413 replies to this topic

[ScarecrowES]

Yeonne Greene, on 01 May 2016 - 04:31 PM, said:

First, you do not fundamentally understand how the game works. Watch this trick:

Here's a Blackjack at 87.1 kph.

Here's a Jester at 87.1 kph.

Would you look at that, the Jester has more free tonnage! Because that's how BattleTech works. Higher mass of the 'Mech gives you more room for equipment at any speed. Period. Even an Atlas at 69.3 kph on a 400-size engine has more free tons than a JagerMech at 69.3 kph on a 260-size engine.

ScarecrowES, on 01 May 2016 - 03:20 PM, said:

How? The mech with more speed, armor, and guns is inevitably better.

I see where your confusion is... you actually DO think a 45-ton mech should be equivalent to a 65-ton mech. This whole discussion makes sense now.

[ScarecrowES]

Yeonne Greene, on 01 May 2016 - 04:59 PM, said:

What PGI is doing is using a metric that reduces the amount of work they have to do. They are directly remodeling the CPLT and AWS because those have been cried about directly for ages, but the rest? Path of least resistance.

Yup... it's horrible to choose a method that takes guesswork and feels out of the equation and just puts a solid, inarguable answer right at your fingertips. Terrible.

Also, the Catapult and Awesome aren't the only mechs getting remodels. The Grasshopper is too, as are the Warhawk and Direwolf, as well as a few other mechs. Those won't be nearly as extensive, but it's not a simple 1:1:1 scale job.

[Ultimax]

Sjorpha, on 01 May 2016 - 04:08 PM, said:

Why are you insulting me (calling me dense), I didn't insult you. Childish behavior.

It may matter if you take things to extremes, it doesn't matter is you dont, which they won't.

That's nonsense.

You can pick out a Grasshopper's toros easy enough right now, it's CT is very easy to aim at, how will this mech gaining more volume be good for it's survivability?


It won't, it will be worse.

It has nothing to do with extremes, that was to prove a point.

Edited by Ultimax, 01 May 2016 - 05:16 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Dingo Red, on 01 May 2016 - 04:13 PM, said:

Good lord you people... the resize will be released and half of you are going to look silly after you realize that no preconceptions from now are going to be valid, nor are the vast majority of size changes going to be noticeable!

Oh, I'll be doing a comparison between the new and current robots. Mainly on the ones I care about, but for any requests (given enough time) as well.

ScarecrowES, on 01 May 2016 - 05:10 PM, said:

I see where your confusion is... you actually DO think a 45-ton mech should be equivalent to a 65-ton mech. This whole discussion makes sense now.

So, the Heavier mech should be

• Faster
  
• More durable
  
• Have better firepower

Does that not go against what you just said? That a mech had to pick and choose certain attributes?

[Wintersdark]

Ultimax, on 01 May 2016 - 05:15 PM, said:

That's nonsense.

You can pick out a Grasshopper's toros easy enough right now, it's CT is very easy to aim at, how will this mech gaining more volume be good for it's survivability?


It won't, it will be worse.

It has nothing to do with extremes, that was to prove a point.

Yup, it'll be worse. How much? I don't know. Maybe they'll put the bulk of the volume into its legs (something mentioned for at least one mech).

But a mech (a tier one mech, incidentally, at least according to meta mechs) getting a bit worse isn't necessarily bad for balance.

A bad mech getting worse is. Are you saying Grasshoppers are poor mechs as a whole, below the average line?

[Y E O N N E]

ScarecrowES, on 01 May 2016 - 05:10 PM, said:

I see where your confusion is... you actually DO think a 45-ton mech should be equivalent to a 65-ton mech. This whole discussion makes sense now.

Your confusion is that you think a 45-ton 'Mech should be useless and that we should always strive for MOAR TONNAGE!

