51 replies to this topic

[Protection]

I like the idea on the side of good sportmanship, but power creep dictates that teams are going to seek out the most optimized combination possible (which still hasn't been settled, really - although 8 Jenner, 8 Gausscat, and 8 Atlas combinations will be boring and tedious if nothing else).

I like it, but I doubt we will get many teams to agree to go along with it.

I doubt I can get everyone to go along with it, but we can try to do it, and hope it all works out.

[bobthebomb]

WaddeHaddeDudeda, on 08 November 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

Okay,

let's face it: if you're here for competitive gaming this game is certainly nothing for you at the moment because it's simply fubar'd. Lots of broken stuff, no variety to keep you interested longer than a couple games and last but not least a completely ******** matchmaking.

As we all know we'll have at least a chance again to have organized (= fun) drops once phase 2 hits the servers in (hopefully) a couple weeks.
But what we all know too is the fact that the matchmaking will ignore all weightclasses for 8vs8 games by then, most likely to make those games even happens to begin with.
It would still suck to run with [overdramatize]8 Jenners into 8 Atlas or something like that[/overdramatize].

To put up a fair and challenging fight competitive games require both teams to bring the same tonnage to the table or, as long as this isn't implemented, at least the same mech classes.

What's the opinion from the teams who're actually looking as much forward to the phase 2 patch as I do, because they really really want something else from this relentless PUG-stomping?

Would you people be up to agree on a specific dropdec to run once phase 2 hits the servers? This way we could have quick and organized, balanced games without doing sync drops or going through all the other hassle.

Teams could start out with the ever classical 2-2-2-2 and probably change it up every week. It could be posted here in the thread or elsewhere.

What do you guys think?
Can I get an aye or nay?

I'd love this.

but more with a tonnage limit ! like 250 per lances / 500 for two lances (8 players) and 750 for 3 lances (12 players).

Edited by bobthebomb, 20 November 2012 - 08:26 AM.

[Operant]

Honestly, you know its gonna be 8x Atlas teams all day.

It's gonna be awful but maybe it will shame PGI enough to take real action and introduce game lobbies.

[Mr Mantis]

It does not matter the tonnage on a map. a group of jenners (280 tons) vs a group of atlas (800 tons) would still be an even fight (assuming the pilots arent morons and can work together). Although my money is on the jenners.

But if one group did not communicate and work together, they would be eaten alive by the other.

the issue isn't tonnage it is people exploiting the way matchmaking is formulated. considering this became open beta such a short time ago, i'm just happy we have matchmaking.

[Ultrabeast]

A lot of BT games I"ve played had tonnage limits. LIke 500 max tons per side or whatever. It worked okay. Extra tons were given based on controlling more planets/factories/maps/dropships/whatever.

[Protection]

Quote

The biggest problems I see right of the bat is that

a) Majority of other teams will not abide by this, especially [REDACTED].

People want to run specific mechs, these will *very* rarely make 2/2/2/2 groupings. Not a fan of forcing people to play weight classes they do not want, except for actual practice/league matches.

So while A good Idea, they really shouldn't expect 90% of the teams to abide by these restrictions.

Someone on our internal forums brought up two interesting points. Figured I'd share.

[Lokust Davion]

Tonnage restriction is nice. So if a team want to go full atlas, it limits them to drop with only 6 players with the 600 tonnage limit. The other team might add a variety of mechs with maybe only 1 assault 1 heavy and the rest are mediums and lights to able to drop with 12 players. Both teams could drop into battle with the same amount of tonnage but different number of players on each side. It sounds fair to me. Tonnage restriction makes a good medium/light pilot a much more valuable asset for a team than it currently is.

[Protection]

I like tonnage as well, as long as the matchmaker can do a +/- 25 tons sort of thing.

Battle Value is a bad idea - it's poorly balanced compared to current weapon power in the game, and will likely result in a plethora of identical builds exploiting massive numbers of low-BV weapons (like Small and Medium Lasers). You'd have to completely redo Battle Value from the ground up for this game, and that's more effort than it is worth. Tonnage is clean and allows for good variety.

[Daimonos]

I like the idea of a 600ton weight limit.

We have two teamspeak servers now, plus many groups with their own VOIP setups. Plenty of folk just don't read the forums at all. It'll take a while for people to even hear of this "voluntary gentlepersons agreement", let alone sign up to it.

[Hawkwings]

It would take a trivial change to the post-battle screen to make this sort of proposal go from a "gentleman's agreement" to a real thing that could be checked and proven: listing the mechs of each player at the end of the match. This way, if you suspected that the enemy team brought 20 more tons than they were allowed, you could confirm it.

Of course, a non-trivial change would remove the problem completely. That change would be implementing tonnage limits in group drops. This would of course involve the group lobby showing what kind of mech each player has readied, and counting the tonnage that it takes up. I swear they've done something like this in previous games...

[Maleficent]

I, as well as The Midnight Sons support this. 2,2,2,2 is boring but for [redacted] sakes it's at least something that flirts with competition.

[WaddeHaddeDudeda]

*bumpage*

Will be dropping 2-2-2-2 for the week from the 4th up to the 11th.
If anyone wants to chime in: feel free to do so!