86 replies to this topic

[VixNix]

I thought there was to be a skill with a certain mech build-up (pilot and mech skills, no?).

That said putting together a team and "saying hey get out of your mech we are over the weight limit, go get a smaller mech" you dont have skill in just does not FEEL fair at all.

[MaddMaxx]

Kudzu, on 03 January 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

Tonnage is the absolute worst balancing mechanic to use.

HeyZuess, I am some glad you cleared that up dude. Your option is way better obviously.

So you propose BV then?

Tonnage can't be any worse than:

"Oops sorry Jimmy, gotta go back and take 123 points off that Mech, we are over the BV for the drop."

"OK Boss, be right back."

"Oh come on Jimmy. You need to go back and take another 13 points of ffs!"

"OK Boss, be right back."

"Oh come on Jimmy. You need to go back and take another 5 points of ffs!"

Or "Jimmy, pick something in the 50T range please.

"Sure Boss, is a Hunchie OK? Cool!

"Lets Rock and Roll gents!"

lol

Edited by MaddMaxx, 03 January 2012 - 12:33 PM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I think in many cases they are expecting people to play as groups, perhaps with the odd pick up. A lot of this has been discussed in the thread on matchmaking http://mwomercs.com/...uld-it-be-done/ . A mix of mech BV and person ELO is probably the preferred option. Depending on what the objectives etc are and given the emphasis of PGI on mech roles I can't see going for all assaults working.

[1SgtChuckie]

Ulric Kell, on 03 January 2012 - 11:22 AM, said:

I disagree with this. There are plenty of cases in the BT books and in real world combat situations where under armed forces have prevailed. 10 ravens against 5 atlas would have 10 dead ravens. But 10 ravens against 1-2 assault and 1-2 heavy could in the right scenarios do what is needed. High ground, obstacles, speed and agility. All of these things play a part.

Especially if the game takes into account armor penetration and targeting shots. Say for instance a Urbie getting two head shots to an Atlas.. not easy but can be and has been done.. at least on the board.

Thats truly the balancing mechanism I found in the board game and such.. the ability to call a target shot. Made Atlas' very warry of lances of scouts they couldn't target fast enough. ESPECIALLY in a Urban environment.

[1SgtChuckie]

VixNix, on 03 January 2012 - 12:05 PM, said:

I thought there was to be a skill with a certain mech build-up (pilot and mech skills, no?).

That said putting together a team and "saying hey get out of your mech we are over the weight limit, go get a smaller mech" you dont have skill in just does not FEEL fair at all.

Well there is..

IF YOU NEED a few Urbies and Jenners for recon in a urban environment. You wouldn't want n00bs in them.. you want talented pilots. YOu can put the n00bs in the Hunchbacks, etc.. to take the brunt of the targets while you do the scouting..

In an assualt raid, you may want it the other way around..

[Kudzu]

Grayson Pryde, on 03 January 2012 - 12:00 PM, said:

Could you please explain that?

I have seen it enough in WoT and just a 12vs12 will never be fair. And i think clasify all mechs in tiers wont help either. Maybe teh Battle value system could work.

Tonnage takes nothing but pure weight into account-- under this system you would have 2 Urbies and an Assassin piloted by people who just picked up the game and using 3025 tech being equal to a Dire Wolf piloted by the the best player on the server just because both sides weighed the same.

A redesigned BV system that is balanced around metrics useful for MWO would be the way to go. (Not a direct port from the table top but a similar system.)

MaddMaxx, on 03 January 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:

HeyZuess, I am some glad you cleared that up dude. Your option is way better obviously.

So you propose BV then?

Tonnage can't be any worse than:

"Oops sorry Jimmy, gotta go back and take 123 points off that Mech, we are over the BV for the drop."

"OK Boss, be right back."

"Oh come on Jimmy. You need to go back and take another 13 points of ffs!"

"OK Boss, be right back."

"Oh come on Jimmy. You need to go back and take another 5 points of ffs!"

