43 replies to this topic

[Charons Little Helper]

I think tonnage limits will actually allow for more specialized builds. As it stands - if you build - for example - a specialized light-hunter, you may or may not be useful.

The other team might only have 1 or two lights on their whole team (or even none) - and your specialization goes to waste. However, with tonnage limits you can almost be guarenteed at least a couple of lights. And if teams take compositions like those suggested here - half their team will be lights, and you'll have a field day .

The same is true for other specializations to a lesser degree.

[Navy Sixes]

Charons Little Helper, on 31 January 2014 - 07:28 AM, said:

I think tonnage limits will actually allow for more specialized builds. The same is true for other specializations to a lesser degree.

I think tonnage limits will lead to even more specialization all around, especially among support roles in the medium class. Smart people are going to want the armor potential of their heavies/assaults put to use up front. So the smart teams will be using their smaller mechs in support roles (LRM's, Suppression, Snipers). Because the smaller mechs can't carry as much as the bigger mechs, they'll have to specialize: Put LRM+A30 on a Cent and there's not going to be room for much else. But the teams that can get all that armor and firepower to the front against teams that are still wasting it on support behind the lines will have an edge.

[SubXulu]

I really cant wait for this, facing off against VTR - HGN - CTF aerial display teams every match gets old real quick.
And yes I do have mastered HGN's and CTF's myself but hate the fact that this meta pretty much forces you back into those chassis.

[Wrathful-Khan]

Had a match last night where we literally didn't have one single assault on our team and worse still my Jagermech was the heaviest thing we had!?

Needless to say, the other team had least two Stalkers, a Highlander and a Battlemaster (Possibly more).

It got me thinking though: people complain that the opposition team was OVERweight, when in fact the problem could just as easily be that their own team is UNDERweight.

I think a better way to do weight matching would be for the matchmaker to just grab 12 guys of any weight for the first team and then match the second team to that with say a +/- 100 ton buffer.

This way we would still get a mix of fast'n'furious light battles and super-heavy slugfests whilst maintaining an even footing. (Because introducing a forced match tonnage would make every match play out the same way)

[Curccu]

Indiandream, on 03 February 2014 - 03:23 AM, said:

Had a match last night where we literally didn't have one single assault on our team and worse still my Jagermech was the heaviest thing we had!?

Needless to say, the other team had least two Stalkers, a Highlander and a Battlemaster (Possibly more).

It got me thinking though: people complain that the opposition team was OVERweight, when in fact the problem could just as easily be that their own team is UNDERweight.

I think a better way to do weight matching would be for the matchmaker to just grab 12 guys of any weight for the first team and then match the second team to that with say a +/- 100 ton buffer.

This way we would still get a mix of fast'n'furious light battles and super-heavy slugfests whilst maintaining an even footing. (Because introducing a forced match tonnage would make every match play out the same way)

IMO if there is more than 3-4 assault mechs in 12 man group there is too many of them.

[Wrathful-Khan]

Curccu, on 03 February 2014 - 04:22 AM, said:

IMO if there is more than 3-4 assault mechs in 12 man group there is too many of them.

I don't play twelve mans so I don't really know. I drop in 4's sometimes.

Ideally I think the best mix would be 3 of each weight class, but as I said I would still like to see some variety in the play whatever happens.

[Curccu]

Indiandream, on 03 February 2014 - 04:29 AM, said:

I don't play twelve mans so I don't really know. I drop in 4's sometimes.

Ideally I think the best mix would be 3 of each weight class, but as I said I would still like to see some variety in the play whatever happens.

I didn't mean 12 player group, just normal max number of players for each game (12)

[Roland]

Belorion, on 29 January 2014 - 04:52 PM, said:

2 Victors, and 2 Spiders or 2 Jenners are under the cap...

A victor is a lot less threatening than a highlander, most of the time.

[Jon Gotham]

Well, frankly I'm too dumb to work out what will be . the thing I do know it will stop some of the disgusting imbalances I witnessed last night. 8 assaults vs 1. 6 assaults vs 2. 5 assaults vs 0. 9 assaults vs 3. the list goes on....
Lances going as heavy as they can to game the system as hard as they can, knowing they will create imbalanced games in their favour-but hey, as long as they are the ones with the edge who cares right?
They get to stomp and smash and feel real good about themselves, so it's all ok!

