118 replies to this topic

[Krivvan]

Calmon, on 08 November 2012 - 07:38 AM, said:

If you can't understand that tons "on average" matters go to some theoretical extremes: 8x1000 tons on one 8x5 tons on the other. The 8x5 are double as fast as the 8x1000 tons.

Would you accept the simple fact that 8x1000 tons are far better than 8x5 tons or would you like to discuss with me strategies how the 8x5 tons still can win?

I can"t prove that they will win in 99,9999% cases so how should I show it to you?

Except now you're talking about a completely different game.

We're talking about THIS game. In THIS game there are 35 ton mechs and 100 ton mechs. The 35 ton mechs are three times as fast as the 100 ton mechs. The 35 ton mechs together have enough firepower to overwhelm a few 100 ton mechs aided by the fact that the 100 ton mech will hit them less. Of course tonnage matters, it's just that it doesn't matter enough for an 8 Atlas team to beat out a team with more light mechs.

I could make up scenarios too:


"In a game of 8x1000 tons versus 8x999 tons where the 999 tons are twice as fast as the 1000 tons, would you accept the simple fact that the 8x999 team would win? Would you like to try and discuss how the 8x1000 team would win?

I can't prove that they will win in 99.9999999% cases so how should I show it to you?"


Do you see why that wasn't a very strong argument?

Edited by Krivvan, 08 November 2012 - 07:47 AM.

[Elizander]

If it is premade vs premade then you will not be able to find a team with the exact weight classes that your team has in any reasonable amount of time. Speed > Balance because if you've been to World of Warcraft, you know those crappy 15-30 minute queue times suck hard.

The only solution is to have a maximum drop limit and you're screwed if you don't maximize it.

Edited by Elizander, 08 November 2012 - 07:48 AM.

[Athomahawk]

Ultrabeast, on 08 November 2012 - 04:49 AM, said:

This game has always matched people based on weight class. If you bring 8 atlases, the game won't start until the enemy team has that many, or awesomes, or something close.

Sorry, try again.

[silentD11]

Calmon, on 08 November 2012 - 07:38 AM, said:

If you can't understand that tons "on average" matters go to some theoretical extremes: 8x1000 tons on one 8x5 tons on the other. The 8x5 are double as fast as the 8x1000 tons.

Would you accept the simple fact that 8x1000 tons are far better than 8x5 tons or would you like to discuss with me strategies how the 8x5 tons still can win?

I can"t prove that they will win in 99,9999% cases so how should I show it to you?

You're missing the point. Back in closed beta 8 fast hunchbacks would wipe the floor with 8 fatlas something fierce, so would 8 k2's. The reason for this is simple, for all the extra tonnage the atlas had, it didn't give it access to a better weapons load out.

The issue was (and to an extent remains) that a lot of the heavier weapons just aren't good. Large lasers, large pulse lasers, er large lasers, can't compare to mediums and smalls. When it comes to sniping with non laser weapons, only the guass is effective currently. While an atlas could take PPCs, PPCs suck so that's not giving it an edge.

At the end of the day the extra tonnage doesn't matter if it doesn't enable the mech to take more high quality weapons good weapons. The atlas is extremely hardpoint limited. That the atlas could put four large pulse lasers on it is not going to help it out laser a hunchback because medium and small lasers are by far superior. That an atlas can take PPCs and one gauss is not going to let it out plink a gaussapult because PPCs are horrible.

If the weapons, heatsinks, and other items change in a fundamental way which makes larger lasers, PPCs, AC20s and other high weight/high heat weapons good, than yes the tonnage would be a massive advantage. But since that's not the case we're still back in the situation where it's not all that much of an advantage.

The best/most OP builds are still the ones that can boat the highest amount of good weapons, and all the tonnage in the world isn't going to make up for the fact that Atlas hardpoints prevent them from playing that game.

[Orzorn]

If a full premade will only fight other full premades, I want to be able to take whatever I want, and they should be able to. Forcing teams to only fight other teams with the same weight composition is bad for competitive strategies.

