59 replies to this topic

[Solahma]

Khobai, on 21 October 2015 - 09:31 AM, said:

Again... the only problem is the stormcrow is overpowered.

balance all the mechs properly and thered be no way to abuse the system.

Simpler said than done. "nerfing" it means that those players who can't even perform well in a SCR are now going to perform worse. There are many reasons why changing the chassis really won't change anything for the better.

Also, we're definitely not just talking about the SCR. There are plenty of mechs that can be abused.

Edited by Solahma, 21 October 2015 - 09:39 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Solahma, on 21 October 2015 - 09:34 AM, said:

Also, we're definitely not just talking about the SCR. There are plenty of mechs that can be abused.

Like the BJ-1X

Which is better at 300m than the SCrow, especially for 10 tons less.

[Roadkill]

Solahma, on 21 October 2015 - 08:08 AM, said:

Again, that's too far fetched of a situation to plan for. You don't see it now, you won't see it in the future. Some might try, yes, but they can do that now and I've never seen it happen (at least on purpose).

You don't see it now because it isn't necessary. There was no advantage to having multiple small groups - in fact it's typically a disadvantage - under the old 3/3/3/3 system, and if the matchmaker is doing tonnage matching then there's no advantage to doing it to get the 6 DW + 6 TW team.

Add in your "hard cap of 2" and it suddenly becomes a huge advantage to have multiple small groups, at which point it absolutely WILL start happening.

[Roadkill]

Almond Brown, on 21 October 2015 - 08:55 AM, said:

There is little point in throwing away ideas just because they do not meet a "Perfect" requirement. There will never be a "Perfect" solution but more "diversity" in fielded chassis is hard to see as a bad thing.

I'm not saying throw it away, I'm saying modify it somehow. I don't know how. I figured I'd point out the glaring hole in the plan and let the hive mind work on a solution.

The proposed system only really affects 12-mans, and that's a very, very small portion of the player base. I'd like to see a system that at least handles everything down to a 6-man, and a 4-man would be preferable.

[Solahma]

Roadkill, on 21 October 2015 - 10:10 AM, said:

The proposed system only really affects 12-mans, and that's a very, very small portion of the player base.

Really? seems like it effects abuse at all levels except groups of 2 and 4. At 6 it prevents 4 TBR with 2 ACH, and much more. It only increases the control the higher in numbers you get, but I'd say it starts at 5-man. Like 4 EBJ and 1 SCR. At 4-man, it prevents stuff like 4 EBJ. At 3 Man it even prevents taking all of the same chassis. It effects more than just 12-man groups.

Edited by Solahma, 21 October 2015 - 10:36 AM.

[Jman5]

I just worry that tacking on another dropdeck rule will only further complicate group-queue team building. Especially for less organized and more casual groups that also might have a more limited stables of mechs.

I say we give it a couple weeks and see how things shake out. I played group queue last night and I had fun.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Mystere, on 21 October 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:

And yet the best armies try to standardize.

Because logistics. Something we sadly don't have.

[Solahma]

Jman5, on 21 October 2015 - 10:31 AM, said:

I just worry that tacking on another dropdeck rule will only further complicate group-queue team building. Especially for less organized and more casual groups that also might have a more limited stables of mechs.

I say we give it a couple weeks and see how things shake out. I played group queue last night and I had fun.

I agree that it need to mature on it's own. Still a good conversation to have considering the obvious downside of the system.

I'm also worried it would complicate group-making. I'd be interested to see by how much though. You'd obviously see if you had any duplicates. Could color code the mechs that have a duplicate already, so mechs that DON'T have a duplicate are easier to spot. like the group already has 2 SCR and 2 HBR, but only 1 EBJ and there is enough tonnage for another EBJ. otherwise, he could take anything else less than 75 tons. It should offer MORE options for a person to take a mech compared to the 3/3/3/3 system. The system where if your group already had 3 heavies and you wanted to play yours, you were SoL unless someone wanted to switch. This new system makes it easier to switch.

So IDK how much more complicated it would be. What we CAN do, is try to follow this rule on our own and see if it causes any pain forming a group. That could be done voluntarily in our own time while the plain tonnage system is still maturing.

Edited by Solahma, 21 October 2015 - 10:43 AM.

