476 replies to this topic

[kidneynabrik]

So now that we've gotten the 12 vs 12 out of the way and just about everyone agrees a similar BV system is applicable.

Now. Who's been thinking about the reinforcements mode that allows players in a 12v12 max players to drop in up to 3 mechs after losing their first. How will you implement this system into that?

I have one idea to make it work to drive the players to be more coherent with losing their mechs. Have the a escort ship deploy the dropships from low orbit, thus relying on time to drop next available unit and then recovery time for dropship to fall back and get other mechs, AND a recovery time for dropship's taken out. (No obvious loss of the mechs, just a respawn of the same dropship back at the escort ship, resetting the time to drop.)

In reinforcements mode, you really can't rely on any given system, unless you want player's to sit on a bench for 10-15 minutes waiting for the C-bills to drop on the field and then let them be up. Make it be about a minute to drop a new mech, minute to get back on station at the escort ship, minute to grab new mechs, rinse and repeat.

This would be a commander's tactics game to get his men to maneuvar away while mechs on the field are low or to strike deep when the enemy is awaiting reinforcements. This being if its similar to a point-control or TDM style game. If it's a push style, it would make for a very interesting game...

Edited by kidneynabrik, 15 March 2012 - 03:38 PM.

[Outlaw2]

kidneynabrik, on 15 March 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

So now that we've gotten the 12 vs 12 out of the way and just about everyone agrees a similar BV system is applicable.

Now. Who's been thinking about the reinforcements mode that allows players in a 12v12 max players to drop in up to 3 mechs after losing their first. How will you implement this system into that?

In dropship game mode, multiply the BV by four. Players choose their 4 mechs before the match, just like in team deathmatch

[kidneynabrik]

=Outlaw=, on 15 March 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

In dropship game mode, multiply the BV by four. Players choose their 4 mechs before the match, just like in team deathmatch

True that, but will the BV affect the game during its run? I don't see it being much of an issue considering that it's the nature of the beast [and commander's can make recommendations], however should BV have any effect on it during?

[SnowDragon]

Stripes, on 15 March 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

I have to agree with Aegis - WoT style matchmaking will be ideal for random matches. Pick your favorite Machine Of War and let game handlr thw rest.

More organized matches on the other hand, will be in need for some balancing mechanism - battle value, C-bills or just game herself punishing players for all-assault abuse.

Need I remind you that WOT's matchmaker sucks the fat one? Personnally, I'm warming to the idea of 4 of each class in a 12v12 match... It does make plenty of sense, and allows for each class to do their thing.

Edited by SnowDragon, 15 March 2012 - 04:24 PM.

[Outlaw2]

Guys...there are 4 weight classes and only 12 spots
It would be 3 of each class.

This system would run into similar problems as a tonnage only system, but worse. Mechs that are 'best-of' each weight class will see a predominance, instead of best-of each tonnage increment.

kidneynabrik, on 15 March 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

True that, but will the BV affect the game during its run? I don't see it being much of an issue considering that it's the nature of the beast [and commander's can make recommendations], however should BV have any effect on it during?

Im not sure what you mean by BV affecting the game during its run.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 15 March 2012 - 04:37 PM.

[SnowDragon]

Math fail x.x

[kidneynabrik]

=Outlaw=, on 15 March 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:

Im not sure what you mean by BV affecting the game during its run.

The only issue I see arising is the two teams pick, lets say an even 100,000 BV points, but during combat, Team 1 loses 2 light mechs and fields 2 different class mechs (For the sake of not going there.... 1 heavy and 1 medium). Should BV count during combat? Should the game calculate an in battle BV or should it be, "may the best commander win"?

IMHO, I totally support a total calculated BV prior to drop (+/- 10-15% diff per team), and letting it be free past that. Letting the commander's make tactical decisions based on what could be used at that time. [or the player defacing the team by deploying a tac-asset too soon.]

I hope this helps, I also hope that this is the implemented system. It guarantees that if equal numbers are to be deployed, similar mechs (as in tonnage and/or capability) will be fielded, ensuring a fairly even battle.

[Outlaw2]

kidneynabrik, on 15 March 2012 - 10:11 PM, said:

The only issue I see arising is the two teams pick, lets say an even 100,000 BV points, but during combat, Team 1 loses 2 light mechs and fields 2 different class mechs (For the sake of not going there.... 1 heavy and 1 medium). Should BV count during combat? Should the game calculate an in battle BV or should it be, "may the best commander win"?

IMHO, I totally support a total calculated BV prior to drop (+/- 10-15% diff per team), and letting it be free past that. Letting the commander's make tactical decisions based on what could be used at that time. [or the player defacing the team by deploying a tac-asset too soon.]