GG, removing any incentive to bring something lighter in a game where both teams are exactly the same size and the entire goal is to kill everybody on the other side. Unless you want to let me bring 16 players in Blackjacks to your team of 12 in Jesters. That's fair, right? Jester is ~30% better, so I get ~30% more 'Mechs!

The only reason we don't spam heavies in MRBC scrims is because we're told we can't. Quickplay has no such courtesy, and the release valves are quite liberal. Faction Play lets you do all heavies if you want, but also three really exceptional heavies for just one medium. I bring a Blackjack only because I'm a crumpus for PPCs...not because it's strictly a good choice. All 'Mechs should be a good choice when the restrictions are extremely lenient.

But keep going, you are only reinforcing the notion that you lack a feel for how game-play in MWO works.

ScarecrowES, on 01 May 2016 - 05:14 PM, said:

Yup... it's horrible to choose a method that takes guesswork and feels out of the equation and just puts a solid, inarguable answer right at your fingertips. Terrible.

Also, the Catapult and Awesome aren't the only mechs getting remodels. The Grasshopper is too, as are the Warhawk and Direwolf, as well as a few other mechs. Those won't be nearly as extensive, but it's not a simple 1:1:1 scale job.

They have to do guesswork all the same. They had to guess where to set the bar in the first place, they have to guess how to re-do the quirks on a per chassis basis.

What would be truly objective is doing a proper analysis of the target profiles to find those three measures I mentioned, comparing them to the 'Mechs the competitive teams think are good (i.e. Grasshopper...Black Knight is somewhat considered out of line with how good it is), and then seeing what needs to be done to other 'Mechs of that weight to make them just as good after considering the impact shape and agility have. It's not easy. It's a lot of work. But to be "objective" requires that you consider the conditions you are trying to satisfy. Uniformly applying a correction factor to a bunch of 'Mechs based on some arbitrary bar you set even if it means having to go back and apply another set of custom correction factors is not being objective, it's being obtuse. You should instead just skip straight to the custom correction factors.

[Impyrium]

Mcgral18, on 01 May 2016 - 05:17 PM, said:

Oh, I'll be doing a comparison between the new and current robots. Mainly on the ones I care about, but for any requests (given enough time) as well.

I'll be looking forward to it.

Just wish people didn't get so worked up over things before they even release.

[ScarecrowES]

Yeonne Greene, on 01 May 2016 - 05:34 PM, said:

Your confusion is that you think a 45-ton 'Mech should be useless and that we should always strive for MOAR TONNAGE!

GG, removing any incentive to bring something lighter in a game where both teams are exactly the same size and the entire goal is to kill everybody on the other side. Unless you want to let me bring 16 players in Blackjacks to your team of 12 in Jesters. That's fair, right? Jester is ~30% better, so I get ~30% more 'Mechs!

The only reason we don't spam heavies in MRBC scrims is because we're told we can't. Quickplay has no such courtesy, and the release valves are quite liberal. Faction Play lets you do all heavies if you want, but also three really exceptional heavies for just one medium. I bring a Blackjack only because I'm a crumpus for PPCs...not because it's strictly a good choice. All 'Mechs should be a good choice when the restrictions are extremely lenient.

Just to be clear... every single mode in this game except for Solo Quick Play places specific... and I mean SPECIFIC... emphasis on the exact weight of the mech you're bringing in a drop, as does every league or tournament you're likely to get into. In Faction Play and in Group Quick Play, your actual drop tonnage is strictly limited.

Solo Quick Play limits your personal mech selection only to Class, but matchmaker still tries to balance total team tonnage. So while absolute tonnage per class doesn't matter as MUCH in Solo, it still matters.

A 65-ton mech should absolutely be better than a 45-ton mech. No contest. For that matter, a 55-ton mech should be better than a 45-ton mech - and there is only ONE mode in MWO where that 10 tons doesn't matter to the game.

So yeah... a 45-ton mech should perform like a 45-ton mech. Not like a 55-tonner, and not like a 65-tonner.

