99 replies to this topic

[Peiper]

Ryoken, on 24 February 2014 - 07:19 PM, said:

PGI simply needs two things to do:
1. Make premades bigger than 3 players obeye the 3-3-3-3 rule!
2. Balance premade size on both teams
So for every 2man in your team you can be sure there is a 2man in the other team.
For every 3-4man in your team you can be sure there is a 3-4man in the other team.
For every 5-6man in your team you can be sure there is a 5-6man in the other team.
etc. ...

They can do that on an own premade queue as I would propose.

Then we just have to decide if the player limits for premades should be 2-10 players, for a small gap to full 12man.
Or if the premade player limits should be 2-6 players, so two full 6man premades can form a full 12man.
Or something between 6 and 10?

Bryan did say that by the time we get community warfare, they would have to increase the team sizes to account for faction/team drops. He said they were starting small (1-3 man groups) to make sure they could effectively balance teams in the new launch module/matchmaker. I agree with you, Ryoken. If a 6-8 man group drops, they just have to wait for a matchmaker to find another group of similar size and ELO. I really think that there are a lot of teams that CAN'T field 12 mans, but still want to play together in casual drops and grind C-bills. Private lobbies are a dream come true, but guys will still have to grind C-Bills and mechs somewhere, and in this TEAM game, they should be able to do it in public drops. If that means a little longer wait time to find fair fights, so be it. Better than not being able to drop together at all. Just because we have private lobbies, doesn't mean we'll be able to schedule fights when we want to, especially if we don't know any other teams to fight against.

[GalaxyBluestar]

SuckyJack, on 23 February 2014 - 08:06 PM, said:

"Pay To Win" isn't paying for a button that instantly kills the other team as it seems it's meaning has been blown out of proportion. It means "Gaining an Advantage by buying something with Real Money that players cannot get any other way or in a reasonable fashion." Buying an advantage with real money doesn't mean that you'll win, there are many more factors than that.

Yet an advantage gives you more abilities or options to exploit to get a win. Very thin advantages like gaining a build that is better merely by a single Medium Laser don't always have enough of an impact on a match to secure a win. Though said thin advantages can be enough at critical points to tip over into a greater advantage.

To say that P2W cannot exist as teamwork is often one of the greatest factors in deciding the winner is just being blind. Teamwork is far from being the only factor in the game.

well by that definition you just described all hero mechs are P2W because they can gain and advantage, the muromets and earlier the misery were even apart of the meta.

were you calling that P2W? even though many of those buyers lost all the time because it's a team game and a skill game and nothing's going to save such people if they are poor players. is there still an advantage access wall when elo determines what skilled players you're up against and unless you're a lord you're gonna lose. so really there's little p2 advantage and there's certainly no p2w.

Chemie, on 24 February 2014 - 02:19 PM, said:

I doubt there are 24 people willing to team up and waste their time just farming CB (since you still only earn at about the same rate as normal game play)

with the c-bill nerfs we've had there's plenty motivation. if private lobbies allowed c-bill earnings then believe me trollish teams would hook up just to blow eachother up as quickly as damaging and componant destruction inducing as possible to maximise c-bills as quickly as possible over and over. if you halve your time to be a c-billionaire, if you had means of pulling off such a scam, beleive me people would flock to it. buying power to have purchase all the mechs in half the time, who wouldn't and pgi want a grind at a set level. R+R was too harsh and the previous c-bill awards amount was too much, they're not going to let a MM system come close to harming the economy system.

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 24 February 2014 - 11:46 PM.

[VXJaeger]

Peiper, on 22 February 2014 - 05:55 PM, said:

Can I get a fart module that drives leg humping pugs from behind my mech so they don't use me as cover and I can back up when I'm getting pounded? -Peiper

I'd like to have energy weapon slot in the butt, so I could install flamer there. Instantly I hit throttle to backup, it would automatically roast everybody, friend or foe, that is behind me.

That would be glorious.

Edited by VXJaeger, 25 February 2014 - 04:26 AM.

[Riptor]

Heffay.. Ryo.. how can you guys claim this is good news?

the 3-3-3-3 system is BAD! BAD BAD BAD

Only limiting by class and NOT tonage will just force everyone to take the "best" (read flavor of the month) mechs into combat, because everything else will be seen as crippling your team.

I dare you to take an awesome instead of a highlander into battle with that setup and then read the comments in the chat.