Or "Jimmy, pick something in the 50T range please.

"Sure Boss, is a Hunchie OK? Cool!

"Lets Rock and Roll gents!"

lol

First off, for random games you wouldn't need to count down from a number, just form a lance with your friends and the queue system would match you up with other lances until both sides are even. All four of you want to run Atlas'? No problem, but the rest of your side is all lights and mediums and your paired off against a more well-rounded company.


For organized play it would be better to count down, but that's where it pays to have multiple mechs to choose from. Your commander needs some extra BV to squeeze in a better recon lance? Take your Trebuchet instead of your Archer and your buddy can take his 3025 Marauder instead of his 3050 Marauder. Your role stays the same, the bv is dropped, and the problem solved.

[Kristov Kerensky]

BV system..someone takes a big chunk of the BV allocated to your company, what does the rest of your company do?

Tonnage system..someone takes an Atlas when you have a 200 ton limit per lance, what does the rest of that particular lance do?

REAL simple answer to both of these problems..

Team

PGI is really pushing the team play aspects of MWO, anyone deny that? Anyone miss that? No? Good, lets move on and forget the silly stuff about selfish PUG players and how they'll muck up ANYTHING that's done just because..they can. Ignore it and look at what teams will do.

Now, in previous MW titles combat in leagues was typically done on a very simple system..Tonnage per drop. Got a Lance, you've got 300 tons, figure it out. Got a Star, you've got 300 tons, figure it out. Worked out just fine for all of us for years, people got used to NOT always being in the biggest baddest Mech they could make and instead worked as a team in smaller Mechs to fit the tonnage limits AND still have as many swinging..arms...as possible on the field.

Sorry, but ain't none of you THAT badass that you'll be taking an Atlas into combat against 4 Ravens and walking away from it..unless you eject. I'm not that good, even when I WAS that good, I wasn't that stupid, are you folks? Don't answer that..the smart ones know better and I'll figure out who the rest are when MWO goes live soon enough...easy kills are still kills after all

I'm a team player, it's why I love some online FPS games over others..team play. And if you are someone's team mate, and you tell them 'sorry man, you can't drop this round, I want to take that Atlas and we ain't got the tonnage for you'..how long do you think you'll have team mates?

BV is pointless, it's a number that has NO bearing at all on the player's skills, and don't try and tell me that Pilot BV covers that, it doesn't either, it has NO bearing on a PLAYER'S skill, it only looks at the TT numbers a PILOT can have and those numbers are simple numbers, easy to limit and use in the BV equations. PGI isn't making TT, PLAYER skill has a real and definitive impact upon the game, PGI has stated that a few times now, and you can't rate a player's skill like that TT does a pilot, just don't work that way. You can look at win/loss, hit/miss, etc, etc..but if those numbers can be influenced..they are pointless, and I've not seen a F2P game yet..or even any P2P game for that matter, where you can NOT influence the stats if you so desire. Ain't that hard, discussed that in the matchmaking thread, say what you will, stats in a game WILL get played..even if the ONLY stats recorded are in 'Official Matches'..how many of you know what double boxing is..people do that all day long on games they have to PAY to play, you really think F2P will be any better? Nah, BV will be pointless, it was never designed to take into account what the PLAYER can do, it's based on straight math and ignores the player as a factor.

Tonnage..team work..worked fine for years in the MW leagues, want to be a selfish SOB, you do that..PGI is making a Lone Wolf option, should be perfect for you.