[Matist]

You're getting hung up on tonnage when it's really about mech capabilities. My 4SP has half the armor of an Atlas but in a 1 on 1 I'm capable of nailing his back every hit and I can choose to present either side of my torso to him for return fire. So I actually end up with more usable armor than him(assuming terrain allows this).

Same thing with weapon capabilities. All my weapons have a very large firing arc so I can always present them on target. The Atlas may have double or more firepower but if he can't present it to me it doesn't do him any good.

Now it's rarely ever a 1 on 1 fight, but team capability matters just as much for the same reasons. It's not about how much armor or weapons on the field but how it's fielded and I think a well balanced team would just be able to place it more effectively.

Personally I'd really like to see some of these match ups in action.

[silentD11]

Matist, on 08 November 2012 - 07:59 AM, said:

You're getting hung up on tonnage when it's really about mech capabilities. My 4SP has half the armor of an Atlas but in a 1 on 1 I'm capable of nailing his back every hit and I can choose to present either side of my torso to him for return fire. So I actually end up with more usable armor than him(assuming terrain allows this).

Same thing with weapon capabilities. All my weapons have a very large firing arc so I can always present them on target. The Atlas may have double or more firepower but if he can't present it to me it doesn't do him any good.

Now it's rarely ever a 1 on 1 fight, but team capability matters just as much for the same reasons. It's not about how much armor or weapons on the field but how it's fielded and I think a well balanced team would just be able to place it more effectively.

Personally I'd really like to see some of these match ups in action.

Go one further, he doesn't have double the fire power. At that close range the 4sp has 5 laser hardpoints and 2 hard points for srm hardpoints, going up an Atlas D he has four laser hardpoints and 2 hard points for srms. He can take large pulse lasers or large lasers because of his weight, you're stuck with mediums and smalls. Where it gets hilarious is that since mediums and smalls are better than large lasers... he's either using his extra tonnage to use objectively worse weapons that you are, or he's not using his tonnage in which case you simply have one more laser and speed he doesn't have.

That's the core problem. The weapons assaults should give you the tonnage to equip are actually worse than the ones the mediums have the tonnage to equip. The most deadly mechs are the ones that can simply boat up the most effective weapons.

[Cheatos]

To the OP.

You most likely were not in the early stages of the closed beta. Back when there were no restrictions you sometimes would see an all assault drop. and more often than not they would lose because they were eaten alive by lights or fast capped. After a while people on thier own stopped playing assaults for more rounded performance mechs like medium and heavys for that purpose. Personally I have never thought the game should have gone the direction it should have in regards to matched teams because it limits the tactics one team can employ against another. I would very much like to see that one decision reversed and hopefully it will

[Zyllos]

I say give a +2/-2 limit to the map maximum players then limit the tonnage to the balanced layout.

8v8 : 1 assault, 2 heavies, 3 mediums, and 2 lights. 90t for the assault, 130t for heavies, 135t for mediums, and 50t for lights totalling 405t.

This means one team could take 2 Atlases for 200t, 3 Centurions/Hunchbacks for 150t, and 2 Commandos for 50t (losing out on 5t) while the other team could do 2 Dragons for 120t, 2 Centurions/Hunchbacks for 100t, 2 Cicadas for 80t, 1 Jenner for 35t, and 2 Commandos for 50t (with 20t left to move a bit around).

No need to worry about BV. Just limit the number of players allowed, maximum and minimum, then limit tonnage. This brings to bare the full spectrum of a balancing drop (or unbalancing the drop for maximum strength).

Personally, this above is the whole draw of Battletech. Mixed weight divisions against numbers.

[silentD11]

Cheatos, on 08 November 2012 - 08:12 AM, said:

To the OP.

