86 replies to this topic

[Navy Sixes]

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.

Edited by Tycho von Gagern, 26 February 2014 - 09:16 PM.

[Lupin]

My problem is that a 4 man group could still drop 4 of the same Mech. Which would make 3 from each class pointless.

It's the margin of error between teams using 3 from each class, lowest 600t vs highest 795t. So we will still need balance by weight.
Also will this restrict variety in?

[Chemie]

Lupin, on 27 February 2014 - 01:36 AM, said:

My problem is that a 4 man group could still drop 4 of the same Mech. Which would make 3 from each class pointless.

It's the margin of error between teams using 3 from each class, lowest 600t vs highest 795t. So we will still need balance by weight.
Also will this restrict variety in?

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.

[wanderer]

Note my sig- there's a reason I want 5 tiers, not four.

Also, the solution is not just making every game 3-3-3-3. The solution is mixing that up, as long as both sides get the same tiering loadout.

And yes,ANY filter becomes less efficient as the number of players decreases. That there's a problem is a red flag for player retention in MWO.

[Noesis]

The arrangement (2A/3H/4M/3L) marries with the understanding of the demographics of BT better than 3/3/3/3 and helps to bring the relevance of various tech more in line with the similar precedents the entire game is designed on.

This since this composition better reflects the average BT encounter and the IS economy where mediums are the workhorse and Assaults are actually quite rare. In fact I feel generous putting 2A in there since they are supposed to be pivotal Mechs but the above spread at least skewed as it is better reflects how the apportionment of classes would appear if specific restrictions are needed to be applied as a necessary evil.

Tonnage restrictions and (2A/?H/?M/?L) limits combined might be a more flexible arrangement to offer more diversity for tactics with at least less predictable or prescriptive fielding of Mechs. This since of course knowing the limited composition of Mech class distributions before the game even starts removes some importance or value from information warfare and recon.

[Mycrus]

I will take a commando over Jenner any day...
But yes locusts need love

[Willard Phule]

Noesis, on 27 February 2014 - 04:29 AM, said:

The arrangement (2A/3H/4M/3L) marries with the understanding of the demographics of BT better than 3/3/3/3 and helps to bring the relevance of various tech more in line with the similar precedents the entire game is designed on.

This since this composition better reflects the average BT encounter and the IS economy where mediums are the workhorse and Assaults are actually quite rare. In fact I feel generous putting 2A in there since they are supposed to be pivotal Mechs but the above spread at least skewed as it is better reflects how the apportionment of classes would appear if specific restrictions are needed to be applied as a necessary evil.

Tonnage restrictions and (2A/?H/?M/?L) limits combined might be a more flexible arrangement to offer more diversity for tactics with at least less predictable or prescriptive fielding of Mechs. This since of course knowing the limited composition of Mech class distributions before the game even starts removes some importance or value from information warfare and recon.

Couldn't agree more. +5.

One of the major demographics that has been completely ignored by MW:O is economy. In the BT universe, Medium 'mechs were the MOST used because they were inexpensive to produce and maintain, carried more firepower than a light and had respectable mobility.

The problem that we have here in MW:O with regard to economy is that everything is approached from a Merc's point of view. We are required to own our own mechs and can't transfer cbills or equipment to other people. Essentially, we are all "lone wolves," regardless of affiliation.

In the BT universe, the majority of mechwarriors from house units didn't own their own 'mech. It was issued to them. Same goes for a lot of the larger Merc units.

Perhaps, if they ever develop the functionality to allow the trading of cbills and equipment, everything will change. Units will be able to stockpile cbills and equipment to keep the unit functioning long after individuals have cycled out of the unit. Who knows? As for now, it's just a pipe dream.

I just think that constraining the MM to pick a particular number of any given weight class is going to be more than it can handle. We've seen that it can't even handle putting together matches simply based on Elo. Constraining it to a 3/3/3/3 limitation feels like it's going to be a logistical nightmare.

The current opinion of how this is going to work (which I personally feel is way too optimistic) is some kind of lobby system where you pick X number of 'mechs from each weight class, enter a lobby and....then what? Each weight class is a first come, first served click the button thing? If you've got a low ping, you're going to get whatever weight class is left over? I have no idea, man. What I do know is that you're probably going to have to have each and every mech completely set up before you play. I don't know about you, but I have a limited number of modules and/or engines that I swap out between different 'mechs. If I choose to play a support role that is LRM based, I'm only going to have one Advanced Target Decay to use...and I probably won't be able to swap it out before the drop.

