45 replies to this topic

[Fubbit]

Seems like a reasonable mechanic to use for balance. ( But whether it's a fair number? Some kind of stats to back this up might be good )

What really jumps out is the drop deck size changing depending on who you are fighting.
Just make it 250 for IS all the time if you guys want to try this. (right?)

[C E Dwyer]

So people will use up their tonnage, and the IS team will now be bigger and slower and hand even bigger advantage to the clans in their 89kph death ball.

Well done PGI you really thought this one out didn't you... not..

[Summon3r]

Cathy, on 03 March 2015 - 08:36 AM, said:

So people will use up their tonnage, and the IS team will now be bigger and slower and hand even bigger advantage to the clans in their 89kph death ball.

Well done PGI you really thought this one out didn't you... not..

well going from a spider with invisa-armor to a firestarter with even more invisa-armor isnt so bad :-/

[Kjudoon]

Koniving, on 03 March 2015 - 08:14 AM, said:

It'd be lore friendly-ish, so I'm kinda for it.

But numbers isn't the issue either. It's map design. Tight corridors, funneling bottle necks, all of these scream Clan advantages. Poor and heavily artificial map design that gives no room or even need to spread forces, no way to flash attack one gate and quickly get to another gate instead... There's a lot that simply favors Clan mechs because the maps are designed in such a short-sighted way. Objectives are much too close together, and designed as such that a simple orbital bombardment on the base would wipe it out; why the heck would we bother landing dropships?

Canonically, mechs, troops, etc. had to land to cover large areas to bring down bases, as they tend to keep their generators, turret control stations, communications, and what not all over the place for the express purpose that a simple orbital bombardment could not possibly be effective enough to be worth doing.

Some ideas follow in its place.

Spoiler

Trust me, I agree on map design. To me all maps under 4 times the size of Alpine is too small, and this mentality of making arena combat with set 'fight areas' and wasting 50% of the map as just flavor text level attention is maddening.

Edited by Kjudoon, 03 March 2015 - 08:42 AM.

[Mirkk Defwode]

It does permit the use of all Founders mechs at once now.

Infact I think that's what I'll do for my drop deck just because I can.

[pbiggz]

[Mirkk Defwode]

Kjudoon, on 03 March 2015 - 08:39 AM, said:

Trust me, I agree on map design. To me all maps under 4 times the size of Alpine is too small, and this mentality of making arena combat with set 'fight areas' and wasting 50% of the map as just flavor text level attention is maddening.

I concur that the map design is one of the more significant issues. But I've had various folks yell at me when I've brought this up. The primary principle I'd like to see PGI use that exists for multiplayer map design is the 3-route rule. Any and every area should have 3 ways in and out, this allows for more fluid combat and the ability to flank or use more advanced tactics. That also means more than the single ramp to access the gate locks.

[Monkey Lover]

Not going to change much other than I have had a few(very few) drop decks where I needed an extra 10 tons. This will help me use more of the mechs I wanted to use.

Edited by Monkey Lover, 03 March 2015 - 09:08 AM.

[AlmightyAeng]

Mirkk Defwode, on 03 March 2015 - 09:01 AM, said:

It does permit the use of all Founders mechs at once now.

Infact I think that's what I'll do for my drop deck just because I can.

Somewhere, Koniving is getting an erection and doesn't know why.

Edited by Ghost Badger, 03 March 2015 - 09:27 AM.

[Waffles 2pt0]

12 v 10

[sdsnowbum]

I think changing drop limits will be good for variety but not necessarily do anything for balance.

Although if this is an 'easy' tweak for dev to make and then they can monitor results to see what happens, well then I am all for it.

What I really can't wait for are tonnage differences per planet, and possibly even per game mode.

I don't want more of a scramble before launch to put in your best mechs for the job (when you find out if you are attacking, defending, counter and on which map).

What I DO want is that when you decide you are dropping on a planet, you check out the planet's weight limits and then whip up a few mechs appropriately.

Might also mean you can basically target one planet at a time, which IMO would be interesting.

