427 replies to this topic

[Ghogiel]

Vodrin Thales, on 09 October 2013 - 11:08 AM, said:

Why on earth would you make light mechs larger?

Because he asked for it.

[Kardax]

Mediums are too big in size, they should be scaled down a bit, they're supposed to be bigger than lights and smaller than heavies.
Right now I cant tell the difference between heavies and mediums.

[NextGame]

Spiff, on 09 October 2013 - 10:14 AM, said:

IMO one of the biggest drawbacks of the game is that fact that everyone tends to run really large or really small mechs. The lack of any meaningful role warfare means that there is really no incentive for players to run medium mechs.

Instead you end up with players picking their mech based on play style. Those who prefer firepower and armor pick a larger mech while those that prefer to use speed as armor pick a smaller one. Medium mechs tend to be targets for both.

Meanwhile, we have the ongoing complaints about the c-bill nerf and the lack of meaningful rewards for matches.

One quick fix to both problems would be to scale rewards based on the type of mech you pick. If you want to encourage folks to run more mediums, then buff the c-bill and experience reward for mediums by 50%.

This gives players a good way to make c-bills quickly, encourages them to pilot something other than victors and spiders, and doesn't require all the complex changes that role warfare would involve.

You could even tie the reward to the frequency with which the mech is used. So if commandos aren't used all that much, they get an automatic buff to rewards. If their usage increases, the buff decreases and shifts to some other chassis that isn't used all that often.

Don't make them the same height as an atlas, job done.

[Roland]

Ghogiel, on 09 October 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

yeah no.

If so people can stop complaining about the Cent being too large and the STK being small then. And while we are at it we can make the spider and jenner 2-3 times larger than they are.

I don't understand how what you are saying here addresses what I said... which was that tonnage should be directly correlated to mech volume.

I mean, it would in fact help make the cent smaller, and the stalker bigger. It wouldn't make light mechs bigger.

[Ghogiel]

Roland, on 09 October 2013 - 11:15 AM, said:

I don't understand how what you are saying here addresses what I said... which was that tonnage should be directly correlated to mech volume.

I mean, it would in fact help make the cent smaller, and the stalker bigger. It wouldn't make light mechs bigger.

Yes and those changes are completely the exact thing that would happen if tonnage was directly correlated to mech volume.

[Vodrin Thales]

Ghogiel, on 09 October 2013 - 11:11 AM, said:

Because he asked for it.

Edit: Wait a minute, are you saying that Roland asked for lights to be larger? Because he actually asked for mediums and lights to be smaller.

Edited by Vodrin Thales, 09 October 2013 - 11:27 AM.

[Roland]

Ghogiel, on 09 October 2013 - 11:22 AM, said:

Yes and those changes are completely the exact thing that would happen if tonnage was directly correlated to mech volume.

Wait, are you saying that if volume was correlated to tonnage, then it would reduce the size of the centurion and increase the size of the stalker?

That's the point.

Are you suggesting that such a result would be bad?

Light mechs wouldn't need to be increased in size at all.

Basically, it all depends on what you are using as the baseline. If you leave the atlas as it is, for instance, at 100 tons, then pick some smaller mech on the other end that is appropriately sized (say, the jenner) and scale things accordingly, then I suspect that it'd result in much better scales.

For instance, the result would be that the centurion would be smaller than every heavy mech then. The stalker would then be clearly larger than the catapult, etc.

[Baba Yogi]

Versatility is mediums speciality. If they are underpresented then game modes/maps arent sufficient for players to require something that does a bit of everything.

[Ghogiel]

Roland, on 09 October 2013 - 11:30 AM, said:

Wait, are you saying that if volume was correlated to tonnage, then it would reduce the size of the centurion and increase the size of the stalker?

That's the point.

Are you suggesting that such a result would be bad?

I am saying the opposite is the case.

I am the only person to correctly calculate volume of some of the mechs AFAIK. And yeah using the atlas as a base line, the jenner @ 35 tons and assuming similar density to the atlas, would need to be much larger if tonnage matched mech volume.

In reality you are asking for them to eyeball the mechs better and not use math.

[D1al T0ne]

I hate to keep bringing it up in almost every thread, but this is YET ANOTHER thing that World of Tanks does smarter than MWO.

The earnings ratio of tanks in WoT is on a bell curve. The lower tier (light) tanks earn very little and the highest tier (heavy) tanks also earn very little. Right in the middle though there's a sweet spot which is mostly lower end heavy tanks and medium tanks.

If this game would simply adopt a model where light mechs and assault mechs have no C-bill boost, while medium mechs have a substantial boost and heavy mechs have a moderate boost, then we would see people playing them all the time.

Go back to a repair model (Not re-arm, only repair) and you'll see even MORE medium mechs because their C-bill boost will mean that even a loss will earn credits rather than lose credits.

So then you'll have a model where people play medium and heavy mechs in order to earn the right to play assault mechs. As an added benefit, there will be a lot less recklessness and a more tactical approach to the game as losing in an Assault means losing C-bills instead of earning them.

[Artgathan]

There are several problems with Mediums:

• They're (mostly) too big
  
• Engine weights mean that mediums can either move faster than a typical heavy and carry the firepower of a light, or carry more firepower but be a slow (and large) target. Either way, they're outshined by heavies on one end or lights on the other.
  
• The mobility bonuses (while helpful) didn't go far enough. Mediums would have benefited more from Accel/Deceleration and turning speed buffs

D1al T0ne, on 09 October 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

I hate to keep bringing it up in almost every thread, but this is YET ANOTHER thing that World of Tanks does smarter than MWO.

The earnings ratio of tanks in WoT is on a bell curve. The lower tier (light) tanks earn very little and the highest tier (heavy) tanks also earn very little. Right in the middle though there's a sweet spot which is mostly lower end heavy tanks and medium tanks.

