30 replies to this topic

[Lt Badger]

do we really need those 3v3v3v3?

i´ve played for many times and i ve never seen someone has said "damn, 6 assaults in enemy team" and we´ve 35 types of mechs now. it doesn´t really matter whether we´ve 4 lights in the team, and another team has 4 meds or heavys istead. choice of the mech and strategy depends on the game mode, the map and behavior of the adversary, the knowledge we fight against 3 mechs each class is not important and will not have a positive change to the gameplay, rather the gameplay will be more predictable and maybe boring, "we got that third assault, let us kill the three heavies now..." a little exaggerated, but is my opinion

what i see are problems with the match maker, i´ve to wait sometimes up to 15 min now to join a game and i don´t think it will be better with 3v3v3v3 especially with premade group e.g.trying to play skirmish with 3 light

i would say we don´t need it

[Thorn Hallis]

I don't know if MWO needs 3v3v3v3. What I know is that forcing something onto players is never a good thing. And I guess we all expect really long wait times once it hits the live servers, something I'm not looking forward to.

[xMEPHISTOx]

Lt Badger, on 27 June 2014 - 12:30 PM, said:

do we really need those 3v3v3v3?

No.
As a matter of fact, it will be more fail now with clans. Example, a group of 3 people who are not dropped into a group only queue (assuming that feature will even work) and all have TW's vs a team whos 3 heavies are comprised of a catapult, a jager and a cata...obviously the TW's have a distinctive advantage and as a result so does that team.

[Kampfer]

OP, what is your primary mech?

[Diablobo]

We need 4x3 because it sucks playing against a team that has 6 assaults while all you have is heavies and meds. It also goes the same for light swarms.

[xMEPHISTOx]

Diablobo, on 27 June 2014 - 01:05 PM, said:

We need 4x3 because it sucks playing against a team that has 6 assaults while all you have is heavies and meds. It also goes the same for light swarms.

I personally am a fan of a simple weight matching system over the far to complicated 4x3 system that PGI cant even get to work.

[TexAce]

Diablobo, on 27 June 2014 - 01:05 PM, said:

We need 4x3 because it sucks playing against a team that has 6 assaults while all you have is heavies and meds. It also goes the same for light swarms.

thats why we unfortunately need it. I'd rather have tonnage limits (500-775 tons for 12 mechs) than 4x3 but thats the way we are going now

Edited by TexAss, 27 June 2014 - 01:16 PM.

[Turboferret]

xMEPHISTOx, on 27 June 2014 - 01:13 PM, said:

I personally am a fan of a simple weight matching system over the far to complicated 4x3 system that PGI cant even get to work.

That's also not a terribly good solution, because if everyone sees 80% assault in queue, they'll know that by queuing assaults they'll find a game faster, and it's just a circle of assault-only circlejerk.

Unless you meant a *hard tonnage limit,* which I would be okay with, make it so there's a minimum of 8 players per side and a max of 12 and then balance by hard tonnage within a reasonable limit (800 tonnes for example) would be good.

[AlexEss]

Lt Badger, on 27 June 2014 - 12:30 PM, said:

do we really need those 3v3v3v3?


i would say we don´t need it

Let me guess.... You are a assault pilot.

Asa medium pilot i can say... Yes... yes we do... Perhaps not as a permanent solution but as a stop-gap solution to the insanity that is going on right now...

[Kampfer]

AlexEss, on 27 June 2014 - 01:16 PM, said:

Let me guess.... You are a assault pilot.

Asa medium pilot i can say... Yes... yes we do... Perhaps not as a permanent solution but as a stop-gap solution to the insanity that is going on right now...

As a light pilot I concur. I'm willing to be there are very few of these rule of 3 ***** posts started by light and med pilots.
I'd LOVE to see some numbers on what people play when they create these posts

[Soulslave]

3v3v3v3 is bad solution, it forces players to pilot an other mech than they want, than they have fun with.

Why not balancing the mech usage via C-Bill income? If the class is less choosen, for example only 15% medium mechs, then PGI could provide the medium pilots for example 20% addtional C-Bill income (2% more C-Bills per 1% below average 25% class pilots). Vice versa, if heavies have a 35 % usage on the servers, then change the C-Bill modifier to 0.8, so -20% C-Bills.

[627]

To be true, the few matches I had with 4x3 were pretty close and lots of fun.

At least better than 11 Assaults on one side (and yes I had that more than one time).

[Appogee]

You will find that 4x3 will make for more open and interesting gameplay.

My Merc Unit has been using the 4x3 rule for the past six months, and it's far more enjoyable than facing against or playing with 12 of the usual meta mechs.

To those who don't like playing different weight classes, I say: give it a try. It will develop your skills, and the different classes actually have different techniques needed for success. In a way, it makes MWO more like four different-flavoured Mech games.

What the game really needs however is more role-based rewards. One of the reasons people default to heavier chassis is that they tank and deal damage better, and damage is what earns more CBills. Lights and Mediums get too little reward for scouting and spotting.

MWLL also had a good payment scaling system, in which lighter Mechs got more CBills when they killed heavier Mechs.

Edited by Appogee, 27 June 2014 - 02:19 PM.

[GroovYChickeN]

While 4x3 may not be the best solution, it is a step in the correct direction. As a light/medium pilot I hate the mismatch that can happen when everyone wants to play an assault.

I personally think they need to figure out a way to assign a mech a BV per a combination of speed/armor/loadout/weight and balance that way. No need to restrict class as long as both sides are even.

