Jump to content

Drop Limits: Tonnage or Battle Value?


476 replies to this topic

Poll: Drop Limitations (392 member(s) have cast votes)

How should drop limits be enforced?

  1. Team Tonnage (109 votes [27.81%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 27.81%

  2. Voted Team C-Bill Value / Battle Value (171 votes [43.62%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 43.62%

  3. No Limits (51 votes [13.01%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 13.01%

  4. Voted NEW: Limited available slots per weight class maximum on a mission to mission basis (61 votes [15.56%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 15.56%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#321 Nik Van Rhijn

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,905 posts
  • LocationLost

Posted 14 April 2012 - 11:13 AM

There are many ways of giving pilots ELO ratings, even of rating teams. None are perfect but anything is better than nothing. Playing people who are a bit better than you helps you to improve. Playing people who totally outclass you means you die so quickly the only thing you'll learn is to try a different game.

#322 Aegis Kleais

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 6,003 posts

Posted 14 April 2012 - 11:31 AM

Since there's no way of judging a pilot's skill, there's no way to even teams. Though I, too, would rather have a game that was close, stacked and unfair sides is just a reality of play, and I'd rather tolerate that than be restricted in matchmaking.

#323 MaddMaxx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 5,911 posts
  • LocationNova Scotia, Canada

Posted 14 April 2012 - 12:01 PM

If they allow 4v4, 8v8, then you bring your Team, I will bring mine, Tech Level is equal, MechLab is equal, then the winner is the better of that encounter. If you complain about losing, and it happens a lot, do not blame the MM, perhaps it is your Team. :)

Edited by MaddMaxx, 14 April 2012 - 12:01 PM.


#324 eZZip

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 184 posts

Posted 14 April 2012 - 03:04 PM

View PostGeneral Mal Function, on 13 April 2012 - 04:02 PM, said:

BV 'equalizes' the game. I don't want equal. If I wanted 'equal' I would be ok with holding hands too. This is war, this is competition, this is the best, the BEST winning. If my team doesn't have the brains to tailor our load out to the mission we DESERVE to lose.
I think it's pretty obvious that MWO is not real war. **** happens in real life and conditions can be extremely unfair, but nobody wants all their games to be predetermined by outrageous, non-human controlled advantages on one side just because it would be 'realistic.' Or maybe we should just have games where it is 3 lances of heavies and assaults vs 1 lance of lights, because it is plausible that the light lance was sent to do something and intelligence did not realize there was heavy resistance. That's real fun.

#325 Kudzu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 769 posts
  • LocationSomewhere in the SEC

Posted 14 April 2012 - 04:23 PM

View PostStaIker, on 31 March 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

One thing I hope we can all agree on is the need to see the map and conditions before we are committed to a Mech. Any idea of balance goes completely out the window if a player can build for example a powerful infighter Atlas and then gets dumped onto a desert flatland. Same with a missile boat being dumped into a city map, their on paper BV has been reduced to near zero. There are lots of bad ways it could turn out.

Actually, I think that it would be better to go in blind, as it will give generalist designs a reason to be taken. If you know exactly what you're dropping into every time it means you'll only see Infighters on map X, only snipers on map Y, ect. Part of the trade off for specializing in one aspect is that you are weak in other areas... And that weakness needs to be seen from time to time.

#326 Oderint dum Metuant

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 4,758 posts
  • LocationUnited Kingdom

Posted 15 April 2012 - 12:59 AM

View Postzorak ramone, on 02 April 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:


I hate each and every one of Mektek's original designs. I can see that the Ares, with its win-button hitboxes, was a sign of times to come.



The Tenchi was like an Ares, about 10 times worse though, stick some LG/Mini Guass on it sit out at 900+M and your good...for good.

#327 Fiachdubh

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 971 posts
  • LocationSkulking out along the Periphery somewhere.

Posted 16 April 2012 - 10:28 AM

How many mechs you can load on a dropship is determined by their weight not value in C-bills. Battle Value is also a load of nonsense when it is the person piloting the mech and teamwork that determine how valuable a mech is in combat.

