56 replies to this topic

[VeiledMalice]

I've been on the forums for a while, and haven't seen anything concrete yet about how matches, especially public ones, will be balanced beyond the "12 vs 12" player limit. And let's be honest, even phenomenal pilots are going to get stomped if they're in mediums and heavies while the other side is in all assaults. One possible solution is going by tonnage - a drop limit, something most of us playing CBT are probably familiar with. But even there you have wildly varying capabilities from mech to mech. A 40 ton Cicada, for example, will get taken apart by similarly-weighted Whitworth, and that's before the clans arrive and everything gets thrown out the window insofar as weaponry that can be loaded onto a platform.

Speaking of the Clans, I've heard talk that IC vs Clan fights will be handled on a 12 vs 10 scale - 3 lances vs 2 stars, but this denies the possibility of IC players ever using Clan tech, even so much as an ER laser.

A better solution, I believe, is a modified Battle Value chart, similar to the one on http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Battle_Value. Of course, you couldn't actually use the one for the table top game. Fact of the matter is, despite PGI's noted (and appreciated) keeping to the spirit of the TT game, things aren't going to work the same in a real time sim. Certain weapons will be more or less effective than indicated by the numbers, and work better in conjunction with other weapon pairings.

However, that still doesn't solve the underlying problem of play balance. How will pub games get off the ground if the total BV of said game needs to be exact? Or even if it doesn't need to be exact, what tolerance level could you have before the game says you're too far over the limit? In a 12 v 12 match, we could be seeing BVs up into the tens of thousands based off of the TT rules, and that doesn't even take into account the proposed "Dropship" game mode where you're taking 3 mechs in per player.

My suggestion is then to throw out balancing the matches themselves, and instead balance it through awarding additional XP. I'll explain: if a team is going into a fight outmatched in BV over a certain tolerance level, say, 10 - 15%, then that team's members gain additional XP (both Pilot XP and Mech XP) based on how outmatched they are. Perhaps not on a 1:1 ratio, but maybe a 1:2.

So if said match takes place and one team is 10% under the tolerance level for BV, they would gain 5% additional XP for their performance in the match. Let's face it, warfare usually isn't fair, but this way not only would you gain bragging rights should you win, but additionally, you'd take away a bigger chunk of experience as well.

I should say that the team with a higher BV wouldn't gain less XP - there's no point in punishing them for having more stuff than the other guys.

TL;DR - If you have less mech in the match, you gain more XP for doing your job.

Have at it, folks.

[Fooooo]

It would be nice for some info on this from the devs, but so far all we have is that there will be a matchmaking system in place, weither the same MM for pub games is used for merc / house battles is another question to ask.

Do houses get to choose forces like merc leaders can ?

Then there is the clans (when they arrive), will they have to out bid each other ?

Either way, I wouldn't be against some sort of weight limits or as you described an xp "boost" for outmatched games tho for pubs that wont really be a problem as the MM will take care of that, its the planned battles where it matters most imo.

All that said, I'm all for no boosts no nothing, if you select 12 players all in scouts and have a strat for it by all means go for it imo.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Many people have suggested BV as a match making factor. I hope they take pilot level and player skill into account as well to modify the BV.

[geck0 icaza]

Well operating under the assumption that this game is like the previous ones where assault mechs cannot be beat due to various factors, then I will agree with your assessment.

However, we already know a few things that have me believe I need to see/know more about the game before making that conclusion.

1) The maps are very large and from what I have seen/read about the design philosophy they are made with lots of terrain to break up LOS and avoid the pop up/pop down sniping that took place in MW4.

2) LOS is VERY different in this game than it was for any game thus far.

3)Teammates targeting and transfering information

4) I believe I read/heard somewhere that there will be the ability to fire LRMs indirectly (this is in reference to number 3 on this list)

5) Commanders can call in indirect fire support

With all of these factors lets see how a combined and balanced force can overcome an all assault mech force, First lets clear something up: The game is intended to encourage all types of mechs so ideally you want some mechs from all weight classes. Not just meds/heavies.

I am going to reference a post I have already made due to it's relevance. You can find it here:

http://mwomercs.com/...110#entry158110

I realize that the example is a 16 mech group but that was based on the OP. The concept still applies.

