59 replies to this topic

[crustydog]

Keep in mind the existing structure of the player base. Building new drop decks, then taking them to the Meta is an imposing grind challenge for the standard player here at MWO. At the top end of the Meta are players with massive C-Bill accounts, players who buy everything that PGI sells, with huge mech collections. Players who master new mechs with GXP on occasion, simply because they already own everything else that GXP can buy. At the bottom end are newer players with limited experience and small C-Bill accounts, who cannot afford to purchase, and then properly equip four battlemechs, never mind possess the GXP to unlock modules.

As PGI has proved with two events in a row - the largest problem with CW at the moment is ongoing participation of the player base. It is not so much the existence of the CW Meta players dominance as it is the difficulty for the standard player to reach these levels with similarly competitive equipment. Changing or nerfing the Meta does nothing to address this larger issue.

PGI must be careful concerning changes in the CW economy. They have to make it easier for players to build working drop decks - this means more and better mechs faster, and they have to improve the reward incentives to transition players away from the standard games, towards the CW games. All this while, they have to do this without breaking the bank as far as real world income is concerned.

It is probably true that it is the existence of the Meta that is driving the new mech sales, as top players seek to find an edge over the existing hardware on the field. Restricting access to the Meta would threaten this income flow, and I doubt very much PGI is willing to do that at this time.

Edited by crustydog, 07 May 2015 - 04:20 PM.

[Valar13]

Moldur, on 02 May 2015 - 02:50 PM, said:

I fully support randomized decks. Once a match up is made, all players have a vote to randomize drop deck where the game will randomize your deck with mechs that you own to meet at or near the weight limit. 50% votes = randomize decks.

This way, if everyone feels sick of meta decks, or is afraid that a 12 man is on the other side and will stomp them, they can vote for randomized decks, giving pugs a slightly better chance or at least changing up the game.

That would be b***s*** and I would stop playing. Fortunately, nothing like that is likely to ever be implemented.

[Adamski]

Valar13, on 07 May 2015 - 05:06 PM, said:

That would be b***s*** and I would stop playing. Fortunately, nothing like that is likely to ever be implemented.

Yep, lack of mech diversity is a SYMPTOM of bad balancing, trying to treat the symptom while ignoring the cause is going to piss off a lot of pilots.

[Lily from animove]

KiraOnime, on 02 May 2015 - 12:53 PM, said:

Break one meta and people will find a new one.

No, not if both meta's are (nearly) equally in competition.

[Kuritaclan]

Meta is by definition a condition for only one case what is the best case out of all cases - or it covers most szenarios of a battle with a vaild set to react with the possible best winquota at it. So every other case can not be called meta, even if it is only slightly behind it is just behind and therefore not meta.

[BoloJoe]

Instead of penalizing the Meta lets go another direction.

Give a C-bill, XP and Loyalty Points Bonus (20% to 30% - win or lose) to all dropships that have a 1/1/1/1 deck.
Reward those players that want to bring diversity to the game and leave the option to still bring your Meta deck if you so choose.

Any option that limits the players choice would just make people quite the game.

[Insects]

BoloJoe, on 08 May 2015 - 06:08 AM, said:

Instead of penalizing the Meta lets go another direction.

Give a C-bill, XP and Loyalty Points Bonus (20% to 30% - win or lose) to all dropships that have a 1/1/1/1 deck.
Reward those players that want to bring diversity to the game and leave the option to still bring your Meta deck if you so choose.

I have similar ideas such as rewarding a 10% heat reduction or similar quirk to any unique (or less than three etc) mechs in the teams selection.

This makes "bad" mechs more attractive because they automatically get that extra buff for being unpopular.

[Mirkk Defwode]

Jotan Horn, on 03 May 2015 - 01:47 AM, said:

I do like the idea of randomization in your drop decks, but I feel that the ability to min/max weapons no matter their size is part of the reason we have such issues with CW.

For example: a Locust normally had a single SRM 6 and ML with a pair of MGs... but PGI has put quircks out there for ER LL... why?

Because they are playing to the meta of the competitive players who say "this is the only way we can use this mech and win"....

Until you fix that mindset, you won't be able to make the variety happen...

I kept the AC10 for my UM-60 Urbie, screw the Machinegun quirk on it.

I never understood why they had specific weapon quirks to begin with, that itself is a limiting factor. People will gravitate to the weapon that gives them an advantage or boost based on that alone. I'd rather see all quirks be associated with either mechanics on the mech or the 3 over-arching weapon types. That way if you want an Urbie with machineguns...go ahead - if you want an AC10, Gauss Rifle, LBX10, AC20...Or any other combination you can imagine you're not losing something for making that choice.

[Widowmaker1981]

joelmuzz, on 08 May 2015 - 07:52 AM, said:

I have similar ideas such as rewarding a 10% heat reduction or similar quirk to any unique (or less than three etc) mechs in the teams selection.

This makes "bad" mechs more attractive because they automatically get that extra buff for being unpopular.

that is an INCREDIBLY bad idea.

12 man co-ordinates drop deck, takes say 3 stalker 4N, 3 Banshee 3M, 3 Battlemaster - all of these already very good mechs get an extra 10% heat gen and become gods of the battlefield.

