232 replies to this topic

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Sandtiger, on 16 December 2013 - 01:22 PM, said:

No, PGI's goal should be to realize that tonnage limits will kill their game. Tonnage limits really? You honestly think that just because some players outweigh others, that it makes them better players? Tell you what, if I haven't completely thrown my hands up in the air with this game by the time we can actually have private matches. You choose any assault you want, and I will take you down in my Raven. Then after that, you will have to find a new way to whine to the Devs about how unfair the game is. =p

The problem isn't one guy in an Atlas (or one guy in a Raven) ... it's that the perception (right or not) exists that the only truly viable 'mechs in the game are Assault or Light. A well-built and well-piloted 'mech, regardless of the chassis or variant, should be viable.

Limits or drop conditions increase variety and make the game play more interesting (see Proxis or Marik Civil War for more information).

Also, this isn't a single-player game ... I'll counter your proposal. Anytime the 101st {ICM} and 228th IBR can both field a 12-man, let's try a 7 match series ... first three, no limits ... second three, 660-780 tons, final match, the team with the least total kills gets to choose the format (any restrictions that apply to both teams are fair game), and we'll see which games are more interesting and more fun.

When people feel like they "must" bring any specific type of 'mech to win or to have fun, it limits variety and the game gets stale. Unfortunately, sometimes the only way to pry some people out of their Highlanders or Jenners is to enforce restrictions.

[fil5000]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 16 December 2013 - 02:53 PM, said:

The problem isn't one guy in an Atlas (or one guy in a Raven) ... it's that the perception (right or not) exists that the only truly viable 'mechs in the game are Assault or Light. A well-built and well-piloted 'mech, regardless of the chassis or variant, should be viable.

Limits or drop conditions increase variety and make the game play more interesting (see Proxis or Marik Civil War for more information).

Also, this isn't a single-player game ... I'll counter your proposal. Anytime the 101st {ICM} and 228th IBR can both field a 12-man, let's try a 7 match series ... first three, no limits ... second three, 660-780 tons, final match, the team with the least total kills gets to choose the format (any restrictions that apply to both teams are fair game), and we'll see which games are more interesting and more fun.

When people feel like they "must" bring any specific type of 'mech to win or to have fun, it limits variety and the game gets stale. Unfortunately, sometimes the only way to pry some people out of their Highlanders or Jenners is to enforce restrictions.

Restrictions are absolutely a great idea. Expecting a group of randomly matched players to come to an agreement over who gets to bring an Atlas and who has to take a Locust to bring the group in under tonnage is a terrible idea. Dangling a cbill bonus for making this decision quickly is an even worse idea. PGI are proposing using the players as a mechanical turk to resolve the complexities of tonnage limits in the matchmaker, which creates as many problems as it solves.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

fil5000, on 16 December 2013 - 02:57 PM, said:

Restrictions are absolutely a great idea. Expecting a group of randomly matched players to come to an agreement over who gets to bring an Atlas and who has to take a Locust to bring the group in under tonnage is a terrible idea. Dangling a cbill bonus for making this decision quickly is an even worse idea. PGI are proposing using the players as a mechanical turk to resolve the complexities of tonnage limits in the matchmaker, which creates as many problems as it solves.

What I would really like to see is three general types of matches ... random, community warfare, and private ...

- random = what we have now

- community warfare = faction vs. faction fighting over the inner sphere with tonnage limits, planetary restrictions, increased rewards for important victories, a persistent battlespace ... basically all the things we've been promised and dreaming about for about 2 years

- private = 2 to 24 guys can get together and do whatever they want

[DeadlyFred]

Wait, wait... paying MONEY to mapvote? What kind of drugs are you people on? I'd pay $500 bucks for a hit of whatever it is because that must be some good stuff.

[Jern]

The concept of Tonnage limits for teams is fundamental to -ALL- versions of battletech that have ever existed. The concept of a limit I have no problem with but the idea of a 480 ton limit is -RIDICULOUS-. It is not just that we average a mere 40 tons per mech it is look how silly it gets if you try to field a lance with just 1 assault, 2 heavies, and a medium.