As for team arguments, if they cannot sort out mech assignments they are probably not going to win against any half decent team anyway.

#328 RedDragon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,942 posts
  • LocationKurpfalz, Germany

Posted 16 April 2012 - 10:40 AM

View PostFiachdubh, on 16 April 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

How many mechs you can load on a dropship is determined by their weight not value in C-bills. Battle Value is also a load of nonsense when it is the person piloting the mech and teamwork that determine how valuable a mech is in combat.

How many mechs you can load on a dropship is determined by the size of the drop ship and how many mech bays it possesses. Battle value is much more telling about the actual worth of the mech than pure tonnage. Both systems are flawed, but at least the BV takes a look at what the mech actually is capable of and not just what weight class it is.

#329 990Dreams

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 2,908 posts
  • LocationHotlanta

Posted 27 April 2012 - 05:34 PM

Sorry, but battle value is stupid ;). Dropships are limited by tons, not C-Bills.

#330 Kudzu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 769 posts
  • LocationSomewhere in the SEC

Posted 27 April 2012 - 08:30 PM

View PostDavidHurricane, on 27 April 2012 - 05:34 PM, said:

Sorry, but battle value is stupid ;). Dropships are limited by tons, not C-Bills.

No-- they're limited by space, not weight.

The most common mech transport dropships in our time frame:
A Leopard carries 4 mechs and 2 aerospace fighters. http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Leopard
A Union carries 12 mechs and 2 aerospace fighters. http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Union
An Overlord carries 36 mechs and 6 aerospace fighters. http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Overlord

#331 Victor Morson

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 6,370 posts
  • LocationAnder's Moon

Posted 28 April 2012 - 12:30 AM

View PostDavidHurricane, on 27 April 2012 - 05:34 PM, said:

Sorry, but battle value is stupid ;). Dropships are limited by tons, not C-Bills.


Every single 'mech on the field being a top quality decked T2 is silly, too. You have to accept some things for game mechanics.

#332 990Dreams

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 2,908 posts
  • LocationHotlanta

Posted 28 April 2012 - 03:28 AM

View PostKudzu, on 27 April 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

No-- they're limited by space, not weight.

The most common mech transport dropships in our time frame:
A Leopard carries 4 mechs and 2 aerospace fighters. http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Leopard
A Union carries 12 mechs and 2 aerospace fighters. http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Union
An Overlord carries 36 mechs and 6 aerospace fighters. http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Overlord


True. But it can only carry so much weight.


View PostVictor Morson, on 28 April 2012 - 12:30 AM, said:


Every single 'mech on the field being a top quality decked T2 is silly, too. You have to accept some things for game mechanics.


Thats why we have C-Bills. If you can afford one, it's none of my business. If people want to waste C-Bills on a computer instead of LRMs or PPCs, fine by my standards.

Edited by DavidHurricane, 28 April 2012 - 03:30 AM.


#333 RedDragon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,942 posts
  • LocationKurpfalz, Germany

Posted 28 April 2012 - 03:54 AM

View PostDavidHurricane, on 28 April 2012 - 03:28 AM, said:


True. But it can only carry so much weight.

No, that's just not true. Every mechbay in a dropship can carry up to 100 tons. If a drop ship can carry a mech, it doesn't matter how much that mech weights.
If you just limit the players by the means of C-Bills, you will have only top-tier units on the field as soon as the economy allows it.

#334 Aegis Kleais

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 6,003 posts

Posted 28 April 2012 - 04:49 AM

View PostDavidHurricane, on 27 April 2012 - 05:34 PM, said:

Sorry, but battle value is stupid ;). Dropships are limited by tons, not C-Bills.

Sorry, but imposing real-world limitations for the sake of usability in a fictional game is stupid. If you want to rationalize it, what makes you think that 1 team only has to bring in 1 dropship?

