It is a different play style, but it is not “wrong”.

I’m surprised: picking a trail Mech if you do not have a Mech matching the remaining drop limit? I thought tonnage limits should be a balancing tool? But suddenly it is ok to use the most inferior Mechs in MWO just to get a tonnage balanced game?

When I check the MC prices for Mechs: high tonnage Mech = high price C-Bills/MC.
Do you really believe PGI will sell many heavy/assault if they get this system running?
What is with the players that planned to buy a Hero Ilya, HM, Pretty Baby, BH or Misery?
Can you imagine the first Light player getting flamed because he “wasted” tonnage and getting pressed he should use a trial Dragon instead of his custom Hero-Deaths Knell?
Too many assaults = maximum weight is a problem, too many lights = minimum weight is a problem … or you just waste tonnage and play with a handicap.

I enjoy riding several Mech classes but I feel "home" in heavy Mechs. Others enjoy riding fast light Mechs. Why should somebody get penalised or forced for both or either?

It looks like we will spend more time in pre-match-lobby-configuration and deal-making regarding who can use which Mech than actually fighting a match. I hope I’m not the only one thinking that this is not the best way for MWO.

I paid and still pay money for this game, I just want to have fun and enjoy my leisure time. If this does not fit with the PGI business model … Good Luck getting money from me.

The complete idea sounds more like a first draft and not a full and well thought-out plan. Instead of fixing the existing problems it looks like just more layers.

If PGI wants a wide variety of different Mechs used – get a real Role Warfare model working that make every Mech class unique and useful.
If PGI can’t build a game were a Medium Mech brings a obviously real in-game benefit for a player not just less waiting time to be allowed to play … please try harder.

[Jman5]

Snoopy, on 07 December 2013 - 02:15 PM, said:

A proper Mech-BattleValue plus player ELO value would be much better balancing instrument.
Something like: my-Mech-BV for my-Hunchie-build of 2.000 plus my-ELO of 275 = 2.275. It could solve the problem matching IS and Clan fights. It has proven its utility in TT and is anytime better than any only tonnage based balancing attempt.
BV matching is not perfect, but tonnage matching with unlock-able skill trees and different Tech is broken beyond comparison. If we need any balancing method I would prefer BV + ELO anytime over tonnage limits.

Would a system that matches players based on a battle value be better? Sure. I don't think anyone would argue against that. The real question is, are you confident that PGI can deliver a battle value system that accurately reflects Mechwarrior Online's balance? Then keep it fully tuned as weapon balance changes from patch to patch?

Most people would argue the game isn't even properly balanced and you expect them to accurately gauge battlevalues? Hell, they don't even price their items to reflect proper balance. An LB10X is the most expensive weapon in the game and yet there is no way to justify that cost.

Tonnage limits are an inelegant, but manageable compromise to the problem of imbalanced teams. Battlevalue system would be more precise but incredibly complex and require constant retuning.

I'll gladly accept tonnage limits because it's a marked improvement to what we have now.

[Aim64C]

The problem isn't weight balancing so much as it is a problem of overall game design.

The function of mechs was designed around -battlefield- objectives involving combined arms and forces.

An all-mech Coliseum Death-Match can only have so mcuh of a role for light mech designs. Maneuverability is only so useful when you're confined to about 4-8 square kilometers and the only two objectives you have are stand-in-square or blow-up-walking-death-machine-with-more-weapons-than-your-mech-weighs.

Not that light mechs are completely useless in the current game - but that they are being forced into a team-tournament style role that they were never really meant for.

On a real battlefield - you don't drop with equal teams. You drop into a fray. You don't know the enemy's objective, you just know that the enemy will kill you if it gets the opportunity. You know what your objectives are - but you don't know if the enemy is going to be interfering. If you have to trapse across 10 kilometers of open terrain with your lance to get to your objective area - that's plenty of time for the unexpected skirmish with light mechs (which are just going to **** you off with harassment tactics while keeping track of you for artillery units and intercepting medium/heavy lances while assault lances are rebalanced to defend objectives appropriately).

Of course - this would require some kind of persistent battlefield that is an order of magnitude larger than the ones we currently use - with per-instance player counts running as high as 128 players simultaneously (with resupply runs every 10-30 minutes that keep players supplied with mechs to use (as a destroyed mech would be unplayable until it had been resupplied in a drop) and with ammunition resources for in-field repairs/reloads. Players would come in with each new drop, as well as be rewarded for various objective completions.

That would make the weight-balancing issue somewhat irrelevant. By issuing proper rewards to scouting mech pilots for their contributions, and by placing importance on real-time information gathering and necessity of rapid-response and interdiction - you'd naturally balance the whole system.

