56 replies to this topic

[warner2]

Having extra experience points for matches where you are out tonned (or out BV'd) is an interesting idea. It might even lead to teams going in under tonned (or under BV'd) on purpose to boost the experience they get?

This talk of a match making system is worrying for me. I really want to play this game. I will play this game, to try it out. However, if there is some match making system in-place that plays out like say world of tanks (or any number of other on-line games), where you play one drop in a public match with the teams pulled together by the match making system, then when it ends (15 minutes?), you repeat the process, I may not play it for long. If we assume there are lots of people playing the game (and if it's popular, like I hope, there will) then you end up playing public match after public match with and against a bunch of faceless players that don't know, and you'll likely never see the same face in an evening worth of gaming, so wott' get to know them. If someone can tell me how that differs from a single player game I'm all ears.

I stopped playing WOT partly because of that, also partly because Clan Wars had a lot in common with the end game or high level game of something like LOTRO and WOW in that you needed high tier or effectively high level tanks to play it.

Right now I'm eagerly awaiting news from the development team on this sort of thing. Hopefully, it won't turn out like that.

[Aegis Kleais]

Karl Streiger, on 15 March 2012 - 12:32 AM, said:

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

10 Catapaults. Each with 2xLRM15 = 300LRM per salvo. The Catapaults need to just be in range, not line of sight, in order to benefit from the Jenner's targeting, so the Atlases don't even have the opportunity to fire on the Cataps. A salvo of 300 LRMs would be an instant kill to even an Atlas. So all the Jenners need to do is individually target each Atlas, Cataps Fire, dead Atlas. The Jenners can keep range on the Atlases to ensure they're not endangered. Rinse and repeat.

Heck, they could do 50/50 to eliminate the Atlases even faster. 150LRM won't destroy the Atlas, but he'll have a myriad of weapons destroyed and armor blown off. Even if they saw where the LRMs were coming from, the Cataps could move and relocate by the time they were endangered.

This of course doesn't take many battlefield aspects into account.

[Karl Streiger]

I'm not sure how it should work...the Jenner spot but keep out of range??? What is able to spot can be shot. So 12 Atlas should be more than capable to obliberate those Jenner - the key is concentrated fire.
Next way for the Assault mechs is to ignore the Jenner and walk towards the position where the lrms came from - at least i'm little bit curious how the LRM will really work...like those bad hyperactive lrms from MW4 or more the smooth lrms from MW3 - next is where did the missles hit..if all LRMs hit the center torso you are right...150 to 300 lrms will be a instant dead to every unit - but if they are implemented more in a TT way than the damage will hit the Atlas everywhere and some will even miss

[Nik Van Rhijn]

That is assuming that they are all Atlas' - Devastators and Maulers would be a better pick, with a few Awesomes, maybe running a Dragon as a "scout"!? In PUG matches you can't guarantee team play or a balanced choice, which means mediums, especially those we have so far, have a real problem in surviving. Unless of course the gameplay is totally different to anything we've seen before,

[VeiledMalice]

warner__, on 15 March 2012 - 04:29 AM, said:

This talk of a match making system is worrying for me. I really want to play this game. I will play this game, to try it out. However, if there is some match making system in-place that plays out like say world of tanks (or any number of other on-line games), where you play one drop in a public match with the teams pulled together by the match making system, then when it ends (15 minutes?), you repeat the process, I may not play it for long. If we assume there are lots of people playing the game (and if it's popular, like I hope, there will) then you end up playing public match after public match with and against a bunch of faceless players that don't know, and you'll likely never see the same face in an evening worth of gaming, so wott' get to know them. If someone can tell me how that differs from a single player game I'm all ears.

If I may ask, Warner, how do you see the matchmaking system working? There will of course be faction on faction and merc on merc, etc, matches, but with fully 1/4 of the population of the boards taking the role of Lone Wolves (at last count) one has to expect a sizable number of pub games. And that doesn't even account for when you simply can't find enough members of your own faction/company to play with at the exact moment you feel like playing. For that, a matchmaking system has to be put in place, or you're going to have people working out the hassle of trying to organize 12 on 12 matches by themselves for each and every 15 minute round.

