39 replies to this topic

[FupDup]

Sidekick, on 10 December 2013 - 09:38 PM, said:

While I admire your list FubDub, you have to accept the following:

- there won´t be a rescaling of mechs. It has been stated many times and the design team of MWO seems to stick to its guns.
- none of your listed feats lets you win a game.

Don´t you get it? The best way to win is to slay the enemy without falling, a heavy lance/steiner scout lance will outclass any mixed lance all the time, because while heavy, they are not limited to any role. they can perform well against long and short range while packing 2 times the hitpoints and 3 times the armament of a mixed lance.

I do admittedly still have to further develop the part about not killing, but there already are some scouting/spotting buffs in the list to make those guys have a more useful place than they do now (especially if LRMs and other artillery also gets buffed for them to spot for). They'd be able to keep track of multiple enemies simultaneously and rely that information a lot faster and more clearly to their teammates (plus any other buffs that can be thought of in the future). Pilot tree reworks and specialized modules would also help to further enhance the power of recon mechs (and other roles).


At the very least, the big wall of text makes it a lot harder for Steiner Scout Lances to be autonomous due to the suggested maneuverability nerfs. The faster cap rate would make fast capping lances a much greater threat than they are now, and that would help to encourage the use of mediums and/or lights to counter them. Additionally, the agility nerfs would make it a lot harder for the fatties to defend themselves against medium or light flankers that manage to get the jump on them, and this would make them want to keep a few maneuverable teammates around them for self-defense (to avoid getting clobbered). Worst-case scenario is that the game would still be all about killing, but at least the killing would be less one-sided towards the heavier end of the spectrum due to those heavier mechs having greater weaknesses to exploit.

Edited by FupDup, 10 December 2013 - 10:18 PM.

[Sidekick]

FupDup, on 10 December 2013 - 10:16 PM, said:

At the very least, the big wall of text makes it a lot harder for Steiner Scout Lances to be autonomous due to the suggested maneuverability nerfs. The faster cap rate would make fast capping lances a much greater threat than they are now, and that would help to encourage the use of mediums and/or lights to counter them. Additionally, the agility nerfs would make it a lot harder for the fatties to defend themselves against medium or light flankers that manage to get the jump on them, and this would make them want to keep a few maneuverable teammates around them for self-defense (to avoid getting clobbered). Worst-case scenario is that the game would still be all about killing, but at least the killing would be less one-sided towards the heavier end of the spectrum due to those heavier mechs having greater weaknesses to exploit.

I'm sorry... What?

If you try to dance around a fatty with a light or fast med, it usually works. But any other enemy nearby spoils this, because you cannot stay outside both firing arcs. So why would you choose to be accompanied by a fragile medium or light if a jag or phract does the job better?

[FupDup]

Sidekick, on 10 December 2013 - 10:32 PM, said:

I'm sorry... What?

If you try to dance around a fatty with a light or fast med, it usually works. But any other enemy nearby spoils this, because you cannot stay outside both firing arcs. So why would you choose to be accompanied by a fragile medium or light if a jag or phract does the job better?

In current gameplay, you'd be surprised at how well an assault with a decently sized engine can track people who get in close, and the assaults that most people pilot (Victors and Highlanders) can use JJs for even faster turning. For some additional reading, here are two thread from the gameplay balance section about this topic:
http://mwomercs.com/...in-all-classes/
http://mwomercs.com/...-class-balance/


With agility reductions, they'd have to spread out noticeably further than they do now to cover each other's backs. If they spread out too far, they'll have a much harder time focusing fire or spreading damage amongst themselves than if they were more closely "deathballing" like we see now. Failing that, the buffs to artillery/indirect fire weapons would provide a nice way to damage enemies who try to clusterfudge too densely. Larger map sizes would make slow mechs take a longer time to reach objectives, so more maneuverable mechs could just cap or whatever while the enemy fatties are still waddling along a mile away.

Edited by FupDup, 11 December 2013 - 08:52 AM.

[Sandpit]

FupDup, on 11 December 2013 - 08:52 AM, said:

In current gameplay, you'd be surprised at how well an assault with a decently sized engine can track people who get in close

nah, not really

not to mention engine size has nothing to do with twist speed or twist arc

[Tombstoner]

We have tonnage limits already it's set at 1200, but people choose for many reasons to not take an atlas.

what players choose to pilot creates the perceived imbalance, when it really comes down to lack of player skill and team work.

ELO and or tonnage limits can't fix this.

Edited by Tombstoner, 11 December 2013 - 11:37 AM.

[Miken]

We really need BV based balance system.

[Artillery Witch Viridia]

Tombstoner, on 11 December 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:

We have tonnage limits already it's set at 1200, but people choose for many reasons to not take an atlas.

what players choose to pilot creates the perceived imbalance, when it really comes down to lack of player skill and team work.