You most likely were not in the early stages of the closed beta. Back when there were no restrictions you sometimes would see an all assault drop. and more often than not they would lose because they were eaten alive by lights or fast capped. After a while people on thier own stopped playing assaults for more rounded performance mechs like medium and heavys for that purpose. Personally I have never thought the game should have gone the direction it should have in regards to matched teams because it limits the tactics one team can employ against another. I would very much like to see that one decision reversed and hopefully it will

I remember teams of 100kph hunchbacks with all small lasers or small lasers and srms routinely face smashing teams of Atlas in comedic fashion.

All assault teams were demonstrably bad and lost spectacularly.

[Calmon]

Krivvan, on 08 November 2012 - 07:46 AM, said:

Except now you're talking about a completely different game.

We're talking about THIS game. In THIS game there are 35 ton mechs and 100 ton mechs. The 35 ton mechs are three times as fast as the 100 ton mechs. The 35 ton mechs together have enough firepower to overwhelm a few 100 ton mechs aided by the fact that the 100 ton mech will hit them less. Of course tonnage matters, it's just that it doesn't matter enough for an 8 Atlas team to beat out a team with more light mechs.

I could make up scenarios too:


"In a game of 8x1000 tons versus 8x999 tons where the 999 tons are twice as fast as the 1000 tons, would you accept the simple fact that the 8x999 team would win? Would you like to try and discuss how the 8x1000 team would win?

I can't prove that they will win in 99.9999999% cases so how should I show it to you?"


Do you see why that wasn't a very strong argument?

On iphone now, maybe I'll answer you tomorrow in a better way

Speed is a factor sure, light vs assault are the extremes for sure, even here the speed bonus will not compensate the rest. But lets say its on par and now match this against other combos. The jenners will do worse, the atlas better.

Cobos work the same just more complicatw to understand.

[Slyck]

Back in closed beta they implemented class matching that gave a priority to matched weight classes first and then only add mismatched classes if there wearn't any available. There's no reason to think this has been removed from the matchmaking system.

[Hillslam]

My partner and I have been fascinated by this problem since its arisen.

We have built a matchmaking engine to do just this - its already coded and tested and solves all these issues.

It gives Piranha the ability to matchmake PUGs and Premades, 8v8, 2v2 and every combination in between. It gives users and Piranha the ability to configure their options in terms of matchmaking "gravity".

It gives the ability to rate a premade along several factors: weight, skill, size, etc. and match that premade up with their "best fit" opponent team (or combination of teams). It allows a premade to decide to "forego" weight restrictions altogether, for example, and just "Go for it" - aka the OT: bring my 8 jenners in against anyone, even an 8 Atlas team.

We think its jumpstarts the whole process of getting MWO to matchmaking nirvana much much sooner.

We have reached out to Piranha with samples and data and are waiting on hearing back from them.

Edited by Hillslam, 08 November 2012 - 08:33 AM.

[Hikyuu]

Calmon, on 08 November 2012 - 03:38 AM, said:

So you help your team by just taking the front damage.

Atlases who walk into huge fields of fire are dead atlases, their sacrifice was useless. no assault mech should pretend its armor is a sanctuary. it's merely a blessing when i don't rip off your shoulder with my AC20 because you happen to have more armor. giving you one last chance to BOOK IT before my hunchy kills you.

however. that being said, what atlases ACTUALLY have is the ability to maintain a selection of weapons for different ranges, making them capable of launching LRMS, direct fire support with the Gauss Rifle, or chewing up close targets with Medium Lasers. this is where good atlas builds come from.

does that make them better than other mechs in those specific fields? hardly.
does it mean that atlases can't be dedicated to one role? no.
does shoehorning an atlas into a single role make it less effective. yes.
does that make the atlas better? not at all. but it's not because of it's armor, that **** will get ripped apart in no time as long as he's dumb enough to try and tank with it like he's a ******* pally.

[Bilbo]

Krivvan, on 08 November 2012 - 03:19 AM, said:

There doesn't need to be any restrictions at all. A heavier mech is not better than a light mech. You used to see balanced 2,2,2,2 teams easily beat out all 8 atlas teams all the time.

QFT

Single weight class teams have inherent disadvantages that are easily exploited by more balanced teams. I'll put my money on the balanced team every time, without hesitation.

