362 replies to this topic

[SirLANsalot]

Wintersdark, on 26 September 2014 - 04:00 PM, said:

While I'm sure you feel that way, I hope you can at least respect that the majority of players are going to want balanced matches, right? An IS tonnage advantage if Clan mechs are still outperforming them, but not IS mechs that are fully balanced with Clan mechs AND out-weighing them.

Balance? The balance is IN the tonnange number.

What i keep calling for is not only the 200t limit but ALSO being able to take fewer mechs. 2-4 being the min/max of what you can take. If you want to stop people from taking just 1 mech, then make it a minimum of 2, so they at least must use another mech.


I do not want to be taking just 1 assault mech and then having to fiddle with the rest of the tonnage to fit in 3 other mechs I do not want to pilot. If CW is this big role playing war, then if I am playing an assault pilot, I do not want to see hide nor tail of ANY other class in my own bay.
When it comes to "balance" its like I said about 3 times already. The choice is the balance. Either you get to use 2 big assault mechs, and thus not be able to spawn in 2 more times. Or you use smaller mechs and are able to spawn 2 more times then someone whos running an assault mech.

This also brings up the fact that if you SEE an assault mech on the field, you automatically know he will not have a full deck of spawns, and if he does, he will not be coming back in that big mech. This alone makes Assaults and Heavies big priority targets and makes them very valuable when on the field. Mediums and lights will be the kings of the battlefield

Edited by SirLANsalot, 26 September 2014 - 07:36 PM.

[King Arthur IV]

although im opposed to 1111, (tin foil hat on) it probably wont get changed.

forcing players to play 1 of each class encourages players to own more mechs and mech bays. $CHA-CHING$

(double layered foil hat on)

Edited by King Arthur IV, 26 September 2014 - 07:54 PM.

[Mawai]

My suggestion might be to have 1/1/1/1 AND a 240 ton total limit for the 4 mechs.

This means that you can have at most 2 mechs that are the maximum tonnage for their weight class. I think this might lead to some interesting 4 mech optimizations depending on what mechs an individual prefers to drive. We might also see a few more of the lighter weight mechs in a class as folks try to conserve weight in some classes to spend in others.

[Johnny Reb]

IsaAurinkoinen, on 26 September 2014 - 09:23 AM, said:

I think that perfect system would be 210t (list tonnage, so not stripped down mechs) and must also have 4 mechs. If you want to bring 100 tonner then you have to think how to got those rest of mechs fit. So even locust can be (somekind) viable .

100t Kingcrap
20t Locust
20t Locust
70t Catapracht

OR

55t Shadowhawk
55t Griffin
70t Cataphract
30t Spider

Whick one you would prefer?

Top heavy or more balanced. That would be awesome and most awesome thing would be that we would see more mediums witch ones should be most of mechs at the field.

I would prefer:
Kintaro 55tons
Shadowhawk 55tons
Kintaro 55 tons
Cicada 40 tons
Max weight 205 tons

currently with 1/1/1/1 it will be more like
D-DC or Crab 100 ton
Orion or Cataphract 75 or 70 ton
Kintaro 55 ton
35 ton light 35 ton
Max weight 255-260 tons

edit: personally 1/1/1/1 with tonnage is the only way to go. Then I think 240 would be acceptable.

Edited by Johnny Reb, 26 September 2014 - 08:38 PM.

[Johnny Reb]

Zyllos, on 26 September 2014 - 01:26 PM, said:

I don't see what is wrong with allowing players to drop less than 4 mechs. Don't allow sharing between players, but allow players to spend more tonnage on less mechs individually.

If you don't want players taking more than 2 Mad Cats, then lower the tonnage to like 185 or so. Then, you can have situations of players taking multiple Medium/Light mechs for 3 re spawns while Heavy/Assault players will have to mix in other lighter options or not get anymore than 1 re spawn.

But forcing players to have to pick 4 mechs along with tonnage limit is not a good idea. There needs to be a variable limit of mechs allowed, with a maximum number, and a tonnage limit.

The problem will be the very real fact you will face a clan team with 36 timberwolves with 240ton cap.

[Kain Demos]

Johnny Reb, on 26 September 2014 - 08:45 PM, said:

The problem will be the very real fact you will face a clan team with 36 timberwolves with 240ton cap.

That would never happen.

Edited by Kain Thul, 26 September 2014 - 08:46 PM.

