22
Feedback On Min/max Tonnage For Each Group Size
Started by Tina Benoit, Sep 29 2015 09:57 AM
435 replies to this topic
#421
-
-
- Caladbolg
- 654 posts
Member
- LocationBirdhouse
Posted 09 August 2016 - 11:30 PM
you always pick the wrong fights mate
#422
-
-
- Rage
- 3,781 posts
Member
- LocationGermany
Posted 10 August 2016 - 10:23 AM
Husker Dude, on 09 August 2016 - 06:06 PM, said:
I'm not sure if there's a better thread for this, but I think there's some room for improvement in the matchmaker with tonnage.
8 assault mechs on the other side of this match!
8 assault mechs on the other side of this match!
thats because some groups of yours decided to go under tonnage while the enemy did not.
platoon of 2 people playing with an overall of 95 tons is handicapping everyone automatically.
you had 2 platoons of 2 man playing massively under tonnage, i wouldnt expect a different outcome after all.
you can blame 2 things here: MM not caring about tonnage or people not caring about the other guys that will drop with them.....
one thing is known, the other thing is just terrible player behaviour.
#424
-
-
- FP Veteran - Beta 1
- 36 posts
Member
Posted 05 November 2016 - 08:43 PM
People will never be happy or agree together on all subjects, whatever you do, but Freedom must be the first goal in a game or for your community !
So my feedback for this game is here, this is my translation (from french) sorry if there are mistakes :
1) Team play should not bring tonnage penalties :
I played today after one year absence, I bought a mech with a beautiful skin (Cyclop) and I did not use it when I played in a team of 12 because we were limited to about 50 tons per player (or an other player can not play with his mech to allow me the right to load it).
I finally play the mech later in the evening, in solo mod... what a great denoument...
The fact that a player can not play freely with his desired mech (purchased with money or not) is questionable.
2) Groups between 2 or 3 person can be mixed with the pug matchmaking rather than team combat ( maybe except Pilot who skill rating tier are 1 or 2, they can stay in team deathmatch).
Because when I play with one friend I just stay with the pickup, it's no way comparable with a 5-12 player team work, I dont want tonnages gains to have more chance to win, I just want to play normaly.
And of course two players group should not be binding on the tonnage.
I can not play with my friend because he plays with an Awesome and me and Atlas... We must buy an other mech or we can... but we play each of our side... it's illogic... and I this you are away from your original goal of this game.
3) It is not for the players to have constraints, so from the beginning if most people want to play assault / heavy, so let the players do what they want, this is our request and it's your challenge to solve it, not to us.
For example all heavy mech (Timber or other) should be less agile... or reduce hit damages when fired at a very fast mech.
If most player do not want to play light mech, make them strongest, at the begining we will see nothing, but with time, naturally people will come back on light mech and you will get the variety you wanted originally.
So my feedback for this game is here, this is my translation (from french) sorry if there are mistakes :
1) Team play should not bring tonnage penalties :
I played today after one year absence, I bought a mech with a beautiful skin (Cyclop) and I did not use it when I played in a team of 12 because we were limited to about 50 tons per player (or an other player can not play with his mech to allow me the right to load it).
I finally play the mech later in the evening, in solo mod... what a great denoument...
The fact that a player can not play freely with his desired mech (purchased with money or not) is questionable.
2) Groups between 2 or 3 person can be mixed with the pug matchmaking rather than team combat ( maybe except Pilot who skill rating tier are 1 or 2, they can stay in team deathmatch).
Because when I play with one friend I just stay with the pickup, it's no way comparable with a 5-12 player team work, I dont want tonnages gains to have more chance to win, I just want to play normaly.
And of course two players group should not be binding on the tonnage.
I can not play with my friend because he plays with an Awesome and me and Atlas... We must buy an other mech or we can... but we play each of our side... it's illogic... and I this you are away from your original goal of this game.
3) It is not for the players to have constraints, so from the beginning if most people want to play assault / heavy, so let the players do what they want, this is our request and it's your challenge to solve it, not to us.
For example all heavy mech (Timber or other) should be less agile... or reduce hit damages when fired at a very fast mech.
If most player do not want to play light mech, make them strongest, at the begining we will see nothing, but with time, naturally people will come back on light mech and you will get the variety you wanted originally.
