476 replies to this topic

[Aegis Kleais]

Victor Morson, on 02 March 2012 - 01:59 PM, said:

Have you ever, ever played a MechWarrior game before? Every tonnage class has a role, sure, but if you don't have a limit pure assaults will win battles every single time. For example in 1-life MW4 play, Bushwhackers were exceptional brawlers that could get in there and take tons of punishment, drawing fire away from assaults while dealing lots of damage in packs - but if not for the limitations that required them, believe me, equal numbers of assaults or even heavies would have just completely mopped the floor with them.

It just comes down to assaults having more guns and armor. If there's only one or two on the battlefield, it can be outmanuvered by smaller stuff, but if the entire team is fielding them that's flat out impossible. This issue is particularly hard on Medium 'mechs, which often either are lightly armed and somehwat faster (light leaning) or heavily armed and as slow as a heavy (heavy leaning); a team full of them would not last long. You could make an argument for a team of heavies beating a team of assaults, depending on the types of heavies and assaults, but again that's why the C-Bill/BV thing is my preferred option - of course, say, a lance of Black Knights could dominate a lance of Zeus, but it'd be nice if BV reflected that (rather than tonnage).

No, I've never played MechWarrior before.

All PAINFULLY obvious sarcasm aside (and attempting to take your disrespectful tone with good nature), you are one of the many out there who have little to no concept of roles, because they have nothing to do with tonnage. Assault classes are adept at DEATHMATCH, but they are not the end-all be-all to equate to success. A veteran light has a decent chance taking down novice assault classes. The pilot is the human AI that gives any chassis its potency, independent of tonnage.

I can't count the times I've seen new pilots come in, pick the larges Mech and then get their rear ends handed to them. Especially if PGI chooses to make game objectives not just come down to a deathmatch.

You're putting too much emphasis in the chassis and not enough into the pilot.

[Outlaw2]

Aegis Kleais™, on 02 March 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

No, I've never played MechWarrior before.

All PAINFULLY obvious sarcasm aside (and attempting to take your disrespectful tone with good nature), you are one of the many out there who have little to no concept of roles, because they have nothing to do with tonnage. Assault classes are adept at DEATHMATCH, but they are not the end-all be-all to equate to success. A veteran light has a decent chance taking down novice assault classes. The pilot is the human AI that gives any chassis its potency, independent of tonnage.

I can't count the times I've seen new pilots come in, pick the larges Mech and then get their rear ends handed to them. Especially if PGI chooses to make game objectives not just come down to a deathmatch.

You're putting too much emphasis in the chassis and not enough into the pilot.

If its the same VictorMorson I know of, then he is a long time league player and unit leader. In which case he is WELL aware of roles and their effect in a match.

I think his point was without restrictions, most roles can be filled with heavier hitters.
Sure a Scat is a fantastic brawler, but when push comes to shove I'd rather have a Timberwolf doing the same exact thing. Most heavies and assaults fill every role except maybe the most extreme super fast scouts. Even then ecm/bap lokis in NBT were excellent scouts, and were our unit's go-to scout mech if we could spare it.

Hell, Im sure even in Battletech they'd do the same...if it wasn't for those pesky things such as costs and logistics.

BTW, I think you are putting too much faith in objectives solving everything. In NBT we played in plenty of objective based maps....didn't really change the underlying tactics. Killing the other side's mechs is still a fantastic strategy regardless of the objective. Also, a veteran player in a light mech could take on a assault player...if its a newbie. Against a veteran assault player...no.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 02 March 2012 - 06:59 PM.

[Aegis Kleais]

=Outlaw=, on 02 March 2012 - 06:56 PM, said:

If its the same VictorMorson I know of, then he is a long time league player and unit leader. In which case he is WELL aware of roles and their effect in a match.

I think his point was without restrictions, most roles can be filled with heavier hitters.
Sure a Scat is a fantastic brawler, but when push comes to shove I'd rather have a Timberwolf doing the same exact thing. Most heavies and assaults fill every role except maybe the most extreme super fast scouts. Even then ecm/bap lokis in NBT were excellent scouts, and were our unit's go-to scout mech if we could spare it.

Hell, Im sure even in Battletech they'd do the same...if it wasn't for those pesky things such as costs and logistics.

BTW, I think you are putting too much faith in objectives solving everything. In NBT we played in plenty of objective based maps....didn't really change the underlying tactics. Killing the other side's mechs is still a fantastic strategy regardless of the objective. Also, a veteran player in a light mech could take on a assault player...if its a newbie. Against a veteran assault player...no.

We're just going to have to see if the limitations in information warfare in larger chassis along with their slower speeds and light-friendly objectives in gameplay are going to make a tangible difference in the game.

If, in the end, there isn't enough justification to play lights/mediums, then as fatalistic as it sounds, that's just how the cookie is going to crumble. I'd rather it not, and would like to see distinct roles that each Mech really excels in, but it almost seems as if it's equal parts the responsibility of PGI as the developers and players in how they utilize the weight classes.

[Outlaw2]

Aegis Kleais™, on 02 March 2012 - 07:12 PM, said:

We're just going to have to see if the limitations in information warfare in larger chassis along with their slower speeds and light-friendly objectives in gameplay are going to make a tangible difference in the game.

