56 replies to this topic

[Pht]

Paul Inouye, on 15 March 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

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

Amen.

The assumptions being taken for truth on fallacious grounds in this thread have been ... interesting.

[ManDaisy]

A good way to balance out LRM spotting is to impliment a link system. The c3 system, a perfect example of an information sharing module, should allow for a limited number of ally information links. Lets use the previous example. Assume c3 has a limit of 3 mechs to 1 spotter ratio.

9 catatpults would require 3 jenners as spotters. One jenner would correspond to 3 catapults, with each jenner spotting for a seperate group of catapults.

C3 Slave would work in conjuction with this. For example one C3 Slave is able to hold up to 3 masters. For each Master a c3 slave has, 1 module slot would be taken up. In order for 1 catapult to be linked to 3 jenners, 3 module spaces for c3 slave would be filled up.

In order to counter act and disrupt spotters, ECM come into play with a disruption Area of affect for c3 networks.



Another thing I suggest is allowing c3, to have module space based on the number of units if can spot for. For example c3 spotting for 3 units would take up 3 module slots. C3 spotting for 2 units would take up two module spots. C3 spotting for 1 unit would take only 1 module spot.

Edited by ManDaisy, 15 March 2012 - 09:15 PM.

[VeiledMalice]

Paul Inouye, on 15 March 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

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

Me too!

[ManDaisy]

Paul Inouye, on 15 March 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

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

Time Machine .

[Outlaw2]

Paul Inouye, on 15 March 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

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

Im assuming this is aimed towards Belisarius, Victor and others who directly challenged Garth's "12 assaults vs. 10 Catapults and two spotting Jenners" scenario....which I guess is his way of saying BV is not needed. Im going to have to defend Bel and Victor here though. I know for Bel and Victor are both relying on their years of experience in MW4 leagues where these types of scenarios ACTUALLY happened. Its not just theory-craft. Of course none of us have played MWO, and things could play out differently. But I agree the scenario paints too simple a picture and there many other things to consider. Which 12 assaults were taken. What about 10 assaults 2 lights. What about 10 Medium missile boats 2 Commandos VERSUS 10 catapults 2 Jenners?

Edited by =Outlaw=, 16 March 2012 - 09:20 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Paul Inouye, on 15 March 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

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

By the Rules Paul, by the Rules! How do you play your game?

[MaddMaxx]

ManDaisy, on 15 March 2012 - 08:46 PM, said:

A good way to balance out LRM spotting is to impliment a link system. The c3 system, a perfect example of an information sharing module, should allow for a limited number of ally information links. Lets use the previous example. Assume c3 has a limit of 3 mechs to 1 spotter ratio.

9 catatpults would require 3 jenners as spotters. One jenner would correspond to 3 catapults, with each jenner spotting for a seperate group of catapults.

C3 Slave would work in conjuction with this. For example one C3 Slave is able to hold up to 3 masters. For each Master a c3 slave has, 1 module slot would be taken up. In order for 1 catapult to be linked to 3 jenners, 3 module spaces for c3 slave would be filled up.

In order to counter act and disrupt spotters, ECM come into play with a disruption Area of affect for c3 networks.

Another thing I suggest is allowing c3, to have module space based on the number of units if can spot for. For example c3 spotting for 3 units would take up 3 module slots. C3 spotting for 2 units would take up two module spots. C3 spotting for 1 unit would take only 1 module spot.

Quote

"A C3 Network is a network consisting of a C3 Command Unit and up to three C3 Slave Units"

Just for clarity ManDaisy. You were going good until the flip flop.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 16 March 2012 - 09:56 AM.

[Victor Morson]

Paul Inouye, on 15 March 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

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

I think the primary concerns are coming from past experience with both MechWarrior and BattleTech in general, and the limitations of weight classes making such a huge impact on how the game plays for the competitive community.

Is there any chance in this coming up in more detail in a future Q&A? The current but somewhat vague "it'll be ideal to take a balanced team" is pretty worrisome to a lot of people and is coming up on external forums as a major talking point.

