367 replies to this topic

[Shae Starfyre]

TWIAFU, on 23 October 2015 - 09:27 AM, said:

Because solo players would complain about getting rolled/farmed by the evil 2man.

yea bt would it really make a difference in a 12 on 12 public queue match if there is only one per side?

[Fire for Effect]

MischiefSC, on 22 October 2015 - 06:56 PM, said:

So the only thing a BV would do is min/max the meta even more. You'd just have the best meta for the BV. That's it. It wouldn't 'balance' anything, in any way shape or form. It would just mean there was absolutely no reason to ever take inferior stuff, ever.

since THE TEAMS are being equalized it is essentially completely unimportant what you take with you... so you can try to get the best for you BV but since the wweapons are pretty universally used this evens out to a large degree...

MischiefSC, on 22 October 2015 - 06:56 PM, said:

Balance means things have value, not that cheap stuff is cheap. That's not balance. That's throwing 80% of the games content out.

yes these have Battle Value nice that you agree...

MischiefSC, on 22 October 2015 - 06:56 PM, said:

Look. This isn't each player building a lance/company/whatever of stuff to play. This isn't TT. It doesn't play like TT. I love TT BT and still play it with friends. This isn't that game though and can't be balanced the same.

This is a FPS. You are in 1 mech and fighting in a 12 v 12 moba FPS. You do not have a piloting and gunnery skill determined by a die roll. Your hits and misses are not determined by 2d6 with modifiers.

And this has to do with BV what exactly? Battle Value is a COMBAT POTENTIAL the ability to dish out and survive incoming damage. This potential is completely independent, does not matter if it comes from a dice roll or a guy pressing the left mouse button. your die roll has NOTHING to do with BV. Die roll is ELO or PSR nothing more nothing less. Both components are perfectly describable in numbers that can be added up and be used to balance sides. If you want to make it more accurate you can even make a defensive and an offensive BV before adding it to a single number.

MischiefSC, on 22 October 2015 - 06:56 PM, said:

BV isn't useful. I wish it was - I wish there was some magic bullet to handle balance.

BV is actually the only useful thing; weight is completely wrong since it describes exactly nothing about loadout or the ability of that paticular mech to dish out or survive damage, and even worse it is fixed you cannot change that number... You dont need magic bullets you just need mathematics.

MischiefSC, on 22 October 2015 - 06:56 PM, said:

The reality is though that some players are better than others. In environments like the group queue where there are fewer players in the queue there is no way to effectively limit the inevitable interaction between good players and average or bad players.

true and has exactly nothing to do with BV....

MischiefSC, on 22 October 2015 - 06:56 PM, said:

Trying to pre-gimp everyone in a group above 4 under the auspice that they're probably good (because, apparently, only good players have more than 3 friends around at any given time) just forces everyone playing with a group bigger than 4 to roll full meta.

I get that someone had an anecdotal evening that didn't look like that. It's all I've seen every time I've played, enough that I've put MW:O aside for now. Rebel Galaxy is pretty awesome and perfectly entertaining.

Its an absurdity to base it on a weight in the beginning and even worse to gimp larger groups.
In my other post I stated a few facts why one side had actually lost that had absolutely nothing to do if there was a group on the other side or not...

whats rebel galaxy?

[Kira Onime]

zudukai, on 23 October 2015 - 09:34 AM, said:

the way i see it, the 12 crow deck directly counters the min/max 8 cheeta +4 dire deck, which counters the 12 hellbringer/thunderbolt deck, and so on.

You just found the problem without finding it.

[Fire for Effect]

MischiefSC, on 22 October 2015 - 11:36 PM, said:

Sorta. TT isn't the best comparison because as a given If someone won all the time you didn't ask that he get less BV -

BV is connected to the chassis and the actual built not to the player. what you mean is PSR or ELO

[Fire for Effect]

Mystere, on 23 October 2015 - 09:28 AM, said:

And which is why I always thought 3/3/3/3 was nothing but an abomination. It completely eliminated those formations that made you go "WTF?" and still have a blast at the same time.

worse it completely collided with the basic wing concept of 2 people working alongside each other.

