Author Topic: ANNOUNCEMENT! Possible Upcoming Changes to MWBU  (Read 9202 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ELH_Nivix

  • Bondsman
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • l33tp0intz: +4/-0
  • Eridani Light Horse
    • Eridani Light Horse
Re: ANNOUNCEMENT! Possible Upcoming Changes to MWBU
« Reply #30 on: September 28, 2011, 08:59:48 PM »
DeathShade,

We've played 2v2 re-spawn match with KoS in MWBU. So, for me, if was just like pub.
Sequence is next: Respawn, buy the mech, go in the middle of the map, fight, win or die, return to base, sell the mech, buy a new mech, go in the middle of the map, win or die. Used only top mechs what you can buy. Not so fun like no-respawn where you have 1 life and if you made fatal mistake, you can't change it. Like in the real life :) And difference in assets what you use.

Check out the video from 2v2 Team Destruction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-_XPHBV834

In fact, since MWBU was started, we've played only few matches in 8v8 ladder, most matches was in 4v4 ladders. So, I don't want to play only med/light mechs and wait till someone will register his team in 8v8 ladder. I want to use all assets in game.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2011, 09:24:32 PM by ELH_Simon »
Do good things and good things happen to you.

Offline xInVicTuSx

  • Apprentice Dev
  • Living Legend
  • *
  • Posts: 3683
  • l33tp0intz: +193/-5
  • Knight of the Inner Sphere
Re: ANNOUNCEMENT! Possible Upcoming Changes to MWBU
« Reply #31 on: September 28, 2011, 09:11:10 PM »
Where as I prefer the community planetary league rules (tonange based) to cbills entirely, I think a 65k-80k-95k round progression would be best.
-Invictus ne Vindicetur-

Offline =KoS= Tripod

  • Alphatester
  • Living Legend
  • *
  • Posts: 3497
  • l33tp0intz: +138/-0
    • Kos Boards
Re: ANNOUNCEMENT! Possible Upcoming Changes to MWBU
« Reply #32 on: September 28, 2011, 11:23:12 PM »
Where as I prefer the community planetary league rules (tonange based) to cbills entirely, I think a 65k-80k-95k round progression would be best.
I agree here (especially on the planetary rules part), but would change it to 60k-75k-90k personally

Offline ELH_AIMB

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 131
  • l33tp0intz: +21/-0
Re: ANNOUNCEMENT! Possible Upcoming Changes to MWBU
« Reply #33 on: September 28, 2011, 11:33:37 PM »
 60k-75k-90k. It's so low. I say it again. 65(lights+med), 85(med+heavies), 105(heavie+assault).
Trololo-trololo I'm riding on UFO.

Offline xInVicTuSx

  • Apprentice Dev
  • Living Legend
  • *
  • Posts: 3683
  • l33tp0intz: +193/-5
  • Knight of the Inner Sphere
Re: ANNOUNCEMENT! Possible Upcoming Changes to MWBU
« Reply #34 on: September 28, 2011, 11:41:18 PM »
105 is too much, its just excess at that point.
-Invictus ne Vindicetur-

Offline CHH Deathshade

  • Senior Developer
  • Star Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1027
  • l33tp0intz: +57/-0
  • "Helpful Atlas"
    • MW:LL
Re: ANNOUNCEMENT! Possible Upcoming Changes to MWBU
« Reply #35 on: September 29, 2011, 02:20:47 AM »
DeathShade,

We've played 2v2 re-spawn match with KoS in MWBU. So, for me, if was just like pub.
Sequence is next: Respawn, buy the mech, go in the middle of the map, fight, win or die, return to base, sell the mech, buy a new mech, go in the middle of the map, win or die. Used only top mechs what you can buy. Not so fun like no-respawn where you have 1 life and if you made fatal mistake, you can't change it. Like in the real life :) And difference in assets what you use.

Check out the video from 2v2 Team Destruction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-_XPHBV834

In fact, since MWBU was started, we've played only few matches in 8v8 ladder, most matches was in 4v4 ladders. So, I don't want to play only med/light mechs and wait till someone will register his team in 8v8 ladder. I want to use all assets in game.

I agree. 2v2 re-spawn is no fun and I thought we had that ladder as Team Attrition or no-re-spawn. I am talking about 4v4 matches and up. Respawn matches allow for a full hour of intense battles. I have played re-spawn for over five years in MW4 mercs and this is my perspective here. There is a way to play and have fun so please keep an open mind to this open discussion.

Each person to his own and I by no means will force anyone to play no-re-spawn or the full 45/60 minutes of a match if they don't want to. It is my idea of fun here guys and don't take this as MWBU's direction as we are more than one to make decisions as a whole. It does have it's place though so please don't completely eliminate it from the ways you could compete. Just look outside of the box here and see that you could actually play three or four difference styles of tactics if you collected after re-spawn to challenge the other team again.

