362 replies to this topic

[Wintersdark]

LordKnightFandragon, on 26 September 2014 - 03:29 AM, said:

Makes the game more like what they initially didnt want MWO to turn into. I know I heard in several of thier early interviews they wanted to make this game more than a rush to the biggest mech, including all weight classes and giving them each viable roles to play in this game. But in the end, its just a big brawl, and the biggest guns wins brawls.

That's one of the reasons I dislike the 3/3/3/3 concept, and 1/1/1/1 dropship restrictions. It almost feels like a concession: PGI saying, "Well, screw it, bigger mechs can just be better; and we'll force them to use one of each." Blah.

Moar role warfare, plz.

[Fut]

LordKnightFandragon, on 25 September 2014 - 05:47 PM, said:

Respawns in MW games is always very meh...I played a similar mode in MW4 vs my uncle once, we each respawned and each time the one who freshly respawned would win....simply because its a badly beaten mech vs a fresh one...it will be the same meh kinda crap here. Unless of course we also get a repair bay somewhere in teh base camp or something.....

Yeah, I thought that the Drop Deck/Respawn stuff was an alright idea for the PUG/Group-Qs, but not in CW.
CW was supposed to be the real deal. They're even considering an altered re-implementation of Repair&Rearm for it - but now it'll also have limited respawns?

Doesn't seem like it's the right idea for CW.

[Lily from animove]

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

Been waiting for this thing to show up for 2 years! Its finally being talked about, and finally being added and programmed. However with the CC post that came out, it might not be what we all had dreamed of over all these years.


The Original Concept.

4 mechs, with a drop "deck" style load out, based on tonnage.


What we read in the CC post.

1 mech of each type......


Drop Deck loadouts allow the PLAYERS to choose what they want to take, weather that be 4 lights, or 2 100 ton assaults. The number that most people have floated out has been either 200 or 250 tons per a player deck. This drives home a good self limit into the game. At 200 tons, you would only get 2 Dire Wolfs/Atlas. It would also limit the number of assaults on the field if people "spammed" them. 200 tons is only 2 assaults of ANY kind, 250 opens it up just a little too much (ergo you would get 4 respawns even while taking an Atlas).

200 tons puts a nice self limit into the game and opens up the use of many "border" mechs that normally are overlooked. 3x4 helped some, but was broken from the moment it was put in. If it was a hard limit like it was supposed to be, the border mechs would be getting more use. (Border mechs are a reference to the lighter medium/heavy/assaults that just tick over into the class). I would forsee the attackers in an attack/defend mode getting a slightly higher drop deck, then the defenders. 225 or even 250 for the attackers, since the defenders have turrets/advantageous terrain on there side.

Either way, it should be 4 mechs or 200 tons, whichever comes first when building your drop deck. None of this 1 of everything crap.




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.

Finally that mode will bring some balance to AC's vs Energy, because now when some battles lats longer Ammo can be an issue for some mechs. Especially those low ammo double gauss builds.

So yes it

Also didn't Russ somewher ein the past told something about re-ammo possibilities?
maybe we will get a ability to restock ammo form our dropship. This would of course require to walk back to the dropship. And if ammo can be counted to the dropships tonnage limit, it would also bring in another tactical loaout variable.

So when someone thinks he is a save and well doing missile boat, he may bring only 2 missile boating emchs and 50 or 75t of ammo.

200 tons make a lot open room for interesting but limited stuff. 4 Novas, or 2 Timbers + a Nova?

[Jetfire]

My preference would be to see a 1/1/1/1 drop deck with a total tonnage limit ALSO so you have a reason to bring a locust to offset something else.

[KraftySOT]

I think the obvious 'blow to ammo based mechs' is a good thing.

I mean in the TT, theres a reason mechs have these more diverse loadouts...its because of the type of combat theyd be doing lore wise.

This represents that pretty well. The LRM swarms and FLD will at least come to an end in those matches after a while, or, at the very least, will have to be well played by a team.

[Christof Romulus]

My problem with the tonnage restrictions instead of the hanger restrictions is that this is prejudice against the mechs, such as the Atlas, which are heavier, but not considered 'better' than their lighter contemporaries - in this case, such as the Stalker.