90 ton - Highlander, 70 Ton Cataphract, 65 Ton Catapult, and 55 Ton medium. This fairly balanced -heavy- lance would get to take to the field with a supporting cast of 8 Commandos! To meet the tonnage restrictions.... Believe it or not most of us that form lances want to bring mechs of similar size and complementary abilities. With your purposed average tonnage limits of 160 tons per lance you would create a situation where just because one of our lance mates wants to drive his Atlas the rest of us could be faced with driving 3 locusts in support? Does that sound like fun to you? If so try doing it for 10 or so matches and getting back to me.

Thanks,

[fil5000]

Jern, on 17 December 2013 - 05:21 AM, said:

The concept of Tonnage limits for teams is fundamental to -ALL- versions of battletech that have ever existed. The concept of a limit I have no problem with but the idea of a 480 ton limit is -RIDICULOUS-. It is not just that we average a mere 40 tons per mech it is look how silly it gets if you try to field a lance with just 1 assault, 2 heavies, and a medium.

90 ton - Highlander, 70 Ton Cataphract, 65 Ton Catapult, and 55 Ton medium. This fairly balanced -heavy- lance would get to take to the field with a supporting cast of 8 Commandos! To meet the tonnage restrictions.... Believe it or not most of us that form lances want to bring mechs of similar size and complementary abilities. With your purposed average tonnage limits of 160 tons per lance you would create a situation where just because one of our lance mates wants to drive his Atlas the rest of us could be faced with driving 3 locusts in support? Does that sound like fun to you? If so try doing it for 10 or so matches and getting back to me.

Thanks,

Bryan has tweeted that they're shooting for 60 tons per player, which would suggest the 480 was based on an 8 man team. Why on earth they didn't update it to reflect the 12 man teams they put in months ago before releasing this document I don't know.

[Helsbane]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 16 December 2013 - 03:39 PM, said:

What I would really like to see is three general types of matches ... random, community warfare, and private ...

- random = what we have now

- community warfare = faction vs. faction fighting over the inner sphere with tonnage limits, planetary restrictions, increased rewards for important victories, a persistent battlespace ... basically all the things we've been promised and dreaming about for about 2 years

- private = 2 to 24 guys can get together and do whatever they want

You should know by now that what you propose is FAR too complicated for PGI to pull off. One reason is that your suggestion actually makes sense, and we all know that they NEVER go that route.

[Mogney]

A few tweaks would make this alot better.

1. The award for reading up quickly is individual. If I ready up super fast I will get my 10% bonus and nobody can take it away even if htey don't ready up quickly enough.

2. There is no negotiation, the game will choose a mech from your drop bay in order to attempt to balance the tonnage between the two teams. (only PUG matches! this would destroy competitive play if done there)

3. You cannot load your drop bays with all mechs of the same weight class, you need to pick at least one from each weight class, if you don't have one, you will have to put a trial mech in your drop bay before launching.

4. You need to be able to load your modules in all of the mechs, this means yes you can put a single seismic in every mech in your drop bay without needing to buy six seismic modules.


To clarify a fair way for the randomness could work. Everyone has 4 bays in their drop bay.

An assault bay
A heavy bay
A medium bay
A light bay

you have to fill all four bays, even if you have to use trial mechs.

the game will then choose so many players at random to fill the assault role, then so many for the heavy role and so on and so forth.

arbitrary but fair, and very simple logic, and it has built in weight balancing.

This isn't an ideal solution, but I solves most of the worst problems with the original idea.

Edited by Mogney, 17 December 2013 - 08:26 AM.

[Sandtiger]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 16 December 2013 - 02:53 PM, said:

The problem isn't one guy in an Atlas (or one guy in a Raven) ... it's that the perception (right or not) exists that the only truly viable 'mechs in the game are Assault or Light. A well-built and well-piloted 'mech, regardless of the chassis or variant, should be viable.

Limits or drop conditions increase variety and make the game play more interesting (see Proxis or Marik Civil War for more information).