Future matches will be 3 firebrands/spiders 3 Cataphracts 3 Shadowhakws and 3 Highlanders, with the odd mech thrown to replace one of the "best"

The meta currently is allready screwed up and this will only shoot it another time in the knee

Only you guys can be happy about such an obviously flawed system and applaud it.

[Heffay]

Riptor, on 25 February 2014 - 07:10 AM, said:

Heffay.. Ryo.. how can you guys claim this is good news?

the 3-3-3-3 system is BAD! BAD BAD BAD

Only limiting by class and NOT tonage will just force everyone to take the "best" (read flavor of the month) mechs into combat, because everything else will be seen as crippling your team.

I dare you to take an awesome instead of a highlander into battle with that setup and then read the comments in the chat.

Future matches will be 3 firebrands/spiders 3 Cataphracts 3 Shadowhakws and 3 Highlanders, with the odd mech thrown to replace one of the "best"

The meta currently is allready screwed up and this will only shoot it another time in the knee

Only you guys can be happy about such an obviously flawed system and applaud it.

Individual mechs can be balanced. The awesome can be buffed to be more viable.

That's why 3-3-3-3 is good. Balance the mechs, and all of a sudden you have some pretty decent fights. You know you have 3 assaults to spearhead an attack, instead of 8. Or 0.

Remember, the meta will change when they make the jump jet changes.

Edited by Heffay, 25 February 2014 - 07:14 AM.

[Deathlike]

Heffay, on 25 February 2014 - 07:13 AM, said:

Individual mechs can be balanced. The awesome can be buffed to be more viable.

That assumes PGI has actually properly revisited bad mechs. The last change to the Awesome was its hitboxes, and for the most part was a lateral move. It still is the barndoor that we all know and shoot down.

Quote

That's why 3-3-3-3 is good. Balance the mechs, and all of a sudden you have some pretty decent fights. You know you have 3 assaults to spearhead an attack, instead of 8. Or 0.

It's good to some degree (having more Steiner scout lances is not enjoyable), but it's still bad in the grand scheme of things. That's why tonnage limits is preferable as you can shift around the numbers a bit.

Quote

Remember, the meta will change when they make the jump jet changes.

No. PPCs+ACs will still dominate. JJs would still be the proverbial icing on the cake. That assumes... you understand the meta.

[Joseph Mallan]

Riptor, on 25 February 2014 - 07:10 AM, said:

Heffay.. Ryo.. how can you guys claim this is good news?

the 3-3-3-3 system is BAD! BAD BAD BAD

Only limiting by class and NOT tonage will just force everyone to take the "best" (read flavor of the month) mechs into combat, because everything else will be seen as crippling your team.

I dare you to take an awesome instead of a highlander into battle with that setup and then read the comments in the chat.

Future matches will be 3 firebrands/spiders 3 Cataphracts 3 Shadowhakws and 3 Highlanders, with the odd mech thrown to replace one of the "best"

The meta currently is allready screwed up and this will only shoot it another time in the knee

Only you guys can be happy about such an obviously flawed system and applaud it.

My intent is to find a Battlemaster that suits my play style, and drop 90% in it. It is the Mech I started in, I played through the Clan invasion with it, I even wrote about it being Joe's ride when I joined the BattleCorps. That is the extend of RP I want to have. After that, If my team wants t have 2 Atlas in the Company... Ok. But we have a 2 Beemer Max per Planet!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 25 February 2014 - 07:21 AM.

[Butane9000]

Next IS mech has been confirmed to be an unannounced Assault mech. We will get more mediums but I believe they will focus on releasing the weight classes that are less populated (Light, Heavy and Assault).

[Prezimonto]

Heffay, on 24 February 2014 - 06:56 PM, said:

There was more information on the NGNG Twitch stream tonight. You can still have 4 man groups, but they will be limited to the 3-3-3-3 rules. So you can't bring 4 733Cs, and even if you bring 3, those will be the only 3 assaults you'll have on your team.

More info to be released on Wednesday I believe.

Good news for team play, still worse news that getting actual tonnage limits.

The tonnage spread is still 195tons possible in this system. Pre-mades can reliably soak up all the large mechs from pugs, and the medium weight class isn't going to get the actual boost it needs to be viable, they're just going to be 3 SHD's rolling most matches.

Actual tonnage limits or better yet actual BV/Market driven BV on groups would deal with all those issues:
a 50±5ton limit /player for each group would keep the group total weight down. Sure it might lead to 2 victors and 2 jenners, or they could pull 4 mediums, or a heavy, 2 mediums, 1 light. It would keep Pre-mades from soaking up all the large mechs if you impose both weight class (on grouped players) and numbers limits(on all players).