Perhaps instead of tonnage, or the 1/1/1/1 that is proposed, we use a point system:
Assault = 4 points
Heavy = 3 points
Medium = 1.5 points
Light = .5 points

You have 9 points.

So you could bring:
Assault / Heavy / Medium / Light (As PGI proposes)
or
Assault / Assault / Light / Light (Gives those rocking dual Assault mechs the 4 drop spots)
or
Heavy / Heavy /Heavy (Trip Timbys, just for JagerXI)
or
Medium / Medium / Medium / Medium (I believe someone wants hunchbacks, yes?)
or
Light / Light / Light / Light (Dat ECM raven)

This would allow similar versatility to the pure tonnage system, without prejudice toward the heavier mechs that are 'out metaed' by the lighter mechs of the same category.

Edited by Christof Romulus, 26 September 2014 - 07:45 AM.

[Lily from animove]

Christof Romulus, on 26 September 2014 - 07:43 AM, said:

My problem with the tonnage restrictions instead of the hanger restrictions is that this is prejudice against the mechs, such as the Atlas, which are heavier, but not considered 'better' than their lighter contemporaries - in this case, such as the Stalker.

Perhaps instead of tonnage, or the 1/1/1/1 that is proposed, we use a point system:
Assault = 4 points
Heavy = 3 points
Medium = 1.5 points
Light = .5 points

You have 9 points.

So you could bring:
Assault / Heavy / Medium / Light (As PGI proposes)
or
Assault / Assault / Light / Light (Gives those rocking dual Assault mechs the 4 drop spots)
or
Heavy / Heavy /Heavy (Trip Timbys, just for JagerXI)
or
Medium / Medium / Medium / Medium (I believe someone wants hunchbacks, yes?)
or
Light / Light / Light / Light (Dat ECM raven)

This would allow similar versatility to the pure tonnage system, without prejudice toward the heavier mechs that are 'out metaed' by the lighter mechs of the same category.

and with that sytsem why should someone use nOT a TW, NOT a SC and NOT a DW? Thats still makign lower tonnaged mechs in their classes not appealing. And thats why tonnage is a better system.

And dunno, a atlas a dsiadvantage? Most IS assaults you see are atlas, mostly DDC and I am always happy to have one in my team over any other IS assault.

[Metus regem]

Christof Romulus, on 26 September 2014 - 07:43 AM, said:

My problem with the tonnage restrictions instead of the hanger restrictions is that this is prejudice against the mechs, such as the Atlas, which are heavier, but not considered 'better' than their lighter contemporaries - in this case, such as the Stalker.

Perhaps instead of tonnage, or the 1/1/1/1 that is proposed, we use a point system:
Assault = 4 points
Heavy = 3 points
Medium = 1.5 points
Light = .5 points

You have 9 points.

So you could bring:
Assault / Heavy / Medium / Light (As PGI proposes)
or
Assault / Assault / Light / Light (Gives those rocking dual Assault mechs the 4 drop spots)
or
Heavy / Heavy /Heavy (Trip Timbys, just for JagerXI)
or
Medium / Medium / Medium / Medium (I believe someone wants hunchbacks, yes?)
or
Light / Light / Light / Light (Dat ECM raven)

This would allow similar versatility to the pure tonnage system, without prejudice toward the heavier mechs that are 'out metaed' by the lighter mechs of the same category.

What if it were tweaked a bit, say:

Tier 1 Mech: 4 ponts
Tier 2 Mech: 3
Tier 3 Mech: 1.5
Tier 4 Mech and lower: .5

This way, one would have a maximum of two tier 1 mechs, regardless of the weight class, and two mechs that are at the bottom of the barrel for their weight class?

[Christof Romulus]

Lily from animove, on 26 September 2014 - 07:50 AM, said:

and with that sytsem why should someone use nOT a TW, NOT a SC and NOT a DW? Thats still makign lower tonnaged mechs in their classes not appealing. And thats why tonnage is a better system.