If, in the end, there isn't enough justification to play lights/mediums, then as fatalistic as it sounds, that's just how the cookie is going to crumble. I'd rather it not, and would like to see distinct roles that each Mech really excels in, but it almost seems as if it's equal parts the responsibility of PGI as the developers and players in how they utilize the weight classes.

Im not sure what you mean by your last sentence....but if a mech is simply not viable in order to win matches, you can not fault the players for not using it as the devs originally intended.

EDIT: Also you seem to be ignoring the comparison of mechs of the same weight class and tonnage. Some mechs are naturally going to be much better than other mechs of equal tonnage. Happened all the time in BT, but things like costs and logistics made cheaper, less optimal mechs still have a place in the battlefield. Without any kind of restriction you'd be hard pressed to see anyone use them. In MW4 a common problem was only using the 'best-of' for each tonnage+role. The crappiest were benched.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 02 March 2012 - 07:29 PM.

[Aegis Kleais]

=Outlaw=, on 02 March 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

Im not sure what you mean by your last sentence....but if a mech is simply not viable in order to win matches, you can not fault the players for not using it as the devs originally intended.

What I'm saying is that if the Mech doesn't prove to be useful, it is either that PGI did not give the chassis enough worth, or that players have not yet unlocked the potential of the Mech. If the former, it's understandable that players would not choose it. But this is all to be seen. I'm really hoping for variety and hope that Lights/Mediums provide players who enjoy those chassis with something that they cannot find in Heavies/Assaults.

[Victor Morson]

=Outlaw=, on 02 March 2012 - 06:56 PM, said:

If its the same VictorMorson I know of, then he is a long time league player and unit leader. In which case he is WELL aware of roles and their effect in a match.

I think his point was without restrictions, most roles can be filled with heavier hitters.
Sure a Scat is a fantastic brawler, but when push comes to shove I'd rather have a Timberwolf doing the same exact thing. Most heavies and assaults fill every role except maybe the most extreme super fast scouts. Even then ecm/bap lokis in NBT were excellent scouts, and were our unit's go-to scout mech if we could spare it.

Hell, Im sure even in Battletech they'd do the same...if it wasn't for those pesky things such as costs and logistics.

BTW, I think you are putting too much faith in objectives solving everything. In NBT we played in plenty of objective based maps....didn't really change the underlying tactics. Killing the other side's mechs is still a fantastic strategy regardless of the objective. Also, a veteran player in a light mech could take on a assault player...if its a newbie. Against a veteran assault player...no.

Hey Outlaw! Yep, same Victor. Good to see some more NBT folks, hopefully we'll get to see each other in-game at launch - we're definitely reforming the Blazing Aces there.

That's exactly what I was trying to say, you got it right on the nose. If there's no restrictions, I'd doubtlessly swap a Shadow Cat out for a Timerwolf, Novacat, etc. every single time. Honestly, even in objective play, a lot of Timberwolves were nearly as fast as the typical Shadow Cat, just armed far better.

On top of that a concern after playing MWLL is with pre-set variants in MWLL, the differences between a good variant and bad variant are extremely pronounced, but ironically I found that this actually gave purpose to the bad variants - some poorly armed mediums were on par with the price of a typical light, and some lights were on price with a typical heavy in that game, but it was really necessary; if the game was a tonnage sim, I'd probably never looked at quite a few fun designs. From what I've read about MWO the 'mech customization will be limited to armor and speed changes, but I don't think they've clearly spelled it out yet.

Aegis Kleais™, on 02 March 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

What I'm saying is that if the Mech doesn't prove to be useful, it is either that PGI did not give the chassis enough worth, or that players have not yet unlocked the potential of the Mech. If the former, it's understandable that players would not choose it. But this is all to be seen. I'm really hoping for variety and hope that Lights/Mediums provide players who enjoy those chassis with something that they cannot find in Heavies/Assaults.

Some 'mechs are just inferior to others in terms of capabilities. It's a fact of the BTU; this even includes variants of the same 'mechs. Are you suggesting that they should balance a the AC/20 Hunchback with, for example, the UAC/20 T2 Hunchback? One is simply better than the other. Past that, chassis to chassis, it's impossible to make a Hunchback that has an even chance in group combat (where coordinating fire on a single target is VERY important) with an Atlas. The Atlas just has 50 more tons of space to work with for armor and guns.

That's not to say the Hunchback is a bad 'mech. It's a positively great front line fighter. When you need to bring a lot of firepower for the tonnage or price point, it's likely to be great. But if my entire team can field heavier equipment instead, there's no reason to ever use it.

As far as Objectives go, there's a reason I'm saying "11 assaults and 1 light" and not "12 assaults." You'd want a recon/raider pilot out there, in particular if you're taking mostly heavy stuff, not just to find targets but in objective based games act purely as a harasser. They can get there first and tie the enemy up for a minute or so just being annoying (say, darting into and out of a capture zone playing defensively) if there was a capture game type, etc. Again to use LL as a reference point, often when I'd drop with my coordinated friends on objective maps, two of us would field Harassers right out the gate (a super fast light tank) while our focus would be getting everybody else in assaults as quickly as possible. So really, objective based gameplay isn't going to save the light/medium 'mechs role in the game on a larger scale. Ultimately the team that brings the most guns and armor to the objective for the final capture/attack will be the team that wins it.