[Artgathan]

There's a bit of hypocrisy going on here. Consider the following:

• Players are opposed to any form of P2W
  
• PGI says that premades (of 4) can determine the outcome of PUGs
  
• Players say that they would be willing to pay to be able to player as a group of 12 in PUGs
  
• Therefore, players say they are comfortable with P2W

Really guys?

[Corvus Antaka]

Prezimonto, on 25 February 2014 - 07:38 AM, said:

Good news for team play, still worse news that getting actual tonnage limits.

The tonnage spread is still 195tons possible in this system. Pre-mades can reliably soak up all the large mechs from pugs, and the medium weight class isn't going to get the actual boost it needs to be viable, they're just going to be 3 SHD's rolling most matches.

Actual tonnage limits or better yet actual BV/Market driven BV on groups would deal with all those issues:
a 50±5ton limit /player for each group would keep the group total weight down. Sure it might lead to 2 victors and 2 jenners, or they could pull 4 mediums, or a heavy, 2 mediums, 1 light. It would keep Pre-mades from soaking up all the large mechs if you impose both weight class (on grouped players) and numbers limits(on all players).

this 3x3x3x3 system sounds like a bad idea? Scrap pretty much every low ton mech of every wieght class.

you can't take a cicada, take a shadowhawk instead, cant take a victor or an awesome when an atlas will do.

140 ton limit on 2 mechs is an atlas & cicada or a victor and quickdraw - suddenly "choices" can be made.

with this 3x3x3x3 system, outside the odd victor it is likely the best choice will simply be to take the heaviest most meta mech of every wieght class.

add to this too much hvy/assaults for this to work.

4x4x2x2 could have worked with this system - suddenly more lights & mediums bring viability to light hunting victors, or medium hunting heavy, and only gives room for 4 true heavy/assault meta mechs, which cuts down firepower significantly

but would we then just see 4 raven/spider/4shawks/23D/2/733c? obviously the meta still needs balancing, but imho if PGI isnt going to use tonnage

4x4x2x2 may be a much better choice than 3x3x3x3 because taking that 1 extra hvy & assault out cuts team firepower down quite a lot and may just be enough that even if one team does "meta it up" the other team could run a more mixed team with chances of survival increased by cutting team firepower down and leaving more room for lower tonned mechs of each class.

all I'm seeing for now is that the lowest ton mechs of each wieght class will be 90% useless with a rare exception. but i doubt even the victor will be a good choice when a highlander or atlas could be taken instead.

Edited by Colonel Pada Vinson, 25 February 2014 - 08:19 AM.

[Peiper]

Artgathan, on 25 February 2014 - 08:02 AM, said:

There's a bit of hypocrisy going on here. Consider the following:

• Players are opposed to any form of P2W
  
• PGI says that premades (of 4) can determine the outcome of PUGs
  
• Players say that they would be willing to pay to be able to player as a group of 12 in PUGs
  
• Therefore, players say they are comfortable with P2W

Really guys?

They don't want everything, they just want it all. (yeah, I know, a troll comment. Forgive me.)

[Ryoken]

Riptor, on 25 February 2014 - 07:10 AM, said:

Heffay.. Ryo.. how can you guys claim this is good news?

the 3-3-3-3 system is BAD! BAD BAD BAD

Only limiting by class and NOT tonage will just force everyone to take the "best" (read flavor of the month) mechs into combat, because everything else will be seen as crippling your team.

I dare you to take an awesome instead of a highlander into battle with that setup and then read the comments in the chat.

Future matches will be 3 firebrands/spiders 3 Cataphracts 3 Shadowhakws and 3 Highlanders, with the odd mech thrown to replace one of the "best"

The meta currently is allready screwed up and this will only shoot it another time in the knee

Only you guys can be happy about such an obviously flawed system and applaud it.

The only difference on the weight class limit and the tonnage limit is that one case will result in best mech per weight class or best mech set by tonnage. So it is ambivalent.

Deathlike, on 25 February 2014 - 07:20 AM, said:

That assumes PGI has actually properly revisited bad mechs. The last change to the Awesome was its hitboxes, and for the most part was a lateral move. It still is the barndoor that we all know and shoot down.

You fail to see that PGI has given us the best balanced Mechwarrior so far. And they keep developing it!

