476 replies to this topic

[Outlaw2]

MaddMaxx, on 22 March 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

Once again, that assumes that some players will have access to that Tech and others will not. As new Tech arrives, it will always trump old tech, someone may not want, or opt out of a certain Weight Class, as per their play style, but to opt out or forgo the latest Tech?

We have places where we keep those types. Well away from everyone else.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Naturally this tech will outclass the older tech, so you will have mechs with upgraded tech that are strictly better than other mechs with lower tech.

This is a problem due to the nature of MWO F2P business model of getting players to get more and more upgrades (ala WoT). You will have mechs which have FF-armor, double heatsinks, endo steel, ect...all the things that make some mechs better than others. Then comes the day where you are in a competitive match, and the other side creams you with mechs that are all fully upgraded with the best money can buy. Think WoT where clan matches are decided on who took the most T10 tanks. This is ultimately what Im trying to avoid. Not only the pay to win environment, but the limited diversity environment as well.

I'd like to have matches of all types. I don't mind some very high BV matches where you need the best upgraded mechs in the game. Along side lower BV matches where I can take stuff I like but are simply not viable in higer BV matches. Not only that but a lower BV match would allow players that are new...or don't have time/money to grind out every pieve of upgraded equipment for every mech... to participate in a match and still be competitive with their low BV mechs.

Its critically important MWO doesn't fall into this trap in order to avoid any kind of pay-to-win grindfest backlash from the player base (which WoT has experienced). Its THE main reason Im not playing WoT atm, and waiting and hoping MWO knows better.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 22 March 2012 - 07:00 PM.

[FaustianBargain]

Tonnage limit, nuff said.

As for outclassing other players through customization/clan or lostech: the only way to keep things balanced is for things like clan tech to not be as extremely superior as they were in canon. Another possibility is to provide a way to cheaply transfer IS weapons and components into clan tech after the invasion.

[Garuss Acine]

I'd say let people take what they want, if an all scout company comes up against an all assault company. use hit and run tactics, the scouts get the speed. I hope the dev's stay away from a ton/bv/cbills limit as there as someamazingly undercosted mechs out there, a prime example is the Spider. I have no doubt that a single Spider can take down an assault mech onits own, in the TT I've used them to tear apart Marauders. You can say what you want about weight being important, but when you can't hit your target all that extra weight won't make a world's difference other than how slowly you die.

In such a face off as I have described, baiting and feints would keep the assaults guessing. If the lights have any kind of LRMs or PPCs, they could easily engage from max range, or out of LOS while the shorter ranges mechs, spot and then fade.the basic idea would be to get the lances to split up, and take the four on as a full company, rinse repeat. If they don't,just light up their rear/forward elements in skirmishes, get those assault to run out of ammo, or build up heat. I am hoping this game will be less about your rides, and more about the pilots skills and know how of the map. So far this is what I am led to believe from what the Dev's are putting up.

[Victor Morson]

Garuss Acine, on 22 March 2012 - 06:34 PM, said:

I'd say let people take what they want, if an all scout company comes up against an all assault company. use hit and run tactics, the scouts get the speed. I hope the dev's stay away from a ton/bv/cbills limit as there as someamazingly undercosted mechs out there, a prime example is the Spider. I have no doubt that a single Spider can take down an assault mech onits own, in the TT I've used them to tear apart Marauders. You can say what you want about weight being important, but when you can't hit your target all that extra weight won't make a world's difference other than how slowly you die.

I really wish folks would read the thread and the main concerns within it before writing stories about how one could heroically, in theory, defeat an entire company of assaults with fast moving lights (which isn't super likely without a huge tech disparity, but it's not the primary concern here).

The big concern is the stuff in the middle, and not-so-great equipment within it's own weight class. Again the "Hunchback vs Atlas" question - they both move around the same speed and both carry the same guns, except the Atlas carries a whole more firepower as well and an insane amount of armor. There's no purpose for a Hunchback if there's not limiting factor. This goes for a lot of other medium 'mechs as well, and even heavies that have simply better assaults that fill the same role.

