362 replies to this topic

[Hoax415]

So to recap your argument, which is based on some crazy non-reality in the first place where people are going to bring 4 Locusts because they hate winning. Probably just to spite you personally.

Your argument boils down to this:
1/1/1/1 System:
-A player who wants to run four fast small mechs is unhappy
and
-A player who wants to run four huge slow weapon platforms is unhappy

Four mechs totaling no more than 240 tons System:
-A player who wants to run four fast small mechs can. He is very happy.
while
-A player who wants to run four huge slow weapon platforms is unhappy.

The "heavy" pilot was not hurt by the change at all. The "light" pilot's happiness increased.

So we've benefited some players without hurting others but that pisses you off. You have issues man.

Edited by Hoax415, 27 September 2014 - 12:11 PM.

[Gorgo7]

Kay Wolf, on 27 September 2014 - 08:44 AM, said:

I couldn't stand to read this entire thing, so I didn't... I may be back later, but that's doubtful.

Here's my take, actually two of them...

1) Tonnage and number restrictions, but not like you think. Instead of granting each pilot between 200 and 240 tons, you FIRST make it a hard limit of 2,500 tons for the entire drop; this will give each pilot, roughly, 208 tons to mess with. SECOND, you put in the hard rule that ONE pilot can only run THREE of any one Chassis -three Atlas's, three Hunchback's, three Raven's. THIRD, each pilot is limited to FOUR 'Mechs in their bays, period, though they may decide to take less. FOURTH, if one pilot does not use their average amount of tonnage, that tonnage remains in the pot for others in the Company to use.

I've just read the post in which Russ says it's a hard-limit, four, no more no less. It's numbers, it's programming, you can do ANYTHING you want with those numbers, that programming. A hard-limit is... weak.

2) Switch everything over to Battle Value, where PGI determines a BV for MWO for EVERY component out there, using BV2 and, possibly, BV3 as a groundwork for their version of BV. Battle Value is determined in the MechLab, not in the Match Maker. A pilot's Piloting and Gunnery Skills, determined by already extant metrics that all of us are capable of seeing, and some that PGI have admitted to holding back, is used to modify, by a manner of multiplier also determined by PGI, the Battle Value of the 'Mech built in the MechLab upon saving the 'Mech after editing something. When each pilot joins a team, and they select a 'Mech to use, that 'Mechs game-determined pilot-modified BV is placed in their team's bucket. Now, instead of the Match Maker looking at 3/3/3/3, specific weight restrictions, Elo values, and the age of the searching group, it is instead looking for another team in the Match Maker starting at within 5% of the bucket-total Battle Value, whether high or low, and the age of the searching group. That 5% limit begins to be loosened at fifteen seconds by 1% every five seconds from that point outward, to a maximum of 34% difference between teams, and then it quits at 35%. At 2.5 minutes searching, the Match Maker kicks everyone back to the Launch Screen, and they can launch again. However, I don't think you would see more than fifteen seconds worth of searching before suitable matches were made.

This also has another effect on Private Matches and on Community Warfare. Player-Commander's would be in charge of determining the Battle Value size they could take, much as the Private Match allows with setting tonnage, now. PLAYERS, not the game, would be in charge of determining what size fights they wanted to have. As well, once objective warfare is introduced, and you have phases to a campaign rather than just kill each other all the time, such as Recon/intel gathering, objective raids, minor skirmishes, major skirmishes, and the final battle of the campaign, battle value ranges could be set, which the Unit Commander's would be required to make agreements to their own totals within, and you can have some real warfare.

Tonnage by itself is not the answer. Number limitations, by themselves, are not the answer, unless you're using Battle Value. 3/3/3/3 is bollocks, as we're still getting rolled or rolling someone else nine times out of ten, and our wait times in the queue are as large as they ever were. Battle Value allows players to be in charge of the game, with whatever limitations they wish to set for themselves, if any, and also takes into account the machines being used, as opposed to the hard limitations of 2300 for Elo, for a scoring system that was never designed for match making in the first place, and is for one-on-one players of Chess, not multiple players with unlimited combinations of machines on unlimited types of maps, etc. The ONLY thing that's not unlimited in this game, in fact, is Elo, which should be.

Also, Battle Value is of enormous importance, especially when modified by a MechWarrior's Piloting and Gunnery Skills, because the machine is also taken into account, not just it's tonnage or weight class. There are 'Mechs extant in the game, NOW, that have Battle Values that would place them WAY outside the average for the weight class and tonnage; as long as that is NOT taken into account, you will continue to have rolls on one side or the other.

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.