Deathlike, on 25 February 2014 - 07:20 AM, said:

It's good to some degree (having more Steiner scout lances is not enjoyable), but it's still bad in the grand scheme of things. That's why tonnage limits is preferable as you can shift around the numbers a bit.

You fail to see that tonnage limit just will result in best mech set per tonnage instead of best mech per weight class,

Deathlike, on 25 February 2014 - 07:20 AM, said:

No. PPCs+ACs will still dominate. JJs would still be the proverbial icing on the cake. That assumes... you understand the meta.

You fail to see that PPCs and ACs are allready addressed, as splash damage to PPC and burst firing + recoil to ACs. So stop implying others are n u m b n u t s and do not understand addressing JJs is taking care of the jumpsniping aspect of the meta. And weapon changes do address the weapon aspect of the meta.

Joseph Mallan, on 25 February 2014 - 07:21 AM, said:

My intent is to find a Battlemaster that suits my play style, and drop 90% in it. It is the Mech I started in, I played through the Clan invasion with it, I even wrote about it being Joe's ride when I joined the BattleCorps. That is the extend of RP I want to have. After that, If my team wants t have 2 Atlas in the Company... Ok. But we have a 2 Beemer Max per Planet!

I do not see your problem, in premades assuming you play with friends I bet that always someone will give you one of the three assault slots. But remember as a friend demanding one assault slot all the time... well you might want to think about switching the assault slot inbetween if the case should happen your premade has 4 assault fanatics.

Edited by Ryoken, 25 February 2014 - 08:23 AM.

[Ryoken]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 25 February 2014 - 08:16 AM, said:

this 3x3x3x3 system sounds like a bad idea? Scrap pretty much every low ton mech of every wieght class.

you can't take a cicada, take a shadowhawk instead, cant take a victor or an awesome when an atlas will do.

Who would take an Awesome over a Victor? Tonnage limit simply does the same that weight class limit would do.

[Prezimonto]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 25 February 2014 - 08:16 AM, said:

this 3x3x3x3 system sounds like a bad idea? Scrap pretty much every low ton mech of every wieght class.

you can't take a cicada, take a shadowhawk instead, cant take a victor or an awesome when an atlas will do.

140 ton limit on 2 mechs is an atlas & cicada or a victor and quickdraw - suddenly "choices" can be made.

with this 3x3x3x3 system, outside the odd victor it is likely the best choice will simply be to take the heaviest most meta mech of every wieght class.

add to this too much hvy/assaults for this to work.

4x4x2x2 could have worked with this system - suddenly more lights & mediums bring viability to light hunting victors, or medium hunting heavy, and only gives room for 4 true heavy/assault meta mechs, which cuts down firepower significantly

but would we then just see 4 raven/spider/4shawks/23D/2/733c? obviously the meta still needs balancing, but imho if PGI isnt going to use tonnage

4x4x2x2 may be a much better choice than 3x3x3x3 because taking that 1 extra hvy & assault out cuts team firepower down quite a lot and may just be enough that even if one team does "meta it up" the other team could run a more mixed team with chances of survival increased by cutting team firepower down and leaving more room for lower tonned mechs of each class.

all I'm seeing for now is that the lowest ton mechs of each wieght class will be 90% useless with a rare exception. but i doubt even the victor will be a good choice when a highlander or atlas could be taken instead.

That's exactly what I was getting at.

There's a 15ton difference between the low and high end of light/medium/heavy, and a 20ton difference between the low and high end of assault. That's a potential total of 195tons possible difference, and if you take a low tonnage mech in a weight class, that's purely weapons and armor left on the table that your team can't have access to. Tonnage isn't everything either, but this isn't really a step up from what we have... it's maybe a side step.

I agree that 3x4x3x2 or even 4x4x2x2 or 3x5x2x2 would be preferable to 3x3x3x3... but market based BV would be better than BV would be better than tonnage limits would be better than weight class limiting of any variety.

Groups should also be much more constrained than pugs... give groups an honest 50±5 tons per player, smack in the middle, and no restrictions on PUGs... and then OPEN UP GROUPS. The bigger the group the less they can bring to the table compared to PUGs, so they can be outclassed heavily in equipment by a team that's mostly pugs. They'll still win a lot of match, but fights will be a lot closer.

[Deathlike]

Artgathan, on 25 February 2014 - 08:02 AM, said:

There's a bit of hypocrisy going on here. Consider the following:

• Players are opposed to any form of P2W
  
• PGI says that premades (of 4) can determine the outcome of PUGs
  
• Players say that they would be willing to pay to be able to player as a group of 12 in PUGs
  
• Therefore, players say they are comfortable with P2W

Really guys?