I don't want to make it sound like I'm an authority on how it's actually going to work, of course - I'm not. But expecting that every play experience is going to be with people you know is perhaps... asking too much.

And as to your question of how this will differ from a single player game... well, the "story", such as it is, is of course going to be handled by the various factions fighting each other and new content added by PGI instead of a written one.

[warner2]

VeiledMalice, on 15 March 2012 - 07:36 AM, said:

If I may ask, Warner, how do you see the matchmaking system working? There will of course be faction on faction and merc on merc, etc, matches, but with fully 1/4 of the population of the boards taking the role of Lone Wolves (at last count) one has to expect a sizable number of pub games. And that doesn't even account for when you simply can't find enough members of your own faction/company to play with at the exact moment you feel like playing. For that, a matchmaking system has to be put in place, or you're going to have people working out the hassle of trying to organize 12 on 12 matches by themselves for each and every 15 minute round.

I don't want to make it sound like I'm an authority on how it's actually going to work, of course - I'm not. But expecting that every play experience is going to be with people you know is perhaps... asking too much.

And as to your question of how this will differ from a single player game... well, the "story", such as it is, is of course going to be handled by the various factions fighting each other and new content added by PGI instead of a written one.

Hi! As I understand it there will be two types of matches going on. The organised 12 v12 matches as you say, faction on faction and merc on merc, and I intend to be part of a mercenary unit, then there will be public or open matches, call it what you will. Now it's the second category specifically that I'm talking about, since it's those that will be driven by a match making system (as I understand it).

So let's say I'm not playing with my mercenary unit tonight, as there are two many of us on holiday in the sun (or whatever), so I'll play some public/open matches this evening. This is where I have my concerns, since it's these matches that will be driven by a match making system (as I understand it).

If that system puts me with a bunch of random people for a 15 minute match, then another match with another set of people and so on, that's a poor player experience IMO. No better than World of Tanks (ever played it?).

To come it from another angle, in-case you're wondering how else the public/open matches might look, I'm used to playing on static servers. So I join a server, it might be my favourite server, one where I know some friends will be, and I play drop after drop with and against the same players. Now that fosters a community since you get to know people. If you're used to that sort of thing, then playing drop after drop with random players put together by a match making system just doesn't appeal at all. I'd just as well be fighting with and shooting at NPCs.

[MaddMaxx]

Quote

"I'm not sure how it should work...the Jenner spot but keep out of range??? What is able to spot can be shot. So 12 Atlas should be more than capable to obliterate those Jenner"

Not necessarily. The Atlases have LRM's but beyond those, their range is Close (270m max) based. So a Jenner, spotting from 500m, peaking from behind cover, with a minimal radar signature, could sit and watch those Atlases eat those missiles with out fear.

If the Atlases did spot the Jenner, seeing a missile volley head in their direction simply means a quick step back behind cover and those missile would be wasted. As noted, the Jenner's can be well away from the Catapults location as well as they relay targeting data to a Commander and then onward to the Missile platforms.

It might actually make for an interesting encounter in Beta to see how it turns out for real.

Note to self: Set up 10 Cats and 2 Jenner's vs 12 Atlases (all stock) to see how it goes. LOL

Edited by MaddMaxx, 15 March 2012 - 08:05 AM.

[VeiledMalice]

warner__, on 15 March 2012 - 07:49 AM, said:

Hi! As I understand it there will be two types of matches going on. The organised 12 v12 matches as you say, faction on faction and merc on merc, and I intend to be part of a mercenary unit, then there will be public or open matches, call it what you will. Now it's the second category specifically that I'm talking about, since it's those that will be driven by a match making system (as I understand it).

So let's say I'm not playing with my mercenary unit tonight, as there are two many of us on holiday in the sun (or whatever), so I'll play some public/open matches this evening. This is where I have my concerns, since it's these matches that will be driven by a match making system (as I understand it).

