246 replies to this topic

[Scar]

Kallende Rathwynne, on 06 March 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:

I share your view to a certain extent. This is why mechs are divided into classes, in large part. I thought Mech Commander did a good job in this respect, certain mechs have certain roles and the scout who decides to go against a heavy or assault mech in a field is either desperate or suicidal. There's a reason they are described as Reconnaissance in terms of campaign roles. When used in such a role, they are force multipliers not skirmishers unless necessary and this is why a well balanced advance force will have at least two of these represented in their roster.
Mediums are ideally hunters or skirmishers, where the lights are more specialized. The Centurion is an archetypical skirmisher as is the Shadow Hawk and Phoenix Hawk. The Hunchback fills the role as the archetypical hunter. Its AC20 is what the entire design is built around, and it is generally still faster than its heavier counterparts to grant it survivability.
Heavies are where the archetypical killers are drawn from, this is the sweet spot range in mainstream thought for all around verstility. The Madcat, Thor, Thug, and Warhammer are classic examples of this. They can move and they can hammer while still taking a hit. The assault class really doesn't need much of an explanation, a lot of weight but slow with exceptions that are rare in the extreme like the Highlander. Not all assault mechs are intended for holding the line though, look into the Cyclops for such an example. The Cyclops is intended as a force multiplier if you have the numbers to justify it in your roster as it is intended as a mobile command unit for a sizeable advance force where logistics are likely to be sketchy. I hope this info is helpful

Agreed to the last word.

[Sears]

There could be some kind of Role roster or a team can comprise of a certain total combined weight. The dropship can only hold the combined weight of a balanced team, so if people did just want to rock a team of assaults they could but they would be a few team members down.

Would a balanced team of different roles always trump a team full of Atlas'? I know that the assaults weakness is it's speed, but if you have an Atlas covering another Atlas' back then i would imagine that would go a long way to covering it's weakness. And if the balanced team had a couple of long range heavies it would be a long old slog taking down 12 atlas' grouped together right?

[Mr MEAN]

Just loan me a Thanatos...nuf said

Stay MEAN !

[TwitchTv Morkani]

=Outlaw=, on 06 March 2012 - 07:54 AM, said:

Now ...this is exactly what I DONT want to see. I don't want out of game factors acting as strong determining forces on what mechs players will take for a match. Im not knocking the C-bill costs you are suggesting (since there really is no reference point to measure it with anyway), but the over the top time spent repairing the mechs it the deal breaker. And again, especially for competitive play (what Im personally looking forward to)
It promotes people to NOT use in regular pub matches the mechs they are usually assigned during competitive matches. This is completely lame, and smacks of WoT.

Besides, you can not base your or any match balancing system simply on weight class. Like many people including me are saying, some assaults will be inferior to some heavies...hell even some mediums. Not to mention completely outclassed by other mechs of similar role and weight. Thats the nature of BattleTech. You are going to need a much more refined measuring stick.

My thoughts on how to encourage "role warfare" have evolved a lot through this thread. This is just my most recent iteration, I suspect it could be refined further (off the top of my head....premium accounts have 1/2 the repair time or costs : yes, i know that also reeks of WOT, but why can't we take some pages from other games books)

I REALLY like this idea specifically because it's realistic. While the dev's plan to make "role warfare" the determining factor where an assault will be useless without a scout or need the assistance of other roles, I believe this is "idealistic". Hell...the appeal to the game in BOTH the trailers have featured an atlas as an "OH SH*T" moment. It should be obvoius that the vast majority of the player base will (if allowed) both use and abuse the largest mechs with the most firepower.

There HAS to be a risk vs. reward to balance this out.

=Outlaw=, on 06 March 2012 - 08:15 AM, said:

I get the idea behind it, but I just don't think it will work out too well
For causal open public play, a repair time system like this might work, but when you add competitive matches into the mix, it falls apart. It would be a VERY unsatisfying system for competitive players...and probably even for causal players tbh.
Im sure we can find other ways to simulate the advantages of OmniMechs without resorting to this.