[TWIAFU]

Aphoticus, on 23 October 2015 - 09:36 AM, said:

yea bt would it really make a difference in a 12 on 12 public queue match if there is only one per side?

No.

Solo queue it is the underhive to blame.
Group it is the evil 12man boogeyman.
CW it is the solo/group

Every queue has someone or something to blame for why they loose. Adding 2man to solo queue would just give solo players something new to blame instead of looking in a mirror.

Solo queue would be worse by adding grouped players to it. Adding coordinated players, even just 2, to a solo queue filled with no coordination is ripe for nerd rage.

[zudukai]

Kira Onime, on 23 October 2015 - 09:39 AM, said:

You just found the problem without finding it.

i still seem to be missing something, how is having a group, setup to counter a typical meta deck bad?

you players seem to forget that running a bunch of heavies kill mediums, even if you cannot run 12 thunderbolts now, as an example, the thunderbolt deck would be hard to beat with stormcrows, since the 5ss (mpl boat) is almost perfectly suited to killing them.

what i have been seeing in my unit, and abound is stupid decisions when folks group up - just taking what they want to play for "fun" and having little synergy, instead of running complimenting mechs, or gearing towards a specific playstyle/tactic.

Edited by zudukai, 23 October 2015 - 09:48 AM.

[TWIAFU]

zudukai, on 23 October 2015 - 09:46 AM, said:

i still seem to be missing something, how is having a group, setup to counter a typical meta deck bad?

Because there is a setup and way to counter meta drop decks?

[Void Angel]

PS WrathOfDeadguy, on 20 October 2015 - 12:21 PM, said:

So I guess you could call this...

*sunglasses*

...a Murder of Crows?

[zudukai]

TWIAFU, on 23 October 2015 - 09:50 AM, said:

Because there is a setup and way to counter meta drop decks?

and. that. is.... BAD?

[Fire for Effect]

Davers, on 23 October 2015 - 09:09 AM, said:

While you do make some points, I do disagree with your justification for a BV system. BV doesn't replace actual mech and weapon balance. It is not ok to just say, "Hey Flamers don't really work, but it's cool cuz we lowered their BV cost", "LRMs are complete rubbish at competitive levels? With the new BV cost, working as intended". If mechs like the Locust are not worth taking, then they should never have been made. PGI should have never wasted the time designing them, and players should be told to stop asking for mechs like them. While AI units and stuff are all really cool, I would like to have more of a balanced game soon, rather than years from now when they finish the single player stuff. Isn't that one of the reasons flamers are so bad now, because eventually they will be anti-infantry weapons at some future date? Based on your BV system there is never a need for anyone to use less than the 'best' mechs. At worst they will be matched against the same, at best they will face several inferior mechs on the opposing team.

Again you fail to see the large, the big picture not mechs are balanced which is absurd in its own: TEAMS are balanced.
The goal that is sought is to equalize the sum of all pilots ratings times BV of that pilots used actual built on BOTH sides of the match. It is completely unimportant if LRMs Flamers Lasers are good bad or anything in between the balance is not for mechs or weapons its for the sides to be equal.

that weight nonsense worked as long as there is no other mech if the same weight and as long as there is an actual BV progression more tonnage = more BV. this is not anymore the case so that weight approach cannot work.

We already have great anti-infantry weapons sadly we have no infantry....

[Mystere]

Kira Onime, on 23 October 2015 - 09:39 AM, said:

You just found the problem without finding it.

Huh?!

Correct me if I read you wrong, but ...

A Counters B, which counters C, which counters D, and so on and so forth is a problem?

[Fire for Effect]

zudukai, on 23 October 2015 - 09:19 AM, said:

not having read the 16 pages, i do not see a problem here. why is everyone having such a hard time adapting and countering? fresh ideas must be too much work.

there is a point at which a wooded plank breaks if you keep chopping off splinters this point has been reached and has been surpassed.