For a guy who answers posts by not reading them because "I couldn't stand to read it all...(insert palsied sigh here)" you sure are verbose and make unusually complex suggestions for how drop ship should operate, all while weakly attempting to portray Russ post as evasive or even outright deception.

​I find your post extremely offensive.

If you care to have others read your drivel, consider omitting the fact that you are too lazy to rebut what you are pretending to rebut.

[Brody319]

Hoax415, on 27 September 2014 - 12:10 PM, said:

So to recap your argument, which is based on some crazy non-reality in the first place where people are going to bring 4 Locusts because they hate winning. Probably just to spite you personally.

Your argument boils down to this:
1/1/1/1 System:
-A player who wants to run four fast small mechs is unhappy
and
-A player who wants to run four huge slow weapon platforms is unhappy

Four mechs totaling no more than 240 tons System:
-A player who wants to run four fast small mechs can. He is very happy.
while
-A player who wants to run four huge slow weapon platforms is unhappy.

The "heavy" pilot was not hurt by the change at all. The "light" pilot's happiness increased.

So we've benefited some players without hurting others but that pisses you off. You have issues man.

a 1/1/1/1 system is fair, you basically just said exactly why its fair. everyone has to learn to play a different mech, making the meta more interesting.
The tonnage system does punish heavies and assaults. I have to play twice as many matches to get the same XP for my mechs as the light/medium player does. Want to run 4 Jenners? okay, you get XP for all their chassis. Want to run 2 timber wolves? okay but you need to fill out the skill tree for each level in 3 variants before you can level. You play 1 match and get XP for 3-4 variants of your chassis while Assaults have to play 3 matches if they wanna level those Atlases they just spent several Million C-bills on.
Perfectly fair right? I have to play more, and get to use less mechs I want too, so that mr. 4 ecm spider with bugged hitboxes can be happy.
With a tonnage minimum of 150, you can still play 3 spiders, but if you do, you gotta run a heavy. It brings the entire team system closer together the bare minimum tonnage your team could have is 1800, the maximum the enemy can have is 2880.
Now lets assume there is no tonnage limit. The lowest your tonnage could possible be is 1440. is your team having to bring an extra 360 really such a burden?
What would you rather your team be, 1440 tons fighting against 2880 tons of death, or 1800 tons fighting 2880 tons. You are still going to be out class, and this is an extreme example, but without a tonnage minimum its Entirely possible to happen.

I give it 4 weeks max before people start complaining about their teams getting destroyed because the enemy used their weight more wisely.

[Threat Doc]

Vassago Rain, on 27 September 2014 - 10:38 AM, said:

It already takes 5+ minutes to find a drop in the ghetto...

You make it sound as though this is a bad thing? Even as late as MechWarrior IV, pre-Mektek, it took between 45 minutes and several hours just to organize a game effectively. Five minutes is a drop in the bucket.

Gorgo7, on 27 September 2014 - 12:17 PM, said:

For a guy who answers posts by not reading them because "I couldn't stand to read it all...(insert palsied sigh here)" you sure are verbose and make unusually complex suggestions for how drop ship should operate, all while weakly attempting to portray Russ post as evasive or even outright deception.

​I find your post extremely offensive.

In the first place, I said only what was needed to explain what I was trying to without under-explaining. Second, I could not care less about your discomfort, your feelings about what I said, or anything else. You mean NOTHING to me, though I might have given you the time of day had you more explanation concerning your offense, instead of just giving me angry garbage. Third, I said not one word about anything Russ was talking about, in a negative fashion or otherwise.

Quote

If you care to have others read your drivel, consider omitting the fact that you are too lazy to rebut what you are pretending to rebut.

Consider understanding that people have lives beyond so many pages stacked up so quickly by so many high-written authors. I read the first three pages, and it came around to the same circular arguments one normally gets in a thread such as this.

If you have nothing constructive to add, here, including some manner of argument or conversation to be had concerning what anyone, including me, has written, STAY OUT OF THE THREAD!

Edited by Kay Wolf, 27 September 2014 - 12:56 PM.

[Gorgo7]

Kay Wolf, on 27 September 2014 - 12:55 PM, said:

If you have nothing constructive to add, here, including some manner of argument or conversation to be had concerning what anyone, including me, has written, STAY OUT OF THE THREAD!

Sorry
For a guy who can't read the posts you sure enjoy cluttering them with your nonsensical approach to the game.
What you have written is not constructive, simply clutter. It is a treatise on contrariness.
Why don't you consider offering modifications to the proposed system instead of offering a completely different system that requires a complete overhaul of the game as it stands now? Perhaps you could nudge the team in a fashion towards your ideal through constructive dialogue instead of suggesting that they are inept/greedy/lazy and YOUR system is the one that ALL would play.
Your thinking is that of a spoiled child.
Sorry Kay, but you should take a break. Sounds like you need one.