I whole heartedly agree that a skilled light 'mech could beat an assault, with more or less difficulty depending on the game in question. Turn rates and acceleration speed is something impossible to guess about MWO right now: It's the biggest changing factor between MechWarrior titles. But the problem is when you're talking groups - a group of lights can't really beat a group of assaults, because the assaults are then in a position to cover each other (no blind spots) and mass firepower. In otherwords, if a light tries to out turn an Atlas, it can be done. If a light tries to outturn 2 Atlas, it's always going to be in one guy's guns or the other. If four lights try to do that to four Atlas, the lights won't even get much damage in.

Again I'm not trying to say light & medium 'mechs are bad, at all, and they fill a great role in terms of cost effectiveness and weight. I could easily make the case that 2 Hunchbacks are worth more than 1 Atlas in MWO terms, but I can't make the case that 2 Hunchbacks are anywhere on par with 2 Atlas.

[SilentObserver]

Aegis Kleais™, on 02 March 2012 - 07:12 PM, said:

We're just going to have to see if the limitations in information warfare in larger chassis along with their slower speeds and light-friendly objectives in gameplay are going to make a tangible difference in the game.

If, in the end, there isn't enough justification to play lights/mediums, then as fatalistic as it sounds, that's just how the cookie is going to crumble. I'd rather it not, and would like to see distinct roles that each Mech really excels in, but it almost seems as if it's equal parts the responsibility of PGI as the developers and players in how they utilize the weight classes.

Ya know Aegis, i was with ya until this statement. As a medium mech pilot it saddens me that your fine with a whole weight class being obsolete so that you can always be assured you can take your timber wolf out. If thats not what you ment, thats how you came across.

This area of balancing is something i have wondered about ever since I started reading these boards. PGI has stated that they want "chassis loyalty" So in some way, i am expecting them to make match balances where my centurion (or enforcer if the gods smile upon us), is an effective combatant in most drops. That means there has to be some way to ensure that the company's fighting each other are balanced. I think the best way to do this is with BV. As was brought up. hopefully the matchmaking software will be able to create teams of roughly equal BV without any lobby negotiations on what mech to bring. For Ranked matches someone on the squad may have to downgrade to a different varient of different chassis entirely to fit under the BV cap, or maybe you can drop with less total mechs.

In short, As much as I know the pilot makes the mech. I dont want to have to count on only being effective against noobs because I've given up 25-50 tons on every other mech in the drop.

[Dlardrageth]

I wouldn't put too much stock in experiences made with MW4 and its altercations. After all, MWO is supposed to be in no way (as bad) as MW4, and with hopefully much bigger maps and hard limits on customization I can totally imagine a full company of assaults being played for a fool by a well-balanced company. Something like "While they lumbered towards their first objective, the enemy's fast elements had already won the battle!" comes to my mind. Why is it that a veteran in a light Mech could only beat a newb player in an assault, no matter what? Or what is stated here:

Victor Morson, on 02 March 2012 - 01:59 PM, said:

Have you ever, ever played a MechWarrior game before? Every tonnage class has a role, sure, but if you don't have a limit pure assaults will win battles every single time. For example in 1-life MW4 play, Bushwhackers were exceptional brawlers that could get in there and take tons of punishment, drawing fire away from assaults while dealing lots of damage in packs - but if not for the limitations that required them, believe me, equal numbers of assaults or even heavies would have just completely mopped the floor with them.

It just comes down to assaults having more guns and armor.[...]

I beg to differ in this point quite forcefully. I think this is pretty much wrong. If that were as described, in the TT assaults would rule the field almost exclusively as well. But they don't. I'd rather attribute it to major conceptual flaws in MW4, which, in my not so humble opinion, was not a very great game. All things considered, probably the worst of all 4 MW titles. Similar thing goes for half the Mechs in MW4 almost never being used in competitive multiplay. And no, I didn't play multiplayer MW4 very long, because I got sick of and fed up with it pretty quickly. Balancing in-between Mechs in MW4 was a pathetic joke.

Having said all this, though, I do agree with some sort of drop limit being a good and probably necessary thing. Maybe not even so much for the main balancing of teams and Mech roles. IMO if assaults become stupidly OP like in MW4, PGI were doing it wrong in the first place. But having limits and restrictions for battles, maybe even with some random elemnt included, would sure make for more interesting gameplay on the strategic level. After all, it would become somewhat boring knowing every single time in advance what exactly you will face and what you can bring. If though due to the game-side drop limits you might have to drop with, say, 80 tons less (or a BV equivalent, whatever), that could mean you'd have to adapt and come up with a new plan. And that, IMHO, makes for a way more interesting gameplay in the long run.