[Roadkill]

Solahma, on 21 October 2015 - 10:29 AM, said:

Really? seems like it effects abuse at all levels except groups of 2 and 4.

It affects abuse at all levels, but really don't control it at any level except roughly 8+.

6-man just switches to 2 HBR + 2 TBR + 2 ACH (or several other options) instead of 4 TBR + 2 ACH, just as one example. Basically, there are enough OP Mechs out there to allow smaller groups to still be abusive even with a hard limit of 2.

That's why I don't know the answer, because the most obvious answer would be to properly balance the Mechs. But it seems pretty clear that's not happening, and I can't come up with an alternative solution.

[Solahma]

While I believe it would be a good system for veteran players, my unit-mate Fluffeh pointed out something we hadn't thought about. Perhaps Jman. But the new-player experience with a duplicates system would be pretty terrible.

Quote

Yup, it would be awful for the average MWO player

Consider a "normal" player, like Wia for instance. She has been playing for a while now and i'm pretty sure she can even be considered above average in playing time.

She still only has a couple of Stormcrows, Firestarters, Mad Kitties and Tbolts at her disposal. Add 11 "Wias" into a group with her and it becomes a freaking nightmare to even be able to drop at all...

Quote

That's the wrong unit to run that test in though...

We're all veterans with an average of what ? 100 mechs per member or so?

Try putting the same restrictions to a mid-tier unit of casuals and see them struggle for 30 mins before ending up with a half decent deck more or less around max tonnage...

Not sure if this is truly an issue for new players, but I can see how it could be.


EDIT: I had no idea those emotes would pop-up on these forums

Edited by Solahma, 21 October 2015 - 11:50 AM.

[Solahma]

I was thinking about it more and wouldn't that be the same issue during the 3/3/3/3 system? If there were no Light or Medium slots open, she'd have to take something other than the FS9 and SCR anyway. But under the duplicates system, there could be 2 people in a FS9-S and 1 in an FS9-a then she'd be able to take her FS9-A, K, H, Ember, whatever firestarter she has. If 2 people were already in a SCR, perhaps one could switch to give up that mech.

I'm not convinced that a low mech count for a new player means he/she will have a more difficult time joining a group compared to 3/3/3/3. With unrestrictive tonnage rules we currently have, it makes it the easiest for a new player because you can really take whatever you want. But what if the group didn't have room for another SCR? Ria would be forced into the FS9 again anyway because it's her only lighter mech. That, or again, someone would have to trade down to something.

[Mirkk Defwode]

Solahma, on 21 October 2015 - 12:38 PM, said:

I was thinking about it more and wouldn't that be the same issue during the 3/3/3/3 system? If there were no Light or Medium slots open, she'd have to take something other than the FS9 and SCR anyway. But under the duplicates system, there could be 2 people in a FS9-S and 1 in an FS9-a then she'd be able to take her FS9-A, K, H, Ember, whatever firestarter she has. If 2 people were already in a SCR, perhaps one could switch to give up that mech.

I'm not convinced that a low mech count for a new player means he/she will have a more difficult time joining a group compared to 3/3/3/3. With unrestrictive tonnage rules we currently have, it makes it the easiest for a new player because you can really take whatever you want. But what if the group didn't have room for another SCR? Ria would be forced into the FS9 again anyway because it's her only lighter mech. That, or again, someone would have to trade down to something.

A tonnage system is the most free way to organize a team the 3/3/3/3 felt restrictive as the extremely new players only owning Light or Medium mechs get shoehorned into one of those positions. I recently had 5 new players and me as the only veteran and they all had lights to work with as its what they opted to buy coming out of the new player bonus. Ultimately to play we had 3 People in their shiny new mechs, and 2 people in trial medium mechs because they couldn't play their new lights.

With a tonnage system take the same group of 6 and 5 people could be in lights. and the veteran could take anything they'd like to fill in that group.

What's funny is out of that group everyone picked different light mechs as well making the variety suggestion viable.

[Solahma]

I also forgot about trial mechs... DUH new players could take those at anytime and be able to play. smh. I can't believe I forgot about trial mechs.

alright, i'm all aboard the Duplicates system again. CHOO CHOO!