Shoot straight!

Edited by Mal, 28 September 2014 - 01:59 PM.
Removed inflammatory comment

[Hoax415]

Kay Wolf Status = REKT

[Johnny Reb]

My problem with the only limit to drop being tonnage currently would be the clans (mainly) to field:
36 Timbers or
48 Maddogs
Which would just be pathetic/unfair to IS teams against them.Very reason I think some sort of, if not 1/1/1/1, then some other limiting criteria should be involved.

Edited by Johnny Reb, 27 September 2014 - 10:09 PM.

[Geck0]

Hoax415, on 27 September 2014 - 12:10 PM, said:

So to recap your argument, which is based on some crazy non-reality in the first place where people are going to bring 4 Locusts because they hate winning. Probably just to spite you personally.

Your argument boils down to this:
1/1/1/1 System:
-A player who wants to run four fast small mechs is unhappy
and
-A player who wants to run four huge slow weapon platforms is unhappy

Four mechs totaling no more than 240 tons System:
-A player who wants to run four fast small mechs can. He is very happy.
while
-A player who wants to run four huge slow weapon platforms is unhappy.

The "heavy" pilot was not hurt by the change at all. The "light" pilot's happiness increased.

So we've benefited some players without hurting others but that pisses you off. You have issues man.

While I agree there shouldn't be a a resolution denied because it doesn't help all players, I do believe there is a much higher consideration being given to lighter pilots than heavier ones.

[Johnny Reb]

Geck0, on 27 September 2014 - 10:18 PM, said:

While I agree there shouldn't be a a resolution denied because it doesn't help all players, I do believe there is a much higher consideration being given to lighter pilots than heavier ones.

I also think letting the great light/medium pilots the chance to run 4 of their mechs is also unfair. I know of a few light/med pilots that if they run 4 of there mechs they could carry the match themselves.

[Johnny Z]

Woah, all the leet speak in this topic is trippin me out.

[Vassago Rain]

Kay Wolf, on 27 September 2014 - 12:55 PM, said:

Dude, it's okay, it doesn't take an hour to setup a game like in 1997 on 56k modems and ancient forum software! !

[Alek Ituin]

Hoax415, on 27 September 2014 - 12:10 PM, said:

So to recap your argument, which is based on some crazy non-reality in the first place where people are going to bring 4 Locusts because they hate winning. Probably just to spite you personally.

Don't be so quick to dismiss Locust pilots as not being sadistic SOB's who like to ruin everything just because they can. After all, we do pilot Locusts by personal choice.

Spiting somebody would just be icing on the cake made of butthurt tryhards.


Just putting that out there. >_>

[Kjudoon]

I dunno about the whole tonnage aspect. Having people just bringing 2 dire whales/atlas to the fight and just have the game devolve into Lights and Assaults vs more of the same thing. Kinda... blah to me. At least this way we won't see so much meta assaults and lights. We'd get heavies and mediums too unlike a straight tonnage limit.

[Hoax415]

Johnny Reb, on 27 September 2014 - 10:08 PM, said:

My problem with the only limit to drop being tonnage currently would be the clans (mainly) to field:
36 Timbers or
48 Maddogs
Which would just be pathetic/unfair to IS teams against them.Very reason I think some sort of, if not 1/1/1/1, then some other limiting criteria should be involved.

Please read better. What you are frightened about is not possible. Its 4 mechs, no tonnage gimmicks, max 240.

Under 1/1/1/1, all clan teams would bring 12 Mad Cats + 12 Stormcrows. Because 1/1/1/1 means bring 35/55/75/100 unless you have a great reason not to.

Under the 240 system each clanner could potentially bring 75+75+55+35, so we've doubled the number of Mad Cats to 24 and kept all 12 Stormcrows. But that clan team also has 0 assaults of any kind. The 1/1/1/1 team brought 12 assaults obviously.

It is literally impossible to get more than 24 Mad Cats. You can get 48 Vultures if you wanted to run a pure Vulture composition.

Geck0, on 27 September 2014 - 10:18 PM, said:

While I agree there shouldn't be a a resolution denied because it doesn't help all players, I do believe there is a much higher consideration being given to lighter pilots than heavier ones.

That is not what is happening. What is happening is players are being given more choice. A "heavy mech purist" (if such a thing exists) can pilot more heavy mechs than they used to be able to. Ditto an assault purist. So EVERYBODY literally wins.

