52 replies to this topic

[C12AZyED]

My team had 10 assaults...random pug for me...

[Thunder Lips Express]

they are working on it...as it says in about 100 other threads like this

[Warblood]

2 posts in 1min... i see a lock commin

[Bront]

Looks like you had 2 groups on the other team, and possibly 2 groups or more on your team. Group matching skews the tonnage matching a bit as it's currently done.

[NoZaku4U]

It should be fairly evident by now that they do now know how to.

Alphas to high? No idea how to fix it. = Ghost Heat
Gauss damage to high? No idea how to fix it = Firing delay added to a weapon that has been in the Battletech universe for 30 years and never needed.

Terrain collisons bad? No idea how to fix it. = Do nothing.
ELO/MM bad? No idea how to fix it. = Do nothing.

Etc, etc ... the issues are well documented in various places and most have been in place for years.

Look at it this way, the things they have tried to fix have been made worse. Let's hope they leave it alone lest it find some way of being worse.

[Corvus Antaka]

had a match today with 12 lights and the other team had all assaults.

tonnage limits can't come soon enough.

[Mystere]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 26 January 2014 - 10:24 AM, said:

had a match today with 12 lights and the other team had all assaults.

tonnage limits can't come soon enough.

What game mode was it and who won?

[Nick Makiaveli]

You asked for it, and you got it.

Skirmish.


No point in taking any thing but assaults as long as you have streaks. You launch with ANY selected,and there ya go. Given that most solo's just rush the center and shoot it out, it works almost as well in Assault and Conquest.

[YueFei]

Mystere, on 26 January 2014 - 11:23 AM, said:

What game mode was it and who won?

Strangely I think if it was Skirmish mode on a large map and the Light mechs had long range weapons, they could have perpetually kited the 12 assault mechs to death...

Mech balancing can only go so far. Maps and objectives and community warfare to define the missions we have make things more interesting. Because mech balance is dependent on the situation.

Edited by YueFei, 26 January 2014 - 11:33 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

YueFei, on 26 January 2014 - 11:32 AM, said:

Strangely I think if it was Skirmish mode on a large map and the Light mechs had long range weapons, they could have perpetually kited the 12 assault mechs to death...

Mech balancing can only go so far. Maps and objectives and community warfare to define the missions we have make things more interesting. Because mech balance is dependent on the situation.

This right here is it in a nut shell! We have no mission, we are not playing the game even! If you are trying to take a planet from the Law. Why on that planets name should we give you a fighting chance to take our stuff?

Murphy's Law is not a Clan unit! Why should we abide by Zellbrigen?

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 28 January 2014 - 08:18 AM.

[Noesis]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 26 January 2014 - 10:24 AM, said:

tonnage limits can't come soon enough.

If ever there was a feature that could be beneficially fast tracked prior to the April launch module, I would say this one.

[Noesis]

Joseph Mallan, on 28 January 2014 - 08:17 AM, said:

This right here is it in a nut shell! We have no mission, we are not playing the game even! If you are trying to take a planet from the Law. Why on that planets name should we give you a fighting chance to take our stuff?

I remember a previous revelation on the earlier designs of CW where they said that the apparent choice of planetary attack and defense would be potentially biased for these needs.

As an example then for a planet with significance or closer to the defenders line of defense on the war front, the planetary defenses and installations would be more relevant. Also there was a suggested idea to vary tonnage limits to account for these kind of scenarios such that if you wanted to attack a planet even on the war border area but more close to the defensive lines the amount of tonnage may be slightly biased in the defenders favour. At least until events caused the battle line on the war front to be brought closer to that planet with the aquisition of closer planets to an enemies war front. This would offer varying degrees of difficulty accordingly.

Also significant investment in surface infrastructure like barracks and hangers with different levels of upgrades could equally then allow the idea of odd additional 5 tons to defenders. This alongside additional fixed defenses (turrets, power generators, walls, gates, other fortifications and so on).

I would like to see this kind of variance and the ability for the strategical aspects of planetary management to influence these things, even if only slightly. This even with controlled borders for the war fronts as identified by PGI atm (i.e. not complete sandbox).

