49 replies to this topic

[Hellcat420]

Victor Morson, on 27 June 2013 - 05:13 PM, said:

People always bring this up. Now I want to say I agree that hardpoint limitations are a good thing, but not because of this. Because quite simply we're already nearing a point that there is very little to make one 'mech different from another. You simply won't need much more by next year, as they no longer have new things to offer.

However, balance wise, I don't see it as a problem. Why? Because whatever you wanted to boat/do in MW4, they had a boat for that, pretty much. Wanna run PPCs like crazy? Have a Novacat! Want to boat ballistics? Here, have a Thanatos!

So again, this isn't making a difference balance wise, because balance wise there's no difference between two identical tonnage 'mechs doing, say, twin Gauss and one 'mech doing it and one 'mech not. There is however more room for creativity in the variants, but that's a whole other can of worms.

EDIT: I bring MW4 up because even in the worst versions of it you generally had: Snipers & LRM Support in the rear, covered by tanking mediums up front, and a scout or two searching for you; sometimes you'd get a sneaky ECM/BAP 'mech to flank around the edges and harass the enemy. Sure that changed over time, but my point is there were roles. Lots of different roles. That's why I bring it up despite things like having atrocious medium lasers until Mercenaries & HC.

the thing you are missing is that in mw4 if you wanted to boat ppc, you would have to take a mech that was made to be able to handle boating ppc, not just grab any mechs with a bunch of energy hardpoints and fill it to the brim with ppc. those mechs made to handle boating things like ppc had some drawbacks to go along wtih being able to boat like that. the awesome is a perfect example of that. its made to boat large energy weapons, but it also has a huge torso, making it an easy target.

[trollocaustic]

Weak Ballistic weapons?

ARE YOU ******* KIDDING ME?

[Deathlike]

NARC is... irrelevant, thus the only real thing underpowered in the umbrella of a poll question. It has to be reworked somehow to be like something that would make SRMs Streak-like or something along those lines.

[Yelland]

I feel the (2) game modes available today do not allow complete role representation.

The slope mechanism will add another dimension to gameplay. Lighter mech popularity and more JJ is what I expect to see increase.

I also look forward to the potential tactical approaches, like bottlenecks and trapping mechs in a canyon. Increasing dependency on information warfare. You can't simply walk over a hill out of LOS, so you have to be more careful with the path you choose and what you know about it. Creating more opportunities for brawlers to "hold" the line while indirect support wears the target down.

Snipers may become more dangerous if they have a high position and cannot be reached, which will create a demand for more versatility instead of simply max armor with max load out.

[Adrian Steel]

One Medic Army, on 27 June 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

I am puzzled how people think "cavalry" or reasonably fast mediums/heavies can be overpowered in the current game.

[edit] Probably people who dislike lights, going by the way the questions are laid out.

Poor hit detection / netcode can make some lights ridiculous, so some may think they're overpowered (when they're not).

[CutterWolf]

Hellcat420, on 27 June 2013 - 05:23 PM, said:

the thing you are missing is that in mw4 if you wanted to boat ppc, you would have to take a mech that was made to be able to handle boating ppc, not just grab any mechs with a bunch of energy hardpoints and fill it to the brim with ppc. those mechs made to handle boating things like ppc had some drawbacks to go along wtih being able to boat like that. the awesome is a perfect example of that. its made to boat large energy weapons, but it also has a huge torso, making it an easy target.

This is true, MW4 did restrict hard points but, it still was not right since it missed the boat on crit slots. MWO's issues with balance that directly effects role warfare is that it has no weapon amount or type restrictions for its crit slots on any given mech. There for mechs that were designed to boat a weapon type or to carry a weapon that no other mech in that class could have, have now been replaced with other mechs that do it better do to this design flaw.

Ravens, Spiders, Commandos should never be able to carry assault class weapons. i.e. (PPC'S, Guass Rifle & AC 10/20) They were never designed to carry that type of weapon. Because MWO lets those mechs carry those weapons, adding in the Urban mech would be a complete waste of time and effort since they can all out perform the Urban mech a crossed the board. Take the Hollander, why add that mech to the game? With out weapon restrictions its pointless to add it since other mechs in its weight class can carry the Guass Rifle already.