I'm very open to other suggestions, please....this most recent suggestion is just the one i've heard of so far that i'm really excited about. I'd love an open dialogue about this topic for the dev's to peruse and possibly consider implimenting portions of to encourage role warfare.

Wraeththix Constantine, on 06 March 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

So what you're saying is, you don't want any reprocussions for what you do, to effect you?

I'm sure you don't. Most people would prefer to be able to just do whatever and have no reprocussions.

I propose that everyone who's saying "I want my assault" really isn't sitting down and thinking about it. Your assault isn't all that special when EVERYONE IS IN ONE. You might as well all be in lights. It's a question of scale. The reasons assaults are magical, is because they're massive (slow) walking death machines. If it's just atlas on atlas then you might as well all be in locusts.

And no matter what the game is, a good portion of random people are going to view every match as a deathmatch. that's just how Online games go.

If you want some reward, you should have to put in some risk. Risk is the spice of life. I'm not saying you need to mine for 3 weeks to build a mech (ala Eve Online), but having a cooldown on that mech seems a nice step to at least mean people have to THINK some before dropping nothing but killing machines.

That said, I didn't see a cooldown on lights or mediums. You should be able to drop any of (at least a backbone style) of light or medium at will. So no, there would be no "waiting".

It's either that, our your public games are just going to turn into all assaults, with the occasional guy in a fast mech who feels like doing a mission. It's true in MMORPGs, It's true in FPS, many and more don't care about the mission, they just want to shoot people. Expecting people to do otherwise is Naive, and will result in a very boring game.

ALSO THIS

Fugu, on 06 March 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

Repair time would however be a very frustrating thing for new players. Having no eyperience and only one mech it would really hurt to have to wait all the time. I can see that easily being way too frustrating for many new players.
I know I wouldn't like it.

These concerns I've included in the origional idea by having the option for paying c-bills to immediately repair instead of having to wait, & also the reason I made the c-bill costs so low for lights/mediums in comparison to other mechs.

One side benefit, I believe, of the method i proposed/expanded on, is this 'causes someone to REALLY think before going out to perform a "suicide" attack, or even running out to get the scouting missions done before you "die". Anyone who's played WoT knows there are those people who rush out in a light just to get the scouting bonuses before they suicide, this does nothing to improve the gameplay for either team. There's a LOT that can be done with a system like this.

[Sears]

Another way to encourage Role warfare is to reward role performance. If you say you're a scout you scout and you get paid at the end of the match or earn double xp for performing within your role. The downside to this would be how to make it more complex than simply ordering your squadmate to defend a position or take out an enemy. Perhaps when a scout spots an enemy and a catapult hits it's target because of it the scout gets a spotter bonus as well as an assist.

The only example i can think of and i am sure there are better ones is the Frago bonus you get in MAG whenever you get xp in the area your squad has been ordered too you get more xp.

Edited by Sears, 06 March 2012 - 10:58 AM.

[Fugu]

Morkani, on 06 March 2012 - 10:32 AM, said:

These concerns I've included in the origional idea by having the option for paying c-bills to immediately repair instead of having to wait, & also the reason I made the c-bill costs so low for lights/mediums in comparison to other mechs.

So, what you mean is that one can avoid the waiting time, when one is willing to spend more cash for the repair than usual.
That I can see working.

[Outlaw2]

Wyzak, on 06 March 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

Well, if we have units which are running like real Merc units, I think they will already be taking repair times into account when they schedule their matches, if for no other reason then role playing purposes. I've seen several "units" which operated their logisitics outside of whatever game they were using for competition who took the in-universe actions of their company very seriously; my point being I don't think they should be disadvantaged by having to take out a second-line mech while the others are in repair. And if you are, then don't take the contract. Does that make any sense?

