86 replies to this topic

[Davers]

FupDup, on 27 February 2014 - 08:05 AM, said:

Role Warfare is a much more thorough and arguably superior solution than both tonnage limits and class limits for solving the overabundance of mechs 65 tons and heavier.

The problem is coming up with something that a mech 40-55 tons can do that mechs 20-35 and 60-75 can't do just as well, or better. Or even slightly worse, but with better armor/weapons.

[FupDup]

Davers, on 27 February 2014 - 10:21 AM, said:

The problem is coming up with something that a mech 40-55 tons can do that mechs 20-35 and 60-75 can't do just as well, or better. Or even slightly worse, but with better armor/weapons.

Well, the larger mediums carry heavier gunz than lights and usually move faster than a heavy (i.e. Shadow Hawk with 2 ML + 4 SSRM2 + UAC/5 can go 97.2 kph). The smaller mediums of course are in a bit of a sorry state right now, but tonnage limits won't change that either.

TL would actually make the situation worse in some ways. Not only is a Jenner usually better than a Cicada, but now that Cicada also eats up more of your team's weight than that Jenner does. This is probably where buffs to mediums need to come in, and maybe even some speed/maneuvering nerfs to most heavies/assaults (so that mediums have a clear agility advantage over larger mechs). After we achieve mediums being much faster and more responsive than their bigger counterparts, then we have to make the game so that such maneuverability actually plays a bigger role. The most obvious way to do this is via larger map sizes, which means that there is a lot more ground to cover. Slow, plodding death machines would still be effective at trashing the opposition, but they couldn't cover as much ground as a mobile force could.

There are also many other possible ways to go about this, but basically the TL;DR of it is that the goal of RW is to make it so every mech/weight class has some kind of strength to make up for its weaknesses, and their strength(s) is/are necessary for helping your team win.

[Davers]

FupDup, on 27 February 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:

Well, the larger mediums carry heavier gunz than lights and usually move faster than a heavy (i.e. Shadow Hawk with 2 ML + 4 SSRM2 + UAC/5 can go 97.2 kph). The smaller mediums of course are in a bit of a sorry state right now, but tonnage limits won't change that either.

TL would actually make the situation worse in some ways. Not only is a Jenner usually better than a Cicada, but now that Cicada also eats up more of your team's weight than that Jenner does. This is probably where buffs to mediums need to come in, and maybe even some speed/maneuvering nerfs to most heavies/assaults (so that mediums have a clear agility advantage over larger mechs). After we achieve mediums being much faster and more responsive than their bigger counterparts, then we have to make the game so that such maneuverability actually plays a bigger role. The most obvious way to do this is via larger map sizes, which means that there is a lot more ground to cover. Slow, plodding death machines would still be effective at trashing the opposition, but they couldn't cover as much ground as a mobile force could.

There are also many other possible ways to go about this, but basically the TL;DR of it is that the goal of RW is to make it so every mech/weight class has some kind of strength to make up for its weaknesses, and their strength(s) is/are necessary for helping your team win.

I see and totally agree with what you are saying. However, if maps were bigger it would be even more important to stay together and not let the assault mechs be left in the dust. It's one of the reasons I never used assault mechs when playing MechCommander (still remember waiting for a legged Atlas to limp across the map to an extraction zone).

I guess we need to define 'Role Warfare'. If we are talking 'Indirect Fire Support' as a role, then yes, mediums can use LRMs so there is role warfare. I think we are talking more about 'Class Warfare', as in, "You want/need a medium mech to perform this role because <reasons>."

The problem is that BT, much like other games from the same era like Starfleet Battles, means bigger is better.

[FupDup]

Davers, on 27 February 2014 - 10:49 AM, said:

....

I guess we need to define 'Role Warfare'. If we are talking 'Indirect Fire Support' as a role, then yes, mediums can use LRMs so there is role warfare. I think we are talking more about 'Class Warfare', as in, "You want/need a medium mech to perform this role because <reasons>."

...

It could be some of both, although with a bigger emphasis on the classes themselves because that is where we need the most reform (most of the weapon-based roles, i.e. fire support, are already in good shape; we just need some reasons to take a ride under 65 tons now and then). There is some overlapping, though, as certain classes are naturally better at certain roles (i.e. assault mech is better for raw damage/tanking, lights are better for trolling/spotting/stuff, etc.).

