61 replies to this topic

[Peiper]

BLOOD WOLF, on 13 January 2017 - 01:29 PM, said:

yea, but supposedly it would restrict players and teams in a never really proved sorta way.

I would go back to sandpits, fallacious threads but I don't want a migraine

Well, how about battle value instead? We all know that all mechs are not created equal, and frankenmeching changes their value tremendously. We could even have batchalls and bidding wars! (I am not kidding. Battle value makes a WHOLE lot more sense than tonnage anyway, and you could dump half the 'equalizing' quirks if you know that all mechs are simply NOT equal.)

[Felicitatem Parco]

Crockdaddy, on 13 January 2017 - 02:19 PM, said:

One of the more fail posts I've read in a while.

If by "fail" you mean "fails to cater to my selfish interests" then yes, I agree.

Sorry, but the NPE is more important than the non- Faction Play group play experience of people who are already vested players.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 13 January 2017 - 03:33 PM.

[Prof RJ Gumby]

The problem is, with 12 fast 50-tonners and competent team you can make a nearly unstoppable deathball. Or at least you could before all the kodiaks 3 and Mads IIC. Been there, done that. On smaller maps it was possible to rush enemies even before they managed to group up their lances...

[t Khrist]

This change is bad.

Here is why:
We get a lot of new players who take interest in our unit because they're looking for a casual experience playing the game in a group. Pilots who don't have the time, or really the desire, to build their skills in order to pull their weight in larger groups early on. They just want to enjoyably learn the game at their own pace, thinking that that will be slightly easier if playing with other people. So when we get into groups of 6+ and all of a sudden we veteran players can't pilot mechs that will allow us to carry those who are still wet behind the ears, or the new players don't have enough mechs to fill in remaining tonnage (because now stupidly every ton counts), we find ourselves winning 1 in 10 matches, and the new players (us too) having gotten a less than enjoyable experience.

Adding to this, the fact that a lot of us have mechs to level up, that we would like to level up. This is made quite difficult when you're trying to balance tonnage. Not to mention the fact that piloting a mech that isn't elited, when you know you're going to have to be one of the pilots carrying, is not preferred. I'm not a 'main mech' kind of person, I like to switch it up. Yet another thing made difficult with these changes.

2-mans are OP? Fine, but don't nerf larger groups just because you think larger groups=unbalanced groups, because that's just not true. The 'meta groups' will be OP regardless of restrictions. Why? Because they're into that sort of thing. They consider this an e-sport, we do not. Or at least we choose not to play it that way. Competitively, yes, but not bullet hell competitive.

So please.. stop nerfing things that affect playstyles/skill level in general, and find a way to target imbalances more directly.

I probably could have said this all more eloquently, but I don't feel like putting the time into it. Just know that we feel as though tonnage restrictions were difficult to work with enough as they were, and that this will likely never have us (and probably other not comp units) group larger than six ever again.

EDIT: Also, Prosperity you're still around?

Edited by t Khrist, 13 January 2017 - 04:49 PM.

[Racerxintegra2k]

t Khrist, on 13 January 2017 - 04:23 PM, said:

This change is bad.

Here is why:
We get a lot of new players who take interest in our unit because they're looking for a casual experience playing the game in a group. Pilots who don't have the time, or really the desire, to build their skills in order to pull their weight in larger groups early on. They just want to enjoyably learn the game at their own pace, thinking that that will be slightly easier if playing with other people. So when we get into groups of 6+ and all of a sudden we veteran players can't pilot mechs that will allow us to carry those who are still wet behind the ears, or the new players don't have enough mechs to fill in remaining tonnage (because now stupidly every ton counts), we find ourselves winning 1 in 10 matches, and the new players (us too) having gotten a less than enjoyable experience.

Adding to this, the fact that a lot of us have mechs to level up, that we would like to level up. This is made quite difficult when you're trying to balance tonnage. Not to mention the fact that piloting a mech that isn't elited, when you know you're going to have to be one of the pilots carrying, is not preferred. I'm not a 'main mech' kind of person, I like to switch it up. Yet another thing made difficult with these changes.