Also, this isn't a single-player game ... I'll counter your proposal. Anytime the 101st {ICM} and 228th IBR can both field a 12-man, let's try a 7 match series ... first three, no limits ... second three, 660-780 tons, final match, the team with the least total kills gets to choose the format (any restrictions that apply to both teams are fair game), and we'll see which games are more interesting and more fun.

When people feel like they "must" bring any specific type of 'mech to win or to have fun, it limits variety and the game gets stale. Unfortunately, sometimes the only way to pry some people out of their Highlanders or Jenners is to enforce restrictions.

Kageru,
I must apologize. I didn't mean to quote you in my last post ~grins. That was an Epic Fail... It was intended to answer another.

Sorry gents, I do not agree, and will NEVER agree with the tonnage limitation in any way shape or form. You can tell me that assaults were rare on the battlefield all you want, but thats not true. Assaults were there for who could pay for them. I understand that some people are getting frustrated when their adversaries outweigh them. I however do not agree with them. Victory is all the sweeter when my team is outweighed and we still come out on top.

Infringing on the rights of others to pilot their choice of mech is no way to solve this issue. What PGI needs to do is roll specific warfare. Currently, the more damage you do, and the more kills you make. The higher your rewards in both C-bills and XP. I agree that is a crock, and has needed fixing for a very long time. However, if they were to have several different victory conditions with more rewards for pilots who wanted to be the spotter, or capture supply lines, or collect resources from multiple points within a time limit. I think you would effectively make everyone happy. As it stands right now, their is no way your going to satisfy either side in this debate.

On my side of the field it seems that light or medium pilots want the speed & maneuverability of the smaller mechs, but are frustrated when an assault takes them out. In my opinion this is hypocrisy because you can't have it both ways. When I am in my Raven or Commando, or Shadowhawk. I sacrifice weapon capacity, and armor. When I am in my assault. ( I hate heavies, and don't play them) I sacrifice speed, and maneuverability for armor and weapons. And I have to say. When I am in my assault, I am taken out far more often than not by a light, or medium mech. Very rarely am I killed by a heavy or assault.
So in my opinion it is very difficult to see why we even need to impose tonnage limits. I mean really, whats the point? Whats next after tonnage limits? Shall we go after the lights and slow them down by imposing engine restrictions because its to hard to hit them because they are moving to fast?

And no offense to you Mogney but their is no such thing as fair in warfare~Grins. No army to my knowledge in history has ever been even. I don't mind when my adversaries outweigh my team, with this in mind, why should any of you?

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Sandtiger, on 17 December 2013 - 06:14 PM, said:

Kageru,
I must apologize. I didn't mean to quote you in my last post ~grins. That was an Epic Fail... It was intended to answer another.
...
snipped for brevity

Don't sweat it ... while I agree in principle that you should be able to field whatever you want, I also believe that there should be some restrictions for the Planetary Conquest battles within Community Warfare. Right now the only rule is "12 mechs" and the match maker does it's best to match up two teams with similar tonnage and similar skill.

No limits is definitely OK for private matches, and I think that it is OK for random matches ... both of which should be separate from Community Warfare.

[Mogney]

Sandtiger, on 17 December 2013 - 06:14 PM, said:

And no offense to you Mogney but their is no such thing as fair in warfare~Grins. No army to my knowledge in history has ever been even. I don't mind when my adversaries outweigh my team, with this in mind, why should any of you?

This isn't a war, it's a game. You are comparing bananas to filing cabinets here.

[Sandtiger]

Mogney, on 18 December 2013 - 05:17 AM, said:

This isn't a war, it's a game. You are comparing bananas to filing cabinets here.

My point exactly! Since we have established that this is indeed a game. And we play it for fun right? How many times is it going to take for you to be told that you can't play with what you paid for, before it stops being fun for you? I would NEVER have spent one iota of money on an assault hero mech or light, had I known that PGI was going to make it so that I couldn't use what I paid for when I wanted too.

Too me it sounds like the only way this game will ever be balanced is until they rename it to rockem sockem robots, or give us all premade cookie cutter mechs, that cannot be changed in any way shape or form. That way if everyone is forced to use the same thing, no one can say that it is unfair.