You can bring whatever mech to the party you want... you just need to accept it's going to perform according to its tonnage. 45-tonners aren't going to be the best mediums just the same as 65-tonners aren't going to be the best heavies.

What it sounds like is that some folks want a 45-tonner to perform as well as a 55-tonner. "Why should I be punished for picking a lighter medium?" Well, because you picked a lighter medium. It's got less armor, and often less firepower. It's just not as good as the heavier mech.

If you went into Solo pugs and you picked a weaker mech when you really didn't have to, that's on you. Whatever mech you chose will have to try to perform according to its strengths if you're able to play it that way. If you went into Group Queue or FW and put a 45-tonner in there, I assume you did it to save 10-tons of space for another mech in your group or drop deck. So you got rewarded elsewhere for taking the hit on the lighter medium.

But you shouldn't get to pick a weaker mech at a lower tonnage AND have that mech perform as well as a heavier mech. That's not to say that it can't perform. Noone is going to say that the Cicada isn't a worthwhile mech to have in your deck... but if you're rocking a Cicada, you're going to make peace with the fact that you're going to be all speed and no guts. If you're in a Blackjack, you should make peace with the fact that you're a glass canon.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 01 May 2016 - 06:08 PM.

[Volthorne]

Ultimax, on 01 May 2016 - 02:16 PM, said:

We're saying that if in this full rescale, some mechs get physically LARGER, that is a mistake.

Please explain why? And not with your bullsh*t "because reasons". Give me numbers. You keep claiming that increasing the volume of the BJ by even a nearly invisible % would ruin it, and that without structure quirks it dies "too quickly", yet by all accounts the BJ can live damned near forever on account of being flat, and by proxy, spreading damage easily.

Quote

They should be choosing the mechs at the smallest volume/size currently for each tonnage and everything else disproportionately larger should be scaled DOWN to meet them.

All mechs would still be consistent volumetrically

Let me stop you right there.

Yes, all 'Mechs with that particular weight would be consistent by volume. But what happens if you go up or down by 5 tons? You could potentially have volume swings easily within the ranges of 10-15%. It makes for bad consistency in the game as a whole. And how do you rescale 'Mechs that only have one or two chassis per weight? "Mechs such as the Lolcust, Cicada, Commando? What about 'Mechs like the Scrow, which are mostly air, do you expect the IS counter-parts to be scaled to that kind of volume? Do tiny Griffins and Shawks sound fun for you to fight against?

Yeonne Greene, on 01 May 2016 - 03:09 PM, said:

Trebuchet and Shadowhawk are currently breathing down its neck because their increased tonnage is that compelling.

LOL no. Shadowhawk is debatable, but the last time the Trenchbucket was breathing down anybody's neck was in Closed Beta, and even then you were probably better off bringing a Hunchie.

Edited by Volthorne, 01 May 2016 - 06:22 PM.

[LordKnightFandragon]

ScarecrowES, on 01 May 2016 - 09:32 AM, said:

I think a lot of people are struggling to understand exactly what is happening in this rescale...

I see a lot of "Blackjack should have been chosen to represent the 45-tonners." Or, "Zeus should represent the 80-tonners, not the Awesome. The Zeus is the perfect 80-ton size."

PGI is NOT going to each tonnage rating, picking a mech they feel is the perfect mech to represent that tonnage, and then scaling all the other mechs at that tonnage to fit the "perfect" reference. That is NOT happening. There is nothing so subjective about what PGI is doing.

Base the mechs off the objects in the world. A Warhawk is like 12m tall, its something like 38-40 feet tall. Just reference the height of the mech vs the world it gets put in. Having my mech standing up to the 5th story window in the game world makes the mech seem more like a Pacific Rim Jaeger and less like a Battlemech.

