184 replies to this topic

[Kushko]

Eddrick, on 25 September 2014 - 11:22 AM, said:

It gimps the person that likes Light/Medium Mechs. You don't gain anything by going under the Tonnage Limit. Same goes for BV with a max limit of 4 Mechs. You don't gain anything by going under the limit.

As suggested there could be a minimum weight as well (120ish) or a slight c-bill bonus for going under the max tonnage. Personally i dont think an amazing light pilot bringing 4 light mechs would be a hindrance to a team. Also most CW teams will be different size organized groups of players so the chances of having an all 4 light dropship team are slim to none, unless they actually organize a team like that, which is they want to do i reckon they should be able to...whatever floats their boat. Also, how does 1/1/1/1 not gimp an all light pilot as well?

1ShotPaddy, on 25 September 2014 - 11:25 AM, said:

I've spent two years specializing as a skirmisher with a Centurion that has been tweaked to the high heavens to fit that role. I don't want to, nor am I able to, competently fulfill any other role on the battlefield.

The model you suggest would mean I'd have to buy 3 more CN9-Ds and fit them out exactly the same.

Expensive, time-consuming and redundant. And I've still got 50 tons left over in your 250 ton scheme.

I'm not convinced by this DropShip idea at all.

How is 1/1/1/1 any different? If you only have that once Centurion ready and maxed out you would still need to get 1 light, 1 heavy and 1 assault ready or use the suboptimal trials (which you could also use in the tonnage limit system). You wouldnt HAVE TO buy all of the same mech, but you could if you wanted to. The "but then ill have to buy more mechs" is a problem for both ideas, but with tonnage limit you can bring whatever you prefer instead of being forced in to something.

1453 R, on 25 September 2014 - 11:35 AM, said:

The Problem:

The "Tonnage limits, no class restrictions" only really works for one-offs. Sure, a team that has one guy stubbornly piloting four Commandos because "I'm a light 'Mech expert!" can probably hack it just fine...but what happens when the matchmaking system has to put seven different "I'm a light 'Mech expert!" guys together on one squad?

You end up with a team several hundred tons below the general region where it would be, and the handful of dudes who brought the big armor are thrust into the unpleasant position of having to carry thirty Commandos while the enemy team is coming at them with a far more balanced loadout. Those bare handful of heavies/assaults those poor five guys managed to bring in are going to ablate away in no time, and then the enemy team will just roll through the horde of Commandos without any real issues.

This is, of course, to say nothing at all of the groups who'll find a way to drop with fifty ECM Trollspiders and grief an entire half-hour CW match just because they're bassholes.

While a great idea on the surface, it's just not tenable when applied to the whole of a team, or to jackhole griefer units more concerned with making their foes hate MWO than with winning their matches or advancing their faction's territory.

As someone already responded, the 12 ECM trollSpider team wouldnt really be able to troll much since CW is an objective based game mode not a "find them all and kill them" one. If you encountered a trollspider team all you would need to do is keep them off your back and go about destroying the objective if you are the attacker or defending it if you are the defender...there is no upside to being a full team of hard to catch sneaky mechs unless they used their mobility to avoid getting hit instead of avoiding engagements, which would be fine (using your mechs strengths to your advantage is what MWO is all about afterall).

Fut, on 25 September 2014 - 11:44 AM, said:

Isn't the plan for a 4 Light/ 4 Med / 4 Heavy / 4 Assault rule for (IS) teams in CW? Kind of how it works in the Group-Q already? As soon as there's a 5th of any weight class, it turns red and the team isn't eligible to drop. They must talk it out and sort out what Mechs they'll be using.

The same could be applied to CW. If one person comes in with 4 Lights, and other people have Lights, it'll be up to the team to sort out who will be changing what they're bringing.

Edit:

I'm assuming the same will work once somebody dies and is trying to respawn in a new Mech.
If there are 4 Lights on the field already, a person would have to wait until one died to drop another Light into combat.

CW will be different than the normal queue MM. 1/1/1/1 wont ensure a 4/4/4/4 vs 4/4/4/4 match, as Paul stated there would be no limit on the actual wave composition so 1 team could potentially all spawn in their assaults and be a 12 man assault mech team. The 1/1/1/1 mechanic does nothing for balance other than force you in to piloting 1 of each weight class during the course of the match.