[Aegis Kleais]

Victor Morson, on 02 March 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

Some 'mechs are just inferior to others in terms of capabilities. It's a fact of the BTU; this even includes variants of the same 'mechs. Are you suggesting that they should balance a the AC/20 Hunchback with, for example, the UAC/20 T2 Hunchback? One is simply better than the other. Past that, chassis to chassis, it's impossible to make a Hunchback that has an even chance in group combat (where coordinating fire on a single target is VERY important) with an Atlas. The Atlas just has 50 more tons of space to work with for armor and guns.

That's not to say the Hunchback is a bad 'mech. It's a positively great front line fighter. When you need to bring a lot of firepower for the tonnage or price point, it's likely to be great. But if my entire team can field heavier equipment instead, there's no reason to ever use it.

As far as Objectives go, there's a reason I'm saying "11 assaults and 1 light" and not "12 assaults." You'd want a recon/raider pilot out there, in particular if you're taking mostly heavy stuff, not just to find targets but in objective based games act purely as a harasser. They can get there first and tie the enemy up for a minute or so just being annoying (say, darting into and out of a capture zone playing defensively) if there was a capture game type, etc. Again to use LL as a reference point, often when I'd drop with my coordinated friends on objective maps, two of us would field Harassers right out the gate (a super fast light tank) while our focus would be getting everybody else in assaults as quickly as possible. So really, objective based gameplay isn't going to save the light/medium 'mechs role in the game on a larger scale. Ultimately the team that brings the most guns and armor to the objective for the final capture/attack will be the team that wins it.

I whole heartedly agree that a skilled light 'mech could beat an assault, with more or less difficulty depending on the game in question. Turn rates and acceleration speed is something impossible to guess about MWO right now: It's the biggest changing factor between MechWarrior titles. But the problem is when you're talking groups - a group of lights can't really beat a group of assaults, because the assaults are then in a position to cover each other (no blind spots) and mass firepower. In otherwords, if a light tries to out turn an Atlas, it can be done. If a light tries to outturn 2 Atlas, it's always going to be in one guy's guns or the other. If four lights try to do that to four Atlas, the lights won't even get much damage in.

Again I'm not trying to say light & medium 'mechs are bad, at all, and they fill a great role in terms of cost effectiveness and weight. I could easily make the case that 2 Hunchbacks are worth more than 1 Atlas in MWO terms, but I can't make the case that 2 Hunchbacks are anywhere on par with 2 Atlas.

That's why I'm hoping that a good part of the objectives that PGI implements will require speed and tools that are usually available to lights/mediums. It would help cement their usefulness on the field. Generally, I'm hoping that the speed alone proves to be exceptionally useful to the lighter chassis. Comparatively to the heavier chassis, they may not have as much punch, but hopefully their ability to wage higher levels of info warfare along with their speed (and extra time to address larger foes), they can hopefully hold their own.

I'm sure, though, as with all things, working with each other on your team will help offset individual 1v1 battles.

[Aegis Kleais]

SilentObserver, on 02 March 2012 - 11:00 PM, said:

Ya know Aegis, i was with ya until this statement. As a medium mech pilot it saddens me that your fine with a whole weight class being obsolete so that you can always be assured you can take your timber wolf out. If thats not what you ment, thats how you came across.

This area of balancing is something i have wondered about ever since I started reading these boards. PGI has stated that they want "chassis loyalty" So in some way, i am expecting them to make match balances where my centurion (or enforcer if the gods smile upon us), is an effective combatant in most drops. That means there has to be some way to ensure that the company's fighting each other are balanced. I think the best way to do this is with BV. As was brought up. hopefully the matchmaking software will be able to create teams of roughly equal BV without any lobby negotiations on what mech to bring. For Ranked matches someone on the squad may have to downgrade to a different varient of different chassis entirely to fit under the BV cap, or maybe you can drop with less total mechs.

In short, As much as I know the pilot makes the mech. I dont want to have to count on only being effective against noobs because I've given up 25-50 tons on every other mech in the drop.

Well I don't mean to offend. But what I come down to is "Any player should be able to take any Mech of their choice" For me, it would be the Wolf. For others it may be their fave Light, Medium or Assault. The point I was trying to make is simply that people should be able to take the Mech they want and not be forced into a chassis they are not experienced in. I don't want others to suffer if I am assured to get the Mech I want. (and vice-versa).

Does that clarify it any better? If not, let me know, I'll try to explain myself more clearly. In the end, I DON'T want people to have to sacrifice the Mech of their choice.

[Ray Mason]

I’m going to repeat two words I’ve already said:
BALANCE and METAGAME.
I understand you have bad experience with heavier ~ better but there should be balancing so that different tonnage class ~ different purpose. If the metagame shows that some tonnage class is heavily underused then the balancing should take care of that. I’m usually very cynical about balancing but don’t throw the game under the bus by expecting every match to be 11 assaults + 1 scout. That’s why I think you can’t balance teams about arbitrary numbers which don’t show exact strength of each mech. Or in other words, play a “team tonnage mode” if you want, but don’t wish it to be the one and only game mode.

Edited by Ray Mason, 03 March 2012 - 06:53 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

One thing that Garth did say recently is that we can have asymetrical drrops ie different numbers on each side. this may point towards balancing people dropping with what they want against a limit of some sort. Alternatively it may just mean that if you are one player short in your merc corps for a drop and don't want to take on an unknown Lone Wolf you can drop short. Hopefully we will find at least some of these things out on Wednesday.