[Wintersdark]

LordKnightFandragon, on 01 May 2016 - 06:24 PM, said:

Base the mechs off the objects in the world. A Warhawk is like 12m tall, its something like 38-40 feet tall. Just reference the height of the mech vs the world it gets put in. Having my mech standing up to the 5th story window in the game world makes the mech seem more like a Pacific Rim Jaeger and less like a Battlemech.

This isn't about height.

It's also hard to base things vs. objects in the world, because most aren't really scaled very intelligently anyways.

But even if it was about height, the "listed" heights for each mech (where those exist) are bizarre and totally useless for MWO.

[ScarecrowES]

LordKnightFandragon, on 01 May 2016 - 06:24 PM, said:

Base the mechs off the objects in the world. A Warhawk is like 12m tall, its something like 38-40 feet tall. Just reference the height of the mech vs the world it gets put in. Having my mech standing up to the 5th story window in the game world makes the mech seem more like a Pacific Rim Jaeger and less like a Battlemech.

Ultimately you CAN do that... but again, regardless of the method you're still choosing a specific reference. You're choosing your starting point that all other mechs will be judged by, and all other mechs will be scaled based on that reference point. The practical result is the same no matter what that reference is - all of your mechs will be the same size relative to each other. They may vary somewhat in absolute size compared to the rest of the world, but to each other they'll look the same.

[Pjwned]

ScarecrowES, on 01 May 2016 - 06:06 PM, said:

Just to be clear... every single mode in this game except for Solo Quick Play places specific... and I mean SPECIFIC... emphasis on the exact weight of the mech you're bringing in a drop, as does every league or tournament you're likely to get into. In Faction Play and in Group Quick Play, your actual drop tonnage is strictly limited.

Solo Quick Play limits your personal mech selection only to Class, but matchmaker still tries to balance total team tonnage. So while absolute tonnage per class doesn't matter as MUCH in Solo, it still matters.

A 65-ton mech should absolutely be better than a 45-ton mech. No contest. For that matter, a 55-ton mech should be better than a 45-ton mech - and there is only ONE mode in MWO where that 10 tons doesn't matter to the game.

So yeah... a 45-ton mech should perform like a 45-ton mech. Not like a 55-tonner, and not like a 65-tonner.

You can bring whatever mech to the party you want... you just need to accept it's going to perform according to its tonnage. 45-tonners aren't going to be the best mediums just the same as 65-tonners aren't going to be the best heavies.

What it sounds like is that some folks want a 45-tonner to perform as well as a 55-tonner. "Why should I be punished for picking a lighter medium?" Well, because you picked a lighter medium. It's got less armor, and often less firepower. It's just not as good as the heavier mech.

If you went into Solo pugs and you picked a weaker mech when you really didn't have to, that's on you. Whatever mech you chose will have to try to perform according to its strengths if you're able to play it that way. If you went into Group Queue or FW and put a 45-tonner in there, I assume you did it to save 10-tons of space for another mech in your group or drop deck. So you got rewarded elsewhere for taking the hit on the lighter medium.

But you shouldn't get to pick a weaker mech at a lower tonnage AND have that mech perform as well as a heavier mech. That's not to say that it can't perform. Noone is going to say that the Cicada isn't a worthwhile mech to have in your deck... but if you're rocking a Cicada, you're going to make peace with the fact that you're going to be all speed and no guts. If you're in a Blackjack, you should make peace with the fact that you're a glass canon.

Why should lighter mechs exist if heavier mechs are supposed to be flat out better?

[Y E O N N E]

ScarecrowES, on 01 May 2016 - 06:06 PM, said:

Just to be clear... every single mode in this game except for Solo Quick Play places specific... and I mean SPECIFIC... emphasis on the exact weight of the mech you're bringing in a drop, as does every league or tournament you're likely to get into. In Faction Play and in Group Quick Play, your actual drop tonnage is strictly limited.

You are attempting to use the game PGI has described as the basis for your arguments. I'm using the game as it is played in reality as the basis for mine. The latter is the correct one to use, because concepts don't matter when they fall apart at execution for being inadequately constructed.