[Kudzu]

Kristov Kerensky, on 03 January 2012 - 05:48 PM, said:

BV is pointless, it's a number that has NO bearing at all on the player's skills, and don't try and tell me that Pilot BV covers that, it doesn't either, it has NO bearing on a PLAYER'S skill, it only looks at the TT numbers a PILOT can have and those numbers are simple numbers, easy to limit and use in the BV equations. PGI isn't making TT, PLAYER skill has a real and definitive impact upon the game, PGI has stated that a few times now, and you can't rate a player's skill like that TT does a pilot, just don't work that way. You can look at win/loss, hit/miss, etc, etc..but if those numbers can be influenced..they are pointless, and I've not seen a F2P game yet..or even any P2P game for that matter, where you can NOT influence the stats if you so desire. Ain't that hard, discussed that in the matchmaking thread, say what you will, stats in a game WILL get played..even if the ONLY stats recorded are in 'Official Matches'..how many of you know what double boxing is..people do that all day long on games they have to PAY to play, you really think F2P will be any better? Nah, BV will be pointless, it was never designed to take into account what the PLAYER can do, it's based on straight math and ignores the player as a factor.

And somehow a pure tonnage system magically rates pilot skill when it doesn't even take into account equipment, design, and tech level differences? Not all mechs are created equal, even when they're the exact same tonnage.

A good BV system would be a lot closer to balanced than any previous MW title. No, not balanced perfectly, no system would be perfect unless you could also take away ping/computer/skill/etc differences as well as take into account the plethora of differences between every mech, but it would be better.

[KingCobra]

Look Kristov dont mean to rain on your little parade here but tonnage alone did not work real well most the time it was the guys in the unit with senority that got all the good mech spots and the rest got whatever was left.So thats why it should be tonnage&mech chassis per contract round.like 2 assaults,6heavys,4mediums,4 lights,ect.Also random mech count per contract would be nice.

[SilentWolff]

This issue really concerns me. We need to be able to have 1v1's all the way up to 12v12's. I love WoT but there one HUGE thing they have got wrong and thats the inability to play any small skirmish games. (at least on tank company or random games) I got a feeling MWO is taking more than a few queues from WoT and that why I have major concerns about this. Please, please, please PGI, give us the option of how big we want the battles to be if they are are battles that dont have major impact on the real time/world map. And if you cant do 1v1's PGI, your game has failed before its even released.

[Kristov Kerensky]

BV only calculates force, nothing more, nothing less, be it for the Mech or the Pilot, it's a force equation and totally ignores anything outside of that. By BV, a Panther vs an Atlas is a foregone conclusion, Atlas wins hands down. But if that Panther pilot is a dead shot and can put that PPC round into the cockpit of that Atlas every shot while the Atlas pilot can't hit the ground if he trips...who's going to win? BV has no place when player skill comes into play, it quite literally wasn't designed to take that into account, it's based soley on very strict numbers that never change, an ERPPC has a set value, as does every other weapon and piece of gear you can put on a Mech, all very simple, limited and no variance in them at all. You can argue all you want about how BV is balanced and it works, but you forget something..it was never designed to be used with anything but the TT system and a randon number generation system to determine HOW that force is used. Add in the human factor and BV is totally worthless, there's NO randomness in the equation anymore, I AIM the weapons and put the rounds on target..I do that, not RNG..and at the moment you removed RNG, BV becomes useless, the values it's based on are pointless when a human takes over instead of RNG.

Tonnage gives no thought to who's better or worse, who's got rank or doesn't, it gives EACH side the same amount of mass to use to try and kill the other side with. That's all..you get 300 tons of mass, they get 300 tons of mass, figure out how best to use that divided by the 4 pilots and their personal skills. What more balance do you need? Everyone in the exact same Mechs? Won't help, if my skills are better then yours, you'll lose..or vice versa..so then what? Make the better player take a Mech they aren't any good in? Restrict their ability to target or lower the damage their weapons do? Drop the armor on their Mech? Blindfold them?


King Cobra, having been in a few teams in MW2, 3 and 4, including running a league at one time, I'm afraid my experiences differ from yours on how teams work. I NEVER as a team leader told someone they couldn't drop because I wanted my 100 tonner and that didn't leave enough for them to take a Mech..ever. I've never been on a team where that happened either, and that was doing a lot of planetary leagues, where tonnage was VERY tight more often then not. Getting EVERYONE on the team into the game was what we did, if it meant some of us had to take smaller Mechs, so be it, it was usually the OFFICERS who took the smaller Mechs if the others weren't as skilled as we were. I'm sorry you got stuck in bad teams with bad leaders, better luck with MWO.

