60 replies to this topic

[Pale Rider 010]

My issue is this:

If the number of each role is limited, it means that someone else is choosing what I get to do.

If we can only have one commander, and someone else took it, then it doesn't really matter that commander is all I have experience in, I'm stuck with whatever is left. On the flip side, if only one person can be commander, how am I going to build up experience in that role if I only get to use it one every five battles or so?

If there are a limited number of assaults, then if my favorite really is assault, but those spots are filled, then I am FORCED to use something I enjoy less and am not as good at. If the heavy slots are also filled, then while all my experience, both in game and as a player are in the Assault class, I am now forced to use a Medium. Since experience is dependent on not only role, but specific mech variants, being forced into a weight class I don't usually play has a fairly significant impact.

I like the idea of balancing the roles, but we need to do it in a way that people can still play with what they want.

[UncleKulikov]

Ideally the game will be balanced so that it can operate without those restrictions. That is my preference. However, I would also rather have a MWO with restrictions, than no MWO at all.

[Joe Mallad]

Pale Rider 010, on 30 April 2012 - 12:25 PM, said:

My issue is this:

If the number of each role is limited, it means that someone else is choosing what I get to do.

If we can only have one commander, and someone else took it, then it doesn't really matter that commander is all I have experience in, I'm stuck with whatever is left. On the flip side, if only one person can be commander, how am I going to build up experience in that role if I only get to use it one every five battles or so?

If there are a limited number of assaults, then if my favorite really is assault, but those spots are filled, then I am FORCED to use something I enjoy less and am not as good at. If the heavy slots are also filled, then while all my experience, both in game and as a player are in the Assault class, I am now forced to use a Medium. Since experience is dependent on not only role, but specific mech variants, being forced into a weight class I don't usually play has a fairly significant impact.

I like the idea of balancing the roles, but we need to do it in a way that people can still play with what they want.

In th end... no mater how they do this, I think we (the players) will figure out what works best. I mean while I will no doubt try to play as many weight classes and or mech variants as I can get my hands on... I have always felt more at home in the medium to light classes. So im sure thats where Ill end up. If you end up running into a light Kuritan Panther (if they have them) with jump jets, PPC and SRMs that you just cant shake off your backside... that will probably be me LMAO!

[Nik Van Rhijn]

If there is no BV/weight limitation and the mechlab has no crit limitations then the majority of mechs will be mostly assaults and heavies. Newcomers will certainly tend to want to go for the heaviest mechs equating bigger with better. Also piloting a light as a scout takes experience and skill to do well. I can see variety existing with premade groups, PUB matches may well be totally different.

[Joe Mallad]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 30 April 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:

If there is no BV/weight limitation and the mechlab has no crit limitations then the majority of mechs will be mostly assaults and heavies. Newcomers will certainly tend to want to go for the heaviest mechs equating bigger with better. Also piloting a light as a scout takes experience and skill to do well. I can see variety existing with premade groups, PUB matches may well be totally different.

give me my light Panther or a medium Centurion or Wolfhound and let me at the Solaris Games

[Morang]

I think in-game economy will be a limitation. Perhaps a balance between income and repair cost when running assault mech will force you to switch to a more profitable light/med for farming from time to time?

Also I don't know if the availability of mechs to the player was discussed/unveiled anywhere. At the release (or being new player just registered after it) with which mech will I start and could I just buy any other mech in game (w/o gaining any experience) - even if it would be possible to donate for sufficient in-game currency?

[Joe Mallad]

Morang, on 30 April 2012 - 12:51 PM, said:

I think in-game economy will be a limitation. Perhaps a balance between income and repair cost when running assault mech will force you to switch to a more profitable light/med for farming from time to time?

Also I don't know if the availability of mechs to the player was discussed/unveiled anywhere. At the release (or being new player just registered after it) with which mech will I start and could I just buy any other mech in game (w/o gaining any experience) - even if it would be possible to donate for sufficient in-game currency?

Morang, on 30 April 2012 - 12:51 PM, said:

I think in-game economy will be a limitation. Perhaps a balance between income and repair cost when running assault mech will force you to switch to a more profitable light/med for farming from time to time?

