61 replies to this topic

[ShinVector]

I hear lots of assault pilot saying that 'Lights OP' 'Light OP'..
Yet.. We have assault pilots that do not want to pilot them. I wonder why.

[Lily from animove]

yes because the standardcallnner 4TBR dropdeck will make CW soooo exciting

[Chuck Jager]

I personally think I should always have my own lane of traffic that goes the speed I decide to drive because that is fair for me

[hybrid black]

No..... you are ********.

[Dirk Le Daring]

1/1/1/1 would be better, and no tonnage limit.

Also, only allowing a respawn within the 3/3/3/3, as an override to the ability for a team to stack the drop as they please.

EDIT: this is from a player who has never played community warfare, but read a bit lot of bitching.

Edited by Dirk Le Daring, 01 May 2015 - 12:25 AM.

[Mithaw]

A separate idea might be to have a soft cap and a hard cap when it comes to drop limits.

A soft cap might be up to a certain amount of tonnage where your mechs and drop are 'free' and don't cost extra c-bills to deploy. This could be up to the current limit or something similar

After that, you could then have a hard cap out to 280 tons (random, arbitrary number) where you can bring extra weight BUT you have to pay for that weight depending on what you'd like to bring. If you go with this method, it would allow people to have a bit more flexibility in the mechs they want to bring but still have to give something up. In this case it could be c-bills. In another it could be loyality points with a faction

Or it could be giving up your fourth slot to bring three heavier mechs.

Plenty of ways to work with this issue.

[Leone]

If you wanna play assaults all the time, just strip out your engines and refit your a medium an light to be slow an heavy. In fact, here, lemme build you a drop deck.

you could drop a Gauss Firestarter with a standard 150 engine and four tons of ammo, hold the flank an trade with that.
Something a bit heavier, say, a Blackjack, give it another 150 rating so you really get that slow, stompy feel.
Then you got room for your Orion and a Banshee, and they'll feel all light an manouverable.

Bam, 250 ton 'heavy' drop deck

~Leone.

[sycocys]

Remove the tonnage cap and add a damage/alpha strike cap instead. Then who cares what people are piloting? An average of 25 per mech should do it.



Really the one "immersive" thing about CW currently is that the drop ships can carry only just so much weight down to the planet. The first line is not meant to be a real idea, but it would unfortunately be the simplest way to balance everything out and make the poor pugs happy so they could drop with their 4 assaults and lrm boats while not getting insta-shredded.

[Valar13]

PGI pls make easy mode CW so no one ever has to learn multiple roles and tactics and also pls make my mechs invincible and also pls turn off heat and ammo kthxbai

[Xiphias]

sycocys, on 01 May 2015 - 02:51 AM, said:

Remove the tonnage cap and add a damage/alpha strike cap instead. Then who cares what people are piloting? An average of 25 per mech should do it.



Really the one "immersive" thing about CW currently is that the drop ships can carry only just so much weight down to the planet. The first line is not meant to be a real idea, but it would unfortunately be the simplest way to balance everything out and make the poor pugs happy so they could drop with their 4 assaults and lrm boats while not getting insta-shredded.

LRMs actually have, on paper, some of the highest alphas/damage of any weapon. Where mechs such as the Dragon 1N with 2AC 5s don't look impressive by alpha, but have ridiculous DPS. If you do it by DPS, then weapons like machine guns become "good" because on paper they have decent DPS.

Basically, what your suggesting wouldn't work and good players would still take the min/maxed builds and shred players who can't adapt. Also, that system would encourage heavier tonnage mechs because if you're limited in firepower why not take as much armor as you can and just use the extra tonnage on a huge engine?

[Tarogato]

technopredator, on 30 April 2015 - 10:21 PM, said:

...

Sure, let's just remove the tonnage limit entirely while we're at it, because that's basically what you're asking for - the ability to stack as much firepower as YOU want to bring in heavies and assaults. The whole thing with having a low-ish tonnage limit is that you have to make sacrifices to bring high-tonnage equipment. How much QQ do you think there would be if everybody could bring three Stalkers and a Largerine? Or three Timber Wolves and a Warhawk? That's how you break balance and ruin the game. =P

Dirk Le Daring, on 01 May 2015 - 12:23 AM, said:

1/1/1/1 would be better, and no tonnage limit.

Also, only allowing a respawn within the 3/3/3/3, as an override to the ability for a team to stack the drop as they please.

EDIT: this is from a player who has never played community warfare, but read a bit lot of bitching.

"this is from a player who has never played community warfare, but knows how to thoroughly ruin half of it."

fixed that for you.

1/1/1/1? Welcome back to stacking 35tons, 55tons, 75tons, and 100tons. No tonnage limit -> lower viability of mechs below the maximum tonnage in a weight class. No more Blackjacks, no more Quickdraws, no more Locusts, no more Dragons, no more Battlemasters. All those mechs are widely used because they are tonnage efficient. It hearkens back (even if weakly) to the old Battle Value metric used in TT to regulate the quantity of firepower you can bring to the battlefield. Going to 1/1/1/1 would ruin this and be quite frankly... boring. Just like public queue min-max'ing.