The sour grapes are that a medium pilot could use 4 mediums (or 4 lights) but in all likelyhood the medium guy will take 1 heavy or assault mech to max out his tonnage and in order to max out tonnage you probably will never take 3-4 lights.

So the sour grapes got even stupider. People in this thread are literally demanding a tonnage floor because someone might do something. We can wait and see on that. Adding restrictions for the sake of restrictions is asinine.

Kjudoon, on 28 September 2014 - 01:15 AM, said:

I dunno about the whole tonnage aspect. Having people just bringing 2 dire whales/atlas to the fight and just have the game devolve into Lights and Assaults vs more of the same thing. Kinda... blah to me. At least this way we won't see so much meta assaults and lights. We'd get heavies and mediums too unlike a straight tonnage limit.

You want to get rid of a system that offers more team composition flexibility than this game has ever had because someone might try to bring 2 DWF even though that forces them to use 2 twenty tonners because you imagine that might be unfair or something.

The 1/1/1/1 system is more of the same, it means at least half the chassis in the game are incredibly sub optimal and will almost never be seen in CW.

The 4 mechs @ 240 tons system might result in seeing a 48 Vulture team or a 24 Atlas 24 Locust team. That's funny and exciting to me. I highly doubt you will see it often but let people try to build gimmick teams or interesting teams. 48 Quickdraws new meta?

Edited by Hoax415, 28 September 2014 - 06:21 AM.

[Zyllos]

Johnny Reb, on 27 September 2014 - 10:08 PM, said:

My problem with the only limit to drop being tonnage currently would be the clans (mainly) to field:
36 Timbers or
48 Maddogs
Which would just be pathetic/unfair to IS teams against them.Very reason I think some sort of, if not 1/1/1/1, then some other limiting criteria should be involved.

This is why I suggest the tonnage be around 200t, for the average drop.

At 200t, you can only ever take 2 of the Heavy/Assault meta builds. I don't consider the Mad Dog to be too bad so allowing someone to take 3 of them isn't an issue.

FYI, this is assuming players can pick between 2 - 4 mechs, not being forced to take 4 mechs. Tonnage is NOT shared to other players.

Edited by Zyllos, 28 September 2014 - 06:33 AM.

[Hoax415]

Four mechs per player, no more no less. Each mech is valued at its listed max tonnage. Maximum tonnage value is X.

Right now Russ says X = 240, I've seen posters suggest all sorts of other numbers. Some planets could have higher X value some could have lower in theory for even more delicious variety.

But giving up respawns for more tonnage is not a thing at this time and there has been almost no benefit to using such a system offered in this thread. Its no more a thing than using stripped mechs to gain more tonnage in your other slots is a thing. Or no duplicate chassis being a thing.

I wish we could just discuss the actual system that has been put before us.

Edited by Hoax415, 28 September 2014 - 06:43 AM.

[Eddrick]

I can agree that Tonnage should not be shared in PUG Ques. Because, of the grifing exploit it presents. But, maybe an exception can be made for 12v12 tournaments. Since, they are more willing to compromize among eachother.

[Destoroyah]

I still think a compromise of tonnage limits and 1/1/1/1 is the best course.

Everyone brings a balanced deck so no team is noticable under toned and prevents matchmaker complications.

Everyone is given equal rights with no advantage going to anyone cept the players that adapt well and can play any weight well.

The tonnage limit would help bring the edge cases into more viability(The 20ton/40ton/60ton/80ton) cause you can't field a superstar team of all the super heavies(35ton/55ton/75ton/100ton). With a tonnage limit of say 240 you need 200tons minimum to field the lightest in each field and have 40 tons in which you can upgrade which is more then enough to max two weights and have a little left over.

[Vassago Rain]

Destoroyah, on 28 September 2014 - 07:23 AM, said:

I still think a compromise of tonnage limits and 1/1/1/1 is the best course.

Everyone brings a balanced deck so no team is noticable under toned and prevents matchmaker complications.

Everyone is given equal rights with no advantage going to anyone cept the players that adapt well and can play any weight well.

The tonnage limit would help bring the edge cases into more viability(The 20ton/40ton/60ton/80ton) cause you can't field a superstar team of all the super heavies(35ton/55ton/75ton/100ton). With a tonnage limit of say 240 you need 200tons minimum to field the lightest in each field and have 40 tons in which you can upgrade which is more then enough to max two weights and have a little left over.

People aren¨t gonna bring the bad mechs, no matter what silly limits you impose on them. Do you see cicadas in the world of 3x4?

[Sorbic]

I'm awaiting the hilarity of seeing some people try to pilot lights. Wall, twist, twist run, wall...