427 replies to this topic

[Prezimonto]

Roland, on 11 October 2013 - 06:12 AM, said:

A market based system will effectively automatically just balance things. Mechs and weapons that are deemed best will be automatically penalized, which will have the effect of pushing other mechs into the field.

Since there are issues with using the market to affect cost on the front end, I like the idea of attaching the market's "cost" to the back-end. That is, the "bad" mechs would have increased cbill earnings, compared to the "good" mechs.

Use sub-standard weapons on substandard chassis, and get huge earnings bonuses.

This would result in a wider variety of mechs and weapons used, while not actually FORCING anyone to change their play if they don't want to. It just provides additional incentive.

A carrot rather than a stick approach.

I get what you're saying except I don't actually believe it will work for anyone other than new players and PUG's. Unless you do something with the Market to give incentive directly in the matches the under used mechs and weapons will never be competitive.

I do understand the Carrot approach, and I think the stick isn't much a stick if the market is allowed to come to equilibrium naturally. If the majority of players using 4 PPC's can routine get enough kills that the meta changes and every does it then all mechs with those load outs become more expensive, not just stalkers. Once they're too expensive (their BV is uncomparable in performance to other load outs at the same BV people will stop using them because they'll lose, often.

I solely monetary solution is repair and rearm without the stick. Repair and rearm does nothing to effect the long term player's choices, only the new player and then only until they're settled into the game. If the game had a working external economy and parts and labor were all market driven via external forces and all prices the same, now we'd be talking... but I think your BV system approximates that with a different mechanic.

Edited by Prezimonto, 11 October 2013 - 09:11 AM.

[Roland]

Well, currently, there isn't really any economy... for me, I generally don't need money any more. I have a mountain of mechs and engines and everything.

However, once some of the CW stuff comes in, then it might start mattering.... Not for your personal money as much, but rather for the merc corp... A good unit may want to intentionally take {Scrap} mechs, in order to earn more money, to buy really expensive items like dropships that cost hundreds of millions of cbills... or even their own jumpships, which could potentially cost even more.

[Vassago Rain]

Roland, on 11 October 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:

Well, currently, there isn't really any economy... for me, I generally don't need money any more. I have a mountain of mechs and engines and everything.

However, once some of the CW stuff comes in, then it might start mattering.... Not for your personal money as much, but rather for the merc corp... A good unit may want to intentionally take {Scrap} mechs, in order to earn more money, to buy really expensive items like dropships that cost hundreds of millions of cbills... or even their own jumpships, which could potentially cost even more.

A bad mech does less damage and dies faster, so makes a lot less money. This was true back when you were supposed to be paying for ammo, too.

I got almost all my mechs and my stack of resources done in an LRM45 DDC before we even had ECM.

[Roland]

Vassago Rain, on 11 October 2013 - 09:32 AM, said:

A bad mech does less damage and dies faster, so makes a lot less money. This was true back when you were supposed to be paying for ammo, too.

I got almost all my mechs and my stack of resources done in an LRM45 DDC before we even had ECM.

But that's what we're talking about here... A "bad" mech would have an earnings bonus.

Thus, if you were good enough to use a bad mech and STILL be effective in it, then you would earn more money than if you brought a "good" mech.

This of course depends on you being able to be equally effective with the bad mech as with the good mech. On an individual basis, this could be harder, since even if you don't die yourself, your lowered efficiency may result in more of the damage going to other members of your team, potentially canceling out the earnings bonus (unless the bonus was large enough to counter even that).

In a team environment though, I could potentially see a whole team intentionally bringing some poor mechs, such that the overall earnings for the team as a whole would be higher... This depends on the team being so confident that they feel they can win even with substandard mechs, but we did that back in MW4... I'm certain there are teams who would choose that in MWO.

Finally, the possibility exists that there are other strong configs, which are simply unexplored or undiscovered, so the possibility is there that a mech could be marked "bad" by the market, because no one has come up with it.. but that is actually effective, giving the first folks who come up with the new build an advantage for a while.