[Semyon Drakon]

I have a dream, a dream where I am leading my Cluster across a huge battlefield and an enemy regiment crests the hill, That pause as we take stock, the lines form and then with a roar, the world ends!

That would take supprt but if EvE can do it, I am sure PGI can.

Semyon

[Dlardrageth]

SilentWolff, on 03 January 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

This issue really concerns me. We need to be able to have 1v1's all the way up to 12v12's. I love WoT but there one HUGE thing they have got wrong and thats the inability to play any small skirmish games. (at least on tank company or random games) I got a feeling MWO is taking more than a few queues from WoT and that why I have major concerns about this. Please, please, please PGI, give us the option of how big we want the battles to be if they are are battles that dont have major impact on the real time/world map. And if you cant do 1v1's PGI, your game has failed before its even released.

I'm not sure where you got that last part about the game having "failed already" from, but if you care to look beyond your very own little screen, there might be other concerns. Like people not caring at all for 1 vs. 1. Like me, to be honest. Sounds utterly boring and uninteresting to me, sorry.

And I could care less about a "duel mode", in particular if developing that one takes away resources from general matters. Sort of redundant for PGI anyway if only a small minority wants a "duel mode". Why would they waste their limited resources in that case on it? What comes with an expansion pack down the line in the future, that is a different matter. But at launch I see no major urge for a duel mode over everything else prioritized.

Want a 1 vs. 1? Go to WoT, find a sparring partner and open a friggin' training battle. There you go! Ain't really that hard...

Semyon Drakon, on 03 January 2012 - 08:04 PM, said:

I have a dream, a dream where I am leading my Cluster across a huge battlefield and an enemy regiment crests the hill, That pause as we take stock, the lines form and then with a roar, the world ends!

That would take supprt but if EvE can do it, I am sure PGI can.

Semyon

Cluster vs. regiment fight?

Okay, guess you have a couple million bucks to spare for PGI to get the hardware they'd need for that...

Edited by Dlardrageth, 03 January 2012 - 09:59 PM.

[Supremacist]

There are a number of routes the devs could use to get around this, many of which have already been mentioned.

In League of Legends, in certain game modes, each team gets turns at "banning" a certain hero from being used by anyone.
Now this has no place game/cannon wise, what can be done is introduce some kind of explanation on why no one can drop in assault mechs on planet X at time Y. or perhaps explain "In order to preserve resources you must face the two enemy medium lances with two medium lances of your own" etc

Edited by Supremacist, 03 January 2012 - 09:34 PM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

A PROPOSAL:

Dropships have a weight limit, and a limited number of Mech Bays, therefore you can choose between fielding a lot of smaller Mechs or fewer heavier Mechs. The Union-class dropship has 12 Mech bays, but I don't know how many tons of Mech it can take into a fight...

Each contract could possibly have a couple maximums in the fine print, such as a "Maximum of 8 Mechs totaling a Maximum of 400 tons"

Edited by Prosperity Park, 03 January 2012 - 09:56 PM.

[SilentWolff]

Dlardrageth, on 03 January 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

I'm not sure where you got that last part about the game having "failed already" from, but if you care to look beyond your very own little screen, there might be other concerns. Like people not caring at all for 1 vs. 1. Like me, to be honest. Sounds utterly boring and uninteresting to me, sorry.

And I could care less about a "duel mode", in particular if developing that one takes away resources from general matters. Sort of redundant for PGI anyway if only a small minority wants a "duel mode". Why would they waste their limited resources in that case on it? What comes with an expansion pack down the line in the future, that is a different matter. But at launch I see no major urge for a duel mode over eveything else prioritized.

Want a 1 vs. 1? Go to WoT, find a sparring partner and open a friggin' training battle. There you go! Ain't really that hard...



Cluster vs. regiment fight?

