73 replies to this topic

[TopDawg]

Speaking of customization, admittedly I still think having 'sized' hardpoints would have solved a lot of problems. People reference MW4 as using that system and being a failure, but unfortunately I never played the past MW games. I've only played MechCommander 1, which was just slap any ol' thing in there until you hit tonnage limit (which means leagues had rules on limiting that, like for instance 4/6 short range meant 4 of the same weapon type and 6 short weapons total) and then MechCommander 2, where Mechs had a varying degree of 'grid space', like 4 by 4 grids, and then a PPC for instance was 1 by 3 grids (I didn't play MC2 online really).

Anywho, and while very unlikely that they're going to do something like that now (since they refused to all the way back to CB), it seems like it would have prevented these boating issues and whatnot.

[Tennex]

Thontor, on 27 February 2013 - 06:35 AM, said:

The hit-boxes are the difference maker. If it was just ECM and streaks you would see more complaining about the COM-2D which has ECM and more streaks.

When you hit the "beak" you are liable to spread your damage across all three torso sections.

yeah the raven does have a small CT. But people should hit the raven in the crotch. its a neat little trick.

[Vasces Diablo]

MustrumRidcully, on 27 February 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

1) Customizing mechs is fun. Why do you hate fun?
2) XL Engine for STD Engine is one of the changest that make the least sense to me, because an XL Engine is a lot larger (50 %!) than a normal engine. And you're supposed to be able to do that more easy? Next think you're telling me all the internal structure in a mech must be easy to replace.

Don't nerf customization. Nerf unbalanced items and mechanics.

1) of course customization is fun. But so is learning the strength and weaknesses if different variants and playing them in the roles they are intended for. Customization also leads to boating and essentialy generic mech chassis -25 tons, generic mech chassis -30 tons, etc...
2) short of the "pod" concept of the clan omni mech, I don't think any of the customization makes sense. But I suppose we are talking about fictional giant walking death robots in the future.

"Nerfing" custimazation would solve "unbalanced" items because secs wouldn't have to deal with people packing 6 SRM 6s on to a cat and so on. They would have ultimate control for what makes it onto the field and can adjust things as needed.

It's a stretch to compare with LoL but there are how many champions in that game and they are all valid if the player knows how to use then.

[Chemie]

Bryan's comment really bothers me because it is more of the same in terms of how they approach balance. Instead of fixing ECM they say that fixing netcode will kill the 3L.

However, I agree with OP that it would impact all light mechs equally. The 3L is used because it has ECM not because it is special vs other lights.

If he is right and netcode kills the lights, here are my concerns:
1. Best case, you have way less light running around. Now I know the "good" light pilots will be happy that they can carry that badge of honor again but think about this....There will be way less lights for us dedicated light pilots to kill. Plus, all those ex-light players who used netcode as excuse, will now jump into splatcat or D-Dcs. With broken weight balance match marker, is this really a good direction? There is already way too heavy weight in most drops with splat, poptarts, and DDC...will killing lights viability help?

2. Worst case: Lights will no longer be viable. At best, you are stuck with ONLY being a scout, unable to engage in any real battle. Is this really the best solution to ECM and netcode?

Fix netcode. Fix ECM. But do not "expect" that nerfing lights is the goal in the fix, please PGI!

Edited by Chemie, 27 February 2013 - 02:54 PM.

[Royalewithcheese]

Chemie, on 27 February 2013 - 02:53 PM, said:

Bryan's comment really bothers me because it is more of the same in terms of how they approach balance. Instead of fixing ECM they say that fixing netcode will kill the 3L.

But that's a good thing? A huge part of why lights in general and ECM lights in particular are so powerful is the lag. If ppl could reliably hit them with non-homing weapons, ECM wouldn't be as much of an issue.

[Chemie]

Royalewithcheese, on 27 February 2013 - 03:06 PM, said:

But that's a good thing? A huge part of why lights in general and ECM lights in particular are so powerful is the lag. If ppl could reliably hit them with non-homing weapons, ECM wouldn't be as much of an issue.

True for lights...but my point was then you will lose lights from the game which is bad. Also, this just pushes everyone to D-DC

Edited by Chemie, 27 February 2013 - 03:18 PM.