[smokefield]

enforcing another 3/3/3/3 over the new system is not something i think i want. Because maybe someoen wants to run 10 dragons and 2 lights just for the lulz and we shuld not limit that.

I thought about it and i think there could be a solution...and for me it seems the best one.

Pgi said they will classify mechs/chassis based on a battle value. Then use this BV to enforce a 3/3/3/3 rule. If a mech becomes Tier 1 for example (or in other words his BV will be over a certain threshold) it will be put on the NO GO 3/3/3/3/ list - so you cant bring 3 of these mechs in the same time. But if a mech is under this value then you have no limits. Or they can do a better stratified system.

for ex : tier one - max 3 of the same mech limit
tier 2 - max 4 of the same mech
tier 3 - max 6 of the same mech
tier 4 and lower - no limits.

[PharmEcis]

smokefield, on 22 October 2015 - 02:37 AM, said:

Because maybe someoen wants to run 10 dragons and 2 lights just for the lulz

The only someone who wants to do that is YOU and we lost HORRIBLY for doing so mate!

Edited by PharmEcis, 22 October 2015 - 05:53 AM.

[Widowmaker1981]

Sol, are you really ok with assaults being deleted from the group queue? because the only way they wont be is by forcing groups to take them.. it goes like this:

No restrictions = 100% assaults (all move the same kinda speed, even if it is slow, CRAZY FIREPOWER. BOOM!)

3/3/3/3 + no weight limit = 3x100T, 3x75T, 3x55T, 3x35T (what we just had.. )

Weight limit + no class restrictions = form equal speed blob from heavies and mediums, blob up and go. Assaults useless because not worth the tonnage compared to heavies, and in while you can take them in smaller groups, you'll end up being the only one on the field, outmaneuvered and dead every time

3/3/3/3 + Weight limit = actual interesting varied drop decks that includes all classes.. whut?!

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Widowmaker1981, on 22 October 2015 - 06:17 AM, said:

\Assaults useless because not worth the tonnage compared to heavies, and in while you can take them in smaller groups, you'll end up being the only one on the field, outmaneuvered and dead every time\

Not really, it is harder to pull off the other tactic of abusing lights and assaults but it does have its own advantages over just a heavy/medium composition. What would help minimize the dangers of heavy/medium compositions and light rushes would be to remove the separate drop zones, or at least have everyone spawn in the same area. I wouldn't mind them randomizing the single drop zone though, would make things interesting.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 22 October 2015 - 06:43 AM.

[Solahma]

Widowmaker1981, on 22 October 2015 - 06:17 AM, said:

Sol, are you really ok with assaults being deleted from the group queue?

I definitely agree that is currently an issue with the tonnage system. It doesn't effect the Duplicates thing we're discussing though.

What if they increased the tonnage allowed and made it linear. That is, the tonnage per player stays higher with larger groups. But with that, they also added this duplicates idea. Now you would have the freedom of distributing more tonnage, but you introduce the restriction of only taking 2 of chassis/variants. So you could now justify 2 BNC on a team, but you couldn't stack the assaults to take 5 DWF or anything crazy.

For example, what if you increased the maximum tonnage for larger groups to something like this:


Now you have an extra 60 tons to play with as a 12-man. You can now justify taking something like:
2x BNC
2x TBR
2x TDR, HBR, or EBJ
2x BJ
2x FS9
2x ACH

Or what have you. No, it doesn't solve the issue of everyone preferring to hover at that middles tonnage area to increase the zerginess of the team, but it at least helps justify the tonnage distribution for assaults.

Not only that, but with the duplicates system you are limiting the amount of 100% in-sync zerginess of the team. You won't see an enemy team with MASS ACH because only 2 would be allows in a group. Same with SCR or any other powerful zergy mech. At worst, you'd see a hodge-podge of different mechs thrown together to accomplish the same basic idea, but they will have to spread it out amongst mechs that don't perfectly sync with eachother. If anything it greatly discourages trying to spam similar mechs and would encourage more well-rounded dropdecks, ones with assault mechs for example.

I'm not claiming this is a perfect solution, or the best for people like you who greatly prefer assault mechs. I love to play assaults to, so I completely feel for you. We both agree that the tonnage system the way it is has some significant flaws. I'd like to see how this duplicates thing would work out if possible, however I highly doubt it will get any attention by PGI let alone get added in. It would work great, or it could do relatively nothing. The only way we would know is to try it.

