Feedback On Min/max Tonnage For Each Group Size
#361
Posted 18 October 2015 - 06:34 AM
#362
Posted 18 October 2015 - 09:08 AM
Wintersdark, on 18 October 2015 - 05:13 AM, said:
I am referring to this thread, not what we have currently in place. PGI's numbers (which are for example only and subject to change, but shows what direction they are thinking) shows a minimum of 120 tons in a 3 man group. So you would not be allowed to create a 3 man lance of Arctic Cheetahs (or Jenners as he originally posted).
I realize many of the posters in this thread have offered their own numbers, and they would allow that- but by doing so they are actually defeating the entire purpose of this thread, which was to give small groups MORE tonnage to compete with larger groups. Small groups of players who enjoy running light mechs together simply breaks the whole system, since they are leaving, in some cases, over 100 tons on the table.
#363
Posted 18 October 2015 - 12:50 PM
Davers, on 18 October 2015 - 09:08 AM, said:
I realize many of the posters in this thread have offered their own numbers, and they would allow that- but by doing so they are actually defeating the entire purpose of this thread, which was to give small groups MORE tonnage to compete with larger groups. Small groups of players who enjoy running light mechs together simply breaks the whole system, since they are leaving, in some cases, over 100 tons on the table.
PGI's numbers and the approach chosen just shows that they do not have any clue.
- Haven't they stated that they wanted every weight class to be viable?
- And haven't they nearly achieved this goal? At least better as in MW4 for example?
- And don't they see the fact, that there are bad, good and excellent Mechs in every weight class?
How can they think about tonnage drop balancing at all then?
#364
Posted 18 October 2015 - 07:01 PM
You want to limit Arctic Cheetah? You can't up weight limit without forcing other lesser used mechs into even further darkness.
You can't limit the top of the levels to stop Storm Crows, Timber Wolves and others from THEM being deployed, doing so will ONLY force mechs that are NOT meta into the shadows more.
This will happen for BOTH Sides. Battle Value CAN how ever do these things, Made based off of ...what I said.. how good the mech is + the weapon set up + the modules= Battle Value, in a clear, on the screen calculation for the user.
And as mechs and weapons get balanced, The BV can be adjusted..
Edited by Seph MacLeod, 19 October 2015 - 02:10 AM.
#365
Posted 19 October 2015 - 09:47 AM
A 75 ton Timber Wolf vs a 75 ton Black Knight usually ends in a painful match for the Black Knight unless the Timber Wolf is already damaged.
#366
Posted 19 October 2015 - 12:19 PM
And now?
Just as always when they realize "Dude, these guys could be right, their system might actually be better suited to the task at hand!"
the decision made is not
"Well, then lets talk to them, maybe they can give us some hints to a simple yet better system".
No it is as always:
"Damn! Lets shut down talks and implement our first idea anyway... It will work, sure it will work, those are only players, league administrators, programmers and long time BT Nerds... what do they know?"
Edited by grayson marik, 19 October 2015 - 12:24 PM.
#367
Posted 19 October 2015 - 01:15 PM
#368
Posted 19 October 2015 - 01:20 PM
#369
Posted 19 October 2015 - 02:59 PM
#370
Posted 19 October 2015 - 03:14 PM
Just have MM que by tier levels. Yes, there should be TWO different sections of MM
SOLO (this part of MM should be for SOLO players only that ARE NOT grouping up)
Tier vs Tier
For example t1 vs t1, t2 vs t2, t3 vs t3, etc. Let the players fight it out and move up or just grind out their mechs without the game being a 12 man stomp!
(sure would help grinding out a mech!)
Groups, (does not matter WHAT size, 2,3,4,5,6, thru 12)
MM takes whatever groups and averages them out based on their tiers…
(12man group, t1 vs 12 man group, t1)
12 man group t2 vs 12 man group, t2
12 man group CONSISTING of t1’s, t2’s, t3’s…etc VS 12 man group CONSISTING of t1’s, t2’s, t3’s…etc
Another example
It does not matter if there are (5) t1 plus (7) tier (whatever), if the average equals to or comes close to say, (7) t2’s plus (5) tier whatever…This should also alleviate the current 12 man stomps in MM. Not sure if this is feasible or not…just an idea
#371
Posted 19 October 2015 - 03:53 PM
#372
Posted 19 October 2015 - 04:03 PM
#373
Posted 19 October 2015 - 06:01 PM
#374
Posted 20 October 2015 - 02:43 PM
Dino Might, on 19 October 2015 - 06:01 PM, said:
Because ppl like me play assault/heavy only?
sorry
#375
Posted 20 October 2015 - 03:09 PM
#376
Posted 20 October 2015 - 03:17 PM
Prof RJ Gumby, on 20 October 2015 - 03:09 PM, said:
PFFT! It never stopped, now it has just been made worse.
Good job PGI, Good Job.
We had you a system, GIFT WRAPPED EVEN!.. and tell you how to best balance the game, And you immediately ignore the thread once that starts happening..and go through with the weight balance system that hasn't fixed ANYTHING sense ANYTHING.
#377
Posted 20 October 2015 - 04:26 PM
I think you still need some form of 3/3/3/3.
#378
Posted 20 October 2015 - 04:34 PM
Kensaisama, on 19 October 2015 - 02:59 PM, said:
Never had a problem with 3/3/3/3 rule as most companys have light/med lance, Med/Heavy lance and Heavy/assault Lance. Running a company of 3 lances of assaults would be rare based on cost and supply. current plan worked it was the group/solo part that was broken.
#379
Posted 20 October 2015 - 05:25 PM
Seph MacLeod, on 20 October 2015 - 03:17 PM, said:
Ppl wonder why ppl are so "toxic" in this game. Large part of that is we've been doing this for THREE YEARS with them and they do this EVERY SINGLE TIME.
Sorry, Im human, I get tired of that after a while
#380
Posted 20 October 2015 - 05:51 PM
Mechwarrior Buddah, on 20 October 2015 - 05:25 PM, said:
Ppl wonder why ppl are so "toxic" in this game. Large part of that is we've been doing this for THREE YEARS with them and they do this EVERY SINGLE TIME.
Sorry, Im human, I get tired of that after a while
Tell me about it, I understand that IGP was in part largely at fault for what happened before, but.. MAN ....the reasons for Paul and co to lose this license just keep getting stacked.
3 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users