136 replies to this topic

[John Norad]

SixStringSamurai, on 03 December 2012 - 12:42 AM, said:

Already complaining about a feature you haven't even tried yet? Why don't you actually play the game before making these kinds of threads? There's no way to know if this will work or not since it isn't even in the game yet.

There's no way to know? Well color me stupid, and I thought common sense and a bit of gaming experience was sufficient.

[Edustaja]

Just take a few fastawesomes (9M moving around 80) along with those D-DC ecm fatlases and you're set.

[John Norad]

Lefty Lucy, on 03 December 2012 - 12:57 AM, said:

I know it's going to make for some un-fun games, however, I think implementing 8v8 with no balancing mechanic is going to be the only way to gather real data about what is actually OP.

8 Atlases with ERPPC+Gauss as main weapons plus some SSRM and LRM+Tag as backup?
Just a guess.

[BFalcon]

Edustaja, on 03 December 2012 - 05:36 AM, said:

Just take a few fastawesomes (9M moving around 80) along with those D-DC ecm fatlases and you're set.

This is true - we didn't have the Awesome last time...

Of course, when you meet an all-Atlas team with those fast awesomes, they'll likely outgun you...

This might actually get interesting... for a week or two at most...

[MechyMcMechface-]

Those of you that want a tonnage limit are in luck! If you look carefully, they have already imposed one with this change.

800 tons.

I'm looking forward to this; I don't like being able to look at my teammates and know that on the other side of the map, there's X assaults and Y lights with Z and A heavies and mediums waiting for us over the ridge. Bringing this change into the mix along with allowing 8-person drops will bring some unknown chaos of battle back to the game while mitigating it with the coordinated strategy that I wish they had never removed, even if it was temporary.

[StandingCow]

Phase 3 will be out probably early next year... January.

[Hayashi]

You have the ability to coordinate loadouts with your groupmates. Nothing is stopping every 8man from loading what they feel is the most overpowered configuration to optimise their winrate.

Then when tested against another optimised 8man, we'll see what is truly overpowered, and what is not.

It's not every day I see people arguing against freedom really. Campaigning for the freedom to drop as a full group while also campaigning against the freedom to decide your loadouts seems a little strange to me.

The only thing I don't like about it is the hard 8man restriction. If a premade wants to try dropping as a 6man or 7man for the challenge, for increased salvage earnings/pilot or because the last guy has something on in real life, I don't see why not. I doubt their opponents would object.

---

From a beta testing/balancing perspective, if every single 8man starts loading Jenners/Cataphracts/Catapults, it'll give the devs some pretty interesting information about what should be nerfed and what should not. Or if they really all start dropping in 2-2-2-2 configurations, we know role warfare succeeded. If certain Mechs (Raven? Dragon?) don't appear in almost all of the optimised teams, we know they need a buff.

[BFalcon]

Nikoli, on 03 December 2012 - 05:40 AM, said:

Those of you that want a tonnage limit are in luck! If you look carefully, they have already imposed one with this change.

800 tons.

I'm looking forward to this; I don't like being able to look at my teammates and know that on the other side of the map, there's X assaults and Y lights with Z and A heavies and mediums waiting for us over the ridge. Bringing this change into the mix along with allowing 8-person drops will bring some unknown chaos of battle back to the game while mitigating it with the coordinated strategy that I wish they had never removed, even if it was temporary.

This is true, I'll admit... and the Cataphract's success is partly due to its being RIGHT at the top end of the Heavy bracket, but I would like a *slightly* lower cap than 800...

But I don't think that anyone's complaining about the "matched classes" system not being used, per se, just that there's no replacement balancing system in place (yet).

[BFalcon]

Hayashi, on 03 December 2012 - 05:44 AM, said:

You have the ability to coordinate loadouts with your groupmates. Nothing is stopping every 8man from loading what they feel is the most overpowered configuration to optimise their winrate.

Then when tested against another optimised 8man, we'll see what is truly overpowered, and what is not.

It's not every day I see people arguing against freedom really. Campaigning for the freedom to drop as a full group while also campaigning against the freedom to decide your loadouts seems a little strange to me.

The only thing I don't like about it is the hard 8man restriction. If a premade wants to try dropping as a 6man or 7man for the challenge, for increased salvage earnings/pilot or because the last guy has something on in real life, I don't see why not. I doubt their opponents would object.

---

From a beta testing/balancing perspective, if every single 8man starts loading Jenners/Cataphracts/Catapults, it'll give the devs some pretty interesting information about what should be nerfed and what should not. Or if they really all start dropping in 2-2-2-2 configurations, we know role warfare succeeded. If certain Mechs (Raven? Dragon?) don't appear in almost all of the optimised teams, we know they need a buff.

