21 replies to this topic

[Larec]

Hello all,

I'd like to know what the MWO community thinks about having a tonnage limit in 8v8 matches.

Right now, you can field 8 Atlases in a 8v8 matches (no matter if this is a good idea or not) which often leads to kinda one sided strategies (you often see teams of 2 - 3 lights and 5 - 6 assaults).

If there would be a limit to the tonnage the teams are allowed to field, teams would have to develop diverse lineups, which would make for an (IMO) interesting metagame in 8v8 matches and future clanwars.

Example:
If you'd field 2 mechs of each weightclass, the average tonnage per team would be around 460 tons.

2 lights = 60 tons
2 mediums = 90 tons
2 heavies = 130 tons
2 assaults = 180 tons
Sum = 460 tons

Keep in mind, those are the average numbers. If you'd take the heaviest variants per weightclass, it'd be 510 tons. If you'd take the lightest variants per class, it'd be 410 tons.

Now I've spoken to many Battletech fans who claim that mediums were the "workforce" of each army in the Battletech universe, simply because they're cheap and still effective. Considering this, maybe having 2 mechs per weightclass isn't too realistic. So let's take another approach:

2 lights = 60 tons
3 mediums = 135 tons
2 heavies = 130 tons
1 assault = 120 tons
Sum = 415 tons

Again, those are the average numbers. Picking only the lightest variants would result in 370 tons and the heaviest variants in 460 tons.

Keeping all this in mind, would you like to see a tonnage limit (edit: after netcode is fixed and collisions are back in ) and if so, how high should it be?

Edit: Added "Flexible limit set by agreement" due to request.

Edited by Drybone, 18 January 2013 - 01:31 PM.

[Postumus]

Great post. I think tonnage limits would be great for 8v8s, while still allowing freedom in choosing the layout of the lance. That said, if it went it tomorrow basically you'd just end up with less D-DCs and more Ravens, since from what I hear ECM seems to be required equipment for 8v8s. If I could, I'd vote 450 ton and 2 ECM max.

[Monky]

Tonnage limits are probably not the best, in the current balance scheme most teams would trade 1 ECM atlas in for 1 ECM raven and then you still have the same problem just in a different flavor.

In reality, the game needs to bring battlevalue back into play, but how to coordinate that across 8 people in a way that is still fun will be tricky, as upgrades like dual heatsinks would both up the battle value and also be expensive to undo for each player, especially for just a few matches.

Really, for a game like this I don't think there is a solution other than paying keen attention to the game balance, which is something that seems to be somewhat lacking. If they fix the ECM to where 8 man teams think it is useful but not mandatory, then they will have hit the right note and the problem will essentially disappear.

[Test Monkey 13]

keeping the math simpler.

there are 4 mech weights in each class:

light (20t,25t,30t,35t) total:110t, average:27.5t
medium (40t,45t,50t,55t) total:190t, average:47.5t
heavy (60t,65t,70t,75t) total: 270t, average:67.5t
assault (80t,85t,90t,95t,100t) 450t, average:90t

take the total for 2 average mechs from each class:(55t,95t,135t,180t)
total that for the weight limit

465t

[Adrienne Vorton]

i dunno, basically a good idea (with as well min-weight as max weight)...but i have the strange feeling it might bring up some problems i can´t figure yet...

but anyhow - free tonnage should stay an option, because (if other teams are playing fair and don´t abuse the system) it is an interesting challenge not to know what will come up next

Edited by Adrienne Vorton, 18 January 2013 - 03:04 AM.

[Fooooo]

I really dislike Tonnage limits or BV, its just way too messy and complicated, and will probably end up annoying most.


Tbh the only way to "force" some type of variety and avoid all the headaches is to enforce drop setups. (much like I have heard they did in MW4, which I liked the sound of....so yea...)

Basically PGI sets a couple of "standardized" brackets which 8 and 12 groups can pick before launching, and setup accordingly. No stuffing around with trying to fit exact tons, no stuffing around trying to fit into the team with your BV etc etc.......but it still has problems, mainly being that the more brackets, the more split the queues.......I guess some brackets could "overlap" and VS each other to help with that....


8v8
2-2-2-2
1-3-2-2
1-1-4-2

12v12
3-3-3-3
2-4-3-3
2-2-5-3

(OBV those brackets I just made out of thin air and have no idea if they would be the ones most people would want)

Edited by Fooooo, 18 January 2013 - 05:58 AM.

[Larec]

I gotta admit I like the idea with the brackets...

Other than that: Keep the votes comnig, people!

[Pachar]

I dislike the idea of tonage limits, but I would enjoy tonage balancing. I would love it if the lances were matched within 5 tons or so.

[MoPo]

Can you add a "Flexible limit set by agreement" option?

[Tremor]

Maybe instead of tonnage 'limit', you could just try to balance the tonnages between teams?

You'd get matchups like this (but with more players, obviously)

Jenner + Catapult vs Hunchback + Centurion
35 + 65 = 50 + 50

Edit: Obviously you'd have some drop groups close, but not exact on tonnage.

