So Does Clan Get Their Tonnage Back?
#21
Posted 17 January 2017 - 02:13 AM
#22
Posted 17 January 2017 - 02:41 AM
Black Ivan, on 17 January 2017 - 02:13 AM, said:
yep, Bush whacker comes out next week, so all the Units will go to IS to grind them.
#23
Posted 17 January 2017 - 03:41 AM
Edited by Albino Boo, 17 January 2017 - 03:42 AM.
#24
Posted 17 January 2017 - 06:02 AM
#25
Posted 17 January 2017 - 06:25 AM
I actually want assualts to be less common in faction play, not more. So 250 IS 240 Clan would be enough.
#26
Posted 17 January 2017 - 06:33 AM
Nighthawk513, on 17 January 2017 - 06:25 AM, said:
I actually want assualts to be less common in faction play, not more. So 250 IS 240 Clan would be enough.
the game felt a lot better during medium madness event. so maybe we should even go to 220vs200t so people really cannot bring much assaults but then this also limits PGI's sales on assaults and ehavies as they are less needed. but that may be too harsh initially, so staring with something like 240 v 225 might be a better start.
More mediums would at leats mean less high alphas flying around, more dynamic because less slow fatties and taking an high end tonnage assault really means a sacrifice somewhere else.
Edited by Lily from animove, 17 January 2017 - 06:35 AM.
#27
Posted 17 January 2017 - 06:45 AM
However, this would really make a lot of the assualt specialists mad...
#28
Posted 17 January 2017 - 07:08 AM
Dakota1000, on 16 January 2017 - 07:00 PM, said:
Will IS players still continue saying Clans OP while stomping Clanners?
lol, not until we push the front back at least halfway.
#29
Posted 17 January 2017 - 08:16 AM
naterist, on 17 January 2017 - 01:52 AM, said:
THIS is exactly what is happening.
The PUGS are moving to the clans now, and they are bringing their LRM assaults with them.
#30
Posted 17 January 2017 - 08:58 AM
#31
Posted 17 January 2017 - 11:57 AM
12 uncoordinated heavies/assaults will often lose to 12 organised communicating lights/mediums. My old unit did a light rush on Boreal once and the enemy accused us of cheating because we got within 700m of the gens before they had even left them (lots of assaults and when there were no gates/turrets ,CW.3).
But basically tonnage increases improve the organised way more then the unorganised
#32
Posted 17 January 2017 - 12:09 PM
VitriolicViolet, on 17 January 2017 - 11:57 AM, said:
12 uncoordinated heavies/assaults will often lose to 12 organised communicating lights/mediums. My old unit did a light rush on Boreal once and the enemy accused us of cheating because we got within 700m of the gens before they had even left them (lots of assaults and when there were no gates/turrets ,CW.3).
But basically tonnage increases improve the organised way more then the unorganised
Yeah but that shouldn't be the measuring stick to determine weight differences. The measuring stick should be organized vs organized.
#33
Posted 17 January 2017 - 12:29 PM
Ragnar Baron Leiningen, on 17 January 2017 - 12:09 PM, said:
Yeah but that shouldn't be the measuring stick to determine weight differences. The measuring stick should be organized vs organized.
So, have different drop deck tonnage limits based on group size, similar to the group queue in QP?
#34
Posted 17 January 2017 - 02:33 PM
Ahh Screw it - WATCH THIS, on 17 January 2017 - 08:16 AM, said:
THIS is exactly what is happening.
The PUGS are moving to the clans now, and they are bringing their LRM assaults with them.
I hope that's the case. My god the bitter irony - LURM scrub suicide puggles switch to Clans so good teams can carry them to wins they don't deserve and those teams switch to IS and they still get farmed.
I don't know if it's true or not but the idea makes me warm and fuzzy.
#35
Posted 17 January 2017 - 02:56 PM
MischiefSC, on 17 January 2017 - 02:33 PM, said:
I don't know if it's true or not but the idea makes me warm and fuzzy.
Hmmm it is indeed a dish best severed cold.
#36
Posted 17 January 2017 - 03:00 PM
Sarsaparilla Kid, on 17 January 2017 - 12:29 PM, said:
So, have different drop deck tonnage limits based on group size, similar to the group queue in QP?
no. because what happens when a group learns to sync drop to work around and exploit. you do not base balance off the encounters of pugs and those in lower tiers. you balance it from the top. because they are the closest in skill level to each other and know how to min max their builds and strategies,
Edited by RaptorCWS, 17 January 2017 - 03:00 PM.
#37
Posted 17 January 2017 - 03:28 PM
RaptorCWS, on 17 January 2017 - 03:00 PM, said:
No you do not balance for the top because they from the minority matches played. This would distort the marjority of matches. You balance for the mid point of players numbers. If you reworked LRMs so they worked for the top teams, they would be massively overpowered to the average player.
#38
Posted 17 January 2017 - 03:45 PM
Albino Boo, on 17 January 2017 - 03:28 PM, said:
lol, im sure thats how riot balances league, valve with counterstrike/ dota, or blizzard with starcraft. they look at mediocre players who cant figure out the best strategies for the game and caters for them (sarcasm if you cant tell). you look at the top. they play the game the most, they understand the mechanics. i doubt blizzard makes changes to starcraft based off of bronze and silver league game results. learn to game dev.
#39
Posted 17 January 2017 - 03:50 PM
RaptorCWS, on 17 January 2017 - 03:45 PM, said:
Err I would point out that all the games you mention have far less variables. The comparable games are WoT and Warthunder neither of which balance for less than 100 players out of their total player base
#40
Posted 18 January 2017 - 01:28 AM
Black Ivan, on 17 January 2017 - 02:13 AM, said:
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users