[Geck0]

Wintersdark, on 26 September 2014 - 03:57 PM, said:

The heck are you talking about?

There's no tonnage sharing on the table.

Russ is discussing allowing a 240 ton 4 mech drop deck for each player. Failing to use the full tonnage doesn't give that to anyone else, and further it's not practical on a technical level to share tonnage due to how the MM builds teams.

As such, the "meta" will be quite flexible for a good while.

This was a reference to my suggestion here

I think this tonnage balance / 1/1/1/1 restrictions is an effort to balance out matches in terms of tonnages. Because you will end up with situations where you will end up with one team being nearly all assaults and the other with mostly meds/heavies. Balance issues aside, this is simply not a fun experience. The restrictions are trying to correct this while still allowing players to play the mechs they want at the cost of playing the ones they don't.

However, groups can regulate themselves must easier than random pugs. A tonnage pool for groups would serve all of these functions without burdening the players.

Kain Thul, on 26 September 2014 - 08:46 PM, said:

That would never happen.

tbh not sure if you're being sarcastic or naive.

Edited by Geck0, 26 September 2014 - 11:13 PM.

[Kain Demos]

Geck0, on 26 September 2014 - 11:12 PM, said:

This was a reference to my suggestion here

I think this tonnage balance / 1/1/1/1 restrictions is an effort to balance out matches in terms of tonnages. Because you will end up with situations where you will end up with one team being nearly all assaults and the other with mostly meds/heavies. Balance issues aside, this is simply not a fun experience. The restrictions are trying to correct this while still allowing players to play the mechs they want at the cost of playing the ones they don't.

However, groups can regulate themselves must easier than random pugs. A tonnage pool for groups would serve all of these functions without burdening the players.



tbh not sure if you're being sarcastic or naive.

A 12 man could do it for the trolling but the statistical odds of it happening are so slim it would be like winning 3 jackpots in a row.

[Johnny Reb]

Kain Thul, on 26 September 2014 - 08:46 PM, said:

That would never happen.

Depending on ton limit and taking multi same chassis(not happening I guess) it could. Im down for both 1/1/1/1 and tonnage limit. Will make ppl decide what mech in that class with tonnage. Get a wide variety of mechs involved! More money for pgi since you might have to buy that mech you wouldn't otherwise, for the tonnage. The lower ton mech classes would absolutely get used.

Down side for pgi? They wold have to offer a trial mech for all weight classes! Bad for them, a boon for new players wanting to find a mech they like.

[JohnyBlack]

I also think 1/1/1/1 with tonnage limit is the way to go for the beginning.

Just 1/1/1/1 will lead to only max tonnge per class being used.
Just tonnage limit is going to create too much unpredictability for them to feel comfertable with for the first CW implementation.

[Johnny Reb]

JohnyBlack, on 26 September 2014 - 11:46 PM, said:

I also think 1/1/1/1 with tonnage limit is the way to go for the beginning.

Just 1/1/1/1 will lead to only max tonnge per class being used.
Just tonnage limit is going to create too much unpredictability for them to feel comfertable with for the first CW implementation.

Agree

[Gorgo7]

YES!

240 tons is ideal!

Vary it by planet or mission.

Great idea!

[Gorgo7]

Push the tonnage limits Russ! You the man!

[CyclonerM]

Gorgo7, on 27 September 2014 - 05:40 AM, said:

Push the tonnage limits Russ! You the man!

+1!

[Joe Mallad]

Lyoto Machida, on 25 September 2014 - 05:37 PM, said:

PGI will probably give surviving defenders full ammo and armor/structure. You know...for balance, and all.

why? In a real battle, if you survive the first wave you don't get a free pass ALL THE TIME to repair and rearm lol. I for one want it to be that if if out there in my assault or heavy and I'm hurt and low on ammo, I need to then think smart and survive as long as I can in THAT MECH. I need to use the environment to move and maneuver to try and still get in a shot here and there and do some kind of damage to ANY ENEMY, damaged or fresh reinforcements coming in. If I'm still in the fight and can hold out in ANY way for my team, that's what I'll do. If I'm hurt and out of ammo, guess what? I don't go hide or cry because I "think I should get a free repair and rearm" before the next fresh enemy drops. I put myself out there to draw fire for my team so those on my team that are fresh and have ammo can finish off the enemy that took the time to waste their ammo and time on helpless me lol.

No, we don't need to get healed or rearmed. You either play smart with the current mech you have at the time, or die and drop back in in your next mech as the game mod allows.

