45 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

Brody319, on 26 September 2014 - 07:40 AM, said:

How about 3/0/3/6. Because thats how people want to play. not canon, but its fun.

How about random matching? Anything goes is even more fun. Just bring what you want. And while we're at it, scrap Elo too.

Terciel1976, on 26 September 2014 - 07:59 AM, said:

Well, so do I, but we're clearly not the majority.

In times of war, democracy and truth are inconvenient and as such are always thrown out the window. So who cares about majority rule?

[kapusta11]

Sure you can force players to play certain mechs but when there is no incentive to play other classes than assaults and heavies it will solve little.

[Appogee]

I think 3-3-3-3 has worked well vs what we had before.

[TercieI]

cdlord, on 26 September 2014 - 07:59 AM, said:

One of the big issues is tying XP gain directly to damage done, kills, assists, aka hurting the enemy. Perhaps there needs to be a bell curve. Assaults get 100% XP, Heavies get 115%, Lights get 100% (I rock some pretty amazing XP gains in my lights with NARC/TAG/UAV bonuses) and Mediums get 125% XP.

Not saying this is perfect either, but is a thought to entice without forcing or nerfing.

That's clever. Absent making all mechs more viable, I like it a lot. Even better might be a rolling incentive based on, say, the last. 72 hours usage.

Lights - 15% (+22% CB), etc.

[ICEFANG13]

I'm curious how a weight system (vs the current 'class' system) would do. It would give a lot of value to smaller mechs, like the Dragon, Locust, and Awesome. I heard some suggestions for the dropship mode where it was purely weight, as in, you have no limit on the number of mechs, but can only field (say) 235 tons of mech. You could take 5 Locusts over 1 Atlas if you wanted. I thought it was interesting.

[C E Dwyer]

Hate to think what mechs would be played if the mad dog wasn't around

Most I've personally seen if 5 assaults a team since patch and mediums are getting fewer again.

Seems people are in favor or lurmassault warrior online.

But whatever 3/3/3/3 seems very dead and burried.

was there mention of this in patch notes ?

[CDLord HHGD]

Terciel1976, on 26 September 2014 - 08:05 AM, said:

That's clever. Absent making all mechs more viable, I like it a lot. Even better might be a rolling incentive based on, say, the last. 72 hours usage.

Lights - 15% (+22% CB), etc.

Absolutely! A secondary raw bonus based on played percentage would be another layer of enticement. Depends on how fluid they can make it though. Real time, hourly average, daily average, weekly, etc.....

We know Lights can make their pay via NARC/TAG/UAV bonuses. Assaults via their damage output and kills. Assists are actually more profitable I think and it should be the bread and butter of Mediums and Heavies. So what can we do to enable the mediums to assist better? I know I have a UAV in almost everything. Mediums (especially IS mediums) have precious tonnage and hardpoints that make spending one on a NARC or TAG difficult on some chassis).

[Pyrrho]

DarthRevis, on 26 September 2014 - 07:46 AM, said:

But i hate to break it to you....if they have 7 you have 7.

Hasn't this been untrue since... well, for a long time now? Weight matching went out the window, from what I remember.

[Mercules]

Terciel1976, on 26 September 2014 - 07:24 AM, said:

Yes. Let's force people to play mechs they don't want to. That'll be great for wait times, fun and player retention.

You mean like Heavies and Assaults because Lights and Mediums don't have much of a use or rewards to play right now?

[Revis Volek]

cdlord, on 26 September 2014 - 07:59 AM, said:

One of the big issues is tying XP gain directly to damage done, kills, assists, aka hurting the enemy. Perhaps there needs to be a bell curve. Assaults get 100% XP, Heavies get 115%, Lights get 100% (I rock some pretty amazing XP gains in my lights with NARC/TAG/UAV bonuses) and Mediums get 125% XP.

Not saying this is perfect either, but is a thought to entice without forcing or nerfing.

This ^^^^

I have also had this thought, would defiantly create some incentive where there currently is none. But like said before if they have 7 Assaults you also have 7 Assaults so it was still a fair match im sure.

Edited by DarthRevis, 26 September 2014 - 08:14 AM.

[Pyrrho]

DarthRevis, on 26 September 2014 - 08:14 AM, said:

But like said before if they have 7 Assaults you also have 7 Assaults so it was still a fair match im sure.

I still feel like this is false. Matching class for class ended a long time ago, IIRC.

[Revis Volek]

Pyrrho, on 26 September 2014 - 08:13 AM, said:

Hasn't this been untrue since... well, for a long time now? Weight matching went out the window, from what I remember.

I have yet to be in a match with uneven numbers, if someone has a screenshots to prove me wrong tho i wouldn't doubt it. I also play large groups more often then small or solo so i could be seeing more of a 3/3/3/3 trend because of that. I will start taking screen shots and compiling some data then. Show me some proof my experience might not be the same as others.

