476 replies to this topic

[SilentObserver]

Aegis Kleais™, on 01 March 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

But that's the thing, they don't. The hope is that the game will not be 100% focused around KILLING other Mechs. If PGI has done their job well, there will be objectives in the game that light Mechs can excel at (getting from 1 point to another, or arriving at one point first to secure something, etc.) Assaults will be at a clear disadvantage, especially if the lights can just ignore the Assaults and leave them in their dust as they complete objectives.

I hope your right, but I am willing to bet that most objectives can be handled by the heaviest mechs around. especially after the clans show up and the Assaults get faster.

Aegis Kleais™, on 01 March 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

On top of this, even for an Assault, it's not wise to take on 3-4+ Lights. They can combine arms and disorientate the pilot and even bring him down, especially out in the open.

Why is one assault taking on 3-4 lights? Where is his buddies? each team dropped 12 pilots. so 3-4 lights will likely encounter at least 3-4 assaults. Assaults who outgun them at every range and just need to stand back to back to swat those lights into the ground.

Aegis Kleais™, on 01 March 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

Even more so, just the time it takes for Assaults to get to objectives, even ones where they have to defend or do things they excel at, a pack of lights can specifically target an Assault's leg, cripple him and then leave him as he becomes a near immobile tank that is 2 clicks from his objective, moving at 15KPH.

Once again, this seems to describe a battle with a pack of lights versus a single assault mech. There is no reason for this to happen with 12 pilots and unlimited drop options. 3-4 lights will get blasted any time they come near the column of heavies as they head toward the objective. So what if it takes longer. if you cant be stopped who cares how long it takes.

[Outlaw2]

Aegis Kleais™, on 01 March 2012 - 03:51 PM, said:

I understand that diversification is important. A pilot who is a EXPERT at Lights and Heavies is worth more than a MASTER at Assaults. But I also understand that you need to put your best foot forward. If a player is familiar with the role of the Medic, you don't tell them to play the Soldier class; they are a force multiplier only when they are performing at their peak areas of expertise.

Though I like your idea of rewarding players who DO choose to enter the game with less BV, it still relies on such an action to be performed to ensure that all players are selecting chassis that they are most proficient in. It's still a restriction hanging over everyone's head that prevents peak efficiency until certain players choose to make themselves less efficient by selecting lower BV variants for the sake of earning higher XP (if they can do so in their lower-than-optimal BV variant)

If thinking a pilot is what brings out a Mech's abilities is idealism, then I guess I'm an idealist. Sure, even an amazing Light against an amazing Assault, my money is on the Assault due to "all things being equal, the Assault is designed for engagement with more weapons and armor".

Maybe the problem here is that you're viewing this from a competitive standpoint. The differences between those communities and the general public can often be quite different. Comp play sometimes goes so far as to ban the use of weapons or items it deems were designed for pub use but are not tangible in competitive style play. Most pubbers simply want options and the ability to select what they feel they would do best in, and play.

The devs will need to balance gameplay with competitive environment in mind, otherwise there will be no competitive environment. Casual players will automatically benefit from a game thats balance at its highest tiers.

This is what the StarCraft2 devs do. They balance looking at the top tier leagues. They don't use bronze, silver or even gold leagues to dictate balancing. The way they see it, if its balance at the top, its more than likely balanced at the bottom (the opposite is not as ture). If lower tier players see imbalance, you tell them to get better and they won't see that imbalance anymore.

Of course, there are difference between SC2 and MWO, but the same principles apply. If casual players simply want to play with variety and zero restrictions, they can always play in unranked matches with friends.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 01 March 2012 - 04:08 PM.

[Deadbot1]

I played a lot of tourneys in MW3. Tonnage don't mean squat. I used to game the system by using the smallest fastest Mech I could and loading it to the hilt with energy weapons. Fast run in...one full salvo...critical heat overload...boom. the game usually registered their "death" before mine...credit win to me.

That all said, a properly set up light can take a poorly set up medium. Same for mediums and heavys. A lucky pilot with a great light can take a poor pilot in a poor heavy. BV is the only way to go.

Edited by Deadbot1, 01 March 2012 - 06:14 PM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

I voted tonnage because dropships can only hold so many tons of material.

[TimberJon]

Like some have said here.. I'm not sure if that should be a game requirement.