How long would a TC match last if you did it with no re-spawn? We have ladders here that offer more for teams and we want to move outside the box to give players the full experience that is MW:LL. We all do agree that centralizing the duel ladders to one would be good as long as the asset selection was comprehensive and was welcomed.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2011, 02:28:48 AM by CHH Deathshade »

Offline ELH_AIMB

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 131
  • l33tp0intz: +21/-0
Re: ANNOUNCEMENT! Possible Upcoming Changes to MWBU
« Reply #36 on: September 29, 2011, 08:39:45 AM »
105 is too much, its just excess at that point.

100k?  ::)
Trololo-trololo I'm riding on UFO.

Offline ELH_Nivix

  • Bondsman
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • l33tp0intz: +4/-0
  • Eridani Light Horse
    • Eridani Light Horse
Re: ANNOUNCEMENT! Possible Upcoming Changes to MWBU
« Reply #37 on: September 29, 2011, 09:27:13 AM »
Well, i think, re-spawn matches can exist in Ladder League, but Planetary League should be with no-respawn matches. Or league's administration should make 2 Planetary Leagues, one with no-respawn and other with respawn matches.

More important is amount of Cbills per map for no-respawn matches.  My variant is: 60k-80k-100k. It should help to enforce to use not only top mechs in different categories.
Do good things and good things happen to you.

Offline CHH Deathshade

  • Senior Developer
  • Star Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1027
  • l33tp0intz: +57/-0
  • "Helpful Atlas"
    • MW:LL
Re: ANNOUNCEMENT! Possible Upcoming Changes to MWBU
« Reply #38 on: September 29, 2011, 03:26:06 PM »
Re-spawn in planetary league would not work. Those battles are supposed to go fast and show a true loss or gain of assets after the battle. Salvage is a good thing ;)

Offline AlfalphaCat

  • Living Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 2217
  • l33tp0intz: +104/-19
  • Still here, and still queer for the MW:LLs! :P
Re: ANNOUNCEMENT! Possible Upcoming Changes to MWBU
« Reply #39 on: September 30, 2011, 12:52:21 PM »
I guess ELH wouldn't to play in league with re-spawn, cuz it's boring.

Uh, you well, kinda sorta, played us.  In a silly 2v2 that is.  The boring part was y'alls insistence of playing on your 'server'. 

It was myself, and Knightcrawler(not a Vegan yet ;), or maybe ever :P), who played as a dedi BA.  You never gave the game mode a chance, and gave the lame excuse of not being able to set a password on the MWBU server.  No one ever joined it the whole time we waited for you to get your server straight.

Your experience is limited, and I ai'nt that great, but that early Thanny on Palisades was a hoot.

Just to get all the details, we also only played 15 minute matches, because I guess we were late, though we did wait an hour or more just to play the damn match.

There is your boring, and don't act like ELH has a monopoly on how the game should be played.  We may disagree, but we should all try to get along.  Your empty threats of abandoning a league in BETA are ridunkulous. 

@MWBU guys.
Thank you for your time, effort, and heck, I'm sure, money, you have put into this.  Some of us appreciate a broader look at the potential of this game.

TL;DR  ELH did not even give this game mode a chance, and wooped on a Ranger, so they don't like, like. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)


I suck!! But WE are AWESOME.  We started a unit.  What's that?!  YOU WANNA TOUCH MY UNIT?!! :P ^^12thVR Recruitment Page(clickthepic) ;)

Offline 4204ME

  • MechWarrior
  • **
  • Posts: 339
  • l33tp0intz: +38/-0
    • MWBU
Re: ANNOUNCEMENT! Possible Upcoming Changes to MWBU
« Reply #40 on: September 30, 2011, 08:16:10 PM »
Invictus,

Supply a ruleset and you have your planetary ladder.

Vivicector,

I strongly disagree about not knowing what your enemy is bringing as far as chasis go. I feel that variants should be a surprise though. A duel is supposed to be equal.


The 65K limit,

I feel there are many load outs that available at 65k. They will not be all heavies. I would like to see the light and IS mediums have there day. 85k Simply ensures the same loadouts everytime. A veriable amount would be interesting. Also bringing tonnage in would be interesting however that would be better for the planetary ladder if anyone takes up that cause.

Offline ELH_Vivicector

  • Star Colonel
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • l33tp0intz: +49/-4
Re: ANNOUNCEMENT! Possible Upcoming Changes to MWBU
« Reply #41 on: September 30, 2011, 09:00:53 PM »
Quote
I strongly disagree about not knowing what your enemy is bringing as far as chasis go. I feel that variants should be a surprise though. A duel is supposed to be equal.