I do like the idea of INCREASING the tonnage maximums to justify assaults better though. However without restrictions like this duplicates thing, it would only increase the abusive dropdecks by some groups.

I found it extremely disheartening to see Russ post this yesterday. I know he says he is looking for feedback, but to assume people want LESS tonnage to work with... wow...

Edited by Solahma, 22 October 2015 - 07:44 AM.

[Widowmaker1981]

Solahma, on 22 October 2015 - 07:39 AM, said:

I definitely agree that is currently an issue with the tonnage system. It doesn't effect the Duplicates thing we're discussing though.

What if they increased the tonnage allowed and made it linear. That is, the tonnage per player stays higher with larger groups. But with that, they also added this duplicates idea. Now you would have the freedom of distributing more tonnage, but you introduce the restriction of only taking 2 of chassis/variants. So you could now justify 2 BNC on a team, but you couldn't stack the assaults to take 5 DWF or anything crazy.

For example, what if you increased the maximum tonnage for larger groups to something like this:


Now you have an extra 60 tons to play with as a 12-man. You can now justify taking something like:
2x BNC
2x TBR
2x TDR, HBR, or EBJ
2x BJ
2x FS9
2x ACH

Or what have you. No, it doesn't solve the issue of everyone preferring to hover at that middles tonnage area to increase the zerginess of the team, but it at least helps justify the tonnage distribution for assaults.

Not only that, but with the duplicates system you are limiting the amount of 100% in-sync zerginess of the team. You won't see an enemy team with MASS ACH because only 2 would be allows in a group. Same with SCR or any other powerful zergy mech. At worst, you'd see a hodge-podge of different mechs thrown together to accomplish the same basic idea, but they will have to spread it out amongst mechs that don't perfectly sync with eachother. If anything it greatly discourages trying to spam similar mechs and would encourage more well-rounded dropdecks, ones with assault mechs for example.

I'm not claiming this is a perfect solution, or the best for people like you who greatly prefer assault mechs. I love to play assaults to, so I completely feel for you. We both agree that the tonnage system the way it is has some significant flaws. I'd like to see how this duplicates thing would work out if possible, however I highly doubt it will get any attention by PGI let alone get added in. It would work great, or it could do relatively nothing. The only way we would know is to try it.

I do like the idea of INCREASING the tonnage maximums to justify assaults better though. However without restrictions like this duplicates thing, it would only increase the abusive dropdecks by some groups.

I found it extremely disheartening to see Russ post this yesterday. I know he says he is looking for feedback, but to assume people want LESS tonnage to work with... wow...

Basically, while the 2 max of any chassis would definitely improve some aspects of what we have, it doesnt do anything to fix its biggest flaw, even with more tonnage teams are going to prefer to speed match.

Honestly i think a full 100kph team is too powerful, and you have to literally stop it from happening - imo the best way would be to enforce 3/3/3/3 for group building, or some other variation that forces large teams to bring a couple of assaults, because thats the only way they will choose to slow down. I dont like this game played only at 100kph+ - its too.. unreal tournament like, and not stompy robot enough like.

TBQFH i think the time of everyone spamming mass assaults was better than this, at least that felt like a stompy robot game.

maybe im biased, but i dont think removing the most iconic weight class is good for the game.

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 22 October 2015 - 08:21 AM.

[Jman5]

Widowmaker1981, on 22 October 2015 - 08:18 AM, said:

TBQFH i think the time of everyone spamming mass assaults was better than this, at least that felt like a stompy robot game.

maybe im biased, but i dont think removing the most iconic weight class is good for the game.

I don't know a whole lot about battle tech lore, but I thought assault mechs were kind of rare on the battlefield. There was a lot more reliance on mediums and such.

It seems to me that making a 100 ton assault somewhat less common would be more in keeping with the battle tech universe. On a practical gameplay note (which is where I tend to focus), it makes for interesting decisions on how your premade divvies up the tonnage. I know in league play we were always careful about who piloted what. There was a lot of discussion and strategy there. Afterall, you don't want to waste your last 100 tons putting the new guy in a direwolf. You give it to your ace assault pilot.

Edited by Jman5, 22 October 2015 - 10:46 AM.