136 replies to this topic

[Durant Carlyle]

Khobai, on 27 November 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

No they cant. Most mediums top out at 90-100. Lights top out at 150-170. Mediums cant keep up with Lights AT ALL. What are you smoking?

I must have misjudged the game situation. It's not like I've got over 1,800 drops in lights and might know a little something of what I'm talking about. Oh wait...

Mediums would not win a race, no. But they can (and do, every day) easily keep up and stay within the extended weapons ranges we have in MW:O long enough to do serious and/or fatal damage to lights.

[Thorqemada]

Yeah, as Heavys and Assaults can do to Mediums even more...
while Lights outrun everything with the most high speed differences in the game.

Edited by Thorqemada, 28 November 2013 - 07:06 AM.

[stjobe]

I posted this in another thread (in a discussion on tonnage limits), but it's equally valid in this context:

The largest problem with mediums is that due to customization and pilot skills heavies do the medium's job better than they do.

Mediums are generally supposed to be jack-of-all-trades, mobile enough to react to changes in the engagement; enough firepower and armour to make a difference in shoring up a weakened position or add weight to a breach of the enemy line. Fast enough to chase off lights from their less mobile assaults and heavies, and durable enough to not implode when in the main battle-line.

In the current MWO, all that is better done with a heavy 'mech; a 'mech that really shouldn't be able to fill those roles, but due to our very unrestricted customization and our piloting skills it's easy to make a very mobile, heavily armed and armoured heavy - completely invalidating the mediums as a class.

Looking at the other end of the scale, one of the heavier lights like the Jenner can easily outperform the lighter mediums in the skirmisher role; again due to customization and pilot skills.

So let me rephrase and expand on what "proper role warfare" should be; it starts with the removal of the current piloting skills; no more Speed Tweak, no more Twist X - no more heavies with medium mobility.

It then continues with pilot skills along the lines of Dev Blog 4: Role Warfare, and finally it ends with role-specific XP/CB rewards, making doing a great job in your role just as rewarding as destroying the enemy is currently. A scout should be able to earn as much XP/CB as a brawler, if he does a good job of scouting and spotting. But that hinges on there existing tools to do the job and rewards to reward doing those jobs - and neither exists currently.

Having nothing of the above and just implementing tonnage limits is insanity. It doesn't make the game better, it just makes it more restrictive.

[Artgathan]

Durant Carlyle, on 27 November 2013 - 09:26 PM, said:

I must have misjudged the game situation. It's not like I've got over 1,800 drops in lights and might know a little something of what I'm talking about. Oh wait...

Mediums would not win a race, no. But they can (and do, every day) easily keep up and stay within the extended weapons ranges we have in MW:O long enough to do serious and/or fatal damage to lights.

From what I understand, you're taking issue with the Light < Medium < Heavy < Assault < Light view of balancing? Mediums are meant to be superior options to lights, with a little bit less mobility.

Consider that in TT many light mechs ran at speeds less than 100 kph (Commando, Raven, Wasp, Stinger, Firestarter, Panther) and most mediums ran at around 86 kph (Kintaro, Shadowhawk, Griffin, Wolverine, Trebuchet). This is a speed difference of 14% (relative to the light mechs). The proposed system actual increases the speed disparity to 20% (relative to the light mechs).

As per Sarna:

Quote

medium 'Mechs tend to have the best combination between speed, armor, and payload... medium 'Mechs can often outmaneuver heavier opponents in combat and bring their weapons to bear with better effect to the point of being superior combatants in single combat

Neither of these statements are true in MW:O. As I've demonstrated Mediums actually offer the worst combination between speed, armor and payload - a stock engine on a Trebuchet eats 37% of it's mass, while the stock engine on an Atlas eats 25%. Even an Atlas with the largest engine (360 STD) only uses 40% of it's mass, while mounting the largest engine on a Trebuchet (325 STD) uses 61%. On average, mediums will use 70% of their mass to hit the "Optimal" speeds, while other weight classes use considerably less (Lights use 13% less, Assaults, 18%).

If you'd like to argue, I suggest bringing some numbers to the table (such as in the OP) and not "I drive lights so I know best."

[Lucian Nostra]

Now is the problem that mediums aren't mobile enough or is the problem that people try to cram engines that are far to large into mediums and thus lack hard hitting weapons?