And dunno, a atlas a dsiadvantage? Most IS assaults you see are atlas, mostly DDC and I am always happy to have one in my team over any other IS assault.

Don't get me wrong - I rock the Atlas just fine (The D is my favorite, as per my 'Location' tag), but while the Direwolf is great, it has its limitations and I could definitely see people making another pick.

As for the Timberwolf - a tonnage limit isn't going to stop people from bringing them. It's the best mech in the game for a myriad of reasons. Nothing short of an outright penalty to the mech is going to stop people from bringing them - and even then, with as many cbills as there are floating around, the penalty would have to be extreme (assuming repair and rearm).

Attempting to use a tonnage system to fix inherent flaws in the system is the wrong way to go - which is why in the system I proposed, I simply didn't try.

Metus regem, on 26 September 2014 - 07:55 AM, said:

What if it were tweaked a bit, say:

Tier 1 Mech: 4 ponts
Tier 2 Mech: 3
Tier 3 Mech: 1.5
Tier 4 Mech and lower: .5

This way, one would have a maximum of two tier 1 mechs, regardless of the weight class, and two mechs that are at the bottom of the barrel for their weight class?

Okay... now we're getting somewhere! In my previous reply I thought that there was no way to fix the inherent issue with the Timberwolf... but this would. TW's would simply be considered Tier 1 mechs - though this would only cut down on the number of T-wolf drops by 1, assuming they did NOT implement 1/1/1/1, that's still pretty significant...

And it has the potential of INCREASING the number of Atlas dropped =P

[Metus regem]

Christof Romulus, on 26 September 2014 - 07:58 AM, said:

Don't get me wrong - I rock the Atlas just fine (The D is my favorite, as per my 'Location' tag), but while the Direwolf is great, it has its limitations and I could definitely see people making another pick.

As for the Timberwolf - a tonnage limit isn't going to stop people from bringing them. It's the best mech in the game for a myriad of reasons. Nothing short of an outright penalty to the mech is going to stop people from bringing them - and even then, with as many cbills as there are floating around, the penalty would have to be extreme (assuming repair and rearm).

Attempting to use a tonnage system to fix inherent flaws in the system is the wrong way to go - which is why in the system I proposed, I simply didn't try.


Okay... now we're getting somewhere! In my previous reply I thought that there was no way to fix the inherent issue with the Timberwolf... but this would. TW's would simply be considered Tier 1 mechs - though this would only cut down on the number of T-wolf drops by 1, assuming they did NOT implement 1/1/1/1, that's still pretty significant...

And it has the potential of INCREASING the number of Atlas dropped =P

True, but a team full of AS-7D-DC's are not perfect, if anything I would say that such a team has a glaring weakness, if they get stuck having to cap against a team of faster mechs.... let alone fast mechs to flank and swarm the back sides of those AS-7D-DC's...

Perhaps give a token reward to a team that takes a balanced force even if everyone takes in their tier 1 choices into match? Or perhaps give a reward to taking a balanced drop deck?

[oldradagast]

Khobai, on 25 September 2014 - 07:28 PM, said:

actually 1/1/1/1 will force you to bring the best mech for each weight class. it completely kills mechs like the locust/commando which are at the bottom of their respective weight classes.

tonnage limits are better because it allows players to play the mechs they want. you can take a locust or a commando and not be at a disadvantage for doing so because your other mechs will benefit from extra tonnage.

tonnage limits also add a convenient way to balance IS vs clan better simply by giving clans less drop tonnage.

Agreed.

This artificial concept of "light, medium, heavy, assault" is constantly causing problems because heavier mechs are usually better (provided your team doesn't totally lack mobility), so the heaviest of each weight class is going to be the best (with a few meta exceptions - Timberwolf at 70 tons, not 75.)

The thing is, a Quickdraw shouldn't be competing with a Timberwolf for space. It should be competing for 60 tons of weight. Maybe you move down to a Shadowhawk (yes, I know it's a better mech) for 55 tons, or up to a Jager.

You see what I mean - the artificial weight class limits, while easy to implement, restrict gameplay. We already see this in normal matches, where the heavier mechs in each weight class are dominate, and this will just be more of the same. There shouldn't be magical "break points" between classes since the game was designed as a continuous tonnage scale.