This is not an argument about if light 'mechs could in theory win a battle against heavier stuff. In fact I think we've been very clear that we feel lights have a strong purpose in the game, as to heavies/assaults, but anything that's in the medium/lower heavy range is outclassed drastically; as well as 'mechs in the same weight class outclassed by tech (i.e. balancing a Dragon stock vs a Grand Dragon vs. a Vulture). That's the gist of the problem.

[Dlardrageth]

Victor Morson, on 22 March 2012 - 06:47 PM, said:

[...]
This is not an argument about if light 'mechs could in theory win a battle against heavier stuff. In fact I think we've been very clear that we feel lights have a strong purpose in the game, as to heavies/assaults, but anything that's in the medium/lower heavy range is outclassed drastically; as well as 'mechs in the same weight class outclassed by tech (i.e. balancing a Dragon stock vs a Grand Dragon vs. a Vulture). That's the gist of the problem.

I think one part for starters would be to not force any IS pilot to fight Clan Mechs with his stock IS ride once Clans get implemented. For pretty obvious reasons. What chance does the pilot in his 2nd match in his stock-standard Dragon really stand coming across a fully specced-out Vulture pilot with 100+ victories under his belt? Yes, we all know, there is this story where Chuck Norris beat that very Vulture into a bloody pulp piloting a Wasp with a defective medium laser and blablabla... anecdotary stories with no real value pertaining to the point.

Barring these (generally) no-win scenarios eliminates for starters the need to balance out the Dragon vs. the Vulture 1:1 in your example, I reckon. For the Dragon vs. Grand Dragon part it becomes more tricky. Assuming pilots of same skill level you might have to break an arm of the Grand Dragon's pilot or something prolly. Seriously though, it would be really hard to balance that out, especially with the advent of random customization.

I was actually thinking about detaching BV and tonnage completely and have apply both on different levels. Still some issues with that, but you could try to determine drop weight balance by tonnage only. And then have the reward balance being determined by BV. So that IF you drop in the lower BV variant, you get a significantly more favourable reward modifier. Trying for a concrete example, bear with me tho, reciting BVs from memory (Nvm, what do we have Sarna.Net for, heh?) so might be off a tad:

Dragon DRG-1N, 60 tons, BV 1100 and change

versus

Grand Dragon DRG-5K, 60 tons, BV 1350+

Drop balancing by tonnage would pitch them against each other 1:1. Rewards balanced by BV though, would yield different payout for the same action. BV ratio is 1 : 1.227. Thus a thinkable tweak here could be to have the DRG-1N get a flat 23% bonus for XP and C-bills earning. Meaning a nice hit that scores the DRG-5K 100 XP and 2000 C-bills, would get the pilot 123 XP and 2460 C-bills if he had used a DRG-1N.

Granted, that does nothing for balancing in a theorethical 1 on 1 duel scenario, but after all the primary focus of MWO is teamplay. So a duel matchup is less important than the overall performance and rewards for that in the team. The part I'm still a bit at odds with is if the 23% in the example above is really enough of a bonus.

Edited by Dlardrageth, 23 March 2012 - 12:15 AM.

[zorak ramone]

MaddMaxx, on 22 March 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

Once again, that assumes that some players will have access to that Tech and others will not. As new Tech arrives, it will always trump old tech, someone may not want, or opt out of a certain Weight Class, as per their play style, but to opt out or forgo the latest Tech?

We have places where we keep those types. Well away from everyone else.

I am, in fact, assuming that not everyone will have access to the same tech. My assumption was that players will start with a certain amount of "money" (whatever that may be called ... XP, cBills, you name it) or with a starter mech. I'm also assuming that in order to get other mechs or to customize the mechs they have, they will need to spend money. Unless the starter mechs are top of the line, and if there's no cost balance for top tier tech, as I outlined in my previous post, then new players will be screwed. It will be the whole grind-to-win situation you have in MMORPGs ... only there will be no PvE for newbies to grind up in without being smeared.