[SilentObserver]

Aegis Kleais™, on 03 March 2012 - 05:16 AM, said:

Well I don't mean to offend. But what I come down to is "Any player should be able to take any Mech of their choice" For me, it would be the Wolf. For others it may be their fave Light, Medium or Assault. The point I was trying to make is simply that people should be able to take the Mech they want and not be forced into a chassis they are not experienced in. I don't want others to suffer if I am assured to get the Mech I want. (and vice-versa).

Does that clarify it any better? If not, let me know, I'll try to explain myself more clearly. In the end, I DON'T want people to have to sacrifice the Mech of their choice.

I'm not offended. It is a game after all.

I understand what you are saying as far as being able to pick the mech that you want. Thats also what I want. But i think we are foreseeing seperate issues with being able to do that. Basically you want the Timberwolf, i want the enforcer(or some other medium if tis not available).

TimberWolf - Its an amazing machine, it is fast, well armored and its damage profile starts out good and only gets better the close it gets to you. I would field a Wolf against anything the IS has and against almost any other clan design. In my opinion the Wolf is a clear example of how OP clan technology is compared to the IS stuff, Its a mech that makes no compromises. Obviously if there is some type of BV balancing or even tonnage balancing it may be difficult to squeeze this uber machine into a drop.

Enforcer - Medium mech, Cheap, effective, decent speed and fire power. Very good Bang for your buck mech. I know its not the fastest or the most heavily armed but it makes a decent scout hunter. This is the mech I want to pilot. If there are no limits on what to take on the drop I am going to be handicapping my self by picking this mech. Because i will be giving up speed and/or firepower to everything else on the field.

To help illustrate my point lets compare the ENF-5D to the TimberWolf prime. Both arrive in 3050. Both have the same top speed of 86.4kph. Both have an ER Large laser. But the TW has an additional ER LL, 2 ER ML, 2 LRM20's, a MPLAS, and 2 MG's. The ENF has an LB-10X AC and a SL. It also has jump jets.

Because the TW has the same top speed but more armor and more firepower There is almost no role that the TW cant do better than the ENF. The only thing the ENF has going for it is jumpjets, and while those are useful I can't imaging a map will they will be required. (and i can probably find a heavy mech with jumpjets that is a better choice than the ENF.

This is why i think BV needs to be used. the BV for the madcat is 2737. the BV for the ENF-5D is 1308. So I should be able to field 2 ENF's to ever one TW. This is a lot closer to a fair fight, and if these types of matches exist then I will be able to drop in MY favorite mech without feeling like i'm hurting my team.

Ray Mason, on 03 March 2012 - 06:52 AM, said:

I’m going to repeat two words I’ve already said:
BALANCE and METAGAME.
I understand you have bad experience with heavier ~ better but there should be balancing so that different tonnage class ~ different purpose. If the metagame shows that some tonnage class is heavily underused then the balancing should take care of that. I’m usually very cynical about balancing but don’t throw the game under the bus by expecting every match to be 11 assaults + 1 scout. That’s why I think you can’t balance teams about arbitrary numbers which don’t show exact strength of each mech. Or in other words, play a “team tonnage mode” if you want, but don’t wish it to be the one and only game mode.

The problem with Balancing mechs is BT chassis are inherently unbalanced. an Assault mech can have 50 tons of space just for weapons. Its not possible to balance that against a 50 ton mech as far as making all mech have a roughly 1:1 Kill ratio against each other. Its has to be acknowledge that some chassis are better, when the clans come it will get really lopsided, and find a way to balance the drops. TT has approached this with BV. And i think thats a good starting point because BV acknowledges that its not just the tons what what you used your tonnage for that makes a chassis effective or not.

BV balancing counts on a pretty good matchmaking system to avoid lobby fights. With a good player base this is possible. heck it may even move some of the new players off assults cause they are tired of trying to engage multiple lights and mediums at once (BV made them to drop with less pilots). the BV values on Sarna may not be right for MWO but they are a good place to start. Once things are up and running they can be tweaked at the weapon/equipment level (maybe add BV for modules also) to ensure that every chassis has a fair shake.

[Outlaw2]

Dlardrageth, on 03 March 2012 - 04:15 AM, said:

I wouldn't put too much stock in experiences made with MW4 and its altercations. After all, MWO is supposed to be in no way (as bad) as MW4, and with hopefully much bigger maps and hard limits on customization I can totally imagine a full company of assaults being played for a fool by a well-balanced company. Something like "While they lumbered towards their first objective, the enemy's fast elements had already won the battle!" comes to my mind. Why is it that a veteran in a light Mech could only beat a newb player in an assault, no matter what? Or what is stated here:

I beg to differ in this point quite forcefully. I think this is pretty much wrong. If that were as described, in the TT assaults would rule the field almost exclusively as well. But they don't. I'd rather attribute it to major conceptual flaws in MW4, which, in my not so humble opinion, was not a very great game. All things considered, probably the worst of all 4 MW titles. Similar thing goes for half the Mechs in MW4 almost never being used in competitive multiplay. And no, I didn't play multiplayer MW4 very long, because I got sick of and fed up with it pretty quickly. Balancing in-between Mechs in MW4 was a pathetic joke.

