Jump to content

This Matchmaker Is The Worst !


41 replies to this topic

#41 wanderer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Civil Servant
  • Civil Servant
  • 11,152 posts
  • LocationStomping around in a giant robot, of course.

Posted 03 February 2014 - 04:27 PM

Quote

I love the AC series so I have high hopes for it


You will not be disappointed in AC4. My only complaint was modern-day time that took time from hunting down legendary ships in their own fogbanks or mortar-spewing juggernauts.

#42 Craig Steele

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,106 posts
  • LocationCSR Mountbatton awaiting clearance for tactical deployment

Posted 03 February 2014 - 04:41 PM

View PostSandpit, on 03 February 2014 - 02:20 PM, said:

I don't think it's going to affect PUGs much to be honest. They're going to have the easiest time with the MM after tonnage restrictions because they'll be able to slide into any open match with that many available tons. What it's actually going to put a slow down on is groups. It's going to be much harder to find a match that has the exact slots and weights open that your lance has that falls into the tonnage restrictions.

It think it's going to lead to a lot of QQ over "I can't take 4 atlases" but in reality it's going to be just like any other adjustment. Some will wail and flail while others applaud it and most just adapt to it and continue enjoying the game


Except what if I am grinding my Highlanders and there is no tonnage available for me to take it? Or I'm grinding my Firestarters and everyone else wants to?

Both teams having equal tonnage is not what we want surely, this is not science where the formula has to be exact, balance is what we want. Gameplay balance.

Dear oh dear PGI, I'll try it when it gets here, but on the surface it looks like a damn silly idea to me.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users