2-mans are OP? Fine, but don't nerf larger groups just because you think larger groups=unbalanced groups, because that's just not true. The 'meta groups' will be OP regardless of restrictions. Why? Because they're into that sort of thing. They consider this an e-sport, we do not. Or at least we choose not to play it that way. Competitively, yes, but not bullet hell competitive.

So please.. stop nerfing things that affect playstyles/skill level in general, and find a way to target imbalances more directly.

I probably could have said this all more eloquently, but I don't feel like putting the time into it. Just know that we feel as though tonnage restrictions were difficult to work with enough as they were, and that this will likely never have us (and probably other not comp units) group larger than six ever again.

EDIT: Also, Prosperity you're still around?

This 100x this.

[Peiper]

t Khrist, on 13 January 2017 - 04:23 PM, said:

This change is bad.

Here is why:

So please.. stop nerfing things that affect playstyles/skill level in general, and find a way to target imbalances more directly.

Just know that we feel as though tonnage restrictions were difficult to work with enough as they were, and that this will likely never have us (and probably other not comp units) group larger than six ever again.

You've nailed the problem on the head from my experience as one of the more experienced players among my casual group. I don't feel I CAN take sub-standard chassis BECAUSE I know I have to help carry the team. It takes away the possibility of variety. Some of my unit who are much better players than I feel bad about playing with our newer or less able players because they know they're ELO/PSR will put those players up against those who will destroy them easily.

I have advocated for in the past, and also in letters sent to the devs, for a different system all-together. I like 3/3/3/3, but battle values are an even better way to go. If every mech had a battle value calculated by their armor, speed, weapon and gear values that number could be added to a value based upon the overall performance of the pilot. Examples of how this would balance things might be like this:

You might find that when matchmaker creates an average team you'll see:

Lower level players in high value mechs
Medium players in medium value mechs
High level players in low value mechs

You'll see high value players in high value mechs together more in their bracket, and low value players in low value mechs in a lower bracket.

You could get rid of tonnage altogether as a means for matchmaking and go under the single value of:
Mech battle value + player level/value = total battle value.

You'll see things like high level players taking crappier mechs in hopes of fighting lower level players and those lower level players having a chance at high level players because they're going to be in super-frankenmechs.

My idea seems to have been rejected multiple times by the devs, but I do believe it has (battle) value enough to merit a try and so I will keep trying.

It would also help people run tournaments, leagues, and campaigns.

Whether the player's own value would be published or available to the player would be debatable. But battle(mech) values should be pooped out by the computer when saving a mech build so people have a gauge.

Oh, and it would help get rid of quirks, and allow for clan tech to be as powerful as it should be, without forcing people to play against the best players in the best clan mechs if they're not also the best players in the best clan mechs. It would also create a different system for community warfare, where either a battle value can be specified for a clan or IS team. (which could also remove the barrier of clan or IS only tech, especially as the timeline moves on and Nova Cats join the SLDF, Clan Wolf in Exile, etc...).

And, as I've now written more than a soundbite, this idea will be relegated to the trash heap once again, but it feels good to fight for truth, justice, and Battletech way none-the-less!

[Desintegrator]

Nice change !

As I am mostly piloting light Mechs, this is great...

[Crockdaddy]

To all of you BV guys out there. This was brought up 5 years ago. I think assigning a BV into a FPS would be tough to make work plus require a fair amount of processing power to assemble teams in MM. Would it be awesome to have a working system ..,. yes it would. Is it practical for a FPS game which struggles daily with balance issues ... well history hasn't been very nice so far.

[Peiper]

Crockdaddy, on 14 January 2017 - 09:57 AM, said:

To all of you BV guys out there. This was brought up 5 years ago. I think assigning a BV into a FPS would be tough to make work plus require a fair amount of processing power to assemble teams in MM. Would it be awesome to have a working system ..,. yes it would. Is it practical for a FPS game which struggles daily with balance issues ... well history hasn't been very nice so far.

That's a silly thing to say. We already have to choose our tonnage for drops. Replace tonnage with BV, and you're set. People would get used to it. You're simply replacing one number with another. It's EXACTLY the same, only you're basing the value of a mech not on it's tonnage, but on it's equipment.