I actually chuckled at the flawed logic. I salute you for that.

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 25 February 2014 - 08:16 AM, said:

this 3x3x3x3 system sounds like a bad idea? Scrap pretty much every low ton mech of every wieght class.

you can't take a cicada, take a shadowhawk instead, cant take a victor or an awesome when an atlas will do.

140 ton limit on 2 mechs is an atlas & cicada or a victor and quickdraw - suddenly "choices" can be made.

with this 3x3x3x3 system, outside the odd victor it is likely the best choice will simply be to take the heaviest most meta mech of every wieght class.

add to this too much hvy/assaults for this to work.

4x4x2x2 could have worked with this system - suddenly more lights & mediums bring viability to light hunting victors, or medium hunting heavy, and only gives room for 4 true heavy/assault meta mechs, which cuts down firepower significantly

but would we then just see 4 raven/spider/4shawks/23D/2/733c? obviously the meta still needs balancing, but imho if PGI isnt going to use tonnage

4x4x2x2 may be a much better choice than 3x3x3x3 because taking that 1 extra hvy & assault out cuts team firepower down quite a lot and may just be enough that even if one team does "meta it up" the other team could run a more mixed team with chances of survival increased by cutting team firepower down and leaving more room for lower tonned mechs of each class.

all I'm seeing for now is that the lowest ton mechs of each wieght class will be 90% useless with a rare exception. but i doubt even the victor will be a good choice when a highlander or atlas could be taken instead.

Although we can get down to some of the nitty gritty of each mech and their actual value in this game... the ultimate issue is really tied in PGI's model. Bigger mechs = more money for PGI, especially if MC is spent on them. If we were to manipulate the sizes to favor mediums or lights or whatever, that would reduce the number of assault of being fielded. It may be great for regular play to a degree, but would hurt PGI's bottom line more. If I told you you can't bring your D-DC, Misery, Dragon Slayer, or Heavy Metal because there's "not enough slots", well, just imagine the people complaining about it, especially if their mechbays are filled with them.

Ryoken, on 25 February 2014 - 08:21 AM, said:

You fail to see that PGI has given us the best balanced Mechwarrior so far. And they keep developing it!

I'm hoping you're being sarcastic, because that's the funniest thing said ever!

Quote

You fail to see that tonnage limit just will result in best mech set per tonnage instead of best mech per weight class,

MOAR Highlanders please!

Quote

You fail to see that PPCs and ACs are allready addressed, as splash damage to PPC and burst firing + recoil to ACs. So stop implying others are n u m b n u t s and do not understand addressing JJs is taking care of the jumpsniping aspect of the meta. And weapon changes do address the weapon aspect of the meta.

Yea...have those changes been made yet?

[Prezimonto]

Deathlike, on 25 February 2014 - 08:59 AM, said:

Although we can get down to some of the nitty gritty of each mech and their actual value in this game... the ultimate issue is really tied in PGI's model. Bigger mechs = more money for PGI, especially if MC is spent on them. If we were to manipulate the sizes to favor mediums or lights or whatever, that would reduce the number of assault of being fielded. It may be great for regular play to a degree, but would hurt PGI's bottom line more. If I told you you can't bring your D-DC, Misery, Dragon Slayer, or Heavy Metal because there's "not enough slots", well, just imagine the people complaining about it, especially if their mechbays are filled with them.

And this is why strict tonnage limits on Groups, and open up groups to more players (perhaps over 4 needs premium time to start), but don't limit solo drops is the way forward. If things get really silly you could put caps on PUG mechs only... like no more than 3x3x3x3 or better 3x4x3x2 for pug players... so you might end with some skewed numebrs if groups are put in... but limiting groups and opening group numbers up is the way forward.

have the MM attempt to match roughly equal numbers of grouped players and then fill in with PUGs... should work okay, given that they already barely use elo to match people.

[Deathlike]

Prezimonto, on 25 February 2014 - 09:20 AM, said:

And this is why strict tonnage limits on Groups, and open up groups to more players (perhaps over 4 needs premium time to start), but don't limit solo drops is the way forward. If things get really silly you could put caps on PUG mechs only... like no more than 3x3x3x3 or better 3x4x3x2 for pug players... so you might end with some skewed numebrs if groups are put in... but limiting groups and opening group numbers up is the way forward.

have the MM attempt to match roughly equal numbers of grouped players and then fill in with PUGs... should work okay, given that they already barely use elo to match people.