Just look at the numbers and try to make a decent 12 man team with that laughable low amount of weight. Its FAR below the average of all weight classes available. Essentially the completely destroyed group play for anything more than approx. 6 men. The worst thing is that it adresses nothing they keep using the wrong kn o bs and buttons. Weight is simply not a useful number to use as a limitation for group play. It just pushes to a singular combination of mechs since it is now suicide to play with anything less than tier 1 topnotch mechs and that will become boring pretty fast...

[Dimento Graven]

Mystere, on 23 October 2015 - 09:59 AM, said:

Huh?!

Correct me if I read you wrong, but ...

A Counters B, which counters C, which counters D, and so on and so forth is a problem?

I think the issue with this theory is, it requires you come with preset builds that eliminates all choice and diversity from the game, quickly making it extremely stale.

[TWIAFU]

zudukai, on 23 October 2015 - 09:55 AM, said:

and. that. is.... BAD?

For some, I guess it is.

For me, glad things are getting shaken up and meta is changing.

[Fire for Effect]

Aphoticus, on 23 October 2015 - 09:36 AM, said:

yea bt would it really make a difference in a 12 on 12 public queue match if there is only one per side?

yes it would take an eernity until you find a match to actually play....

[Fire for Effect]

TWIAFU, on 23 October 2015 - 09:27 AM, said:

Because solo players would complain about getting rolled/farmed by the evil 2man.

it still would not make it true...

we already had that see here:

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4668200

the failure of PGI here is that they had not explained to the whiners that what they think it is they perceived is simply not true and that they had relented to the whiners and destroyed the queue again.
They had changed it once: they kicked small groups out of the single player queue and it had changed exactly nothing....

[Sadist Cain]

padebra, on 21 October 2015 - 06:03 AM, said:

1/ Coordination > all
2/ People don't give a f*** about game mode objective
3/ People know exactly where the enemy is (and will be, assuming at every game teams are spread like hell and need to regroup first)

So finaly nascar and death ball meet and become the cheese. We can't blame player for that.

What beats a slow and blind 3x4 man nascar ?
a 12 man faster nascar...
Nascar has become muscle memory ... every unorganized team's move is predictible and unorganized team CAN'T defeat a simply performed nascar.

Please PGI fix spawn points and game modes. Facilitate teamplay and give player strong simple UNIQUE win objective.

Tonnage limit is ok IMO.

bang on

[TWIAFU]

Fire for Effect, on 23 October 2015 - 10:04 AM, said:

It just pushes to a singular combination of mechs since it is now suicide to play with anything less than tier 1 topnotch mechs and that will become boring pretty fast...

If your only playing top tier players that only play top notch mechs with top notch quirks you would have to follow suit. Just like how top tier players played each other in top notch mechs and were only limited by 4x3 on what they could take to play other top tier players.

Now top tier players can take more meta to put against other meta or put meta up against higher tonnage.

Odd that the very same thing top tier players have been doing is suddenly boring now that they are no longer limited by chassis but limited by weight.

Since you claim that there is only a singular combination of mechs now for top tier play, what is that singular, ONE, combination of mechs all top tier player will bring now? Has to be different then what you did on Monday because that was OK and this is boring now.

And now since you know what everyone will have as that singular combination, why not use that info and make a drop to combat that? You can now roll over all others!

[Kira Onime]

Mystere, on 23 October 2015 - 09:59 AM, said:

Huh?!

Correct me if I read you wrong, but ...

A Counters B, which counters C, which counters D, and so on and so forth is a problem?

You are correct on what you say, as this currently worked in the game without the tonnage system but the problem with this system was, and still is the ability to boat a fuckload on the same chassis/variant.

That is what the tonnage system lets you do and as long as nothing else is done to limit this, there will always be a sweet spot for this "abuse".

As it currently stands, 12 man group tonnage is fairly low with an average 50 tons per players and running any assault above 5 or 6 man groups is almost detrimental to said group

Now let's look at 8 mans, a not-so-rare group size number.
500 max tons.

5*65 = 325
3*55 = 165
------------
490 total

Or

5*75 = 375
3*35 = 105
------------
480 total


Yes, A>B>C>A is correct but let me ask you this, was that a new effect from the tonnage system or was it already something you could find in the game without it.

What does the tonnage system really do that is new outside of being able to boat X or Y mech? And at what cost.