Also I don't know if the availability of mechs to the player was discussed/unveiled anywhere. At the release (or being new player just registered after it) with which mech will I start and could I just buy any other mech in game (w/o gaining any experience) - even if it would be possible to donate for sufficient in-game currency?

very good question.

[Famous]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 30 April 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:

If there is no BV/weight limitation and the mechlab has no crit limitations then the majority of mechs will be mostly assaults and heavies. Newcomers will certainly tend to want to go for the heaviest mechs equating bigger with better. Also piloting a light as a scout takes experience and skill to do well. I can see variety existing with premade groups, PUB matches may well be totally different.

I'm not sure why everyone assumes that all new player will gravitate towards Heavy/Assault 'Mechs if they aren't prevented from doing this. The last MW game I played on a computer was MechCommander 2, so I'm fairly certain I qualify as a newbie and you won't see me touching anything over a Medium 'Mech. Why? Because I'm fully behind this idea of role warfare and I want my role to be as a scout and harasser, there's no good way of doing that in a heavier 'Mech.

Until we see evidence of a "bigger must be better" trend PGI doesn't need to place any restrictions. In the end I think that the Heavy/Assault players are going to be the one's who want to drive them, not just everyone who is new to the game

Edit- changed are to aren't in first sentence

Edited by Famous, 30 April 2012 - 01:05 PM.

[FireStorm2]

Garth Erlam, on 30 April 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

Keep in mind there's a pseudo Rock-Paper-Scissors thing that happens in all games of this nature: Close up brawlers (default Atlas') tend to lose to Indirect-fire support (default Catapult) tend to lose to direct-fire support (default Awesome) tend to lose to fast brawlers (Jenner F) tend to lose to defense (Swayback) tend to... etc. None of this is a foregone conclusion, but as a rule, slow heavy hitting close ranged entities lose to fast, ranged indirect fire entities. It's a lot like medieval warfare in that respect.

So yeah, 12 Atlas' would have a hard time against anything balanced (4 Recon, 4 Awesomes, 4 Catapults would absolutely decimate them) but might beat something else. That said, some kind of mixup is beneficial; Adding even a single spotter to a team of Atlas' suddenly multiplies their abilities.

So yeah we could force specific weight limits, but as it currently stands, you benefit from not stacking with one weight class.

At least that's my take on it

Thank you for posting this for us. I request some clarification if I may. I could be misreading this, and might be giving it too much significance, but this seems to differ from the status of the matchmaking system described obscurely by others in the development community. Will factors such as possibly c-bill/battle value or at least tonnage no longer be used in the matchmaking system?

As has been mentioned in other threads and this one, if you allow each player to take whatever mech they wish, they will gravitate towards assaults and possibly heavies, perhaps with a scout mech or two. In your example, a role such as 'defense,' which you describe as being handled by the Swayback, could just as easily be filled by a specialized assault mech customized in the mech lab to do the same job with more armor and firepower and only slightly less speed. At that point, there would be little or no reason to take the Swayback over that customized assault mech.

A role such as 'indirect fire support' could easily be handled by another assault mech with more missiles than the Catapult has, again at only a slightly reduced speed. Heck, that assault mech would probably even have tonnage left over for significantly more armor, lasers or other defensive measures than the Catapult can boast. There might be a point here if the Catapult was actually significantly faster than an assault mech, but the typical assault mech speed is perhaps 10-20 kph lower than the standard speed of a Catapult. I would find such a small difference in speed difficult to justify as a major balancing factor given my experience with trying to 'kite' enemy units in previous Battletech games, and since a given enemy could easily mount weapons with the same range capabilities, the advantage of attempting to 'kite' them could be questionable to begin with.

