5 replies to this topic

[Goldhawk]

Mwo has done a better job with the improvements to the matchmaker system, and the voting is much better, I have gotten maps that work "Better" with the mechs that I carry.

Except, the running set of maps currently favors many of the mechs using ER Large lasers, and mechwarriors that are boating said lasers or LRMS tend to vote for those maps repeatedly.

I tend to be a mid-range/ close range brawler type, except, that option many times in a match is buried under flight after flight of LRMS. Even now, the majority of the votes went to Polar Highlands, when I attempted to vote for a close range map. Yes, this is complaining, therefore I have a solution.

Similar to the drop deck in CW, mechwarriors can have the option of selecting an alternate mech for dropping. Therefore, close range builds will not get annihilated on open maps because they will be prepared for that possibility with a longer ranged build.

Thoughts?

[ImperialKnight]

actually, Polar Highlands is a really good map for brawlers to close in, if you know what you're doing. Caustic and Alpine are far worse maps for brawlers

[Cerender]

I was thinking a similar thing. One difference would be your backup has to be of the same chassis. For each quickplay you would pick two variants of the same chassis then at the preparing for drop screen you could select the Mech that you will use in that fight.

I'm not sure if the matchmaker looks at weapon load-outs or just tonnage/ chassis but I think this would keep the matches still as close as they are now but still give us an option to react to the maps.

[NoiseCrypt]

You bring one mech, but have Loadout A and B.
That way you can compensate a bit for hot,cold, range, ect.

Problem 1: Omnimechs.

Problem 2: This loadout selection would add aditional "time to match" overhead, since everyone should have a fair chance to select loadout after voting.

But I like the idea and feel of a Mechwarrior bringing more than one loadout.

Edited by NoiseCrypt, 06 April 2016 - 02:52 PM.

[Cold Darkness]

funny how lrms are basically the big bad evil again just because they are decent on alpine and not terrible on polar highlands.

just pointing out that a choice of even just two mechs after map and mode voting will automatically make your issues worse. by alot.

[Goldhawk]

Cerender, on 06 April 2016 - 01:21 PM, said:

I was thinking a similar thing. One difference would be your backup has to be of the same chassis. For each quickplay you would pick two variants of the same chassis then at the preparing for drop screen you could select the Mech that you will use in that fight.

I agree with this idea but we have to consider the amount of people that have more than one chassis of the same mech. I'm a confirmed hoarder, and I have many of the mechs in triplicate. Perhaps if the tonnage would be within 5-10 tons of your original target mech, it still might be fair.

NoiseCrypt, on 06 April 2016 - 02:52 PM, said:

You bring one mech, but have Loadout A and B.
That way you can compensate a bit for hot,cold, range, ect.

Problem 1: Omnimechs.

Well, for this idea, I think that Cerender had the right idea by having a similar mech be chosen. But the chosen mech would be something that the mechwarrior picks out instead of a random mech. If you make every T-wolf you have into a close combat model, that's your booty on the line. The idea of loadout A or B or just having the ability to save loadouts would help with my mech hoarding problem, since I don't want to change a mech after I get the stats just right. Then, I see a different weapon selection that I want to try, either I purchase a new mech and try that loadout, or change my existing mech, however, armor values disappear, and I am forgetful. Smurfy's is helpful, except I don't want to transcribe everything to them.

NoiseCrypt, on 06 April 2016 - 02:52 PM, said:

Problem 2: This loadout selection would add additional "time to match" overhead, since everyone should have a fair chance to select loadout after voting.

I'm sure that the Ac/20 builds or those that get reamed by LRMs or some other longer ranged weapons would accept an additional 5-10 seconds to the wait time. We don't have to have a 20 count to wait for weapons.

knightsljx, on 06 April 2016 - 06:49 AM, said:

actually, Polar Highlands is a really good map for brawlers to close in, if you know what you're doing. Caustic and Alpine are far worse maps for brawlers

When your team has been bombarded by Lrms, constantly, perhaps since you may run with a group of people that is aware of the idea of strategy, but with the randoms that I run with, Lrms pound them to dust. Because Polar Highlands great for brawlers, at close range, you just have to slog through a kilometer of LRM fire or Er Large laser fire to get there.

I'm sure that other people might disagree with your idea of Caustic and Alpine, since I have brought an old classic,
[smurfy]http://mwo.smurfy-ne...124b73dff1606ed[/smurfy]

If I can get kills with that slow beast on Alpine and Caustic in a non-brawler zone, then either I'm amazing or each map might have different areas that either can be brawler friendly or long range friendly. Not trying to be a jerk, just stating from personal experience.