But I do say this, if we need to level our skills on an experience system, then that means that some players who have been playing for say a month or months will have a nice advantage to whup a newer player with barely any skills yet. That new player might be a seasoned 'Mech vet, but still he/she will be behind in the skills race.

Maybe, as you level up there should be a rank system in place and the game will either only rank you with like players (within a + / - tolerance) or else have a rank requirement for certain maps (drop zones) on a planet. Some drop zones will be open to all ranks and others will require a certain minimum rank because the in game NPC's or defenses might be too difficult for lower ranked pilots.

Maybe epic or storyline content can be relased as longer co-op missions, and require a minimum rank to access and play through.

I originally thought that each Merc corp should be "licensed" to work as a Mercenary company, and that the license determines how many mech chassis they may own, and also how many of each chassis type may be deployed in a battle, thus limiting the types of mechs while not their battle values or total tonnage. You would work to unlock additional mechs to own, and to increase the number of different chassis you can take into battle at a time. At first, perhaps only a Medium or heavy mech will be the heaviest one a Commander can take into battle. Maybe you even have to play a bit to gain access to the prized Atlas.

Whatever it is, it should be challenging and I want to WORK a bit for some kind of a reward. I will be patient, and I will work hard. I do NOT want everything just handed to me on a silver platter.

[Dlardrageth]

Neither of these options. BV might be a good start, but alone it's still not good enough. There IMHO needs to be at least an objective modifier involved. eventually influenced if and by what the current landholder invested in the planet you are dropping on. More of this if we're talking about a '"mission scenario" or a special "objective raid", where it could make sense to cemand only Mechs below a certain tonnage on top of the BV matter.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Aegis Kleais™, on 01 March 2012 - 02:28 PM, said:

Going on the assumption that all players sit in a lobby until the game starts (unless we know the game to operate otherwise), if we utilize tonnage restrictions, those who arrive late to the lobby are punished by having the remaining tonnage forced on them.

12v12, Team 1 selects 800T of Mechs, and by the time 8 players on Team 2 use up 800T, what do the other 4 players do? They have no tonnage to select a Mech. They either can't join, and it's a 12v8 or you have to sit there and yell at one another to free up tonnage for other people so they can get the chassis they have experience/perks in.

In the event we're talking about instances where I am not in a lobby and I just pick a 75T Mech, the game randomly throws me to a server where they need a 75T Mech to keep the game fair, then how do I ensure that I can play with friends if the game chooses which server to move players to?

I'm not seeing the solution here that allows people to simply play with friends and choose the Mechs they want.

Do you just not read or what? That's a bad assumption. You're still fixated on a get in the lobby and pick a mech solution.

Lets say you have players A,B,C,D in your group. Its unlikely you'll be able to drop in a larger group into pubs for balance reasons.

Player A picks an Atlas
Player B picks a Black Knight
Player C picks a Commando
Player D picks a Dragon

You all queue for a battle together (or you could do this on your own)

Matchmaker goes out and looks at the pool of players in queue and selects 8 allies for your group and 12 opponents such that it considers the teams equal (by BV, drop weight, whatever)

Poof! you have a match. You get to play with your friends. You don't have to worry about not getting to play with your favorite mech, or having to negotiate over remaining tonnage.

The drop weight/BV isn't don't to be the same every time, but the fight will be even. This is how random battles with pubs should be handled.

Now what you're thinking of is more a merc company or clan sort of thing.

In this case the match system would be entirely different.
First the lobby would be by invite, not randomly assigned. Pubs might be able to request to join partially full lobbies
You would get into a lobby and the group leader would decide the drop limit (mass/BV) from a list of a couple choice and assign roles to the people in the group (such as scout, leader, etc) Everyone would go pick a mech for the role they are supposed to fill, or ask to be assigned something else. People would bump up or down mechs to meet the limits. Once the group is ready the leader queues with other groups at the same limit and a game is made.

This would be a strictly opt-in system for pre-made groups. If you want to play whatever mech you brought and not deal with compromising for the group, there is always the random matches. Or heck, you can go start your own lobby and invite people so you can assign roles.

Easy. No need to worry you can't play your timberwolf 24/7 if you really want.

[neodym]

I like big mechs,I dont like being or my team mates being forced to use ligher stuff. if it will be everybody in atlas,then let it be


thats bullcarp everybody will want to be in atlas "sorry team,you all take commando and I take atlas",every player should have right to have equal tonnage avaliable to use,and if single person use atlas,then everybody have right to do so

Edited by neodym, 01 March 2012 - 10:34 PM.

