86 replies to this topic

[Navy Sixes]

Rouken, on 27 February 2014 - 12:08 PM, said:

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?

My understanding was that the tonnage limits (back when they were still talking tonnage limits) would be for premades only. The solos in the PUG could run whatever they wanted. I thought there was going to be some sort of special "social lobby" where a group would work out their tonnage before they dropped. If you were hooked up with people that didn't want to work with you -"Sorry, bro. We're all taking our Highlanders, so you get the Locust."- You could try your luck with another group or drop solo and run whatever you want.

I was OK with this. Players who've paid real money for a hero should be able to run it whenever they want, regardless of its tonnage. They could always drop solo, but they'd have to make it fit in with the rest of their premmates if they wanted to bring it out with a team. I thought the "weight-limited but well coordinated premades" vs. the "unlimited tonnage but uncoordinated (and, let's be honest, often scrubbish) solo PUGers" would have been a pretty fair dichotomy, certainly better than what we have now.

When CW gets here, finally, organized premades are going to be where it's at. I'm going to be trying to get on board with an outfit before then (maybe a faction, but I'm leaning toward a mercenary unit) and I think most of the players interested in participating in CW will want to enlist with someone. In the podcast, Brian said that most of the players (84% I think was the number he gave) drop solo. With CW, I think that number will change, maybe drastically. I don't think they should be building their future solely around that statistic.

So I'm still wistfully holding out hope that PGI gets a good tonnage limit system in place for the premades. Who cares about tonnage limits in the PUG? Leave the PUG as an unlimited tonnage "free zone" where new players can develop the solo fundamentals without costing the CW-players the war, casual players can solo drop whenever and stomp around at will, and others who may have spent money on mechs that won't fit in with their prems can still have solo fun with them. It will always be a place where we can go to brush up on our individual chops and try out funky new builds, and prems would still be able to drop into the PUG in 4-man squads for "training exercises," but with the tonnage limits that will keep them from tipping the weight-balance scales and giving us solo scrubs more of a fighting chance.

Edited by Tycho von Gagern, 27 February 2014 - 02:34 PM.

[OldCowboy]

I think the saddest part about this is being forced to 3 man groups when so many complained about being confined to four. Personally I was ok with a limit to 4 but because "only 10% ever dropped as 4 mans anyway so we can get rid of that."(paraphrased) Is a pile of bull. At least let us form a full lance, you can still limit the slots.

I'm getting the feeling pgi thinks only features used by the majority of players are what need to be catered too. Their own form of min maxing I guess.

I dunno...I really want to rant about limited to 3 man groups even if I only group up for 60% of my games and only half the time I group up I have 4 man. I still want that option...we'll I did it, I ranted.

As for the 3333 I'm more curiose about how it plays out right now than whether or not it needs something different. It's slightly more restrictive than tonnage limits. I didn't really want to see min maxing tonnage. This would create a greater demand for medium pilots which seem almost rare. However there will still be no reason for the individual pug to go for a medium if he doesn't already pilot it, because how the hell is he going to know th are in demand.

Maybe we will see cbill and Xp bonuses for those in demand weight classes like planetside does with their factions. I think these forums would go up in flames if that happened though....I dunno...just glad my hotas is almost in. Prolly spend more time on a more sim like sim.

[wanderer]

There's a reason I've pushed for something a bit tighter than light/medium/heavy/assault for the matchmaker. Anyone in their right minds realizes quickly that "medium" on one end isn't the same as "medium" on the other, or "light", or "assault".

They're broad enough that one end of the scale tends to shove the other end off the desired chart. You don't want Quickdraws when you could have a Cataphract, for example.

20-30 tons, 35-45, 50-60, 65-80, 85-100. A little more division would go a long way.

Edited by wanderer, 27 February 2014 - 05:53 PM.

[Khobai]

Did you guys even read the whole thing?

Theyre doing 3/3/3/3 but theyre also going to try to match tonnage. So if it puts a 75 ton mech on one team itll try to put a 75 ton mech on the other team, or the closest mech to 75 tons that it can find.

Quote

20-30 tons, 35-45, 50-60, 65-80, 85-100. A little more division would go a long way.

Agreed. 5 weight classes would make far more sense. The Locust and Firestarter should not be in the same weight class.

And for matchmaking they could do 2/2/2/2/2 and then 2 random mechs that add upto 120 tons.

[Sephlock]

I predict that this will lead to incredible, LoL style acrimony directed at anyone who picks a Locust, a Trebuchet, a Dragon (somewhat less so), A Thunderbolt, or an Awesome.

[MischiefSC]

Sephlock, on 27 February 2014 - 06:12 PM, said:

I predict that this will lead to incredible, LoL style acrimony directed at anyone who picks a Locust, a Trebuchet, a Dragon (somewhat less so), A Thunderbolt, or an Awesome.

I dunno. That happens anyway. Is your team any less gimped when you pilot a Locust? I'd say it's still better; at least my Locust isn't matched by a Cataphract on the other team.