What makes a 'Mech good in MWO is not tonnage. It has never been tonnage. It can never be tonnage. It should never be tonnage. Ergo, you cannot use tonnage to balance.

The only effect tonnage limitations have is herding the players to the most effective 'Mechs around the median. Quickdraws, Warhammers, Storm Crows, Ebon Jags, Hellbringers, Griffins. To go heavier, you dictate that some players be forced to use what, under your system, are objectively inferior machines. What the h*ll kind of game compels some otherwise good players to be more useless so their team mates can pilot better machines? Are you insane? I have never seen that kind of backwards thinking applied in another game. Nobody wants to play cannon-fodder.

And no, MRBC does not have tonnage limitations. It has weight-class restrictions. It also has a rule where you can only have one duplicate chassis (whole chassis, not just one variant). Sometimes it compels you to take one 'Mech that is known to be inferior (Victor). This is to keep the matches interesting. We can't spam Blackjacks. We can't spam Storm Crows. We can't spam Oxides, or Black Knights. Under these conditions, though, every 'Mech within the weight class needs to be as good as every other one to be considered regardless of weight. And at that, every 'Mech in the class has to be directly useful in some way against all other classes to be considered, too, so there you have it. Not balanced by tonnage.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Wintersdark, on 01 May 2016 - 06:34 PM, said:

This isn't about height.

It's also hard to base things vs. objects in the world, because most aren't really scaled very intelligently anyways.

But even if it was about height, the "listed" heights for each mech (where those exist) are bizarre and totally useless for MWO.

Well, at least everything will be unintelligently scaled correctly to the world. We wont have a 25t mech looking like a 5t truck while the 100t mech looks like a 270t Ares.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Pjwned, on 01 May 2016 - 06:41 PM, said:

Why should lighter mechs exist if heavier mechs are supposed to be flat out better?

Because this game lacks any and all class purposes. The mechwarrior universe from what I can tell is always best done in a Coop/combined arms, long haul, on going campaign where each type of vehicle, infantry, mech has a role and a purpose.

In the MWO world, where the only thing we have to do is shoot mechs, they, yeah, big mechs are always better. But if MWO was more like Mechcommander, where just taking the biggest mech all the time, doesnt always work. Or even in MW3-4, where sometimes you had to put away the Atlas and grab something a little faster to keep up wiht a convoy, or something even smaller to use sheer speed to dart in, shoot up, drive out.

Lights are for fast action, recon, quick strikes.
Mediums are kinda like a beefier light mech
Heavies are the first line assault/defense mech, they lead the charge, take the brunt of the action.
Assaults, well, they truly lead the charge, they are the flag ships of the fleet and are the bastion of your Lance/Star.

But MWO, its just, get a mech with the most E hardpoints and slap as many lasers in it as you can and cant feasibly fit, press LMB, profit.

The day when PGI or some company wants to make a true battletech game, more akin to MEchcommander or MW2-3-4, then we can come back and see what each class of mech if for.

I know MW4, I occasionally drove a faster, underarmored, undergunned heavy for fast strikes and even drove mediums. Had some escort missions where instead of driving my Marauder IIC, which plodded along at like 46kph, I had to put it away for a faster Warhammer, Nova Cat, Timberwolf or some other, even though, I wanted to drive my Marauder.

[Y E O N N E]

LordKnightFandragon, on 01 May 2016 - 06:43 PM, said:

Well, at least everything will be unintelligently scaled correctly to the world. We wont have a 25t mech looking like a 5t truck while the 100t mech looks like a 270t Ares.

An M1A2 Abrams tank is 68 tons, roughly the same size as a 46 ton T-90, and smaller than an 18 wheeler truck which is significantly lighter when unloaded.