If that system puts me with a bunch of random people for a 15 minute match, then another match with another set of people and so on, that's a poor player experience IMO. No better than World of Tanks (ever played it?).

To come it from another angle, in-case you're wondering how else the public/open matches might look, I'm used to playing on static servers. So I join a server, it might be my favourite server, one where I know some friends will be, and I play drop after drop with and against the same players. Now that fosters a community since you get to know people. If you're used to that sort of thing, then playing drop after drop with random players put together by a match making system just doesn't appeal at all. I'd just as well be fighting with and shooting at NPCs.

Hmm, that's a good point. About fostering a community, I mean. I would like to be able to drop in and out as needed, of course, but your point about choosing your own server has a lot of merit. Honestly, I don't have a lot of experience with recent multiplayer games. I only recently got back into them with MW:LL and have been doing some of the stuff with Syndicate and ME3 multiplayer, the latter of which have the random, "grab bag" matchmaking system you spoke of. And WoT, despite my love for the vehicles themselves, doesn't really appeal.

I guess we'll have to see, but I do hope there is some mechanism in place where you're able to chose your own server on the basis of being able to play with friends.

[Victor Morson]

Aegis Kleais™, on 15 March 2012 - 05:34 AM, said:

10 Catapaults. Each with 2xLRM15 = 300LRM per salvo. The Catapaults need to just be in range, not line of sight, in order to benefit from the Jenner's targeting, so the Atlases don't even have the opportunity to fire on the Cataps. A salvo of 300 LRMs would be an instant kill to even an Atlas. So all the Jenners need to do is individually target each Atlas, Cataps Fire, dead Atlas. The Jenners can keep range on the Atlases to ensure they're not endangered. Rinse and repeat.

Heck, they could do 50/50 to eliminate the Atlases even faster. 150LRM won't destroy the Atlas, but he'll have a myriad of weapons destroyed and armor blown off. Even if they saw where the LRMs were coming from, the Cataps could move and relocate by the time they were endangered.

This of course doesn't take many battlefield aspects into account.

Everyone assumes that you'll have Atlas and nothing configured for spotting in the proposed scenario (though I argue that 10 Assaults vs 10 Heavies, both teams with 2 spotters is a far more fair comparison), which is really an unfair comparison.

Like I mentioned in an earlier post if we assume, say, the 10 Assaults are Maulers and they have a spotter, they can do everything the Catapult can do (short of jump, I suppose) - but better. They have more firepower, more armor, you name it. There would be no reason if you were setting up around an LRM-Spotter scenario to ton down to Catapults if a Mauler was available.

A friend of mine also pointed out even if we were considering one team armed with Atlas, it'd still be close since they do have an LRM-20/2x LRM-10 typically and a lot more armor, allowing them to stand quite a chance.

It just seems that the question posted about the spotters/tonnage doesn't take a lot of factors into account and misses the core issue. I am convinced that recon will be useful, I am convinced combat units will be careful but I see no reason not to go as light and fast as possible for recon and heavy and damaging as possible for fighting if there's no other limiting factor.

[Pht]

VeiledMalice, on 14 March 2012 - 08:16 AM, said:

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.

No.

Simply because the other side has more assaults does not mean they will win, not even a majority of the time.

MW4 completely screwed up the balance of the parent system and heniously favored assaults because of it. MWO need not go that route.

If they port in the balance that underlies the parent system there will be a multitude of truly viable options for lighter mechs to bash the snot out of assaults.

Edited by Pht, 15 March 2012 - 05:16 PM.

[geck0 icaza]

Another possible balancing factor is the mod slots. If a good commander needs 3-4+ slots to be highly effective then the mechs that will have the slots and the desired abilities will be chosen. What if the atlas only has 1 slot and hunchback has 5? At that point a hunchback can call in artillery, mark targets for others, while in mag vision or thermal plus anything else they want to add. Plus I know that the hunchback only moves marginally faster than the Atlas in the TT but it is possible they will boost it for the sake of game balance. I know god forbid they change anything from the canon but they did say that some things that work well for the TT simply won't in the video game.

