467 replies to this topic

[PanzerFurrry]

This just in



MatchMaking Status:
LIGHT: 3%
MEDIUM: 25%
HEAVY: 39%
ASSAULT: 33%

[MonkeyCheese]

PanzerFurrry, on 06 July 2014 - 03:02 AM, said:

This just in



MatchMaking Status:
LIGHT: 3%
MEDIUM: 25%
HEAVY: 39%
ASSAULT: 33%

I know lights are having shorter waiting times cus there are less of them for the matchmaker to chew thu and then there are different amounts of players in different time zones but that is just sad. T__T

[CheeseThief]

The numbers were at 3% for both lights and mediums before.

[Jon Gotham]

Have at that lol, 1% lousy percent. 58% of derpers though....Go big or go home:)
Sad thing is, I was in a kit fox......

[Cavendish]

Rebas Kradd, on 05 July 2014 - 10:06 AM, said:

Mechs aren't supposed to be equally strong. They're just supposed to be equally valuable. They can't be on small maps, and I'm pretty sure that even when they are, there's not a lot of publicity about the bonuses available.

I belive this is the main issue, a lot of the players seem to think that "if I can kill something in a Dire Wolf, the Awesome should kill things just as fast because assults!", for them "balance" means you can do anything in any mech.

As you point out, the current issue is that all mechs can not be equally valuable due to the scenario/map design/reward system.

[dario03]

Mainhunter, on 05 July 2014 - 08:00 AM, said:

But they use first the big Mechs. I don't need to tell, you see it everyday on the servers. Before the last patch, I saw 4-men Mad Cat drops en mass. Also allot Dire Wolfe's.

Who said all Mechs are equal strong?

I would say the Timber Wolf is pushing that heavy % up a good bit currently. But hasn't the class % counter been in longer than clan mechs? I was pretty sure it was and almost every time I look at it lights and mediums are at the bottom. There has been a few times where they weren't but not many.

[Bront]

Khobai, on 04 July 2014 - 06:45 AM, said:

Game needs to give a cbill adjustment based on usage %.

So like 25%-actual usage = cbill adjustment %

So if light mechs are used 6% of the time then 25%-6% = +19% cbill adjustment

If heavy mechs are used 33% of the time then 25%-33% = -8% cbill adjustment

So youd get 27% more cbills for using a light instead of a heavy, at least till it evened out.

Never penalize, but I like the idea of a slight boost in earnings for piloting the "mechs in need".

Usually light/mediums were around 15-22%, with mediums being the lower of the two. I really do think the clans have skewed that a bit, both in clan lights not being that exciting, and clan firepower making lights harder to pilot successfully.

[kapusta11]

When you have 1 life and 1 mech per game playing in something that has less armor, less firepower and speed advantage is just not enough to compensate anything... the choice is kinda obvious.

Edited by kapusta11, 06 July 2014 - 08:31 AM.

[Gorgo7]

Big new maps. Say 10km x 10km.

That would go along way towards increasing the scouting roles of Lights and Meds.

Alas alak! At the end of the day it's a game of destruction. Killing, if you will.

XP and cash rewards are valueless when there is nothing to buy but larger mechs.

Repair and rearm will act as moderators if re-implemented. However it will produce an elite and drive off less skilled players who cannot afford to regularly run Assault and Heavy mechs.

We should stop worrying about the perceived lack of lights and instead insist that they develop larger maps, community warfare (which would include a tepid R&R)and perhaps convoys or bunkers to be destroyed within a set time for a bonus victory condition involving capping the world faster.

Making Lights more capable of killing everything or everything less capable of killing lights is ridiculous.
Tonnage is the great equalizer.
If there are battles that require 1 assault, 2 heavy, 3 med and 6 lights you will see a lot of lights.
Thus, you get mandated playing. That's another issue.
There is no easy answer except to play what you wish. The weight types are pretty well balanced for skilled players. Those who lack the experience or skills will gravitate to those they find easiest to play. In my case that is mediums followed by heavies and split between assaults and lights.

Bigger Maps. It would go a long way.

[Jon Gotham]

Agreed Gorgo7. Having larger maps with spread out objectives that MATTER might dissuade people from always derping the heaviest they can field.

[Alistair Winter]

kamiko kross, on 06 July 2014 - 03:43 AM, said:

Have at that lol, 1% lousy percent. 58% of derpers though....Go big or go home:)
Sad thing is, I was in a kit fox......

Uh, that's just natural because the queues are designed, I mean, it doesn't necessarily say anything about uh... and you know, everyone has to level their new heavy clan mechs first because... it's... don't worry about it. Everything is fine.

[stjobe]

Alistair Winter, on 06 July 2014 - 02:03 PM, said:

Uh, that's just natural because the queues are designed, I mean, it doesn't necessarily say anything about uh... and you know, everyone has to level their new heavy clan mechs first because... it's... don't worry about it. Everything is fine.

Are you channelling Paul again? Or is it Bryan?

