362 replies to this topic

[Eddrick]

Kain Thul, on 28 September 2014 - 06:35 PM, said:

Naturally if someone is best in an assault then light would be their worst....but how could heavy be your best class but then you couldn't even contribute in a medium or assault?

I don't know why and I can't speak for everyone that is best with Heavy.

Personaly, I do best with the lighter side of Heavy and am almost as good with the heavyer side of Medium. So, I can use Medium well enough to make a contribution. My worst is Light and my second worst is Assault.

[Johnny Reb]

Kain Thul, on 28 September 2014 - 06:35 PM, said:

Notice I said "effective", not "just as good" or "elite" in all classes.

Naturally if someoen is best in an assault then light would be their worst....but how could heavy be your best class but then you couldn't even contribute in a medium or assault?

Why is it "natural" that if someone is best in an Assault they can't be equally/slightly less skilled in a Light?

[SirLANsalot]

Johnny Reb, on 28 September 2014 - 08:57 PM, said:

Why is it "natural" that if someone is best in an Assault they can't be equally/slightly less skilled in a Light?

Its the opposite end of the spectrum in terms of skills required.

Assault is, Big Slow, with lots and lots and lots of big guns and lots of armor to protect it. So as an assault pilot, you are used to shrugging off lots of fire from things that are smaller then you.

Light mechs are Small Fast and take only a handful of small/medium sized guns, they use speed to evade fire, rather then armor to defeat it, meaning a shot that lands is almost crippling.


Two very different mindsets/play-styles. Its not to say a player can be good at both, but your skills in one, while piloting the other, will get rusty since they are so diametrically opposed to one another.

Edited by SirLANsalot, 28 September 2014 - 09:29 PM.

[Johnny Reb]

From what I have seen good light pilots have no trouble doing well in mechs going up the weight class. Some might not want to play heavier mechs but they absolutely can, very well. The reverse is the more likely.

Edited by Johnny Reb, 28 September 2014 - 09:38 PM.

[Kain Demos]

N0MAD, on 28 September 2014 - 07:37 PM, said:

I dont care what you perceive as a good player.
I dont want or like, i repeat i dont want or like playing certain classes, and i wont.

I get that not everyone is the type to rise to the challenge. I need to get better in Lights/Mediums myself and have been dropping with them more this weekend.

The lighter weight classes seem to be a lot more skill based and that clearly turns a lot of people off.

[N0MAD]

Kain Thul, on 28 September 2014 - 10:27 PM, said:

I get that not everyone is the type to rise to the challenge. I need to get better in Lights/Mediums myself and have been dropping with them more this weekend.

The lighter weight classes seem to be a lot more skill based and that clearly turns a lot of people off.

Ya takes an immense lot of skill to run around in a lag boat with poor hit detection..

[Aluminumfoiled]

240 range sounds pretty good. Decisions as important as the mechlab will need to be made. Nice.

Minimum tonnage too. No 4 Dire's and no 4 Embers. Super leet peen assaults and lights don't get to have it all. Some people have a firm comfort zone and don't like ot be pushed out of it. Push PGI, push it deep

Edited by MicroVent, 29 September 2014 - 12:19 AM.

[TexAce]

Brody319, on 27 September 2014 - 11:54 AM, said:

Its a balancing thing. Before the release of the current 3/3/3/3 system, we had teams with lighter mechs being dominated by heavier mechs. When you see your team has 3 people running 4 lights and you get ripped up because the other team decided to properly manage their weight. This also helps prevent trollish builds like 4 ECM Spiders. At 150, you can run 3 lights, but you gotta bring a heavier mech. IF this is a war, do you think they will want their soldiers to go in under prepared for what the enemy brings?
From a gameplay stand point its perfectly fair. You have to run a heavy, but get to gain XP for all 3 of your light variants in one match. While I, running heavier mechs, has to play more matches to get the same XP. not being able to run 3 timber wolves in one match means I have to swap out between games.
I'm perfectly fine with a tonnage limit, the problem is, it means I have to run 2 heavies and 2 lights to be under the weight limit, while light players can run 4 of anything they want, or medium players can run 4 of anything they want and still be under the limit. While Assault players and Heavy players are punished. At 100 tons, an assault player can bring 1 assault mech. if they bring 2, they would have to run 2 lights at 20 tons, and none exist yet. At 1/1/1/1 at least EVERYONE has to play some mechs they don't like, rather than the tonnage system that only punishes assault and heavy players.