Edited by Tremor, 18 January 2013 - 09:07 AM.

[ElliottHD]

Tonnage limits should be the TT equivalent of points. Make each mech "worth" a certain ammount of points based on load out. Just make each weapon/module/equipment piece add "points" to the mech. Keep it static, but make the different chassis cost a base amount of points. Then say you only 1000 points to field a team. So that ECM Atlas, after everything is said and done may cost 600 points of your thousand. But your 4 Medium Pulse, UAC5 Dragon only costs say 250. It would take some work on the developers end, but it would add a certain balance to the game and could be used for pug matches too. Just get plugged into pick up groups that need your points to fill out the team no matter what Mech you're driving.

This could even go a step further, and have scaled points. Let's use that 4 Medium Pulse Dragon again, if he were to use just two Medium Pulse Lasers they might cost 20 points, but there would be a redundancy cost for anything over three, so 4 Medium pulse would cost 50 points, 20 for the first two at 10 each, but an extra five for every one after that. Now those crazy cat and streak cat pilots can't ***** that thier prescious catapults where "nerfed" but they would be "expensive to field". That's just one option I had thought about. Also, these numbers are out of thin air for example purposes. It would take time, testing, and careful consideration to really make this system work in a way that wasn't too limiting while still forcing team balancing and strategy over ECM run and gun.

If tonnage limits are the answer, then they should include a minimum as well. And the issue of "It takes too long to set the group up" isn't that hard to fix. When you ready-up with whichever mech you have selected it should add your tons to a counter on the pre-launch group screen. Once everyone is ready, it'll only allow you to launch if you are "within range" of say 300-450 tons. This will keep the game from going entirely in the other direction and being stuck with teams of 8 Ravens and Commandos. It'll also force the pre-mades to strategize more than "you bring your Atlas and I'll bring mine".

You could do a bracket system as suggested as well, with the brackets overlapping one way in either direction as well to keep the queues moving. Not to much else to add to this considering the idea had never even crossed my mind when thinking of way the game could be better balanced in the future.

Or, the other way I thought of balancing the groups and forcing teamwork again would be to limit what equipment can be attached by which mech. Make it so that ECM raven can't use tag or narc. Make tag and narc work like ECM in the sense that it can only mounted on certain Mechs. LRM Stalker? Better bring a tag jenner. Atlas DDC? Well the ECM is nice but it limits my ability to use "X" weapon. And before people start getting up in arms about the thought of not allowing a hard point to accept a certain weapon, what's the difference between that and the way ECM is implimented now?

I understand that ECM was only available on certain mechs in cannon, but ECM wasn't a broken mess in cannon. And PGI has done certain things to the game in the name of real time playability already, why not continue that trend with ECM and group balancing. They have said from the beginning that they want the game to be about teamwork and to never have one mech be better than the next and so on. If that is truely the case, then what's wrong with mech dependent/limited equipment being used across the board for all systems? Or having certain equiment installed, causing other equiment to become unavailable? If putting streak missiles on my mech made tag unavailable, or limiting narc to Jenners and Commandos, but only if they don't ALSO mount streaks. Something like that. This isn't my favorite option, since I think tonnage limits or a points per mech system are truely the equalizers the game is looking for moving forward into CW.

[WolfDrache]

Drybone, on 18 January 2013 - 12:24 AM, said:

Hello all,

I'd like to know what the MWO community thinks about having a tonnage limit in 8v8 matches.

Right now, you can field 8 Atlases in a 8v8 matches (no matter if this is a good idea or not) which often leads to kinda one sided strategies (you often see teams of 2 - 3 lights and 5 - 6 assaults).

If there would be a limit to the tonnage the teams are allowed to field, teams would have to develop diverse lineups, which would make for an (IMO) interesting metagame in 8v8 matches and future clanwars.

Example:
If you'd field 2 mechs of each weightclass, the average tonnage per team would be around 460 tons.

2 lights = 60 tons
2 mediums = 90 tons
2 heavies = 130 tons
2 assaults = 180 tons
Sum = 460 tons

Keep in mind, those are the average numbers. If you'd take the heaviest variants per weightclass, it'd be 510 tons. If you'd take the lightest variants per class, it'd be 410 tons.

Now I've spoken to many Battletech fans who claim that mediums were the "workforce" of each army in the Battletech universe, simply because they're cheap and still effective. Considering this, maybe having 2 mechs per weightclass isn't too realistic. So let's take another approach:

2 lights = 60 tons
3 mediums = 135 tons
2 heavies = 130 tons
1 assault = 120 tons
Sum = 415 tons

Again, those are the average numbers. Picking only the lightest variants would result in 370 tons and the heaviest variants in 460 tons.

Keeping all this in mind, would you like to see a tonnage limit (edit: after netcode is fixed and collisions are back in ) and if so, how high should it be?

Actually i would like to see a multiple of wieght limits so we can chose which one we want to go in. This will also help you out if you are going to bring out Solaris Arenas in the future.