[YueFei]

Aim64C, on 07 December 2013 - 07:35 PM, said:

The problem isn't weight balancing so much as it is a problem of overall game design.

The function of mechs was designed around -battlefield- objectives involving combined arms and forces.

An all-mech Coliseum Death-Match can only have so mcuh of a role for light mech designs. Maneuverability is only so useful when you're confined to about 4-8 square kilometers and the only two objectives you have are stand-in-square or blow-up-walking-death-machine-with-more-weapons-than-your-mech-weighs.

Not that light mechs are completely useless in the current game - but that they are being forced into a team-tournament style role that they were never really meant for.

On a real battlefield - you don't drop with equal teams. You drop into a fray. You don't know the enemy's objective, you just know that the enemy will kill you if it gets the opportunity. You know what your objectives are - but you don't know if the enemy is going to be interfering. If you have to trapse across 10 kilometers of open terrain with your lance to get to your objective area - that's plenty of time for the unexpected skirmish with light mechs (which are just going to **** you off with harassment tactics while keeping track of you for artillery units and intercepting medium/heavy lances while assault lances are rebalanced to defend objectives appropriately).

Of course - this would require some kind of persistent battlefield that is an order of magnitude larger than the ones we currently use - with per-instance player counts running as high as 128 players simultaneously (with resupply runs every 10-30 minutes that keep players supplied with mechs to use (as a destroyed mech would be unplayable until it had been resupplied in a drop) and with ammunition resources for in-field repairs/reloads. Players would come in with each new drop, as well as be rewarded for various objective completions.

That would make the weight-balancing issue somewhat irrelevant. By issuing proper rewards to scouting mech pilots for their contributions, and by placing importance on real-time information gathering and necessity of rapid-response and interdiction - you'd naturally balance the whole system.

Yep. The infrastructure that supports a military covers a much larger area than the army itself can defend 100% of. He who defends everything defends nothing, and all that. It's why misdirection is so important: the Allies in WW2 devoted the time and effort of creating large inflatable balloons dressed up to look like Tank battalions to fool the enemy recon into thinking the real attack was coming from a completely different direction.

If there were multiple objectives, spaced apart a realistic distance, with larger maps, and make each team's bases provide in-match benefits, things would solve themselves. You have a bunch of enemy Assaults stomping toward your bases? Launch a spoiling attack with lighter forces, drop artillery and airstrikes on them, harass and slow them down, then rotate back to base for repair/re-arm, while sending your own attack forces to destroy the enemy airfield and artillery batteries, denying them the ability to use air strikes or artillery strikes for the remainder of the match. Intercept the supply convoy being sent to resupply the enemy assaults. Use your speed to make multiple sorties and wear down the enemy.

If the enemy wants to prevent you from isolating and besieging their assault mechs to death.... they'll need their own lighter, faster mechs to react to your attacks, and to keep you off balance and prevent you from so easily withdrawing, cut off your retreat. Information would matter when it comes to trying to determine where the balance of the enemy's strength is. And a proper screen of lighter mechs chasing off the enemy's lighter elements would be able to deny them that information.

Edited by YueFei, 07 December 2013 - 09:45 PM.

[Scrawny Cowboy]

Sooo... not to interrupt the brick wall of text but just wanted to add to FupDup's post waaay back (if it hasn't already been said, 18 pages 3 in the mornin' and such)

Since mediums were pretty much the bread winners in BT, should have like a payout increase as an incentive to pilot 'em
Not lights, I don't like lights.
...
Okay them too. But only because I like to shoot at 'em ...and miss.

[Chemie]

Why were mediums the bread and butter in the IS? I would argue because of balance between speed, armor and weapons was the sweet spot. PGI has implemented in a way that heavies (and to some extent assaults) have mostly the same speed (to the extent that it matters) but more armor and weapons....so they are the meta (and to some extent so did TT but BV helped there)

[Aim64C]

Chemie, on 08 December 2013 - 05:45 AM, said:

Why were mediums the bread and butter in the IS? I would argue because of balance between speed, armor and weapons was the sweet spot. PGI has implemented in a way that heavies (and to some extent assaults) have mostly the same speed (to the extent that it matters) but more armor and weapons....so they are the meta (and to some extent so did TT but BV helped there)

The main reason was cost.

Heavies -can- reach speeds of mediums using standard engines - but you've lost a lot of the advantages and still have a higher net cost. XL engines were expensive as ****, as were EndoSteel, Double Heat Sinks, etc.