How do you like those cabinets? =]

[KKillian]

soapyfrog, on 02 December 2013 - 03:26 PM, said:

They should ditch Elo for matchmaking and focus on balancing pre-mades and getting the otnnages into the right ballpark.

The current system otherwise is fine for public matches, and they should not be messing with it. If anything is going to cause a serious bleed of players, it's going to be 2 minutes of useless ******** before you even get to play, and not being able to play the mech you want on top of it.

Agreed, I started playing fps Doom 2 at age 11 on Dwango pre internet.. I had no idea how to mouse aim and got slaughtered constantly by all of the older players, Being it was a very niche system at the time they were ALL older players. One of them taught me to turn faster by using the mouse and keyboard together.... Viola, pratice makes perfect and I went on to defeat Aikman in Houston for VIP access for life.
Point being, do not be so quick to seperate the better players from the newer or less experienced, everyone is constantly learning and we all advance our skills every drop. If you always play on easy, you will never get better. Same concept for the children with aimbots, they have given up on their own skills, it simply makes them soft. Real competitive gamers, while annoyed at times, enjoy outsmarting near impossible odds or fights with a clear disadvantage. It makes the glory that much sweeter.

Edited by KKillian, 18 December 2013 - 07:28 AM.

[Mogney]

@Sandtiger

I am not saying that I agree with their concept, but it sounds like they a sold on doing it, so we might as well provide some constructive feedback on the general idea.

I was just saying that the implementation details they have presented are clearly not going to work very well. The whole bit about negotiation is going to be really really ugly and needs to be rethought. They have to find a better way to do it than that. I forsee just soooo much rage over this when it comes to a standoff over who gets to run his Atlas.

[9erRed]

Greetings all,

With reference to the map voting or selection.


Question For Bryan:

1. Are you still on timeline for the map work?
2. Are there any changes to the earlier schedule you posted?
[are the alternate maps indicated as ether Assault/Conquest/Skirmish with just different spawn locations?]
Next Maps:

• River City Alternate (Mid December)
  
• Frozen City Alternate (Late November)
  
• Forest Colony Alternate (October 23)
  
• Caustic Valley Alternate (Mid November)
  
• Map 5 (Mid December) [- HPG I'm assuming]
  
• Map 6 (January)

3. Can you elaborate on what the next map (January) location or type may be?

Thanks for any updates, and the new HPG map is turning into a very interesting battle location.
9erRed

[Sandtiger]

Mogney,
Appologies, I see a lot of red over this. I am trying to be constructive with this...ok... Im just crying. I can't find anything constructive about this would be truthful ~grins.

[TK42Kahn]

So I like all of these ideas quite a bit.
240/12= 12x20 ton mechs.
So yes...you could bring twelve locust. I bet it would be fun and profitable.
Ooooor.....
2xLocust=40tons
2xDragon=120tons
4xJenner=120tons
2xHunchback=100tons
1xAtlas=100tons
Which fits the tonnage limits and I would pit it against your twelve locust any day...along with a multitude of adjustments that I think would kick it pretty hard.
I wonder if you will be able to launch within these tonnage limits with less than 12 people.

Edited by TK42Kahn, 21 December 2013 - 02:36 PM.

[Marcus Tanner]

A mech with endo-steel has more tons to play with than one without.

Tonnage is a poor measure of effectiveness.

[Aim64C]

Marcus Tanner, on 22 December 2013 - 12:06 PM, said:

A mech with endo-steel has more tons to play with than one without.

Tonnage is a poor measure of effectiveness.

You mean 5 Locusts =/= 1 Atlas?

Though, I admit, it would be interesting to see teams balanced around tonnage. One team of 12 could all be riding in an Atlas - facing off against 60 locusts.

The game would be more entertaining, at least.

[Sandpit]

I love this proposed system. It allows choice in map selection but prevents it from becoming "I hate xxx map so I'll always vote against it" unless you want to shell out something in a trade-off for it.

It looks like we'll finally get a little more balance in the MM and I love the tonnage limits. This is looking like it will be a good system