Sorry but its finally time assaults and heavies have a drawback of some sorts. They hadnt for the most time and its just not fair towards other classes. Assaults are not supposed to be fielded in massive numbers.

[Threat Doc]

TexAss, on 29 September 2014 - 01:23 AM, said:

Sorry but its finally time assaults and heavies have a drawback of some sorts. They hadnt for the most time and its just not fair towards other classes. Assaults are not supposed to be fielded in massive numbers.

While I agree with you that Assaults should not be terribly prolific, perhaps one or two per team, as opposed to what we're seeing in-game constantly, now, especially where there are three or more -because of MM "relief valves"- Dire Whales, I do not agree that Heavies need any manner of "drawback". What needs to have a "drawback" is the damn Lights... it is NOT right for a Light 'Mech -except through the 'rules' of this game- to be able to defeat an Assault 'Mech without so much work as to make it a bad cost:benefit practice, period. Heavies should not be much easier to deal with.

Look, PGI have TRIED and TRIED to get Mediums into the primary workhorse role, and despite any successes they have had, the big-shiny Heavy and Assault 'Mechs continue to roll out constantly. 1/1/1/1 is NOT a bad idea, but again it's harsh on those, like me, who can pilot all 'Mech classes, who CAN have good effects, from time-to-time, but generally are really terrible in those other classes. So, it's better to go with a tonnage limit, as well, though I maintain that both the tonnage limit and number of 'Mechs should be based on the Company, as a whole, not on individual's. If that's 240 tons, according to Russ' typewritten desire, per person, then you're looking at 2,880 total tons -which I would prefer to see knocked down to 2,500- and 12/12/12/12.

That would be alright for a beginning, as it allows for some relatively stiff limitations, but also allows player's to play, for the most part, the 'Mechs they want to play, and allows teams to set their strategies and have their best people in the positions they need them to be in. Were it up to me, I would say any one player could play only a maximum of three of any one chassis type, as well. However, eventually the Match Maker is going to need to grow up.

[Brody319]

TexAss, on 29 September 2014 - 01:23 AM, said:

Sorry but its finally time assaults and heavies have a drawback of some sorts. They hadnt for the most time and its just not fair towards other classes. Assaults are not supposed to be fielded in massive numbers.

I am not saying the tonnage limit should just be nonexistant. I'm saying a tonnage minimum means that Pugs are much more fair. Since the release of the clans, I've seen much more balanced matches. 5-9 to 12. People are forced into a slightly lenient 3/3/3/3. This means most teams are fairly balanced, they have pretty close tonnages. Just placing a tonnage maximum ruins this system. The enemy might be running their full 240 tons, while my team might run about 200 of their tonnage. in 12 players that's a big difference. So why punish one person, because they used their maximum tonnage, but their teammates used bare minimum? I could bring a direwolf and a few mediums with the 240 tons, but my team might be mostly lights, leaving me alone without support, and then their lights would eat me alive. at a tonnage minimum of 150, people who wanna run lights, will have to play a slower heavier mech. This brings the teams closer in tonnages, while not ruining light players who wanna run 3 lights, and then when they drop a bigger mech my team can at least support each other rather than running off to get gaussed in the face, or legged.

[Zyllos]

If the community wants tonnage sharing while PGI wants to allow for variable group sizes, it is easy to accomplish this.

Each player is bringing 200t and can only bring up to 4 mech each, for this example.

