Big Pappa 38
Destrier
Posts: 26
Karma: 11
Pilot name: Big Pappa 38
Platform: Facebook
Clan: Raptor Tactics
League: Champion
Server Region: North America
|
Post by Big Pappa 38 on May 24, 2017 16:16:41 GMT -5
Here is an idea, but not my own. What if your hangar had a maximum tonnage allowed. Each robot would have an assigned tonnage and you then had to decide how you wanted to allocate your tonnage. Heavy bots would obviously have higher tonnage then light or medium. By doing this you make medium and light bots relevant at all levels. You won't see a hangar with 5 lancelots. Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by tectonic on May 24, 2017 16:23:16 GMT -5
If you ran with only heavy bots then you could only fit 3 or so in your 5 slot hanger? I don't think that would go over so well in this game. Maybe in a new game though... One that might have a name that sound like tattle bitans
|
|
|
|
Post by bugdoc on May 24, 2017 16:29:15 GMT -5
Agreed, Big Pappa. I posted this idea on the 6 Slots poll thread a few days ago. IIRC the original idea comes from the old Battletech board game, where you could design your own bots using a formula based on tonnage. It might be fun to see what kind of chaos some pilots could create if they had 10 Cossacks or 8 Garys in their hanger.  |
|
Big Pappa 38
Destrier
Posts: 26
Karma: 11
Pilot name: Big Pappa 38
Platform: Facebook
Clan: Raptor Tactics
League: Champion
Server Region: North America
|
Post by Big Pappa 38 on May 24, 2017 16:33:34 GMT -5
If you ran with only heavy bots then you could only fit 3 or so in your 5 slot hanger? I don't think that would go over so well in this game. Maybe in a new game though... One that might have a name that sound like tattle bitans If you chose to run with 3 heavies then that is on you. No one would be forcing you to do that over say 2 heavies and 2 mediums. It gets rid of the cookie-cutter hangars that are packed full of five heavies and allows medium and light bots to play a role as well. In addition I think it would encourage more beacon capture as you would have more medium and light bots running around. |
|
|
|
Post by bugdoc on May 24, 2017 16:35:42 GMT -5
If you ran with only heavy bots then you could only fit 3 or so in your 5 slot hanger? I don't think that would go over so well in this game. Maybe in a new game though... One that might have a name that sound like tattle bitans In order for this to work here, I think you'd have to set the tonnage so you could have at least 3 heavies plus a couple of smaller units (or just 4 heavies). Generally I was thinking in the realm of 4 heavies = 7 mediums = 10 lights. It would take some adjustment to the abilities of bots/weapons, but it could be balanced out. It would expand the meta and make for more varied gameplay. |
|
|
|
Post by GuitarGuy on May 24, 2017 16:37:14 GMT -5
This sounds very much like the old MM that was based on Hangar Power. Obviously, Pix doesnt like this way of doing things anymore and has opted to base it solely on your skills.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vectivus on May 24, 2017 16:42:05 GMT -5
I like the idea in principle. (As someone else said, it hearkens back to Battletech, which I'm always a fan of.)
Bots would likely need a fairly massive redesign in order for it to be balanced, though.
|
|
Big Pappa 38
Destrier
Posts: 26
Karma: 11
Pilot name: Big Pappa 38
Platform: Facebook
Clan: Raptor Tactics
League: Champion
Server Region: North America
|
Post by Big Pappa 38 on May 24, 2017 16:42:25 GMT -5
I think skill has little to do with it. As it stands now the victor is the person who has the most upgraded robots. There is little strategy involved and everything comes down to who can withstand the barrage of gunfire the longest. How is it based on skill if all you have to do is buy gold and upgrade everything to the max in order to be dominant. That takes no skill. By forcing players to use a variety of bots you are forcing strategy and skill back in to the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by make7upyours on May 24, 2017 17:00:00 GMT -5
I see this as a good thing. Is 5 heavy bot meta really healthy? Everyone will be on the same restriction, so still fair IMO.
It's because you make more money this way. People who pay for an advantage want to use their advantage. If you force them to play people with the same level stuff, they'll get owned and won't have reason to spend more money because it won't buy them any advantage. This is the honest truth. These games weren't made to be fair; they're to make the devs money.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2017 17:00:05 GMT -5
I think skill has little to do with it. As it stands now the victor is the person who has the most upgraded robots. There is little strategy involved and everything comes down to who can withstand the barrage of gunfire the longest. This is patently false. There are plenty of examples of people outperforming their hangar, as well as people underperforming for their hangar. Skill is absolutely a factor. Just looking at my recent account is a display of this. I easily outperformed the other players without a hangar level advantage, because of one factor: Skill. I'm not saying I'm a great player. I'm not. I'm average at best, but when I started a new account I was facing players with no experience/skill in the game, while I have around eight months under my belt. That gave me some distinct advantages and none of them involved the level of my hangar. |
|
|
|
Post by bugdoc on May 24, 2017 17:05:22 GMT -5
</div> Yes and no. As in the old MM, you would have more options to personalize your hanger rather than being forced into a restricted meta. However, I believe MM would still need to be league-based, i.e. dependent on both the levels of your bots/weaponry and your individual skill as a pilot. This would simply be a way to make light/medium bots relevant again in higher tiers and expand the meta. It might be fun to think of different ways to exploit this. Imagine a clan that ran all Gareths. They could stick together like a pack of wolves, roaming around capping beacons and picking off any heavier bot that got separated from the herd. With 8-10 bots each, they could afford to play uber-aggressively. Might be fun. Read more: war-robots-forum.freeforums.net/thread/7581/tonnage-restriction?page=1&scrollTo=113717#ixzz4i2JnEXJZ |
|
|
|
Post by critter667 on May 24, 2017 17:06:27 GMT -5
So What would the weights per bot be? Is a carnage the same weight as a Patton or is one lighter? This worked on battletech as the balance was built into the system. Walking speed times tonnage was your engine rating and so forth. So how would you balance War Robots?