[TimberJon]

We don't have the right to anything. We have the privilege to pilot these lovelies. We didn't do anything to deserve to make any rules. That's why this arm of the forum is called suggestions, and not demands.

I like big 'Mechs too, and voted Daishi on that thread. But even in MW4 on solaris we had to start small and work our way into the assault class. I don't recall anyone whining about that. We are all whining now because the game isn't here yet. When it's out the forums will be DEAD except for threads on bugs or computer issues.

SUGGEST THINGS PEOPLE. Don't posts threads that give us listed options. Why should we be locked to BV or tonnage maximums? Think outside the box, this is a reboot not a recording. Maybe this is heresy but lets make the old BT universe better with a more polished version.

[Siilk]

Voted BV/cbills value. *But* what am I speak here about is per-team BV, not per-player BV. This would allow a player, who cannot fully use his BV not to waste the rest of it. In other words, a new player with a low-BV mech would not consume much team resources, letting more experienced players field better assets. This would also allow teams with lower number of players to compete on equal grounds with a bigger one by letting each of it's players have more BV at their disposal as there are less people to divide team BV between, making aforementioned "lotd of lights swarming a handful of assaults" scenario possible.

As a side note, I think that it would be a very good idea to let a team with lower drop BV to have a small XP income increase as a result of fighting with a lower BV while opposite team would have small XP penalty for this round. This should really promote players to even the drop BVs or even try risking by going with lower BV to gain more XP.

[T0RC4ED]

Wow, there has been great points for both sides but I have to lean on the side of having drop limits. Knowing full well the advantages of all the weight classes Im still verry sure that without limts there will be entire teams stacked with 12 Atlas Assault mechs. Gamers play what they want even when its bad for their team unless they have to make a choice for the good of the team.
Example: COD... We need someone to break out an anti-aircraft class to help me take out that AC130 thats laying waste to the entire team...15 kills (for the gunner) later noone sent a single rocket at it other than me with my AT4. Reason " I dont have any classes with rocket launchers" - forgotten max level player.
It hasnt been made clear what tyes of game modes there will be but its clear the Devs probably have some system in mind.

Edited by T0RC4ED, 02 March 2012 - 03:01 AM.

[Stripes]

Ah, the complete lack of any information - what are wondereous things its do to community!

Altrough i am voted on BV option, i will say it anyway: so far, the only thing we know about matches, its the possible format in terms of number of players - 12x12.

IMO, the best option for devs is separate balancing mechanism for every type of match:
Pick your favorite Mech and leave all the math to server in Random or be ready to play role needed by your team in Ranked.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Aegis Kleais™, on 02 March 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

First of all, watch the attitude; I haven't talked to anyone disrespectfully (until now), so I don't see the warrant for giving me grief because I haven't comprehended any explanation to date. And speaking of NOT making assumptions, don't make one that I 'didn't read' anything. I am asking for clarification because I still do not see a solution that seems remotely fair utilizing Battle Value or Tonnage. And if your proposed solution comes with snide condescension, then please keep it to yourself.

On the other hand, IF I understand your proposed system correctly, the game then ISN'T limiting players AT ALL in regards to their choice of Mechs, since it arbitrarily performs the matchmaking based on selected tonnages and battle values independent of the user's Mech selection. This was the discerning problem between how I was viewing proposed solutions to how I see it now. Before, I was under the premise that the game would have a limitation in place, be it battle value or tonnage when you actively chose to select a Mech. If it no longer does such limitations, and instead, dynamically places you into a battle it deems appropriate based on things out of the player's control, then it just becomes a part of the matchmaking process and does not limit player by Mech selection.

This would be more acceptable a solution to be since it has no finite restriction on the player.

Sorry, Its just frustrating sometimes. Not trying to be snide, but since I was the only person talking a different system I was starting to wonder if anyone was listening.

Sounds like you get the idea now. No limit on players picking mechs at all for random pub type matches. You could drop with a lance full of atlases and it would try and find a match for you. (you'ld like face another assault heavy company)

There are a few down sides (remember that'd I'd still want full preformed companies available under another mode)
- Limits the number of people playing together. Matchmaker would have a hard time dealing with groups for more than 4 out of 12 I'd expect. Certainly doing 8-9 out of 10 would mean a long wait or unbalanced fights.
- You can't choose a low BV or high BV match intentionally. Unless they implement queue limits for specific contracts/worlds.
- Less chance to build a strategy with Pubs before you drop. Your lances are likely to end up pretty random. Best you could hope for is a roughly even split of weight classes.