Edited by Kushko, 25 September 2014 - 02:20 PM.

[Bront]

Eddrick, on 25 September 2014 - 10:51 AM, said:

Isn't Tonnage Limits, BV, and 3/3/3/3 ment for BALANCE? Not for restricting someone from using what they want.

Being restricted from using what you want sucks. Tonnage Limits hurts people that like Light Mechs and Assault Mechs with the set limits of 4 Mechs. 1/1/1/1 hurts everyone equaly besides the people that like all Weight Classes and hurts the people that like Mechs on the lighter end of the Weight Class.

From what I can tell. The set limit of 4 needs to go. Get rid of that and Tonnage Limits/BV can work. The person talking about people abusing Consumables with 10 Locusts on a 200 Tonnage Limit is a problem with the Consumables. Not the Mech limit. Limit/fix Consumables and the problem is fixed.

On the other hand, the argument for the 4 mech limit is that because you can only have so many mechs on the field at once, and respawning takes time, it hurts your team if you take the 10 locusts, particularly if, durring real play, there's a good chance they won't all spawn (IE, once the rest of your team dies off, it's your little respawning locust that spawns while waiting for 7 other remaining mechs to kill it for 3 more spawns).

Just like how IS vs Clans needed to be balanced so 12v12 could work, PGI has actually done a somewhat reasonable job balancing the individual mechs (Seriously, the fact that you can debate which mech is the best no only in each class but overall leands to this), and that means that in a respawn mode, 2 Atlases is not the same as 3 Firestarters, 2 Jenners, and a Commando, or 10 Locusts. Limiting it to tonnage and exactly 4 mechs allows for a lot of personal variety without requiring a perfect ton for ton balance. Not only that, you can actually vary the tonnage limits to offer variety in drops on occasion.

[Bront]

stjobe, on 25 September 2014 - 01:48 PM, said:

Because I want back into my Timby, in which I am a GOD OF WAR (at least in my own mind; I've never piloted anything else, so I really don't know, but DON'T YOU DARE TRY TO TELL ME HOW TO PLAY. I only play Timber Wolves, so that should not only be allowed, but mandatory).

In the 3 Timberwolves and the Suicide Lynx case, since you can choose what you respawn in, you'd likely first pilot those 3, and if your last mech is that Lynx, that suicide isn't likely to be appreciated. Particularly when you're already dropping in a group, likely with your own unit.

[terrycloth]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I'll do more damage in 3 kit foxes than in one Highlander. I usually do more damage in one kit fox. Tonnage isn't a good measure; it's important but not on a linear scale.

You'd need something like battle value, or cbill cost and then also have everyone rejiggering their mechs for c-bill efficieny which currently isn't a concern.

[Eddrick]

Bront, on 25 September 2014 - 02:20 PM, said:

On the other hand, the argument for the 4 mech limit is that because you can only have so many mechs on the field at once, and respawning takes time, it hurts your team if you take the 10 locusts, particularly if, durring real play, there's a good chance they won't all spawn (IE, once the rest of your team dies off, it's your little respawning locust that spawns while waiting for 7 other remaining mechs to kill it for 3 more spawns).

Just like how IS vs Clans needed to be balanced so 12v12 could work, PGI has actually done a somewhat reasonable job balancing the individual mechs (Seriously, the fact that you can debate which mech is the best no only in each class but overall leands to this), and that means that in a respawn mode, 2 Atlases is not the same as 3 Firestarters, 2 Jenners, and a Commando, or 10 Locusts. Limiting it to tonnage and exactly 4 mechs allows for a lot of personal variety without requiring a perfect ton for ton balance. Not only that, you can actually vary the tonnage limits to offer variety in drops on occasion.

If the Mechs were balanced. Restrictions wouldn't be needed. Armor and Firepower doesn't have to be everything.

An example of the opposite: In faster paced games like Armored Core. Balance is shifted the other way. Firepower and Armor mean nothing if your opponent is fast enough to purposly dodging your attacks and your turn speed is to slow to keep the target in your sights.

[ShastaBlasta]

As a medium pilot first and foremost, I am all for tonnage limits. However I do think there should be some sort of restrictions to how many of a certain class you could take.

