476 replies to this topic

[Chunkymonkey]

None of the above, do it based on Mechs/Tech.

Like the Dev's have said, it is possible for lights to down assualts.

So if they come up with a system(maybe like the one on sarna) to measure a tech level and match them up acordingly it might be more fair.

A Atlas with a PPC cant beat a Cicada with a ER PPC

So for example, you have succession war/age of war tech(D or high tech according to sarna's tech rating) VS Clan tech(F or Hyper advanced) Then you could balance it out by having 2 companys vs one trinary.


This would make more intresting battles as you have different numbers of mech but it is still somewhat even. No system is perfect.

Although the most even is BV, BV is tonnage baised.

[MrM1971]

Max group tonnage is the best way to go with a max player pur group

limit the groups to 600 tons total ( this will get people to play more then just the 100 ton mechs )

examples of groups

group 1

6 atlas ( nothing else tonnage reached )

group 2

12 hunchbacks ( tonnage reached now wich group can find locate and destroy the other group faster )
group 2 has alarge advantage as more eyes on the field more guns ect

heavier doesnt always mean better for the team you need a mech that fits a specific role and can do the job at the lightest spec possible to allow tonnage for others in yer team to have the tonnage to get the mech they need into the fight ( example of this : the team needs 1 assault class mech so instead of the atlas they bring the awesome and save 20 tons for another player on there team )

Bringing the Big guns the 100 ton massive tanks can still be done but better be done in such a way that they can pull there weight and do there role

[RedRidingHood]

Value of mechs should tops beocuse I belive the game will have some kind of tiered system to reflect the age of you mechs. I new car is just better then the old rust bucket about the fall apart and old rust buckets are were most of the mechs are in this time line but that may change soon.

[Cerlin]

Personally I think Tonnage is kinda irrelevant because of the Lostech and clan tech. BV/C-bill value will be a much better indication of value. I hope that this will be implemented eventually.

[Frank War]

No limits
WAR is not "FAIR"

[HammerSwarm]

was just thinking this

[MaddMaxx]

Quote

Say we have two teams with 4 Hunchbacks. Team 1 has 4 Hunchbacks with AC/20s or Medium Lasers. Team 2 has 4 Hunchbacks with Gauss Rifles, UAC/20s and LBX/20s. Really, despite both weighing in at 200 tons, one team has a massive advantage.

Damn man where can I get a UAC20 or LBX20?

Those 4 Mechs will all have to make some serious choices about their armor level, versus speed, versus how much ammo they want to carry (or do the pick 2 deal)

A Hunchback with a STD 250 (10hs) with a Gauss rifle or AC20 and Max armor is done. 1 & 2 tons of ammo respectively and run 65kph.

So in the end, you may have a Gauss, but will run slow and have limited ammo. A much faster Hunchy may find you easy pickings one on one....

Tonnage is the best option outside of a perfected BV system, but sadly, none exist at this time.

[Eddrick]

I would prefer none of the above to be needed. But, trying to balance something that was unbalance to begin with is a huge undertaking.

Edited by Eddrick, 12 March 2013 - 04:08 PM.

[Butane9000]

I voted no limits.

A player should arbitrarily be forced into a weight bracket they do not want to play. Said players should play and through experience and testing figure out the best role they fit for their team.

I do admit, 11 assaults and 1 light is ridiculous. But with newer maps being bigger those 11 assaults are going to be slow pickings and the light will be fodder for a more balanced team.

[HarmAssassin]

I would just be happy if the number of mechs on each team were the same in each category.

In other words, if Team A has 1 light, 2 mediums, 3 heavies, and 2 assaults - then Team B should have 1 light, 2 mediums, 3 heavies, and 2 assaults.

Actually tonnage isn't all that important, nor is weapon selection (C-Bill cost). Just match the number of each weight class on each team.

[Syllogy]

Drops based on Tonnage Limits are already in the works.

[Jack Lowe]

I go with the no limits option mainly because in even a semi realistic environment not every battle is going to be evenly matched. Sometimes your side will have the advantage sometimes the other side. It's up to you and your team to figure out how to minimize or overcome a disadvantage or exploit an advantage. Sometimes your gonna be grossly outmatched, the only problem I see here is that if that's the case currently your all gonna die, and of course the reverse of the situation. Implementing a system where you or ur opponent can preform a tactical withdrawal perhaps timed is a better way to handle that problem. Another way is simply put to inflict a disproprotinate*(spelling) amount of damage if your side is highly overclassed. That requires more of a metagame with strategic objective considerations which we don't yet have, maybe with the dropship mutator. I think approached in this general fashion it allows for a larger variety of battles to occur, flexible thinking, good recon, and in all a more enjoyable immersive experience.

Note: I'm probably a little more hardcore than some and certain not all will agree with this op.

[Rex Zero]

I don't know if this is the right place to post this, but, as i think that a drop limit will provide a solution, it may be. I'll start by saying that over the 6 months I've played this game it's been degenerating slowly. All the number tweaking in the world wont change my mind. The underlying issue is that the game has to make a choice.

Will it be squad based tactical game play? Or will it be a fancy fps with alot of unlockables? I envision a mwo where both teams tacticly select their mechs in a transparent turn based draft pick based on the mission and map using match specific resources. What i mean by match specific resources is that both teams select mechs that when added together equal the same weight/points/whatever can be used in order to ensure that both teams have an even playing feild.

There could be a planning phase prior to the mission exicution where team commanders selected based on rank can path routes and attack patterns and can group their own lances based on weaponry, speed, and chassis. Hell there could even be plays like in football that people could chose form.

It is my firm belief that this game is on the verge of greatness but is risking a catastrophic failure due to the elemination of tactics in favor for an easy to learn game. If it continues down this path not only will I stop playing but I am convinced that many others will as well.

(I've posted this in different places so that it will be read, and not just buried. Hopefully no one frowns upon that.)

Edited by Rex Zero, 20 June 2013 - 11:39 PM.

[Abledime]

If there was a drop ship mode where each player could bring say 220 tones to the battlefield in upto 4 mecks, these would be the four slots you get in the UI

so someone who loves their Assaults would only be able to bring 2 to the field, where a dedicated Light Pilot would be able to bring all 4 and include a few Mediums if he wanted.

[Roland]

My sig has a better solution, I believe, that is essentially a BV system that incorporates a market mechanism based upon actual usage in game.

This results in a system which will dynamically balance itself over time, resulting in a changing meta as more popular builds get more playtime.

Not only will it result in more evenly balanced matches, but it'll result in less stagnant gameplay.

Edited by Roland, 21 June 2013 - 05:22 AM.

[Thaar]

Team C-Bill Value.

[Ranek Blackstone]

Neither system really works. Tonnage restrictions force the matchmaker to have far more hops to juggle when figuring out who plays with who.

BV assumes all dice rolls are even, which in an action game like MWO is useless. Jenners can kill Atlas mechs with ease despite being 1/3 the BV.