NOTE: the dev was a genius turning this conversation into a non-paid brainstorming session

[Victor Morson]

Pht, on 15 March 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

No.

Simply because the other side has more assaults does not mean they will win, not even a majority of the time.

MW4 Mechwarrior 1 - 4, Living Legends and even MechCommander completely screwed up the balance of the parent system all generally work this way and heniously favored assaults because of it. MWO need not go that route.

Sorry for the sarcastic edit, but this is basically the situation. A team that vastly outweighs the other team overall is going to have a huge advantage; sometimes a team that's underweight stands a chance - in particular if the skill ratio is off or a very specific gimmick is used - but overall, a team of all assaults versus a team of all mediums is a losing proposition. When a situation is encountered like that in a MechWarrior game the most the medium team can hope to do is inflict losses, not win.

The reason medium 'mechs could feasibly do alright in the table top game is INIT, and how it works; where if fast enough a unit can simply stay out of sight until init is won and then only reveal themselves to hit the rear table. However if the pilots are even REMOTELY close to even, 12 assaults vs 12 mediums of the same tech base is not going to end well there, either. Init paralyzing pilots from acting and allows small mechs to get behind them is not something that can be "ported" from the "parent system." If someone were to play out 4 Hunchbacks vs 4 Atlas with the Atlas having 1 less skill point per pilot than the Hunchbacks, you'd probably end up with all but the luckiest of games (multiple AC20 headshots) going to the Atlas 99% of the time.

In 1v1s, lighter 'mechs can win out with maneuverability and stuff but in focused fire, no, they can't. They never have been able to. This isn't new to MechWarrior 4, it's entirely inherit to BattleTech in general and most definitely to any real time take on it. If you honestly think there is any reason to take a medium in an direct fighting role over an assault in a direct fighting role, I'd love to hear it without some anecdote about some one in a million victory to back it up.

Edited by Victor Morson, 15 March 2012 - 06:16 PM.

[Pht]

Victor Morson, on 15 March 2012 - 06:13 PM, said:

... but overall, a team of all assaults versus a team of all mediums is a losing proposition. When a situation is encountered like that in a MechWarrior game the most the medium team can hope to do is inflict losses, not win.

Where there are no penetrating hits that really mean anything, where weapons convergence is pin-point, where you can very directly control where each and every one of your weapons is going to hit, where energy weapons are sticky-instant hit-hitscan, where the armor and damage values are messed up such to favor assaults and large weapons, yes, of course lighter mechs are screwed.


Where there are penetrating hits and convergence and damage and armor factors which represent how a BTU battlemech actually performs, lighter mechs have a chance besides always winning the initiative rolls.

In video game format, the INIT stuff is represented by the greater manoverablility and speed of the light mechs. If the convergence and overall performance of how well a BTU mech chan handle its weapons are ported over correctly, mediums can viably beat assaults if properly played; which means, "don't be a mental midget and play the assault game of slug it out."

Otherwise? Yeah, assaults are probably going to win most times in the "games they are built to win" ... slugging it out, for example ... and they should.

[Semyon Drakon]

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*

Now imagine it with Arrow IV's...that's 20 missiles per volley, each Jenner picks a single target...fights over pretty fast, And remember AMS doesn't target Arrow IV's.

Semyon

[Victor Morson]

Pht, on 15 March 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

Where there are no penetrating hits that really mean anything, where weapons convergence is pin-point, where you can very directly control where each and every one of your weapons is going to hit, where energy weapons are sticky-instant hit-hitscan, where the armor and damage values are messed up such to favor assaults and large weapons, yes, of course lighter mechs are screwed.

Where there are penetrating hits and convergence and damage and armor factors which represent how a BTU battlemech actually performs, lighter mechs have a chance besides always winning the initiative rolls.

Better (higher BV 'mechs) simply put always have the edge over worse (lower BV 'mechs) and often a large chunk of this BV is determined by the weight class, as well as the tech level, of the 'mechs involved. None of these things change that. It doesn't matter if it's a turn based game or an FPS or an RTS, if it's even remotely close to BattleTech that's how it is.