#425
-
-
- 2,145 posts
Member
- LocationTo Nova or not to Nova. That is the question.
Posted 06 November 2016 - 06:28 PM
Interesting to see this topic brought up again.
As the initial tonnage change was to assist in the speed of match making beyond the 3/3/3/3 rule, we could say that it has so far been successful in that regard.
Overall, matches are quicker to find and get into.
Could the numbers be tweaked again? Sure.
But..... now that we are using and looking at tonnages can we consider a further step? That of using lance weight groupings.
This is pretty simple in it's approach and may make the matches even quick to combine.
There are only 4 weight classes for the mechs:
LIGHT
MEDIUM
HEAVY
ASSAULT
It then becomes a matter of matching up 3 lances on both sides for each drop so if there is an ASSAULT lance on one side, there should be an ASSAULT lance on the other and so on.
If we look at each individual lance, the average tonnage of the mechs in a lance can fall into one of these weight classes.
After playing around with some different tonnage combinations, the brackets for the lance classifications might look something like this:
20 - 37.9 tons = LIGHT
38 - 57.9 tons = MEDIUM
58 - 77.9 tons = HEAVY
78 - 100 tons = ASSAULT
We are then faced with another question.
How can we balance a mixed group against a larger group and how does this even work with solos?
Currently the solo queue is still using the 3/3/3/3 so.... we either leave that as is or now look at recombining the solo with group queue.... which it may be time to do.... but follow me on this thought process first.
A big advantage of using a lance weight classification is that we have even more freedom to take the mechs we would like into battle. But because there is the chance of small and odd numbered groups being created there is the potential for gaps in the team which may require another small or odd numbered group or a solo player to fill. The advantage is that what ever mechs you might have selected you automatically fall into one of these brackets and can therefore slot in easily with other groups and players. It also has the advantage that should there be a spot available to fill a lance and that changes the weight classification of that lance... it still means matching up by that lance classification anyway so should make little difference.
On the other end of the scale where we have large groups forming, there may not be a problem with a 12 player pre-made making 3 assault lances or 3 light lances etc as the system will match them lance for lance. Not only will this create unique games that will play out quite differently, but it also helps with events, leaderboard challenges and introduces the potential for some new options.
Placing a restriction on a large group so they have to take 3 different lance classifications will not achieve much as the idea is to match one lance vs another, however that is one option as it will break up the composition of mechs somewhat. A third is to still try and use a total weight limit for the group or by lance but this is becoming cumbersome. The more viable solution is to change groups in quick play so they are restricted to single lances. Yes there is the potential to sync drop but more often than not sync drops tend to put you on opposite sides. I would also suggest that large groups should be directed towards Faction Play, where we can take this approach to the next level and group in companies, battalions and regiments. We want to see some significant changes in Faction Play, but lets put that thought aside for the moment.
Edit: As an additional thought, there is further advantage to restricting groups to a lance. If we were to take scouting mode and add it into quick play as another option that you can get if you have a light lance, then we could consider other modes that could be added, a new 8 v 8 for example, that might have different lance requirements. Same could be applied to the other modes (Assault, Domination, Conquest and Skirmish) if it made sense.
I would like to see more control and information about our lances when we form groups and we can look at additional identifiers such as Tier and Battlevalue that would be great to see. Might put this in a separate post and find a graphic for it.
Anyway, it would be interesting to discuss this option.
As the initial tonnage change was to assist in the speed of match making beyond the 3/3/3/3 rule, we could say that it has so far been successful in that regard.
Overall, matches are quicker to find and get into.
Could the numbers be tweaked again? Sure.
But..... now that we are using and looking at tonnages can we consider a further step? That of using lance weight groupings.
This is pretty simple in it's approach and may make the matches even quick to combine.
There are only 4 weight classes for the mechs:
LIGHT
MEDIUM
HEAVY
ASSAULT
It then becomes a matter of matching up 3 lances on both sides for each drop so if there is an ASSAULT lance on one side, there should be an ASSAULT lance on the other and so on.
If we look at each individual lance, the average tonnage of the mechs in a lance can fall into one of these weight classes.