Basically the main question comes down to if there are weight limits, and if there are not what would encourage players to operate lighter 'mechs in a non-recon role? I'm 100% convinced that recon will be extremely useful for a number of reasons, but the big thing is lighter weight classes that are meant for front line fighting. The whole debate comes down to really this one question: Why take a Hunchback over an Atlas, if you could afford either? It's the easiest comparison because in general Hunchbacks are not ideal recon designs, yet hold no traditional advantage in other BattleTech and MechWarrior games over an assault designed for a similar purpose.

As a side note, I suspect you folks already have a system in place - it's just that even a hint of how this is balanced would let a lot of people rest easier. Every single design decision behind MWO thus far has been absolutely perfect and accommodating towards the play style that the hardcore fans love about the series so I'd be shocked if there wasn't a good solution to this already in the works or implemented.

Edited by Victor Morson, 16 March 2012 - 04:03 PM.

[Belisarius1]

=Outlaw=, on 16 March 2012 - 09:17 AM, said:

Im assuming this is aimed towards Belisarius, Victor and others who directly challenged Garth's "12 assaults vs. 10 Catapults and two spotting Jenners" scenario....which I guess is his way of saying BV is not needed. Im going to have to defend Bel and Victor here though. I know for Bel and Victor are both relying on their years of experience in MW4 leagues where these types of scenarios ACTUALLY happened. Its not just theory-craft. Of course none of us have played MWO, and things could play out differently. But I agree the scenario paints too simple a picture and there many other things to consider. Which 12 assaults were taken. What about 10 assaults 2 lights. What about 10 Medium missile boats 2 Commandos VERSUS 10 catapults 2 Jenners?

Thank you.

Paul, I obviously haven't played your game, but there are simple deductions that can be made from experience. To use my extended story as an example; do the spotters need to be in los occasionally? Yes? Then they can be shot. Do indirect LRMs pass through terrain or drop directly from the sky? No? Then they can be blocked by terrain. Everything else follows from those two.

How strong your missiles are, how fast your units are and how large your maps are... of course these things will have an effect, but there's a community of very experienced and very intelligent competetive team players out there who are interested in MWO, most of them much more talented and much quieter than I. I feel like you might be doing yourself a disservice to brush that experience off so lightly, because team games do look fundamentally different to pickup ones, and they know why.

Victor Morson, on 16 March 2012 - 04:03 PM, said:

I'm 100% convinced that recon will be extremely useful for a number of reasons, but the big thing is lighter weight classes that are meant for front line fighting. The whole debate comes down to really this one question: Why take a Hunchback over an Atlas, if you could afford either? It's the easiest comparison because in general Hunchbacks are not ideal recon designs, yet hold no traditional advantage in other BattleTech and MechWarrior games over an assault designed for a similar purpose.

This is exactly what the question of class balance comes down to. I think a lot of people would be helped by an answer.

Edited by Belisarius†, 16 March 2012 - 06:18 PM.

[Sym]

Please, please, please do not use WoT Match Maker as an example! Anything would be better than that mess.

[Victor Morson]

Belisarius†, on 16 March 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

Paul, I obviously haven't played your game, but there are simple deductions that can be made from experience. To use my extended story as an example; do the spotters need to be in los occasionally? Yes? Then they can be shot. Do indirect LRMs pass through terrain or drop directly from the sky? No? Then they can be blocked by terrain. Everything else follows from those two.

I think the other large issue isn't how well LRM spotting works but rather, what the advantages of using a Catapult over, say, a Mauler/Longbow/other missile assault provided one is added into the game? Given the Catapults role is to rain down LRMs from a fixed cover position, why would I ever choose to have less LRMs, armor and ammo once I can afford either 'mech - basically an LRM version of the Atlas/Hunchback question.

Edited by Victor Morson, 16 March 2012 - 06:45 PM.