We are gamers, not real mercs. And most gamers (sorry to say) are not roleplayers, so this wouldn't appeal to everyone simply out of RP.

However I'm all for making second-line mechs viable in matches. Thats what I have been pushing for here and other threads. Whats needed is a in-game/match balancing system, and not a system that relies too heavily on out of game costs or penalties. Something similar to a "battle value". BV takes into consideration not just weight but components and weapons too. But, by relying on a repair timer to balance matches you simply encourage players to never use their expensive/heavier/more potent mechs until its time for the important match. Competitive matches will be stuffed with all powerful mechs, and players will rarely if ever use those mechs in regular play in fear that it could cost that mech to sit out when really needed. This also makes the majority of mechs and game content act as liabilities in competitive matches (similar to WoT) . This is just incredibly lame in so many levels.

Wraeththix Constantine, on 06 March 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

So what you're saying is, you don't want any reprocussions for what you do, to effect you?

Holy crap, talk about Strawman arguments. You really need to read the entire thread. You would know that I am actually pushing for matches to not be assaultfests (im not even that much of an assault fan). Im all for repair bills, but a timer based repair system won't solve assault fests, especially for competitive play. All it will do is encourage players to never use their expensive/powerful mechs during regular play and then stack them all up during their competitive matches. Competitive matches then become devoid of gameplay diversity as only a narrow slice of the games "top tier" content is used. Thats why you need something that goes beyond the mechlab and in-game shop. You need a balancing system that works directly in the actual game/match. You make second-line mechs viable by making them viable in the match itself. Simply focusing on out of game cost and penalties will not work, and is subject to players gaming the system and promotes wallet warrior WoT syndrome to be competitive.

Yes, in-game/match BV system is needed. Assign mechs a value based on chassis, components and weapons. Public matches can be balanced using these values automatically by the match making service itself with zero involvement needed by players (since no one can be bothered these days). However, in competitive merc crops matches, the players can distribute the value amongst themselves by deciding who gets what.

Morkani, on 06 March 2012 - 10:32 AM, said:

I REALLY like this idea specifically because it's realistic. While the dev's plan to make "role warfare" the determining factor where an assault will be useless without a scout or need the assistance of other roles, I believe this is "idealistic". Hell...the appeal to the game in BOTH the trailers have featured an atlas as an "OH SH*T" moment. It should be obvoius that the vast majority of the player base will (if allowed) both use and abuse the largest mechs with the most firepower.

There HAS to be a risk vs. reward to balance this out.

I'm very open to other suggestions, please....this most recent suggestion is just the one i've heard of so far that i'm really excited about. I'd love an open dialogue about this topic for the dev's to peruse and possibly consider implimenting portions of to encourage role warfare.

Like I've been droning on about, a battle value system is needed. If we want to make lighter/less optimal mechs balanced, give them a lower value in-game that makes them desirable. That way taking the biggest, baddest mech can be a liability in the match without even touching its costs outside the game. I wont go into too much detail about this, since I've already written about it extensively above.

But Im with you that it seems a bit idealistic to believe that "role warfare" will balance matches. By itself it won't, and you definitely need something else. However relying on repair times won't work, especially on competitive matches for the reasons I already talked about. Also, deferring gameplay for more realism makes baby jesus cry. It won't make the game better. There are so many things about MW that are nowhere close to realistic, so don't get too hung up on realism. Gameplay considerations should always trump realism to a good extent.

If we want out of game risks associated with taking more expensive mechs, regulate it to repair costs (but with the idea thats its a secondary balancing feature next to a BV or equivalent system). I think the idea of repair times is a rather dubious feature, and should be dropped like a bad habit.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 06 March 2012 - 02:48 PM.

[Kiyoshi Amaya]

So far, all that has been said is about costs in one form or another.

How am I going to afford these repairs? And also, what about salvage?