[Mehlan]

Who makes the judgement, or how is the criteria determined on 'good' vs 'bad' mech? Your crossing an area that goes into 'skill'... what may be 'good' for one isn't 'good' for another.

[Deathlike]

Roland, on 11 October 2013 - 10:21 AM, said:

Finally, the possibility exists that there are other strong configs, which are simply unexplored or undiscovered, so the possibility is there that a mech could be marked "bad" by the market, because no one has come up with it.. but that is actually effective, giving the first folks who come up with the new build an advantage for a while.

I think that's a little faulty. I lab enough to probably be considered a min-maxer, but I do actually have to field the mechs to put them into a proper context of its actual usability and not its "theoretical" one.

I prefer to spec others how they use their own builds effectively, especially when there's minimal thought beyond the standard usage (just alpha and forget) instead of exploring every avenue of usage and implementation.

[KingCobra]

You all can try to sugar coat the medium with x2 rewards bonuses for usage yada yada yada but the truth is mediums are just not that big of a asset in battles!! There slow maneuverer badly and a heavy can do everything they can better END OF STORY!!!! So to make a medium a asset in battles give it better maneuverability smaller size for some units hunchback size for all mediums smaller hitboxes so there more durable and take some punishment then maybe players will see them as a huge asset in battles not just the cannon fodder they are. P.S heavies and assaults could also use a maneuverability buff to help balance lights.

[Vassago Rain]

Roland, on 11 October 2013 - 10:21 AM, said:

But that's what we're talking about here... A "bad" mech would have an earnings bonus.

Thus, if you were good enough to use a bad mech and STILL be effective in it, then you would earn more money than if you brought a "good" mech.

This of course depends on you being able to be equally effective with the bad mech as with the good mech. On an individual basis, this could be harder, since even if you don't die yourself, your lowered efficiency may result in more of the damage going to other members of your team, potentially canceling out the earnings bonus (unless the bonus was large enough to counter even that).

In a team environment though, I could potentially see a whole team intentionally bringing some poor mechs, such that the overall earnings for the team as a whole would be higher... This depends on the team being so confident that they feel they can win even with substandard mechs, but we did that back in MW4... I'm certain there are teams who would choose that in MWO.

Finally, the possibility exists that there are other strong configs, which are simply unexplored or undiscovered, so the possibility is there that a mech could be marked "bad" by the market, because no one has come up with it.. but that is actually effective, giving the first folks who come up with the new build an advantage for a while.

A bad mech with a cash bonus still won't make anywhere near as much as a good mech without. See WANG versus DDC during RnR days.

I was rolling in the dough. Bad mechs are bad. They have to stand on their own merits. No one wants to play a terrible grind robot so they can use their fun robot that they put hours into.

Deathlike, on 11 October 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

I think that's a little faulty. I lab enough to probably be considered a min-maxer, but I do actually have to field the mechs to put them into a proper context of its actual usability and not its "theoretical" one.

I prefer to spec others how they use their own builds effectively, especially when there's minimal thought beyond the standard usage (just alpha and forget) instead of exploring every avenue of usage and implementation.

Because some mechs have math working against them, like the meds, who can't withstand two actual shots, and the raven 3L has electronics, 3 module slots base, big engine, actual guns, and the dragon is a walking CT... If you don't see a mech, then it's pretty terrible.

You don't see any of the following: awesome, trebuchet, dragon, commando, quickdraw. It's because they're bad. There is no Power of One. You don't get to attack the horn with thundershock.

It's not possible outside your fanfictions.

[Nryrony]

KingCobra, on 11 October 2013 - 10:39 AM, said:

P.S heavies and assaults could also use a maneuverability buff to help balance lights.

Right, and don't forget about more firepower, they certainly lack that not to mention the Pony someone told me about...

[Shadey99]

Vassago Rain, on 11 October 2013 - 11:11 AM, said:

You don't see any of the following: awesome, trebuchet, dragon, commando, quickdraw. It's because they're bad.