I'd prefer a little flexibility. Say 2 mechs swapped between classes per match - I don't like the idea that every match will essentially be identical.

I also see a lot of terrible Atlas pilots and I've seem people just freaking OWN in a Treb. I've seen a few Dragon pilots who can kill it.

The thing is, every time you take a sub-meta mech you're gimping your team. No matter what you bring though the other team will at least fall into some general weight class guidelines. It's not that my bringing a Cicada means the other team is going to have an extra medium - the other team will have 3 mediums, 3 lights, 3 heavies, 3 assaults no matter what I pilot.

In a way this eliminates some of the 'gimping' aspect of piloting sub-meta mechs. What you bring won't affect what the other team brings at all, while ensuring that your sub-meta mech isn't automatically going to represent the other team having an extra poptart Highlander.

People will pilot Locusts, Dragons, Tbolts, Awesomes, Trebs, etc. This actually does a lot to mitigate the negatives from that.

It's a surprisingly elegant solution. Again, I'd like to have 2 mechs potentially 'swapping' (2 less heavy, 2 extra assault while the other team has 1 less medium, 1 less light and 2 extra heavy) just to keep some variety but all in all...

It's a good solution. Jesus, I wish Ghost Heat was this elegant and effective. This isn't creating a problem with people picking sub-par mechs, it's mitigating the fact that people inevitably DO pick sub-par mechs.

[Ph30nix]

Sephlock, on 27 February 2014 - 06:12 PM, said:

I predict that this will lead to incredible, LoL style acrimony directed at anyone who picks a Locust, a Trebuchet, a Dragon (somewhat less so), A Thunderbolt, or an Awesome.

hey i have had some epic games in my trebbie.....

[Varent]

Tycho von Gagern, on 26 February 2014 - 08:08 PM, said:

Hello.

I just listened to the NGNG podcast with Brian Ekman. Apparently, we're going to be getting class limits instead of tonnage (3 assaults, 3 heavies, 3 mediums, and 3 lights per team). While I welcome any attempts to curtail the overabundance of big-tonnage mechs in the PUG, I'm worried that class limits will ultimately steer players into the upper-tonnage mechs in each class.

The assaults will be all right, I think. The lighter mechs within the class are largely superior to the 100-ton (f)Atlas. But I think we'll still see a lot of the DCC, for obvious reasons. The smallest of the assaults, the Victor at 80 tons, is one of the best mechs in the game. Awesome devotees, whom I have the utmost respect and admiration for, may be in trouble. But you've been taking [REDACTED] for your mech for a long time now, so you're used to it.

Heavies will probably be OK, as well. There is a lot of variety within the class, many solid builds to chose from. From the deceptively-tankish Orion to the meta-obvious 'phract to the dakka-happy jag to the plucky "little" Cat. I think we'll still see plenty of variety among the heavies. The Dragon may become more rare, but frankly I've always thought it was a pretty lousy design, anyway (no offense to any Dragon-bowlers out there!). The Quickdraw is, in my opinion, already even more of a unicorn than the Awesome.

Among the lights, the high-end of the class means Firestarters, Jenners, Ravens, and Spiders. Pretty much all you see anyway, with the little Commandos and Locusts more a curiosity than anything else. So yeah, no big changes there.

I'm worried specifically about the medium class, which is what I've been running lately (so maybe I'm biased, I'll admit). There is such a huge difference between the 55-tonners and the rest of the class. At least there are a lot of 55-tonners to chose from. But what about the rest of the mediums? Will we see less and less of the 40-ton almost-a-light Cicada? The freakishly hard-to-kill, how-the-hell-did-they-shoehorn-an-AC20-into-that-guy's-arm!?!? 50-ton Centurion? Should I mothball my sweet little "pair-o-deuces" 45-ton Blackjack and get comfortable in my admittedly lethal-as-all-hell Shawk, again?

I'm not here to say "the sky is falling" or "this will ruin the game." I know we'll have to wait and see how this all plays out before making any real judgements. I also believe, as I said earlier, that any step toward limiting the number of big-mechs on the field is ultimately a step in the right direction. I just wanted to express my concerns and see what the community at large thinks.

Thanks and good hunting.

Edited for grammar and clarity.

I think this actually concerns me more for the lights. This is mostly because I was looking foreward to tonnage restrictions actually making mechs like the locust useful. There lighter weight allows you to bring heavier mechs overall. I sincerely hope they do not in fact move forewards with this system. I wouldn't worry about the mediums so much honestly. A lot of them can be quite good, especially in a medium flanking lance.

[WarZ]

Aside from changing the mech class breakdown (instead of 3,3,3,3 it'd probably be better to see 3,4,3,2) ...

I think this is the absolute best news for the game in over 1.5 years. PERIOD.

My only sadness is I still have to wait another 2 months to return to the game.

[Varent]

WarZ, on 27 February 2014 - 11:14 PM, said:

Aside from changing the mech class breakdown (instead of 3,3,3,3 it'd probably be better to see 3,4,3,2) ...

I think this is the absolute best news for the game in over 1.5 years. PERIOD.