Now initiating the fight: Scout mechs find assault mechs. Since the assault mechs don't have the speed to keep up everyone on the opposing team already knows what they are fighting, Where they are and maybe where they are headed. If deemed appropriate (based on how it works with cool downs, costs, ammo etc.) Artillery will rain.

This can be constant for all we know, but I'm not going to speculate THAT much. But the assault mechs will been under constant harassment by indirect LRM fire. The most frustrating part will be that the scouts will make it possible to do this without revealing where the majority of the opposing force is. Add to that the map design. The fast mech will be able to constantly poke in and out of LOS while doing their job. Since there are no fast mechs to shoo them away they can do it pretty easily.

Coming to blows: Because of all the constant harassment, armor is going to be worn down. Lets assume the group is highly disciplined and hasn't stretched them selves out (which under the constant harassment is impressive). Because of the constant information the opposing force will know exactly where the assaults are coming from. This is where mid/heavies hit the flanks and isolate the few mechs there with the entire lance. And to prevent the assaults in the middle from helping the assault lance will be in a defensive position to the front. By this time the faster mechs can move around and start hitting the rear.

Now this can devolve in three ways:

1) the assaults will try to counter whatever side they are being attacked on. This is bad. Each flank will split from the main force and each individual fight will turn into a running fight. When the constant hit and run, combined with the earlier harassment the 1-2 assaults will be in no shape for that kind of fight. If theres only one, 3v1 is not easy no matter the tonnage.

2) The assaults will establish a defensive position watching all angles of approach. (Read above: Indirect LRM's and Artillery) GG

3)They continue to move forward towards the assault mechs in an attempt to close with the one part of the unit they can catch. (Best solution) Leaving the remaining force at your flank or rear. That much fire power on your sides/rear sets up the melee that is sure to ensue with odds that are against you.

In conclusion: I don't believe your assertions are incorrect. But given the information we have the devs are aware of these concerns just as much as we are. And hopefully they will be able to make the above example possible.

[VeiledMalice]

Hmm... I like the way you're thinking, Geck0, but you might be attributing too much importance/power to artillery. I think that's more going to be an area denial/harassment ability. Or you'll only be able to use it so many times per game, etc.

And of course it's too early to speculate on actual game elements as they pertain to in-game balancing. My only purpose in putting forward my suggestion was perhaps leveling the playing field in terms of experience gain so public matches wouldn't need to be perfectly balanced in order to go forwards.

[geck0 icaza]

Yeah, none of use at this point know what artillery will really do to the battlefield. Just really using the constant harassment and pokes as an example. But I do like the idea of XP earned by how tough the match up is. But I think this will a apply mostly pilot vs pilot. But hopefully we will all get a chance to see for ourselves.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

At the moment it seems the Devs are going to leave it up to players

Quote

[DAVID] Our goal is not to enforce which ’Mechs players can bring to a team, but rather to make it desirable and ideal for players to put together a well-balanced lance/company instead of just the biggest ’Mechs they can get their hands on.

Given human nature thats going to be 11 Heavies/assaults and 1 light. Thats going to get very boring. The only thing that might have a factor is repair costs - which means those that can afford it will stomp those that can't (or wont).

[FinnMcKool]

there was some where that one of the DEVs said that it is possible for teams to drop unbalanced ,

no explanation from what I remember , it would be nice if they would give us a little more information

about how the matches / drops will work , Im all for more EXP . points but we dont no how things will

work yet.

[Garth Erlam]

For those who think that '12 assaults will always beat...' I'm curious what you think would happen in this situation:

12 assaults vs. 10 Catapults and two spotting Jenners.

[Tombstoner]

For your example ammunition supply – the indirect fire will savage the assaults at first, but stop. The energy weapons of the assaults then mop up.
As a viable strategy in a “real” war then yes this situation would be sufficient to counter the assault unit. Sadly in a 12vs12 match not a great option
Now if the missiles are buffed up to make this scenario a possibility then LRMS risk becoming over powered. unless your going to impliment
mech specific weapon/ armor coeficents.