1/1/1/1 with the choice to not drop as one class and double up on a different class would be better as well imo.

If they ever add pilot experience skill trees that let you specialize in a certain weight class, the 1/1/1/1 drop style would make that counterproductive to an extent as well. Why specialize in one class when you are forced to take mechs outside of your specialization.

[Khobai]

Quote

As a medium pilot first and foremost, I am all for tonnage limits. However I do think there should be some sort of restrictions to how many of a certain class you could take.

Agreed. I think It should be 240 tons with no more than 2 mechs per weight class. So you couldnt do 4 heavies.

For clans it should be 200-220 tons though because clan mechs need a tonnage penalty to make up for them being so much better.

[Impyrium]

I'm actually a lot happier with the developers' plans regarding 1/1/1/1. For starters, I'm sick of those that say "But it's not fun" or "I'm no good in other 'Mechs", or even "I bought these 'mechs, why can't I use them the exact way I want?" The public queue is sitting there waiting for you.

I still think there needs to be 1/1/1/1. I don't want to see tams slowly change into everyone bringing decks of Mad Cats. Perhaps there should be some form of tonnage limit over that, to reflect the differences within the weight classes, but there shouldn't ever be the ability to bring duplicate 'mechs.

As the developers have stated, the idea isn't that it provides you with a free respawn (bringing three identical Mad Cats, for example). Variety is something seriously needed, and it'll keep people careful about choosing when to deploy their best 'Mechs.

Having tonnage based teams instead will be a nightmare to balance. You could end up with teams full of heavies and assaults, and another with lights and mediums. And people won't learn and change- if these forums have taught me anything, it's that people will come right back and complain that the system is flawed until the system changes, rather than themselves.

Edited by AUSwarrior24, 25 September 2014 - 05:23 PM.

[Vassago Rain]

I am Vassago Rain, and I approve this OP.

[Valore]

I'm for a 1/1/1/1. For people that say 'Oh, I hate piloting slow things', I'm the same way. I hate sluggish mechs.

You can still make the fastest variant of a weight class, which often, if played decently, is still a good ride.

Bring your preferred light, then bring a Cicada/Ice Ferret, a Timberwolf/Quickdraw/Dragon. Awesome/Gargoyle.

This would then kill 2 birds with one stone, we'd see more of those 'light end of the weight class scale' mechs being used.

I can sympathise with why people want weight limits for less restrictions, but at the end of the day, I'd rather have a weight matching/match making system that works quickly and simply.

I'd also be okay with 'Weight class, AND tonnage restriction', so people don't bring the highest tonnage in every class.

Edited by Valore, 25 September 2014 - 05:56 PM.

[Mystere]

Rusty Nails, on 25 September 2014 - 12:17 PM, said:

Look there are 5110 tonnage limit threads.
This topic has been discussed to death.
PGI is not going to change the match maker.
Why don't we look for other solutions and options within the existing structure?

FYI, Russ has communicated in another thread that the matchmaker in CW will not be the same as what we have now. It will not use Elo and the 3/3/3/3 scheme.

[Mystere]

Khobai, on 25 September 2014 - 05:06 PM, said:

Agreed. I think It should be 240 tons with no more than 2 mechs per weight class. So you couldnt do 4 heavies.

For clans it should be 200-220 tons though because clan mechs need a tonnage penalty to make up for them being so much better.

As I said in a related thread, the stated goal of PGI is to have parity(*) between IS and Clan Mechs. As such, I do not agree to any tonnage differences. That just amounts to another Clan nerf. CW might just turn into the IS invading Clans space.

(*) PGI has already decided that 12vs12 instead of 10vs12 is the way to go. I don't like it at all, but ...

[Greziz]

To put in my 2 cents. I would like to see a tonnage limit as I generally enjoy the mechs that are not best in class aka I really enjoy 45-50 ton mediums I enjoy the 60-65 ton heavies and I really like the 80 ton assaults but honestly none of them are very competitive because why bring an 80 tonner when you could bring a 100 tonner etc they fill the same role except one is just better. So if there is a tonnage limit you will see less of the best in class and would see more of the middle grounds mechs.

[Khobai]

Quote

As I said in a related thread, the stated goal of PGI is to have parity(*) between IS and Clan Mechs.