[Strum Wealh]

kamiko kross, on 06 July 2014 - 03:43 AM, said:

Have at that lol, 1% lousy percent. 58% of derpers though....Go big or go home:)
Sad thing is, I was in a kit fox......

Alistair Winter, on 06 July 2014 - 02:03 PM, said:

Uh, that's just natural because the queues are designed, I mean, it doesn't necessarily say anything about uh... and you know, everyone has to level their new heavy clan mechs first because... it's... don't worry about it. Everything is fine.

To be fair, the second chassis I have is the Quickdraw (the only other chassis I have is the Centurion), and I've been working on those.

[Alistair Winter]

stjobe, on 06 July 2014 - 02:11 PM, said:

Are you channelling Paul again? Or is it Bryan?

I don't know what you mean by channeling. I tried to have a discussion with Bryan here, but he wasn't having any of it, unfortunately.

To be honest, my comment was directed more at the fans who were scrambling to explain these numbers. I had a pretty good idea that PGI's answer would be "we're looking into it", though I was hoping for more informaation.

Strum Wealh, on 06 July 2014 - 02:11 PM, said:

To be fair, the second chassis I have is the Quickdraw (the only other chassis I have is the Centurion), and I've been working on those.

Hehe, that must be what's wrong.

[Sandpit]

Alistair Winter, on 06 July 2014 - 02:17 PM, said:

I don't know what you mean by channeling. I tried to have a discussion with Bryan here, but he wasn't having any of it, unfortunately.

To be honest, my comment was directed more at the fans who were scrambling to explain these numbers. I had a pretty good idea that PGI's answer would be "we're looking into it", though I was hoping for more informaation.


Hehe, that must be what's wrong.

I don't know that it's even people defending it. I think it's more of "I am having fun with the game so I don't see any reason to change anything"

That's generally how anythign in life will go. The people who are content with what they have don't want anything changed. People are creatures of habit so anything that disrupts their routine is "bad". We all forget sometimes that our individual experiences do not always reflect the majority's experiences.

Of course you have the "I love PGI" crowd that refuses to accept that they make mistakes or some of their ideas simply aren't "good" when viewed impartially.

[BourbonFaucet]

Can't we just offer a percentage C-Bill bonus called a "Queue Bonus" if you pick a 'Mech in a more sparse weight class?

Offering double C-Bills for playing a light when there's only 1%... along with premium and a hero mech?

You'd get 600,000 a game.

Suddenly human greed causes a queue balance.

[stjobe]

Alistair Winter, on 06 July 2014 - 02:17 PM, said:

I don't know what you mean by channeling. I tried to have a discussion with Bryan here, but he wasn't having any of it, unfortunately.

I might have scared him away when I pointed out he'd said the exact same thing a year ago ("our short-term plan is to increase rewards")...

Also, channelling is new-age psychic mumbo-jumbo where you let the "spirit" of someone else use your body to communicate.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Thunderfrog, on 03 July 2014 - 08:07 AM, said:

I dunno if it's a "lights suck, why play one?" or a "Moar dakka gunz!" issue.

Maybe people prefer more guns to speed?

I can't stand Assault mechs and almost always queue lights or mediums.

I think you hit the nail on the head for one of the main reason. People like seeing kills by their name and typically Heavies and Assaults are better at putting those kills there. Damage and assists just don't quite have the prestige of a kill and while lights. with good piloting, can put up just as good of damage numbers as a Heavy or Assault, they typically aren't that great at finishing off the enemy due to lack of alpha.

The other main reason is that lights typically require better piloting skills. This in and of itself is going to weed out alot of players. I mean even a relatively low skilled player can load up a Stalker with LRMs and Lasers and turn out respectable numbers but a low skilled player in a light mech is just going to find themselves dying over and over and over as they do everything wrongly.

So we have lower skilled players (remember 50% of the players in this game are going to be below average hehe) will find themselves not doing well in Lights. This will in turn make them gravitate to heavy and Assaults where they will have substantially better damage numbers and greater returns even if they still are playing below average. So this right here inflates the population of Heavy and Assault players by a huge margin. Then of the above average players, typically 50-60% of them will prefer to play Heavy or Assault mechs for whatever reason which in turn means you end up with roughly 75% of the players in Heavy or Assault mechs despite any inherent benefits or flaws in light or medium mechs.

[Deathlike]

stjobe, on 06 July 2014 - 02:27 PM, said:

I might have scared him away when I pointed out he'd said the exact same thing a year ago ("our short-term plan is to increase rewards")...

That was his position... at that time.

Edited by Deathlike, 06 July 2014 - 02:33 PM.

[stjobe]

Deathlike, on 06 July 2014 - 02:33 PM, said:

That was his position... at that time.

I know you're joking, but ..

"This is our shot term strategy, re-balancing rewards" was his position on July 4th, 2014 (earlier in this thread)

His position on June 28th, 2013 (Ask the devs 41, Answered) was "Rewards, along with expanded roles for lights and mediums, along with some limitations on drop weights, will all contribute to a more diversified battlefield."

Pretty similar, don't you think?

"Short-term" is apparently 1-3 years for these guys.