[Khobai]

3/3/3/3 isnt perfect but its much better than what we have now: which is NOTHING.

[Deathlike]

Chemie, on 27 February 2014 - 04:08 AM, said:

You missed the part where they only allow 3-mans.

Anyway, the problem is forcing 3-3-3-3 only works if equal number of classes enter the queue. If you have way more of one class, then no one gets a game.

PGI has the following issues with MM:
* Three queues
* They want to match by ELO
* They want to force 3-3-3-3
* Small player base

This then means there is no viable match mechanic that can overcome the above constraints.

I honestly think this system will struggle even more than we do now.

Think about it for a moment:
Think of the weight class that is considered the "weakest" for their tier.
Within that weakest class, consider the ratio of players that play that classes, relative to everything else.
Also, consider also the new player experience and the limited mechlab space.

I'm not saying people won't get matches, but just consider for a moment the state of the game and how it doesn't really favor the medium class. It is noted that mediums have gotten the most attention as of late (Phoenix+Saber packs is medium heavy), but there's going to be very little in terms of diversity in the medium mech bracket (Shadowhawks are virtually still king, with some other variations).

I know there has been a rash of Cent-A Champion lances, but those happen very rarely compared to the Steiner Scout lance or swarm of lights or massive Jagerbomb/Poptart-3D invasion. It's not really a fix... I think there's a bottleneck issue that will be self-created due to lack of role warfare and medium mech balance...

Edited by Deathlike, 27 February 2014 - 10:58 AM.

[Corvus Antaka]

My vote is for a 4x4x2x2 setup if we get these class limits.

I don't like the idea, im highly concerned the light mechs of each class will get shafted.

But it could work at 4x4x2x2 because overall tonnage is lower.

at 3x3x3x3 i have a harder time imagining it working, becuase on average now i see about 3 heavy meta and 3 assault meta mechs in every game.

curbing those hvy & assault to 4 per team would really cut team firepower down and give for much more variety on the field in my opinion.

i would have prefferred tonnage limits though. more variety/creativity in what to take.

Unsure why PGI cant do 3x3x3x3 with tonnage limits. maybe 3x3x3x3 is the way to go. we will see soon enough hopefully.

[Deathlike]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 27 February 2014 - 10:58 AM, said:

I don't like the idea, im highly concerned the light mechs of each class will get shafted.

The Cicada will be OK since it's essentially a +1 to Lights, but it won't fix the Awesome vs the Victor and it already "reduces" the role for the Dragon/Quickdraw (because they are like mediums).... plus Locusts be damned (if they weren't now).

It's only going to reinforce the "bigger is better" notion.

[wwiiogre]

I think using tonnage classes would work if you limited the total tonnage difference as 95 tons or less. So neither team would ever have more than a 95 ton advantage.

This is way preferable to what I see now on a daily basis. I had 5 games yesterday with over a 400 ton advantage for one side. And some of those had 2 premades of 4mechs on one side with no new mechs or trial mechs, while having the 400+ ton advantage. Several of those also had the lighter side start a man down.

So current matchmaker is a joke. This is a good step in the right direction and I am sure it will be fine tuned over the next few months after it is implemented.

All matches by tonnage class, with no more than a 95 ton difference for one side would be acceptable and actually preferable. Because as has been stated previously in this topic, the fog of war and not knowing exactly what you are facing is always fun and generally makes immersion better into a warlike simulation game such as MWO.

Chris

Edited by wwiiogre, 27 February 2014 - 11:18 AM.

[Khobai]

PGI is doing 3/3/3/3 because its easy for them to implement. They dont want to divert progress away from other features like CW.

If PGI is going to make any real effort the absolute BEST way to balance teams is with battle value (all mechs/weapons/equipment are given a static value based on how good they are, which gets totaled up for each team, and then matchmaker tries to balance both teams within a certain %).

If they wanted to go a step further they could implement dynamic battle value, where the value of mechs and weapons increases or decreases over time based on how many games are won while using them. The advantage of a dynamic battle value system is that it keeps up with meta shifts automatically.

Edited by Khobai, 27 February 2014 - 11:30 AM.

[East Indy]

Khobai, on 27 February 2014 - 10:56 AM, said:

3/3/3/3 isnt perfect but its much better than what we have now: which is NOTHING.

Quite right.

Under 3/3/3/3, the maximum tonnage disparity (a team of heaviest in class against a team of lightest in class) is 32%. That assumes three Locusts, so it's more like 24%. And even then it's unlikely to happen.