I think it would be a LOT easier, overall, if it simply made sure that each team had an equal number of each weight class on it. We know it already tracks Elos for each weight class, so that's obviously not an issue. Hell, who knows, two teams of nothing but Mediums/Lights might actually be interesting....far more interesting than what we've got already.

[East Indy]

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

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.

Not necessarily. If weight class average tonnage is relevant, a team can be made up of multiple combinations.

PGI could also introduce a "call to arms"-style notice that tells players which classes are in most need.

As to the OP, in nearly all matches, outside of a couple shunned/problematic 'Mechs, good players can beat opponents within weight class regardless of respective tonnage.

[East Indy]

Quote

Each weight class is a first come, first served click the button thing?

No, Ekman seemed to explain that they'd moved away from that. Under this system, you'd queue by selecting a weight class as if it were an MMO role (healer, tank, DPS), and then the matchmaker would slot your group into a team as needed. From there, you would ready one of your 'Mechs in the class.

Actually, per the MMO roles, if you could indicate willingness to play any of two weight classes, teams could be matched even more quickly.

Edited by East Indy, 27 February 2014 - 06:43 AM.

[Johnny Z]

They didnt decide the 3/3/3/3 mechanic. Battletech did really. The 4 weight classes going into 3 lances of 4 mechs is the most expedient and logical way to go. At this point it is a good move.

At some point to see "recon" and "assault" etc lances added instead, similar to bt would be nice. But maybe this mechanic could come with merc company make up or even be added with faction ranks or so.

There would be some debate but I think a BT recon lance in mechwarrior online would look like 3 lights and a medium? Assault lance 2 heavies and 2 assaults?

I am sure they thought about going this route, which would be more lore friendly considering the rarity and expense and difficulty of fielding assaults. But this would change the game drastically, going from mostly assaults dropping to barely any.

Anyway this is the first step of faction warfare they are adding with the launch module. Who knows what the next 2 updates to faction warfare will look like at this point.

Edited by Johnny Z, 27 February 2014 - 07:00 AM.

[Willard Phule]

East Indy, on 27 February 2014 - 06:40 AM, said:

No, Ekman seemed to explain that they'd moved away from that. Under this system, you'd queue by selecting a weight class as if it were an MMO role (healer, tank, DPS), and then the matchmaker would slot your group into a team as needed. From there, you would ready one of your 'Mechs in the class.

Actually, per the MMO roles, if you could indicate willingness to play any of two weight classes, teams could be matched even more quickly.

Ok, that makes more sense. And, since it's a lobby and has to wait until filled before it drops, it makes even more sense. Not sure if I buy into the whole 3/3/3/3 concept, though. I think that as long as each team has an equal number of each class, it's close enough...and probably easier for deal with.

[Mechteric]

Weight class limits are better than no limits at all.... but it still means some mechs will always be on the short end of the stick. The Awesome for example, Locust also because they are at the very bottom of their class and not good enough compared to others in their class to make up for it (like the Victor or Blackjack).

I guess if they could plan on giving these bottom rung mechs some absolutely amazing quirks then it could help bring them up a bit.

Edited by CapperDeluxe, 27 February 2014 - 06:56 AM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

This 3x3x3x3 approach has upsides and downsides... it will cause people to wait for Medium Pilots to queue-up, since Heavies tend to be better on a Mech-by-Mech basis and are fielded more often. Also, there will be no role for the Locust - The whole purpose of the Locust in MW:O is to free-up Team Tonnage so your teammates can drop in something bigger.

At least there won't be teams consisting simply of 6 Highlanders and 6 Spiders (creating an average Mech weight of 60t), and this 3x3x3x3 scheme will make Mediums have a role on the field - that role will be to distinguish yourself as a superior pilot in a smaller Mech compared to those who rely on bigger equipment to float themselves.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 27 February 2014 - 06:58 AM.

[wanderer]

That's why I think simply going 3-3-3-3 is "meh".

Mix it up. Randomize the number of each weight class or tier by match and then slot players accordingly- just make sure whatever one side gets, so does the other.