Min/maxing could ultimately result in a situation where weaponry, armor, etc were reduced in favor of higher speed I suppose, which could favor lighter mechs at a greater return than assaults due to the way the engines scale under the Battletech design system. Ultimately though, I think having more tonnage available for weapons/armor etc is likely to prove the deciding factor, especially given the mentality one can expect from a typical player. As a result, it seems to me that a better way to guarantee a diverse selection of mechs are used would be to implement some other incentive for the pilot to take them, such as by a system restricting battle value in some fashion.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

It does seem at the moment that they are going for a "free for all", at least for beta. It may well be that they are proved right but I'm cynical in my old age and with the use of meclab can see the majority of roles being fulfilled by assaults/heavies. Apart from anything else they are more forgiving of errors when playing with others totally new to the franchise. I would hope that mediums have a place but if there are no limitations then I am unsure. An awful lot depends on what mechs we have to start with and exactly how the MechLab works.
Wether you like it or not we all know that mechs will be min/maxed within hours of beta launching and you have to follow suit or be outclassed.

[Famous]

Fire§torm, on 30 April 2012 - 01:31 PM, said:

Thank you for posting this for us. I request some clarification if I may. I could be misreading this, and might be giving it too much significance, but this seems to differ from the status of the matchmaking system described obscurely by others in the development community. Will factors such as possibly c-bill/battle value or at least tonnage no longer be used in the matchmaking system?

As has been mentioned in other threads and this one, if you allow each player to take whatever mech they wish, they will gravitate towards assaults and possibly heavies, perhaps with a scout mech or two. In your example, a role such as 'defense,' which you describe as being handled by the Swayback, could just as easily be filled by a specialized assault mech customized in the mech lab to do the same job with more armor and firepower and only slightly less speed. At that point, there would be little or no reason to take the Swayback over that customized assault mech.

A role such as 'indirect fire support' could easily be handled by another assault mech with more missiles than the Catapult has, again at only a slightly reduced speed. Heck, that assault mech would probably even have tonnage left over for significantly more armor, lasers or other defensive measures than the Catapult can boast. There might be a point here if the Catapult was actually significantly faster than an assault mech, but the typical assault mech speed is perhaps 10-20 kph lower than the standard speed of a Catapult. I would find such a small difference in speed difficult to justify as a major balancing factor given my experience with trying to 'kite' enemy units in previous Battletech games, and since a given enemy could easily mount weapons with the same range capabilities, the advantage of attempting to 'kite' them could be questionable to begin with.

Min/maxing could ultimately result in a situation where weaponry, armor, etc were reduced in favor of higher speed I suppose, which could favor lighter mechs at a greater return than assaults due to the way the engines scale under the Battletech design system. Ultimately though, I think having more tonnage available for weapons/armor etc is likely to prove the deciding factor, especially given the mentality one can expect from a typical player. As a result, it seems to me that a better way to guarantee a diverse selection of mechs are used would be to implement some other incentive for the pilot to take them, such as by a system restricting battle value in some fashion.

A lot of your concerns are actually addressed by the 'MechLab. With the announced 'Mech line up if you want to run heavy, indirect fire support the Cat is your best choice, it has two missile hard points and none of the other announced 'Mechs in the Heavy/Assault category can mount that many missiles.

The inclusion of type specific weapon hard points will go a long way towards creating variety in the lances. Sure I can take an Atlas or a Centurion and stick an LRM in the torso, but I get the feeling that I won't be able to fit an LRM15, much less two on anything other than a Cat at release.

We may also find that smaller chassis have perks built in that the heavier 'Mechs just can't match, for instance the ECM suite that the Raven is supposed to have. If the Raven is the only 'Mech at launch that has a bonus to Information Warfare and scouting then you're guaranteed to see them and they will punish teams that show up with just the big boys.

All in all this game is sounded a lot more involved and strategic than previous offerings, at least for the IS. We're being encouraged to find a specialty and become good at that. So even if a bunch of player flock to the heavier 'Mechs there will still be a lot of difference in skill. It will also likely be much more expensive to run the heavier 'Mechs because there are more systems to replace when you get damaged. Fixing the torso armor on an Atlas could run the same cost as the entire repair bill of a Raven, so if you're going to run a big boy you need either skill or deep pockets, occasionally both.

[FireStorm2]

Famous, on 30 April 2012 - 02:06 PM, said:

A lot of your concerns are actually addressed by the 'MechLab. With the announced 'Mech line up if you want to run heavy, indirect fire support the Cat is your best choice, it has two missile hard points and none of the other announced 'Mechs in the Heavy/Assault category can mount that many missiles.