[TwitchTv Morkani]

=Outlaw=, on 06 March 2012 - 01:15 PM, said:

If we want to make lighter/less optimal mechs balanced, give them a lower value in-game that makes them desirable. That way taking the biggest, baddest mech can be a liability in the match without even touching its costs outside the game.

I think you're bringing big picture "idea" into the single battle, but what makes you're argument work is an out of game cost. For instance, in TT or anything that uses BV, the reason you don't bring all of your big gunz at once is 'cause you don't want to face a Tom-tom or something equally horrible & risk loosing your favorite mechs. There's a risk associated with bringing your high BV stuff. But if there is no downside to being cored, people won't consider this.

=Outlaw=, on 06 March 2012 - 01:15 PM, said:

But Im with you that it seems a bit idealistic to believe that "role warfare" will balance matches. By itself it won't, and you definitely need something else. However relying on repair times won't work, especially on competitive matches for the reasons I already talked about. Also, deferring gameplay for more realism makes baby jesus cry. It won't make the game better. There are so many things about MW that are nowhere close to realistic, so don't get too hung up on realism. Gameplay considerations should always trump realism to a good extent.

If we want out of game risks associated with taking more expensive mechs, regulate it to repair costs (but with the idea thats its a secondary balancing feature next to a BV or equivalent system). I think the idea of repair times is a rather dubious feature, and should be dropped like a bad habit.

I'm saying the idea is realistic as opposed to idealistic.

I didn't consider though the meta-game implications of this idea, and I'd have to agree with you, at least in some part, that there might be some downsides on the meta-game front. HOWEVER, I think your assessment is a little bit harsher than what would actually prove to be the case. Remember, people will have multiple hangers, multiple heavy's/assaults, and can still pay c-bills to get their favorite mech repaired instantly. But it introduces a risk vs reward system.

Also, if your scenario is accurate, such that the important matches will be filled with all the assaults, doesn't that suggest that there is indeed an issue here that needs to be addressed? If nothing different is done, then what will prevent the "important" matches from being all assaults? I submit, my suggestion will address the issue for non-competitive matches by providing a risk to bringing the big guns, AND giving players experiences playing other roles. Then when the time comes for a competitive match, people will be more likely to bring something other than their big gunz, since they are familiar with it.

Finally, I am 100% on board with the BV matchmaking system. I just assumed that's how the matchmaking system would work in the first place. I am a little worried that if something isn't done to encourage role warfare and it does indeed turn out that most matches are a big gun slug fest where you'll have 12 mechs @ 2k BV, If i try to bring in a locust with a BV of 400, I wouldn't ever find a match 'cause I would make one side missing about 1600 bv. But hopefully that doesn't turn out to be the case.

Edited by Morkani, 06 March 2012 - 03:32 PM.

[Thomas Hogarth]

I'm on board with a BV-type balancing system as well, so long as that is not the only solution to balance.

I see no issue with having both matchmaking and financial balancing.

Imagine: Random matches are built with BV, but also with the suggestion of reduced earnings and/or higher repair costs the heavier you go. People will need their lights/mediums to make the money, and that gives the BV balancing system more of a range to work with, as well as promote a healthy 50/50 split between lights/mediums and heavies/assaults.

[Project_Mercy]

My concern on the BV thing is, most of the people bringing it up keep saying "for private games" or something like that. Maybe I missed a post or something, but last I read, this was the only talk about drops: http://mwomercs.com/...munity-warfare/

In fact, if you go to the Q&A 2, it specifically says

Quote

So, what kind of external third party league integration is being considered in relation to the community combat? –Pht

[BRYAN] Since MechWarrior® Online™ is by nature a competitive game, we’ve designed all aspects of gameplay to feed back into a variety of scoring systems to generate ladders, rankings/leaderboards, and statistics. We do not plan to support private matches or leagues at launch.

That means that you join a faction or your a lone wolf. You're either in a merc group or a nationality, but it's still a faction. Actions that happen effect your faction. That means it's extremly unlikely you can completely control the drop. There's always going to be other members of your factions, or lone wolfs, who are going to want to drop.