If I'm wrong about tech access, then the only concern would be to balance the massive (for heavies and assaults) weight savings for the XL engine, and the relatively free weight you get for ES or FF. I think it could be done in a reasonable way, completely absent some kind of economy (i.e. in an environment like, say, MW4 or to pick a more modern game, TF2), but it would require a completely different way of thinking about balancing.

[zorak ramone]

Dlardrageth, on 23 March 2012 - 12:11 AM, said:

Granted, that does nothing for balancing in a theorethical 1 on 1 duel scenario, but after all the primary focus of MWO is teamplay. So a duel matchup is less important than the overall performance and rewards for that in the team. The part I'm still a bit at odds with is if the 23% in the example above is really enough of a bonus.

I think that you should consider the 1v1 situation, or at least abstract it out to 4v4. Yes, you could give increasing rewards for lower BVs, but consider the Dragon example: The 5K is faster (96kph vs 85kph), carries a better armament (ERPPC vs AC5, 3ML vs 2ML) and runs cooler. In a respawn environment, things might even out, but in a no-respawn environment (which is what MWO is going for), the 5K (or 5Ks) will win almost every time, so the bonuses the 1Ns get will be pointless ... unless you're giving points for doing damage, but how may players will enjoy the whole "oh well, I just got annihilated for the 10th time in a row, but look! I got slightly more cBills!"

[MaddMaxx]

=Outlaw=, on 22 March 2012 - 04:16 PM, said:

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Naturally this tech will outclass the older tech, so you will have mechs with upgraded tech that are strictly better than other mechs with lower tech.

This is a problem due to the nature of MWO F2P business model of getting players to get more and more upgrades (ala WoT). You will have mechs which have FF-armor, double heatsinks, endo steel, ect...all the things that make some mechs better than others. Then comes the day where you are in a competitive match, and the other side creams you with mechs that are all fully upgraded with the best money can buy. Think WoT where clan matches are decided on who took the most T10 tanks. This is ultimately what Im trying to avoid. Not only the pay to win environment, but the limited diversity environment as well.

I'd like to have matches of all types. I don't mind some very high BV matches where you need the best upgraded mechs in the game. Along side lower BV matches where I can take stuff I like but are simply not viable in higer BV matches. Not only that but a lower BV match would allow players that are new...or don't have time/money to grind out every pieve of upgraded equipment for every mech... to participate in a match and still be competitive with their low BV mechs.

Its critically important MWO doesn't fall into this trap in order to avoid any kind of pay-to-win grindfest backlash from the player base (which WoT has experienced). Its THE main reason Im not playing WoT atm, and waiting and hoping MWO knows better.

The Dev have said repeatedly. They will not SELL for RL Cash any "tactical" advantage. Advanced Tech would be an obvious Tactical advantage. Thus, your "the other side creams you with mechs that are all fully upgraded with the best money can buy" will have to happen with C-Bill purchases.

Do you not feel it fair for those who PLAY the game and can afford the C-Bill outlay to have that Tech? Or are you paranoid you will be one of those left behind due to limited play time?

I may even be one of those, (not likely LOL) but will not begrudge those who can find the "Grind Time^{" TM} the spoils of their efforts.

Some months after Launch, all things will not be equal, nor for some will it seem fair, but why would anyone who plays more than another, but gains no benefit, even bother?

I never played WoT, but it sounds that the ability to BUY high end things ie:Tanks for RL cash, has put that system in a bad way.

We have asserted to, and been assured by the Dev Team of MWO, the same thing will not happen here.

Tonnage is the way of the future btw. lol

Edited by MaddMaxx, 23 March 2012 - 08:26 AM.