The inclusion of type specific weapon hard points will go a long way towards creating variety in the lances. Sure I can take an Atlas or a Centurion and stick an LRM in the torso, but I get the feeling that I won't be able to fit an LRM15, much less two on anything other than a Cat at release.

We may also find that smaller chassis have perks built in that the heavier 'Mechs just can't match, for instance the ECM suite that the Raven is supposed to have. If the Raven is the only 'Mech at launch that has a bonus to Information Warfare and scouting then you're guaranteed to see them and they will punish teams that show up with just the big boys.

All in all this game is sounded a lot more involved and strategic than previous offerings, at least for the IS. We're being encouraged to find a specialty and become good at that. So even if a bunch of player flock to the heavier 'Mechs there will still be a lot of difference in skill. It will also likely be much more expensive to run the heavier 'Mechs because there are more systems to replace when you get damaged. Fixing the torso armor on an Atlas could run the same cost as the entire repair bill of a Raven, so if you're going to run a big boy you need either skill or deep pockets, occasionally both.

As I understand the currently described mech lab, it will be possible to upgrade any existing weapon to whatever size of weapon desired, restricted only by the number of that type of weapon already existing in that hit location, tonnage, and available crit slots. Given that it is apparently possible to adjust non-weapon crits at will, as well as the fact that most 3025 era mechs have lots of free crit slots in all locations anyway, it would be a simple matter to replace, say, the LRM/20 and SRM/6 on an Atlas with two large LRM launchers.

As for equipment restrictions allowing only lighter mechs to mount electronics, I suppose that could be a factor, although again I believe the currently described mech lab is not so restrictive and would allow all electronics to be mounted anywhere on any mech as long as critical slots and tonnage are available. That said, I do still see a useful role for light mechs in scouting due to the disproportionate advantage of improved speed versus weaponry or armor regardless of fitting considerations or drop restrictions.

Limiting the number of heavier mechs solely (or largely) by the cost of maintaining them opens another can of worms. While the financial model of the game has not yet been fleshed out, it seems reasonable to assume that it will be possible to purchase c-bills in addition to obtaining them through gameplay. This would offer the possibility of a 'pay to win' scenario if there is no other reason to choose a chassis other than a heavy or assault. Also, balance in this fashion is only applicable to the overall gameplay experience, and could for example result in competitive teams who require their members to grind or pay for enough c-bills to afford the heaviest mechs for their organized games. It could also result in a 'rich get richer' scenario with organized groups taking the largest mechs and sustaining relatively little damage while inflicting disproportionate damage on their opponents who are restricted to lighter chassis. The less organized would have substantially lesser prospect of improving their ability to finance heavier mechs, since even if they could afford a heavier mech for a few matches, they would be singled out for destruction while their teammates were still in lighter chassis.

[Famous]

Firestorm- I concede the point about the Atlas, I missed the LRM hardpoint in the description. Now could you mount an LRM15 in place of the SRM6, maybe, but that seems like there are either a large number of unused crit slots in the torso or you're sacrificing something.

Another difference we will likely see in the chassis is speed. I'm not talking about flat out speed since we've already covered a Charger keeping pace with much lighter 'Mechs, I'm talking about torso twist and turning speed. In the gameplay demo video that's floating around you have an Atlas and Hunchback fighting a Jenner (http://www.youtube.c...GvP8VFXAI#t=50s) and the Jenner is so close that the other 'Mechs have a hard time actually putting fire on the target. If lighter chassis can circle faster than the big boys can rotate then there's an obvious advantage to a smaller chassis.

If they include friendly fire in the game that's a huge incentive (for me at least) to use a lighter 'Mech for scouting and close in duties, I'm less of a target to the enemy and friendly.

What it comes down to for me is that I trust PGI to make the Role Warfare system benefit those players who pick a role and drive a 'Mech best suited to that role. A Commando or Raven *should* be able to find locations and avoid detection much better than a Centurion or Atlas because of the vast difference in size. Personally I'd prefer the ability to sneak up, NARC the Assault, and sneak out over the additional tons of armor needed to walk an Atlas into a scouting position taking fire the whole way because I'm the tallest thing on the map.