[OpCentar]

Chemie, on 27 February 2013 - 02:53 PM, said:

....
2. Worst case: Lights will no longer be viable. At best, you are stuck with ONLY being a scout, unable to engage in any real battle. Is this really the best solution to ECM and netcode?

Fix netcode. Fix ECM. But do not "expect" that nerfing lights is the goal in the fix, please PGI!

That will happen sooner or later. Well, also add vulture and/or harasser to your role list.

State rewind will remove the lag shield which will be evident the moment it goes live - the 3L and others will drop at least in half the time it takes for it to die now. It will be impossible to do a circle of death attack and survive vs anything that isn't heavily damaged.

Collisions will make lights especially vulnerable to LRMs, and pretty much any other weapon, as a stationary target receives more (missile) hits. That will make pilots think twice about charging trough a line of mechs.


And I don't see anything wrong with it, really. Scout, harass LRM boats, kill heavily damaged mechs.

[ElLocoMarko]

Ignoring your entire post... I like the title! But I fail to see the problem with fewer Ravens in the world.

OK, I read a little, but don't hold me to it. Re-fixing state rewind will bring the lights closer together because laser damage will be more on-target and lights that mount more lasers will generally be more on-target. The Raven 3L is half laser (which will feel the buff) and half streak which will be unaffected. So sum of all effects - the Raven is pulled in closer to the other lights. I'm not saying equal... just less gap between them..

Will all lights suffer? Yes. But that doesn't negate my point above.

Oh, and I watched some old video of 4 AC20 ravens griefing a poor commando by knocking it down over and over before they finally shot it. I've heard of gangs of Dragons doing the same. I don't ever want knockdown back. Ever.

Edited by ElLocoMarko, 27 February 2013 - 03:45 PM.

[Corvus Antaka]

Yes but it is still a good idea to wait for state rewind. Besides, PGI might buff something like flamers, making the rather hot running 3L have an whole nother set of problems to deal with...like machinegun flamer spiders that are headshot kings

[Wintersdark]

Again, the point behind waiting is State Rewind is not that it's a 3L need (as many people noted, it'll nerf all lights equally) but that it's a laser buff. A laser buff dramatically changes light vs. light balance... In a way that won't favor the 3L.

Thus, 3L balancing must wait for that to happen first.

[Galathon Redd]

Volume, on 26 February 2013 - 07:41 PM, said:

• The 3L is very fast - Theoretically, lights have an almost-negligible speed difference with max engines - all the spiders, jenners, and commandos can go "around" 150 with a max engine and speed tweak. The only significantly slower light platforms are other ravens (max speed of 124.7kph with Speed Tweak, 113.4 kph without)

Jenner is faster. Once netcode issues are solved, Commando will be as well.

Quote

• The 3L is still the only platform that can mount ECM at that speed and have missile hardpoints (sorry, Cicada). It is the only light that can, which is important considering

Someday they'll release the Commando 2D variant which can m-- wait, this just in, Commando was in game before the Raven? WHOA.

Quote

• Raven hitboxes are still borked - I've hit them with an AC/20 in the face sometimes, and it apparently strips their rear armor. Unless this is due to lag/lack of state rewind, it will still be an issue.

L2P. Shooting an AC20 at something that moves 136KPH is wasting ammo. I've hit standing Ravens in the cockpit just fine - it's an easier hitbox than even a Jenner's head.

Quote

• The 3L still has the most useful hardpoint layout of any Raven (arguably any light) until weapon balance is re-tuned. Even if ECM/Streaks end up being useless one day, SRM6's are pretty ridiculous, and this is the only Light that can mount two of them. They have the highest burst damage/DPS in close-quarters. As mentioned before, the 3L has very high max-engine-speed to close distances with, to use its possibly 2(!!!) SRM6s at an effective range.

You like shooting one of your SRMs one missile at a time? Fine, it's pretty obvious since you mention twice in the OP that this is the only Raven that can fit 2 SRM6. Don't expect the smart kids to agree. This is not the Raven that can mount the AC20 or Gauss, as was infamous during Closed Beta, so you can have your NARC tube; I run the 3L for the ECM, not the extremely crappy hardpoint layout.