I have no problems with occasional matches of 10 lights and 2 mediums, for example. Or a brute-force assaults-only matchup. Have the MM check first for groups that can fill part of the requirements, then slot solo players into the gaps.

[Johnny Z]

wanderer, on 27 February 2014 - 07:13 AM, said:

That's why I think simply going 3-3-3-3 is "meh".

Mix it up. Randomize the number of each weight class or tier by match and then slot players accordingly- just make sure whatever one side gets, so does the other.

I have no problems with occasional matches of 10 lights and 2 mediums, for example. Or a brute-force assaults-only matchup. Have the MM check first for groups that can fill part of the requirements, then slot solo players into the gaps.

Its likely we will see assault class and medium class only matches, but that will be on Solaris well after the faction warfare is added from what has been said.

[Bagheera]

Sorry to say but this is the easy out, very unfortunate choice.

Opinion: Total snooze fest. So much for trying out interesting drop decks within a max tonnage per lance/team.

[FupDup]

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.

[Navy Sixes]

wanderer, on 27 February 2014 - 07:13 AM, said:

Mix it up. Randomize the number of each weight class or tier by match and then slot players accordingly- just make sure whatever one side gets, so does the other. I have no problems with occasional matches of 10 lights and 2 mediums, for example. Or a brute-force assaults-only matchup. Have the MM check first for groups that can fill part of the requirements, then slot solo players into the gaps.

I'm pretty sure this is what will be going on in the private queues, so you'll still be able to get that action if you look for it.

Noesis, on 27 February 2014 - 04:29 AM, said:

The arrangement (2A/3H/4M/3L) marries with the understanding of the demographics of BT better than 3/3/3/3 and helps to bring the relevance of various tech more in line with the similar precedents the entire game is designed on. This composition better reflects the average BT encounter and the IS economy where mediums are the workhorse and Assaults are actually quite rare.

I couldn't agree more. The thing is, I really think if you could get a lot of people out of these big mechs, they'd find they enjoy the game more. I think new players get kind of railroaded into thinking they have to go with a high-tonnage build to be "competitive," not realizing (or able to admit to themselves) that as new players, they are not "competitive" anyway, so why not get good in something special. I really had my heart set on tonnage limits because I thought they would make this happen.

Prosperity Park, on 27 February 2014 - 06:57 AM, said:

The whole purpose of the Locust in MW:O is to free-up Team Tonnage so your teammates can drop in something bigger.

See, that's what I'm talking about. With tonnage limits, not only are lighter mechs more attractive, but (in my opinion, far more important) the good pilots who can run them become gold dust. I started out in a 'cat and, when tonnage limits were announced, began working my way down. I figured if I ever wanted to get into an organization, being handy in a little Blackjack would be a good trick to know. With tonnage limits, crazy ******** like me in my Blackjack, or Mycrus...

Mycrus, on 27 February 2014 - 04:30 AM, said:

I will take a commando over Jenner any day...

aren't "weirdos" trying to be different. Ok, maybe I am a weirdo trying to be different. But the point is I would be a valuable weirdo trying to be different. The whole competitive mindset would have been turned upside down, and it would have made everything from 12-man competitives to 4-man prems in the PUG fresh and new again. Good teams would quit telling people, "If you don't run the heaviest, most optimized build possible, you're a drag on the team." Instead they'd be posting adds like this in the Merc forums: WANTED: Good Centurion (or smaller!) Pilot So We Can Fit Another Vic Into Our Lance. Good pilots would be the optimized meta, in whatever they ran, which is as it always should be.

*sigh* Well, that's not going to happen. So yeah, class limits. As I said originally, I don't want to get too judgmental until I see it in action. But the first time some know-it-all competitive wannabe in the PUG asks, "Why would you drag down the team by bringing a Blackjack? Don't you know the Shadowhawk is a better medium?" will definitely be a Thanks, PGI! moment!

[Mister Blastman]

Is there a transcript so I don't have to listen to the whole podcast?

[Mechteric]

Mister Blastman, on 27 February 2014 - 09:37 AM, said:

Is there a transcript so I don't have to listen to the whole podcast?

http://mwomercs.com/...-3-aired-22214/

Edited by CapperDeluxe, 27 February 2014 - 10:03 AM.