Having said all this, though, I do agree with some sort of drop limit being a good and probably necessary thing. Maybe not even so much for the main balancing of teams and Mech roles. IMO if assaults become stupidly OP like in MW4, PGI were doing it wrong in the first place. But having limits and restrictions for battles, maybe even with some random elemnt included, would sure make for more interesting gameplay on the strategic level. After all, it would become somewhat boring knowing every single time in advance what exactly you will face and what you can bring. If though due to the game-side drop limits you might have to drop with, say, 80 tons less (or a BV equivalent, whatever), that could mean you'd have to adapt and come up with a new plan. And that, IMHO, makes for a way more interesting gameplay in the long run.

MW4 has to date the best multiplayer scene of ANY mechwarrior game. Sorry you didn't like the game, but a lot people did....and if you had given it a longer try ... you would have found a very deep and engaging competitive mutiplayer. Thats not to say that it didn't have its problems, but its problems you can find in MW3 and MWLL. Imo a lot of the good things about MW4 came out of its community and leagues. Point being, out of all the mechwarrior titles, MW4 is the best one to refer to as far as ONLINE gameplay goes. It simply has the longest and most robust online and competitive history of all the mw titles. This is MW:ONLINE after all...not MW:Singleplayer, MW:TT, MW:TRO, MW:Novel...

However, Im glad we agree that some sort of limit needs to be in place.

Its needed not simply to balance lighter mechs with heavier mechs, but also "better" mechs with "crappier" mechs of the same weight class+role. Some mechs just suck regardless of the weight. MW4 has them, MWLL has them. This is a common theme even in BTU and TT. The cool thing about MWLL though is that it tries to price down less optimal mechs. So even though a mech is not as good as another mech of a similar tonnage and role...its at least cheaper (which means you can get them sooner). However without MWLL's cbill restrictions, you would be hard pressed to find anyone outside of the expensive assaults or heavy. In fact this is exactly what you find in unlimited cbill servers.

In MW4, I played in NBT which restricted matches simply by tonnage. This was better than leagues which had no restrictions (which were often assault-fests), and this made lighter mechs viable. Of course certain mechs weren't as good as others of similar weight+role. These mechs were benched by mechs of the SAME weight...so we shouldn't just focus on lights versus assaults. A BV/cbill system could much better side step this problem.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 03 March 2012 - 01:50 PM.

[Ray Mason]

SilentObserver, on 03 March 2012 - 09:48 AM, said:

I'm not offended. It is a game after all.

I understand what you are saying as far as being able to pick the mech that you want. Thats also what I want. But i think we are foreseeing seperate issues with being able to do that. Basically you want the Timberwolf, i want the enforcer(or some other medium if tis not available).

TimberWolf - Its an amazing machine, it is fast, well armored and its damage profile starts out good and only gets better the close it gets to you. I would field a Wolf against anything the IS has and against almost any other clan design. In my opinion the Wolf is a clear example of how OP clan technology is compared to the IS stuff, Its a mech that makes no compromises. Obviously if there is some type of BV balancing or even tonnage balancing it may be difficult to squeeze this uber machine into a drop.

Enforcer - Medium mech, Cheap, effective, decent speed and fire power. Very good Bang for your buck mech. I know its not the fastest or the most heavily armed but it makes a decent scout hunter. This is the mech I want to pilot. If there are no limits on what to take on the drop I am going to be handicapping my self by picking this mech. Because i will be giving up speed and/or firepower to everything else on the field.

To help illustrate my point lets compare the ENF-5D to the TimberWolf prime. Both arrive in 3050. Both have the same top speed of 86.4kph. Both have an ER Large laser. But the TW has an additional ER LL, 2 ER ML, 2 LRM20's, a MPLAS, and 2 MG's. The ENF has an LB-10X AC and a SL. It also has jump jets.

Because the TW has the same top speed but more armor and more firepower There is almost no role that the TW cant do better than the ENF. The only thing the ENF has going for it is jumpjets, and while those are useful I can't imaging a map will they will be required. (and i can probably find a heavy mech with jumpjets that is a better choice than the ENF.

This is why i think BV needs to be used. the BV for the madcat is 2737. the BV for the ENF-5D is 1308. So I should be able to field 2 ENF's to ever one TW. This is a lot closer to a fair fight, and if these types of matches exist then I will be able to drop in MY favorite mech without feeling like i'm hurting my team.



The problem with Balancing mechs is BT chassis are inherently unbalanced. an Assault mech can have 50 tons of space just for weapons. Its not possible to balance that against a 50 ton mech as far as making all mech have a roughly 1:1 Kill ratio against each other. Its has to be acknowledge that some chassis are better, when the clans come it will get really lopsided, and find a way to balance the drops. TT has approached this with BV. And i think thats a good starting point because BV acknowledges that its not just the tons what what you used your tonnage for that makes a chassis effective or not.