As a group is started, the total tonnage is added up from all players in the group, shared among only the group. If this means a 5-player group, then this means that the group only shares 1000t and up to 20 mechs.

If a single player queues up, the player only has 200t and up to 4 mechs.

This allows groups of players to share tonnage and build a balanced loadout for the group while individual players can fill out their own loadouts. Each side will have the full tonnage available to them and groups will have the flexibility to field what they need or want.

[Threat Doc]

Did I miss something? Was something changed while I was away? My understanding is the DropShip mode is ONLY used for Community Warfare? Individuals will not be dropping alone in CW, they will be added, per Paul's latest Command Chair post, to a group of 12, for attack or defend purposes in CW. Unless something has changed that I did not catch -and it's possible, but unlikely-, the DropShip 1/1/1/1, 1/1/1/1 with 200 or 240 ton limit, 12/12/12/12 200 or 240 ton per person limit, or 12/12/12/12 2,500 to 2,880 ton Company limit, is for Community Warfare, NOT for PUGs.

If I missed something that's changed, please let me know, preferably with a link?

[Joseph Mallan]

Not all of us have been waiting for Dropship mode. Just sayin.

[Almond Brown]

SirLANsalot, on 25 September 2014 - 05:32 PM, said:

stuff

On another note, here is something for everyone to think on. With having multiple respawns for the enemy (as well as yourself). What is going to happen to Ballistics? What about LRM's? Ammo based mechs are going to have to think long and hard about how much ammo they want to take with them. LRMs might be in need of an ammo buff as they already suffer greatly from so many limitations. Remember, you might get a nice kill, but that enemy is going to be coming back....and he knows how hurt/out of ammo you are. Skill is going to play even more into Dropship mode then ever before. The big boy assault mechs, the ones that could walts through 4 or 5 mechs, might be having some ammo issues to think about when outfitting that AC20 or twin UAC10's.

You are not actually complaining about the possibility that a Player may have to Build and then play a ROLE with the Mechs in the DropShip mode right?

Can't spam your Ballistics or LRM's anymore?

Might need to be choosey about your Target. Their location and the damage potential per Salvo?

Oh Noooes.

I thought that is what EVERYONE wanted. ROLES! ffs

LOL!

Edited by Almond Brown, 29 September 2014 - 09:31 AM.

[Ozric]

Keeping to four mechs with 240 max tonnage instead of 1/1/1/1 makes a lot of sense as both systems curb excessive use of assaults and encourage varied drops decks, which is what PGI is trying to accomplish. Allowing people to bring less than four mechs is just asking for trouble, and works against the balancing concept in the first place as it all has to be based around 12vs12 x4. With this in mind some level of minimum tonnage must also be part of a 4 mechs/max tonnage model.

We must not forget that mech restrictions of one kind or another will be important too. Perhaps restrict things to only one per chassis with assault or heavy class mechs, but one per variant of lights and mediums? Minimise wolf troubles and, dare I say it, make it easier to get into CW (without trial mech hilarity). Getting some good mechs leveled for CW is going to be rough for new players anyway.

[Zyllos]

Kay Wolf, on 29 September 2014 - 08:07 AM, said:

Did I miss something? Was something changed while I was away? My understanding is the DropShip mode is ONLY used for Community Warfare? Individuals will not be dropping alone in CW, they will be added, per Paul's latest Command Chair post, to a group of 12, for attack or defend purposes in CW. Unless something has changed that I did not catch -and it's possible, but unlikely-, the DropShip 1/1/1/1, 1/1/1/1 with 200 or 240 ton limit, 12/12/12/12 200 or 240 ton per person limit, or 12/12/12/12 2,500 to 2,880 ton Company limit, is for Community Warfare, NOT for PUGs.

If I missed something that's changed, please let me know, preferably with a link?

http://mwomercs.com/...update-sept-24/

It was updated to explain that they are now allowing any size of groups (even solo) to join in CW, due to feedback.

