136 replies to this topic

[Craig Steele]

Gyrok, on 01 March 2014 - 05:16 PM, said:

I think this creates more problems than it actually solves.

Consider this, with a limited number of a given weight class available, will par to sub-par mechs not become even more outplayed by the mechs that are considerably better contributors?

Mechs that do not fit FOTM or "meta" builds will become even more neglected because you know there will only be so many of them in a given drop. The meta mechs will become all the more rampant as a direct result.

This creates far more issues than a BV system or some other balance metric would.

We have the same problem now expept the FOTM is JJ Assaults so we see 6+ of them every game.

People are always going to gravitate towards their perceived power builds, its what they do, but at least the 3-3-3-3 spreads them out a bit.

[Ghogiel]

Aaaaannnnnddd 3-2 HGNs and a SHD/CTF premades are still the PUGs overlord master race

[Chemie]

it is especially bad if the queue does not have enough of a weight class so then no one can play...

[Butane9000]

Belorion, on 01 March 2014 - 01:19 PM, said:

They put in class Matching. No one liked it.

That was when it was closed beta and they have 2 chassis for every weight class. The argument was "Why take an Awesome when you're most likely up against a 20 ton Atlas?"

I believe with their tweaking of keeping the weight disparity down that it will be much better. I pilot an Awesome? I'm more likely to see a Victor, Stalker or Battlemaster. If nobody is piloting those then Highlander THEN finally Atlas.

3/3/3/3 Will also get mediums back into circulation and stop the tonnage imbalances. I know everyone wants a hard tonnage limit but the problem is people can and will abuse those. The community will find the optimum team builds around that weight limit and just run it constantly. Plus private matches get the ability to set tonnage limits as well.

Davers, on 01 March 2014 - 05:03 PM, said:

Or with there not being 9 assault mechs every match we may find they didn't need additional buffs at all.

This is true. Right now with so many Heavy and Assault mechs on the battlefield there simply hasn't been a place for Medium class mechs. Hopefully we see a rise in their use and ability after this patch.

[TercieI]

wanderer, on 01 March 2014 - 11:11 PM, said:

3-3-3-3 wasn't needed.

Randomizing weight classes and applying it to both sides was needed.

One match could be 12-0-0-0 for all I care, as long as the next one is different and the other side is also 12-0-0-0 for the match I'm in now.

This. 3-3-3-3 is going to be really repetitive. 2-4 tolerance at the very least.

[MuonNeutrino]

In my personal opinion, 3/3/3/3 is the best proposed addition to the game I've seen in at least 6 months. I will have my blackjack go out and freaking piss on the grave of the '4 highlander premade' when this finally comes in. There is no problem that 3/3/3/3 could possibly cause that would be worse than the absurd plague of assault mechs it will fix. I will take almost *anything* when I can be guaranteed that I will never see another team with 10 assault mechs on it. The days of spending 80% of every game chipping futilely at kiloton-range walls of armor will finally be gone, and good riddance.

As a bonus, when I play in a duo with a buddy, the group matching will ensure that we'll never get a 4-man on our team and almost never have one on the enemy team either. Best way of avoiding competitive team premades yet! (No insult intended to most of you, but it's really not fun playing with you as a solo player who likes medium mechs.)

Edited by MuonNeutrino, 02 March 2014 - 09:36 AM.

[TB Freelancer]

MuonNeutrino, on 02 March 2014 - 09:36 AM, said:

In my personal opinion, 3/3/3/3 is the best proposed addition to the game I've seen in at least 6 months. I will have my blackjack go out and freaking piss on the grave of the '4 highlander premade' when this finally comes in.

To be honest, from what I see there aren't restrictions being placed on 4 mans other than the 3 limit of one weight class. So 3 DDCs or 3 JJ capable assaults + either a JJ heavy or a light, its pretty much going to be business as usual. Actually things will become even easier because at best the enemy team could match it with odds significantly in favor of the 4 man facing a 2 or 3 man not maxing out the top end of the team's class restrictions.

...that said, its something PGI will pay attention to and eventually fix if there are imbalances, though unless they are truly major I suspect it would take months before they ever do anything.

[PenitentTangent]

I really want a matching of 3/4/3/2 instead. Makes Assaults more threatening, adds more mediums.

[Imperius]

pbiggz, on 01 March 2014 - 03:19 PM, said:

I dont have a problem with class match making. My problem is with the lack of 2-12 sized groups. The rest of the promosed launch module actually seems quite good.

Agreed!