BV balancing counts on a pretty good matchmaking system to avoid lobby fights. With a good player base this is possible. heck it may even move some of the new players off assults cause they are tired of trying to engage multiple lights and mediums at once (BV made them to drop with less pilots). the BV values on Sarna may not be right for MWO but they are a good place to start. Once things are up and running they can be tweaked at the weapon/equipment level (maybe add BV for modules also) to ensure that every chassis has a fair shake.

We all hope the source material doesn't get butchered when it's transformed into a game but in a PvP game you'll have to break the canon for the sake of gameplay. So even though Timber Wolf, as you say, is better than Enforcer in every aspect, the implementation should be that there is at least one reason to take one over the other and vice versa. There are 108 heroes available in DotA in 5v5 matches (no hero repetition). If this game intends to release with 12 mechs for 12v12 matches (with possible repetition, obviously) then a majority of those has to have a purpose in the game, even if the cannon says that one of them is best at everything.

Personally, my knee-**** reaction when people talk about range of lasers is that it doesn’t make any sense, yet it’s in the game for balance reasons. I can’t find anything about nukes, I can has nuke? Probably not.

Edited by Ray Mason, 03 March 2012 - 01:44 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Ray Mason, on 03 March 2012 - 01:42 PM, said:

We all hope the source material doesn't get butchered when it's transformed into a game but in a PvP game you'll have to break the canon for the sake of gameplay. So even though Timber Wolf, as you say, is better than Enforcer in every aspect, the implementation should be that there is at least one reason to take one over the other and vice versa. There are 108 heroes available in DotA in 5v5 matches (no hero repetition). If this game intends to release with 12 mechs for 12v12 matches (with possible repetition, obviously) then a majority of those has to have a purpose in the game, even if the cannon says that one of them is best at everything.

There is: Weight and cost effectivness. To think about it another way, picture the game as an RTS for balance. In an RTS do you produce nothing but your top-tier unit even once you gain the ability to construct it? Odds are, you don't. They cost so much more than your main unit, you end up making a few super units and then supporting them with a great number of cheaper equipment, even if their role and capabilities are similar.

If the hypothetical Enforcer's weight or value is taken into account, it ultimately means a team that fields them will have a far more even distrubtion of units and room to spare for heavier units in the remaining 8 slots. Teams might have to pick between, say, 8 medium mechs and 4 heavies or 4 lights, 4 mediums and 2 assaults, 2 heavies, or any combination therein.

[Dlardrageth]

Let's not forget that we might be talking about somewhat different game modes here. For one, a somewhat "random" battle, and on the othe rhand a "conquest mode" where actual planets are contested and the battle will reflect on how the interstellar map might look like.

The former needs some kind of proper balancing, the latter though...? As mainly pre-set units will go into the latter kind of battles, why bother balancing them? If team A totally decides they want to defend their planet on a wide open plains map wil 12 Urbies... just let them? why force the attacker to adapt to that possibly sub-optimal setup? IMHO the balancing has to start way before this stage, so that we won't see planetary conquest by teams of 10+ assaults almost exclusively. Like I stated before, if only assault Mechs become the primary pick for "serious battles", PGI failed at proper balancing.

And as much as I would personally hate to end up in a "random battle" where I both feel and am totally outmatched by the enemy team (cue WoT reference), in a planetary conquest battle I don't need a drop/BV limit. Because if one of the teams cannot come up with an efficient/working setup, aka team composition, they either didn't want or deserve to hold that planet. And noone forced them at gunpoint to try to conquer it in the first place. Thus I honestly don't see much of a need for "team balancing" for that one.

[Outlaw2]

Dlardrageth, on 04 March 2012 - 07:48 PM, said:

And as much as I would personally hate to end up in a "random battle" where I both feel and am totally outmatched by the enemy team (cue WoT reference), in a planetary conquest battle I don't need a drop/BV limit. Because if one of the teams cannot come up with an efficient/working setup, aka team composition, they either didn't want or deserve to hold that planet. And noone forced them at gunpoint to try to conquer it in the first place. Thus I honestly don't see much of a need for "team balancing" for that one.

No. Thats actually exactly where you need BV the most. If you are going to see abused loadouts due to no restrictions, its going to be in competitive matches. I don't want BV to "make it fair". I want be BV so that the majority of the games content isnt completely trivialized. I want gameplay diversity. Competitive matches are no exception.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 04 March 2012 - 07:58 PM.

[Ray Mason]

Victor Morson, on 04 March 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

There is: Weight and cost effectivness. To think about it another way, picture the game as an RTS for balance. In an RTS do you produce nothing but your top-tier unit even once you gain the ability to construct it? Odds are, you don't. They cost so much more than your main unit, you end up making a few super units and then supporting them with a great number of cheaper equipment, even if their role and capabilities are similar.

If the hypothetical Enforcer's weight or value is taken into account, it ultimately means a team that fields them will have a far more even distrubtion of units and room to spare for heavier units in the remaining 8 slots. Teams might have to pick between, say, 8 medium mechs and 4 heavies or 4 lights, 4 mediums and 2 assaults, 2 heavies, or any combination therein.