Edit: Well, now I am confused about your question. You say "Individuals will not be dropping alone in CW, they will be added" but your confused why solo and small group players can join? You just answered it yourself, in that solo and small group players can drop in CW.

Edited by Zyllos, 29 September 2014 - 10:13 AM.

[Hoax415]

Zyllos, on 29 September 2014 - 08:02 AM, said:

If the community wants tonnage sharing while PGI wants to allow for variable group sizes, it is easy to accomplish this.

No it is not easy. If CW was forcing everyone to form a 12-man team outside of the MM before hitting drop it would be relatively easy because in the group screen you could figure out shared tonnage. But CW does have pick up groups formed from solo players and sub-12 player groups. That means tonnage sharing becomes a lot more problematic.

Think about the order of procedures:
-MM makes the attacking 12 man team.
-Attackers ??? and end up with a legal tonnage team.
-MM sends out defense call, builds a 12 man defending team.
-Now while attackers sit there and wait the defending team needs to build a tonnage legal team.
-Once defenders have finished the match can finally get under way?

You can't set time limits because what do you do if the limit expires? Through everyone back into queue and start this all over again? Count it as a loss for that faction (horrible idea).

You should be able to see the massive problems with such a system. Players getting disconnected or being afk or refusing to not horde a lot of tons would result in matches hanging without starting. Players would want to leave some groups because they don't feel they are being given enough tonnage which means the MM needs to ...? Remake the entire match? Have the ability to pull another person in from the queue?

Sharing tonnage without forcing 12-man teams is a big ask. Anyone who has ever played LoL or Dota can tell you what its like when its a ffa in a pug to pick roles. Far from easy. And giving shared tonnage ability to 12-mans would just result in 12-mans stomping pugs even harder in CW which is probably going to make a lot more people unhappy than its benefit even though shared tonnage makes great sense and adds even more team building options to 12-mans.

Kay Wolf, on 29 September 2014 - 08:07 AM, said:

is for Community Warfare, NOT for PUGs.

CW is PUG inclusive. PUG = Pick Up Group. Anything that isn't a full 12-man is a PUG. Paul is telling us they are reworking the MM for CW so that it automatically combines your PUG group and puts you into a 12-man presumably with the same ui that we have now for grouping. But that's a new "feature" that could be "position at the time'd" quite easily.

Ozric, on 29 September 2014 - 10:01 AM, said:

With this in mind some level of minimum tonnage must also be part of a 4 mechs/max tonnage model.

I was 100% with what you were saying until this sentence. Why must it be a part? The only upside of a minimum is to prevent players from trolling their own team by bringing 4 Locusts or something inefficient like that. Except if people want to troll they can just bring **** builds or SHS or 0 armor mechs. So we aren't preventing trolling. What does minimum tonnage matter?

At most a tiny tiny tiny fraction of players will be using less than 240 or whatever the number is and I don't see how it hurts the game. The main type of player that might go under 240 will be someone new with limited mech selections who can't make a 240 deck without using no pilot skill trial mechs and so opts to take a 190 or 210 or whatever deck of his own mechs he has customized and skill'd.

Quote

We must not forget that mech restrictions of one kind or another will be important too. Perhaps restrict things to only one per chassis with assault or heavy class mechs, but one per variant of lights and mediums? Minimise wolf troubles and, dare I say it, make it easier to get into CW (without trial mech hilarity). Getting some good mechs leveled for CW is going to be rough for new players anyway.

The more you restrict the worse it is for new players. Everything you wrote there is anti new player. I don't think you understand what you are saying. Restricting to some silly 1 or 2 max of a chassis is terrible for newer players and does not play nice with the current mech leveling system.

Again you also fail to make any argument for what the upside of such restrictions is beyond people won't be able to bring two Mad Cats. The Mad Cat needs to be balanced better than it is and then it won't be a big deal if people who like it bring two.

Edited by Hoax415, 29 September 2014 - 10:34 AM.

[Ozric]

Hoax415, on 29 September 2014 - 10:27 AM, said:

The only upside of a minimum is to prevent players from trolling their own team by bringing 4 Locusts or something inefficient like that.