Actually based on the stats I had time to process so far (from about 2 weeks ago), I saw at least 1 of every mech. The lowest being: 1 Commando, 1 Kintaro, & 1 QD. I also saw 4 Awesomes, 6 Trebs, & 11 Dragons... I've only processed 10 games in full so far, so that's even a pretty small sample.

[Mehlan]

Quote

You don't see any of the following: awesome, trebuchet, dragon, commando, quickdraw. It's because they're bad. There is no Power of One. You don't get to attack the horn with thundershock.

I own the dragon and commando.... out of all its the catapult and the x5 that see the least amount of action.

[Cragger]

Strum Wealh, on 11 October 2013 - 03:59 AM, said:

No, it doesn't.

The Square-Cube Law ("SCL") you're trying to invoke (again) absolutely does not necessarily mean that "a linear increase in weight should result in a cubed increase in height".
The SCL indicates that "when an object undergoes a proportional increase in size, its new volume is proportional to the cube of the multiplier and its new surface area is proportional to the square of the multiplier".

In other words, the SCL states that a linear increase (or decrease) in overall size results in a cubic increase (or decrease) in total volume and a square increase (or decrease) in total surface area.

• That is, if you take a 'Mech model and make it "twice as big" (that is, multiply all dimensions by two), the new (scaled-up) model will have four times the total surface area (because 2^2 = 4) and eight times the total volume (because 2^3 = 8).
  
• Alternatively, if you take a 'Mech model and make it "one-and-a-half times as big" (that is, multiply all dimensions by 1.5), the new (scaled-up) model will have 2.25 times the total surface area (because 1.5^2 = 2.25) and 3.375 times the total volume (because 1.5^3 = 3.375).

To provide a practical example:

• The cube-root of 2 (that is, 2^(1/3)) is 1.2599 (round to 1.26), and the cube-root of 4 (that is, 4^(1/3)) is 1.5874 (round to 1.59). The reciprocal of 1.26 (that is, 1/1.26) is 0.79 and the reciprocal of 1.59 (that is, 1/1.59) is 0.63.
  
• We will assume, for the sake of the example, that all 'Mechs would be scaled to the MWO Atlas (height of 17.6 meters) and that all 'Mechs will have the same, or nearly the same, average density (that is, total mass divided by total volume will be the same, or close to it). Thus, volume and mass become proportionally-related (that is, a doubling of volume when density is constant results in a doubling of mass, and vice versa; a halving of mass when density is constant results in a halving of volume, and vice versa).

Under these conditions, an Atlas rescaled to the same mass as a Centurion (that is, one-half of the Atlas' original mass) would be 79% of the physical size of the original Atlas (e.g. 79% height, 79% width, 79% depth, 79% limb diameter/thickness, etc.), which would make it 13.9691 meters tall (round to 13.97 meters).


The current height of the MWO Centurion is 14.7 meters (or 48.228 feet), a difference of 0.7309 meters (or 2.398 feet) "too tall".

Likewise, an Atlas rescaled to the same mass as a Commando (that is, one-quarter of the Atlas' original mass) would be 63% of the physical size of the original Atlas (e.g. 63% height, 63% width, 63% depth, 63% limb diameter/thickness, etc.), which would make it 11.0873 meters tall (round to 11.09 meters).
The current height of the MWO Commando is 9.7 meters (or 31.824 feet), a difference of 1.3873 meters (or 4.552 feet) "too short".

Aditionally, bear in mind that neither the Commando nor the Centurion are proportionally identical to the Atlas; both of the former have far-thinner (and thus less voluminous) limbs than would be suggested by the preceeding calculations, with the displaced volume needing to be either transferred to the body (making the 'Mech broader or deeper... or taller) or remaining in the limbs by changing their length (where lengthening the legs will, of course, also make the 'Mech taller) in order to maintain the constant density relationship.
As such, it is in fact quite logical and sensible that a Hunchback, being much more stoutly-built than the relatively-lean Centurion and Trebuchet, is also significantly shorter than either of them, despite all of them being the same mass (and assuming that all of them should have similar average density).

