65 replies to this topic

[ImperialKnight]

In my opinion, I don't care if a team has 12 assaults or 12 lights, as long as the tonnage between the 2 teams are relatively balanced.

I don't have a good number so I'll throw one out there, say 5% variance. Taking extremes for example. A team with 12 Atlas will not be matched with a team with less than 1140 tons. A team with 12 Locusts cannot be matched with a team heavier than 252 tons.

Taking something in the middle, a team of 12 SHDs cannot be matched with a team more than 693 tons or less than 627 tons.

This way, premades are still free to take whatever they want and everyone knows the teams will be relatively balanced in terms of tonnage.

Of course, ELO does not go away.


Not sure if this is popular opinion over 3/3/3/3

[SpiralFace]

I like tonnage limits alot.

I'm GLAD they are keeping them for private premium games and wish that ALL private games (including the free ones,) have acess to it over 3/3/3/3.

3/3/3/3 is a compromise to the reality that PUGs DO NOT have the collections or the ability to coordinate to the point that everyone will be happy. Raw tonnage limits would have seen the first few players who drop into the lobby hog the assault mechs in the upper tonnages and then FORCE the other players who joined to use lower tonned mechs.

In addition, it wouldn't be fair on new players. If you dropped into a game where you NEEDED to equip a locust to compensate for the atlas players, but don't own one, it subjugates you to un-needed bickering and trolling which is the LAST thing this game needs. There is enough venom going around as it is. Having something to compound on it is not good for the game or the community.

3/3/3/3 has its issues, and I have a STRONG feeling that assault players are going to be subjugated to longer wait times because so many people pilot assaults. But I think for the PUG scene, this is probably the best solution they can have that gets the lists "somewhat" balanced, while allowing players to play the game with the mechs that they want.

I wish raw tonnage was more feasible, but sadly, because so many of their pugs are solo droppers, I don't think it is.

[Charons Little Helper]

I think if they did use tonnage limits - it would need to be by lance rather than by company.

Different sized lances could have different tonnage limits (and require leaving X tons for each player yet to pick)

You would then que up for what lance type you want to join. (scout / attack / assault etc)

[ImperialKnight]

tonnage balancing =/= tonnage limits

there are no limits to what you can bring in what i am proposing, you are free to bring whatever you like and want to play with. The game just balances out the 2 teams using Solos.

E.g. One premade lance brings 4 HGN, while the other premade brings 4 Spiders. The game matches them against each other but pulls solo players such that the tonnage between the 2 teams are balanced.

Edited by knightsljx, 10 March 2014 - 06:20 AM.

[smokefield]

hopefully there wont be any limitations in private games.

[Escef]

Weight classes are quite arbitrary, so I don't have high expectations for this 3/3/3/3 business. Tonnage balancing is also rather stupid, because you are not going to convince me that a stock Awesome and a kitted out Victor have equal battle field performance, nor that a Locust and Highlander duo would have much luck against a pair of Shadowhawks.

I think we should have some kind of Battle Value system (assign mechs a score based upon damage capacity, heat efficiency, armor, speed, and jets), modified by the player's ELO.

[Moromillas]

You're thinking too narrowly. Those each are just one way to try and make the teams more even, putting a versus between the two is bizarre. Quarters, will also have the added bonus of a greater variety of Mechs on the field.

[ImperialKnight]

why is a versus bizarre? a 3/3/3/3 system is exclusive from tonnage balancing. A 3/3/3/3 system still allows for a maximum deviation of tonnage between 2 teams by up to 260 tons.

I would also argue that 3/3/3/3 would decrease the variety of mechs on the field. As people would be dropping in mechs on the upper range in each weight class.

The 3/3/3/3 is also a highly restrictive system which is bound to increase search times for games. What about players that don't own mechs in all weight classes? Suddenly they are stuck with long search times. A F2P player only has 4 mech bays. Are they going to HAVE to buy one mech in each weight class now?

also, going by how lazy the devs are at doing core mechanics, we can pretty much forget about battle values. tonnage balancing is a much easier system to implement.

Edited by knightsljx, 11 March 2014 - 03:28 PM.

[King Arthur IV]

ton balancing cause i like having more options and creativity among different groups.

i would go as far to say i like ton balancing with a limit (the original idea that pgi told us) because im not a huge fan of extremely heavy teams because the game play is boring since the mechs are so immobile.

some people are worried about min maxing of 6 assault and 6 lights but tbh i think those kinds of min maxing have counters and it is way more interesting to watch how teams evolve from one make up to another.

[Malcolm Reynolds]

Ok so were get less C-bills now so buying mechs is harder and now 3/3/3/3 so pick a class and stick with it PGI does not want your money or your happiness

[Ovion]

The best suggestion I saw, was a 2-4 system.

So min 2/2/2/2, then the remaining 4 could be +0-2 of each type.
This ensures a reasonably even spread of classes, and allows for reasonable variety too, rahter than (an honestly unfluffy) flat 3/3/3/3 system.