[Metus regem]

oldradagast, on 26 September 2014 - 08:05 AM, said:

Agreed.

This artificial concept of "light, medium, heavy, assault" is constantly causing problems because heavier mechs are usually better (provided your team doesn't totally lack mobility), so the heaviest of each weight class is going to be the best (with a few meta exceptions - Timberwolf at 70 tons, not 75.)

The thing is, a Quickdraw shouldn't be competing with a Timberwolf for space. It should be competing for 60 tons of weight. Maybe you move down to a Shadowhawk (yes, I know it's a better mech) for 55 tons, or up to a Jager.

You see what I mean - the artificial weight class limits, while easy to implement, restrict gameplay. We already see this in normal matches, where the heavier mechs in each weight class are dominate, and this will just be more of the same. There shouldn't be magical "break points" between classes since the game was designed as a continuous tonnage scale.

I hate to say it, but the Timber Wolf is 75 Tons, not 70....

I think a fair way of doing it, would be to have mechs compete for a slot that is +/- 5 tons., hence the Timber Wolf could be using an assault slots, rather than a heavy slot.

[oldradagast]

Metus regem, on 26 September 2014 - 08:08 AM, said:

I hate to say it, but the Timber Wolf is 75 Tons, not 70....

I think a fair way of doing it, would be to have mechs compete for a slot that is +/- 5 tons., hence the Timber Wolf could be using an assault slots, rather than a heavy slot.

Oops... my bad. I have to admit, I didn't even check since they won't be available for cbills for months... no point in drooling over something that I can't currently have and which may end up nerfed by then.

Good catch.

[Metus regem]

oldradagast, on 26 September 2014 - 08:09 AM, said:

Oops... my bad. I have to admit, I didn't even check since they won't be available for cbills for months... no point in drooling over something that I can't currently have and which may end up nerfed by then.

Good catch.

No problem.

When in doubt about the weights of the mechs, I would recommend either:
http://mwo.smurfy-net.de/
http://www.sarna.net...ory:BattleMechs

Just don't ask me to give you the weight of some random IS mech, with out giving me a chance to look at either of those, I might get it wrong too.

[Christof Romulus]

So yeah, how do we go about getting PGI to actually read that suggestion on the dropships?

I really think that a tier system based on STATISTICS could be easily implemented (that way not only could the status of a mech change, from Tier to Tier, there would be no voting from the community).

So, PGI, what do you say?

Set up some stats based on K/D or Damage Done or Win/Loss - find a threshold for each "Tier", then assign mechs a visible tier (only in Community Warfare) based on the Mech's 'average' performance..

Then make the dropships run off that simple point system noted above (and below for simplicity), max of 4 mechs in your hanger:

Tier 1: 4 Points
Tier 2: 3 Points
Tier 3: 1.5 Points
Tier 4: 0.5 Points

What do you say? A lot easier than trying to vote on fixing ECM eh? =P

[Edit]:
OH and all trial mechs should always be regarded as 0.5 points. This incentivizes people bringing them, and doesn't penalize new players who don't have mechs.

Edited by Christof Romulus, 26 September 2014 - 08:24 AM.

[Ph30nix]

what bugs me is what if you are a pilot who hate Lights? or assaults? or mediums? or heavies?

or the newer players who dont have any assaults (assume they will have to use trials but still)?

[Metus regem]

Ph30nix, on 26 September 2014 - 08:20 AM, said:

what bugs me is what if you are a pilot who hate Lights? or assaults? or mediums? or heavies?

or the newer players who dont have any assaults (assume they will have to use trials but still)?

Bend over and kiss your ass good bye?

In all seriousness though, most of the trial mechs would fall into tier 3 or 4, maybe a couple could reach tier 2, hence the point balance we've started to talk about, if you were to come in under the 9 points perhaps a reward of some such, double that if you are stuck with a drop deck full of trial mechs.

[TLBFestus]

I imagine that if there is a tonnage limit the following scenario would play out;

Player one takes only 3 mechs, maxing out his tonnage.