In summary: depending on one's reference points and which scaling algorithms are used, (at least some of) the Lights are generally too small & the sizes of (at least some of) the Mediums are fairly close to where they "should" be, and the scaling of a number of the 'Mechs in general, while not perfect, is not so drastically off as some might believe.

You are absolutely correct that the square-cubed law cannot be directly applied to height if applied under the assumption internal mass densities remain the same as the volume increases. Height is only a single dimension of the surface are of a mech. Battlemechs need to scale in surface area correctly as their mass increases (assuming average density is constant) and not just their height.

This is important because some mechs have large side profiles compared to similar tonnage mechs. So if they were given heights determined purely by tonnage they would end up being at a overall disadvantage to 'slimmer' battle mechs of equal height and tonnage.

A good illustration of this is a M4 Sherman tank is only 10 inches shorter then the height as a Panzer VI Tiger despite the Tiger tank massing in at almost twice the tonnage. Yet the M4 Sherman is clearly smaller in that it is not as long nor as wide as the Panzer VI Tiger.

Calculating surface area of a 3d model is not difficult as the tools can do it for you. From there is is simply a matter of scaling until the surface area meets the proper value thus determining the height.

[KingCobra]

Nryrony, on 11 October 2013 - 11:25 AM, said:

Right, and don't forget about more firepower, they certainly lack that not to mention the Pony someone told me about...

It would seem you cannot help this topic by your idiotic comments but then again your age or IQ might be 2? If you had played previous MechWarrior games maneuverability and speed were one of the balancing points of the game? You certainly lack knowledge on subjects from reading a few of your posts. And no heavies and assaults have plenty of firepower but it is of no use unless you can maneuver into position to use it or maneuver into cover to protect it.

[AC]

Trebs arm weapons are nearly unusable when you unlock the arm swing speed tweek x2. There is absolutely no fine aiming after that. PGI needs to check some of these mechs. I would love to be able to take away that "bonus" so that I could aim at range again.

The single drawback of mediums is that most of them are the size of assaults with a fraction of the armor. Rescale them and their hitboxes and give them a small agility boost and climb boost and they will see use.

[Soda Popinsky]

Do you guys think reintroducing knock-downs would reduce the numbers of lights? Especially if mediums are harder to knock down than lights, when they run into buildings / bigger mechs.

As far as the bias towards heavies and assaults, a market / economy would work... But since repair and re-arm were unpopular, I suggested the idea of simply repair time. People don't like shelling out hard-earned c-bills, but if larger mechs just become unavailable for a time, people are more likely to run with somewhat lighter mechs while waiting on their Atlas to become available. I'd suggest allowing modules and undamaged weapons to be stripped off the mech under repair.

The other game I play is Red Orchestra 2 (WWII realismish game). In that game, when you join a server, there's a class limit (1 commander, few squad leaders, 1 sniper, few SMG, plenty of riflemen). Perhaps when the dropship mode comes up, something like this could be implemented, with a bias to medium mech slots open.

[Nryrony]

KingCobra, on 11 October 2013 - 12:14 PM, said:

And no heavies and assaults have plenty of firepower but it is of no use unless you can maneuver into position to use it or maneuver into cover to protect it.

That is exactly my point, lights lack that kind of speed and maneuverability atm. Assaults and Heavy's need a weak spot for lights to hit not an improvement on agility, if at all they need a nerf in that or a bigger dead-zone in their back.

Thanks for the insults btw.

Edited by Nryrony, 11 October 2013 - 12:32 PM.

[Vassago Rain]

Soda Popinsky, on 11 October 2013 - 12:29 PM, said:

Do you guys think reintroducing knock-downs would reduce the numbers of lights? Especially if mediums are harder to knock down than lights, when they run into buildings / bigger mechs.