[Outlaw2]

I know they have said you can't buy power, but they have neither explained the details on what you can buy nor the details on how they will set up competitive matches. Until then, there is more than enough room for concern. Frankly I am worried they will go the WoT route when it comes to competitive matches. They are in a business after all, and its all too tempting to gouge your more hardcore players.

And I will be the hardcore player, putting in as much time as anybody. It becomes a problem when in order to be competitive, skill is sidelined by REQUIRED grinding. If its a race to the top of tech components, then it not only imposes a huge artificial barrier to entering competitive play, but limits gameplay diversity at the top. If you vary the BV total for every match, you can include more players in the competitive scene but more importantly (imo) have a wider diversity of content at the high competitive scene...its a win-win. Guys that play/grind more are still going to have the huge advantage since they will a have a wider selection of mechs to choose from ...and if the match has a very high BV, they will have the super upgraded mechs to fill in that BV. The same can't be said for a player that just started playing.

BTW, tonnage has been used in various PA leagues for over a decade, and I'm well aware of it limitations.

zorak ramone, on 23 March 2012 - 07:21 AM, said:

I think that you should consider the 1v1 situation, or at least abstract it out to 4v4. Yes, you could give increasing rewards for lower BVs, but consider the Dragon example: The 5K is faster (96kph vs 85kph), carries a better armament (ERPPC vs AC5, 3ML vs 2ML) and runs cooler. In a respawn environment, things might even out, but in a no-respawn environment (which is what MWO is going for), the 5K (or 5Ks) will win almost every time, so the bonuses the 1Ns get will be pointless ... unless you're giving points for doing damage, but how may players will enjoy the whole "oh well, I just got annihilated for the 10th time in a row, but look! I got slightly more cBills!"

Its even worse in a competitive MercCorps match. Receiving slightly more cBills for the lost match will be a poor consolation to counter that fact you just lost a planet.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 23 March 2012 - 09:07 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Quote

"The same can't be said for a player that just started playing."

That is the "Ground Floor Syndrome" and no weight limit or BV system can account for that disparity. That is where the MM system has to account for player Skill level (whoever that is done - namely games played etc etc)

Every game that has a competitive based element has the GFS issue. Any competitive game you want to try and be good at it always best to start asap. Otherwise everyone has a head start that can be hard to catch. Only time and perseverance can fix that.

Tonnage ftw.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 23 March 2012 - 09:37 AM.

[Outlaw2]

Except Im not talking about player skill here. BV is not intended to account for player skill. Its taking into account all the in-game content you take to the match...including tonnage but more. Nothing is stopping you from taking this into account. When it comes to game content, not every competitive game has a "GFS"....all previous MW games did not have it. SC2 and DOTA don't have it. I could go on.

You are also probably not realizing that competitive merc corp matches (the ones for direct control of planets) are almost certain to NOT use the automated matchmaker. These are scheduled events and you know exactly which merc corps you will be fighting against.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 23 March 2012 - 10:46 AM.

[Dlardrageth]

zorak ramone, on 23 March 2012 - 07:21 AM, said:

I think that you should consider the 1v1 situation, or at least abstract it out to 4v4. Yes, you could give increasing rewards for lower BVs, but consider the Dragon example: The 5K is faster (96kph vs 85kph), carries a better armament (ERPPC vs AC5, 3ML vs 2ML) and runs cooler. In a respawn environment, things might even out, but in a no-respawn environment (which is what MWO is going for), the 5K (or 5Ks) will win almost every time, so the bonuses the 1Ns get will be pointless ... unless you're giving points for doing damage, but how may players will enjoy the whole "oh well, I just got annihilated for the 10th time in a row, but look! I got slightly more cBills!"

I am assuming that at least part of the rewards are based on damage inflicted. How much of a percentage exactly is a balancing question, that ball lies in PGI's court. I do hope though that a larger chunk of the total "reward pool" is objective-based. Something like e.g. 20% damage-/80% objective-based XP and C-bills distribution would probably work here. In order to not have the Mechs with more weaponry and thus DPM potential reaping in the majority of rewards. As giving out an actual reward share for mere "Mech kills" is IMHO a particularily terrible idea (killstealing etc. issues).

