98 replies to this topic

[mogs01gt]

not signed!

We need more weight restrictions, not less!

[Ultimax]

Lugh, on 09 February 2016 - 06:25 AM, said:

Sorry no you don't.

I've already lived through atlaswarrior online once or twice already.

I think the point you're missing is that the other team can almost have Atlas warrior online if their team is comprised of 3 or 4 individual lances.


If you are dropping in 3s or 4s, the best thing you can do for your team is to stuff in as many assaults as possible.

Edited by Ultimax, 09 February 2016 - 06:27 AM.

[Lugh]

Nightmare1, on 08 February 2016 - 05:17 PM, said:

I never said that they, "Never lose," I merely stated that I had never observed one losing to a Casual Group while I was dropping. There is a difference. Yes, I'm certain that comp teams do lose on occasion. However, I've yet to see it happen.

You're reading too far into it.

Weird then that the casual 4man CWI group and 8 assorted others (two other 4s?) beat an SJR 8 + 4 others, just the other day. We called a stand fast on Frozen city and made target calls to the Highest priority targets, by name.

They died. Game ended 12-4.

[Nightmare1]

Lugh, on 09 February 2016 - 06:31 AM, said:

Weird then that the casual 4man CWI group and 8 assorted others (two other 4s?) beat an SJR 8 + 4 others, just the other day. We called a stand fast on Frozen city and made target calls to the Highest priority targets, by name.

They died. Game ended 12-4.

Your point? All that does is vindicate what I said about meta groups occasionally losing.

I never said that they never lose. Just that they rarely lose. You're really trying hard to create and issue where there is none.

Edit: Besides, I'm talking about full 12s here. It does make a difference who CWI was teamed with too. Were they two, meta 4-Mans? That can have a huge effect.

Edited by Nightmare1, 09 February 2016 - 08:31 AM.

[Lugh]

Nightmare1, on 09 February 2016 - 08:30 AM, said:

Your point? All that does is vindicate what I said about meta groups occasionally losing.

I never said that they never lose. Just that they rarely lose. You're really trying hard to create and issue where there is none.

Edit: Besides, I'm talking about full 12s here. It does make a difference who CWI was teamed with too. Were they two, meta 4-Mans? That can have a huge effect.

If a coordinated 12 man can't beat a set of X many randomly associated regular Joes, the fault lies not with the MM, nor with the X number of assaults you had to face, but rather with your lack of teamwork even though you were in a 12 man, cause let's face it, there are tons of 50 ton options that carry just as much fire power as many assaults.

Edited by Lugh, 09 February 2016 - 08:38 AM.

[Sandpit]

Saskia, on 06 February 2016 - 02:30 PM, said:

I have lead groups for years now and they are getting worse and worse because the developers cannot seem to agree on how to form a group. So I have decided to start a petition to get the change that needs to be enforced; FREEDOM OF CHOICE.

No more weight restrictions for groups!!!

There have been multiple fights over who gets to take what mech and people don't want to play anymore because of it.
It is utterly stupid and we have had enough!!!

There is no point to weight restrictions, so please just leave a note to say you agree and lets get this seen and sorted!

We deserve the FREEDOM OF CHOICE in taking whichever Mech we want to use in a group.

Please sign your name in agreement below.

Here's a fun fact for you

12man = 600 tons
enemy team of random size groups? first 6 mechs my team runs into is 6 100 ton assault mechs.

Yes, tonnage restrictions need to be loosened up.