At most a tiny tiny tiny fraction of players will be using less than 240 or whatever the number is and I don't see how it hurts the game. The main type of player that might go under 240 will be someone new with limited mech selections who can't make a 240 deck without using no pilot skill trial mechs and so opts to take a 190 or 210 or whatever deck of his own mechs he has customized and skill'd.

Yes that's exactly what I was saying. Glad we are on the same page.

Hoax415, on 29 September 2014 - 10:27 AM, said:

The more you restrict the worse it is for new players. Everything you wrote there is anti new player. I don't think you understand what you are saying. Restricting to some silly 1 or 2 max of a chassis is terrible for newer players and does not play nice with the current mech leveling system.

Again you also fail to make any argument for what the upside of such restrictions is beyond people won't be able to bring two Mad Cats. The Mad Cat needs to be balanced better than it is and then it won't be a big deal if people who like it bring two.

You countered the two points I made there upside down, so I will too. Of course leveling four lights/mediums for CW will be easier/quicker/cheaper than leveling 4 mechs for a 1/1/1/1 system, even if you are restricted to no double variants. I shouldn't have to explain why. As you said, a minimum tonnage limit actually limits nothing except the weakest drop decks and is more to encourage people to make mixed decks in the first place.

And yes the restrictions are there in part limit the use of Timber Wolves/Dire Wolves, I'm pretty sure I said that, but by extension this works for any OP mech in any current meta. It also adds considerable flavour to matches with a more varied selection of mechs.

Better arguments have been made against restrictions than yours, including one I made myself in this very thread that pointed out that chassis restrictions are much harder for Clan players to deal with due to the limited number of chassis available. Never-the-less, it is foolish to think that these ideas are not on the table because we know that in an ideal world PGI wants us to choose to drop with a 1/1/1/1 deck even if we get a 240 tonnage limit. They do not want teams to just bring 36 Timber Wolves.



Edit: 24 TBR's of course. I sure hope nobody snarks about that in a following post. The point is variation is an objective as far as we know and if 1/1/1/1 is scrapped, as we all hope it will, PGI will decide on a way to encourage variation in another way. Restrictions are the most obvious way of them doing this.

Edited by Ozric, 29 September 2014 - 12:21 PM.

[Hoax415]

Preventing 4 Locusts does not prevent trolling or even make trolling more difficult. Because people can take bad builds, they can TK, they can take 0 armor, they can just walk to the enemy and feed kills etc. etc. etc.

So no "preventing trolling" is a terrible argument for minimum tonnage and you and others in this thread have failed to make a single good argument as to how it improves the game.

Minimum tonnage is again just you tilting at imaginary windmills because reasons and I've yet to hear a compelling explanation for why its needed or how it makes the game more fun. Half the posts about minimum tonnage are from people who are rabidly anti light mech (which is hilarious considering how mediocre light mechs are in MWO) and quite possibly crazy.

Once again the myth of the 36 Mad Cats. Its 24 Mad Cats. At least do the math correctly. And a team with 24 Mad Cats has zero mechs that are heavier than those Mad Cats. Not a single assault mech in the other half of their team comp. If CW launched today might that be considered the strongest way to build a clan CW team? Who knows. But if it is than the obvious problem is the Mad Cat, not the fact that people can take 2 of the same chassis in their drop deck.

Why 1 variant per chassis is bad:
-Its harder on newer, poorer players because it forces them, just like 1/1/1/1 to level 4 separate chassis. Its not as bad as 1/1/1/1 because they can go with less than 4 weight classes but its still an added burden.
-It removes the ability of players who specialize and/or enjoy a particular chassis from using it as much as they like based on flimsy "OP chassis will get overused" excuses which again is a problem fixed by making sure there are no blatantly OP chassis compared to other options at that tonnage.
-It reduces player options, which is never good unless you have strong reasons to do so.