That means you can keep pulling the "well, let public games drop whatever" for two reasons 1.) there is no such thing as a public/private game and 2.) the actions of the other people effect your faction.

I wasn't set on the cool-down, it was just some idea I proposed. The reason I proposed it over the BV or tonnage system (or some slot for each mech) is that it's a relatively fair system. No, it's not good, but it's fair. If someone wants to drop an assault, there's nothing that limits them from doing it; but it limits the total number of assault drops so that you can still keep the assaults as powerful combat machines.


Personally, I don't care what they do, but I have the following requirements that I feel need met.

• People should have access to all the main mech classes at launch, otherwise grinding xp to unlock mech classes just results in a dead-end gameplay, because people grind up to assaults, and then get bored, or use them for everything, and feel they have a right to do it, because they had to grind to get them.
  
• Assault mechs, given equivelent piloting and weapon loadouts (in regards to range), should be more deadly than heavies, mediums, and lights. That means if a valkyrie and a archer duel, the archer should win, 90% of the time. That's Battletech, and that's where Mechwarrior came from. To do otherwise is to basically stamp BT on another game
  
• All assault mech games are boring and don't fit with the battletech universe. Because of the need for #2 to be true, there needs to be some limitation that forces lances/companies to drop a balanced unit, not 11 assaults and a jumping light to be the radar/narc sucker.
  
• Whatever system limits people's choices (per #3) needs to be equitable to everyone from lonewolf to guild leader.

So, if you can come up with a BV system that is required for every drop (there's no private matches, you can't toss out), and that meets rule #4, then I say that's not a bad way to do it. But repair builds seem a terrible way to do it, because I think it's fair to say that it's EXTREMELY Likely that there will be F2P options to increase C-bill intake, which means at the end of the day you're basically saying "You' can drop assaults all you want as long as you pay $$ for it". Which is pay-to-win. It may not be there at the start, but I'm confident it will show up soon enough.

That's why I came up with the cool-down system. It's fair, and it maintains the list above. And since there are no private matches, there's no reason to "hold off" on it.

[Draco Argentum]

Wraeththix Constantine, on 06 March 2012 - 04:16 PM, said:

Assault mechs, given equivelent piloting and weapon loadouts (in regards to range), should be more deadly than heavies, mediums, and lights. That means if a valkyrie and a archer duel, the archer should win, 90% of the time. That's Battletech, and that's where Mechwarrior came from. To do otherwise is to basically stamp BT on another game

Explain how this won't devolve into this:

Assaults are better, but have a cooldown. The result of a match is determined by which side gets the most.



If assaults are the combat machine for all situations there are two viable mechtypes, assault and scout. There have to be multiple situations where assaults lose to mediums and heavies or the WoT "all heavies all the time" boogeyman will come to pass. If that is true there is no need to punish people who pilot assaults in any other way.

[Project_Mercy]

Draco Argentum, on 06 March 2012 - 04:58 PM, said:

If that is true there is no need to punish people who pilot assaults in any other way.

Which is exactly the problem. If you're signing up to be "the assault person".. well, so are a good portion of the rest of the people on these forums. So either you're all in assaults, or you're fighting over who gets the assault points/spot, or you nerf assaults to be equal 1v1 against the other classes.

And yes, it's pretty well connonical that if you're in an assault, take & hold, or defense position, the person with the most assaults generally DOES win, just as if you were to pit 10 MIG 17s vs 10 F-22's, you would end up with a pile of dead MIGs.

And no, there doesn't need to be a case where that's balanced. The purpose on the assault is to do exactly that, kill other mechs that get near it. If it doesn't do that, then this is not Battletech. It's balanced in BT, because there's a limit to the number of Assaults you're using, just like basically every other minature game in existence. You don't field an army of Dreadnoughts in 40k, you don't field all heavy jacks in Warmachine. There's a limit to it. In all of them, it's some point system, similar to BV; but there's a system of limits.