[geck0 icaza]

It would help to know the damage value of LRM's in this game. If it's closer to the Table Top then the atlas is supremely screwed after just one volley. If its more like MW4, the assaults have it. That's the real deciding factor that would change the above equation.

[GDL Irishwarrior]

Garth Erlam, on 14 March 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

For those who think that '12 assaults will always beat...' I'm curious what you think would happen in this situation:

12 assaults vs. 10 Catapults and two spotting Jenners.

"Our LRMs will blot out the sun!"
"Then we will fight in the shade..."

[Jehan]

Garth Erlam, on 14 March 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

For those who think that '12 assaults will always beat...' I'm curious what you think would happen in this situation:

12 assaults vs. 10 Catapults and two spotting Jenners.

Mmmm... I'm not sure which situation is worse, from a 'varied gameplay' perspective...

I think people is also concerned about facing 'balanced' armies of 12 assault mechs (with assault scouts/spotters and commanders) or yet worse, 12 assault 'commander' mechs deploying artillery and airstrikes right and left in addition to their heavy firepower and armor...

[Victor Morson]

Garth Erlam, on 14 March 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

For those who think that '12 assaults will always beat...' I'm curious what you think would happen in this situation:

12 assaults vs. 10 Catapults and two spotting Jenners.

That depends largely on what the 12 assaults are; you do bring up what I've been concerned about, however, which is that lights will have work (scouts) and assaults will have work; heavies sometimes work as the fairly maneuverable cannons and mediums will be largely ignored.

Since the only assault confirmed is an Atlas, this is hypothetical: 10 Catapults and 2 spotting Jenners vs 10 Longbows and 2 spotting Jenners. I'm going to go ahead and say the Longbows win. Likewise, if we are to go the other direction and say 10 Trebuchets and 2 Spotting Jenners vs 10 Catapults and 2 Jenners, the Catapults win it.

To further the comparison, let's take a look at the Hunchback. What can a Hunchback do an Atlas can't? They run at a similar speed, both carry an AC/20 and some lasers, but the Atlas carries more armor, extra firepower including LRMs, etc. The Atlas is simply better at the Hunchback's role than the Hunchback. Even if it beats the Atlas in terms of turn rate or acceleration, the importance of that goes greatly down in team games where focus fire is key.

I'm not saying heavies would be entirely ignored. The fastest heavies (probably with energy weapons or very long range stuff) would still have niche play in any army. But essentially what is happening if weight classes aren't limited is we have precisely two roles, with two sub-roles:

Scouts
Pure Scout
Fighting Scout
Fighter
Close Brawler
Fire Support

Ultimately scouts will go with the fastest designs (lights and mediums) and the majority of fighters will go with the heaviest thing they can get their hands on (Assaults and heavies). This really knocks mediums to a niche role off of scouting, which none of the announced mediums are very good at (Centurions, Hunchbacks, etc. are not known for their speed nor are they that moddable to a scout role, in general).

I'm worried that if the factor that tries to push mediums is XP, all that will happen is good teams will farm pubbies for XP and break out the assaults and high-tier heavies when it comes time to get to serious business.

I'm really hoping that there might be some elaboration as to why players might take a medium 'mech in a combat-centric role over an assault or a heavy that fills a niche role (such as a fast moving sniper). In other words, from the 'mechs we know, what advantage in a team game would a Hunchback have over an Atlas, and why if you could afford either would you ever consider piloting a Hunchback at all?

EDIT: To clarify, the advantage to piloting medium 'mechs in previous games and leagues was one of two things: What you had available (early NBT) or being able to free up space for other players to drive heavier 'mechs (Everything since, tonnage or BV system alike). By a handful of players running heavily armed "fighting" mediums, they might allow another lance to ton up from heavies (such as the Catapult example) to assaults that fill the same role (say, Longbows or Maulers hypothetically), giving the team a different flavor than it would have had otherwise. Effectively a team could be made or broken by having a few people in weaker variants, giving more space for others to be in stronger models.

I realize that's probably a bit too complicated for the typical casual gamer, of course (in particular since everyone needs to own their own 'mechs) but even if hard limits on a per-mission basis were enforced (X light or lower slots, X medium or lower slots, etc.) it would be easy enough to understand and give a very valid reason to be an ace medium 'mech pilot.