PPC's are not broken at all. In fact they balanced, its the fact that there are no restrictions on how many a mech can carry that make them OP period. The Dev team could code each mech to restrict the total number of any weapons the mech can carry and still have tons of customization. SRMs got hit by the nerf bat do to this same reason but, if they had restricted the total number a mech could carry we would still have good SRM's without them being OP.

Its really just that simple of a solution..........

Edited by CutterWolf, 27 June 2013 - 08:14 PM.

[Sybreed]

Victor Morson, on 27 June 2013 - 05:13 PM, said:

People always bring this up. Now I want to say I agree that hardpoint limitations are a good thing, but not because of this. Because quite simply we're already nearing a point that there is very little to make one 'mech different from another. You simply won't need much more by next year, as they no longer have new things to offer.

However, balance wise, I don't see it as a problem. Why? Because whatever you wanted to boat/do in MW4, they had a boat for that, pretty much. Wanna run PPCs like crazy? Have a Novacat! Want to boat ballistics? Here, have a Thanatos!

So again, this isn't making a difference balance wise, because balance wise there's no difference between two identical tonnage 'mechs doing, say, twin Gauss and one 'mech doing it and one 'mech not. There is however more room for creativity in the variants, but that's a whole other can of worms.

Lol, I had a talk with Garth about this a few months ago and PGI basically has an entirely different point of view on the matter. While I prefer the way you described, that is pick the mech you want for the role you want, PGI prefers the "pick the mech you find visually attractive and build it into what you want".

IMO with all the mechs that are coming down the road, it's simply not needed to have so much customization available as we could simply buy the mech needed for the job. But, PGI has a different design philosophy...

Edited by Sybreed, 27 June 2013 - 08:26 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Hellcat420, on 27 June 2013 - 05:23 PM, said:

the thing you are missing is that in mw4 if you wanted to boat ppc, you would have to take a mech that was made to be able to handle boating ppc

I'm not missing that. I see that as a variety problem (like I said, I like limited hardpoint sizes because it adds more flavor to each 'mech) and NOT a balance problem.

MW4 would be no more unbalanced or balanced if a Thor could carry a Novacat's 7 ER Large Laser build, it's just have less variety and personality. So I am in favor of hard points, but NOT as a balancing measure, because the builds that will let you boat what you're looking to boat will still exist.

[Victor Morson]

Sybreed, on 27 June 2013 - 08:26 PM, said:

Lol, I had a talk with Garth about this a few months ago and PGI basically has an entirely different point of view on the matter. While I prefer the way you described, that is pick the mech you want for the role you want, PGI prefers the "pick the mech you find visually attractive and build it into what you want".

IMO with all the mechs that are coming down the road, it's simply not needed to have so much customization available as we could simply buy the mech needed for the job. But, PGI has a different design philosophy...

That is a mind boggling way to look at this. I would think from a business POV restricting 'mechs differently to encourage variety would cause "Collector mentality" more than just "Pretty much the same 'mech with a different skin" which is where we're heading once all the slated 'mechs are put in.

I mean in any other game where different models all have different edges, people tend to be obsessive about owning them. As it stands PGI has to force 3 mechs on us instead to elite stuff, and most of the time you only end up driving one (maybe two) of them.

It's strange because I'd really like to stop derailing balance talk with hardpoint stuff, because again, I don't think it's causing imbalance. What it is causing is just limiting the need for future 'mechs, which seems bad for PGI even more than us.

[Arcturious]

Flankers and brawlers are almost the same, so wherever I say brawl you could insert flank. Both need a buff.

A sniper is a sniper is a sniper. They are about right.

What is needed basically is stronger brawlers and stronger support roles to back them up.

This is going to be even more important now that you physical location has a greater impact. If you go the wrong way down a canyon and get caught out of position, you're going to need to be able to call in support on your location.

If you are a brawler, once you have committed to an approach you need to firepower to see it through.