Hopefully, these selfish dreams are about to get stepped on, hard.

[Malcolm Reynolds]

IT DOESNT MATTER NOW THE POLICE ARE HERE!

Edited by Kitsune Kaji, 03 February 2014 - 10:04 AM.

[Heffay]

Belorion, on 29 January 2014 - 04:52 PM, said:

2 Victors, and 2 Spiders or 2 Jenners are under the cap...

So, far better than 4 victors?

[Roland]

Heffay, on 03 February 2014 - 10:06 AM, said:

So, far better than 4 victors?

With good players, I think most of the time the 4 victors would win fairly handilly, since they'd be able to kill each of the lights with basically two shots, and then it's 4 vs 2.

That's something that a lot of folks have trouble realizing... Once you get into games with folks who are excellent shots, lights start dying a lot faster. A lot of bad players blame lights' survivability on a "lag shield", and with folks who have bad pings that's certainly a component, but one of the biggest contributors to light mechs being so survivable really does come down to the fact that most players are just really poor shots, and aren't good enough to hit a fast moving target.

[Heffay]

Roland, on 03 February 2014 - 10:21 AM, said:

With good players, I think most of the time the 4 victors would win fairly handilly, since they'd be able to kill each of the lights with basically two shots, and then it's 4 vs 2.

That's something that a lot of folks have trouble realizing... Once you get into games with folks who are excellent shots, lights start dying a lot faster. A lot of bad players blame lights' survivability on a "lag shield", and with folks who have bad pings that's certainly a component, but one of the biggest contributors to light mechs being so survivable really does come down to the fact that most players are just really poor shots, and aren't good enough to hit a fast moving target.

With tonnage limits, the 4 victor group won't exist anymore. That's the whole point.

[East Indy]

Tycho von Gagern, on 30 January 2014 - 01:19 PM, said:

While many may think that 65 ton slot would of course be a Jagerbomb, with those two lights for spotters, why not an LRM Cat? So in your example of how nothing will change, I'm finding evidence of how we may see a lot of stale norms evolving.

If PGI can deliver a setback to the AC/5-PPC meta, comp variety for 90%+ of matches will blow wide open.

[Navy Sixes]

Khobai, on 29 January 2014 - 03:53 PM, said:

Probably either a Victor, two Jagermechs, and a Jenner. Or Three Jagermechs and a Hunchback.
Under this tonnage limited system absolutely no one is going to want to touch the Atlas. Because even taking one Atlas is going to force everyone else in your 4-man into medium mechs. So basically everyones gonna be in Victors, Jagermechs, Shadowhawks, Jenners, etc... the mechs which are the most tonnage efficient. Mechs like that Atlas which arnt tonnage efficient just wont have a place in the game anymore.

This is where player skill comes into play. Say you've got someone on your team that's a bloody demon in an Atlas. I'm not talking, "Look, I got 2 kills and did 350 pts. of damage!" I mean a consistent, 850+, seal-the-deal, carry-hard beast. With tonnage limits, you've got a choice: In your example, he's going to have to learn to drive a Jag, or the rest of the team is going to have to learn to drive mediums. Either way, everyone is going to have to learn how to do more with less, and we're going to find out who the good pilots are, and conversely who's a mediocre steering-wheeler hiding behind unlimited tonnage. For example:

Belorion, on 29 January 2014 - 04:52 PM, said:

2 Victors, and 2 Spiders or 2 Jenners are under the cap...

Cool, so let's take the guys who've been running 'Phracts and Highlanders for the past year and put them in Spiders/Jenners like that's just going to solve everything. Sounds good to me.
<licks chops, tucks napkin into collar, picks up knife and fork...>

There are lots of good players out there who will quickly adapt to tonnage limits. I think these are the ones who are either advocating for the change or don't care either way. Either they'll have to drive something lighter and they can do that, or they're that monster in an assault, so when the time comes to pick one or two team members to drive the big mechs, they know it's gonna be them.

The people who are scared are the "inbetweeners." They've never run anything but heavy-end "competitive mechs," and even then they aren't particularly outstanding. Take away their tonnage-crutch, drop them into a paper mache, -50 ton-mech, and let's see how "leet" they really are.

Edited by Tycho von Gagern, 03 February 2014 - 11:16 AM.

[Khobai]

My point was you wont see Atlases at all in four mans.