[Crockdaddy]

Peiper, on 14 January 2017 - 12:14 PM, said:

That's a silly thing to say. We already have to choose our tonnage for drops. Replace tonnage with BV, and you're set. People would get used to it. You're simply replacing one number with another. It's EXACTLY the same, only you're basing the value of a mech not on it's tonnage, but on it's equipment.

How would you calculate the BV? That is the issue. You cannot use the BV built into BT. While it is sorta similar it isn't a 1:1 comparison. You would need some advanced math working to make this happen. Based on history of this game I would have little faith this would work well. BV gets brought up periodically. Frankly I would find BV interesting and I'd like to see it but I suspect it won't work well either until a real math guy gets on board with it.

[Tarl Cabot]

Crockdaddy, on 14 January 2017 - 12:42 PM, said:

How would you calculate the BV? That is the issue. You cannot use the BV built into BT. While it is sorta similar it isn't a 1:1 comparison. You would need some advanced math working to make this happen. Based on history of this game I would have little faith this would work well. BV gets brought up periodically. Frankly I would find BV interesting and I'd like to see it but I suspect it won't work well either until a real math guy gets on board with it.

^^ this. And for the weapons, a weapon on one mech is not equal to the the same weapon being mounted on another mech, either due to location, be it a large torso but low set hardpoint vs high set hardpoint vs tiny arms, or is said weapon can be boated and the location of those hardpoints and the side size of section it is in.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 14 January 2017 - 05:32 PM.

[ShaneoftheDead]

InnerSphereNews, on 13 January 2017 - 11:19 AM, said:

There were a few goals behind these changes:
• Most simply, to reduce the amount of tonnage on the battlefield for groups of 3-10 players.
• To keep the tonnage ratio closer together as the Group increases in size.
• To keep 2-player Groups as the most versatile and least restricted.
• To evaluate the results of these changes, in the wild, on the resulting amount of overall firepower and its effect on matches.

It looks like "the problem" they are trying to fix is lop-sided tonnage on the field between the teams. A 12-man fields a team with a few Heavies mixed with some Mediums and some Lights goes up against a team of 6 Kodiak 3's some Heavies and a Medium or two.

Not sure how that can be accomplished if 2-player groups can still bring out 200 tons.

Maximum Combinations
Group Sizes -- Old -- New -- (180ton-2group)
2,2,2,2,2,2 -- 1200 -- 1200 -- (1080)
2,2,2,2,4 --- 1140 -- 1080 -- (1000)
2,2,2,6 ------ 1005 --- 960 --- (900)
2,2,8 --------- 900 ---- 860 --- (820)
2,10 ---------- 735 ---- 710 --- (690)
12 ------------- 600 ---- 600 --- (600)

In theory, a 12 person team can still be out-tonned 2-to-1 even with the new limits. I hope that does not happen very often. And the other combos are better, but only slightly.
I would have tried a 180 Ton limit for a group of 2. Knocks 120 Tons off the worst case and makes a 10 & 2 vs a 12 be only 90 Tons different if also using the new limits for the 4,6,8,& 10 groups.

No, 180 Ton 2-group limit is not as "flexible" as a 200 limit. But merely forces them to take turns if they wish to each field a 100 or 95 Ton Mech. That is not too restrictive.

[TANK_]

Madness... PGI trying new narcotics.

[Asmosis]

Rampage, on 13 January 2017 - 02:46 PM, said:

Watched a stream of a 12 man GB unit (ARC, I think) do this against 2,3,4, 5, 6 player groups over and over a couple mornings back. I think they went 5 straight GP wins before finally loosing their first match. They ran all Mediums and were always at a huge weight disadvantage. Pretty sure much of it is on Youtube somewhere now.

Co-ordination and the ability to play bold without being reckless will always overcome a weight disadvantage.

If your in a larger group but not communicating, that's a fault with the group not the system. If your a causal rather than competitive larger group, then it shouldn't matter if you lose a bit more often since your just playing for fun rather than winning right?

[Mottfried]

Worst idea I ever read from you guys!

Did u spent a thought on guys that are not pro?