Your standard IS mech has quite a bit of 'improvement room' that can be made - but for the cost of bringing one Heavy into the maneuverability category of mediums while packing demi-assault payloads, you could field two or three moderately improved Medium mechs.

As I said, before, many of the balance problems come from no concept of repair/rearm and the combat is always enemy mechs dropped in the same (or... supposed to be the same) number on opposing sides. Adding in infantry, armor, hovercraft, aircraft, and the need to provide escort, intercept, recon, etc - balances out the roles much more.

Why wouldn't you take a massively upgraded heavy into Solaris that pays to fix everything after the match?

"Okay - but you mentioned Repair and Rearm...?"

To do this right - you have to, first, create a persistent battlefield where players join large battlefields where the game is already in progress (and they leave the game with the battle still in progress). Hopefully, you've played Command&Conquer: Renegade online when the communities hosted "Marathon" servers. Games could run for 24 hours, or more. I left a game, went to sleep, went to school, and came back to see the same exact game still running.

The game did a number of things passively to promote group cohesion. A 'harvester' would leave the base and come back. For every harvester that went to the (often dangerous) Tiberium field and returned to the refinery, every player got a deposit of 300 credits over the 1-cred/second base rate supplied by the refinery. Damage to vehicles, people, and buildings also rewarded credits (as did repairing friendly structures/units... don't ask how the repair gun worked on friendly soldiers as well as tanks).

In a similar light - a persistent MechWarrior battlefield can have drop-ships that make regular visits and/or supply convoys that make regular runs. Defending your own supply lines and disrupting your opponents' strengthens your standing. These supply convoys could do anything from offer reductions to in-field repair costs, to percentage boosts to C-bill earnings during the game, to the availability of in-theater support (a supply convoy with artillery rounds can grant you more frequent artillery strikes, for example, by lowering the number of faction points necessary to call them in - or whatever system is arranged for them).

Each time a drop-ship arrives, players would have the mechs in their 'ready bay' delivered. New players would be delivered to the battlefield, etc. Matches were one side was substantially unbalanced compared to the others may receive more than the average drop of players with a flurry of objectives to re-balance the faction's interest on the planet (there may be more than just two factions on a 'map').

Repair and rearm costs come from when you return to your base or visit some mobile/remote repair station. Those with 'standard' mechs have low costs to repair their mechs. Those with top-end rides will have considerably higher costs and may have to consider waiting for the drop-ship to 'refresh' their damaged or successfully salvaged XL, ES rides (a dynamic objective would be, in the wake of a battle, escorting salvage teams to the site to recover friendly mechs for repair and enemy mechs for profits of teams participating in the escort).

A similar system could also differentiate between omnimechs and standard mechs. Omnimechs would be able to make in-field real-time customizations, whereas standard mechs would have to await the next drop-ship interval to modify their loadouts. It wouldn't be a 'perfect simulator' of the TT requirements for modifying standard mechs - but it would at least convey some of the spirit.

[Arctourus]

A couple of points:

First, both sides have a solid argument. Yes, when I feel like dropping in an atlas, I wanna drop in an atlas, end of story. Yes, when I play, I'd rather see a diversity of weight classes and not a top-heavy formula like have now.

Second, how will tonnage limits look? For the most part, everyone here seems to think you will have to fight with your teammates in the drop lobby to determine who gets what. More likely, if you pick an atlas, when you launch, it will work the same. You may have to wait a few more minutes for the match maker to find you a drop with an open assault slot, but you probably won't need to worry about entering drop and being forced to pick a locust at the last minute.

Therefore, let's cut the whining, flaming and insanity. PGI won't change their plans because someone gets mad in the forum. Nor should they.

Get a girlfriend, or better yet, a wife. Then you'll REALLY have something to complain about.

[Sandpit]

18 pages to say two things

"Weight limits will destroy the game"
"Weight limits will be good for the game"

(just insert whatever complex philosophical, mathematical, statistical data you want here to support one or both of the above ideas)

Every single time, (not once in a while, not sometimes, but EVERY time) something gets changed, tweaked, adjusted, changed, buffed, nerfed, etc. we get one of these threads about how it's going to "ruin, destroy, kill, etc.the game. This goes all the way back to CB. Want to know what the TRUE statistical data is?

Wait for it................


The game is still here.

[anubis969]

Arctourus, on 09 December 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

Second, how will tonnage limits look? For the most part, everyone here seems to think you will have to fight with your teammates in the drop lobby to determine who gets what. More likely, if you pick an atlas, when you launch, it will work the same. You may have to wait a few more minutes for the match maker to find you a drop with an open assault slot, but you probably won't need to worry about entering drop and being forced to pick a locust at the last minute.