Thus even in a no-respawn mode this should work. Unless of course the pilot of the -1N thinks he's a Mech-Rambo and tries to do everything solo... but then he first failed at team-based gaming and second does sort of deserve what he does (not) get. Pretty much his own fault for playing utterly incompetent. Still, like I mentioned, not sure if the 23% bonus I arbitrarily picked based on BV 2.0 is enough. Would need some actual testing there.

One slight advantage would be that this model could be easily adjusted for customized Mechs, if the BV model turns out to mirror performance accurately enough. The bonus amount would just go up or down depending on the modifications made and their impact on BV.

The motivational factor is something that could use a little support there, sure. As little as an extra splash screen at the end of the match perhaps to list the XP + C-bills gained for everybody on the team and eventually even a ranking (which might transition into a medal or whatever eventually). Example: okay, so you died in your 1N in the match, but by the looks of it you still reaped in the 2nd highest reward of your team (bonus factored in) and thus made a tidy profit and also moved another step towards the "company XO" medal/achievement. That way, no matter how the individual perception of anyone during the match was about your performance, you get a somewhat objective statement about how well/badly you did.

Also it would to some degree address the issue that people might shun light/medium Mechs due to the fact that the potential rewards in the higher tonnage chassis are higher. Not for C-bills, you could counterbalance that with higher repair costs. But for XP earned? Unless PGI implements a mechanism that could actually make you lose XP, chances are, that with a non-layered/-bonused reward model you'd always be better off with a heavier and better armed Mech.

Naturally, this whole model won't do much for a 1 vs. 1 game mode. But then I didn't factor in the eventuality of an "era-based" (3025 tech only) or a "stock mode" (no customizations on your Mech allowed) either, as those game modes might appear at some point, but aren't here yet. I was mainly thinking about how to tackle the issue depicted in the post I quoted.

=Outlaw=, on 23 March 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

[...]
You are also probably not realizing that competitive merc corp matches (the ones for direct control of planets) are almost certain to NOT use the automated matchmaker. These are scheduled events and you know exactly which merc corps you will be fighting against.

• Which doesn't rule out a somewhat arbitrarily set drop limit for that specific battle as a game feature.
  
• Which doesn't rule out a reward payout based on what you exactly brought to the table. (Heck, being facetious, I could claim it doesn't rule out no direct rewards at all, just a blanket one for capturing the planet over time.)
  
• Which doesn't rule out you might have to fight a House unit scraped up 5 minutes in advance from randomly available players for the planet control (with your Merc unit).

Edited by Dlardrageth, 23 March 2012 - 10:57 AM.

[Outlaw2]

Dlardrageth, on 23 March 2012 - 10:52 AM, said:

• Which doesn't rule out a somewhat arbitrarily set drop limit for that specific battle as a game feature.
  
• Which doesn't rule out a reward payout based on what you exactly brought to the table. (Heck, being facetious, I could claim it doesn't rule out no direct rewards at all, just a blanket one for capturing the planet over time.)
  
• Which doesn't rule out you might have to fight a House unit scraped up 5 minutes in advance from randomly available players for the planet control (with your Merc unit).

For your first point, I agree. Thats what Im advocating a BV system.


Your second point goes directly towards what Zorak and I are getting at. Having a c-bill bonus for taking inferior mechs doesn't make up for the fact you just lost the match. Why not just take the superior mech to higher the chances of winning, and get more c-bills in the end? Again, this is even worse for competitive matches. Merc corps will engage in a series of scheduled matches for occupations rights over a planet. You lose those and you lose the lucrative occupation pay out and contract on that planet. I doubt any amount of bonus c-bill can make up for that.