Imagine this:
We are a group of friends, we all trying to play 2 times a week - on Monday and on wednesday, we all have familie, children and friends, we all have sports and hobbies, we all have work todo! But we are trying to meet every week and play as an organized team. We all own the iconic battletech mechs! So we spent a lot of money, cause we have fun to imagine that we are an devastating mech pilot on the battlefield.
Sometimes only 4 of us have the time to play, on other days we are 8.
Some of us are good, some of us maybe not, some of us are tired, some of us want to play some lore style.
That means we are fare fare fare away from any pro team. Sure, we are calling targets and we are trying to play some .... mostly useless... tactics. Sometimes we win, sometimes we lose - but we always lose against the pros!

Now u come around and tell us that we had too much tonnage on the field and we all must use lighter mechs?
Some folks here tell us that we have to improve our organization?
Its about fun!!! I like to play my heavy, others like to play lights and some love assaults. And yes some of us use streak srms! But we had F.U.N. - and now we are lowered to (around) 60ts? That means we will lose most of our games?

Then the fun is gone - and we will move on!!!!


Please think about us! We pay money and we had fun in the past - revert this change!!!!!!


Maybe its a good idea to think first and then do the change!
It is a problem that you have to much unbalanced game modes!
It is a problem that your balancing is too complex !
And it is a huge problem that your game modes wont work!
But it is NOT a problem that my guys are too hard for any pug group!

Maybe its a good think to change your game modes!
QP should be for a quick play with fun - FP should be the mode for organized pro's. But in FP the balancing is so worse that most of the players only play QP.
And i dont care about the pros - the casuals pay the money!

Edited by Mottfried, 16 January 2017 - 11:44 AM.

[Tiantara]

- New change seems affect waiting time in game queue both QP and FP if you take most favorite mech like Assaults\heavy or light which used by everyone also. Before January I have nearly few min to jump into game. Last few days I need to wait nearly 4-9min to get into QP and little less into FP (which I don't like because of to less invasion map and too much QP phases in it)

[TheLuc]

to lower tonnage for big groups make sense, plus those bragging about their skills will have to show it with lower armor, its a good thing all things considered.

[t Khrist]

ShaneoftheDead, on 15 January 2017 - 11:32 AM, said:

In theory, a 12 person team can still be out-tonned 2-to-1 even with the new limits. I hope that does not happen very often.

Maybe not 2 to 1, but whenever we run larger groups, guess how many comparable-sized groups we go up against? That's right, very few. Why? Because unless you're comp., you don't run large groups. Why? Because of things like tonnage limits and the things I've said already. So most of the time we were up against 2, 3, and 4-mans, and most of those times they had more tons on us. So even before this change, it happened enough.

Now, I do hear the whine in my words. So, to alleviate that, some factors that I feel take the whine out of my words....

Asmosis, on 16 January 2017 - 05:26 AM, said:

Co-ordination and the ability to play bold without being reckless will always overcome a weight disadvantage.

^I don't think you could find anyone who would disagree with that, and I wholeheartedly agree.

But..

Extra tonnage does help to sponge some of that communication damage if your team isn't as up-to-par as the team that's using coordination to melt your face.

And..

Asmosis, on 16 January 2017 - 05:26 AM, said:

If your in a larger group but not communicating, that's a fault with the group not the system. If your a causal rather than competitive larger group, then it shouldn't matter if you lose a bit more often since your just playing for fun rather than winning right?

Losing a bit more often? Sure, I'll take that, I accept that I'm (already) at a disadvantage (when playing with those who are new to the game or something). But like I said before, 1 in 10 wins is not acceptable losses. That's with communicating, and has happened on more than one occasion.

When we get a group of us whom have been through the grind for awhile, working together with schemes like zerg-rushing mediums, sure we can work it so we come out on top; but we're not like that too often, we like to change it up and not run meta cheese just for the sake of winning every match. Plus we frequently group with those who we're trying to build experience with.

So here's the situation that this has painted in my mind.

If the issue is large groups being OP cuz too many Assaults, but large groups can still accomplish the same w/l regardless of tonnage, then it seems the only players affected are the ones who weren't the target of the nerf.