Edited by DarthRevis, 26 September 2014 - 08:18 AM.

[Mercules]

Brody319, on 26 September 2014 - 07:40 AM, said:

How about 3/0/3/6. Because thats how people want to play. not canon, but its fun.

No... it's definitely not fun. I get dropped in matches like that from time to time and it really becomes much less fun.

[Trevor Belmont]

I was in a PUG match yesterday that had 7 Dire Whales, 6 Timberwolves and 4 MadDogs. How boring.

Edited by Trevor Belmont, 26 September 2014 - 08:21 AM.

[Pyrrho]

DarthRevis, on 26 September 2014 - 08:16 AM, said:

I have yet to be in a match with uneven numbers, if someone has a screenshots to prove me wrong tho i wouldn't doubt it. I also play large groups more often then small or solo so i could be seeing more of a 3/3/3/3 trend because of that. I will start taking screen shots and compiling some data then. Show me some proof my experience might not be the same as others.

Lets take a large group example as a thought experiment since I cannot sift through all of the screenshots I have on my PC at home:

In your large group (lets say 9), there is no chance of you bringing more than 3/3/3/3 to your fight; group class limits ensure this. But you are only a group of 9. There are still 3 spots to be filled.

If a team of three brings 3 assaults, they are within the class limit. If your group of 9 happens to get paired with that group of 3 when you drop (and if -- i know, a lot of "if" coming off of this -- you have 3 assaults in your group), your team now has 6 assault class 'mechs in its composition.

When you are paired with another team (lets say, for arguments sake, a full 12 man) -- they are bound to a strict 3/3/3/3. Your team now has 6 assaults to their 3.

Does this happen often? No, not likely. Is it perfectly possible and has it happened? I am inclined to believe it is.

My concern: saying "If you had 7, they did too" isn't necessarily wrong (maybe their team had 7 too), but it wasn't because the system said "Oh hey, they have 7 assaults, I'd better make sure the OpFor does too!"

Edited by Pyrrho, 26 September 2014 - 08:28 AM.

[Sprouticus]

Wait untilt he SCrow is open for CB. It will be non stop crows for weeks.

[Revis Volek]

Pyrrho, on 26 September 2014 - 08:27 AM, said:

Lets take a large group example as a thought experiment since I cannot sift through all of the screenshots I have on my PC at home:

In your large group (lets say 9), there is no chance of you bringing more than 3/3/3/3 to your fight; group class limits ensure this. But you are only a group of 9. There are still 3 spots to be filled.

If a team of three brings 3 assaults, they are within the class limit. If your group of 9 happens to get paired with that group of 3 when you drop (and if -- i know, a lot of "if" coming off of this -- you have 3 assaults in your group), your team now has 6 assault class 'mechs in its composition.

When you are paired with another team (lets say, for arguments sake, a full 12 man) -- they are bound to a strict 3/3/3/3. Your team now has 6 assaults to their 3.

Does this happen often? No, not likely. Is it perfectly possible and has it happened? I am inclined to believe it is.

My concern: saying "If you had 7, they did too" isn't necessarily wrong (maybe their team had 7 too), but it wasn't because the system said "Oh hey, they have 7 assaults, I'd better make sure the OpFor does too!"

You are right and wrong....12 mans are always bound to 4x3 yes and if they drop against a bunch of small groups can yes they can see up to 9 assaults (3 in each small group) but no one said they were dropping in 12's which at that point you still have an edge as you have 12 pilots working together on comms.

But small groups as far as i can tell and to my knowledge ALWAYS paired evenly, the same number of class on each team....

Like i said i love being proved wrong, keeps me humble (lol ) but i have yet to see the small group rule broken, 12 man vs small group yes of course but not small groups vs small groups or Solo v Solo team compositions.

[Pyrrho]

DarthRevis, on 26 September 2014 - 08:40 AM, said:

Like i said i love being proved wrong, keeps me humble (lol ) but i have yet to see the small group rule broken, 12 man vs small group yes of course but not small groups vs small groups or Solo v Solo team compositions.

If I find any juicy screen-grabs (from group or solo play) I will be sure to PM a few your way.

Like I said, I am confident that more often than not, weight balance is achieved -- but it is not a guarantee. That's all!

[Bigbacon]

People can still run what they want, just you have to wait a bit longer to play.

I only brought this up as a 'can we test it again....'

and not a hard 3/3/3/3 by any means but a hard cap one a class. Say assault get to 4, well no more assaults, load in others. if there are tons of assaults in the queue, they wait a bit longer to get into a game. hell it already takes forever to get into a game as heavy or assault right now.

I'm talking can we experiment with it again?

[Bounty Dogg]

I like 3/4/3/2 myself. Let mediums rule the field!!

.....you know, like its supposed to be