[Vactus]

Slyck, on 08 November 2012 - 08:30 AM, said:

Back in closed beta they implemented class matching that gave a priority to matched weight classes first and then only add mismatched classes if there wearn't any available. There's no reason to think this has been removed from the matchmaking system.

Yes there is. They've said they're getting rid of class matching. For pre-made vs pre-made it makes no sense to have class matching as there are far fewer premades than pugs. Matching would add considerable time to the process and just get into a match would be far longer than many are willing to wait.

[silentD11]

Calmon, on 08 November 2012 - 08:24 AM, said:

On iphone now, maybe I'll answer you tomorrow in a better way

Speed is a factor sure, light vs assault are the extremes for sure, even here the speed bonus will not compensate the rest. But lets say its on par and now match this against other combos. The jenners will do worse, the atlas better.

Cobos work the same just more complicatw to understand.

What you're forgetting is that we used to have drops where what you fear happened. There was no balancing. Guess what though, all Atlas teams did not trample everything. They were bad. There were some nasty things (all super fast hunchbacks at 120kph with only small lasers, or all gaussapults) but all Atlas was not one of them. All Atlas was a quick way to lose either to cap out or get killed.

Matching classes certain produces more interesting and more balanced games, but even before it all Atlas was a loser.

[Athomahawk]

silentD11, on 08 November 2012 - 08:06 AM, said:

He can take large pulse lasers or large lasers because of his weight, you're stuck with mediums and smalls. Where it gets hilarious is that since mediums and smalls are better than large lasers... he's either using his extra tonnage to use objectively worse weapons that you are, or he's not using his tonnage in which case you simply have one more laser and speed he doesn't have.

Sorry, this is/was not true. All pulse lasers, and smalls, were bugged and generated less heat than they should so they were actually better than they should have been.

In addition, the LL is actually roughly equivalent to two medium lasers in damage and heat. Its benefits over medium are twice the optimal range for the cost of 2.5 x the tons. Overall large lasers are quite good now since they were buffed, especially for something slow like an atlas that can benefit from longer range.

The point someone mentioned about atlas being unable to bring their firepower to bear is the most pertinent issue in this discussion, imo. One only needs to look at the extreme killing power of current lrms to see that when a large mech like an atlas is able to use its firepower effectively it destroys anything in short order.

Does this make 8xatlas the best combination?

I don't think so.

Does it have the potential to be very effective in the right situation?

Of course.

[Vactus]

Athomahawk, on 08 November 2012 - 08:47 AM, said:

Sorry, this is/was not true. All pulse lasers, and smalls, were bugged and generated less heat than they should so they were actually better than they should have been.

In addition, the LL is actually roughly equivalent to two medium lasers in damage and heat. Its benefits over medium are twice the optimal range for the cost of 2.5 x the tons. Overall large lasers are quite good now since they were buffed, especially for something slow like an atlas that can benefit from longer range.

The point someone mentioned about atlas being unable to bring their firepower to bear is the most pertinent issue in this discussion, imo. One only needs to look at the extreme killing power of current lrms to see that when a large mech like an atlas is able to use its firepower effectively it destroys anything in short order.

Does this make 8xatlas the best combination?

I don't think so.

Does it have the potential to be very effective in the right situation?

Of course.

That's the thing though, the right situation. Which I think the OP might be over looking. As for LRMs, we'll see how they fair with today's adjustments and (eventually) ECM, until then I'll keep doing what I do. Getting behind the opposing team and **** off the LRM boats.

[John Norad]

One way to prevent mech monocultures that comes to my mind would be to require full teams to have a certain team composition, like 2 of every class.
Although I'm going to admit that's pretty restrictive. Maybe just a minimum of 3 light/medium mechs and 3 heavy/assault mechs.

Or simply make that a separate game mode for those who want 'realistic' lance compositons instead of 8 Jenners or 8 Atlases.

Edited by John Norad, 08 November 2012 - 09:22 AM.