In short is a good fast action mode, but not for people looking for more than a endless grinder with pubs. If its anything like most multiplayer games, the vast majority of games played are pub grinders.

[IceSerpent]

Voted for BV/C-bills, assuming that it's per-team value. Also, the "battle value" should be different from CBT BV, because system that gives the same BV to a clan 20-tonner and IS 100-tonner is badly broken IMHO.

[TimberJon]

BV was essentially used in the Dark Age TT game I believe. So since people were already exposed to that... it might be a consideration to not reinvent that. The devs want it to appeal to all, and so anything that helps boost familiarity with the product or the game mechanics might be high on the consideration list.

[MaddMaxx]

How about a 3rd Hybrid. Tonnage and limited #'s per weight class?

This is STRICTLY for Competitive play. PUG's can do whatever system best suits ease of formation of those Drops.

Back in the day, the Drop commander was given a Tonnage and how many Mechs would be allowed. In an 8v 8, the usual assignment might be 2 Assault, 2 Heavy, 2 Medium and 2 Lights.

Now armed with that info, the Commander would gather his 7 players and TELL them what they were to drive. Scar's was an Assault Pilot, he got Assault #1, Maxx was good for either a Heavy or Medium, he got assigned Heavy #1, etc etc etc down the line until all 8 spots were filled. The enemy Commander was expected to do the same.

So both Teams have tonnage and class parity, it was up to Command and the selected 7 to make the difference. We would run as many as 5-6 best of 5 Planetary drops per fight night. It worked well and could again.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 02 March 2012 - 11:30 AM.

[Aegis Kleais]

TheRulesLawyer, on 02 March 2012 - 10:24 AM, said:

Sorry, Its just frustrating sometimes. Not trying to be snide, but since I was the only person talking a different system I was starting to wonder if anyone was listening.

Sounds like you get the idea now. No limit on players picking mechs at all for random pub type matches. You could drop with a lance full of atlases and it would try and find a match for you. (you'ld like face another assault heavy company)

There are a few down sides (remember that'd I'd still want full preformed companies available under another mode)
- Limits the number of people playing together. Matchmaker would have a hard time dealing with groups for more than 4 out of 12 I'd expect. Certainly doing 8-9 out of 10 would mean a long wait or unbalanced fights.
- You can't choose a low BV or high BV match intentionally. Unless they implement queue limits for specific contracts/worlds.
- Less chance to build a strategy with Pubs before you drop. Your lances are likely to end up pretty random. Best you could hope for is a roughly even split of weight classes.

In short is a good fast action mode, but not for people looking for more than a endless grinder with pubs. If its anything like most multiplayer games, the vast majority of games played are pub grinders.

Well, having better understood you, I think it's actually a very good idea. It's kind of "transparent" to the user (there's no perception that I'm being forced into a certain Mech), so in general, I would actually go so far as to say that it is a more than adequate system; especially when it allows me to ensure I can play alongside some friends.

I would like to be able to coordinate with pubbers before drop, and maybe it's just the pessimist in me, but I've only really found any semblance of coordination in pubs when you have friends or players who know one another and are just playing PUGs and the like. I take it that if the system couldn't find you a reasonable match, it would start a new game for you and look for another subsequent group that meets your team's tonnage/BV once it exists.

I appreciate you working through with me and getting me to see this solution. Hopefully something similar to it will appear in game.

[Outlaw2]

neodym, on 01 March 2012 - 10:31 PM, said:

I like big mechs,I dont like being or my team mates being forced to use ligher stuff. if it will be everybody in atlas,then let it be


thats bullcarp everybody will want to be in atlas "sorry team,you all take commando and I take atlas",every player should have right to have equal tonnage avaliable to use,and if single person use atlas,then everybody have right to do so

Give me a break
Its this type of childish self entitlement from gamers that encourages devs to dumb down games.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 02 March 2012 - 01:18 PM.

[Aegis Kleais]

Let the players who thing Tonnage = Success Chance and they'll find out how wrong that is the hard way.

[Victor Morson]

Aegis Kleais™, on 02 March 2012 - 01:44 PM, said:

Let the players who thing Tonnage = Success Chance and they'll find out how wrong that is the hard way.

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).