Edited by Yoseful Mallad, 27 September 2014 - 05:52 AM.

[Targetloc]

Johnny Reb, on 26 September 2014 - 08:45 PM, said:

The problem will be the very real fact you will face a clan team with 36 timberwolves with 240ton cap.

You're confusing 2 separate issues. The Timberwolf being so much better than most other heavies is something PGI will have to deal with either way.

Lets try again:

The problem will be the very real fact you will face a team with 36 Orions with 240ton cap.

Can 36 Orions beat 48 mixed mechs with the same total tonnage? Good luck with that.

[Wintersdark]

SirLANsalot, on 26 September 2014 - 07:35 PM, said:

Balance? The balance is IN the tonnange number.

What i keep calling for is not only the 200t limit but ALSO being able to take fewer mechs. 2-4 being the min/max of what you can take. If you want to stop people from taking just 1 mech, then make it a minimum of 2, so they at least must use another mech.


I do not want to be taking just 1 assault mech and then having to fiddle with the rest of the tonnage to fit in 3 other mechs I do not want to pilot. If CW is this big role playing war, then if I am playing an assault pilot, I do not want to see hide nor tail of ANY other class in my own bay.
When it comes to "balance" its like I said about 3 times already. The choice is the balance. Either you get to use 2 big assault mechs, and thus not be able to spawn in 2 more times. Or you use smaller mechs and are able to spawn 2 more times then someone whos running an assault mech.

This also brings up the fact that if you SEE an assault mech on the field, you automatically know he will not have a full deck of spawns, and if he does, he will not be coming back in that big mech. This alone makes Assaults and Heavies big priority targets and makes them very valuable when on the field. Mediums and lights will be the kings of the battlefield

I suspect that you misunderstood my post.

I agree with everything you've said above, and have said the very same things in this thread.

I was responding to Kain Thul, who was saying he wanted Clans to have a reduced tonnage cap vs. IS mechs, and I was cautioning against that [I]until we saw the results of the IS mech quirk pass[/]. I'm not against a lower cap for Clan mechs, but I feel the IS mech quirk pass will improve IS mechs' gameplay as well as balance, and as such that should go through first. Also, as per their design, clan mechs need to be balanced vs. IS mechs for non CW matches, so ultimately having the same tonnage cap is better.

[Zyllos]

Johnny Reb, on 26 September 2014 - 08:45 PM, said:

The problem will be the very real fact you will face a clan team with 36 timberwolves with 240ton cap.

Kain Thul, on 26 September 2014 - 08:46 PM, said:

That would never happen.

It very well could happen, but that is why I am suggesting a 200t cap. Only allows for 2 Mad Cats. Maybe some planets would have 240t cap to allow for a heavier invasion, but I would suggest that be the rare case. Same goes for something like 160t.

[Wintersdark]

Geck0, on 26 September 2014 - 11:12 PM, said:

This was a reference to my suggestion here

I think this tonnage balance / 1/1/1/1 restrictions is an effort to balance out matches in terms of tonnages. Because you will end up with situations where you will end up with one team being nearly all assaults and the other with mostly meds/heavies. Balance issues aside, this is simply not a fun experience. The restrictions are trying to correct this while still allowing players to play the mechs they want at the cost of playing the ones they don't.

However, groups can regulate themselves must easier than random pugs. A tonnage pool for groups would serve all of these functions without burdening the players.

If there's a 200t tonnage cap per player but no minimum mech count _and the tonnage cannot be shared_, a team taking all assaults could take 24 Atlases in total: each player has one respawn in his Atlas.

A team with all heavies and mediums could have 48 mechs. I'd bet on the heavies and mediums, and this is a built in level of balancing.

Tonnage sharing is off the table for technical reasons, as Russ already said. No point in discussing it.

[Wintersdark]

JohnyBlack, on 26 September 2014 - 11:46 PM, said:

I also think 1/1/1/1 with tonnage limit is the way to go for the beginning.

Just 1/1/1/1 will lead to only max tonnge per class being used.

1/1/1/1 marginalizes (continues the marginalization) of mechs in the lower end of their scale per class. This is pretty bad, though admittedly is where we are right now anyways.

Quote

Just tonnage limit is going to create too much unpredictability for them to feel comfertable with for the first CW implementation.

But here you lose me. Unpredictability? You'll need to expand on why "players using a diverse mech selection" is a bad thing?