From the recent command chair post "Public Matches":

Quote

Phase Two – Ready Up [60+] seconds

Now that the match is locked in, players can begin to organize and plan for the battle. The first order of business will be meeting the tonnage restrictions. Each team tonnage total must fall between [240] and [480] tons. Players can bring up to [8] BattleMechs with them to battle. For the purposes of lore, these are transported in a DropShip. Selecting a `Mech readies the `Mech and adds it to your teams total tonnage. The team’s tonnage will be displayed at the top of the team’s player list, showing each person’s `Mech and weight. The number will show total weight and the amount above or below the min/max tonnage limits. Players are encouraged to quickly organize through a match bonus mechanism. A match CB bonus starts at [10%] and goes down to [0%] at a rate of [1%] every [6] seconds. If both teams manage to ready up quickly, each player will receive a match CB bonus on any earnings they may receive.

Once all players are readied, and the tonnage limits are met for each team, the match is locked in and a [10] second countdown clock starts.

NOTE: This ready screen will remove the need for a match ready screen.

NOTE 2: Any numbers or words found with [ ] are for demonstration only and subject to change.

-http://mwomercs.com/...public-matches/

[Sandtiger]

Whatzituyah, on 07 December 2013 - 11:06 AM, said:

I disagree with you on the tonnage limit because well I think it would be better with less assualts on the field they wouldnt care about role warfare they would just want to win.

And I dissagree with you that it will level the playing field. I was piloting my Raven Last night, and had more kills with it, than I did when piloting my Atlas. Again, tonnage restrictions are not the answer. All they are doing is making paying customers unhappy. I stand with many others on this when we say to you. Keep nerfing the game. I will stop paying. =]

[Karl Streiger]

Aim64C, on 08 December 2013 - 10:56 PM, said:

....please stop describing a game i want to play - it makes me sad

MWO need persistence or death

Edited by Karl Streiger, 09 December 2013 - 11:59 PM.

[Devil Fox]

Sandpit, on 09 December 2013 - 11:17 AM, said:

18 pages to say two things

"Weight limits will destroy the game"
"Weight limits will be good for the game"

Yet no-one voices the real concern that is... "Will PGI actually pull this feature off without either finding a way to monetize it, or breaking the play experience of the F2P players?"

I still question whether PGI can do tonnage limits, whether they will work and whether the community will actually have a choice of mechs or become force feed into certain chassis...

[Sandpit]

Apostal, on 10 December 2013 - 12:03 AM, said:

Yet no-one voices the real concern that is... "Will PGI actually pull this feature off without either finding a way to monetize it, or breaking the play experience of the F2P players?"

I still question whether PGI can do tonnage limits, whether they will work and whether the community will actually have a choice of mechs or become force feed into certain chassis...

You're not forced to do anything in this game. I'm not directing this coming rant specifically at you so don't get offended....

Where in the world is anyone forced to do anything in this game?
You aren't even forced to spend a single dime on this game.
You aren't forced to play any type of weight or chassis you don't want to.
You aren't forced to go through a "level up" system to "earn" an assault mech
You aren't forced to play in a build you don't like due to mech lab customizations
You aren't forced to play in premades
You aren't forced to play in pugs
You aren't forced to do a single solitary thing in this game except play it for free in any weight class you choose.

Does that mean you'll have longer load times as a pug sometimes? Maybe
Does that mean you'll have to adjust a few things from time to time? Maybe
Does that mean you're forced to play in a specific weight class you don't like? No

There are FAR too many players in this game right now that seem to think because they have to spend a few hours to earn enough for an assault mech, or get owned by something they aren't willing to learn how to counter, or can't understand (or just plain refuse to adapt) to new mechanics, that the entire game should be catered to them.
Let me clarify something right quick as well. This is not new players, this is not average players, this is not bottom-end players, this is a small niche.

We have 3 classes of players here. Much like society operates, most players fall into the 80%, we have about 7% on either end of the spectrum that are slightly above and below average, and then we have 3% on either end of the spectrum that are well above or well below average.

Want to know who the game should be balanced for? Well it's not going to be the ends of the spectrum. It's that 80% that see the game as pretty well balanced. How do I know those above percentages are correct? Well, I'm glad you asked. They're correct because they're ALWAYS correct. They aren't exact but they are very close. How do I know this? Well, because it's statistical science.

Ok rant off

Weight limits aren't going to force anyone into anything. That's already been specifically stated by the dev team (no I don't have citation, I don't need it for myself, I know it's true and I've read it but you can go search it up if you feel you need citation) that noone will be forced to play anything.