Player two takes 4 mechs, maxing out his tonnage.

Initally player one out tons the opponent and survives the first encounter, albeit in a damaged mech. Player two respawns in his next mech and engages, and perhaps wins, but now must face P1 in a fresh mech.

Eventually, you get P1 in his last mech, likely damaged, up against P2 and his 3rd or 4th mech undamaged. P1 migh have the weight and weapons, but he still needs to eliminate 1-2 healthier, much smaller mechs to hold up his end of the fight for his team.

Now, imagine this with 12 players a side, all with varied loadouts, and you have a large "pool" of possible encounters between mech sizes and condition. Now teams have to contend with protecting damaged team mates, thinking about the risk versus benefit of taking damaged mechs "up front" during a battle, or hanging back hoping to get more shots in before they are destroyed.

What it might mean is that some Dropship matches only last 3 rounds because the other team runs out of mechs, or they are outnumbered in the last drop, having more firepower but fewer numbers and damaged armor.

With so many variables such as firepower, tonnage, numbers of mechs, degree of damage incurred, perhaps even an option by which when you have only taken 3 mechs (out of 4 slots) to skip a drop (ie drop #3 or drop #2) to have your last mech in the final drop (ie #3 or #4), and you have all sorts of great ways this can play out.

Sounds like a real fight to me.

Edited by TLBFestus, 26 September 2014 - 08:29 AM.

[Russ Bullock]

I admit I read very little of the entire thread - too little time in a day.

I will say this - in a perfect world we would have our groups limited to 4, 8 and 12 in CW and make each lance of a light, medium, heavy and Assault pilot with their drop ships full of those types of mechs - that way our MM can very easily put together matches.

But we know the players wouldn't like this concession they would prefer to have their groups of 5,6,7,9,10....

When you have group sizes like this it gets very difficult on the MM as seen in the public Group Queue - one group of 10 might not even fit with some of the groups of 2 based on all the heavy or assault slots being taken and it goes from there.

1 of each weight class gets past this and ensures variety.

However internally we are now discussing tonnage limits for CW and I am pushing this notion pretty strongly. It will end up providing more flexibility to players who want to perhaps take nothing but their Jenner's out for instance. But will become more restricting as you go higher, for instance nobody is going to take 4 Direwolf's - in fact if they take 2 their last two mechs are going to be pretty dang light.

But Tonnage restrictions does allow us to change it per planet if we desire.

I know players would like to push the tonnage limit up as high as possible so they can take as many of their favorite heavy mech as possible but I currently like the number of 240 tons.

[DEMAX51]

Russ Bullock, on 26 September 2014 - 08:33 AM, said:

I admit I read very little of the entire thread - too little time in a day.

I will say this - in a perfect world we would have our groups limited to 4, 8 and 12 in CW and make each lance of a light, medium, heavy and Assault pilot with their drop ships full of those types of mechs - that way our MM can very easily put together matches.

But we know the players wouldn't like this concession they would prefer to have their groups of 5,6,7,9,10....

When you have group sizes like this it gets very difficult on the MM as seen in the public Group Queue - one group of 10 might not even fit with some of the groups of 2 based on all the heavy or assault slots being taken and it goes from there.

1 of each weight class gets past this and ensures variety.

However internally we are now discussing tonnage limits for CW and I am pushing this notion pretty strongly. It will end up providing more flexibility to players who want to perhaps take nothing but their Jenner's out for instance. But will become more restricting as you go higher, for instance nobody is going to take 4 Direwolf's - in fact if they take 2 their last two mechs are going to be pretty dang light.

But Tonnage restrictions does allow us to change it per planet if we desire.

I know players would like to push the tonnage limit up as high as possible so they can take as many of their favorite heavy mech as possible but I currently like the number of 240 tons.

YES!

240 Tons is the MAGIC NUMBER!

The next time you guys are going to have a meeting to discuss this, spike Paul's drink with some Exlax if you have to get him out of the office for a few minutes, but PUSH THIS THROUGH!

Edited by DEMAX51, 26 September 2014 - 08:36 AM.