[Moromillas]

knightsljx, on 11 March 2014 - 03:21 PM, said:

why is a versus bizarre? a 3/3/3/3 system is exclusive from tonnage balancing.

No it's not, who told you that?

Very hard to see replies if I'm not quoted.

[Bhael Fire]

Ultimately it's a matter of manageable wait times.

3/3/3/3 will bring a modicum of balance while also keeping wait times between matches reasonable.

[Rebas Kradd]

People are going to be shocked by how little tonnage limits do to stop stomps. It has nothing to do with tonnage 80% of the time.

[Davers]

Tonnage matching might just be too restrictive. When you divide by Elo and faction (eventually), finding a match in reasonable time will be too difficult.

[Craig Steele]

Rebas Kradd, on 02 April 2014 - 12:31 PM, said:

People are going to be shocked by how little tonnage limits do to stop stomps. It has nothing to do with tonnage 80% of the time.

Well, its also got a lot to do with the number of teams vs solo drops alot of the time which the new structure is going to reduce the impact of as well.

But maybe, in game comms will be the big equaliser imo, but that does not seem to be on the radar yet.

[Dark Jackal]

I do AGREE something better should be done. I prefer a flat bulk tonnage is out per lance and they should discuss with themselves how to fit what 'Mechs within their allotment. After all, the whole Merc Unit with the 18.88 million for a dropship, there is no real excuse not to put that responsibility to the lance to figure it out for themselves.

In other words, Lance 1, 2, 3 each has 200 tons for this drop, work it out within your team and get it done.

As it stands now, there is no excuse not to maximize tonnages with Herman Cain's 3,3,3,3 plan which if I had the time I would sound byte that into MWO. So we're looking at 3 100t, 3 75t, 3 55t, and 3 35t looking to provide the most bang for the tonnage available. Why lose the alloted tonnage to take a 40t medium instead of a 55t medium? We have a potential to ostricize a certain amount of 'Mechs that does not so easily fit into such a flat number.

[Jman5]

Who says they have to do one or the other? They're doing both 3/3/3/3 and tonnage balancing so it doesn't just reward people for bringing the largest from each category.

[Bobzilla]

Dark Jackal, on 03 April 2014 - 07:59 AM, said:

I do AGREE something better should be done. I prefer a flat bulk tonnage is out per lance and they should discuss with themselves how to fit what 'Mechs within their allotment. After all, the whole Merc Unit with the 18.88 million for a dropship, there is no real excuse not to put that responsibility to the lance to figure it out for themselves.

In other words, Lance 1, 2, 3 each has 200 tons for this drop, work it out within your team and get it done.

As it stands now, there is no excuse not to maximize tonnages with Herman Cain's 3,3,3,3 plan which if I had the time I would sound byte that into MWO. So we're looking at 3 100t, 3 75t, 3 55t, and 3 35t looking to provide the most bang for the tonnage available. Why lose the alloted tonnage to take a 40t medium instead of a 55t medium? We have a potential to ostricize a certain amount of 'Mechs that does not so easily fit into such a flat number.

Actually with the meta going on its going to be 3 80t, 3 70t, 3 40t and a mix between 30 and 35 t.

Overall from what i see, more vic's than any other assault, more phracts than any other heavy by far, and cicada's are the most popular medium. Maybe the 3L will be more popular than the 5D but i see more spiders then any other light.

And don't forget, the ebb and flow of the game will change witht the restrictions, so maybe there will be more or less of demands on certain chasis due to this change.

By your own logic, tonnage balancing would just force 12 100t so you for sure aren't going to be down 200+tons (or whatever the op's sugestion was).

Edited by Bobzilla, 03 April 2014 - 11:07 AM.

[Dark Jackal]

Bobzilla, on 03 April 2014 - 11:02 AM, said:

Actually with the meta going on its going to be 3 80t, 3 70t, 3 40t and a mix between 30 and 35 t.

Overall from what i see, more vic's than any other assault, more phracts than any other heavy by far, and cicada's are the most popular medium. Maybe the 3L will be more popular than the 5D but i see more spiders then any other light.

And don't forget, the ebb and flow of the game will change witht the restrictions, so maybe there will be more or less of demands on certain chasis due to this change.

From where I was coming from, it was oriented from the topic of "premade teams" and why I made references specifically to the 18.88 million it costs to raise for a dropship in order to what amounts to a single dropship token. 12 of these tokens buys you one of these dropships. Once again, I was clearly referring to pre-made teams.

As it stands now, the 3/3/3/3 would at least go towards better balancing PUG matches as I've been in a few very lopsided matches with the solo queue (both losing and winning).

Quote

By your own logic, tonnage balancing would just force 12 100t so you for sure aren't going to be down 200+tons (or whatever the op's sugestion was).

So you mean to tell me from how you calculate maths, that you can fit 12 100t 'Mechs with only 600tons allotted between 3 lances each with a 200 ton limit? Please show us this math.