After playing around with some different tonnage combinations, the brackets for the lance classifications might look something like this:
20 - 37.9 tons = LIGHT
38 - 57.9 tons = MEDIUM
58 - 77.9 tons = HEAVY
78 - 100 tons = ASSAULT
We are then faced with another question.
How can we balance a mixed group against a larger group and how does this even work with solos?
Currently the solo queue is still using the 3/3/3/3 so.... we either leave that as is or now look at recombining the solo with group queue.... which it may be time to do.... but follow me on this thought process first.
A big advantage of using a lance weight classification is that we have even more freedom to take the mechs we would like into battle. But because there is the chance of small and odd numbered groups being created there is the potential for gaps in the team which may require another small or odd numbered group or a solo player to fill. The advantage is that what ever mechs you might have selected you automatically fall into one of these brackets and can therefore slot in easily with other groups and players. It also has the advantage that should there be a spot available to fill a lance and that changes the weight classification of that lance... it still means matching up by that lance classification anyway so should make little difference.
On the other end of the scale where we have large groups forming, there may not be a problem with a 12 player pre-made making 3 assault lances or 3 light lances etc as the system will match them lance for lance. Not only will this create unique games that will play out quite differently, but it also helps with events, leaderboard challenges and introduces the potential for some new options.
Placing a restriction on a large group so they have to take 3 different lance classifications will not achieve much as the idea is to match one lance vs another, however that is one option as it will break up the composition of mechs somewhat. A third is to still try and use a total weight limit for the group or by lance but this is becoming cumbersome. The more viable solution is to change groups in quick play so they are restricted to single lances. Yes there is the potential to sync drop but more often than not sync drops tend to put you on opposite sides. I would also suggest that large groups should be directed towards Faction Play, where we can take this approach to the next level and group in companies, battalions and regiments. We want to see some significant changes in Faction Play, but lets put that thought aside for the moment.
Edit: As an additional thought, there is further advantage to restricting groups to a lance. If we were to take scouting mode and add it into quick play as another option that you can get if you have a light lance, then we could consider other modes that could be added, a new 8 v 8 for example, that might have different lance requirements. Same could be applied to the other modes (Assault, Domination, Conquest and Skirmish) if it made sense.
I would like to see more control and information about our lances when we form groups and we can look at additional identifiers such as Tier and Battlevalue that would be great to see. Might put this in a separate post and find a graphic for it.
Anyway, it would be interesting to discuss this option.
Edited by 50 50, 06 November 2016 - 08:18 PM.
#426
-
-
- The Marauder
- 7,022 posts
Member
- LocationParanoiaville
Posted 07 November 2016 - 02:21 PM
It's not been brought up "again." You and Mechster resurrected it.
As for weight class limits and matching, we tried that - and found it wanting. It was too restrictive, while having the same problems as the current system with effectively punishing a team whose members did not select 'mechs at or near the top of the weight classes. Restricting players to a single lance is not viable, because many players want to play in groups greater than 4. And then there's the problem of having too much complexity in the matchmaking system leading to throttled playing times.
I see where you're coming from, but I don't think your solutions will be effective and/or acceptable to the player base - given past attempts to do much of what you're trying. It would be probably more effective - and certainly simpler - to increase the maximum tonnage of larger groups by a modest amount and see where that gets us.
As for weight class limits and matching, we tried that - and found it wanting. It was too restrictive, while having the same problems as the current system with effectively punishing a team whose members did not select 'mechs at or near the top of the weight classes. Restricting players to a single lance is not viable, because many players want to play in groups greater than 4. And then there's the problem of having too much complexity in the matchmaking system leading to throttled playing times.
I see where you're coming from, but I don't think your solutions will be effective and/or acceptable to the player base - given past attempts to do much of what you're trying. It would be probably more effective - and certainly simpler - to increase the maximum tonnage of larger groups by a modest amount and see where that gets us.
#427
-
-
- 2,145 posts
Member
- LocationTo Nova or not to Nova. That is the question.
Posted 07 November 2016 - 03:22 PM
If you mean the 3/3/3/3 limit that was in place for the matchmaking, not quite what I was getting at. That did seem to work fairly well in the beginning but somewhere in there the queue split to group and solo and there were noticeable delays in trying to get matches. Added on to that were the mode preferences.