#335 Belisarius1

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,415 posts
  • LocationBrisbane, Australia

Posted 28 April 2012 - 06:36 AM

View PostDavidHurricane, on 28 April 2012 - 03:28 AM, said:

Thats why we have C-Bills. If you can afford one, it's none of my business. If people want to waste C-Bills on a computer instead of LRMs or PPCs, fine by my standards.

This is exactly the kind of thing that in-drop limits like tonnage or battle value are there to prevent.

You cannot rely on metagame metrics for in-game balance. If there is one thing I hope any dev still reading this thread appreciates, it's that. If you try do so, players with more time or money will be able to "pay" their way to victory in some form, and the game will suffer for it.

Edited by Belisarius†, 28 April 2012 - 06:45 AM.


#336 MaddMaxx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 5,911 posts
  • LocationNova Scotia, Canada

Posted 28 April 2012 - 06:56 AM

Like most things, there are different machines for different jobs. As a note, any transport type vehicle is subject to weight load restrictions, otherwise why build anything but very heavy carries as they would do every job, from small to large?

The Link has some data...

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/DropShip

#337 Kudzu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 769 posts
  • LocationSomewhere in the SEC

Posted 28 April 2012 - 07:31 AM

View PostMaddMaxx, on 28 April 2012 - 06:56 AM, said:

Like most things, there are different machines for different jobs. As a note, any transport type vehicle is subject to weight load restrictions, otherwise why build anything but very heavy carries as they would do every job, from small to large?

The Link has some data...

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/DropShip

Again, each mech bay is designed to hold up to a 100 ton mech. You have different sized dropships for different reasons, including maintaince costs. It's a lot cheaper to maintain a Union than an Overlord for example.

Here's some more data for you:
Cargo Hauler - Due to the availability of the design and spare parts, the Union has proven a popular choice for merchants and traders, who strip out all twelve 'Mech cubicles to free up space for 1,500 tons of cargo.

A dozen Atlas' would weigh 1200 tons.

#338 Belisarius1

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,415 posts
  • LocationBrisbane, Australia

Posted 28 April 2012 - 03:41 PM

Transports are obviously going to be limited by both weight and total 'mech bays. Why is that important?

This is much too critical an issue to let fluff dictate gameplay.

#339 990Dreams

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 2,908 posts
  • LocationHotlanta

Posted 28 April 2012 - 04:35 PM

View PostAegis Kleais™, on 28 April 2012 - 04:49 AM, said:

Sorry, but imposing real-world limitations for the sake of usability in a fictional game is stupid. If you want to rationalize it, what makes you think that 1 team only has to bring in 1 dropship?


They can bring multiple dropships. I am not applying real-world limits, but many games limit you on tonnage, or have no limit (as far as I have played).

View PostBelisarius†, on 28 April 2012 - 06:36 AM, said:

This is exactly the kind of thing that in-drop limits like tonnage or battle value are there to prevent.

You cannot rely on metagame metrics for in-game balance. If there is one thing I hope any dev still reading this thread appreciates, it's that. If you try do so, players with more time or money will be able to "pay" their way to victory in some form, and the game will suffer for it.


That is because they are nerds with no life. If they want to do that, they are playing fairly. Cause you had the option, and have the option. You denied that option. It's not like they limit certain players playing time, or who can pay for C-Bills.

#340 RedDragon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,942 posts
  • LocationKurpfalz, Germany

Posted 30 April 2012 - 04:37 AM

View PostBelisarius†, on 28 April 2012 - 03:41 PM, said:

Transports are obviously going to be limited by both weight and total 'mech bays. Why is that important?

This is much too critical an issue to let fluff dictate gameplay.

Why would that be obvious? In a world like that of BT, having different sized mechbays would be a logistical nightmare. In 3025 there are few enough dropships at all and if you had to keep track of which ship is assigned to which unit just so they can transport all their mechs would be nigh to impossible. It has good reasons that dropships can carry mechs of any weight class and are only limited by the number of them.





18 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 18 guests, 0 anonymous users