Intelligence could then be a more important consideration as an added layer to finding out these details and also for counter intelligence to prevent or alternatively miss represent these details also. But this would be another added resource for players to manage as to where they could apply their intelligence resources. Likewise potential sabotage or technical details could be extrapolated with infrastructure effects or temporary tech acquisition being provided where successful applied intelligence obtains these objectives.

[zhajin]

Ecliptor, on 26 January 2014 - 06:20 AM, said:

they are working on it...as it says in about 100 other threads like this

100? these thread go back over 2 years... but as long as they are "working on it" its all good...

[Joseph Mallan]

Noesis, on 28 January 2014 - 08:35 AM, said:

I remember a previous revelation on the earlier designs of CW where they said that the apparent choice of planetary attack and defense would be potentially biased for these needs.

As an example then for a planet with significance or closer to the defenders line of defense on the war front, the planetary defenses and installations would be more relevant. Also there was a suggested idea to vary tonnage limits to account for these kind of scenarios such that if you wanted to attack a planet even on the war border area but more close to the defensive lines the amount of tonnage may be slightly biased in the defenders favour. At least until events caused the battle line on the war front to be brought closer to that planet with the aquisition of closer planets to an enemies war front. This would offer varying degrees of difficulty accordingly.

Also significant investment in surface infrastructure like barracks and hangers with different levels of upgrades could equally then allow the idea of odd additional 5 tons to defenders. This alongside additional fixed defenses (turrets, power generators, walls, gates, other fortifications and so on).

I would like to see this kind of variance and the ability for the strategical aspects of planetary management to influence these things, even if only slightly. This even with controlled borders for the war fronts as identified by PGI atm (i.e. not complete sandbox).

Intelligence could then be a more important consideration as an added layer to finding out these details and also for counter intelligence to prevent or alternatively miss represent these details also. But this would be another added resource for players to manage as to where they could apply their intelligence resources. Likewise potential sabotage or technical details could be extrapolated with infrastructure effects or temporary tech acquisition being provided where successful applied intelligence obtains these objectives.

Just Wow! Seriously, great post!

Still the question does remain, Why should your force's size dictate my defense force? If We decide to bring 8 Assaults/heavies and 4 Medium/Lights to defend our hard won factory How should you get to decide that is to much I MUST bring less?

I don't owe you a fighting chance to take what belongs to me. You want it, bring your best and try to beat ours! Good luck.

[Damocles69]

Joseph Mallan, on 28 January 2014 - 09:03 AM, said:

Just Wow! Seriously, great post!

Still the question does remain, Why should your force's size dictate my defense force? If We decide to bring 8 Assaults/heavies and 4 Medium/Lights to defend our hard won factory How should you get to decide that is to much I MUST bring less?

I don't owe you a fighting chance to take what belongs to me. You want it, bring your best and try to beat ours! Good luck.

Yes, according to convetinal military logic this holds true.

THIS IS NOT REAL LIFE NOR THE MILLITARY!!!!!!!!

This is an endless arena gladitoral pit and a game to boot. For a game to be fun it must be fair. To ask lighter mech not built for direct combat to keep up with larger mech desgoned to fill that role is not fair. Thus restrictions

[WarHippy]

Damocles69, on 28 January 2014 - 09:15 AM, said:

Yes, according to convetinal military logic this holds true.

THIS IS NOT REAL LIFE NOR THE MILLITARY!!!!!!!!

This is an endless arena gladitoral pit and a game to boot. For a game to be fun it must be fair. To ask lighter mech not built for direct combat to keep up with larger mech desgoned to fill that role is not fair. Thus restrictions

Having a challenge is what fun is for many people, and being lighter than the other team is a challenge that I welcome. As for light mechs being asked to keep up in direct combat against mechs that are designed for that role I would say the answer is not to penalize the heavier mechs to give the lighter mechs the illusion of being relevant, but rather we should be making roles for the lighter mechs to fulfill that that the heavier mechs are not designed for. By creating tonnage limits you are not making lighter mechs better tools for a brawl you are just forcing people to take them, nor are you creating any kind of balance that has any real substance.

Edited by WarHippy, 28 January 2014 - 09:26 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Hogwash. If we won said planet from another force, its ours to defend as we see fit. If you want it come and get it.