[Khereg]

Fubbit, on 03 March 2015 - 08:16 AM, said:

Seems like a reasonable mechanic to use for balance. ( But whether it's a fair number? Some kind of stats to back this up might be good )

Gave this some thought and not sure PGI has a large enough sample size to do a statistically valid analysis, but the process seems pretty straightforward:

1. Only look at pug v pug matches as a baseline (differences in ability between various 12 mans will undermine the results). I think this could be done by checking unit tags in CW matches - not more than 2 - 4 people on a team from the same unit would count as a pug match (no unit tags means pug, by definition).

2. Check W/L records for selected scenarios for qualitying matches on attack and counterattack modes. Compare the differences in outcomes before and after the tonnage changes and see if there's a noticeable difference.

Finally, DO NOT publish the results. Same logic as not publishing players' ELO scores. Making the info public will lead to endless debate and heartburn. Let PGI use the data to drive balance, but only they get to see it.

Edited by Khereg, 03 March 2015 - 02:12 PM.

[Amsro]

10 tons isn't even worth the hassle of rebuilding a drop deck, especially if you need to change it back to 240 for a different drop.

2/10 not worth looking at.

[warner2]

Koshirou, on 03 March 2015 - 03:11 AM, said:

Not enough to make a difference, just enough for even more people to delude themselves into thinking that IS has an advantage over Clans. Also, this...

"When it is IS vs IS or Clan vs Clan the drop deck tonnage remains the same as it is currently."

... is going to be a major PITA.

This is a pain yes. Has this been confirmed? It'd be easier if for IS v IS it was just +10 for both teams.

[Captain Carrot Ironfoundersson]

hi i am a clanner i like the tech and before the patch i thought the balance was okish. with ten tons of more wight i don't see what difference it will make. if they are going to play with the drop weight why not make it variable for each planet e.g. 120 to 190, 250 to 750, 90 - 170, ect. as this would change the game a bit i think. this would also make players use different mechs.

[Funkmaster Rick]

It seems like lazy balancing, considering that their goal was to have clan and IS 'mechs be different but equivalent in power. It's something of an admission that they did a bad job of that. Hopefully it's just a band-aid till they find a better way.

It will make building IS CW drop decks a hell of a lot more annoying for all IS pilots who choose to take advantage of the ten-ton bonus against clanners.

I think if they want to address the issues in power between IS and clan technology, they need to build bigger and better maps with a lot more cover, tactical choices, and all that jazz. It would be nice to fight in a city map that /actually/ feels crowded, where most of the buildings are taller than your 'mech, and jumpjets are actually worth the weight. As it is, most maps have little variety.

[Chagatay]

Eh, 10 tons.....to me that is not an insignificant amount. If I had 10 extra tons, it would be used for sure. Certainly allows you to avoid medium mechs all together as IS or have more assault options.

[dgr874]

How about having the 10 vs 12 apply to the solo PUG drops as well? Have the matchmaker make teams that are all IS or all Clan and then pit them against other teams that are all Clan or IS. Such as, you decide to drop in your IS mech, the matchmaker puts you in an all IS team of 12. It then looks for another team of 12 IS mechs or a team of 10 Clan mechs. Once if finds one or the other it drops you both into the match.

Now you could buff the clan mechs to compensate for their lower numbers (like in lore) and both the PUG drops and clan warfare drops would be balanced.

[50 50]

It will be interesting to see what the additional tonnage does.
I do not believe that it is enough to make a significant difference though.
Personally I would have like to have seen a new star option replacing the 4 mech lance for the clans or have two spots in one lance made unavailable for the clans so we get a 10 vs 12 setup.
Or something like that.

Koshiru made an interesting point which I noted as well.
The suggestion is to have the increased tonnage only for IS vs Clan matches. Otherwise it's still 240.
This simply doesn't make sense as you would need to change your drop deck for different matches as an IS player.
I would suggest that this be changed so that IS always has 250 tons, clans always have 240.
That is far simpler.... but a different solution is preferred overall.

[Leeroy Mechkins]

50 50, on 04 March 2015 - 06:30 PM, said:

I would suggest that this be changed so that IS always has 250 tons, clans always have 240.

+1. Changing tonnage is inconvenient. Just keep it 250 for both IS and Clans.

The 250 tons for IS has not completely balanced clan advantages, but it has helped level things a bit.
Even if it didn't address the balance all the way, at least IS players get compensated for playing inferior tech by having more options for the mech of their choice.

Edited by Leeroy Mechkins, 04 March 2015 - 11:45 PM.