74 replies to this topic

[BillyM]

...ya think?



Nailed it!

--billyM

Edited by BillyM, 14 January 2014 - 06:04 PM.

[FupDup]

Or, alternatively, we could structure the game in a way such that having more mediums and lights on your team than the enemy team wasn't as much of a disadvantage as it currently is; and that spamming all heavies + assaults would be disadvantageous compared to a more "balanced" team composition.


...But, tonnage limits are a lot faster and easier to implement than Role Warfare, and not as comprehensive, so we'll be getting the former instead of the latter.

Edited by FupDup, 14 January 2014 - 06:05 PM.

[Roland]

Bravo lance on the winning team is hillarious with 3 DDC's and the 733C.
You stay classy, Steiner!

[Sandpit]

So the fact that tonnage limits are indeed coming doesn't equate to Tonnage Limits are coming?

[Roland]

Lots of things are supposedly coming "in the future".

[FupDup]

Roland, on 14 January 2014 - 06:12 PM, said:

Lots of things are supposedly coming "in the future".

BIG things. Especially in July.

Edited by FupDup, 14 January 2014 - 06:14 PM.

[Mystere]

How many times do I have to tell people that matches stacked against you are just fine? They help build character.

Edited by Mystere, 14 January 2014 - 09:12 PM.

[BillyM]

Khobai, on 14 January 2014 - 06:24 PM, said:

i can post just as many screenshots where my team was outtonned but won anyway

tonnage isnt indicative of balance. any 65 ton mech is an even match for a 100 ton atlas if played correctly.

Oh yea? I dare you...

--billyM

[Corvus Antaka]

look at all those top tier avatars.

[Prezimonto]

FupDup, on 14 January 2014 - 06:03 PM, said:

Or, alternatively, we could structure the game in a way such that having more mediums and lights on your team than the enemy team wasn't as much of a disadvantage as it currently is; and that spamming all heavies + assaults would be disadvantageous compared to a more "balanced" team composition.


...But, tonnage limits are a lot faster and easier to implement than Role Warfare, and not as comprehensive, so we'll be getting the former instead of the latter.

despite the design promises to the founders...

Khobai, on 14 January 2014 - 06:24 PM, said:

i can post just as many screenshots where my team was outtonned but won anyway

tonnage isnt indicative of balance. any 65 ton mech is an even match for a 100 ton atlas if played correctly.

But supposing ideal load outs and equal pilot skill, the HGN should beat the pants off any 65 ton mech except perhaps a boom jager in close or dual gauss and the hgn is caught out on the flat. Atlases are much easier to deal with due to a lack of jj.

[Kaosreyns]

Here is our next match

[Roland]

Khobai, on 14 January 2014 - 06:24 PM, said:

tonnage isnt indicative of balance. any 65 ton mech is an even match for a 100 ton atlas if played correctly.

And if the atlas is bad.

[Deathlike]

Although tonnage limits will help with not having 3 Steiner Lances, it will not magically help skill, or getting a clue.

Frankly, tonnage matching makes sense if AND only if everyone is willing to make sacrifices... but then it also indirectly limit options. If people want to play fair tonnage matches, then sure. If people want to go all light or all assault, that should be an option. My only caveat is that if people want to play overly heavy or overly light, that their wait times increase.

It won't magically solve mechs being bad, but it won't give the appearance the lopsided tonnage is the sole reason for the victory or loss.

[Asmudius Heng]

I like the idea of tonnage restrictions, but it needs to be inconjunction with better role warfare.

I can see most teams balancing tonnage by taking the most broken light mechs and most broken assault mechs and choosing very little in mediums especially and heavies.

Tonnage restrictions will be needed but they wont cure why people take certain big *** mechs ...

[Mr Blonde]

Roland, on 14 January 2014 - 06:08 PM, said:

Bravo lance on the winning team is hillarious with 3 DDC's and the 733C.
You stay classy, Steiner!

What do you mean? That's a standard Steiner scouting lance.

[BillyM]

Deathlike, on 14 January 2014 - 07:09 PM, said:

Although tonnage limits will help with not having 3 Steiner Lances, it will not magically help skill, or getting a clue.

Frankly, tonnage matching makes sense if AND only if everyone is willing to make sacrifices... but then it also indirectly limit options. If people want to play fair tonnage matches, then sure. If people want to go all light or all assault, that should be an option. My only caveat is that if people want to play overly heavy or overly light, that their wait times increase.

It won't magically solve mechs being bad, but it won't give the appearance the lopsided tonnage is the sole reason for the victory or loss.

...I think all-light groups should be forced into skirmish and all-assault groups forced into conquest. That'd teach them...

...and keep in mind, this isn't a case of "oh my puggies lost of for me" but rather a case of 3 assault lances under ECM bubbles ABSOLUTELY DECIMATED my entire team. Their entire alpha lance could have disconnected, and their active mechs STILL would have out-weighed us!

"Oh but one on one you a blah blah blah should be able to take out a blah blah blah." Any 4-man assault lance will walk all over a 4-man medium/heavy lance of mixed-builds. ...this outcome would repeat 9 of 10 games without question.

Edited by BillyM, 14 January 2014 - 08:40 PM.

[Deathlike]

BillyM, on 14 January 2014 - 08:28 PM, said:

...I think all-light groups should be forced into skirmish and all-assault groups forced into conquest.

That'd teach them...

--billyM

I'm pretty sure both actually happen.

Nothing was learned however.

[BillyM]

There are lots of things that need "fixing" but the one thing that makes me literally quit the game and go do something else are ROFLstomps due to continuing to allow these groups to go on screwing up the matchmaker for everyone else with ultra-heavy and ultra-light drops. Fix the things that make people go "**** this" and log out first, work on coming up with all new ways to ruin the game (I'm looking at you clan mechs) later...

Kaosreyns, on 14 January 2014 - 06:49 PM, said:

Here is our next match

Man... I would have simply hung it up for the night if that were our next match...

...but I had already hung it up for the night to go play something else. Hahaha!

--billyM

Edited by BillyM, 14 January 2014 - 08:44 PM.

[Roadbeer]

Deathlike, on 14 January 2014 - 07:09 PM, said:

Although tonnage limits will help with not having 3 Steiner Lances, it will not magically help skill, or getting a clue.

Frankly, tonnage matching makes sense if AND only if everyone is willing to make sacrifices... but then it also indirectly limit options. If people want to play fair tonnage matches, then sure. If people want to go all light or all assault, that should be an option. My only caveat is that if people want to play overly heavy or overly light, that their wait times increase.

It won't magically solve mechs being bad, but it won't give the appearance the lopsided tonnage is the sole reason for the victory or loss.

Everyone knows that between tonnage restrictions and integrated VoIP, magical unicorns will suddenly appear farting rainbows and they will always be on the winning team....

Duh

Edited by Roadbeer, 14 January 2014 - 09:02 PM.

[Khobai]

Tonnage restrictions have consequences though.

Mechs that are bad for their tonnage simply wont be used anymore. That's quite frankly no better than the current system.