I've seen for a long time that the mentality in MWO is Faster > Weapons. If it's not running a max sized engine it's not worth running and it leads to a lot of *** weapon loadouts.

There is a definite sweet spot for speed and weapons, I never feel at a disadvantage in my Shadow Hawk, Trebuchet, Blackjack, or Cicada. My Hunchback I do but that's mostly due to PUG life vs 12 enemies with short range firepower.

[Artgathan]

Lucian Nostra, on 28 November 2013 - 08:17 AM, said:

Now is the problem that mediums aren't mobile enough or is the problem that people try to cram engines that are far to large into mediums and thus lack hard hitting weapons?

I've seen for a long time that the mentality in MWO is Faster > Weapons. If it's not running a max sized engine it's not worth running and it leads to a lot of *** weapon loadouts.

There is a definite sweet spot for speed and weapons, I never feel at a disadvantage in my Shadow Hawk, Trebuchet, Blackjack, or Cicada. My Hunchback I do but that's mostly due to PUG life vs 12 enemies with short range firepower.

The problem is that if you put mediums on the same continuum of mobility that we see in other weight classes they have to carry disproportionately larger engines. This can be interpreted two ways (as you've framed it):

• Mediums are not mobile enough for a given engine size (IE: they should go faster than they currently do with the engines we have in-game today)
  
• Or, engine weights are off

I don't think we can do much about the second option, as there is considerable overlap between the engines that mediums and other classes use (for instance, to achieve the "Optimal" Speeds in the OP, mediums carry engines rated 330 - 355, and 90 tonners also carry the 355).

Perhaps the problem is that our "speed bands" (the actual engine sizes that are useful) are too tightly constrained. Consider that we have engine ratings from 100 - 400, but really only use those in the 250-350 range (30% of all possible options) for the vast majority of mechs in the game. This means that 70% of all possible engine ratings (from 100-250 and 350-400) go almost completely unused.

If we were to distribute them better, we could see this:

• Engines 100 - 200 for Lights
  
• Engines 175 - 275 for Mediums
  
• Engines 250 - 350 for Heavies
  
• Engines 325 - 400 for Assaults

Of course, this would require a re-work of how engines currently work in MW:O (including how heatsinks and engine size interact). Currently to calculate speed in MW:O we use the formula:

(Engine Rating / Mech Tonnage) x 16.2 = Max. speed

The above system would need a new formula.

That said, there definitely is a balance to be struck between firepower/mobility/armor, it's just that in the current system mediums don't fit well into that balance formula. If they want to have a decent balance of the three they must make significant sacrifices that other classes don't necessarily have to. Here's an example:

Let's say I want to build two mechs, a Centurion and a Highlander. I want both to run at 90% of their maximum possible speed (by which I mean I want them to carry an engine that's essentially 90% of their maximum engine rating). The Centurion has to carry an engine that takes up 37% of it's tonnage, whereas the Highlander has to carry an engine that takes up 26% of it's tonnage. The Highlander can actually equip it's largest engine (STD 325, takes up 33%) and still have more space than the Centurion!

[Almond Brown]

Why is it that the Hunchback chassis @ 50t gets a max. engine rating of 275, but the Lighter and also a Medium class chassis, Cicada gets a much more robust 340 rated engine?

Is it chassis over-all size that was the determining factor or is it a Lore thing? If not a direct swap of rating for those 2 then at least buff the HB engine rating some already.

Edited by Almond Brown, 28 November 2013 - 08:53 AM.

[Lucian Nostra]

Almond Brown, on 28 November 2013 - 08:52 AM, said:

Why is it that the Hunchback chassis @ 50t gets a max. engine rating of 275, but the Lighter and also a Medium class chassis, Cicada gets a much more robust 340 rated engine?

Is it chassis over-all size that was the determining factor or is it a Lore thing? If not a direct swap of rating for those 2 then at least buff the HB engine rating some already.

It's a holdover from CB when Hunchbacks ran at some really high speeds (110-120? I can't remember exactly) while boating 9 SPLs.

It sounds like a joke if you never faced one.. things didn't overheat and where always in your face

[M4NTiC0R3X]

FupDup, on 27 November 2013 - 10:11 AM, said:

If you want a viable light, you're going to need at least 140 KPH, and when possible 150+. On a Jenner, you need 44.29% of your total mass in your engine to reach optimal speed (XL 300).