Some good points, Hayashi... it would be interesting to see that data, if the devs would be so kind, once they've done with that phase...

Just so long as they record the number of times those balanced teams lost against stacked teams too...

I also think that tonnage, instead of even teams, could be fun too... so they could take their all-Atlas team, but they'd only have 4 players, maybe, but would face an 8-man team that's better balanced.

[Teralitha]

Hayashi, on 03 December 2012 - 05:44 AM, said:

You have the ability to coordinate loadouts with your groupmates. Nothing is stopping every 8man from loading what they feel is the most overpowered configuration to optimise their winrate.

Then when tested against another optimised 8man, we'll see what is truly overpowered, and what is not.

It's not every day I see people arguing against freedom really. Campaigning for the freedom to drop as a full group while also campaigning against the freedom to decide your loadouts seems a little strange to me.

The only thing I don't like about it is the hard 8man restriction. If a premade wants to try dropping as a 6man or 7man for the challenge, for increased salvage earnings/pilot or because the last guy has something on in real life, I don't see why not. I doubt their opponents would object.

---

From a beta testing/balancing perspective, if every single 8man starts loading Jenners/Cataphracts/Catapults, it'll give the devs some pretty interesting information about what should be nerfed and what should not. Or if they really all start dropping in 2-2-2-2 configurations, we know role warfare succeeded. If certain Mechs (Raven? Dragon?) don't appear in almost all of the optimised teams, we know they need a buff.

It was already tested in closed beta. And people screamed for a matchmaker. That situation will now be repeated. There is no reason to gather "more" data on something that was already proven to fail. If you want to test it AGAIN, just remove the matchmaker now.

Premades do not want unlimited drops. That is not the reason why premades wanted to drop vs premades. I sincerely hope this moderators view doesnt truly reflect the devs view/plan

Edited by Teralitha, 03 December 2012 - 05:55 AM.

[John Norad]

Hayashi, on 03 December 2012 - 05:44 AM, said:

Then when tested against another optimised 8man, we'll see what is truly overpowered, and what is not.

You do realze this has to do a lot with map design and game modes/objectives?
We will only see what's overpowered on brawlfest maps and 'capture their base' game mode..

[Belorion]

I like the idea of matching total weight to total weight over tonnage limits, if for no reason more than taking a dragon over taking a cataphract becomes a tactical decision. Then total weight can be matched to total weight within a range to make it easier on the match maker.

[zenstrata]

There should NEVER be tonnage limits. (Except for perhaps solaris 'staged' battles.)

If you don't know what solaris is go google it in relation to mechwarrior and read a bit, then come back.

Tonnage limits are a mistake, and here is why - Imagine you are a mechwarrior. You get sent on a mission to do something - would you always know exactly what mechs you would face once you arrived? No, of course not!

In fact, I really dislike the matchmaking system as it is currently for this very reason! I want to go into every drop not knowing what I might face. I Want to run into entire teams of lights or assaults and everything between! Because this most closely simulates what it would really be like to be a mechwarrior.

The rest of you sound like you are whining because you might run into some hypothetical 'unfair' scenario. Well get over it soldier! This is battle. All sorts of unknown and crazy stuff can happen in battle. You have to adapt to survive to ever-changing conditions. The only thing you can depend on is your team in battle.

[MuonNeutrino]

zenstrata, on 03 December 2012 - 05:53 AM, said:

Tonnage limits are a mistake, and here is why - Imagine you are a mechwarrior. You get sent on a mission to do something - would you always know exactly what mechs you would face once you arrived? No, of course not!

<snip>

The rest of you sound like you are whining because you might run into some hypothetical 'unfair' scenario. Well get over it soldier! This is battle. All sorts of unknown and crazy stuff can happen in battle. You have to adapt to survive to ever-changing conditions. The only thing you can depend on is your team in battle.

I'm sorry, you appear to be laboring under the misapprehension that this is something other than a game. Games are for having fun, and if some limits on allowable drops are needed to preserve that fun, so be it.

Also, your ideas of what 'most closely simulates what it would really be like to be a mechwarrior' are pretty hilarious. A mechwarrior might not know exactly what he'll face when dropped, but he can definitely tell you one thing it *won't* be - 100% assault mechs. Also, while we're on the topic of realism, how likely would it be for a warrior to fight 100% of the time in battles with exactly 8 mechs on each side? (And yes, I know, crashes/disco/afk/suicide/etc, but 8v8 is the *intended* behavior.) And for that matter, how realistic is it that all of those fights are played out on postage-stamp sized battlefields where you 'win' by standing on a square and mysteriously blow up if you get too far away?

Frankly, solaris is actually the *closest* thing in canon to what we're doing here, and that's exactly *why* tonnage limits are a reasonable thing to suggest.

