50 replies to this topic

[FupDup]

Davers, on 02 February 2014 - 10:31 AM, said:

Show me a R&R system that doesn't punish new players/F2P Players/PUGs more than premades/premium timers/Hero mech buyers and maybe I might change my mind and support it.

Not to mention, show me an RnR system that actually has an impact on the flow of combat itself. Inside the match, not out of the game. Paying slightly more spacebucks out of match does not actually change who wins the battle. If I won the battle with my min-max Victor and crushed your trial medium, the deed has already been done. Charging me a few more C-Bills after I killed you won't change that I won.

Edited by FupDup, 02 February 2014 - 11:01 AM.

[Maerawn]

FupDup, on 02 February 2014 - 10:56 AM, said:

Not to mention, show me an RnR system that actually has an impact on the flow of combat itself. Paying slightly more spacebucks out of match does not actually change who wins the battle. If I won the battle with my min-max Victor and crushed your trial medium, the deed has already been done. Charging me a few more C-Bills after I killed you won't change that I won.

It wont do anything to the outcome of the battle no, but it would make you think twice about running your min-max Victor over your min-max Shadowhawk. Since running your victor, destroying your mech, and winning would cost you cay 75k cbills, versus doing the same thing with the shadowhawk that only cost your 15K cbill...

say you average 150k cbills for a victory, while dying... you made 75k cbills in your victor, but you made 135k cbills in your shadowhawk. The monetary incentive to run a smaller mech will prevail eventually.

Edited by Maerawn, 02 February 2014 - 11:05 AM.

[YueFei]

Maerawn, on 02 February 2014 - 11:03 AM, said:

It wont do anything to the outcome of the battle no, but it would make you think twice about running your min-max Victor over your min-max Shadowhawk. Since running your victor, destroying your mech, and winning would cost you cay 75k cbills, versus doing the same thing with the shadowhawk that only cost your 15K cbill...

Even with a 75K c-bill cost, those players will make more $$ by winning matches in those mechs than they will running cheaper mechs and losing.

As it is now, many players have no problem blowing 120K C-bills on a match in an effort to win it. And at the end they are still making profit because they kicked so much ash.

You think repair&re-arm will somehow level the playing field by making top players run inferior mechs? It will just make it so inferior players *must* run inferior mechs, or be losing money on every drop. But the thing is, inferior players aren't all that dangerous even if the mechs they drive have the potential to be dangerous.

[FupDup]

Maerawn, on 02 February 2014 - 11:03 AM, said:

It wont do anything to the outcome of the battle no, but it would make you think twice about running your min-max Victor over your min-max Shadowhawk. Since running your victor, destroying your mech, and winning would cost you cay 75k cbills, versus doing the same thing with the shadowhawk that only cost your 15K cbill...

say you average 150k cbills for a victory, while dying... you made 75k cbills in your victor, but you made 135k cbills in your shadowhawk. The monetary incentive to run a smaller mech will prevail eventually.

Unless you made C-Bill gains absurdly slow outside of running low-end trash mechs, spacebucks incentives would not prevail eventually. Winning is more important than making pocket change. A Shadow Hawk usually won't be able to help your team win as much as a Victor would. And since it's a medium (less armor), it might get destroyed faster anyways (repairing a dead mech is usually more expensive than one that is just damaged...).

When we have CW in the distant future, winning will become even more important than it is now. Your battles will decide who gets to hold planets, and have access to certain goodies (devs hinted as manufacturer weapons and stuff).


Whatever "equalizer" mechanic we try to come up with, it has to actually affect the battle itself. The game needs to be structured in a way such that mobile but less armed mechs (mediums and lights) have a distinct advantage in certain situations that makes them able to contribute to winning better than a slow mech (in that scenario). Coming up with the exact fixes to make this happen might be hard, but some general ideas are larger maps (a lot of distance to cover), more objectives (and ones that are hard for slow mechs to accomplish), and so on. Or perhaps would could even have repair bays on the map itself where players can repair and rearm their mechs between skirmishes. Faster mechs could go to-and-from repair bays faster, and perform sneak attacks on enemy bays.

Edited by FupDup, 02 February 2014 - 11:14 AM.

[Maerawn]

show me where, in what way, and explain why, a centurian is inferior to a victor.. is a spider inferior to an atlas.... is the jager superior to the blackjack?