To make it simpler the option to select the mode was removed and we now have the voting and there was the change from 3/3/3/3 weight class restrictions to tonnage for groups.
What I am thinking of is having no restrictions on what we pick, ie we have no tonnage limits and there is no 3/3/3/3 requirement.
Instead, and I'll stick to a single lance here, if we get 4 players to group up and take what ever mech they want, when we look at the combined tonnage and average it out we will find that it falls within a certain weight class.
For example:
If 4 players took 2x Atlas and 2x Locusts we have a combined total of 240 tons.
Divide that by 4 (for the 4 players/mechs in the lance) and it's a 60 ton average.
We would then say that those players combined form a heavy lance.
The match maker then looks for another heavy lance on the other side to pair them against.
That's the basics of the idea.
Certainly it would be simpler to just tweak the tonnage limits we have in the group queue at the moment. That system is already in place.
On the solo play side of things, when looking at the percentages before dropping we can see that if we take a particular weight class of mech that we could be in for a bit of a wait (pardon the pun). Typically the heavy mechs. But if the matching is done lance by lance looking at the average weight of the lance, potentially that may be even simpler and therefore quicker.
The suggestion to limit groups for quick play to no more than a single lance was directed more at mixing the teams up and possibly addressing the 12 man pre-made vs the random assortment of players. These sort of match ups are what created the split to group and solo queue to begin with but with this idea it needs solo players to fill the gaps which means combining the queues and therefore running into the same problem again..... hence why not look at restricting quick play groups to a single lance.
Yes this would mean that those of us who do often group up in larger numbers suddenly can't, I am in that category. Have you also been in the situation where you have players wanting to join the group but you've got 10 and then can't take an 11th because that means finding a 12th and sometimes that just doesn't happen?
Overall I would like to see a bit more functionality in the group screen, more akin to how we can organise the lances in the private matches but also go further than that and expand beyond just a single company. That's a bit of a separate discussion though and ties in with a Faction Play proposal I've submitted... but hey... it would be cool.
To make it simpler the option to select the mode was removed and we now have the voting and there was the change from 3/3/3/3 weight class restrictions to tonnage for groups.
What I am thinking of is having no restrictions on what we pick, ie we have no tonnage limits and there is no 3/3/3/3 requirement.
Instead, and I'll stick to a single lance here, if we get 4 players to group up and take what ever mech they want, when we look at the combined tonnage and average it out we will find that it falls within a certain weight class.
For example:
If 4 players took 2x Atlas and 2x Locusts we have a combined total of 240 tons.
Divide that by 4 (for the 4 players/mechs in the lance) and it's a 60 ton average.
We would then say that those players combined form a heavy lance.
The match maker then looks for another heavy lance on the other side to pair them against.
That's the basics of the idea.
Certainly it would be simpler to just tweak the tonnage limits we have in the group queue at the moment. That system is already in place.
On the solo play side of things, when looking at the percentages before dropping we can see that if we take a particular weight class of mech that we could be in for a bit of a wait (pardon the pun). Typically the heavy mechs. But if the matching is done lance by lance looking at the average weight of the lance, potentially that may be even simpler and therefore quicker.
The suggestion to limit groups for quick play to no more than a single lance was directed more at mixing the teams up and possibly addressing the 12 man pre-made vs the random assortment of players. These sort of match ups are what created the split to group and solo queue to begin with but with this idea it needs solo players to fill the gaps which means combining the queues and therefore running into the same problem again..... hence why not look at restricting quick play groups to a single lance.
Yes this would mean that those of us who do often group up in larger numbers suddenly can't, I am in that category. Have you also been in the situation where you have players wanting to join the group but you've got 10 and then can't take an 11th because that means finding a 12th and sometimes that just doesn't happen?
Overall I would like to see a bit more functionality in the group screen, more akin to how we can organise the lances in the private matches but also go further than that and expand beyond just a single company. That's a bit of a separate discussion though and ties in with a Faction Play proposal I've submitted... but hey... it would be cool.
#428
Posted 07 November 2016 - 10:40 PM
50 50, on 07 November 2016 - 03:22 PM, said:
I
If 4 players took 2x Atlas and 2x Locusts we have a combined total of 240 tons.