I'm not sure what your 3rd point is getting at. I think you are confusing faction worlds with border worlds.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 23 March 2012 - 11:29 AM.

[Dlardrageth]

=Outlaw=, on 23 March 2012 - 11:26 AM, said:

I'm not sure what your 3rd point is getting at. I think you are confusing faction worlds with border worlds.

State of the IS has been for a long time in 3049 that there are no unclaimed worlds (periphery excluded). That means in my book there is no "free lunch" where you can just grab a planet unopposed. Even if it is a "border world" (periphery excluded, but IIRC devs stated it will be excluded). That means also, that if you land there and no Mercs/Pirates/Ewoks are defending it, you might have to face the "militia" of whichever house currently owns it. Which could incidentally be a random team of House players (that solution IMHO makes most sense form the PoV of the houses)

Unless you expect PGI to NPC all those and include a PvE mode thus. Or do you hope for getting the planet just being handed over effortlessly absent defenders?

Also... reservations on your theory of "direct control" of planets as Mercs. You usually are a placeholder for the ruling house, sort of a governor. And thus could be called off if the house decides so on daily notice. You don't actually "own" anything there.

Edited by Dlardrageth, 23 March 2012 - 11:39 AM.

[Outlaw2]

What the...militia? Ok...please go reread the Dev Blog 1 that goes over community warfare.
The community warfare stuff is not whats being questioned here. They have it pretty detailed out, and I have no real issues with it, atm.
However, what actually happens in the match is whats at stake here.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 23 March 2012 - 11:46 AM.

[Dlardrageth]

Okay, you asked for it, here's quotes from Dev Blog 1:

Quote

It’s important to state now, that worlds can change from Border to Faction to Core, or any combination thereof, at any time by the development team

I do hope that means adding the surprise factor in occasionally. Especially as I don't think it makes any sense to just hand over planets without any effort just because you happen to be the only bidder for the current takeover and the defender unit is a no-show, dissolved or whatever.. That would be pretty ridiculous. So unless there is a contingency (the "militia", however it would be formed up), you don't have a defender. I could search for the posts made quite some time ago we discussed the particulars in, but can't be bothered really.

Also:

Quote

We’re committed to releasing information about BETA ready concepts only, however some ideas and concepts are still subject to change after testing.

As of early december last year. Totally unheard of, that things might have become tweaked during several months, yeah...

And what actually happens in the match will be somewhat determined by what you face in said match. If you have no defenders the best you could get is an empty map. More likely, no battle at all. What would literally be the planet handed over effortlessly. And a pretty stupid solution at that IMO. And it would sort of render your point about:

Quote

These are scheduled events and you know exactly which merc corps you will be fighting against.

...completely invalid. So what is it to be, you expect to get an unoccupied planet for free or you might actually have to do something for it? Against a random assembly of house/lone wolf/whatever players?

Edited by Dlardrageth, 23 March 2012 - 12:02 PM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

The problem with BV, is going to come with Mechlab, if customization is involved BV is down the tube it just won't work.

Tonnage is crude but effective, very rare was it problematic in opens people took stuff based on the allotted tonnage and changed where required (perhaps i was spoilt playing on NBT servers).

The questions is what are PGI's plans for Tech level 2, will the older varients be phased out in favour of the newer designs/upgraded models or will they be added and the old relics kept.

Unless you have a hard on for old tech level 1 and fun the Lostech stuff is quickly going to over shadow the older stuff.

I honestly think opens will see a WoT's style take whatever you want no restrictions.
The campaign more like the Company battles, your given an allotment of BV/Tonnage and your team works it out.

Edited by DV^McKenna, 23 March 2012 - 12:05 PM.