Every mech is viable in some form, inferior players tend to use huge mechs because they cant survive without the armor value of the assault mech. A pilot who can run with success in any class, any weight mech is superior to a strictly assault pilot. And yes if you have the cbills to run an assault all day go right ahead, but if you dont there is now an incentive to run a medium mech, and if you get good at it, you can even take out that ddc solo...

[Maerawn]

FupDup, on 02 February 2014 - 11:12 AM, said:

Unless you made C-Bill gains absurdly slow outside of running low-end trash mechs, spacebucks incentives would not prevail eventually. Winning is more important than making pocket change. A Shadow Hawk usually won't be able to help your team win as much as a Victor would. And since it's a medium (less armor), it might get destroyed faster anyways (repairing a dead mech is usually more expensive than one that is just damaged...).

When we have CW in the distant future, winning will become even more important than it is now. Your battles will decide who gets to hold planets, and have access to certain goodies (devs hinted as manufacturer weapons and stuff).


Whatever "equalizer" mechanic we try to come up with, it has to actually affect the battle itself. The game needs to be structured in a way such that mobile but less armed mechs (mediums and lights) have a distinct advantage in certain situations that makes them able to contribute to winning better than a slow mech (in that scenario). Coming up with the exact fixes to make this happen might be hard, but some general ideas are larger maps (a lot of distance to cover), more objectives (and ones that are hard for slow mechs to accomplish), and so on. Or perhaps would could even have repair bays on the map itself where players can repair and rearm their mechs between skirmishes. Faster mechs could go to-and-from repair bays faster, and perform sneak attacks on enemy bays.

The victor doesnt nessecarily help your team win its the pilot in it... I have seen matches were a team is out tonned, 9 assaults to 1, the team was mediums with 2 heavy and 1 assault and still beat the assault laden team 12-4.... the tonnage of a mech does not contribute to victory, the skill of the pilot does...

[deathlord]

Maerawn sounds like an attractive woman's name.

P.S.: He sounds like an attractive woman on teamspeak.

P.P.S.: He needs to stop theorycrafting and start dropping.

[FupDup]

Maerawn, on 02 February 2014 - 11:19 AM, said:

The victor doesnt nessecarily help your team win its the pilot in it... I have seen matches were a team is out tonned, 9 assaults to 1, the team was mediums with 2 heavy and 1 assault and still beat the assault laden team 12-4.... the tonnage of a mech does not contribute to victory, the skill of the pilot does...

Given an equally skilled pilot, the larger mech does actually help you win the battle more than the smaller one outside of strange outlier cases. You have more weapons and armor to kill enemies and absorb damage with. A medium simply cannot carry as hard as a heavy or assault, due to how our gameplay is structured (mobility not as important as killing power). The speed loss isn't all that significant with our currently smallish map sizes in the grand scheme of things (especially mechs like the Victor, which can go 75 kph and pack Highlander-level firepower easily). I've been on teams of 12 assault mechs at times, and it's just a steamroll.

Edited by FupDup, 02 February 2014 - 11:24 AM.

[Maerawn]

deathlord, on 02 February 2014 - 11:23 AM, said:

Maerawn sounds like an attractive woman's name.

P.S.: He sounds like an attractive woman on teamspeak.

P.P.S.: He needs to stop theorycrafting and start dropping.

You wish i was an attractive woman, you need to fix your speakers if i sound like one... and ill drop when you make a group...

p.s. no one likes squirrels, and you sound like one 90% of the time....

[Maerawn]

FupDup, on 02 February 2014 - 11:24 AM, said:

Given an equally skilled pilot, the larger mech does actually help you win the battle more than the smaller one outside of strange outlier cases. You have more weapons and armor to kill enemies and absorb damage with. A medium simply cannot carry as hard as a heavy or assault, due to how our gameplay is structured (mobility not as important as killing power). The speed loss isn't all that significant with our currently smallish map sizes in the grand scheme of things (especially mechs like the Victor, which can go 75 kph and pack Highlander-level firepower easily). I've been on teams of 12 assault mechs at times, and it's just a steamroll.

I understand where you are coming from, and yes i agree with you in terms of mobility being trumped by killing power. I also have seen assault heavy teams steamroll. And with a intelligent R&R system, that assault team would make less winning through tonnage advantage, then the disadvantaged team would make losing.