Divide that by 4 (for the 4 players/mechs in the lance) and it's a 60 ton average.
We would then say that those players combined form a heavy lance.
The match maker then looks for another heavy lance on the other side to pair them against.
That's the basics of the idea.
If 4 players took 2x Atlas and 2x Locusts we have a combined total of 240 tons.
Divide that by 4 (for the 4 players/mechs in the lance) and it's a 60 ton average.
We would then say that those players combined form a heavy lance.
The match maker then looks for another heavy lance on the other side to pair them against.
That's the basics of the idea.
Can't happen.
The REAL reason (according to Russ, mind you, not conspiracies and salt) that we have the tonnage limits is because that lessens the load on the matchmaker.
Not in terms of system load, mind you, but in terms of possible matches. There are few groups in the group queue to start with, and those few have to be put together in teams of 12. Given groups of 2-12, that's extremely difficult. Group of 9? You MUST be groups with a group of 3.
The tonnage system we have now works because it offloads half the work to players BEFORE they press Play, halving the limits the MM needs to consider.
This system is good, it works. It's not ideal, given how the game design states all mechs should be equally valuable, so it shouldn't be necessary, but it's not a perfect world.
#429
-
-
- 2,145 posts
Member
- LocationTo Nova or not to Nova. That is the question.
Posted 09 November 2016 - 01:27 PM
I recall the change to the tonnage system when there were discussions on ways to improve the match maker.
We probably rely too much on the match maker to work out all of these aspects for us, find a match etc.
The alternative to that is to put it all in the player's hands.... but quick play is good fun as it is and the voting system gives it a bit of randomness. I think it works pretty well.
This idea is to take the tonnage idea one step further.
We probably rely too much on the match maker to work out all of these aspects for us, find a match etc.
The alternative to that is to put it all in the player's hands.... but quick play is good fun as it is and the voting system gives it a bit of randomness. I think it works pretty well.
This idea is to take the tonnage idea one step further.
#430
-
-
- Survivor
- 68 posts
Member
Posted 10 November 2016 - 05:21 AM
Just because someone doesn't use all the available tonnage it does not mean they are weakening their team, I have seen plenty of matches where pilots in mediums and lights have out damaged and outscored Assaults.
If the opposing team has eight assaults and no lights a good wolf pack of lights and mediums can decimate them.
If the opposing team has eight assaults and no lights a good wolf pack of lights and mediums can decimate them.
#431
-
- 1 posts
Rookie
Posted 04 December 2016 - 08:15 PM
|||
Final:Edit: min |0000|-5-5+30+30+20+25+85+85 {reduce 7-12 by 25}
min/max|0check
20/100 -20-0-0
40/200 60-30-0
120/235 80-55-10
200/275 35-45-0
275/335 0-0-0
335/430 0--
430/490 0-0-0
490/520 0-0-45
520/590 0-10-55
565/695 25-0-30
665/745 30-0-0
685/765 60-80-0
Final:
min/max|%|privious.max>>>next.min-difference
20/100 100 -20
40/200 100 60
120/235 78.33 80
200/275 68.75 35
280/335 67 -5
340/430 71.66 -5
400/490 70 30
460/520 65 30
500/590 65.55 20
540/695 69.5 50
580/745 67.72 125
600/765 63.75 145
|||
Math Accounting for Matching Programing:
20/63.75-100 35/+
40/127.5-200 35/+ 60
60/191.25-255 20/+ {-20=235} 140
100/255-255 {+30=285|+20=275} 155
|
140/318.75-355 35/+ 115
180/382.5-450 35/+ 175
240/446.25-510 20/+ {-20=490} 210
300/510-510 {+30=540|+20=530|+10=520} 210
|
360/573.75-610 35/+ 150
440/637.5-705 35/+ 170
520/701.25-765 20/+
600/765-765 {+30=795|+0=765} 105
Provided Base %|Requested Suggestion %
2 75/150 75 |2 40/200 100
3 120/220 73.33 |3 60/255 85
4 200/285 71.25 |4 100/255 63.75
5 220/365 73 |5 140/355 71
6 260/440 73.33 |6 180/450 75
7 320/495 70.71 |7 240/510 72.85
8 400/530 66.25 |8 300/510 63.75