Lugh, on 09 February 2016 - 08:37 AM, said:

If a coordinated 12 man can't beat a set of X many randomly associated regular Joes, the fault lies not with the MM, nor with the X number of assaults you had to face, but rather with your lack of teamwork even though you were in a 12 man, cause let's face it, there are tons of 50 ton options that carry just as much fire power as many assaults.

lol yea ok, read my example above

please explain to me how being in a 12man PUG equates to "should be able to overcome randomly associate regular Joes" when you're out tonned by the equivalent of 3-4 assault mechs. That handicap is essentially the same as 12v16

You should really do math before you make ignorant statements like this

[Sandpit]

King Alen, on 09 February 2016 - 10:24 AM, said:

It is not how many tons your team has, its how well your team plays. More tons can help but if your team can't pull it together it won't matter.

see above

[Nightmare1]

Lugh, on 09 February 2016 - 08:37 AM, said:

If a coordinated 12 man can't beat a set of X many randomly associated regular Joes, the fault lies not with the MM, nor with the X number of assaults you had to face, but rather with your lack of teamwork even though you were in a 12 man, cause let's face it, there are tons of 50 ton options that carry just as much fire power as many assaults.

You have a very narrow field of vision and clearly haven't read anything I've been writing. We're not talking about a coordinated 12-man. We're talking about casual 12-mans that have perhaps 6 good pilots and 6 weak pilots. We're not talking about having them face a 12-man of random Puggers that are using the LFG function. We're talking about having them face strong lances that are Heavy or Assault Mech rich and piloted by notable Units.

For the record, my Unit often does trounce the LFG Puggers for the simple reason that they do lack coordination. However, it can't necessarily beat an enemy team that has an equal number of competent pilots because of the weight advantage it has. Case in point, if my 12-man has six good pilots (Tiers 3-1) and six noobish pilots, and faces a team with an MS 6-man, a random 4-man, and a random 2-man, then there's about a 50/50 chance of winning. The MS 6-man and the six strong fighters in my 12 will cancel each other out, roughly speaking. However, the 6 noobish pilots in my team might not necessarily cancel out the 4-man and the 2-man, depending on who those pilots are. If the MS group is an 8-man, then it's definitely going to be a loss because the competitive six on my team simply don't have the tonnage necessary to carry against the 8-man.

That's what I'm driving at here. The tonnage restriction is a good idea, in theory, but it hammers casual groups. It's not as simple as dropping in a Private Lobby, since that requires Premium Time for less than full teams, and a lot of our pilots just don't have the Premium Time. Since we can't get two full 12s at a time to duke it out for practice, it defeats the purpose of practicing 12-mans anyways. So, the primary issue, then, is being able to take new players out and teach them the game without getting trounced. To that end, we really do need a bit extra tonnage so that the six regular pilots can carry a little better. Notice that I'm not asking that enough tonnage be given to provide a win; I'm just asking for enough to turn a 4-12 loss into perhaps a 6-12 loss. Just enough to let the 6-man take on the full enemy 12 so that the noobish pilots have a chance to gain experience. Otherwise, they just get mowed down too quickly.

Shoot, it doesn't even have to be Universal. PGI could code it so that, if you're earning your Cadet Bonus, your tonnage doesn't count towards the group tonnage or the group gets an extra 4 tons per noob pilot. I'm not asking for the world here; just for a bit extra gas in the tank to get the school bus down the road.

[Saskia]

Hahaha you folks make me laugh! This has nothing to do with the meta crews or unit bitching. This is purely about casual groups being restricted in being able to take whichever mechs they want to play with. I play this game for fun, not for try-hard gaming.

I understand the past issues players had, but not everyone owns all mech types - some are quite loyal to certain mechs. When we play in a small group right now, it's somewhat ok, we can bring whatever. But as times goes on and the group gets larger, we are forced to all change mechs due to the restrictions. Some may have to leave the game as they don't have any other mech. It's simply not fair that those of us who play for fun must adhere to restrictions.

The tier system is a whole other issue and it obviously is not doing anything right. Just lose a game and you lose rank even if you did carry the whole team. There is never going to be a fix all and appease all solution. But having an option to take whatever mech you like should be allowed.

Maybe try two game sections: free play (no tonnage restrictions) and restricted play. I don't know. I just know that it is never fun when one is restricted.

I do appreciate the interest in my post and all your opinions are welcome, but when have you ever signed a petition and included a bloody essay? Haha..