Pht, on 15 March 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

In video game format, the INIT stuff is represented by the greater manoverablility and speed of the light mechs. If the convergence and overall performance of how well a BTU mech chan handle its weapons are ported over correctly, mediums can viably beat assaults if properly played; which means, "don't be a mental midget and play the assault game of slug it out."

Otherwise? Yeah, assaults are probably going to win most times in the "games they are built to win" ... slugging it out, for example ... and they should.

The goal of the primary game type is to either destroy the enemy team or destroy the enemy team's stuff. It's not being a "mental midget" to ton up if there's no restrictions, because unless you want to tie a hand behind your back, that's exactly what you have to do without a drop limiting system.

[Heronimus Bosch]

Semyon Drakon, on 15 March 2012 - 07:05 PM, said:

Now imagine it with Arrow IV's...that's 20 missiles per volley, each Jenner picks a single target...fights over pretty fast, And remember AMS doesn't target Arrow IV's.

Semyon

Sorry Semyon, but a Catapult equipped with Arrow IV's carries only 1 launcher with 5 missiles, so it would be only 10 missiles per volley.

[Victor Morson]

Heronimus Bosch, on 15 March 2012 - 07:33 PM, said:

Sorry Semyon, but a Catapult equipped with Arrow IV's carries only 1 launcher with 5 missiles, so it would be only 10 missiles per volley.

A Longbow can carry two, however, back to the original point of "Catapult or Assault?"

[Belisarius1]

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.

I realise that it's just an example, but speaking from experience as someone who's been on both ends of that in a coordinated environment, it's an interesting and challenging situation. Indirect, spotted fire requires an excellent commander and excellent coordination between spotter and team, or it's a total mess.

First, the lights have to be visible to give targeting information (I assume). That means 1200t of angry death has nothing to shoot at but a tiny jenner; it's pretty common for the spotter to die the instant he slips up, and then his team is screwed.

Second, terrain can be used to block missiles if you know where they're coming from. If the assault FC is good he can waste so many missiles on intervening terrain that they run out of rounds before his guys run out of armour. Because of this, the catapults have to be constantly moving to keep fire going through cleanly.

That, in turn, gives the assault FC a means to control where they go and trap them in a corner. It's surprising how hard it is to keep space and deny LOS from a determined, tough 60kph 'Mech even if yours goes 90kph. Map borders and -ing mountains are everywhere. This is also why catas are better than longbows a lot of the time, as they can at least try to get away. .

Also, all this is from experience with arrow fire on narc beacon spotters. Arrows shoot something like 2.5kph, and narcs are fire-and-run, and yet the missile guys still lost a lot of the time. You can bet it will be harder if the indirect guys have to be within 1000m.

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

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.

I'm really starting to wonder why you want to pilot lights and play a scout. That's what scouts do, they watch and they harass. What would you prefer to do? What do you actually envisage your light doing? Because if you want to kill things, your options are (and should be): 1) to harass targets down from range, slowly. 2) to take a hunter-killer and kill other lights, or 3) take an agile brawler and accept that you're outgunned if you run into an atlas who knows how to stop you getting behind him. If you don't want to kill things, why is it such a chore to help your team do so?

As to whether it's an interesting match, those "poor sods" are acting as the one visible avatar of a vengeful sky-god. Who does OpFor have in los to take their frustration out on? Yeah, you. You bet your life will be interesting. Brief, too, if you're not a pilot par excellence.

Edited by Belisarius†, 15 March 2012 - 07:58 PM.

[Pht]

Victor Morson, on 15 March 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

Better (higher BV 'mechs)...

Higher bv does not mean a mech is better. If the BV system was actually as good as you're implying it is at representing how good a mech is, it wouldn't be being replaced, and it is.

Quote

The goal of the primary game type is to either destroy the enemy team or destroy the enemy team's stuff.

... and you know all of the maps and scenarios and gameplay options that MWO is going to entail, such that you can say that "he with the assault virtually always wins?"

[Paul Inouye]

I still wanna know how you guys are playing our game?