[stabwest]

I believe that the light or medium mechs value as scout will be determined by exactly how much information can be gathered and by how much of a tactical advantage can it actually give a lance to have that information. If information like knowing your enemies exact location at all times can determine the outcome of a battle, then we will have players willing to play as scouts. Also if the information is so vital to victory, then denying your opponent of that information will be a vital tactic as well, then we will see players willing to play fast light/medium scout hunting mechs. And with the heavy mechs playing fire support roles, it seems like the it's going to be the assault mechs that are always going to be at a disadvantage.

[Belisarius1]

Victor Morson, on 16 March 2012 - 06:44 PM, said:

I think the other large issue isn't how well LRM spotting works but rather, what the advantages of using a Catapult over, say, a Mauler/Longbow/other missile assault provided one is added into the game? Given the Catapults role is to rain down LRMs from a fixed cover position, why would I ever choose to have less LRMs, armor and ammo once I can afford either 'mech - basically an LRM version of the Atlas/Hunchback question.

Actually, I think this is one of the few instances where there's a really obvious reason for taking the smaller 'Mech that does the same job. Fixed cover positions turn out to be the last thing you want to use, because they can be flanked and approached. The missile team almost always wants to keep moving to maintain distance, as well as to make sure their fire isn't just hitting a hill or something. After all, if you're able to give indirect fire, you want to keep them playing your game rather than letting them give you direct fire in return. Speed is then a huge asset.

If you're just going to dump fire on a team that's stupid enough to charge screaming in through it, sure, the longbows are nice. But so is being able to move to a better hill and do it all over again.

[LordDeathStrike]

if you want to avoid balance issues just dont get shot in the gyro maybe?



hahahahahahahahahahahahahah, sorry couldnt resist, hahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahaha

[Kylearn]

A good thing to have in the game would be something along the lines of the TT/rpg games. Some mechs are rarer than others. Some mechs are more common in one faction than another. Unless they inherited a unit from a relative, most warriors took what they were given. If they did well, they might get something better down the road. How many IS units could field 12 Atlases? Personally, I'd rapidly lose interest in the scenarios you guys are using. Where's the challenge?

[Victor Morson]

Kylearn, on 17 March 2012 - 10:22 PM, said:

A good thing to have in the game would be something along the lines of the TT/rpg games. Some mechs are rarer than others. Some mechs are more common in one faction than another. Unless they inherited a unit from a relative, most warriors took what they were given. If they did well, they might get something better down the road. How many IS units could field 12 Atlases? Personally, I'd rapidly lose interest in the scenarios you guys are using. Where's the challenge?

That's largely why we're bringing up the scenarios, in hopes of some clarification on the need to diversify your force beyond "Heavy firepower assault/heavy" and "fast recon/spotter."

[Dlardrageth]

Victor Morson, on 18 March 2012 - 12:58 AM, said:

That's largely why we're bringing up the scenarios, in hopes of some clarification on the need to diversify your force beyond "Heavy firepower assault/heavy" and "fast recon/spotter."

Although... do we actually need it? That ball lies clearly in PGI's court. They have the (bad) example of MW4 right there, where loads of people "jumped ship" after what MP detoriated into right there. So unless they'd be content to having a very limited customer base of mainly assault Mech fans in the long run, they will have to find a different approach. And the whole "role" shenanigans might serve that purpose. I personally don't think that alone will be quite enough by itself, but who am I to tell them they're wrong with the minimal information we got so far?

Let's not kid ourselves, this here is still pre-beta discussion about... fluffy clouds. Because that is how substantial it is, what we are discussing currently. Something as simple as e.g. higher upkeep than reward costs for assault and heavy Mechs in general could throw all this nice theorizing out of the window. And before someone now starts whining my head off, it is merely a possible example. Which would lead to either the player having to play some other Mech classes as well to finance the heavyweights, or buying in-game cash on a regular basis with real money in the cash shop. Just one thinkable approach to resolving the "Assault Mechs Online" issue.

At the end of the day the players/customers will evaluate PGI's take on that with their feet. By either walking away or taking their shoes off ands sitting down. So with some degree of justification we could play the ball back into Paul's half of the court and ask him how he's sure that we (all) will play his game?