(I know your thread is about mediums but I must retort to this)

Just think fellas, do you really need a fast light mech? Really.... is it REALLY that important?? Because the way I see it.... When Tonnage Limits Are In..... Speed will slowly go out the window.

Just think, a light 'mech that can hit as hard as an Assault and still move at over 100.... Would you take a light 'mech that can run 150+ or would you take the same tonnage light mech that can easily one shot the other more speedy opponent.

(this word, viable, it does not care about speed (unless you're trying to get somewhere fast) it cares about damage, because damage is king.) (it's the same principle as when back in closed beta the K2 dual gauss or AC20 was very powerful because it was one of the few 'mechs capable of doing that at the time. So you would see a K2 plant it's slow tushie in a strategic area and one shot just about anything that dare aim at it)

Edited by M4NTiC0R3X, 28 November 2013 - 09:09 AM.

[stjobe]

M4NTiC0R3X, on 28 November 2013 - 09:04 AM, said:

(I know your thread is about mediums but I must retort to this)

Just think fellas, do you really need a fast light mech? Really.... is it REALLY that important??

Yes, it really is that important.

Life for a light pilot is all about speed. Why? Because the old adage is right: Speed is Life.

Lights don't carry enough armour to protect them against a full alpha (and for some of the lighter lights, not even more than a few glancing hits), so they depend on being hard to hit instead. Faster = harder to hit.

It really is as easy as that. If you want to live in a light, you need to go fast.

A dead 'mech has 0 DPS.

[Tezcatli]

I think what they should do is rework the pilot tree to be based off the weight class. They should even add a pilot skill specific to each mech. That way each mech feels more unique then just a set of hard points.

[stjobe]

Tezcatli, on 28 November 2013 - 09:32 AM, said:

I think what they should do is rework the pilot tree to be based off the weight class. They should even add a pilot skill specific to each mech. That way each mech feels more unique then just a set of hard points.

If you're interested, here's what they had planned for pilot skills back in February last year: Dev Blog 4: Role Warfare. In closed beta, we were told the current pilot skills were just placeholders for that system, but when open beta rolled around and they still hadn't begun on CW, they changed their tune and said the current system is what we'll have.

I cry a little every time I read that post; it's what I wanted and why I'm a Founder. The current pilot skill system is a cruel joke in comparison - and a very destructive and unbalancing cruel joke to boot.

[Thorn Hallis]

stjobe, on 28 November 2013 - 07:26 AM, said:

The largest problem with mediums is that due to customization and pilot skills heavies do the medium's job better than they do.

Exactly. And because mediums could do the lights job better then the lights, they got a nerf back in closed beta (engine restriction down to 340). Lets hope PGI doesn't start restricting the heavy and assault engine sizes even more now.

Edited by Thorn Hallis, 28 November 2013 - 11:37 AM.

[Almond Brown]

stjobe, on 28 November 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:

If you're interested, here's what they had planned for pilot skills back in February last year: Dev Blog 4: Role Warfare. In closed beta, we were told the current pilot skills were just placeholders for that system, but when open beta rolled around and they still hadn't begun on CW, they changed their tune and said the current system is what we'll have.

I cry a little every time I read that post; it's what I wanted and why I'm a Founder. The current pilot skill system is a cruel joke in comparison - and a very destructive and unbalancing cruel joke to boot.

The reality is, we had dreams and the Dev's had dreams as well. Despite what many would think, I have read many a Post Mortem of games over the years and the Dev are just as disappointed as the players when stuff gets axed, for whatever reason. The difference is, the players can complain and complain and try and keep that dream alive. The Dev, they have to keep moving forward.

That is not to say some things can't be revisited, but then again, that could be seen as yet another dream...

P.S. The mistake the Dev's all make is this.

"All of this is subject to change, but we wanted you all to see what we have currently."

Showing folks stuff, but they themselves, god bless them, not understanding that Players do not care nor do they understand what that really means. LOL!

Edited by Almond Brown, 28 November 2013 - 11:43 AM.

[Murphy7]

Lucian Nostra, on 28 November 2013 - 08:56 AM, said:

It's a holdover from CB when Hunchbacks ran at some really high speeds (110-120? I can't remember exactly) while boating 9 SPLs.