ELO and or tonnage limits can't fix this.

All of this. I don't understand why people want tonnage limits. I see spiders and jenners pulling over 700 damage all the time. Black jacks, streak'taros, there are so many good lighter tonnage designs that do well with what they are designed for. If someone wants to drop a 4 atlas lance I don't see the problem. Why limit what other people want to bring and how they play the game based on how you play. I barely touch any of my Atlas mechs due to them being big slow hitboxes with low gorilla arms that have trouble shooting around most kinds of terrain. The real balance issues to me seem to be the poptarting, lrms being on the weak side of balance, invisible barriers that collect your shots outside of the edges of terrain. If you make the poptarts lighter, or push people into choosing mechs they don't prefer I really don't see how that will be a good thing. I mostly play Jager mech now, being a superior design to most heavier mechs for ballistic beatdowns. Sometimes I play missile boat stalkers or hybrid streak brawler stalker. Ballistic weaponry seems to be king considering laser heat and missile weakness. Anyway if I want to group up with friends and we encounter a system that says you can't all bring whatever mech you desire this game is going to suffer. I consider atlas to be on the inferior side of assault mechs currently, and if we decide to all drop with them for our entertainment. Atlas being big slow easy to hit and cripple mechs then why shouldn't we. Lights evade plenty of damage, flank well and get back armor of mechs, support and swarm the weak points. I do amazing with lights such as the jenner and spider whenever I want to mess with them on trail but I by no means want to be restricted on whatever mech I want to bring by some arbitrary system. All the mechs have their own flavor, loadout, and play style. More pigeon-holing in this game is not going to add to balance. What's wrong with earning your desired mech, customizing it and running it in combat like mech games of the past? I am pretty sure when my friends start playing in ui 2.0 again, (including one who has put over 300$ into this game), if we can't drop with whatever mechs we want to run together that will probably be the end of playing for them. Arbitrarily restricting people's play style and choice is not a good design choice. It's like saying from now on we are only going to allow 2 players playing m16s in the match to do so while locking everyone else out of the gun in a fps game perspective. If people can't play and bring what they want to bring, you limit them from bringing their favorite equipment or what they want to use they are going to quit. In my opinion development should be bringing more and more variety and choice to the players in the game not hegemony. Especially when clan mechs and tech comes into the game. It should be the players decision what to bring to the match. If everyone gets clans mechs and wants to drop TimberWolves in the launch lobby and it becomes a 12v12 Timberwolf fest I don't see why that will be unacceptable, let people play what they want. I know personally my friend is going to exclusively run it 24/7 when it is released unless he ever gets tired of it. I am more of a Direwolf/Diashi player. Anyway don't gimp other people's fun because you want some special tonnage system in place. It's going to be real fun seeing 8 streak'taros boats if limits get average tonnage pushed down then the light exclusive pilots pushing for this won't be so happy. That's just before another wave of people quit after the deed is done. It just in no way will make the game a better or more enjoyable game putting restrictions in.

Edited by Azoic23, 12 December 2013 - 05:54 AM.

[Zyllos]

Dreden Aelnir, on 10 December 2013 - 08:07 AM, said:

While I applaud the design teams attempt to balance 12v12 drops I believe that tonnage is the absolutely wrong means to do so. Anyone who has played the table top game knows the "magic" that is BV and this should be what is used to calculate balance between opposing forces.

For comparison:

Under a tonnage system both the following mechs would be considered "equal"..

CGR-1A1 Charger, 80 tons
VTR-9B [C] Victor, 80 tons

Anyone who has played the table top understands the laughable comparison of these two mechs as the Charger is even less of a threat then an Urbie without ammo. It carries....wait for it...5 SMALL LASERS...yeah that's it. While the clan refit of the Victor has a gauss rifle, streak-4 and two ER mediums, jumps and is pretty much bad ***...

However under a BV system of balance you would get TWO worthless Chargers for every Victor you field.

CGR-1A1, 981 BV (2.0)
VTR-9B [C]. 1925 BV (2.0)

It is a FAR more accurate way to determine a unit's effectiveness on the battlefield, and is a fairly simple formula to incorporate into the game.

Dreden Aelnir
Ebonheart Dragoons

Here is the flaw in this argument, and don't take this as I disagree, technically I am neutral on the subject:

That Charger, in MWO, won't have an oversized engine and 4 or 5 Small Lasers. Players will instead equip 2 PPCs and some Medium Lasers, or 2 Large Lasers and some Medium Lasers and an oversized engine.

This is why tonnage makes more sense because we have almost unlimited customization.

If we had stock-only, then BV would be the only way to have balance.

Edited by Zyllos, 12 December 2013 - 06:03 AM.