I disagree with you the the victor is going to win in a match against a medium no matter what. I have seen, hell i have been in, a shadowhawk crush an atlas. was that atlas more valuable to the team then the shadowhawk is to his? Its not the mech that is important in that case, its the person piloting it. A fail pilot in a assault is never as valuble as a pro pilot in a light.

because what are the chances that the pilot you end up dueling randomly in any one match is on the exact skill level as you? you cant figure things on an even playing field when the field is a mountain range....

Edited by Maerawn, 02 February 2014 - 11:35 AM.

[YueFei]

Maerawn, on 02 February 2014 - 11:30 AM, said:

I understand where you are coming from, and yes i agree with you in terms of mobility being trumped by killing power. I also have seen assault heavy teams steamroll. And with a intelligent R&R system, that assault team would make less winning through tonnage advantage, then the disadvantaged team would make losing.

I disagree with you the the victor is going to win in a match against a medium no matter what. I have seen, hell i have been in, a shadowhawk crush an atlas. was that atlas more valuable to the team then the shadowhawk is to his? Its not the mech that is important in that case, its the person piloting it. A fail pilot in a assault is never as valuble as a pro pilot in a light.

I've crushed Atlas 1v1 in my HBK in close combat before. But that was because it was a bad Atlas pilot.

You talk about it being a matter of the pilot and not the mech. Let's just say if I cloned myself, and I used my HBK and my clone used the Atlas while I ran around in my HBK, and I fought my clone 1v1 in close combat, my clone would kick my ash. The mech matters.

Edited by YueFei, 02 February 2014 - 11:36 AM.

[Maerawn]

YueFei, on 02 February 2014 - 11:36 AM, said:

I've crushed Atlas 1v1 in my HBK in close combat before. But that was because it was a bad Atlas pilot.

You talk about it being a matter of the pilot and not the mech. Let's just say if I cloned myself, and I used my HBK and my clone used the Atlas while I ran around in my HBK, and I fought my clone 1v1 in close combat, my clone would kick my ash. The mech matters.

Ok but your fighting in crimson strait in the city, atlas cant manuever well, and the HBK can proforming hit and run fading tactics... HBK wins... there the mech did matter but in the opposite way, and also map mattered, and intelligent use of the map... Its never cut and dry that one always wins...

[Maerawn]

This was never supposed to be a discussion on skill versus loadout, or tonnage versus skill, or map versus mech... this was a discussion on R&R... so im done debating which mech is more valuable, that is a personal choice. what im debating is the R&R can be useful system in providing a weight balancing mechanic to your fights.

Your figuring that if you bring a medium the other team is bringing an assault. This will still happen but that assault is going to pay cbills for that advantage. All things being equal if you decide to bring a medium because you make more cbills regardless of outcome, then the other team will also. Wouldnt you prefer to fight where each team only has an average of 1 assaults, 2 heavys, 6 mediums and 3 lights? Thats the way most house militaries are structured in the BT universe... not 70% assaults and no lights like MWO is structured...

[YueFei]

Maerawn, on 02 February 2014 - 11:45 AM, said:

Ok but your fighting in crimson strait in the city, atlas cant manuever well, and the HBK can proforming hit and run fading tactics... HBK wins... there the mech did matter but in the opposite way, and also map mattered, and intelligent use of the map... Its never cut and dry that one always wins...

Hit&run won't work against my clone because he has the same situational awareness that I do.

That, and he also equipped Seismic on his Atlas.

[Maerawn]

YueFei, on 02 February 2014 - 11:53 AM, said:

Hit&run won't work against my clone because he has the same situational awareness that I do.

That, and he also equipped Seismic on his Atlas.

so your clone is now in a atlas that is standing still to track the hbk causing the atlas to turn even slower and twist slower, allowing your HBK to pick him apart... HBK wins

[YueFei]

Maerawn, on 02 February 2014 - 11:51 AM, said:

This was never supposed to be a discussion on skill versus loadout, or tonnage versus skill, or map versus mech... this was a discussion on R&R... so im done debating which mech is more valuable, that is a personal choice. what im debating is the R&R can be useful system in providing a weight balancing mechanic to your fights.

You can't really not acknowledge that some mech loadouts are better than others. A 6-TAG Jenner is less valuable to his team than a 6 Medium Laser Jenner, just to give an extreme example.

R&R is not a good way to promote weight balancing. The true way to promote weight balancing was already alluded to earlier by FupDup, with some actual Role Warfare.

The key to balance is, as he said, that some mechs are better than others in some situations.