If this game would simply adopt a model where light mechs and assault mechs have no C-bill boost, while medium mechs have a substantial boost and heavy mechs have a moderate boost, then we would see people playing them all the time.

Go back to a repair model (Not re-arm, only repair) and you'll see even MORE medium mechs because their C-bill boost will mean that even a loss will earn credits rather than lose credits.

So then you'll have a model where people play medium and heavy mechs in order to earn the right to play assault mechs. As an added benefit, there will be a lot less recklessness and a more tactical approach to the game as losing in an Assault means losing C-bills instead of earning them.

The problem with this sort of model is that it doesn't fix imbalances. It just means that people will break out the mediums when they need to grind cash to purchase their next assault.

[Roland]

Ghogiel, on 09 October 2013 - 11:37 AM, said:

I am saying the opposite is the case.

I am the only person to correctly calculate volume of some of the mechs AFAIK. And yeah using the atlas as a base line, the jenner @ 35 tons and assuming similar density to the atlas, would need to be much larger if tonnage matched mech volume.

In reality you are asking for them to eyeball the mechs better and not use math.

Ah, well, not quite. Although now I understand what you're saying. I'm proposing they use math, but not actually base the size on physical density of some material.

What I'm proposing is that you set both ends of the scale. You pick the appropriate size for the 100 ton mech (The atlas works fine for this, I think. I think most folks think that it's a reasonably good size).

Then you pick some other point on the scale. It doesn't even have to be the smallest mech.

For instance, pick the Jenner... I think most folks think the Jenner is reasonably sized.

Draw a line between those two mechs, and then scale all other mechs based on their relative tonnage on that slope. Commando is smaller than the jenner. Cent is equal to the hunchback, etc.

It's possible that some mechs might get made slightly bigger, but what you would NOT have is a case where a trebuchet is bigger than a heavy chassis. The Awesome would be significantly smaller than the Atlas.

[Ghogiel]

Roland, on 09 October 2013 - 11:52 AM, said:

Ah, well, not quite. Although now I understand what you're saying. I'm proposing they use math, but not actually base the size on physical density of some material.

What I'm proposing is that you set both ends of the scale. You pick the appropriate size for the 100 ton mech (The atlas works fine for this, I think. I think most folks think that it's a reasonably good size).

Then you pick some other point on the scale. It doesn't even have to be the smallest mech.

For instance, pick the Jenner... I think most folks think the Jenner is reasonably sized.

Draw a line between those two mechs, and then scale all other mechs based on their relative tonnage on that slope. Commando is smaller than the jenner. Cent is equal to the hunchback, etc.

It's possible that some mechs might get made slightly bigger, but what you would NOT have is a case where a trebuchet is bigger than a heavy chassis. The Awesome would be significantly smaller than the Atlas.

Having looked at the correct volumes of some of the mechs, I think they should fudge it a bit more.

[Roland]

Ya, it might be more fudgy than just volumes, since a big part of it involves their profile, more so than just the raw volume.

[D1al T0ne]

Artgathan, on 09 October 2013 - 11:48 AM, said:

There are several problems with Mediums:

• They're (mostly) too big
  
• Engine weights mean that mediums can either move faster than a typical heavy and carry the firepower of a light, or carry more firepower but be a slow (and large) target. Either way, they're outshined by heavies on one end or lights on the other.
  
• The mobility bonuses (while helpful) didn't go far enough. Mediums would have benefited more from Accel/Deceleration and turning speed buffs

The problem with this sort of model is that it doesn't fix imbalances. It just means that people will break out the mediums when they need to grind cash to purchase their next assault.

And? That's the POINT of this model.

[Artgathan]

D1al T0ne, on 09 October 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

And? That's the POINT of this model.

And it doesn't fix anything. In 12-mans you'll continue to see everyone running Heavy/Assault (with token light scouts) because Heavy/Assault continues to reign supreme. It doesn't restore balance, or increase the viability of mediums. Mediums, under this sort of model, continue to remain patently inferior in terms of gameplay, but come with a metagame reward.

Consider this: do you really think people will stop complaining that their medium gets wrecked by heavy / assaults just because they now earn +X% C-Bills for dying in a medium?

[Khobai]

Quote

Without proper weight limits, there is no way to get someone to play a medium unless that is just what they want to run. Even then, some would probably rather wait to play than play the lighter mech.

Disagree. The reason players dont play mediums is because they dont do anything lights or heavies cant do better. So the way to get players to play mediums is to make mediums do something that lights and heavies cant do(i.e. role warfare)

[LiGhtningFF13]

Guys you can find endless reasons but let's be honest, another important point is the pilot in that medium! Trust me I already saw pilots who totally know what they were doing !

[Appogee]

MWLL did this scaled scoring well.

A smaller Mech damaging a bigger Mech earned a higher reward, and vice versa.

My only concern about adding it to MWO is that some Light Mechs (eg. Jenner F) are already wrecking balls (my k/d in them is 2.2) and that Assaults already have a hard time killing Lights. So at the extremes of the weight classes it could imbalance the game quite a bit.

[Eddrick]

Lordhammer, on 09 October 2013 - 11:31 AM, said:

Versatility is mediums speciality. If they are underpresented then game modes/maps arent sufficient for players to require something that does a bit of everything.

Yes and no. Versatility is one of their strengths. But, I don't think Game Modes would have much effect on it. What made them "The Work Horse of the Battlefield". Is their versatility, also they were cheap to reproduce and maintain. There is two problems that keep them from being able to take advantage of these. #1. People want to specialize their Mech. They don't want a "Jack of all trades/Master of none". #2. People can have more then one Mech and there is no maintenance cost.