Assaults are supposed to be scary. And if they weren't, nobody would want to pilot them.

This whole role thing is a farce. If there's no limit on value/tonnage, the lions share of people are going to be in assaults. The only mission where an army of mostly assaults and a scout does not win 100% of the time, would be one where it was multiple take & holds spread throughout a large map, on a very short timer. So, if you're going to make every mission, exactly the same, for the sole purpose of disuading people from dropping all assaults, I say that's a terrible way to increase longevity and a terrible way to balance something from the completely wrong side of the picture.

EDIT:

And as an addendum,

Quote

If assaults are the combat machine for all situations there are two viable mechtypes, assault and scout. There have to be multiple situations where assaults lose to mediums and heavies or the WoT "all heavies all the time" boogeyman will come to pass.

This is what battletech is about. Why do you think there's 100's of mech designs out there. Do you think people were lining up to jump in an Urbanmech or a Demolisher? (a tank with ac/20s). No, It was "well, I have some AC/20's and this is the best I can do.

Battletech was always about a limit on resources. The reason people were hunting for old Star League caches was because there were none of these you could get. You couldn't go down to the local dealer and order yourself up a new King Crab. People didn't use all assaults, not because they didn't want too, but because they just were rarer and expensive to field. Nobody would be fielding a hunchback if they could field an Atlas instead. They fielded the hunchback because that's all they had.

And, ignoring fluff for a second, at the end of the day that's where the beauty of Battletech comes into play. That's what made Battletech worth playing. When you drop with a hunchback, and a wolverine, a locust and a wasp and you end up taking out 2 heavies. That was an accomplishment. Dropping and determining if the other side is Awesomes, Atlases or Highlanders, is not really hair-raising.

So yes, you have "stuff that kill's stuff" that's it. That's the only role you have. Yes, some may move faster than others, and some may kill things at long rage vs short range, but in the end, all missions end in the same thing, "if the other side has no troops, you win by default". I've won tons of 40k tourneys on that principle with Tyranids. Murder every other unit on the other side, and you win, by default, irrelivent of what the actual mission goal is. So, speed and murder power is all there is too a mech. and an assault, is more murder power than a medium, given the same speed. So yes, that's all there is. scouting and killing.

People who do nothing but pilot assaults, and have no fear that they may loose it and be stuck back in a urbanmech, really aren't playing Battletech in my mind. It's just Halo with a slightly taller Masterchief.

Cue the guy with the "haters gonna hate" Urbanmech sig.

Edited by Wraeththix Constantine, 06 March 2012 - 05:53 PM.

[Thomas Hogarth]

It's worth noting that in my experience on tabletop, the percentage difference of win ratio between weight classes isn't as high as 90% normally. It's high, yes, but not that high. I'd hazard to say 60-70%. Maybe 80% if we're comparing a particulary well-designed heavier design vs. the next lighter one. The 90% figure would only come into play with a particularly poorly built lighter design vs. a particularly well built heavier.

Hell, there's plenty of lighter designs I'd gladly pit against heavies and expect, not hope, expect to come out on top.

I hope in MWO lighter chassis have a chance, and from what we've heard, they will.

Also,
The more I think about it, the more I like the concept of heavies/assaults not generating enough CB to pay for their operations. "but i won't be able to perform my role hurr durr" There is no role that cannot be performed by any of the four weight classes.

[Captain Red Shirt]

I'd say maybe have a random group of mechs available to you off the bat, like 1 or 2 of the three weight classes for example if you are gonna limit it

[Fluffinator]

Thomas Hogarth, on 06 March 2012 - 07:27 PM, said:

It

There is no role that cannot be performed by any of the four weight classes.

Capture the flag...lets see an atlas get there before the jenner or outrun all the things chasing it...
Or want a target...you have 15min to get to x and kill the traitor with the info before he can sell it...at a speed of 100 it will take you 14min to get there...go luck with an atlas

Edited by Fluffinator, 06 March 2012 - 11:03 PM.