[Wintersdark]

Hoax415, on 29 September 2014 - 11:25 AM, said:

Preventing 4 Locusts does not prevent trolling or even make trolling more difficult. Because people can take bad builds, they can TK, they can take 0 armor, they can just walk to the enemy and feed kills etc. etc. etc.

So no "preventing trolling" is a terrible argument for minimum tonnage and you and others in this thread have failed to make a single good argument as to how it improves the game.

Minimum tonnage is again just you tilting at imaginary windmills because reasons and I've yet to hear a compelling explanation for why its needed or how it makes the game more fun. Half the posts about minimum tonnage are from people who are rabidly anti light mech (which is hilarious considering how mediocre light mechs are in MWO) and quite possibly crazy.

Once again the myth of the 36 Mad Cats. Its 24 Mad Cats. At least do the math correctly. And a team with 24 Mad Cats has zero mechs that are heavier than those Mad Cats. Not a single assault mech in the other half of their team comp. If CW launched today might that be considered the strongest way to build a clan CW team? Who knows. But if it is than the obvious problem is the Mad Cat, not the fact that people can take 2 of the same chassis in their drop deck.

Why 1 variant per chassis is bad:
-Its harder on newer, poorer players because it forces them, just like 1/1/1/1 to level 4 separate chassis. Its not as bad as 1/1/1/1 because they can go with less than 4 weight classes but its still an added burden.
-It removes the ability of players who specialize and/or enjoy a particular chassis from using it as much as they like based on flimsy "OP chassis will get overused" excuses which again is a problem fixed by making sure there are no blatantly OP chassis compared to other options at that tonnage.
-It reduces player options, which is never good unless you have strong reasons to do so.

Gotta agree with this.

Minimum tonnage is pointless: If Bob is a very skilled Light Pilot, and bad a heavier mechs? I'd rather have Bob bring 4 lights even if that lowers my overall team tonnage.

Look at the PUG queues: Very few people, overall, want to play lights. Trial mechs exist, so newer players in CW are not forced to play lights either. As such, you can assume that the majority of players in a 240t max game will be fielding heavies, mediums, and lighter assaults. So, if a Light Pilot wants to bring 4 Lights, I say: Bring them!

If a person is afraid of someone trolling CW by bringing 4 locusts just to feed? Well, it doesn't really matter what mechs he brings - if he's going to "feed", he's going to do that no matter what. A fast medium/heavy dies just as fast if it runs blindly into the enemy team. Preventing players from "trolling" is not a valid reason to enforce a minimum.

TexAss, on 29 September 2014 - 01:23 AM, said:

Sorry but its finally time assaults and heavies have a drawback of some sorts. They hadnt for the most time and its just not fair towards other classes. Assaults are not supposed to be fielded in massive numbers.

This. And to be fair, it's not so much for Heavies (you can, after all, run 4 heavies if you feel so inclined) but definitely for assaults. I get that everyone wants to see better Role Warfare encouraging Light/Medium play, but until such a time there's very clearly a heavy bias in favour of Heavies and Assaults. This curtails that nicely, bringing Mediums back into the spotlight.

Given that, if you CHOOSE to bring a King Crab, Direwolf or the like, you'll be facing a team full of mediums and lighter heavies - this is a much more awesome playground for a 100t assault than teams full of 100t assaults, 75 ton mediums, and 55 ton mediums And if you do want to bring that? Your bringing a bunch of lighter mediums and lights yourself alongside it.

Vindicators, Blackjacks, Cicadas, lights in general: There will be lots more of them in play and as such they won't be facing the same disadvantages they do right now. Currently, you bring a Dragon and your opposing team probably has an AC40 Jag in response... Or, in terms of IS v Clan with 1/1/1/1, you bring a Dragon and the opposing team definitely has a Timberwolf. 1/1/1/1 is just flat out bad - sure, it results in more balanced matches, but because it basically makes one mech per weight class per faction worth taking. That may be "balanced" in a sense, but it's not nearly as good gameplay.