Its wrong to trade one system that discourages using a certain type of mech for another system that does more of the same. All thats being changed is the mech being discriminated against.

[Heffay]

Khobai, on 03 February 2014 - 11:22 AM, said:

My point was you wont see Atlases at all in four mans.

Its wrong to trade one system that discourages using a certain type of mech for another system that does more of the same. All thats being changed is the mech being discriminated against.

You'll still see plenty of Atlases out there. They'll either be solo dropping, or running some pretty brutal 4-man groups with a tank and 3 flankers. Would make a hell of a node capping lance in conquest matches.

[Navy Sixes]

Khobai, on 03 February 2014 - 11:22 AM, said:

My point was you wont see Atlases at all in four mans.

I think you will, providing the team knows that

• The player running the Atlas is good enough at it to warrant the hit to overall team tonnage. You see a prem with an Atlas on the field, you know that it's no herp-a-derp you're up against.
  
• The rest of the team is good enough to perform competitively in the lighter mechs that will allow for an Atlas.

Khobai, on 03 February 2014 - 11:22 AM, said:

Its wrong to trade one system that discourages using a certain type of mech for another system that does more of the same. All thats being changed is the mech being discriminated against.

I can't speak to the morality of tonnage limits or "mech discrimination." I do know that tonnage limits are an integral part of the old TT game: you agree on a tonnage limit before the match to provide a challenging game experience for everyone involved.

I know that in canon assault-class mechs are a rare commodity, piloted by the best of the best. When they appear on the battlefield at all the unit's strategy revolves around the balancing act of simultaneously protecting them as well as putting them to optimal use.

I know that unlimited-tonnage premades in the PUG can utterly skew a match, which is fun for the 4 DC crew, but not so much for the 12 guys on the red team (or even the other 8 on the blue team who may have been looking for a close match).
I suspect that half the forum qq over matchmaker snafus, as well as easily over half the forum qq over prem ROFL-stomps in the PUG, will be resolved by tonnage limits.

Personally, for the reasons I've laid out in earlier posts, I think tonnage limits will reward good players and punish weak ones. If they want to be the ones on their team who get to run the assaults, they're going to have to step their game up and prove to the team that they deserve to push that weight (see #1). Conversely, I think competitive teams will quit browbeating members who run lighter mechs into cookie-cutter meta-heavies. They will actively seek out the good light/medium pilots, because those good light/medium pilots will facilitate those heavier mechs on the team (see #2).

And, as Heffay points out, you can still run whatever you want solo...

[Prezimonto]

I would much prefer that the tonnage limits for a 12 man go down to something like 670, or a 55ton mech person, instead of a 60 ton.

Give pre-mades a stiffer restriction on tonnage as well, leaving a little more for the lone wolves. This helps to balance down the effects of grouped players(working in coordination) vs. solo queue. So say you have a 670 ton limit for 12 players.
a 4 man group gets 200 tons, while a 3 man group gets 155, and a two man group gets 110. (slightly biasing tonnage towards the solo queue players). Thas has the added benefit of helping to get rid of some of the "I can't play my mech" crying, and will mostly be heard from the solo players as the left over tonnage for them will be higher:
Suppose you get two 4 man groups... each eat 200 tons of 670 leaving 270 for the last lance of solo's. This gives them an average of a little better than 65 tons per person (or a heavy lance instead of a medium lance).

[Heffay]

Prezimonto, on 03 February 2014 - 12:35 PM, said:

I would much prefer that the tonnage limits for a 12 man go down to something like 670, or a 55ton mech person, instead of a 60 ton.

Give pre-mades a stiffer restriction on tonnage as well, leaving a little more for the lone wolves. This helps to balance down the effects of grouped players(working in coordination) vs. solo queue. So say you have a 670 ton limit for 12 players.
a 4 man group gets 200 tons, while a 3 man group gets 155, and a two man group gets 110. (slightly biasing tonnage towards the solo queue players). Thas has the added benefit of helping to get rid of some of the "I can't play my mech" crying, and will mostly be heard from the solo players as the left over tonnage for them will be higher:
Suppose you get two 4 man groups... each eat 200 tons of 670 leaving 270 for the last lance of solo's. This gives them an average of a little better than 65 tons per person (or a heavy lance instead of a medium lance).

Tonnage limits only apply to the group. If you have 4 people solo queuing in your drop, they can all run Atlases and the matchmaker would be fine with it.