[Thejuggla]

Reason for lack of clan variety is locked endo/ff/jj/engines, the "good" mechs just came with optimal upgrades(ff and endo) and a good sized engine without going too high(mainly gargoyle) or too low(lights)If the timberwolf came with a xl400 and no ff or endo it would suck, Underperformers don't need quicks just these equipment unlocked. The locked equipment is also a fun ruiner.

For lack of IS variety is mainly because of overdone quirks. Certain popular chassis need to be toned down while rest buffed slightly. Or some sort of quirk limiting to be hard point specific.

I like the random drop choice idea, although don't see doing it they wont make money on mechs if they were to just give you a random set, they want you to buy mechs.

[Adamski]

Thejuggla, on 08 May 2015 - 09:07 AM, said:

Reason for lack of clan variety is locked endo/ff/jj/engines, the "good" mechs just came with optimal upgrades(ff and endo) and a good sized engine without going too high(mainly gargoyle) or too low(lights)If the timberwolf came with a xl400 and no ff or endo it would suck, Underperformers don't need quicks just these equipment unlocked. The locked equipment is also a fun ruiner.

For lack of IS variety is mainly because of overdone quirks. Certain popular chassis need to be toned down while rest buffed slightly. Or some sort of quirk limiting to be hard point specific.

I like the random drop choice idea, although don't see doing it they wont make money on mechs if they were to just give you a random set, they want you to buy mechs.

So the IS almost exclusively drops in their best quirked mechs,loses the event, and you think they need to be nerfed? Pull your head out of your ass please.

[P H O X]

Its not the "overdone quirks" why we use i.e. Tbolts. Its because, these are the only ones that are on par witch Clan-EZMode-Tech.
The Problem is imho, that if you really balance this game according to the needs of an online shooter, there will be a massive uproar of the lorefanatics, swinging the "Mighty Lorehammer of Doom (+10 on ending reasonable discussions)".

[LORD ORION]

It's kind of the point to have "the best" chance of success in community warfare. More mechs need to be brought up in quirk power if you want to see more variety.

Though some things could be done, it would probably only reduce the number of players playing CW.

1) 1/1/1/1 requirement for drop deck
2) Tonnage limit ends with a 5 (eg: 235 and 245 instead of 240 and 250)
3) Require faction specific mechs in your drop deck if you sign a contract (don't like it? be a merc / lone wolf)

[Xavier]

I think the fix for the meta mech problem is very simple, and can be fixed one of two ways.

1) you give a C-bill bonus for running non-teir 1 mechs in CW this will incetivise people that are c-bill farming to try for more c-bills by using non-tier 1 mechs.
Example:
Tier 1: 0% C-bill Bonus
Tier 2: 5% C-bill Bonus
Tier 3: 10% C-bill Bonus
Tier 4: 15% C-bill Bonus
Tier 5: 20% C-bill Bonus
This would still keep bonuses below that of hero mechs but would encourage people to explore other mechs and mech chassis.

Or you could fix it a different way

2) just limit drop decks to a single variant of any one chassis. Example: you can only choose 1 SCR, 1 HBR, 1 TDR, or 1 STK. And then you must make your drop deck tonnage work around those numbers. Prior to clan wave 3 this may be a difficult enforcement due to missing tonnage gaps in mech tonnages.

-S-
Xavier

[Khobai]

Quote

ban using multiple variants/configs of same mech in a dropdeck.

this. 3 stormcrows or 3 thunderbolts in one dropdeck just shouldnt be allowed.

[Adamski]

Khobai, on 11 May 2015 - 03:17 PM, said:

this. 3 stormcrows or 3 thunderbolts in one dropdeck just shouldnt be allowed.

Why not? If the mechs are balanced, and the player buys them, they should be able to bring them.

Fix balance, and mech variety will fix itself. Stop giving PGI stupid kludge ideas that ignore the root problem so they can paper over the symptom and shove out more mech packs.

[Khobai]

Quote

Why not? If the mechs are balanced, and the player buys them, they should be able to bring them.

to encourage mech diversity.

balance can *never* be perfect. there will always be a best mech.

so we can at least make sure a player isnt taking three of them...

Edited by Khobai, 11 May 2015 - 03:27 PM.

[Adamski]

Khobai, on 11 May 2015 - 03:26 PM, said:

to encourage mech diversity.

balance can *never* be perfect. there will always be a best mech.

so we can at least make sure a player isnt taking three of them...

Balance will never be "PERFECT" but it can be "CLOSE", right now, it is neither. Asking for some idiot system of restricting mech choice instead of forcing PGI to strive towards "PERFECT" and in the process achieving "CLOSE" is counter productive.

[Khobai]

Quote

Balance will never be "PERFECT" but it can be "CLOSE", right now, it is neither. Asking for some idiot system of restricting mech choice instead of forcing PGI to strive towards "PERFECT" and in the process achieving "CLOSE" is counter productive.

How is it counter productive?

Dropdecks are abused by taking 3 of the best mechs. Like 3 stormcrows.

Not allowing 3 of the same mech prevents that abuse.

Preventing abuse is hardly counter productive.

[Adamski]

Khobai, on 11 May 2015 - 03:44 PM, said:

How is it counter productive?

Dropdecks are abused by taking 3 of the best mechs. Like 3 stormcrows.

Not allowing 3 of the same mech prevents that abuse.

Preventing abuse is hardly counter productive.

Restricting mech choice allows PGI to continue to ignore mech balance, thus becoming a kludge that is counter productive to what should be everyones goal of balanced mechs.