[Teralitha]

zenstrata, on 03 December 2012 - 05:53 AM, said:

There should NEVER be tonnage limits. (Except for perhaps solaris 'staged' battles.)

If you don't know what solaris is go google it in relation to mechwarrior and read a bit, then come back.

Tonnage limits are a mistake, and here is why - Imagine you are a mechwarrior. You get sent on a mission to do something - would you always know exactly what mechs you would face once you arrived? No, of course not!

In fact, I really dislike the matchmaking system as it is currently for this very reason! I want to go into every drop not knowing what I might face. I Want to run into entire teams of lights or assaults and everything between! Because this most closely simulates what it would really be like to be a mechwarrior.

The rest of you sound like you are whining because you might run into some hypothetical 'unfair' scenario. Well get over it soldier! This is battle. All sorts of unknown and crazy stuff can happen in battle. You have to adapt to survive to ever-changing conditions. The only thing you can depend on is your team in battle.

The absence of a matchmaker has already been tested. It failed and is the reason why we have a matchmaker.

Well with a tonnage limit you will have no idea what your facing. If you really hate the current matchmaker, then you would like a tonnage limit better. Think about it.

Note - This request is only for 8vs8 premades.

Edited by Teralitha, 03 December 2012 - 06:07 AM.

[Belorion]

We could also do this as a community, and bring back drop of the week, but with a weekly tonnage limit.

[zenstrata]

The absence of matchmaker did not fail in my opinion. I enjoy not knowing what I will run into. I actually had FUN playing that way! If you do not have fun then I can't help but wonder what might be wrong with you.

[Kerguidou]

BFalcon, on 03 December 2012 - 05:16 AM, said:

Ker: the problem is, it becomes more a game of "rock, paper, scissors" than Battletech.

You take your all-Atlas team. An all-Jenner team will cap around it, which is as it should be, don't get me wrong.

But then you design a drop team with some anti-Light capability in it... and meet the all-Atlas team. Suddenly, you're 100 tons or so down on their team and they just stomp you because you tried to be a) flexible and a bit more realistic.

Let's face it, in Canon, an all-Assault lance would be financially unviable and tactically unsound - in the greater scheme of things, you need faster lances to find the enemy and pin them in place - one 12m c-bill assault mech costs the same as an entire lance of light mechs and is far less useful outside of the intensive brawl or assaults that they are designed for - having overwhelming firepower is all well and good, but not if you can't find something to shoot with it.

When you consider the larger picture, it becomes even more obvious - a Lance of Assault mechs suddenly takes on the same cost as a company of Lights... which might be enough to secure a backwater planet. Looked at like that, the all-Assault lance suddenly becomes a lot less attractive when you find that entire planets are going without a garrison just so you can have an all-kicking assault regiment.

Great, too, until you consider that Assault mechs ride in the same dropships as anyone else and can be destroyed in space like any other... and then you start to see why few units actually WANT to spent out any more than they must on assaults than they need to, unless they expect heavy fighting - two Mediums or Heavies can actually outgun an Assault anyhow.

The problems come with artificial limits like numbers - if we could take twice as many mechs against those Assaults, then we could beat them.

The problem with too many Lights is purely the capture mechanism, but it is pretty indicative of the problems that would occur with light mechs outmaneuvering anyone else - the problems would then come when they needed to defend an objective and didn't have the firepower to do it.

For one thing, canon doesn't matter when balancing a game. For another, I don't care about canon, and the silent majority doesn't either.

More to the point, I think it should be better to let players sort it out. World in conflict solved this issue ingeniously by allowing players to switch roles on the fly, for a cost. What you're proposing PGI does to MWO would be akin to Riot enforcing aggressively a 2-1-2 meta from the start and never allow anything to stray for it. However, by letting the player base experiment over a few years, a solid and versatile core strategy emerged. Unfortunately, for financial reasons, Riot have now crystallized the current metagame because it's easier to sell the image of teams and players in tournaments when you know what the role of a single player will be.

Anyways, all I'm saying is that we should let players sort it out.

[BFalcon]

True, but then that might help them with map designs too...

[Teralitha]

zenstrata, on 03 December 2012 - 06:12 AM, said:

The absence of matchmaker did not fail in my opinion. I enjoy not knowing what I will run into. I actually had FUN playing that way! If you do not have fun then I can't help but wonder what might be wrong with you.

Right... so all those matches where you jumped into your favorite hunchback and dropped and were randomly matched with 7 other mediums and lights, then you go off toward enemy base. Then you run into an atlas... and your like... oh an atlas... look out, then you see another.... and another.. and realize your facing 8 atlas and next thing you know your the only left alive on your team and you have 8 atlas bearing down on you...

If thats your idea of fun then I cant help but wonder what might be wrong with you.