Random pugs now? You can see upwards of 40%.

[Corvus Antaka]

Deathlike, on 27 February 2014 - 11:01 AM, said:

The Cicada will be OK since it's essentially a +1 to Lights, but it won't fix the Awesome vs the Victor and it already "reduces" the role for the Dragon/Quickdraw (because they are like mediums).... plus Locusts be damned (if they weren't now).

It's only going to reinforce the "bigger is better" notion.

the cicada will take a slot that a shadowhawk could have, its a medium. awesome vs victor is primarily a jumpjet balance issue.

Edited by Colonel Pada Vinson, 27 February 2014 - 11:36 AM.

[Trauglodyte]

Well, the one thing that they COULD do, and this is me spit balling here, is apply the mech groupings that they used for the terrain physics. So, you could open it up to be 2x4x3x2x1. It still wouldn't help the Awesome but it would stop things from being x number of lights, etc.

The one thing that really worries me with this is the wait time on matches. If we're not going to get multiple mech queues, than you're talking about waiting a LONG time to get matches. Plus, not everyone enjoys piloting all weight classes. So, the staunch Assault pilots are going to get humped as they weight in queue for their slot to come up. Granted, I might not have a full grasp on what they're thinking but this really has the potential to hurt the game.

[xe N on]

Cicada is one of the few mechs that provice ECM and is not a light or of the speed of a turtle like the DDC.

[Trauglodyte]

xe N on, on 27 February 2014 - 11:45 AM, said:

Cicada is one of the few mechs that provice ECM and is not a light or of the speed of a turtle like the DDC.

Raven 3L and Commando 2D. Neither of which have JJs but both are smaller than the Cicada. The only thing that the Cicada has is a ballistic slot.

[Malcolm Vordermark]

They moved away from the weight limit idea because of cases where players could hog all the tonnage (remember its supposed to be in a lobby setting at this point). What do you do if the first 5 players in the lobby select atlas or highlanders forcing everyone else to pick extremely light mechs? What do you do if some players do not own a mech thats makes the tonnage work out and nobody else is willing to change their selection?

As players we wouldnt have the authority to tell others what to pick, no mechanic to enforce it.

I'm not sure this is the best solution but it sounds better than team weight limits to me.

Also, regardless of weight limits I cant see the 10-15 tons a locust would save over a spider or jenner being worth it.

Edit: Relevant information was recently posted.

Edited by Rouken, 27 February 2014 - 12:31 PM.

[Deathlike]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 27 February 2014 - 11:36 AM, said:

the cicada will take a slot that a shadowhawk could have, its a medium. awesome vs victor is primarily a jumpjet balance issue.

Cicada has fortunately some value. The Awesome has no value... even if you took out the JJs from the Victor, the Awesome would lose out to its torso/hitboxes, let alone the loadouts.

[Ph30nix]

Its typical PGI/IGP throw any idea at the problem so people think we are doing something about it strategy even though our entire playerbase has already told us why it would be a bad idea.

For this exact solution people HAVE already discussed it and said the multiple reasons its a fail way to do it. More proof they either do not care what we have to say, never read what we have to say or just plain and simple want to do their way even if its wrong.

[Corvus Antaka]

Deathlike, on 27 February 2014 - 01:36 PM, said:

Cicada has fortunately some value. The Awesome has no value... even if you took out the JJs from the Victor, the Awesome would lose out to its torso/hitboxes, let alone the loadouts.

meh the lrm awesome is pretty good and the 3 erppc one has 3 streaks too and is fast.

jumpjets need tuning anyway, its a mute argument till they are fixed.

cicada vs awesome id say they both have equally low value right now, ecm is ok but the cicada still has super easy hitboxes to kill it.

id still prefer a hunchie or a shadowhawk over the cicada.

Edited by Colonel Pada Vinson, 27 February 2014 - 02:00 PM.

[3rdworld]

What irritates me the most about this entire dev post:

The matchmaker is going to try to set x mech vs x mech as much as possible. So if I take a cicada, it is going to try to find an equal ELO player in a 40 ton mech to fill it, then I assume move to 45tons, 50 etc.

This is in effect to allow players to take crap mechs, and hopefully the other team will have a crap mech in return.

To me this reads as them giving up on mech balancing. Which is something I really wish they would do a better job on.