Good luck finding a consistent point of reference in the real world for how big a 25 ton 'Mech should be.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Look... You can obviously view the game in one of two ways: either all mechs should be balanced to be somewhat as good as each other, or you can feel that heavier mechs should be better Mechs.

If you are in the latter group, feeling that a 75 ton Mech should be 50% better than a 50 ton medium, then you have to also "admit" that the game's Assault Mechs need some massive buffs to ensure they are 20-30% better than Timberwolves, black Knights, and other heavy Mechs...

Do you feel that way?

[Y E O N N E]

Prosperity Park, on 01 May 2016 - 06:58 PM, said:

Look... You can obviously view the game in one of two ways: either all mechs should be balanced to be somewhat as good as each other, or you can feel that heavier mechs should be better Mechs.

If you are in the latter group, feeling that a 75 ton Mech should be 50% better than a 50 ton medium, then you have to also "admit" that the game's Assault Mechs need some massive buffs to ensure they are 20-30% better than Timberwolves, black Knights, and other heavy Mechs...

Do you feel that way?

I don't even think you can view it in two ways. The fact that the teams are always the same size means that to do anything other than try to have everybody around the median weight is too much of a gamble and it also means that any lighter 'Mechs chosen are OP within those rules. Which would be bull. It's much better to have all the 'Mechs of every weight class be direct competitors so that we have variety and reasons to take light and fast over big and slow and vice-versa.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 01 May 2016 - 07:01 PM.

[Pjwned]

LordKnightFandragon, on 01 May 2016 - 06:50 PM, said:

Because this game lacks any and all class purposes. The mechwarrior universe from what I can tell is always best done in a Coop/combined arms, long haul, on going campaign where each type of vehicle, infantry, mech has a role and a purpose.

That isn't what MWO is though, and it never will be. Part of that is true in that each mech has (or is supposed to have) a purpose, but unlike Battletech that isn't accomplished by making smaller mechs worse because you can have more of them, since obviously you're only piloting 1 mech at a time in MWO and thus it makes zero sense for smaller mechs to be flat out worse.

Quote

In the MWO world, where the only thing we have to do is shoot mechs, they, yeah, big mechs are always better. But if MWO was more like Mechcommander, where just taking the biggest mech all the time, doesnt always work. Or even in MW3-4, where sometimes you had to put away the Atlas and grab something a little faster to keep up wiht a convoy, or something even smaller to use sheer speed to dart in, shoot up, drive out.

That's the thing though, big mechs are not always better in MWO because that's one of few things PGI actually did right, but if you listen to peoples' screeching and whining their goal is to make it so that big mechs are always better.

Quote

Lights are for fast action, recon, quick strikes.
Mediums are kinda like a beefier light mech
Heavies are the first line assault/defense mech, they lead the charge, take the brunt of the action.
Assaults, well, they truly lead the charge, they are the flag ships of the fleet and are the bastion of your Lance/Star.

That's basically how it is in MWO.

Quote

But MWO, its just, get a mech with the most E hardpoints and slap as many lasers in it as you can and cant feasibly fit, press LMB, profit.

What does that have to do with class roles and such? That has everything to do with equipment balance and nothing to do with weight class.

Quote

The day when PGI or some company wants to make a true battletech game, more akin to MEchcommander or MW2-3-4, then we can come back and see what each class of mech if for.

Harebrained Schemes is already working on it with their Battletech game, go play that if that's what you want instead of trying to shove that **** in where it doesn't belong.

Quote

I know MW4, I occasionally drove a faster, underarmored, undergunned heavy for fast strikes and even drove mediums. Had some escort missions where instead of driving my Marauder IIC, which plodded along at like 46kph, I had to put it away for a faster Warhammer, Nova Cat, Timberwolf or some other, even though, I wanted to drive my Marauder.

Clearly a travesty, obviously the Marauder wasn't good enough if you had to even consider using something lighter since mech variety is blasphemy.

Edited by Pjwned, 01 May 2016 - 07:16 PM.