[Kasiagora]

Well, one thing that I've found helps a lot of lighter mechs have one-up on the assaults is that when you're making an assault mech... (from the days of paper and pencil and having to figure everything out yourself instead of just plugging in variables and letting a computer do the work (which really sucked by the way when you'd be almost done with you mech and find out you'd made an error in your math early on and the past hour or two goes straight out the window as you reach for a new photo-copied blank mech sheet and open up the green book again)) ...its chassis, gyro, and engine weigh more. From the 3025 technical readout via Sarna, "...the Charger is powered by a massive LTV 400 fusion engine that takes up almost sixty percent of the Charger's mass." When it comes to making a mech, you can actually make a medium mech that supports almost as much armor, and just as much speed with a much lighter engine and internal structure (which is also inherently weaker due to internal structure being based off of weight, but still!). So anyway, what I'm aiming toward is that if you felt like taking the jumpjets off and downgrading the engine of a Catapult to make it a less versatile, more specialized support mech, it can feasibly out class assaults made for the same role. Many Catapult variants simply take off the medium lasers to accomplish this.
I don't know what this says for or against my original premise, but I always thought it was an interesting thing to keep in mind when making mechs for tabletop.

To Volthorne, I've had some amazing games in Tribes, but usually if you hop into any old CTF game you'll see little to no teamwork and a bunch of heavies and raiders slugging it out in the Gen Room while the timer runs out instead of trying for objectives and puting forth better effort. It's just the way it goes. I'd love to play some Tribes with ya if we run into each other in there sometime.

[Hayashi]

If you're talking about role restriction that won't affect Steiner at all, because they already use Atlases for everything.

[Rejarial Galatan]

}{avoc, on 30 April 2012 - 12:00 PM, said:

Rift actually had a nifty LFG tool that allowed a person attempting to create a group to specify which roles they were looking for.

I.E a healer would select LFG and that filled the healer role, which would leave 2 DPS and a tank slot open (which filled as players joined).

PGI could have something similar for PUGs in which a pilot was flagged as a certain role (commander, scout, brawler, support etc) and as someone who was specialized in that role joined the lobby, another slot was removed.

The only thing I don't like about this is it would kind of "force" balanced teams. If a unit wants to run 12 Atlases or 12 Ravens, or 6 and 6 they should be able to if they so choose SO LONG AS that grouping doesn't end up being the end-all-be-all group make-up of the game.
If it does, something is broken.



I think back to MPBT:3025 and taking out heavies and assaults with the BJ.
Open map, run forward until in range, open up with the AC2s and back pedal. The big boys either had to run and hide, or continue charging.

Being the biggest and baddest doesn't make it the best. Not for every situation anyway.

I am fairly certain I am going to repeat someone here, but thats cool. It <the rift lfg system> sounds ALOT like the one used on World of Warcraft. Where a healer or a tank or a dps selects that role and hits the button to join queue and waits as the other empty slots fill in then its off to the dungeon. You finish said dungeon and find yourself right back where you started as it whisked you away. Would be awesome to see an LFG system like this. Also, imposing ANY kind of weight limits on a team is just hideous. As one of our Admins said, we benefit from being able to mix it up.

[Kanatta Jing]

Well, replacing the SRM 6 on an atlas with another LRM launcher to create a slow moving long range indirect fire platform and using a lance of three such rang Atlas's with a scout as an attacking force looks like a viable plan.

Bound up close together they can offer each other close fire support and reign terrible death upon the lances that their scout locates.

Assuming that the maps are fairly small and that a reduced speed Atlas can successfully navigate the map in time.

Assuming that bombardments aren't over an area and have a duration timer. You know Artillery barrage 1 kilometer Diameter and a duration of 5 minutes. Meaning an Atlas reduced to 20 km/h would take 3 times the damage a stock Catapult would, moving out of the same fire zone.

Assuming that half the game won't be locating (Scouting) and getting into firing position of a moving target in a low visibility field without alerting them (Commanding).