[STEF_]

Saskia, on 11 February 2016 - 03:34 AM, said:

Hahaha you folks make me laugh! This has nothing to do with the meta crews or unit bitching. This is purely about casual groups being restricted in being able to take whichever mechs they want to play with. I play this game for fun, not for try-hard gaming.

Yes, I can understand your points, but when a set of rules has to be given, it must apply to all, "for fun pilots" and "try-hards".

For the above reason I gave (see yesterday post), I'm ok with tonnage limit or 3/3/3/3.
This prevents "cheezy" drops such as 12 cheeto or 12Atalai or similar ....fun time only for that team, qq for the other one.

[Sunstruck]

Instead of pushing one solution on everyone why not keep things as they are now for the people that like it, then have a second group que for unrestricted weight class matches. Like just have a checkbox in the group menu to select unrestricted weight class. That way people know what they're jumping into, and the match maker can try to match the weights accordingly whether its all lights vs lights or all assults vs assults.

[Sandpit]

Lugh, on 09 February 2016 - 06:25 AM, said:

Sorry no you don't.

I've already lived through atlaswarrior online once or twice already.

except you face that quite often if you're in a 12man and wind up facing multiple smaller premades.
6 100 ton mechs plus 4 heavies 1 medium and 1 light is not equal to 600 tons total for the 12man.
period

The handicap is too strict and needs to be loosened up. a 100 tons or so added to 12mans would be about right. Can still field an Assault or two and flesh out the rest with a few meds couple of heavies and a few lights instead of 1-2 heavies, 4 lights and 5 heavies against 6 100 tons assault mechs and another 200-300 tons in mechs

That's 800-900 tons against 600 tons

Too much of an advantage and completely destroys being able to get a 12man together many times in smaller factions.

[Appogee]

Back to the future.

[adamts01]

Concerning mixed tiers, if I clearly take a mixed group out of their comfort range and we keep getting stomped, I'll bail. MM can only do so much, after a while players have to take a little more responsibility.

[pyrocomp]

Lets see how small (5-10 tons) adjustments will affect things (as they will be, the limits shifted in past and will be shifted further). And lets see if they will allow 2-mans into solo queue (by default) and solo players into group queue (via checkbox). Then situation and overall performance of group queue might settle in a different spot.

[Khobai]

Group weight restrictions exist for a reason. So teams comprised of one large group are somewhat balanced against teams comprised of smaller groups.

The only other options would be to force groups to be particular sizes or allow small groups to join the pug queue. We tried both those other options before and people complained to no end...

Quote

It is not how many tons your team has, its how well your team plays

Heavies are by far the best weight class. Assuming equal skill level, if your group cant take as many heavies, youll be at a disadvantage.

Edited by Khobai, 11 February 2016 - 11:57 AM.

[pyrocomp]

Khobai, on 11 February 2016 - 11:53 AM, said:

Heavies are by far the best weight class. Assuming equal skill level, if your group cant take as many heavies, youll be at a disadvantage.

You propose another Timber nerf? =)

[Khobai]

Quote

You propose another Timber nerf? =)

All clan heavies need a speed nerf not just Timbers.

The whole reason nascaring has become a thing and why slow assaults suck now is because clan heavies have drastically increased the average speed of mechs by like 10-15kph.

IS and clan mechs should have completely different skill trees IMO. And clan heavies shouldnt have speed tweak, but another skill instead.

Edited by Khobai, 11 February 2016 - 12:01 PM.

[pyrocomp]

Khobai, on 11 February 2016 - 11:58 AM, said:

All clan heavies need a speed nerf not just Timbers.

The whole reason nascaring has become a thing and why slow assaults suck now is because clan heavies have drastically increased the average speed of mechs by like 10-15kph.

IS and clan mechs should have completely different skill trees IMO. And clan heavies shouldnt have speed tweak, but another skill instead.

Well, decent class of even mech based skill trees sounds interesting but are way too cumbersome to do. Though that will allow another set tweak options via those skills.