It sounds like a joke if you never faced one.. things didn't overheat and where always in your face

A lot of their ugliness was the terrible hit detection for fast movers we had at the time. Line one up with that giant hump containing firepower AND their XL engine, and bad things could be done to the fast swayback.

In our current environment with ghost heat and better hit detection, I just don't think they would be as effective.

[Lucian Nostra]

Murphy7, on 28 November 2013 - 04:58 PM, said:

A lot of their ugliness was the terrible hit detection for fast movers we had at the time. Line one up with that giant hump containing firepower AND their XL engine, and bad things could be done to the fast swayback.

In our current environment with ghost heat and better hit detection, I just don't think they would be as effective.

nope, also 12 on 12 would see em go down quickly too

[Durant Carlyle]

Almond Brown, on 28 November 2013 - 08:52 AM, said:

Why is it that the Hunchback chassis @ 50t gets a max. engine rating of 275, but the Lighter and also a Medium class chassis, Cicada gets a much more robust 340 rated engine?

Thorn Hallis, on 28 November 2013 - 11:37 AM, said:

And because mediums could do the lights job better then the lights, they got a nerf back in closed beta (engine restriction down to 340). Lets hope PGI doesn't start restricting the heavy and assault engine sizes even more now.

Engine rating limits are based on the default engine of the variant.

Light: Default engine rating x 1.4
Medium: Default engine rating x 1.3
Heavy & Assault: Default engine rating x 1.2

The reason a Hunchback doesn't have the same engine rating as a Cicada is because the default speed of the Hunchback is 64.8 kph (200 engine) while the default speed of the Cicada is 129.6 kph (320 engine). They are designed for totally different roles, so the Hunchback should not be able to go the same speed as a Cicada when both are maxed out.

Artgathan, on 28 November 2013 - 07:57 AM, said:

From what I understand, you're taking issue with the Light < Medium < Heavy < Assault < Light view of balancing? Mediums are meant to be superior options to lights, with a little bit less mobility.

Consider that in TT many light mechs ran at speeds less than 100 kph (Commando, Raven, Wasp, Stinger, Firestarter, Panther) and most mediums ran at around 86 kph (Kintaro, Shadowhawk, Griffin, Wolverine, Trebuchet). This is a speed difference of 14% (relative to the light mechs). The proposed system actual increases the speed disparity to 20% (relative to the light mechs).

Stats from 3050 TRO (Inner Sphere 'Mechs only):
Lights: average speed 97.2 kph (6/9), average 7.37 tons (140 tons total from 19 'Mechs) available for weapons
Mediums: average speed 81 kph (5/7.5), average 16.40 tons (393.5 tons total from 24 'Mechs) available for weapons
Heavies: average speed 64.8 kph (4/6), average 24.19 tons (435.5 tons total from 18 'Mechs) available for weapons
Assaults: average speed 48.5 kph (3/4.5), average 32.76 tons (557 tons total from 17 'Mechs) available for weapons

Artgathan, on 28 November 2013 - 07:57 AM, said:

As I've demonstrated Mediums actually offer the worst combination between speed, armor and payload - a stock engine on a Trebuchet eats 37% of it's mass, while the stock engine on an Atlas eats 25%. Even an Atlas with the largest engine (360 STD) only uses 40% of it's mass, while mounting the largest engine on a Trebuchet (325 STD) uses 61%. On average, mediums will use 70% of their mass to hit the "Optimal" speeds, while other weight classes use considerably less (Lights use 13% less, Assaults, 18%).

You're forgetting to mention that the Trebuchet goes nearly twice as fast as the Atlas for those weight percentages.

Perhaps the "optimal" speeds people are trying to hit with the mediums are a bit too high, leaving too little tonnage for the rest?

Mediums shouldn't be trying to match the speed of even the slowest customized lights. They should be trying to mount more/better weaponry and armor than lights.

You're also making the assumption that lights should always use XL engines but no other class should, ever. That's not true.

The Standard 245 engine for default speed on a Jenner takes up 48.6% of its weight. A Standard 300 engine for maximum speed takes up 83.3% of its weight. Those are more in line with your percentages for the Centurtion, Trebuchet, Highlander, and Atlas, yes? Doing those percentages for a standard heavy 'Mech would likely also fall in that same pattern.