[TehSBGX]

Bagheera, on 01 March 2014 - 11:01 PM, said:

Not really seeing how that follows. At most there can be 3 mediums in any deck. I see 3 commonly as it is. Usually SHDs or CDAs, but they are there. I don't claim to play with the cool kids or anything, but this doesn't really change much of anything for mediums from where I am sitting with my fishing rod controller.

I think we might be in different ELO brackets, Usually I'm the Only Medium and theres about 2 lights per team. Pretty much games consist of lots of heavies and assaults with me.

[xengk]

I like the idea of Class limit, but would like to see more flexibly in the limit.
Instead of a hard 3/3/3/3 cap, allow for 4/4/4/4 cap with 1 being the minimum for each Class.

That way the match is less predictable, you will never know are there 4 Assault or 1 Assault on the other team until you scout them out. Light gets to keep their scouting job.
It will also ease up MM to throw a match together faster, instead of waiting for 10 minutes because there is a lack of medium mech in the population to fill the 3 cap.

A worst case scenario would be 3 Assault/4 Heavy/1 Medium/4 Lights, which is still alot better than 3 Assault/3 Heavy/6 Light or the extreme 6 Assault/6 Light.


Premade that want to play 5+ Assault or 12 Firestarter will have to go to private match and leave the PUGverse alone.

[Bagheera]

TehSBGX, on 02 March 2014 - 04:14 PM, said:

I think we might be in different ELO brackets, Usually I'm the Only Medium and theres about 2 lights per team. Pretty much games consist of lots of heavies and assaults with me.

I'll grant that, I'm probably the very definition of average in the ELO scale. Of course by standard bell curve distribution average should be in the majority, but maybe that invokes too much assumption.

3/3/3/3 changes effectively nothing for the average player save to make every drop even more homogeneous.

I, for one, welcome our new 3HGN/3CTF/3SHD/2FSR+1ECM overlords.

[GoManGo]

What's the point of saying Its going to be lame or stupid o whatever? PGI is going to do what they think is right to kill this game off in a unprofitable way.Just being sarcastic there hahaha.Anyways the solutions were simple make multiplayer like MechWarrior 4 was and leave the MM-ELO-whatever for the pugs to play. Lights out game over MWO.

[Therrinian]

the reason the OP described is exactly why we need 3/3/3/3

I welcome the change and anticipate much better balance.
no more 10 HGNs and 2 spider games, or swarms of light.

both are unbalanced and will be resolved.

should be interesting to see all classes on the battlefield.


Medium pilots will probably get the shortest queues

[wanderer]

Terciel1976, on 02 March 2014 - 06:40 AM, said:

This. 3-3-3-3 is going to be really repetitive. 2-4 tolerance at the very least.

And that's the point.

Any class limitation will break the assault-meta just fine- if you can't always depend on six zillion of them, so be it. If one match has 1 assault and 11 lights, that's cool- as long as the next one is different and the other side has the same limitations.

3-3-3-3 creates a static unit configuration, just a different one. OK, only 3 assaults? Hello 3x Highlander every time all the time. Boooring. Predictable unit layouts lead to predictable meta units.

Edited by wanderer, 03 March 2014 - 11:44 AM.

[Ronious]

3-3-3-3 seems like the solution of the guy who waited until the last minute to work on the assignment (i know, I am that guy). I'm not looking forward to groundhog mechs. A balancing system based on overall weight should be implemented. Not that that is the save all. True balance lies in the skill of the pilot, not the class of the mech. I can only predict a more rigid meta game. ......sigh.......

Edited by Ronious, 03 March 2014 - 02:52 PM.

[Felio]

Hah I was ready to be all, "Nope, I like 3-3-3-3, grump grump grump," but then I saw the OP.

Edited by Felio, 03 March 2014 - 03:26 PM.

[TB Freelancer]

xengk, on 02 March 2014 - 09:57 PM, said:

I like the idea of Class limit, but would like to see more flexibly in the limit.
Instead of a hard 3/3/3/3 cap, allow for 4/4/4/4 cap with 1 being the minimum for each Class.

Yeah I'd like to see a little wiggle room, and to be honest I think PGI might introduce some in the future once they've seen how it affects the balance of the game.

I'm tired of seeing mainly assault/heavy with the occasional light swarm and sometimes wild tonnage imbalances. For now strictly enforced 3/3/3/3 limit are just fine by me.

[Dirus Nigh]

PGI is trying to address the issue of uneven drops. That is the most important thing right now. We need to give the upcoming drop restrictions an honest try and see how it goes. PGI can always try some thing different later on.

[Ryoken]

I also like the idea of 3-3-3-3.

I see this as a start and I also think we could get a
3lights
4mediums
3heavy
2assault
system or something a tad flexible:
2-3lights
3-4mediums
2-3heavy
1-2assault
+1 wildcard