Knowing the chassis would ruin many of them. E. g. Warhammer can be easily contered by Vulture A cause of speed. So. I see enemy is taking in a Warhammer. I take Vulture. problem solved. I see: enemy is going to use Novacat. Means he is going for long range sniping.  I need faster brawler... Many good strategies and classes would be ruined just because enemy would know about them.

Mechs are balanced in a good way around the money. Why not use money-based system? It would give live to many non-used variants! Attacker advices 3 sums of money (with a 5k step), defender chooses one of them.

Offline =KoS= Saber15

  • Alphatester
  • Living Legend
  • *
  • Posts: 2113
  • l33tp0intz: +181/-2
  • RIP AND TEAR
Re: ANNOUNCEMENT! Possible Upcoming Changes to MWBU
« Reply #42 on: September 30, 2011, 10:19:01 PM »

Mechs are balanced in a good way around the money. Why not use money-based system? It would give live to many non-used variants! Attacker advices 3 sums of money (with a 5k step), defender chooses one of them.
On the topic of tonnage rules, they allow for an entirely different lineup of mechs; it's not a measure of cost vs effectiveness, but of tonnage vs effectiveness as a single unit.
Why tonnage is better:
  • It's quick to setup: you don't have to do drop calculators and then factor in the cost of ammo or any of that BS, just need to add up how heavy everything is.
  • It's easier to get going: If someone dies before the game starts or if they buy the wrong thing, the server doesn't need to be reset in order to get their money back.
  • As many players as needed: With tonnage rules, you can easily have asymmetric games, like 8v5. Both teams are limited to whatever amount of tons, so the team with 8 players will have lighter assets whereas the 5 player team could have heavies. Much more dynamic, as you don't know how many players the team is going to have (they could join with 12 players, half of whom switch to spectator before the round starts), so you can't use the "oh they have 5 players at #Cbills so they can afford X scat Cs, Y thanny Ds, Z madcat Bs" crap that makes up regular C-bill droplists.

Chassis like the Shiva E which are a no-brainer in C-bill matches are now much more costly to take, whereas rarely used units like the Hollander, Hawkmoth, and Battlearmor are now much more viable.
"Concentrate on the moment, each moment is its own reality. It has a particular thisness. You can't predict, but you can explain. Or try. If you are observant, and lucky, you can say, this is why this is happening! It's very interesting!"

Offline 4204ME

  • MechWarrior
  • **
  • Posts: 339
  • l33tp0intz: +38/-0
    • MWBU
Re: ANNOUNCEMENT! Possible Upcoming Changes to MWBU
« Reply #43 on: October 01, 2011, 12:34:54 AM »
Vivicector,

What I am propossing would mean you are both driving the same Chasis that you both agreed upon and variant would be up to you. Rightnow if you bring anything other than a pima to a light duel your likely lost. If you bring anything other than a madcatB to a heavy duel your in trouble (maybe a novacat). I would love to see some osiris or raven duels etc....

Offline ELH_Vivicector

  • Star Colonel
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • l33tp0intz: +49/-4
Re: ANNOUNCEMENT! Possible Upcoming Changes to MWBU
« Reply #44 on: October 01, 2011, 09:15:26 AM »
Quote
Vivicector,

What I am propossing would mean you are both driving the same Chasis that you both agreed upon and variant would be up to you. Rightnow if you bring anything other than a pima to a light duel your likely lost. If you bring anything other than a madcatB to a heavy duel your in trouble (maybe a novacat). I would love to see some osiris or raven duels etc....
Ok, I have misunderstood you. This is better, then now. I too agree, that now it is all about Puma, MadCat B (NovaCat), some Mk2s... But... Why not money? At least, for duels.

Why do I think that money-based system is better:
1) More asymmetric fights. HGauss Hollander vs Bushwacker D is an interesting fight. Osiris A vs Uller B...
2) More variety, fights are less predictable. It is still possible to guess the variant, but harder.
3) Some unused variants may shine. Cata B is the cheapest heavy with great firepower, but it would loose a duel to Cata A. LBX-10 Warhammer. MadCat C... They are good choice for their cost, but too weak against other variants.
4) Overall, money-based system would give the fullest coverage of mech variants.

Quote
On the topic of tonnage rules, they allow for an entirely different lineup of mechs; it's not a measure of cost vs effectiveness, but of tonnage vs effectiveness as a single unit.
I was talking about duels, not team game. For team game tonnage-based system may shine. However, it would nearly exclude IS heavies, all assaults from the game. Probably we will end up in clan 100k+ heavies and SCats. Tonnage for puretech could be balanced with additional tons for IS, but here...