[Draco Argentum]

Wraeththix Constantine, on 06 March 2012 - 05:21 PM, said:

So yes, you have "stuff that kill's stuff" that's it. That's the only role you have. Yes, some may move faster than others, and some may kill things at long rage vs short range, but in the end, all missions end in the same thing, "if the other side has no troops, you win by default".

If the metagame devolves to the point that killing every enemy mech is the best strategy most of the time then the game is just Quake 2 slowed down. Either the devs do better than that or I can just play some random fps and get a similar experience.

[RecklessFable]

Since I'm sure the devs have been thinking about this longer than we have, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on whether they figure out a good system for making games balanced. As for myself I imagine:

• Maps where jump jets are a great benefit.
  
• Terrain that is too tall/short/etc for certain classes to penetrate
  
• Objectives for specific roles.
  
• Teamwork pwning Herds of Elite Cats

I have to admit, though, Commander looks weak. I was hoping it might be the "buffer" class but maybe it just gains control of turrets or something? The problem then is multiple commanders competing for resources.


The main element missing from MMO style games vs. games like the MW or MC series is drop weight limits. Theoretically contract slots could fill as they are selected, creating a balanced team... Folks who don't want to deal with it could pick a mech and then press "Any Open" and get dropped into a match quicker. (Emphasis added because I'm liking this idea)

Edited by RecklessFable, 08 March 2012 - 01:42 PM.

[Name140704]

I'd like to see all classes up to heavy be available. My reason being assaults were rare/expensive. It should be something earned. Besides, there are plenty of heavies that have similar payloads to assaults. If you look at the Orion, it is simply a scaled down version of the Atlas.

[Solis Obscuri]

From the way the game has been described so far, I just don't think Assaults are going to be that much of an issue. I think they will have roles and places where they are very useful, but they aren't going to be the be-all end-all on a dynamic battlefield.

As for prevalence of firepower, most Assaults pack a hefty punch, but their biggest asset is typically that they can out-tank the hell out of everything else on the battlefield. But that comes at a steep cost of maneuverability and speed, and I prefer Heavies and the 80-tonners for most heavy fighting, unless I'm somewhere where I have to hold the line without room to maneuver or grab cover. That's where the big beasties are truly meant to shine, being able to stand alone in the middle of a heavy firefight and both dish it out and take it. But for mobile warfare, I'd rather have something can get out of it's own way.

And on the subject of 1:1 k/d ratio based on chassis, this game seems centered on team-based objectives, not 1-on-1 duels. It doesn't matter a lot if the Atlas beats the Jenner 2:1 or 3:1 under most 1v1 circumstances, so long as the Jenner is a much better platform for scouting enemy movements, spotting for fire support, and hunting down enemy scouts before they can do the same.

I really dislike the idea that things should need to be "unlocked" through grind - you take on a chassis and a role, you accept some limitations and you get some strengths. I'm assuming we're all going to start with either a starter chassis or a limited number of C-bills, but once players get some cash, they should be able to choose what they want to pilot without having to go through a bunch of speedbump bullshit.

And really, trying to balance game elements with metagame factors works terribly. If you make the Assaults "sit out" between matches, players will either just not play, or level a couple of alt-pilots, or just buy multiple Assaults on the same pilot. Making the Assaults take time to "unlock" is just a waiting game, and really whoever has nothing else to do all day than grind is going to be rolling Atlases at the end of week one, while the working world is still stuck in a Flea. Making it entirely a factor of C-bill grind is going to have similar problems - and while I'm ok with making completely repairing an Atlas cost quite a bit more than completely repairing a Commando, it shouldn't become a sit-out factor either.

I think as long as most of the game "rewards" (XP, C-bills, etc.) are based on objectives, not just mindless carnage, there will be a good degree of balance between the different 'mech classes.