I will say this about tonnage limits... outside of the fact I endorse them, there are certain exceptions that makes this matter.

For instance, for any 2 lights to go with 2 assaults in a 4-man premade, wouldn't that be more preferable to 2 mediums and 2 heavies? Consider Conquest in particular...

One of the issues that was faced in part of MM v2 was that you had to even out the # of mechs in weight classes on both ends. So, if your side had taken a medium mech, it was the difference between a Cicada (which is essentially an overweight light) vs the Hunchback/Centurion/Trebuchet at the time. Now, we've expanded so that the Shadowhawk pretty much replaces all 3, but having to cap on a map like Alpine used to be a horrorshow when you didn't have enough fast mechs. Alpine has changed since then (not exactly for the better) and subsequently Mordor... I mean Terra Therma has replaced it. There is a distinction to be made that not all mechs are the same (which is good for diversity), but also they are not equivocally useful (Awesome vs Victor being #1 in the comparison charts).

Essentially, it brings to light a lot of the imbalances between chassis and variants in this game... like the 3 35 tonners (Firestarter, Jenner, Raven) or 3 65 tonners (Thunderbolt, Catapult, Jagermech) and the 3 50 tonners (Hunchback, Centurion, Trebuchet)... w/o forgetting the logjam of 55 tonners.

So... if it only were that simple...

[Prezimonto]

That's why tonnage limits are better than weight class limits... if you take a sub-optimal mech for you weight class... that tonnage can be used to purchase a bigger (and previously unattainable mech) by your friend.

In weight class matching the low ends of every class are phenomenally worse choices in most situations.

[Roland]

Prezimonto, on 25 February 2014 - 09:44 AM, said:

That's why tonnage limits are better than weight class limits... if you take a sub-optimal mech for you weight class... that tonnage can be used to purchase a bigger (and previously unattainable mech) by your friend.

In weight class matching the low ends of every class are phenomenally worse choices in most situations.

The reason why PGI can't get tonnage balancing to work, however, is that most of the middle weight mechs are essentially garbage.

So, if they go with tonnage, then what happens is folks take lights and assaults... which really constitutes no change from what they would choose to bring anyway.

Honestly, what they need to do is a hybrid of what they have done here and tonnage limits.

They need to have the class restriction, COMBINED with a tonnage restriction.

So, what you have is this:
Assault Class: 3 Assaut Mechs, Total tonnage 260
Heavy Class: 3 Heavy Mechs, Total tonnage 195
Medium Class: 3 Medium Mechs, Total tonnage 135
Light Class: 3 Light Mechs, Total Tonnage 85 tons


The result of this is that you have to bring mechs of every weight class, so medium mechs aren't just auto-rejected.

At the same time, there is actually some desire to bring some of the less optimal chassis, since their lighter weigh is actually rewarded. For instance, a "standard" drop dec might be this:

Victor(80), Highlander(90), Highlander(90)
Catapult(65), Jagermech(65), Catapult(65)
Cicada(40), Blackjack(45), Centurion(50)
Commando(25), Spider(30), Spider(30)

However, this could be swapped around to some other configurations:
Victor, Victor, Atlas
Cataphract, Jagermech, Quickdraw
Cicada, Cicada, Wolverine
Locust, Spider, Firestarter

Basically, within any category, you really can't just bring whatever you want. And generally, you can't bring multiples of the really heavy mechs. For instance, you couldn't bring two Atlases. You couldn't bring more than one Cataphract, or Jenner, or Raven.

Because the average tonnage for each mech class is below the middle point of the weight class, you actually end up needing to bring some of the lighter mechs if you want to bring some of the heavier ones. Suddenly, a mech like the locust actually has SOME (albeit marginal) value. With this combination, of limiting factors, you basically force some degree of variance. Although, as new mechs are released, this would likely be broken.

Some of the weight classes, like the assault class, are a bit less affected by this, in that one of the best assaults is the victor and is also the lightest... And in order to drop an atlas at all, you basically need to have the total tonnage reach 260 for the group, so I can't really find any way to get the Awesome to be used, without some kind of battlevalue system that accounts for the fact that it's generally just worse than the Victor. Interestingly enough, if the victor didn't exist, then folks would be forced to drop at least one awesome if they wanted to drive highlanders and atlases, which would actually balance things perhaps.