[Outlaw2]

Dlardrageth, on 23 March 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

I do hope that means adding the surprise factor in occasionally. Especially as I don't think it makes any sense to just hand over planets without any effort just because you happen to be the only bidder for the current takeover and the defender unit is a no-show, dissolved or whatever.. That would be pretty ridiculous. So unless there is a contingency (the "militia", however it would be formed up), you don't have a defender. I could search for the posts made quite some time ago we discussed the particulars in, but can't be bothered really.
As of early december last year. Totally unheard of, that things might have become tweaked during several months, yeah...
And what actually happens in the match will be somewhat determined by what you face in said match. If you have no defenders the best you could get is an empty map. More likely, no battle at all. What would literally be the planet handed over effortlessly. And a pretty stupid solution at that IMO. And it would sort of render your point about:
...completely invalid. So what is it to be, you expect to get an unoccupied planet for free or you might actually have to do something for it? Against a random assembly of house/lone wolf/whatever players?

I think you are reading way to much into it and extrapolating into wishful thinking.
It simply means a border planet (thats fought over by merc corps) can one day be turned into a faction world so that faction players decide its outcome via pub matches. It can also just as easily be set as off limits to all by designating it as a core planet. Its simply a tool for the devs to control the flow of the map. However, feel free to suggest to the devs the idea about the "surprise factor". Could be cool.

I also think you are over blowing the "no defender" problem. Believe me there won't be a shortage of merc corps chomping at the bit to get a hold of these planets. Not only is it more c-bill but also bragging rights. Don't underestimate the later. I think the game has WAY bigger problems if we ever face a shortage of merc corps for these border planets. Go see WoT's "clans wars" system for a good indication on how this will play out. There is a long line of clans who have submitted an application and are waiting for the right to fight over the areas on the map (via the Landing Tournament system)

Edited by =Outlaw=, 23 March 2012 - 01:07 PM.

[Outlaw2]

DV^McKenna, on 23 March 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

The problem with BV, is going to come with Mechlab, if customization is involved BV is down the tube it just won't work.

Tonnage is crude but effective, very rare was it problematic in opens people took stuff based on the allotted tonnage and changed where required (perhaps i was spoilt playing on NBT servers).

The questions is what are PGI's plans for Tech level 2, will the older varients be phased out in favour of the newer designs/upgraded models or will they be added and the old relics kept.

Unless you have a hard on for old tech level 1 and fun the Lostech stuff is quickly going to over shadow the older stuff.

I honestly think opens will see a WoT's style take whatever you want no restrictions.
The campaign more like the Company battles, your given an allotment of BV/Tonnage and your team works it out.

I agree that if there is an involved mechlab, an involved BV system won't work too well. But the devs can make BV as simple or as involved as they want it to be. After all, you could look at a tonnage system as a simplified form of BV that only takes tonnage into consideration.

The tonnage system in NBT was crude, but I'd call it mildly effective at best. It did help to make many mechs and builds viable that otherwise wouldn't have been, but there was still an even longer line of stinkers.

It does come down to how PGI deals with tech level 2 (and all upgrades in general). Its at the heart of the matter, and why I keep insisting on this. It means that inferiority and superiority of certain mechs is built into the game and actually completely intentional. It why NBT always had a problem balancing mechs that had low tech level components. They were mechs that were meant to kinda suck, but NBT had no real solution on how to make them viable in matches (the cheaper automation prices never worked).

Public matches should allow players to take mechs they want, and let the matchmaker come up with a balanced team (ideally BV based).
The merc corps matches should be put together by the players working under certain BV totals.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 23 March 2012 - 01:34 PM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I agree with you totally about the higher tech levels Outlaw, which is why I don't think it will be in at the start, it just makes balancing easier. When it is introduced everyone will have to switch over or br outclassed. I'm not sure what happens if you are still levelling up your "old" variants whether they will introduce new ones or if you can upgrade with no penalties. This is the sort of thing that they have Beta's for of course. I'm sure that with the attention to detail they have shown so far the dev's will have a reasonable system. just as I'm sure that we will break it in the first day or two. There will alwys be problems that will only show up under stress testing. Especially when people don't know theyre not supposed to do something. At least we know that they do read what we write.