My only sadness is I still have to wait another 2 months to return to the game.

Im guessing you mean 3 light, 4 medium, 3 heavy, 2 assault?

[WarZ]

Varent, on 27 February 2014 - 11:15 PM, said:

Im guessing you mean 3 light, 4 medium, 3 heavy, 2 assault?

Correct.

[Varent]

that would be a nice balance actually considering mediums are supposed to be the most common mech

[Khobai]

Quote

that would be a nice balance actually considering mediums are supposed to be the most common mech

it would be a terrible idea in practice though since mediums are the least played weight class and assaults are one of the most played weight classes. It would just increase queue times even more.

[Joseph Mallan]

Having 3 of each weight class is a fair mass balance, and good for a majority of PUG non CW players. But what about the Merc Commands in CW? I know Murphy's isn't a huge command, but we have a right to set up our command how we feel is best for success.

Not everyone is here for fair and balanced, Some are here for brutal, barbarian horde style battling. Some don't want DHB to have a chance to wrestle Coventry from our control. How is enforced weight limits fair to these situations? Murphy's is paid to protect Coventry from invaders, not to accept challenges in the spirit of fair play. If DHB wants Coventry, they should have to put up or shut up!

Do you see what I am saying?

[wanderer]

Again, this is why I feel weight limitations should be 1) more randomized than an automatic 3-3-3-3 and 2) 5-tiered rather than a simple light-medium-heavy-assault.

#1 means that although demand is equalized, the opportunity for interesting drops can occur and even lances that match in weight class will be able to find matches. #2 will severely reduce the QQ over not dropping with one end of a weight class vs. another.

#2 would also reduce maximum tonnage differential- at worst it'd mean 180T difference, and that's assuming you matched a 'Mech at the heaviest end of a 5-tier with one at the bottom (say, a Battlemaster for every opponent's Atlas or a Jagermech for every Victor.)- and that'd be assuming one team had the lightest possible matchups vs. the opponent AND you were all in heavy/assault Mechs. Anything 60T or less, at worst you'd see a ten ton per 'Mech difference, meaning that if you chose lighter 'Mechs, you'd also be minimizing potential weight differences. 20-60 ton choices would mean 120T difference at most, meaning a group of mediums or lights would have a very similar matchup on the other side.

If you use the standard L/M/H/A 3-3-3-3 setup, you can have up to a 195T maximum difference, as there's a potential 15-20 ton gap between choices in a 4-tier system (15-15-15-20) vs 10-15 (10-10-10-15-15) in a 5-tier one.

[Chemie]

so what happens if there are no enough mediums being selected. With no display on the weight class queue size, you could have zero games being launched and all the lights/heavy/assaults getting failed to find match. The idea that the community will self-regulate to 3-3-3-3 entry into the queue is laughable. Also, since 4-mans can have up to 3 assaults, it becomes even less likely (although I guess there are no teams playing anymore so maybe not)

[Joseph Mallan]

Wanderer... Admitting I'm being lazy, What is the 5th tier?

[Colby Boucher]

Khobai, on 27 February 2014 - 06:07 PM, said:

Did you guys even read the whole thing?

They're doing 3/3/3/3 but they're also going to try to match tonnage. So if it puts a 75 ton Mech on one team it'll try to put a 75 ton Mech on the other team, or the closest Mech to 75 tons that it can find.

This is super-important for people to understand! It seems like no one read the command chair post. This being said, weight creep would still be a problem. Now, I think that if there was a weight limit within each group of three, that might work...

[Joseph Mallan]

Only problem I see is if you are in CW and you are dropping as a 3/3/3/3 force, against say the 2nd Wolf Assault Cluster, the Wolves should not be restricted by your composition. Outside of how they bid to defend.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 28 February 2014 - 04:54 AM.

[Willard Phule]

Joseph Mallan, on 28 February 2014 - 04:54 AM, said:

Only problem I see is if you are in CW and you are dropping as a 3/3/3/3 force, against say the 2nd Wolf Assault Cluster, the Wolves should not be restricted by your composition. Outside of how they bid to defend.

Which is why I'm more than a little curious about how CW is going to be handled.

If there's still a PUG drop queue for casual games (call it the 'simulator' or something) that doesn't effect CW in the slightest, then I can see the 3/3/3/3 thing working out.

But for CW...where there's actual, tangible stuff on the line (control of a planet, loyalty points, possible cbill discounts, etc)...AND it's a lobby based system that allows you to say "um...no thank you, I don't want to drop with these people, I'll find another lobby".....I really don't see the point in forcing any kind of weight balance.

Weight balance and Elo only really apply when you jump in blindly, take whatever map and/or team they give you...and hope for the best.

CW, or at least the concept of it as I understand it, allows far more selection in where you're dropping. If you know that you're dropping on a volcanic planet (a terra therma map), it allows you to tweak your loadout and camo pattern for the terrain. One would hope you also have the option of leaving a lobby before the drop if you choose to, but who knows?

Edited by Willard Phule, 28 February 2014 - 05:17 AM.