Artgathan, on 28 November 2013 - 07:57 AM, said:

If you'd like to argue, I suggest bringing some numbers to the table (such as in the OP) and not "I drive lights so I know best."

I was arguing one particular point of one post. The post I quoted suggested explicitly that I didn't know what I was talking about, while my experience shouted out the opposite. You know as well as I do that I wasn't claiming "I drive lights so I know best."

Oh, and I brought numbers this time. You like?

Edited by Durant Carlyle, 28 November 2013 - 05:45 PM.

[Felio]

Just to show the point with a specific example:

A Victor with an XL 360 goes 72.9 without speed tweak, very fast for an assualt, with 52.5 tons left over for weapons and armor. 37.06 after maxing the armor.

A Shadowhawk with the same engine gets to 106, right where it should be, with 28.5 tons for weapons and armor. 16.94 tons after maxing the armor.

(both assume using endo structure, which also frees up more weight on heavier mechs)

[Greyboots]

Artgathan, on 27 November 2013 - 06:53 AM, said:

Introduction Medium class battlemechs received a series of mobility a few patches ago. These were designed to increase the viability of mediums on the battlefield, and hopefully cause an upswing in their numbers on the field. However, despite mediums being the most numerous class at the moment (possessing a whopping seven chassis available, with an additional two coming in the next few weeks) they are woefully underrepresented on the field.

The first thing I have to say is... What? I see mediums all of the time.

Shadowhawks in particular are everywhere. Sometimes I can't even scratch my butt without getting accused of inappropriate touching by the Shadowhawk I hit instead... The BJ-1[c} Trial Mech is a really good mech that's seen a resurgence in Blackjacks too. Any medium that can fit an AC20 has also become pretty popular as a result.

The one thing I've noticed is that I see far more mediums when I play mediums. Presumably this is a function of the matchmaker trying to even out mechs in any given class. I assume that this is why so many people who don't play mediums very often don't see as many as I do.

Times of day you play may also be making a big difference.

Quote

Consider that with 9 available chassis, mediums represent 34.6% of chassis in the game, but less than 25% of the chassis on the field (according to data collected by a member of the playerbase.

First, The actual number of chassis is irrelevant. The number of chassis worth playing on the other hand is a different matter. Still, that's a whole other story.

Second, despite the number of chassis on offer, as above, Mediums is a class. On average they should represent about 25% of the mechs fielded. So why do we see less? It actually has far less to do with number crunching like this than people imagine.

So I'm going to question your entire hypothesis.

Look around the forums and look at the number of players measuring their performance by how much damage they do and how many kills they get.

How much easier is that to achieve in heavies and assaults?

There's a big part of your answer.

Big mechs are where they want to be because that's what leads directly into that goal. They buy a medium mech, charge into battle to play this way and get utterly smashed by a hail of AC and LRM fire doing 84 damage and getting no kills. They come to the immediate conclusion that "medium mechs suck" and move on to heavies and assaults.

This is also a free game and this means a LARGE NUMBER OF YOUNG PLAYERS. Big booms, massive damage and lots of kills are all that really matter. The Shadowhawk has turned this a bit but generally speaking it's pretty much right.

Mediums are then primarily for more skilled players who understand the added complexity it takes to both build effective mediums AND pilot them effectively. Flame me if you like but mediums probably require the highest skill level in the game AND the most player knowledge and understanding to build.

Of course this is going to make them rare.

Quote

Conclusion Mediums (and to a lesser extent, Heavies) are getting the short end of the engine stick. They must devote disproporionately more of their weight towards getting an engine that allows them to move at their "Optimal" (by which I mean the optimal defined at the beginning of this post) speed, or even just a quick pace (100 kph). Mediums require an engine that can occupy as much as 71% of their mass to reach Optimal Speeds, or 50% of their mass to reach "Quick" Speeds. In contrast, Assaults require 52% to reach Optimal Speeds, or 30% to reach Quick Speeds.

o again I'll do this:



Pilot Greyboots:

Blackjack BJ-3 (45 tons - leveled to Master) w/ 225 XL engine (this mech now runs a std 225 and endosteel setup which is overall more heat efficient while mounting the same weaponry), 1 x ERPPC, 3 x Medium Laser, 4 x Jump Jets - Match Score of 90, 2 kills, 6 assists, 542 damage. This loadtout also can't generate any ghost heat.

