11 replies to this topic

[PropagandaWar]

After watching some of the RHOD tournament I'd personally prefer limits done by class. 2,4,4,2 etc. What I saw with done with tonnage was soooo boring.

Edited by PropagandaWar, 06 December 2013 - 07:58 AM.

[Roland]

Tonnage is preferable to class, because otherwise there is generally never any reason to use some of the lighter mechs in a given class.

However, a better system would be a dynamically determined battlevalues based upon usage stats, where less used mechs are cheaper for a team to field.

Such a system would actually result in the less used mechs, like awesomes, showing up in usage.

Edited by Roland, 06 December 2013 - 08:02 AM.

[FerretGR]

Class matching is a big part of why mechs like the Awesome and Cicada were so reviled when that was how the matchmaking was done: bringing in Awesome often meant your opponents got an Atlas, for example. I don't want to go back to a situation where only the mechs at the top end of the class are viable.

ETA: yes, something like Battlevalue would be the best way to do things.

Edited by FerretGR, 06 December 2013 - 08:04 AM.

[Mercules]

BATTLE VALUE! Forget this 12 Vrs 12 stuff too. A good BV system should mean that a lance of tricked out Assaults should be a match for an equal BV amount of trial light mechs even if that is 12 of them.

[PropagandaWar]

Roland, on 06 December 2013 - 08:01 AM, said:

Tonnage is preferable to class, because otherwise there is generally never any reason to use some of the lighter mechs in a given class.

However, a better system would be a dynamically determined battlevalues based upon usage stats, where less used mechs are cheaper for a team to field.

Such a system would actually result in the less used mechs, like awesomes, showing up in usage.

Not true I tend to out perform in my hunchback. While I like and use the shadowhawk the SP is my favored mech.

[Mechteric]

Sorry but by class was terrible as well. Victors and Atlases are 20 tons apart. That can still lead to major variance if you get a lance of Victors matching a lance of Atlases. Pretty much no better off than today. Well maybe a little better off, but not much.

[Doomliger]

Battle values should be the best way to go.

1. Doing it by class = lighter mechs in the class not being used. (as said above)

2. Doing it by tonnage = some mechs with similar tonnage made redundant. (eg victor vs orion)

Therefore battlevalues are much better.

[Corvus Antaka]

interesting idea, it would be a nice option to have to force 3x3x3x3 without tonnage limits or with or various combos of like 6 mediums, etc.

[Ngamok]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 07 December 2013 - 11:16 AM, said:

interesting idea, it would be a nice option to have to force 3x3x3x3 without tonnage limits or with or various combos of like 6 mediums, etc.

Which is why I want lobbies. I would love to run a 12 vs. 12 Urbanmech fight........er when we get the Urbie that is. Running a 3,3,3,3 or 4,2,2,4 or 2,4,4,2 would be great.

[New Day]

Everybody here supporting BV seems to be forgeting that it would be balanced by PGI.

[Sable Dove]

FerretGR, on 06 December 2013 - 08:02 AM, said:

Class matching is a big part of why mechs like the Awesome and Cicada were so reviled when that was how the matchmaking was done: bringing in Awesome often meant your opponents got an Atlas, for example. I don't want to go back to a situation where only the mechs at the top end of the class are viable.

Let's not forget the Spider. No one was hated more than Spider pilots, because taking a Spider usually meant the enemy had a Raven-3L (or at least a Commando-2D), which at the time was basically the best mech in the entire game due to the combination of overpowered streaks, overpowered ECM, and the best lag-shield available.

[PropagandaWar]

I disagree my friend tends to run a BJ I tend to run a Hunchback while another a Shadowhawk. Then the Brutes in our group run, victors, Atlases and Stalkers. Our heavies is all over the table too.