Edited by Victor Morson, 14 March 2012 - 07:28 PM.

[FinnMcKool]

well I was hoping some DEV would take the bait and tell us more about how the drops / matches , will be set up
(guess he was to smart for me)
and more about how they work because it will make a difference IMO , there could be weight restrictions or BV ,
or a MED/ somthing fast to hunt the scouts but powerful enough to kill them fast, MEDs. could also fill a roll of
protecting the commander.

But what I feel will help is knowing more about the way drops or matches will be decided .

[Dlardrageth]

Garth Erlam, on 14 March 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

For those who think that '12 assaults will always beat...' I'm curious what you think would happen in this situation:

12 assaults vs. 10 Catapults and two spotting Jenners.

Sounds like it will be an extremely interesting match for the Jenners... not. Not that it really matters, as long as noone requires me to be one of the poor sods/idiots/peons in the Jenners. You might to have to actually pay me for real, in order for me to even consider doing that job, being an overhyped binocular for the Catapults. If that is the role envisioned for light Mechs then good luck getting enough players bothering to do this menial job.

[Paladin Brewer]

I'd say it also depends on terrain. 10 Catapults aren't so scary in urban combat.

Though they say a balanced team is better, I have to wonder. Scouts are great......before the fight begins. But all that does is maybe give you an element of surprise. Once the shooting begins, the other team knows where you are, and that's when the big guns begin to have an advantage, and scouts do not (skill aside, of course).

Now if light/medium mechs have a noticeable improvement on weapon convergence, that might make quite a difference.

[Victor Morson]

Paladin Brewer, on 14 March 2012 - 10:54 PM, said:

I'd say it also depends on terrain. 10 Catapults aren't so scary in urban combat.

Also "10 Assaults" doesn't specify what kind; the implication that only Catapults are a fearsome missile boat isn't really an accurate one. The scenario gets 10 times more deadly if you swap the 10 Catapults for say, 10 Maulers which can do everything the Catapult can do but better.
Assault doesn't mean slow, ponderous and close range all of the time.

Also I'd honestly fear the scenario if the assaults were, say, 12 Awesomes brimming with direct fire ER PPCs and decent enough terrain cover; the Catapult scenario feels abit like a straw man with a lot of flaws.

Edited by Victor Morson, 14 March 2012 - 11:07 PM.

[Siilk]

There's one thing that could promote lighter mech fights vs heavier ones and make if as fair as possible: uneven teams. We are always talking about 12 v 12 here but consider this: 8 vs 16. Same BV per team, twice as much per player for the smaller team. Same total BV would make the match generally fair while difference in number of players would make "a handful of assaults, swarmed with lights and mediums" scenario possible. Maybe we can even go as far as 6 vs 18, to make it a really interesting.

Dlardrageth, on 14 March 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

If that is the role envisioned for light Mechs then good luck getting enough players bothering to do this menial job.

It hasn't to be a lot, actually. 1-2 dedicated scouts per team is more than enough and that's what I usually see in MWLL pub games. There's always a guy who rides a Raven, NARCing enemy mechs or spotting for LT. There are people who just like it that way. But yes, most of scout's score comes for target designation, not from his own kills, so not everyone would be up to this role.

Edited by Siilk, 14 March 2012 - 11:51 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

Aegis Kleais™, on 14 March 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

They will have blotted out the skies with their LRMs.

Can you imagine up to 300 LRMs coming down on 1 Atlas per salvo if all Cataps were in range? Not only are you guaranteed a knockdown and pretty much sheering off all armor in 1 attack, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was an insta-kill as well.

Atlas pilot's last words: "So many LRMs! I can't see a darn thing! ....... sure is pretty though." *BOOM*

I'm sure that you get smacked when you try to fight 12 Atlas with 10 Catapults and 2 Jenners.
12 shots 20lrms for the Atlas = 8 shots 30 lrms for the Catapult
But what you see is: the Atlas is able to fire a single salvo on every enemy mech, while the Catapult can only deal damage towards 8 mechs
leaving 4 mechs unharmed.

Next 300lrms are theoretical not able to deal more damage as the armor of a Atlas can take. 240 lrms on the opposite ...kill a single catapult