[Wilburg]

There are various nice proposals in the post. So basically most want a flexibilized but more or less equivalent Mech-Lineup. I think that should be the way to go. Why not enable the possibility to have a light battle or a pure assault battle? Imo a consensual way between patterns and tonnage could be a solution.
I guess what we DO NOT want is keeping up the system of 2 lights + 8 assaults ^^

[CancR]

I'm all for a tonnage limit as per the table top, but how about a cash limit on just the cost of the mech its self (So it wouldn't include all the facy stuff players add on) each team is given x amount of cash to buy mechs for all the members in the 8 man

[ElliottHD]

CancR, on 18 January 2013 - 11:17 AM, said:

I'm all for a tonnage limit as per the table top, but how about a cash limit on just the cost of the mech its self (So it wouldn't include all the facy stuff players add on) each team is given x amount of cash to buy mechs for all the members in the 8 man

This is very similar to my proposed Points system. Only you're using the value of the mech with it's upgrades versus a scaled "point value" based on its load out. Very good idea and easily implemented with the current game. You would just need some acceptable depreciation for certain items like XL Engines and DHS or you would end up with XL Commando's being "worth more" than some standard Catafracts or Dragons.

Edited by ElliottHD, 18 January 2013 - 11:59 AM.

[Larec]

MoPo, on 18 January 2013 - 08:36 AM, said:

Can you add a "Flexible limit set by agreement" option?

Done!

Wow, some really nice suggestions in this thread.

Gotta admit though, the BV system might take the metagame of figuring out good lineups a bit too far, but that's just me.

Some people suggested that the launcher automatically matches teams of equal (or near equal) tonnage. While that would be ideal for "free play", I doubt there are enough 8 mans around to make it work right now. But hopefully that'll change in the future . Other than that, a system like that wouldn't really help in "planned" clanwars, of course.

There's a nice flow going on in this thread, keep it coming .

[Larec]

Final and shameless bump.

I would really like to read more opinions...

Edited by Drybone, 20 January 2013 - 06:05 AM.

[Regrets]

8 assaults versus 6 assaults and 2 lights, the 6+2 will almost always win. I don't really see the point except to promote some middle of the road mechs (why run Awesome srm/laser over Stalker srm/laser; or why run dragon over cataphract), or ones that won't match up versus ECM Cicida/Raven (Spider/Mando I'm looking at you).

If this is the case, then why not penalize ECM spider versus non-ECM spider? Why not promote the 4 MG spider over all the others! All sounds too complicated to me. Let people play what they want, there are advantages to bringing diff mechs in. If a mech sucks bad compared to others, buff it, not create some insanely complicated method to try to balance otherwise...

Cliffs: BIIIIIGGGG -1

Edited by Regrets, 20 January 2013 - 08:54 AM.

[grayson marik]

You dont need to impose yet an other set of restrictions, making happy just again only a fraction of the overall playerbase.

Just do this and we can all play games we like:

http://mwomercs.com/...37#entry1757837

[ElliottHD]

The idea isn't to restrict what people play so that they are bored. It is to keep the game balanced and competetive. Especially for people who are more comfortable in say a Dragon or a Jenner. (I'll take a Dragon over a Catafract any day Regrets!) I love this game and think there are plenty of options to may sure everyone enjoys it and can play in the Mechs they like, the way they like. Because that is the point isn't it? Shouldn't you be able to have fun in an Awesome even if it does suck compaired to an Atlas? (The jury's still out on the Stalker for me.)

Honestly, all of it should be optional. You should be allowed to optionally have a ton limit, or points limit, or free game, but this divides the player base and you're going to get a lot of failed matches just based on 8vs8 filtering and people's launch timing. And since they have flat out stated that they are not going to go to a lobby system since they can't make it work with CW for some reason, dont' expect that to change. So the next best option for now is to "force" people to use a variety of Mechs combined with teamwork and strategy. Do you guys remember the last days of closed beta? How much fun it was? The teamwork and communication that was involved?

Games were tactical and the most well balanced and lead team won usually. Then they made the game ECM Atlas Online and it really lost a lot of the appeal. No more teamwork other than calling out the target and shooting until that target is dead. No more using the terrain or strategy, just simply run down the other team and out brawl them. The guys in my corp. spend most of thier time in 4 man groups honestly, just because it's more fun. And it seems to be a pretty universal sentiment. There are some people who like ECM Atlas Online, but I am not one of them. I have a garage full of Mechs, crappy or otherwise, and I want to use them! And I don't want to be a crutch on my team if I do decided to use a Jenner, or an Awesome.

Now, all of this may be a moot point considering the nature of missions, in CW. They may make CW mission restricted based on the mission in question. Then you'll see all kinds of different team builds. "Quick Strike" missions will be all lights, "Stand Your Ground" missions will be heavy's and assaults, and so on. So there will be a place for every mech and every person's preffered play style. At least in a perfect world this is how it'll work, but PGI has made an ******* out me before. And if the past is any idication, they'll launch CW and it'll either be awesome as is, so they'll irrepairabley break it, or it'll be broken out the gate and it'll take forever to get fixed (cough, netcode, cough), so we'll see.