Snipers are about right, get to your nest and have at it.

Once everything has been buffed to appropriate levels and is balanced again, then we can finally do any needed tweaks to slow combat down again across the board.

12v12 is going to have a huge impact here to. I'm really hoping to start seeing more lance level tactics and less blobbing.

Edited by Arcturious, 27 June 2013 - 09:02 PM.

[Marj]

Sybreed, on 27 June 2013 - 08:26 PM, said:

PGI prefers the "pick the mech you find visually attractive and build it into what you want".

So they don't consider mech geometry a balance factor? Wow...

I think snipers are a little OP at the moment, 4 PPC's or 3 PPC's + a gauss is too much. I'd like to see hardpoint restrictions to limit direct fire ballistic style weapons to a 35pt alpha max (unless the variants that can do more have other disadvantages). That or fix the heat scale.

I think brawlers, lights and harassers have all been hurt too much by seismic, it's too easy to see them coming. That and brawling weapons (mainly SRM's and LBX) need to be buffed. I have no idea how they could think having snipers do more damage than brawlers in brawling range is balanced. On top of that, I find brawling in MWO is worse than in MW4. The mechs don't seem agile enough to bait people into firing when you want them to (revealing your CT for a fraction of a second) then dodging the shot, especially the mediums. Skill doesn't have quite as much impact between an exceptional pilot and an average one. Skill matters, but not as much as I'd like.

I think LRM's could use a slight damage buff and a nerf to AMS.

Information warfare is a joke, they need to end this obsession with hard counters.

[PanzerMagier]

I like how the poll's results perfectly coincide with my previous opinions. (smirking at those fools who said I was wrong ^.^)

[Brilig]

It may have been said already. I will bet the new movement restrictions for inclines will make scouting a much more important role.

Edit: Also I think a lot of the issue with brawlers being UP will go away when there is a fix to pinpoint alpha damage. It will be a lot easier to get to brawling distance if your not taking 30-60 points of damage to a single section every time a sniper sees you.

Edited by Brilig, 27 June 2013 - 10:58 PM.

[Victor Morson]

trollocaustic, on 27 June 2013 - 05:23 PM, said:

Weak Ballistic weapons?

ARE YOU ******* KIDDING ME?

Notably this is excluding the Gauss.

The AC/20 is a pretty gimmicky weapon given it can only be mounted on 'mechs with the durability of a water balloon. That might change with the Victor.

The rest? Yep, way way underpowered.

Arcturious, on 27 June 2013 - 09:01 PM, said:

Flankers and brawlers are almost the same, so wherever I say brawl you could insert flank. Both need a buff.

Not in my general experience.

A brawler is a 'mech geared exclusively for short-range combat (SRM6s, AC/10s and 20s, Pulse Lasers, LBX, etc.) This is in contrast to what I'd consider a "flanker" which would have firepower closer to Large Lasers + Gauss or the like, but right now tends to be PPCs.

aka I'd consider flankers generally speaking to be a more medium range role. This is a personal perspective on it, though, so the terms could shift from person to person, but I just wanted to clarify.

Edited by Victor Morson, 27 June 2013 - 11:40 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

I liked two roles... in the past
Anchor with my Assault... that is the most valuable concept in TT and I know it did work in the CB.... it is to be in the middle of the line. Deliver fire in any direction and take incomming damage. When you fall - the line is breaking and your force is split in two.

It was ever a underpowered role - because you can't use much cover - when you want to keep up with advancing units and stay in range of the long range units.... its clearly for the open field.... and open field tactics are clearly underpowerd...get in the open and you got wasted.... so BattleMech combat in general is in MWO underpowerd..

However second role is skirmisher or hunter killer...in a medium mech.
First coffin nail was the engine cap - no fast moving 50t mech with a decent energy loadout -not the 4P the Centurion AL.
Second coffin nail.... big alpha strikes
Thrid coffin nail - not enough fire power -> not able to kill fast enough -> got killed
Fourth coffin nail - hardly any light mechs in the field.