I hope this helps, I also hope that this is the implemented system. It guarantees that if equal numbers are to be deployed, similar mechs (as in tonnage and/or capability) will be fielded, ensuring a fairly even battle.

I see, you mean players don't pick all 4 of their mechs prior to match, so the remaining BV is allocated to the commander to distribute to those that respawn. In competitive matches where its pre-made versus pre-made, this will work fine. In open pubs I see the potential for all sorts of in-game shenanigans by troll commanders.

[MaddMaxx]

=Outlaw=, on 15 March 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:

Guys...there are 4 weight classes and only 12 spots
It would be 3 of each class.

This system would run into similar problems as a tonnage only system, but worse. Mechs that are 'best-of' each weight class will see a predominance, instead of best-of each tonnage increment.

I'm not sure what you mean by BV affecting the game during its run.

That statement may be getting a tad ahead of its self. Given what we know so far, come Launch there may only be 3 per weight class to choose from, 4 or 5 maximum. Why worry about problems, and try and adjust to them, before the problem even exists.

And Yes, I know we are doing it for most things in turn, but Mech selection on day 1 will not be one of them. (and I hope I am dead wrong there)

Garth is on the right path. Multiples of weights classes per dozen. When we have 150 Mech to choose from, then we can worry about that then. Veterancy can be fickle as well. Many games played does not always a good Pilot make (though it probably should)

BV (even the mystical V3) as a team Balanc-er will become an ongoing, never solvable nightmare given the sheer amount of things that would have to be considered.

I have played games (RTS's) where equipment (= BV in BT) was used to attempt to balance the Teams. With every introduction of every new piece of gear, a new Balance had to be found. This activity never stopped as the Dev introduce new gear all the time, as they should, and MWO is totally geared around that aspect, it never ends.

Well it does, when most of the active players simply throw up their hands in despair for a lack of FUN gameplay, this weeks WOTW/FOTM trumps last months etc etc ad nausea.

The current word of the MechLab is beyond disturbing and the push back to April of its introduction has me worried. $%^& if it ^&$%'s up MWO...

Edited by MaddMaxx, 16 March 2012 - 10:28 AM.

[Jakebob]

tonnage is the only way that makes sense... the dropship doesn't care whether it's lifting a Warhammer or a Grasshopper, it has to lift 70 tons either way.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Hey, if Mechs are limited in their capacity to carry so many tons of war equipment, then I think the same should be respected for dropships and team loads. I don't know of any Mechwarrior Mech Lab that has a BV limit... I know plenty of BattleTech situations with BV limits, but did you ever hear of a Mechwarrior BV limit?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Prosperity - they can put any limitations in the mechlab they want to. It also would be easy to have mech cost and BV displayed alongside your mech(s) name(s). It could determine which variant you chose, along with other variables from the match. The main problem will be early on in the game when presumably you will only have one mech.

Edited by Nik Van Rhijn, 19 March 2012 - 12:06 AM.

[Thorgar Wulfson]

I say go with Team tonnage its the easiest and earliest way we ran games playing Battletech. I just wanna know if we can drop dead mechs on enemy targets from the drops ships

[Outlaw2]

MaddMaxx, on 16 March 2012 - 10:27 AM, said:

That statement may be getting a tad ahead of its self. Given what we know so far, come Launch there may only be 3 per weight class to choose from, 4 or 5 maximum. Why worry about problems, and try and adjust to them, before the problem even exists.

And Yes, I know we are doing it for most things in turn, but Mech selection on day 1 will not be one of them. (and I hope I am dead wrong there)

Garth is on the right path. Multiples of weights classes per dozen. When we have 150 Mech to choose from, then we can worry about that then. Veterancy can be fickle as well. Many games played does not always a good Pilot make (though it probably should)

BV (even the mystical V3) as a team Balanc-er will become an ongoing, never solvable nightmare given the sheer amount of things that would have to be considered.

I have played games (RTS's) where equipment (= BV in BT) was used to attempt to balance the Teams. With every introduction of every new piece of gear, a new Balance had to be found. This activity never stopped as the Dev introduce new gear all the time, as they should, and MWO is totally geared around that aspect, it never ends.

Well it does, when most of the active players simply throw up their hands in despair for a lack of FUN gameplay, this weeks WOTW/FOTM trumps last months etc etc ad nausea.

The current word of the MechLab is beyond disturbing and the push back to April of its introduction has me worried. $%^& if it ^&$%'s up MWO...