Okay, guess you have a couple million bucks to spare for PGI to get the hardware they'd need for that...

Just because YOU dont want a duel mode, because YOU think its boring or uninteresting, doesnt make it a small majority of players that do want it.
EVERY MW game has had a duel mode. EVERY one. Theres a reason for that, its called competition and braggin rights. If you dont understand that then you dont understand the essence of MW. May I suggest Farmville or some other game that is less threatening to your self esteem.

I also dont understand the logic of it taking more resources or more hardware, none of the other MW's had this issue why would MWO?

[Kudzu]

Kristov Kerensky, on 03 January 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

BV only calculates force, nothing more, nothing less, be it for the Mech or the Pilot, it's a force equation and totally ignores anything outside of that. By BV, a Panther vs an Atlas is a foregone conclusion, Atlas wins hands down. But if that Panther pilot is a dead shot and can put that PPC round into the cockpit of that Atlas every shot while the Atlas pilot can't hit the ground if he trips...who's going to win? BV has no place when player skill comes into play, it quite literally wasn't designed to take that into account, it's based soley on very strict numbers that never change, an ERPPC has a set value, as does every other weapon and piece of gear you can put on a Mech, all very simple, limited and no variance in them at all.

The first step in having a debate is knowing what you're talking about, judging from your responses you have a faulty understanding of the subject.

BV calculates effectiveness-- how good a mech is relative to other mechs. Its a series of calculations that take in a mechs speed, armor, weapons load, equipment, heat dispersal, etc and spits out a number that gives a pretty solid idea of how well a mech will perform in comparison to another mech. For example-- the RFL-3N Rifleman is a 3025 era 60 ton mech that has poor armor, a bad damage to heat curve, and isn't very fast. It's BV with a 4/5 (standard Is pilot) is 1,039. The Mad Dog (Vulture) is a 60 ton clan mech that is faster, better armed and armored, and has a much better damage to heat curve. It's BV with a 4/5 pilot is 2,351 (3244 with a typical 3/4 clan pilot).

Under the tonnage system these two mech are perfectly equal as they weight the same. Under the BV system they are not even close. Which do you think is a better representation?

Quote

You can argue all you want about how BV is balanced and it works, but you forget something..it was never designed to be used with anything but the TT system and a randon number generation system to determine HOW that force is used. Add in the human factor and BV is totally worthless, there's NO randomness in the equation anymore, I AIM the weapons and put the rounds on target..I do that, not RNG..and at the moment you removed RNG, BV becomes useless, the values it's based on are pointless when a human takes over instead of RNG.

Tonnage gives no thought to who's better or worse, who's got rank or doesn't, it gives EACH side the same amount of mass to use to try and kill the other side with. That's all..you get 300 tons of mass, they get 300 tons of mass, figure out how best to use that divided by the 4 pilots and their personal skills. What more balance do you need? Everyone in the exact same Mechs? Won't help, if my skills are better then yours, you'll lose..or vice versa..so then what? Make the better player take a Mech they aren't any good in? Restrict their ability to target or lower the damage their weapons do? Drop the armor on their Mech? Blindfold them?

Nice of you to skip over the part where I said "(Not a direct port from the table top but a similar system.)". The idea being that you create calculations to measure effectiveness and adjust those calculations based on data you take from every game played. If something is found to be more or less powerful than planned for you change the calculations used until better balance is found. The TT BV system is designed to be done by your average joe on a pocket calculator and once it hit print it couldn't be changed. Having a similar BV system done by computers that can be constantly adjusted means you can have much more complex (and therefore accurate) calculations and get closer to true balance.

With a pure tonnage system a 75 ton is always a 75 ton mech whether it's perfectly optimized or a pile of junk. It's almost worse than having no balance system at all, since it gives a false sense of fairness.