[Victor Morson]

Karl Streiger, on 28 June 2013 - 03:30 AM, said:

I liked two roles... in the past
Anchor with my Assault... that is the most valuable concept in TT and I know it did work in the CB.... it is to be in the middle of the line. Deliver fire in any direction and take incomming damage. When you fall - the line is breaking and your force is split in two.

I'm not sure if you play much league 8-man but at least the "Anchor" concept was very useful before the Stalkers/Highlanders took to the field, and it still has a place with zombie Atlas in assault. Most "anchoring" today would be done with Centurion 9As, but again, these are weight-restricted 8-mans, so they're a different story from most random games.

If you really like playing that role though, you should definitely get your unit to check out some league play in one of the player-run ones.

Karl Streiger, on 28 June 2013 - 03:30 AM, said:

It was ever a underpowered role - because you can't use much cover - when you want to keep up with advancing units and stay in range of the long range units.... its clearly for the open field.... and open field tactics are clearly underpowerd...get in the open and you got wasted.... so BattleMech combat in general is in MWO underpowerd..

Pretty much why this only works in league style games, where you can count on people to stick with you, and use you as the lead in. In PUGs this is much, much harder to pull off.

Karl Streiger, on 28 June 2013 - 03:30 AM, said:

However second role is skirmisher or hunter killer...in a medium mech.
First coffin nail was the engine cap - no fast moving 50t mech with a decent energy loadout -not the 4P the Centurion AL.
Second coffin nail.... big alpha strikes
Thrid coffin nail - not enough fire power -> not able to kill fast enough -> got killed
Fourth coffin nail - hardly any light mechs in the field.

Try the Trebuchet 3C. Again, it has absolutely no role or place in the mainstream game right now, but it's a lot of fun in weight restricted league games.

Trust me, they can't put weight restricted lobbies in fast enough. The game is night & day, even with the current terrible meta.

[Karl Streiger]

Thanks for the advice...

however Role Mech Warfare means you see a lance of Awesome...and you think.... "we are screwed - we are death and burning - we only have to recognize it."
But in MWO its....ha ha Awesomes - easy kills I'm so lucky that they aren't Catapracts or Catapults

[Ransack]

FupDup, on 27 June 2013 - 05:11 PM, said:

Role warfare has degenerated into killers and cappers.

Information warfare has degenerated into block-missiles and unblock-missiles. Also, Seismic turns it into Information Welfare because it lets you know everything around you at all times (takes the effort out of it).

Brawling is only effective in short range, and often even not that effective at all. Sniping is effective at every range and that is just plain wrong.

golfclap

That sums it up nicely.

[Enigmos]

Victor Morson, on 27 June 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:

... how do you feel role warfare, a founding principle of the game, is holding up?

I think there is really only so much you can blame on the developer when it comes to how most of us play.Think about how matches generally fall out. You can slice them into three categories: Both teams coordinated, One team coordinated, and Not coordinated.
Every match falls into those three categories, with variances where you have a mostly uncoordinated team peppered with veteran pilots who coordinate themselves the best they can. Most matches are relatively uncoordinated. Flocks of geese are more intelligent.
If we really used role warfare everyone would conform to the tactical situation, For example scouts would range the battlefield and locate the OpFor and skirmish with the other scouts. Until the main body of the opposition was located your assaults and heavies would be deployed either defensively at cap or defensively at chokepoints (which should become possible with the upcoming terrain/slope movement change).
Once the OpFor is located favorable terrain would be identified and your force would deploy forward, your surviving scouts and fast mediums would try to draw their force into your reticule.
The way we play though everyone just starts moving, eager to run under the guns of destruction. That isn't something the devs can really control for but we tend to blame them rather than ourselves.

[topgun505]

Seismic has taken a lot of the wind out of the sails of the light mechs. Why take a light when you can just take a module and effectively be your own light which can even tell you enemy movements through terrain?

Mind you they are still good for base cap and tagging but as far as reporting on enemy movements ... Not much point in them.

Honestly seismic should either only work when your mech is stationary or it needs its range cut in half.