Well of course if there are only 1-3 mechs per weight class you don't have to worry about it as much now. However, there are also going to be variants for each mech. Plus mechlab will up the variety even more. We could ignore it for now and just deal with it when it becomes a problem, but come on now, thats a bit short sighted and irresponsible. Eventually this will be an even bigger problem as they add more mechs and weapons. It will bite them in the ace. Better deal with it now so its integrated smoothly into the game instead of rashly slapping it on months into its launch. Unless of course they already have something planned to cover this. Honestly though, the idea coming from the devs of simply forcing each team to take 3 of each class as a way to solve this is getting me worried. There has to be more they are not telling us. Otherwise there will be a small few mechs/loadouts per weight class that will dominate and the rest are just handicaps to the team. Im speaking from a mostly competitive pov.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 19 March 2012 - 08:54 AM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Well, it doesn't really matter if you want tonnage or BV limits, because either one is going to produce the same contrast against the opposing scenario: No limits.

Seriously, go ahead and plot tonnage versus BV for all the Mechs... I'll bet ya a dollar there's a pretty clear trend in the data.

[Outlaw2]

Prosperity Park, on 19 March 2012 - 08:16 AM, said:

Well, it doesn't really matter if you want tonnage or BV limits, because either one is going to produce the same contrast against the opposing scenario: No limits.

Seriously, go ahead and plot tonnage versus BV for all the Mechs... I'll bet ya a dollar there's a pretty clear trend in the data.

Not really. Tonnage plays a big role, but so does equipment, weapons, components,ect... Simply looking at weight will give skewed results. You're going to have show me this plotted data.

[MaddMaxx]

Quote

"Secondly, tonnage restricts players from choosing the Mech that they are best in. It forces them to pick a weight class that they either have no experience in or (worse yet) don't even own, thus forbidding them from the game entirely. It also punishes players who are late to get to the lobby as that tonnage will have been used up. Personally, it's a tactical failure if you force players to roles that they are not proficient in."

I am curious as to how Weight vs BV restrictions would not adversely affect a Pilot who wants to drive a certain Mech or BV?

They are either Allowed its BV, or they are not (if they show up late and there is but 50% of their preferred BV left.

Seems like a Six of One, 1/2 a dozen of the other scenario.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 19 March 2012 - 10:37 AM.

[Outlaw2]

I posted this in an other thread.

The way to handle BV for PUGs compared to organized matches should be different.

For PUGs the automated match-maker should take over. Say a match has a 12,000 BV total (this BV total can be different for every match...more "important" planets can have higher BV). The match-maker will then look for players and 4-man groups that queue up with mechs totaling 12,000 (give or take +/-100 BV). It should give preference towards making a 12-man team with a "balanced" loadout (3 lights, 3 meds, 3 heavies and 3 assaults) and towards players taking mechs in BV ranges not often taken. So if you are in a 500BV light, and 90% of the other players are in 1500BV assaults, then you will get an almost instant queue pop. The rest wait in line, or drop into something that will quicken their queue. Once in the lobby, players can talk amongst their team members about switching mechs/exchanging BV depending on what gameplan they agree on, but players can always opt to stay in the mech they queued in with.

For organized matches, let the teams distribute the BV amongst themselves without need of the matchmaker

Edited by =Outlaw=, 19 March 2012 - 10:45 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

=Outlaw=, on 19 March 2012 - 08:12 AM, said:

Well of course if there are only 1-3 mechs per weight class you don't have to worry about it as much now. However, there are also going to be variants for each mech. Plus mechlab will up the variety even more. We could ignore it for now and just deal with it when it becomes a problem, but come on now, thats a bit short sighted and irresponsible. Eventually this will be an even bigger problem as they add more mechs and weapons. It will bite them in the ace. Better deal with it now so its integrated smoothly into the game instead of rashly slapping it on months into its launch. Unless of course they already have something planned to cover this. Honestly though, the idea coming from the devs of simply forcing each team to take 3 of each class as a way to solve this is getting me worried. There has to be more they are not telling us. Otherwise there will be a small few mechs/loadouts per weight class that will dominate and the rest are just handicaps to the team. Im speaking from a mostly competitive pov.

Given even player made variants via Mech Lab, those should be player based selectable and unless allowed a FULL MechLab, the variants created will not grossly deviate the base units BV (hopefully no more than 10%) and never exceed the base weight.

[Outlaw2]

MaddMaxx, on 19 March 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

Given even player made variants via Mech Lab, those should be player based selectable and unless allowed a FULL MechLab, the variants created will not grossly deviate the base units BV (hopefully no more than 10%) and never exceed the base weight.

Even if the mechlab is very limited, we are still playing a game of chicken with game balance by ignoring this. Eventually they will add more mechs, more variatnes, more weapons. There is going to be a wide selection within each weight class, and most of it with the risk of being side lined without a good method of balancing it. Simply thinking 3 of each weight class will do it seems very naive...this is going off what we know so far. I hope the devs have something significant in this area they are not telling us.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 19 March 2012 - 10:56 AM.