I certainly hope Fire§torm's concern is entirely unfounded.

[FireStorm2]

Famous, on 30 April 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

Another difference we will likely see in the chassis is speed. I'm not talking about flat out speed since we've already covered a Charger keeping pace with much lighter 'Mechs, I'm talking about torso twist and turning speed. In the gameplay demo video that's floating around you have an Atlas and Hunchback fighting a Jenner (http://www.youtube.c...GvP8VFXAI#t=50s) and the Jenner is so close that the other 'Mechs have a hard time actually putting fire on the target. If lighter chassis can circle faster than the big boys can rotate then there's an obvious advantage to a smaller chassis.

This could be a viable means of balancing the lighter and heavier mechs, although with skill and good teamwork (keeping track of firing arcs and such) it might be unneccessary for an assault mech in a group of other assault mechs to continuously track lighter mechs. An assault mech could potentially cover his mates and shoot targets off of their backs as they move into his reticule rather than keeping the reticule on the target continuously. I would actually consider this a fairly acceptable outcome, though, since it would certainly require a higher degree of skill to be successful as a coordinated group with assault mechs than it would with a pack of faster-tracking, but lighter-armed and armored units.

Kanatta Jing, on 30 April 2012 - 03:48 PM, said:

Well, replacing the SRM 6 on an atlas with another LRM launcher to create a slow moving long range indirect fire platform and using a lance of three such rang Atlas's with a scout as an attacking force looks like a viable plan.

Bound up close together they can offer each other close fire support and reign terrible death upon the lances that their scout locates.

Assuming that the maps are fairly small and that a reduced speed Atlas can successfully navigate the map in time.

Assuming that bombardments aren't over an area and have a duration timer. You know Artillery barrage 1 kilometer Diameter and a duration of 5 minutes. Meaning an Atlas reduced to 20 km/h would take 3 times the damage a stock Catapult would, moving out of the same fire zone.

Assuming that half the game won't be locating (Scouting) and getting into firing position of a moving target in a low visibility field without alerting them (Commanding).

I certainly hope Fire§torm's concern is entirely unfounded.

An artillery barrage covering 1 kilometer of area for five full minutes seems unlikely, although whatever size an artillery barrage might cover, it could certainly cause more damage to a unit caught within it for a longer duration. An Atlas wouldn't have to be reduced to one third the speed of a Catapult to carry a superior armor and weapons loadout, however. In the tabletop game, an Atlas moves at 5 hexes for run speed, while a Catapult moves at 6 hexes for run speed (something like 54 kph and 65 kph respectively,) which would result in a relatively small time differential for exposure. The vastly greater armor capacity of the Atlas would likely more than compensate for the somewhat increased exposure time. I would additionally expect that the relatively minor difference in speed would be unlikely to have a drastic effect on a team's ability to control the map.

I also hope that my concern is entirely unfounded, and I do trust the developers to bring us an excellent game.

[Rhinehart]

Ahem, No. There should be no limits imposed on what someone should be able to pilot. Especially true if someone has purchased a chassis from the store they should have the right to pilot it when they please. No one should be forced to structure a unit according to what anybody elses Ideal of a company should be. If they want to take the Lyran approach and field all assaults they should be able to. If they want to play as Davion Light Guards and run rings around the opposition with fast jumping mechs that is their choice. YOUR job is to use your assets to defeat the enemy regardless of what composition they choose. On a battlefield the enemy rarely chooses their dispositions to suit you. There is absolutely no reason MWO needs to start anything like that. Learn to use what you have effectively. If you lose a match or two, don't assume you'd have won with all Atlas's. Try using better tactics or develorping your skills. Just because someone beats you doesn't mean they had a better mech. If you are worried about imbalance, wait until the Clan invasion. Then you'll get too see what imbalance really looks like.

Edited by Rhinehart, 30 April 2012 - 06:18 PM.

[Kasiagora]

Especially if before the Clans actually get "released" it's only Dev's and their friends and families, on headsets, piloting clan mechs and sending our targeting computers all awry.

"Base, I've got a Catapult... no wait, a Marauder... Oh knoez!!! It's Paul!!!"