9 420/630 70 |9 360/610 67.77
10 460/705 70.5 |10 440/705 70.5
12 600/795 66.25 |12 600/765 63.75
100+100+95+90+70+65+60+55+40+35+35+20=765
^ ^ ^ | ^ ^ | ^ ^
plenty of variable space
math>words
edit: additional variable {reduce 3-12 max by 20}
edit: min 20/40/120/200|280/340/400/460|500/540/580/600
Final:Edit: min |0000|-5-5+30+30+20+25+85+85 {reduce 7-12 by 25}
min/max|0check
20/100 -20-0-0
40/200 60-30-0
120/235 80-55-10
200/275 35-45-0
275/335 0-0-0
335/430 0--
430/490 0-0-0
490/520 0-0-45
520/590 0-10-55
565/695 25-0-30
665/745 30-0-0
685/765 60-80-0
Final:
min/max|%|privious.max>>>next.min-difference
20/100 100 -20
40/200 100 60
120/235 78.33 80
200/275 68.75 35
280/335 67 -5
340/430 71.66 -5
400/490 70 30
460/520 65 30
500/590 65.55 20
540/695 69.5 50
580/745 67.72 125
600/765 63.75 145
|||
Math Accounting for Matching Programing:
20/63.75-100 35/+
40/127.5-200 35/+ 60
60/191.25-255 20/+ {-20=235} 140
100/255-255 {+30=285|+20=275} 155
|
140/318.75-355 35/+ 115
180/382.5-450 35/+ 175
240/446.25-510 20/+ {-20=490} 210
300/510-510 {+30=540|+20=530|+10=520} 210
|
360/573.75-610 35/+ 150
440/637.5-705 35/+ 170
520/701.25-765 20/+
600/765-765 {+30=795|+0=765} 105
Provided Base %|Requested Suggestion %
2 75/150 75 |2 40/200 100
3 120/220 73.33 |3 60/255 85
4 200/285 71.25 |4 100/255 63.75
5 220/365 73 |5 140/355 71
6 260/440 73.33 |6 180/450 75
7 320/495 70.71 |7 240/510 72.85
8 400/530 66.25 |8 300/510 63.75
9 420/630 70 |9 360/610 67.77
10 460/705 70.5 |10 440/705 70.5
12 600/795 66.25 |12 600/765 63.75
100+100+95+90+70+65+60+55+40+35+35+20=765
^ ^ ^ | ^ ^ | ^ ^
plenty of variable space
math>words
edit: additional variable {reduce 3-12 max by 20}
edit: min 20/40/120/200|280/340/400/460|500/540/580/600
Edited by m3c4469u5, 06 December 2016 - 08:21 AM.
#432
-
-
- The Wolf
- 13 posts
Member
Posted 03 November 2017 - 02:25 PM
Hello, since there is no other thread for exactly what i need in the Dev outreach this is the best topic because it does have to do with tonnage but not for QP. i am asking for FP quickplay tonnage restrictions particularly the scouting FP. I know alot of Clan members will not bring any Medium mechs to FP Scouting because of the 50 Ton limit that still leaves the IS with 55 tons. The IS has the Bushwhacker and will soon have the Hellspawn and the weight difference will be very noticeable and painful to play. its just a tease to clan members to have the Black Lanner come out but cant bring it to a game mode where it would shine the best! bringing 55 ton mechs to invasion is just a waste of tonnage in most cases and the usual clan dropdeck is always filled with heavy mechs or better just so that they have the armor to compete with the IS DPS especially with the RACs now. all that the Clan members want is the 55 tonnage limit to be restored in scouting so that it is a fair an honorable fight for scouting. the majority of contested planets when its Clan VS IS is always heavily favoring the IS in the scouting results and that also adds to the uphill battle that Invasion has to wade through. If you guys bring the clan scouting tonnage back to 55 BEFORE you drop the Black Lanner i will guarantee that you WILL see sales increase for the Black Lanner packages. right now, clan players see the Black Lanner and say "well its a pretty mech but since i can't take it scouting, i guess i can wait for it to come out for C-Bills". please do whats good for balance, fair and honorable fighting, and your wallets and bring the clan scouting tonnage back up to 55. thank you for reading and considering what i have to say
#433
Posted 07 November 2017 - 02:33 PM
WHITEWOLF660, on 03 November 2017 - 02:25 PM, said:
Hello, since there is no other thread for exactly what i need in the Dev outreach this is the best topic because it does have to do with tonnage but not for QP. i am asking for FP quickplay tonnage restrictions particularly the scouting FP. I know alot of Clan members will not bring any Medium mechs to FP Scouting because of the 50 Ton limit that still leaves the IS with 55 tons. The IS has the Bushwhacker and will soon have the Hellspawn and the weight difference will be very noticeable and painful to play. its just a tease to clan members to have the Black Lanner come out but cant bring it to a game mode where it would shine the best! bringing 55 ton mechs to invasion is just a waste of tonnage in most cases and the usual clan dropdeck is always filled with heavy mechs or better just so that they have the armor to compete with the IS DPS especially with the RACs now. all that the Clan members want is the 55 tonnage limit to be restored in scouting so that it is a fair an honorable fight for scouting. the majority of contested planets when its Clan VS IS is always heavily favoring the IS in the scouting results and that also adds to the uphill battle that Invasion has to wade through. If you guys bring the clan scouting tonnage back to 55 BEFORE you drop the Black Lanner i will guarantee that you WILL see sales increase for the Black Lanner packages. right now, clan players see the Black Lanner and say "well its a pretty mech but since i can't take it scouting, i guess i can wait for it to come out for C-Bills". please do whats good for balance, fair and honorable fighting, and your wallets and bring the clan scouting tonnage back up to 55. thank you for reading and considering what i have to say
Ditto on this.
#434
-
-
- Leutnant-Colonel
- 271 posts
Member
Posted 08 November 2017 - 01:24 PM
As an inner sphere scouting type in principle I'd be happy to see the black lanner in scout matches. Only downside being the absolute dominance of clans would be exacerbated if they had the satellite sweep. Denying Intel is the only thing that stops long range boats from setting up well in advance during hard pushes. What I would like is a small portion of scouting to count against the invasion total so 4 man bushwhacker rush can mean something.
#435
-
-
- The Dragoon
- 1,444 posts
Member
- Google+: Link
- LocationA fog where no one notices the contrast of white on white
Posted 20 March 2018 - 12:32 PM
I still vote for 3/3/3/3. So sick of getting together with my unit in a larger group then facing 6 x 2 man groups of assaults. I know that the idea behind group tonnage is to prevent teams from dominating, but we're not one of those teams you have to prevent from dominating! lol. 3/3/3/3 evens the playing field for all, I believe.
#436
-
-
- WC 2017 Bronze Champ
- 711 posts
Member
Posted 21 March 2018 - 12:42 PM
There was still an issue using the 3/3/3/3 method. If you hard lock it so every team is 3/3/3/3 regardless of tonnage, then it will be harder to create matches due to population size.
How would you try to make it so groups would follow a 3/3/3/3 make up?
Have it fill up from Assault to Light?
0/0/0/1
0/0/1/1
0/1/1/1
1/1/1/1
or allow any weight class as long as the others fill up too?
0/1/0/0
0/1/1/0
1/0/1/0
1/1/0/1
1/1/1/1
2/1/1/0 - invalid
I agree that under the current group queue match making system that tonnage is too freely given out.
In a worse case scenario... 12 man (600 tons) can face a 6 x 2man (1200 tons). But generally I've been seeing 700 - 900 ton matches. It's still manageable but does pose a challenge and has been encouraging smaller groups due to the higher tonnage allowed.
How would you try to make it so groups would follow a 3/3/3/3 make up?
Have it fill up from Assault to Light?
0/0/0/1
0/0/1/1
0/1/1/1
1/1/1/1
or allow any weight class as long as the others fill up too?
0/1/0/0
0/1/1/0
1/0/1/0
1/1/0/1
1/1/1/1
2/1/1/0 - invalid
I agree that under the current group queue match making system that tonnage is too freely given out.
In a worse case scenario... 12 man (600 tons) can face a 6 x 2man (1200 tons). But generally I've been seeing 700 - 900 ton matches. It's still manageable but does pose a challenge and has been encouraging smaller groups due to the higher tonnage allowed.
13 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 13 guests, 0 anonymous users
