30 replies to this topic

[Lailoken]

Rejarial Galatan, on 24 April 2012 - 07:37 PM, said:

why would you choose your mech POST launch of a match? me, I will not have anything BUT heavy/assaults in my bay. so, ya, im choosing before a match between my timberwolf or direwolf or marauder iic

We're not going to be seeing those mechs for a while...

This is what I mean:
What some people suggest is that you choose your mech, then click matchmake. Therefore you don't know what map you'll be on so for example if you choose a CQB mech you risk being in an open grassland where you are at a disadvantage. In this case matchmaking could be done based on player stats and balancing drop weight.
Another option is you hit matchmake and matchmaking is done based on player stats. Then once the teams are set, you choose your mechs. In this case drop weight doesn't really come into play unless certain maps have a 'maximum mech weight' parameter or something.

[Lailoken]

Rejarial Galatan, on 24 April 2012 - 08:18 PM, said:

there are those who prefer the lighter options, my buddy is one of them, he likes the agility of a scout mech.

I haven't played any MW3 or MW4 multiplayer, but in singleplayer I just picked the biggest mechs I could.

However in Mechwarrior Living Legends, I've discovered to a certainty that fielding the biggest thing I can is not the right way to go for me. I typically stick to medium mechs and if I'm doing well I'll pull out some of faster, expensive, longer ranged heavies like the Timber Wolf.
And despite what people think its totally possible to kill an assault mech with a medium.Two classic cases: I've killed plenty with my Shadowcat Prime. Killed a Mauler who underestimated me because of the weight difference by putting all my shots into his center torso. Also killed a Blood Asp because it was so slow it couldn't run away from me.

Don't get me wrong some of the big mechs and their pilots dominate, but its not the only way to go.

[Aelos03]

i support weights

[Watchit]

If the devs pull off the role warfare right, and I'm sure they will, it shouldn't be too much of a problem. Using TF2 as an example again, sure playing against a team of heavies is a pain, but only if you don't know how to handle it. A couple of heavy medic pairs who know what they're doing will mow down the full heavy team every time, it's role warfare.

[Kudzu]

Weight is by far the worst measure to use when balancing.

For example:
Charger =/= Awesome
Mackie =/= Atlas
Level 1 tech =/= level 2 tech mechs, even on the same chassis.
IS =/= Clan
Etc.

An increased emphasis on roles and hopefully a decent BV system would do the job much better than a cop-out weight system.

[Eximar]

Rejarial Galatan, on 24 April 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

Naw, more of: if hes opening a pawn shop mid field, im storming it and leveling it

Which is perfect since you like, and desire, PvE.

[tenderloving]

Motionless, on 24 April 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

Do you plan on explaining this at all or are you just going to throw it out there? Feel free to actually contribute something instead of just saying I'm wrong about tf2.

You included in your own post why TF2 is a good example: 4 spies and 4 snipers. I think the game should have "***** herding" mechanics to nudge people in the right direction. You shouldn't have to police strangers into making smart decisions. TF2 is a good argument FOR a balancing system because it relies on the players themselves to overcome the stupidity of their teammates, rather than having it built in. Overall some form of "strong encouragement" built into the game itself would make a better and less frustrating gaming experience for everyone.

I would be completely for forcing balance through tonnage or even through the roles themselves. I'm sure Mechassault isn't popular here, but if you played it you remember 4 Madcat vs 4 Madcat River City 24/7.

If you 've played WoW you know how there are 6 hunters for every priest and 9 rogues for every tank.

If you've played LoL you have been stuck on a team of 4 AD carries autolocking screaming at you to go tank.

If you've played Battlefield you've been on servers where NOBODY MOVES because there are snipers full up on both teams, hiding in bushes until someone stands up.

This is what i'm afraid of. This is one of the few universes that comes with a built in balancing system (tonnage) that requires minimal programming/effort. Not to take advantage of it would be silly.

[Motionless]

tenderloving, on 25 April 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

You included in your own post why TF2 is a good example: 4 spies and 4 snipers. I think the game should have "***** herding" mechanics to nudge people in the right direction. You shouldn't have to police strangers into making smart decisions. TF2 is a good argument FOR a balancing system because it relies on the players themselves to overcome the stupidity of their teammates, rather than having it built in. Overall some form of "strong encouragement" built into the game itself would make a better and less frustrating gaming experience for everyone.

I don't think you need to artificially restrict players from making poor decisions. A weight limit is not a mechanic that 'nudges people in the right direction' it is a "this is the wrong answer, therefor you can not even attempt it" mechanic. A nudge would be like doing poorly a TF2 round that causes them to 2nd guess their class choice and encourage more knowledgeable members to point out where class composition can be improved. I might need to SAY "we have 4 spies and 4 snipers" but I never need to say "we've have 4 spies and 4 snipers for the last two rounds, and we're getting destroyed because of it," and still get no response from it.

Usually they notice once we start doing poorly, but maybe they just got there or the round just started and some people switched classes between rounds - I start calling out poor comp BEFORE the match - and luckily I have enough social skills to help out my team thru composition without 'policing' them. If you be nice in game people respond surprisingly well - and considering how few people even attempt to take control of things (and the number of people who are willing to follow someone's plan if it's good) it's generally easy to get things working well even if people who you've never met before -- even if they're not that great.

The problem is quickly solved on its own though. It's not like we go round after round losing because we have 4 snipers and 4 spies, the number very quickly diminishes to more reasonable levels the second you point it out or once the players notice it. Hence the system is WORKING. I don't expect there to never be problems, but when a problem is addressed in short order shortly after it crops up then you have a working system -- like TF2. People tend to just take a quick peak at the class comp and the players around them once they start to get stomped. Your team getting rolled, especially the other team's 2 or 3 spies? Probably some of your least effective and most frustrated players are suddenly going to be pyro and our engineer will be ecstatic about it.

[SweetJackal]

An entire team of exclusively assault mechs is just missile bait and Arty fodder. So nothing will stop players from taking them into combat but it will leave them massively exposed without support to flank fire support mechs and harass or pin down the recon units.

A team of 100 tonners would have an extreme advantage in a straight up slugfest compared to any other loadout. But that slugfest is the one thing any smart team won't give them.

[RickDiasPK]

I'm willing to wait and see how role warfare works out before making any calls for a drop limit. Maybe it will be as they say and a scout/artillery pair can just run circles around the Atlas Horde, plinking away at them with impunity since the Atlas team wouldn't have someone to chase the scout off or rush the artillery? I've done similar things in the boardgame, and to a lesser extent in previous MW games online if the opponents are sufficiently dumb.

[tenderloving]

Perhaps I need to have some faith in my fellow man. I have been jaded by years of gaming online.