As far as putting pilot skill into the equation-- welcome to the wonderful world of multipliers! While we don't know exactly how pilot leveling will work, it wouldn't be hard to figure out another calculation that adjusts the baseline BV of a mech based on how much experience/unlocks/whatever so that a season vet who's been in his Hunchback for 1,000 battles has a higher BV than a noob who is piloting the same model of a Hunchback for the very first time. Is it perfect? Nope. But it's still much better than going off tonnage alone.

[Dlardrageth]

SilentWolff, on 03 January 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

Just because YOU dont want a duel mode, because YOU think its boring or uninteresting, doesnt make it a small majority of players that do want it.
EVERY MW game has had a duel mode. EVERY one. Theres a reason for that, its called competition and braggin rights. If you dont understand that then you dont understand the essence of MW. May I suggest Farmville or some other game that is less threatening to your self esteem.

I also dont understand the logic of it taking more resources or more hardware, none of the other MW's had this issue why would MWO?

Confused much?

• Where does than totally random "small majority" come from? You got any proof or data to substantiate you didn't just make this up right now? For all we know it could as well be a "negligable minority" or whatever. At least I only stated I was personally not interested, didn't start making random stuff up.
  
• And if "EVERY MW game" had a duel mode like you claim, then I suggest you read up about MW first, before making a complete fool of yourself on this forum. So MW1 had a "duel mode", huh? Care to enlighten us where it is hidden? Because MW1 didn't even have multiplayer support, you joker. Okay, you can get your foot out of your mouth again now.
  
• As you mentioned "Farmville" in the same paragraph where you showed everybody your profound in-depth knowledge of MW and BT , may I friendly suggest to maybe post about Farmville on their forums? Instead of trolling this one and posting blatantly false and made-up facts?
  
• If you don't understand the logic of how a completely different game mode, your vaunted "duel mode", would require extra resources to be developed, I'm afraid I cannot help you really. I didn't mention hardware in that context, BTW, but that you fail to understand that someone has to code the 1 vs 1 battle setup is slightly beyond me. You think some magic fairy at PGI waves her wand and *poof* a new game mode appears out of limbo?

Some posts make you wonder if something like troll-bots exist these days...

Edited by Dlardrageth, 03 January 2012 - 10:31 PM.

[SilentWolff]

Dlardrageth, on 03 January 2012 - 10:29 PM, said:

Confused much?

• Where does than totally random "small majority" come from? You got any proof or data to substantiate you didn't just make this up right now? For all we know it could as well be a "negligable minority" or whatever. At least I only stated I was personally not interested, didn't start making random stuff up.
  
• And if "EVERY MW game" had a duel mode like you claim, then I suggest you read up about MW first, before making a complete fool of yourself on this forum. So MW1 had a "duel mode", huh? Care to enlighten us where it is hidden? Because MW1 didn't even have multiplayer support, you joker. Okay, you can get your foot out of your mouth again now.
  
• As you mentioned "Farmville" in the same paragraph where you showed everybody your profound in-depth knowledge of MW and BT , may I friendly suggest to maybe post about Farmville on their forums? Instead of trolling this one and posting blatantly false and made-up facts?
  
• If you don't understand the logic of how a completely different game mode, your vaunted "duel mode", would require extra resources to be developed, I'm afraid I cannot help you really. I didn't mention hardware in that context, BTW, but that you fail to understand that someone has to code the 1 vs 1 battle setup is slightly beyond me. You think some magic fairy at PGI waves her wand and *poof* a new game mode appears out of limbo?

Some posts make you wonder if something like troll-bots exist these days...

It appears you may be the one confused.

First, wheres your proof your not the minority and what does that matter?
As I said, every MW has had a duel system. You talk about me saying "random stuff", how bout you bringing up MW1, which had NO multiplayer at all. When referring to every MW game, I am OBVIOUSLY referring to MULIPLAYER. MW1 didnt have multiplayer so your point is , well pointless.
And you want to talk to me about not knowing MW and you dont even know that simple fact?

And no one said it had to be a different mode. All they need to do is give the ability to set up matches with the amount of people per match, just like they have done with MW3 and 4 So I'm afraid your logic escapes me here.