I can only see this hurting the issue, now you'll have even more disparity between team tonnage, with 2-mans being over tonnage, and larger groups being up against them with less.

Let tonnage respond with tonnage if we want, otherwise, we can just (t)roll with the meta right? Point being, leave it up to us. The oppositions argument works both ways, if all that really matters is communication, then tonnage shouldn't matter right?

[Crockdaddy]

Mottfried, on 16 January 2017 - 11:43 AM, said:

Worst idea I ever read from you guys!

Did u spent a thought on guys that are not pro?

Imagine this:
We are a group of friends, we all trying to play 2 times a week - on Monday and on wednesday, we all have familie, children and friends, we all have sports and hobbies, we all have work todo! But we are trying to meet every week and play as an organized team. We all own the iconic battletech mechs! So we spent a lot of money, cause we have fun to imagine that we are an devastating mech pilot on the battlefield.
Sometimes only 4 of us have the time to play, on other days we are 8.
Some of us are good, some of us maybe not, some of us are tired, some of us want to play some lore style.
That means we are fare fare fare away from any pro team. Sure, we are calling targets and we are trying to play some .... mostly useless... tactics. Sometimes we win, sometimes we lose - but we always lose against the pros!

Now u come around and tell us that we had too much tonnage on the field and we all must use lighter mechs?
Some folks here tell us that we have to improve our organization?
Its about fun!!! I like to play my heavy, others like to play lights and some love assaults. And yes some of us use streak srms! But we had F.U.N. - and now we are lowered to (around) 60ts? That means we will lose most of our games?

Then the fun is gone - and we will move on!!!!


Please think about us! We pay money and we had fun in the past - revert this change!!!!!!


Maybe its a good idea to think first and then do the change!
It is a problem that you have to much unbalanced game modes!
It is a problem that your balancing is too complex !
And it is a huge problem that your game modes wont work!
But it is NOT a problem that my guys are too hard for any pug group!

Maybe its a good think to change your game modes!
QP should be for a quick play with fun - FP should be the mode for organized pro's. But in FP the balancing is so worse that most of the players only play QP.
And i dont care about the pros - the casuals pay the money!

I don't really know where you guys get this from but there are almost ZERO pro's in FW. NEARLY ZERO.Pro's do QP Groups private lobbies QP and Tournaments / SCRIMS. EZ mode for weaker players to look good is typically in FP. To the best of my knowledge only one smaller sized skilled team or two plays FP regularly. No one else in the competitor scene plays it. Seriously. They don't. Only EVIL and KCOM play it often. Everyone else sits on the fence to see what PGI is going to do with FP. It just doesn't happen. FP lopsided matches is everything to do with map design and organized groups vs unorganized groups.

While I can't say I am a fan the middle tonnage change was made to normalize the tonnage range from too to bottom.

On my phone so excuse the extra crappy grammar and typis

[t Khrist]

Crockdaddy, on 16 January 2017 - 02:53 PM, said:

I don't really know where you guys get this from but there are almost ZERO pro's in FW. NEARLY ZERO.Pro's do QP Groups private lobbies QP and Tournaments / SCRIMS. EZ mode for weaker players to look good is typically in FP. To the best of my knowledge only one smaller sized skilled team or two plays FP regularly. No one else in the competitor scene plays it. Seriously. They don't. Only EVIL and KCOM play it often. Everyone else sits on the fence to see what PGI is going to do with FP. It just doesn't happen. FP lopsided matches is everything to do with map design and organized groups vs unorganized groups.

While I can't say I am a fan the middle tonnage change was made to normalize the tonnage range from too to bottom.

On my phone so excuse the extra crappy grammar and typis

.. I mean.. that's what I got from what they said.

Mottfried, on 16 January 2017 - 11:43 AM, said:

QP should be for a quick play with fun - FP should be the mode for organized pro's. But in FP the balancing is so worse that most of the players only play QP.

They say CW should be for 'pros'. More so that they think the reason 'pros' do not play CW is because of what one could call similar reasoning to yours.

Not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that you were making a point to someone for making that point already.

Edited by t Khrist, 16 January 2017 - 04:33 PM.