Flipping the roles, If we want what you have,

I would expect you to hit me with everything you have to stop me with. Plus take out a major loan to hit me with even more! If we fail to win, good job... see you next time! It's not a Pit Fight (outside of Solaris 7) It is domination and warfare (please note not fair) for control of known space. You have what we (or our paymaster) wants. My goal is to take it from you or your cold rotting corpse which ever you choose.

[Noesis]

Joseph Mallan, on 28 January 2014 - 09:03 AM, said:

Just Wow! Seriously, great post!

Still the question does remain, Why should your force's size dictate my defense force? If We decide to bring 8 Assaults/heavies and 4 Medium/Lights to defend our hard won factory How should you get to decide that is to much I MUST bring less?

I don't owe you a fighting chance to take what belongs to me. You want it, bring your best and try to beat ours! Good luck.

I think the modelling is to try and identify some aspect of infrastructure management. Though options to try and achieve with less I think is still a valid possibility with this model where tonnage is limited as per some limit with operational logistics.

Having said that there was an idea to allow for a floor to tonnage limits also to avoid just spamming lights I think. But provisionally I think the ranges offered scope to attempt to achieve with less is there as an option.

E.g. if planetary defenses are good you might be able to forgo stationing a pilot or Mech choice at a planet as a result.

TBH, the full details haven't been explained so this is still all speculation based on previous commentary. The only real limits then being offered by the game play is to ensure more regulated tonnage to even out matches as opposed to considering it an infrastructure issue. You also have to remember that in reality players wont make up any serious representation of the overall military that the BT universe provides so to consider that only one unit of 12 men will really make a significance to overall matches in things like the border shifts where multiple representation and match effects from several influences including pug matches. So a collaborative effort will most likely have a significant effect to CW.

Planetary acquisition most likely a complicated and drawn out achievement with subsequent management needs to retain those rewards for use. Again this without knowing the full details.

I just think that you will need to think bigger than just 3 lances to consider how IS warfare, diplomacy and beyond might effect things. But drops themselves at least showing some semblance of logistics consideration. Especially when attrition has little meaning to a player where Mech losses, repair, rearm, respawn etc have no effect.

[Corvus Antaka]

WarHippy, on 28 January 2014 - 09:26 AM, said:

Having a challenge is what fun is for many people, and being lighter than the other team is a challenge that I welcome. As for light mechs being asked to keep up in direct combat against mechs that are designed for that role I would say the answer is not to penalize the heavier mechs to give the lighter mechs the illusion of being relevant, but rather we should be making roles for the lighter mechs to fulfill that that the heavier mechs are not designed for. By creating tonnage limits you are not making lighter mechs better tools for a brawl you are just forcing people to take them, nor are you creating any kind of balance that has any real substance.

Actually by enforcing tonnage limits what PGI is doing is simulating the economics of battletech and the rarity of assaults and heavies for which there is currently no mechanism.

ideally we will not only have tonnage limits but class limits as well, thus enforcing no more than say 2 assaults and 2 heavies per match. Big mechs are expensive to field & maintain. right now ingame we are seeing primarily assaults because there is no economic limitations and the pay is the same regardless of class, thus the obvious choice is the take the biggest mechs with the most firepower to succeed. lack of objectives only contributes to this in skirmish mode, which has devolved into a 12v12 blobfest of whichever team brings more armour & firepower primarily.

[YueFei]

Joseph Mallan, on 28 January 2014 - 08:17 AM, said:

This right here is it in a nut shell! We have no mission, we are not playing the game even! If you are trying to take a planet from the Law. Why on that planets name should we give you a fighting chance to take our stuff?

Murphy's Law is not a Clan unit! Why should we abide by Zellbrigen?

I agree. I loathe the idea of tonnage limits. The NFL, *the* quintessential American sport, has no "weight limits". Teams bring the best package they think they can for a given down-and-distance. Nothing stops teams from bringing 11 players who all weigh 350+ pounds. It's just that it probably won't work for a 3rd and long. But a short-yardage, inches-to-go situation? Bring your jumbo package and dominate your opponents at the line of scrimmage.

If teams want to field 12 Assaults they should be allowed to. And depending on the mission objective, that might even be the best composition. PGI just needs to introduce more maps and missions so we see a variety of different team compositions depending on the scenario.