And remember... Heavier was not always better. On paper, a Cicida was 40 tons, a locus 20. They both had the same speed and armor. Yet weapons wise, the locus actually had .5 tons more weight for weapons. The only advantage was in physical combat where the cicida's mass provided a hair extra damage... Yet why the Heck were you brawling in a light to begin with... Oh and I think the locus had to allocate 1 more space to heatsink outside the engine but that was rarely a problem.
So what would the weights be?
|
|
Big Pappa 38
Destrier
Posts: 26
Karma: 11
Pilot name: Big Pappa 38
Platform: Facebook
Clan: Raptor Tactics
League: Champion
Server Region: North America
|
Post by Big Pappa 38 on May 24, 2017 17:13:59 GMT -5
I have no idea what the weights would be as I haven't put that much thought in to it. Its just a rough idea to get the game more interesting by making all the bots usable rather than just heavy bots.
|
|
|
|
Post by bugdoc on May 24, 2017 17:39:46 GMT -5
Here's a quick-n-dirty estimate I did on the 6-slot Poll: 20 tons - Cossack, Destrier, Schutze 30 tons - Stalker, Gareth, Gep, Jesse 40 tons - Patton, Vityaz, Golem, Boa 50 tons - Galahad, Rog, Carnage, Doc, Fujin 60 tons - Griffin, Natasha, Leo, Rhino 70 tons - Lance, Fury, Butch, Raijin Read more: war-robots-forum.freeforums.net/thread/7250/why-get-6th-robot-slot#ixzz4i2NnKtlhAssuming a 250 ton/10 slot limit, you could run 10 Cossacks, 8 Gareths, 6 Pattons, 4 Griffins, or any combination thereof. Pix would need to run test servers to figure out how best to balance out the relative weight of each bot to better represent it's strength in combat. They could also make adjustments to try to maintain profits. For instance, they might lower the weight of the Lance to make it more attractive (literally make it worth it's weight in gold ). |
|
SiłentButĐeadły
Destrier
Posts: 93
Karma: 82
Pilot name: SiłentButĐeadły
Platform: Android
|
Post by SiłentButĐeadły on May 24, 2017 18:13:25 GMT -5
Would never happen because that means spenders wouldn't dish out real $$$ to buy Lances or Furys. And Pix ain't gonna let that happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by FlashAhAhh on May 24, 2017 18:48:54 GMT -5
I think this is an awesome idea!
That being said, you can't just make a game changing overhaul like that in a mobike game.
The outrage would be off the hook!
|
|
|
|
Post by Cdr. Crimmins on May 24, 2017 19:12:35 GMT -5
I think skill has little to do with it. As it stands now the victor is the person who has the most upgraded robots. There is little strategy involved and everything comes down to who can withstand the barrage of gunfire the longest. How is it based on skill if all you have to do is buy gold and upgrade everything to the max in order to be dominant. That takes no skill. By forcing players to use a variety of bots you are forcing strategy and skill back in to the game. I just finished a game on Springfield that illustrates why this is incorrect, though I like your last sentence.   If you take a look at the summary you will see that we were outdamaged 1.9mill to 3.2 or so, killed 15 bots to their 25. And at the end I was the lucky last survivor who with 20k left on my last Boa killed a griffin trying to take our last beacon, one of 4 enemy bots left on the field. But even that doesn't tell the true story as my home beacon was left white and they were just getting around to flipping their home beacon from blue back to red. Fatal errors. |
|
|
|
Post by Payxonic on May 25, 2017 1:42:49 GMT -5
The game needs to be changed from scratch if the mechanics involve tonnage restriction.
How about unique mech line- up only, or limit it to just two same mechs. Easier to implement and lesser codes used
|
|
|
|
Post by Tatamat on May 25, 2017 3:50:50 GMT -5
Sounds good to me.
The tonnage limit would add a new dimension to the game, moreover you could have an incentive to go up in leagues. The higher you climb, the higher tonnage allowed.
As to loss-of-real-money-spending objection, I don't agree. Every system makes some pieces of equipment more worthy and you simply mark those as gold (Aphids were Ag in the beginning). Some items already costing Au may become even more expensive e.g. Gareth and Galahad could cost much more in case they would keep their low tonnage.
|
|
zed252000
GI. Patton
fall seven times stand up eight
Posts: 128
Karma: 52
Favorite robot: Gareth & Carnage
|
Post by zed252000 on May 25, 2017 4:19:56 GMT -5
It's a good idea. love battletech. but it would be a whole new game as mentioned by the other guys in the tread. overhaul. If you want to make the other bot types usable, we can do a league lockup. Wherein certain leagues only allow certain bots. like for bronze to mid silver you area allowed light bots only, mid-silver to gold will be mediums, then upwards will be heavies or free to use. Many will cry with this though, everybody is in silver and gold.
|
|