IS and Clan mechs will never be equal. Just like the Locust and Firestarter will never be equal. Thats a pipe dream and if you believe that youre completely jaded.

That is why 1/1/1/1 will never work. Because 1/1/1/1 says IS and Clan mechs are equal, and also says Locusts and FIrestarters are equal; when the reality is theyre anything but equal and never will be. All 1/1/1/1 will do is encourage players to take the best mechs for each weight class and punish you for taking underdog mechs. It will completely stifle diversity.

Drop weight limits are superior in every way because it doesnt make idealized assumptions about ISvsClan mechs or every mech in the same weight class being equal. With drop weights tonnage basically becomes a form of currency and all mechs cost exactly what theyre worth based on their tonnage (and clan mechs would get a 5-10 ton penalty for being better).

Edited by Khobai, 25 September 2014 - 07:44 PM.

[Mystere]

Khobai, on 25 September 2014 - 07:25 PM, said:

IS and Clan mechs will never be equal.

Just like Locust and Firestarter will never be equal

That is why 1/1/1/1 will never work. Because 1/1/1/1 says IS and Clan are equal. 1/1/1/1 also says Locusts and FIrestarters are equal.

All 1/1/1/1 is going to do is emphasize the flaws in the game that ive mentioned.

You're not going to get any disagreement on that from me. But, that is precisely what people are asking for (i.e. IS and Clan parity) and that is what PGI seems to be shooting for with the scrapping of 10vs12 in favor of the current 12vs12. Why else would PGI do that?

Edited by Mystere, 25 September 2014 - 07:36 PM.

[El Bandito]

Assuming 250 ton limit...

Without 1/1/1/1, it's going to Be Timbie + Timbie + Timbie + Lynx for the Clanners. No reason not to min max, and Timbie is best for it. 75 tonner that moves like a 65 tonner, with the firepower and durability of an 85 tonner.

With 1/1/1/1, it is going to be Assault + Timbie + Crow + Light. Which is still stale but much less so.

Edited by El Bandito, 25 September 2014 - 07:43 PM.

[Mystere]

El Bandito, on 25 September 2014 - 07:38 PM, said:

Without 1/1/1/1, It's going to Be Timbie+Timbie+Timbie + Ferret for the Clanners. No reason not to min max, and Timbie is best for it.

Which is why some are shooting for 240 or less. You can't have 3 TWs and a fourth Clan mech.

[El Bandito]

Mystere, on 25 September 2014 - 07:40 PM, said:

Which is why some are shooting for 240 or less. You can't have 3 TWs and a fourth Clan mech.

In that case, 2 Timbies + 2 lighter mechs (most likely one is a Dog/Crow) does make it slightly better, though there will almost be no chance any Clan Assault will be used.

I still think 1/1/1/1 rewards more variety, even though the notion of piloting Mediums is unsavory for me.

Edited by El Bandito, 25 September 2014 - 07:48 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Without 1/1/1/1, it's going to Be Timbie + Timbie + Timbie + Lynx for the Clanners.

Thats 250 tons though. Which is over the proposed 240 ton limit.

And actually I would say 240 tons for IS and 200-220 tons for Clan would be fairer given the current state of the game.

Also with drop limits, to prevent abuse, there should be a limit of two mechs per weight class. So you couldnt take four heavies for example. That way weight class diversity is still encouraged.

Quote

I still think 1/1/1/1 rewards more variety.

It doesnt reward variety though. It rewards taking the best mech in each weight class.

If you have to take a light mech are you going to take a locust or a firestarter? are you going to take a blackjack or a shadowhawk? are you going to take a dragon or a jagermech/cataphract? are you going to take an awesome or a d-dc/atlas-s/kingcrab?

1/1/1/1 would basically be the death of subpar mechs.

Edited by Khobai, 25 September 2014 - 07:54 PM.

[El Bandito]

Khobai, on 25 September 2014 - 07:48 PM, said:

Thats 250 tons though. Which is over the proposed 240 ton limit.

And the Clans just happen to have a great 60 ton Heavy introduced to offset that. What does the IS have? Dragon?
I guess Jager will do.

Let's see what the Clan XL engine nerf IS quirk buffs before trying to balance faction drop loads.

Edited by El Bandito, 25 September 2014 - 07:54 PM.