Quote

Your figuring that if you bring a medium the other team is bringing an assault. This will still happen but that assault is going to pay cbills for that advantage. All things being equal if you decide to bring a medium because you make more cbills regardless of outcome, then the other team will also. Wouldnt you prefer to fight where each team only has an average of 1 assaults, 2 heavys, 6 mediums and 3 lights? Thats the way most house militaries are structured in the BT universe... not 70% assaults and no lights like MWO is structured...

And I pointed out that many players will gladly pay the C-bills for that advantage, because winning matters more than their own personal profit. And that's now, when matches mean nothing. When CW comes out, and winning or losing is the difference between holding and losing entire planets, you can bet there will be players who are more than willing to *lose* money if it means winning the planet for their team. Hell, for people with *real money* to burn, they can load up Premium Time or buy {Scrap} to sell for C-Bills. How's that for P2W? R&R is *not* a valid way to balance this game.

[YueFei]

Maerawn, on 02 February 2014 - 11:56 AM, said:

so your clone is now in a atlas that is standing still to track the hbk causing the atlas to turn even slower and twist slower, allowing your HBK to pick him apart... HBK wins

First of all, standing still increases your turn rate, and does not slow your twist rate at all. This is a very basic game mechanic, either you don't understand or you are deliberately being misleading.

Second, the Atlas only needs to stand still for a moment to get a Seismic reading. Once he knows where I am, and where I'm going, he doesn't need to guess.

My clone has the same skills that I do, so he'll be snap-shotting his SRMs and AC at me while twisting to tank damage with his arms. Only difference is that my HBK will run out of side torso armor even before my clone in the Atlas runs out of arm armor.

There is nothing wrong with having the Atlas overwhelm the HBK in a straight-up 1v1 fight at equal skill. The problem is that in most of MWO's current game modes, the HBK doesn't have the option to decide "frak this, I'm going to pull out and use my strategic speed advantage to go engage a different objective". Sometimes you get that in a Conquest mode on a large map, like Tourmaline. You hit Theta, see a bunch of enemy Assaults, and decide to leave and go reinforce Kappa instead and gain local numerical superiority for at least a short time there.

Too bad PGI doesn't seem to even like that, considering what they did with the cap points on Alpine in Conquest mode (clustering them all together like that).

[Fajther]

I have mastered two of the three of them. When your commando's feel really good after spending time in the locust there is something really wrong with the locust. The locust is so devoid of anything useful at all. IF you want to know how good or bad of a pilot you really are take the locust because there is nothing at all in any way shape or form that makes if good. Only you and your skills. This is not a good thing. There needs to be months of riots and articles and hatred. There needs to be article after article on the internet that it costs pgi millions in sales, so that way they will finally realize that they need to get on these things faster.

[Maerawn]

YueFei, on 02 February 2014 - 12:06 PM, said:

First of all, standing still increases your turn rate, and does not slow your twist rate at all. This is a very basic game mechanic, either you don't understand or you are deliberately being misleading.

Second, the Atlas only needs to stand still for a moment to get a Seismic reading. Once he knows where I am, and where I'm going, he doesn't need to guess.

My clone has the same skills that I do, so he'll be snap-shotting his SRMs and AC at me while twisting to tank damage with his arms. Only difference is that my HBK will run out of side torso armor even before my clone in the Atlas runs out of arm armor.

There is nothing wrong with having the Atlas overwhelm the HBK in a straight-up 1v1 fight at equal skill. The problem is that in most of MWO's current game modes, the HBK doesn't have the option to decide "frak this, I'm going to pull out and use my strategic speed advantage to go engage a different objective". Sometimes you get that in a Conquest mode on a large map, like Tourmaline. You hit Theta, see a bunch of enemy Assaults, and decide to leave and go reinforce Kappa instead and gain local numerical superiority for at least a short time there.

Too bad PGI doesn't seem to even like that, considering what they did with the cap points on Alpine in Conquest mode (clustering them all together like that).

Deliberately misleading.... i said i was done with discussion skill versus loadout, so any post continuing that discussion is now being trolled...

sorry for hi-jacking this thread... im done...

[Wispsy]

Maerawn, on 02 February 2014 - 11:30 AM, said:

ith a intelligent

Side note, and please do not hate me for this...When choosing between A and AN if the letter that is going to follow is a vowel, pick an. Hope this helps you in your future forum adventures! It can be simply amazing how many people on the internet completely disregard the entirety of a post simply because of a tiny English mistake.