If i'd been a better shot I'd have also done significantly more damage and killed the stalker at the end which is more painfully obvious the more times I see this video.

I have had people spectate and heckle me over the setup and lack of firepower but I get results like this on a regular basis. The engine weight obviously isn't hampering me any because I understand how to compensate through loadout and playstyle.

Numbers matter but you have to look at ALL of the numbers to make sense of them, not just a narrow spread of them that seems to pinpoint an obvious answer.

Which, funnily enough, comes back to this:

Quote

However, despite mediums being the most numerous class at the moment

Well, yeah. Only because there's 3 50 ton mechs offering a grand total of 13 variants.

Which explains a LOT if you think about it.

Especially when you consider the Phoenix pack and their addon which adds a total of 3 x 55 ton mechs...

• Phoenix Hawk
  
• Griffin
  
• Wolverine.

That's an awful lot of mechs which fall spot-on the "midrange"... 6 mechs in the 50-55 range offering a grand total of 22 variants (not including Founders mechs and other "spiffy" extras)...

You don't need a crystal ball to see what the devs are trying to accomplish here....

Quote

What can be done about this?

I appreciate the effort you've gone to but considering the video above, it's questionable whether anything needs to be done except wait for more players to advance sufficiently along the learning curve to understand how to build and play mediums.

In fact, I've played 1000 damage games with my BJ-1, BJ-3, Kintaro and Hunchback 4G and I frequently see 700 damage games out of mediums in the final tally for match scores. It's obvious that there's quite a few people out there that have come to grips with the engine weight issue, have worked it all out and doing just fine.

[Artgathan]

Durant Carlyle, on 28 November 2013 - 05:40 PM, said:

You're forgetting to mention that the Trebuchet goes nearly twice as fast as the Atlas for those weight percentages.

I didn't mention it because that's not actually relevant to my point, which is that to achieve "good" mobility relative to their class they're paying disproportionate amounts of tonnage. Consider that if the Trebuchet used an engine that cost 25% of it's weight it would run at 73 kph.

Quote

Perhaps the "optimal" speeds people are trying to hit with the mediums are a bit too high, leaving too little tonnage for the rest?

Perhaps. Though the data I presented was based off of "let's put everything on a continuum and see if it's fair". I don't think it's unreasonable to expect mediums to run 110+ kph when heavies easily run in the 80ish range, though reaching the speeds of the fastest light mechs would be ridiculous IMO.

Quote

Mediums shouldn't be trying to match the speed of even the slowest customized lights. They should be trying to mount more/better weaponry and armor than lights.

That's your opinion. Why shouldn't a fast cicada (40 tons) be able to overtake a slow Jenner (35 tons)?

Quote

You're also making the assumption that lights should always use XL engines but no other class should, ever. That's not true.

I never made this assumption. Every comparison I make is between mechs using the same type (STD or XL) of engine. Comparing different kinds of engines would be too complex. I considered doing it, but using an XL tends to be chassis dependent (for instance, the Shadow Hawk seems to be able to rock the XL, but a HBK-1G with an XL would be laughable).

Quote

The Standard 245 engine for default speed on a Jenner takes up 48.6% of its weight. A Standard 300 engine for maximum speed takes up 83.3% of its weight. Those are more in line with your percentages for the Centurtion, Trebuchet, Highlander, and Atlas, yes? Doing those percentages for a standard heavy 'Mech would likely also fall in that same pattern.

Yes, but the posted analysis doesn't go over what the mechs actual top speeds are. A CN9-D has the 390 STD engine in the list of permissible engines for the chassis, even though the engine weighs 106% of the mech's weight. Again though, max engine size is determined on a per-variant basis (the Stalker and Battlemaster cannot carry the same range of engines, despite both being 85 ton mechs) so utilizing a stat like that would add more complexity to the data.

Quote

Oh, and I brought numbers this time. You like?

I do like. +1 for the table as well, thank you for taking the time to put that together. I was looking for that info (I don't have the TRO's and I wasn't sure which mechs were available in 3050 so I could only look up the mechs I knew on Sarna). It really shows the mobility disparity we're seeing in MW:O.

Edited by Artgathan, 28 November 2013 - 08:22 PM.