I do however acknowledge that this would require weapon balance to be in a better spot than it is now and it probably wont improve too much more.

Edited by GroovYChickeN, 27 June 2014 - 02:23 PM.

[Lt Badger]

AlexEss, on 27 June 2014 - 01:16 PM, said:

Let me guess.... You are a assault pilot.

Asa medium pilot i can say... Yes... yes we do... Perhaps not as a permanent solution but as a stop-gap solution to the insanity that is going on right now...

i´m piloting all classes depending on the mood, i´ve a lot of fun with my death´s knell, arrow and cicadas and i´m also skilling my second stalker now
i quess we´ve more problems with those OP lrms (they´re still OP i think), we´ve much more distance fights and its better to buy lrm equipt assault than get killed by tons of lrms trying to get closer with a light, or med mech
the ability of your team and pilots skill are more important than the weight class of the enemies, its possible to turn nearby defeat with 3 to 7 into victory with 12 to 9, or make 809 dmg with loup de guerre (2 mpl, 4 ssrm 2) on thera terma and lose

[Roland]

xMEPHISTOx, on 27 June 2014 - 01:13 PM, said:

I personally am a fan of a simple weight matching system over the far to complicated 4x3 system that PGI cant even get to work.

The problem with the weight matching system is that medium weight mechs end up being left out in the cold, since they're basically the red-headed stepchild of the mechs right now.

Honestly, a functional battlevalue system is the only thing that will actually give you a real variety in mechs to field.. tonnage and weight class matchmaking merely push things towards a few optimal mechs for each class.

The new system won't increase the number of Awesomes, or locusts on the field.

It at least creates some utility for medium mechs though, so it's better than nothing.

[Ben Morgan]

After having played a game with 7(!!) Timber Wolves, 3 Dire Wolves, an Atlas and a Firestarter I have to agree, we do need something better than the current matchmaker. 4x3 may not be the best solution, but it is a solution. Even though I have comitted to only playing Clan Mechs for now, I really look forward to 4v3. The only class I don't play is lights, because the clans have nothing that can compare to the awesomeness of a 140kph jenner (I really would appreciate the dasher!). But I got my lightshow-nova for mediums, my brawling Timber Wolf with his lovely LBX-AC20 for heavies and an energysniper warhawk/Brawlhawk for assault. Until PGI thinks of something better I will be happy with 4x3. Hopefully.

[xMEPHISTOx]

Roland, on 27 June 2014 - 03:01 PM, said:

The problem with the weight matching system is that medium weight mechs end up being left out in the cold, since they're basically the red-headed stepchild of the mechs right now.

Honestly, a functional battlevalue system is the only thing that will actually give you a real variety in mechs to field.. tonnage and weight class matchmaking merely push things towards a few optimal mechs for each class.

The new system won't increase the number of Awesomes, or locusts on the field.

It at least creates some utility for medium mechs though, so it's better than nothing.

The new system will not 'increase' usage of anything I don't think.
They cannot force someone to play anything other than what they want to play.
Result may be longer wait times if what one wants to play is over used and end up just logging off due to excessive wait times.
Not sure that I have heard anything of a 'functional battle value system', or what its parameters of 'value' would be.

Edited by xMEPHISTOx, 27 June 2014 - 03:20 PM.

[Nikkoru]

Kampfer, on 27 June 2014 - 01:50 PM, said:

As a light pilot I concur. I'm willing to be there are very few of these rule of 3 ***** posts started by light and med pilots.
I'd LOVE to see some numbers on what people play when they create these posts

Setting aside for a moment the fact that you are named after a hentai about a boy who transforms into a lesbian magical school girl....

...yes, I agree with you, people seem to base their opinion on this matter based on how it will affect them personally rather than considering the balance of the game.

Edited by Nikkoru, 27 June 2014 - 03:41 PM.

[Pariah Devalis]

Class based games have, historically, not been adverse to limiting what you can take in a given drop, with the exception of more recent games, that is. MWO could really benefit from stressing role warfare a bit more, however, considering they want to impose such a thing. More perks for a light mech scouting. More perks for an assault mech actually assaulting. People doing the jobs their mechs were designed to do for their weight class being equally and properly rewarded.

Having said that, moving from a class based matching system to a tonnage based matching system is a terrible idea that was already tried and tested in the live servers. You want to know what happened? Mechs which were not the most effective use of a weight class were not often taken, and variety suffered. People optimized their drop weights, and if you took anything beyond that you were considered a liability to the team because of it.

If a max weight per drop system was set, with total mech selection freedom, you essentially go back to the Class limiting because a given game cannot support over X amount of Y mech class just due to scarcity of tonnage. If a fixed drop limit is known, with availability per class listed like it is in the launch button, at least you can know what your options are. This is a team game, and some degree of flexibility is required to play as a team.

After all, there is no "i" in team, unless you are an A hole. Seriously, look at the holes in the letter A. There is an "i" in there.



Now, what I do know? The few 4x3 games I played? The dynamics of the fights were much improved. No 'hill of 9 poptarts' going on. No 800 tons of raw assault mech insanity on one team and not the other. No scads of light mechs running around like headless chickens (or well organized killer swarms). Medium mechs had a solid place. You had an idea of what you could expect, but more importantly the forced weight class variety also brought about a huge increase in individual mech variety as well. It all lead to a very positive gameplay shift.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 27 June 2014 - 04:03 PM.