BTW when people throw out the troll arguement in their counter point, it usually means they have no point and are out of constructive things to say.

Edited by SilentWolff, 03 January 2012 - 11:07 PM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Kudzu..yer funny, I'll give ya that. BV is static based on the MECH, not on what's it facing, and it's only adjusted by the Pilot's BV. Take that Mad Dog and place it up against a Dire Wolf..it's BV DOES NOT CHANGE. Oh..and BV..do you mean BV1 or BV2 cause there's different versions of BV, and BV replaced the original CV system..and..here, READ it yourself http://www.sarna.net/wiki/BV Before you tell me to know what I'm talking about I'd strongly suggest you learn the subject matter yourself first. Tis better to be thought then prove beyond all doubt after all.

And how, pray tell, do you figure on actually calculating what a player's skill is, since time in cockpit has NO bearing on a player's skill, just the time spent in the game. Don't believe that's true? Silly question, you don't believe it's true, or you wouldn't suggest it..so, go check out the games like BF2 that give rank due to score, now drop into a match with someone who's got his stars and watch him play. You get rank due to the score..which just takes time to get no matter HOW bad you are. Or better yet, go jump in ANY MMO with levels and watch the highest level players for a while, see how many of them have no clue. Time spent ingame doesn't mean a thing, it's just time. I literally lost count of the number of high level toons in DDO who didn't even know their own character's ABILITIES, much less how to use them...'dude, yer a 20th paly, LOH and heal yourself already!' 'what's LOH, out of pots'...*sigh* *DING*..'someone raise him' *cleric*'who can raise dead?' *entire group* 'CENSORED'. Not a joke, not an exaggeration, it happens in every MMO out there, time in the game doesn't mean you CAN play, it just means you have lots of time in the game. So..use stats? Already covered that, high or low, hide the stats from the players, doesn't matter, they'll find them out and pad them however required to get the results that favor them, see ALL games that use stats for examples of this..for pity's sake, 5+ years and BF2 STILL has stat padder problems, and EA/DiCE don't mess around with that, first offense all stats wiped/account reset to 0, 2nd offense permban of the account/GUID. A few days later, SAME person is back doing it again..and they had to BUY the game again...people ARE that damn stupid...4 billion years of evolutionary success..and that's what we got...*sigh*

Go check some games like CoD and BF, where people with literally thousands of hours in game but still can't play for jack getting ripped apart by someone who just got the game and is one of those aberrations who just melds with the game. Happens all the time in games where PLAYER skill is the determining factor, not random number generation. There ain't no balancing for that, it's what naturally happens when a player's skill is allowed to determine how well they do in a game. Either you've got the skills or you train the skills, otherwise you are just a target for those who do. I've personally got no problem with that, I appreciate good targets who aren't a threat when I've had a little too much bourbon, really makes me feel better about my abilities, ya know? Oh..yeah..you probably wouldn't know..sorry.

And Kudzu..60 tons of Mech is 60 tons of Mech, I don't care what you load it with, a good pilot with skills will take it and tear apart whatever gets in their way. A bad pilot will complain about how unfair it is. Me..I'm a good pilot..which are you?

SilentWolf..what's this duel system you are talking about? There was no such thing in MW2/3/4. We had multiplayer options and settings, you could host a 1v1 if you wanted, or PW restrict your hosting, but a duel system or setting..no such critter, sorry, NEXT!

Now, you WANTING to be able to do 1v1 is a different critter all together SilentWolf, and I'm not sure that's gonna be in the game at launch..not 'officially ranked' at any rate, from what we've been told, NOR should it be. At some point, I'm sure Solaris will be included, and that is where you do those things..but..you DO realize that MWO is a team based thing right? It's about teams fighting teams..cooperation, coordination...ya know..all those NON mano y mano things that warfare is about, you do get that right? Cause if you just want the 1v1 stuff..you probably didn't pick the best game for that style of play...just an observation.