Fail. OP is 0 for 4. 0 for 5 if you count the SRM thing twice like he tried to. The only real reason to dislike the Raven is because it carries ECM and it's half the price of an Atlas, so everyone's got one. Familiarity breeds contempt.

[MustrumRidcully]

Vasces Diablo, on 27 February 2013 - 12:18 PM, said:

1) of course customization is fun. But so is learning the strength and weaknesses if different variants and playing them in the roles they are intended for. Customization also leads to boating and essentialy generic mech chassis -25 tons, generic mech chassis -30 tons, etc...
2) short of the "pod" concept of the clan omni mech, I don't think any of the customization makes sense. But I suppose we are talking about fictional giant walking death robots in the future.

"Nerfing" custimazation would solve "unbalanced" items because secs wouldn't have to deal with people packing 6 SRM 6s on to a cat and so on. They would have ultimate control for what makes it onto the field and can adjust things as needed.

It's a stretch to compare with LoL but there are how many champions in that game and they are all valid if the player knows how to use then.

The problem is - once you figured out the strength and weaknesses of variants, you know which ones are best. There is no way around it, unless they were more carefully designed then "let's just take these stats from the TT rulebooks". Battletech mechs are not balanced themselves, and so the min/maxer will have a few weeks of fun finding the best builds in each weight class, and then become bored because there is nothing to experiment with anymore.

With balanced items and rich customziation, there is a lot of design space to explore instead. It requires more work on item balance. Restrictions like hard point type or size limitations can work, because they require some creativity how to work well within the limits, but this will also require balancing work (possibly even rebalancing after people have find optimums), but complete restritions allows nothing to do but figure out which are the best mechs and stay on them.

And personally, I don't see a really good reason why customziation should be restricted that strong. I only imagine that customziation non-Omnis is harder and more expensive, because in the end, yo ucan always rip out a section of armour and form it so it fits some other gun, and put in some extra wiring or whatever you need. For "believability" purposes, customziation cost would make sense, but no MW game ever had that.

[Pihb]

Why not just nerf the 3L into nothing while the state rewind is implemented. If it needs to be fixed, fine, fix it after cw gets put in. I wouldn't cry if the 3L was a worthless chassis for a awhile.

[Vasces Diablo]

MustrumRidcully, on 28 February 2013 - 01:57 AM, said:

The problem is - once you figured out the strength and weaknesses of variants, you know which ones are best. There is no way around it, unless they were more carefully designed then "let's just take these stats from the TT rulebooks". Battletech mechs are not balanced themselves, and so the min/maxer will have a few weeks of fun finding the best builds in each weight class, and then become bored because there is nothing to experiment with anymore.

With balanced items and rich customziation, there is a lot of design space to explore instead. It requires more work on item balance. Restrictions like hard point type or size limitations can work, because they require some creativity how to work well within the limits, but this will also require balancing work (possibly even rebalancing after people have find optimums), but complete restritions allows nothing to do but figure out which are the best mechs and stay on them.

And personally, I don't see a really good reason why customziation should be restricted that strong. I only imagine that customziation non-Omnis is harder and more expensive, because in the end, yo ucan always rip out a section of armour and form it so it fits some other gun, and put in some extra wiring or whatever you need. For "believability" purposes, customziation cost would make sense, but no MW game ever had that.

Don't get me wrong, there are pluses and minuses to both (and I'll endlessly debate one or the other).

The issue is that it's nigh impossible to "balance" weapons when people can boat them. Tuning a SRM six to make splat cats less effective punishes everyone who doesn't boat them. Unless some system of diminishing returns is instituted. But this again is problematic as it forces build decisions on a player.

As for specific variants, your right, some would never see the field outside of novelty purposes.

They're just different ways of approaching the game. I'm gal they use a hardpoint system, as it allows some control. I am somewhat supposed there there isn't a "labor" cost that we pay in Cbills anytime we modify out mechs (as opposed to just equipment cost). I think it would add to the "realism" of custimization, and it would be a fantastic money sink for the economy.

Wow did we get off topic.