The first thing I want to reiterate is that it's good to have options. If there is only one limiting factor across all levels of play then that's bad. What you're hinting at is more of an RTS approach where each team starts with the same amount of "resources" and distributes them among the players. Given the nature of mechs it's reasonable to think about it this way and the difference between all the DotA heroes is probably much bigger. I was pushing the MOBA perspective as an option (not an exclusive rule) because I’m hoping for more variety thanks to the levelling systems - different mech type, different skill tree. Depending on how the levelling system works out we will see if it’s an FPS with RTS elements or RPG elements. If I understand it correctly, Counter Strike is a lot about dividing the money among the team members and deciding who buys what which is an intriguing mechanic.

Regarding your example, I was hoping the deciding factor would be metagame, not resources. The process if picking a line-up is a "fight" too, so disregarding team tonnage means that there is much more room for both bad and ingenious picking. If the team tonnage is a fixed number there are still many compositions possible but for every heavier mech picked you have to pick one equally lighter. If a team wants to experiment with all heavy line-up it should be possible, and if the metagame shows that it's heavily overpowered then you can balance it accordingly. Another issue I have with team tonnage is that people might end up with the objectively weaker mechs for the sake of the team (we need 2 heavies so you two take two lights) but I suspect there are enough people who love playing lights and the teams will look for them rather than forcing lights on somebody else.

Either way, the point is that there should be more than one option. PUGs and generally lower tiers of skill are difficult to balance anyway because they probably lack coordination and that stems from bigger freedom. In a PUG every player should be able to pick what he likes regardless his team mates. It goes without saying that opening the menu, clicking “12v12 random players” and having the options of "all pick", "team tonnage XXXX" and "team BV XXXX" is better than no options. We don’t need to argue if A or B is better, we can have both, and more.

[Victor Morson]

Ray Mason, on 05 March 2012 - 05:31 AM, said:

The first thing I want to reiterate is that it's good to have options. If there is only one limiting factor across all levels of play then that's bad. What you're hinting at is more of an RTS approach where each team starts with the same amount of "resources" and distributes them among the players. Given the nature of mechs it's reasonable to think about it this way and the difference between all the DotA heroes is probably much bigger. I was pushing the MOBA perspective as an option (not an exclusive rule) because I’m hoping for more variety thanks to the levelling systems - different mech type, different skill tree. Depending on how the levelling system works out we will see if it’s an FPS with RTS elements or RPG elements. If I understand it correctly, Counter Strike is a lot about dividing the money among the team members and deciding who buys what which is an intriguing mechanic.

The problem is the nature of the universe. You could make this argument for some other universes where something's role is evenly matched but slightly different, but here, you've just got the problem that a medium 'mech that's about, say, missile boating will not match a heavy designed for the same purpose. Not to say the weigh classes have no advantages, with light 'mechs being exceptional scouts and so forth. Also outside of just weight, quality is a bit issue in CBT. If they stick to the classic Dragon, we've got a prime example: The stock variant has an AC/5 as a primary gun, versus another version with a PPC. They are not even remotely in the same League, and the PPC one would win almost every single fight.

Ray Mason, on 05 March 2012 - 05:31 AM, said:

Regarding your example, I was hoping the deciding factor would be metagame, not resources. The process if picking a line-up is a "fight" too, so disregarding team tonnage means that there is much more room for both bad and ingenious picking. If the team tonnage is a fixed number there are still many compositions possible but for every heavier mech picked you have to pick one equally lighter. If a team wants to experiment with all heavy line-up it should be possible, and if the metagame shows that it's heavily overpowered then you can balance it accordingly. Another issue I have with team tonnage is that people might end up with the objectively weaker mechs for the sake of the team (we need 2 heavies so you two take two lights) but I suspect there are enough people who love playing lights and the teams will look for them rather than forcing lights on somebody else.

I'm primariy speaking from experience with every single MWO game before this one. If the gameplay is similar in concept, and they do not do anything wildly out of canon, I'm pretty sure these issues won't be any different: They're a fundemental part of the game.

One thing to note is that in MPBT3025, they had drop weight-ranges for different drops, so did all heavy/all assault/all medium drops so people would want to own something of every class. But I think that's a bad way to balance the game (despite giving a reason for all classes to exist) because it means that the majority of drops will end up decidedly monochromatic for 'mech selection.

Ray Mason, on 05 March 2012 - 05:31 AM, said:

Either way, the point is that there should be more than one option. PUGs and generally lower tiers of skill are difficult to balance anyway because they probably lack coordination and that stems from bigger freedom. In a PUG every player should be able to pick what he likes regardless his team mates. It goes without saying that opening the menu, clicking “12v12 random players” and having the options of "all pick", "team tonnage XXXX" and "team BV XXXX" is better than no options. We don’t need to argue if A or B is better, we can have both, and more.

The only other possible way I can see to balance this (in fact I might add it to the poll) for a more public friendly environment would be weight class slots for each drop: This is similar to games like Red Orchesta that allow, say, 2 Snipers, 2 Medics, etc.

I.e. if each drop has a clearly spelled out class limit (2 Assaults, 6 Heavies, 4 Lights) and then the players can decide who goes into what class, that would an acceptable way to setup fights honestly. I'd prefer more control over it because coming up with unique configurations is a lot of fun, but I will admit this method would make things faster for public games and for people who don't know much about MW.