[Roland]

Sandpit, on 11 December 2013 - 11:24 AM, said:

nah, not really

not to mention engine size has nothing to do with twist speed or twist arc

Engine size is directly related to your TURNING speed.

And yes, good assault pilots can easily track light and medium mechs, even at close range.

[Trauglodyte]

Just so everyone knows, the new and upcoming tonnage limited meta will be as follows:

• 6 Jenners (or 5 Jenners and an ECM Spider/Raven)
  
• 2 Victors
  
• 4 Highlanders

How excited are you to go face that?

[CDLord HHGD]

Trauglodyte, on 12 December 2013 - 08:05 AM, said:

Just so everyone knows, the new and upcoming tonnage limited meta will be as follows:

• 6 Jenners (or 5 Jenners and an ECM Spider/Raven)
  
• 2 Victors
  
• 4 Highlanders

How excited are you to go face that?

So you KNOW that 730 tons will fall into the range? Also, we face that now......

[Sandpit]

Roland, on 12 December 2013 - 06:37 AM, said:

Engine size is directly related to your TURNING speed.

And yes, good assault pilots can easily track light and medium mechs, even at close range.

Wait I thought I read several times in earlier posts we weren't talking about turning speed? I thought this was all about twisting and arm movement? You guys need to make up your mind. It's hard to properly troll when you don't even know the topic. Yeesh

[Trauglodyte]

cdlord, on 12 December 2013 - 08:56 AM, said:

So you KNOW that 730 tons will fall into the range? Also, we face that now......

I don't know what the limits are going to be but they've spoken abotu 670-750 being the top for a 12 man. People are whining about the issue with Highlander/Victor jump snipers pumping out PPCs and ACs. Well, they're going to keep seeing it only it'll include a bunch of jenners doign the same thing with Md Lasers. Freaking sucks when I drop against it.

[FupDup]

Sandpit, on 12 December 2013 - 08:56 AM, said:

Wait I thought I read several times in earlier posts we weren't talking about turning speed? I thought this was all about twisting and arm movement? You guys need to make up your mind. It's hard to properly troll when you don't even know the topic. Yeesh

This is the post of mine that you quoted earlier:

FupDup said:

In current gameplay, you'd be surprised at how well an assault with a decently sized engine can track people who get in close, and the assaults that most people pilot (Victors and Highlanders) can use JJs for even faster turning.

Which doesn't specify which particular attributes get improved by big engines, it just says that moderate-big engines help with keeping people in your view.

Edited by FupDup, 12 December 2013 - 10:38 AM.

[Sandpit]

FupDup, on 12 December 2013 - 10:38 AM, said:

This is the post of mine that you quoted earlier:


Which doesn't specify which particular attributes get improved by big engines, it just says that moderate-big engines help with keeping people in your view.

unless they're face hugging which is exactly what you should be doing if you're going to attempt and harass an assault mech with a light with anything other than extreme long range potshots from behind cover

[Joseph Mallan]

RedDragon, on 10 December 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

Yeah well, we had this discussion countless times in the past. It boils down to:

• A large percentage of Users wants something like BV
  
• PGI is too lazy to include anything that means work on their side
  
• The people who are against BV would rather have no means of evening the battles than a "not so perfect" BV system, which at least would be a start
  
• Tonnage limits is better than nothing (which is true, but a sad fact that we learned to cheer for anything "better than nothing" from PGI)

BV can and would be gamed for everything its worth. I knew folks that could abuse the {Scrap} out of a BV system. hat is my reason for being very skeptical.

[Mercules]

Joseph Mallan, on 12 December 2013 - 11:47 AM, said:

BV can and would be gamed for everything its worth. I knew folks that could abuse the {Scrap} out of a BV system. hat is my reason for being very skeptical.

...but, it was harder to game the BV 2.0 than it was to game the, "Matched Weight" system. Anything can be gamed, it is the difficulty of gaming it that is important.

[Sandpit]

Mercules, on 12 December 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:

...but, it was harder to game the BV 2.0 than it was to game the, "Matched Weight" system. Anything can be gamed, it is the difficulty of gaming it that is important.

as proven by all the "nerf this" "remove that" "this is op" threads

Gaming is hard. Such is game-life yo!

[Lucian Nostra]

As has been said there are just to many mechs that are far better than other machines of the same weight.

Just look at the Jenner vs Ravens and Spiders. If you take the 3L and 5D out of the equation the Jenner is just flat out better than any of the other versions as well as being better than most Cicadas

[Sandpit]

Lucian Nostra, on 13 December 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

As has been said there are just to many mechs that are far better than other machines of the same weight.

Just look at the Jenner vs Ravens and Spiders. If you take the 3L and 5D out of the equation the Jenner is just flat out better than any of the other versions as well as being better than most Cicadas

.....
that's kinda the point of other chassis having other options....