As far as the bias towards heavies and assaults, a market / economy would work... But since repair and re-arm were unpopular, I suggested the idea of simply repair time. People don't like shelling out hard-earned c-bills, but if larger mechs just become unavailable for a time, people are more likely to run with somewhat lighter mechs while waiting on their Atlas to become available. I'd suggest allowing modules and undamaged weapons to be stripped off the mech under repair.

The other game I play is Red Orchestra 2 (WWII realismish game). In that game, when you join a server, there's a class limit (1 commander, few squad leaders, 1 sniper, few SMG, plenty of riflemen). Perhaps when the dropship mode comes up, something like this could be implemented, with a bias to medium mech slots open.

This doesn't work here, because no one owns mediums.

[Bilbo]

Nryrony, on 11 October 2013 - 12:30 PM, said:

That is exactly my point, lights lack that kind of speed and maneuverability atm. Assaults and Heavy's need a weak spot for lights to hit not an improvement on agility...

Thanks for the insults btw.

Their weak spot is their back, generally. Get behind them and stay there. Lights have plenty of maneuverability for that. If you can't stay there find somebody else to shoot at, because that guy is gonna get one lined up eventually.

[FupDup]

Soda Popinsky, on 11 October 2013 - 12:29 PM, said:

Do you guys think reintroducing knock-downs would reduce the numbers of lights? Especially if mediums are harder to knock down than lights, when they run into buildings / bigger mechs.

As far as the bias towards heavies and assaults, a market / economy would work... But since repair and re-arm were unpopular, I suggested the idea of simply repair time. People don't like shelling out hard-earned c-bills, but if larger mechs just become unavailable for a time, people are more likely to run with somewhat lighter mechs while waiting on their Atlas to become available. I'd suggest allowing modules and undamaged weapons to be stripped off the mech under repair.

The other game I play is Red Orchestra 2 (WWII realismish game). In that game, when you join a server, there's a class limit (1 commander, few squad leaders, 1 sniper, few SMG, plenty of riflemen). Perhaps when the dropship mode comes up, something like this could be implemented, with a bias to medium mech slots open.

The number of lights isn't really that high right now outside of the occasional premades who run all lights for giggles/trolling. If you want to reduce them further, just fix hit detection and the population will go back down to what it was right after the Highlander update (somewhere around only 11% of players, which they aren't even very far from right now). All knockdowns would do is make mediums even worse because most heavies can go similar speeds (or faster if you're in a Hunchback) and just ram them down with impunity and keep them rammed down, and then heavies would get roflstomped by any max-XL Victor or even Battlemaster that gets near them for the same reason.


Just make mediums stop being so large in size. They need to be only slightly larger than lights, not slightly smaller than heavies like they are now. Some extra module slights would be cool as well but wouldn't really fix much by itself. SRM fixes would help as well, in addition to some later-era weapons like Light ACs and ER ML so that they can fill their hardpoints with weight-efficient weapons (rather than trying to cram in giant guns that slow them down too much).

[KingCobra]

Nryrony, on 11 October 2013 - 12:30 PM, said:

That is exactly my point, lights lack that kind of speed and maneuverability atm. Assaults and Heavy's need a weak spot for lights to hit not an improvement on agility, if at all they need a nerf in that or a bigger dead-zone in their back.

Thanks for the insults btw.

Your welcome but I think your talking about a light boost? Lights right now fine except for the spider which has HSR/hitbox issues so its just dam OP!!! Assaults-Heavies-mediums need a agility/maneuvering boost to balance them out in game play its not mediums-heavies-and assaults don't have the firepower its just a bietch to maneuver and use it against the OP lights in the game. I don't think lights need a nerf at all I think all the other classes just need a buff to balance the game out. MWO is =Instakill already for most mechs why would you want to make the situation even worse and weaken the already low/crappy back armor? So you can take a light and think your so leet 1337? I just don't get your logic.

Edited by KingCobra, 11 October 2013 - 12:47 PM.