[Joseph Mallan]

ShinVector, on 30 April 2015 - 10:26 PM, said:

I hear lots of assault pilot saying that 'Lights OP' 'Light OP'..
Yet.. We have assault pilots that do not want to pilot them. I wonder why.

Well if they are like me, They like to play play the slow plodding IN YOUR FACE style. Lights don't have the staying power to do that.

Otherwise... its cause they are hypocrites.

Me personally I proved to myself Lights are not at all OP. Not even the ones that seem to BE OP.

[Valar13]

Joseph Mallan, on 01 May 2015 - 03:17 AM, said:

Well if they are like me, They like to play play the slow plodding IN YOUR FACE style. Lights don't have the staying power to do that.

Otherwise... its cause they are hypocrites.

Me personally I proved to myself Lights are not at all OP. Not even the ones that seem to BE OP.

Lights have plenty of staying power if you play them as they're intended to be played. I'm not the best light pilot out there but I regularly pull 300+ damage in a Raven-3L with 2x ERLL.

[ShinVector]

Joseph Mallan, on 01 May 2015 - 03:17 AM, said:

Well if they are like me, They like to play play the slow plodding IN YOUR FACE style. Lights don't have the staying power to do that.

Otherwise... its cause they are hypocrites.

Me personally I proved to myself Lights are not at all OP. Not even the ones that seem to BE OP.

I think is matter of perspective ?
Most lights tend to prefer butts over faces.

[Joseph Mallan]

Valar13, on 01 May 2015 - 03:29 AM, said:

Lights have plenty of staying power if you play them as they're intended to be played. I'm not the best light pilot out there but I regularly pull 300+ damage in a Raven-3L with 2x ERLL.

Think on that highlighted statement. There is a wide gap from "Stand and Deliver" and "stick and move". They are mutually exclusive mind sets. I am not insulting either mind you. Both have merit and are both quite effective. I have been the immovable object since I was 13. That was 36 years ago. I don't do stick and move.

ShinVector, on 01 May 2015 - 03:36 AM, said:

I think is matter of perspective ?
Most lights tend to prefer butts over faces.

You seem to be a leg man... if your name is taken as an indication.

[Novawrecker]

technopredator, on 30 April 2015 - 10:21 PM, said:

2 reasons:
[·] If I take the heaviest of the 4 classes, it adds up to 265=35+55+75+100, so if I happen to have those 'mechs I can't play and I should be allowed to because I'm only taking 1 of each class which is why we get to choose 4 'mechs with a low tonage and not the maximum 400T, right?

Wrong. There is a reason to now allow max tonnage all the time. Don't need to see 4 waves of DireWolve and Atli. Makes for an extremely boring game.

technopredator, on 30 April 2015 - 10:21 PM, said:

[·]I don't like and I'm not and probably never will be a medium or light 'mech pilot

Tough and deal with it. I'm not a light pilot and thought with the same ridged mentality you just displayed. After CW, I adapted to maximize what mechs to bring within the tonnage limit. It made me a better player by both learning the strengths and weaknesses of each weight class and how they can be made to effective use for CW as well as how to combat against them when we faced it.

Seriously, get off your "I only want to play in this ..." horse.

Edited by Novawrecker, 01 May 2015 - 09:19 AM.

[Kristen Redmond]

I'd be up for a tonnage increase IF they take the cap off the amount of mechs you can bring, but that would mess with the scoring, so 240 is fine

[Ronan]

Maybe do 1/1/1/1 no weight limit (you did bring one of each class after all), or you get the 250 ton limit but are free to take all heavies or whatever you like, up to that weight. Dunno. Seems like one design decision that PGI cannot win on -- no matter what they pick, the forums will be ablaze.

[Tarl Cabot]

Make the drop deck 5 mechs instead of 4. 1st drop all lights, 2nd drop all meds, 3rd drop all heavies, 4th drop all assaults, last drop pilot's choice....:

[Lostdragon]

If the CW maps were 5-10 times bigger with multiple objectives then there wouldn't need to be a weight cap because it would be really dumb to take 4 huge, slow mechs.

What I'd like to see are maps with objectives that are 2 or more KM apart but need to be attacked simultaneously. Maybe the main objective is a large airbase with several powerful turrets and a destructible wall/gate. The secondary objective is a hydroelectric dam that powers these turrets. If you take down the dam, then the turrets go offline for 5 minutes while power is switched to a backup array of solar collectors which is in a different spot.

In a scenario like this the attackers would need to send lights and fast mediums to attack the dam while the big guns try to knock a hole in the wall/gate. When the turrets are down the assaults/heavies attack the base while the others move from the dam to the solar generator to keep the base defenses offline. After that objective is destroyed the lights/mediums would need to join the rest of the team at the main objective to finish the enemy team and destroy the main objective.

Maybe there is also another objective like a communications array or something that allows the team which owns it to reinforce faster.

That, IMO, would be much more fun than the maps we currently have that funnel everyone into 2 chokepoints.