95 replies to this topic

[luxebo]

I’m creating this thread due to me noticing the lack of balance between chassis and variants in each chassis. For example, in competitive play, most teams use a very little variety of mechs, like for scouting using mainly Jenners and Raven 3L, why not Commandoes, Locusts, Spiders, Raven 2X and 4X, etc? The solution is likely because they are simply unbalanced. Or let’s consider Assaults, why is it that Victors (all except 9K as well), Highlanders (mainly 732, 733C, and HM), and Atlas DDC only being used? Why not Atlas K, Awesomes, Battlemasters, and Stalkers? And even just in certain chassis, why is Stalker 4N just simply downgraded versions of the other Stalkers? Plus I am going to comment only on mechs I feel are just overlooked. I think PGI needs to balance what each mech has to offer so there would at least be more variety, but at the same time I don’t want to break any other variants or stock builds. Discuss away.

Locust:

Spoiler

Firstly, they are already gimped with minimum 7 heat sinks exterior needed. That rule should be stopped so at least Commandoes and Locusts have a chance in limited drop weights. Secondly, well they are Locusts after all. Let’s look at each variant as well.
LCT-1V: This mech is a downgrade from Spider 5K. Enough said. I suggest one extra energy hardpoint in the center torso. That would be enough to at least make it different.

Commando:

Spoiler

Once again, it suffers from being just too small and the minimum number required outside heatsinks is one.
COM-1B: This one should get more tubes for the missile rack. That should already separate it from the others, though it is pretty different being energy based rather than missile based. Maybe module bonus should be applied?
COM-1D: This Commando should get a upgrade, as it’s pretty much a gimped 3A. Maybe give dual AMS or separate the hardpoints more, like making both missile hardpoints to left and right torsos. Maybe module bonus should be applied?

Spider:

Spoiler

There is just one variant that I think should be buffed, and that is the 5V.
SDR-5V: This is the one variant that should get something to be potentially at least useful. This variant already gets a max of 12 JJs, but there is no real use for all that really. So I think there should be maybe a bonus with torso twist or something so it has a real use. Maybe an additional arm energy hardpoint, but I don’t know. It already has one more module.

Raven:

Spoiler

The 2X and 4X need something really. I think they should be allowed the same engine size of the 3L (rating 295).
RVN-2X: I think this mech should get a buff somehow, maybe an additional missile hardpoint in that torso with a couple of tubes to counter the 3L’s ECM.
RVN-4X: This variant maybe can get one more missile tube as well, though that is questionable due to the JJs and the ballistic hardpoints.

Cicada:

Spoiler

It really isn’t bad of a mech, though the most competitive is 3M due to ECM.
CDA-2B: The arms are used as shields, so this is a not so good version of the 2A. This is a problem, as the mech would be limited to one center hardpoint afterward then. Maybe give the mech an additional module?
CDA-3C: This is a weird chassis, while different from the 5K with the non center torso, it still needs a buff in my opinion. Once again we could give this mech more torso twist or module buff.
CDA-X5: This mech needs AMS. Why would it not have AMS?

Blackjack:

Spoiler

This mech isn’t bad with variants with JJs, but the two without JJs are just a bit different and need something to balance out.
BJ-1DC: Rather than a downgrade to torso twist, why not upgrade? This thing could also use a higher engine cap like the 1X. Or maybe modules will solve this.
BJ-1X: Once again torso twist upgrades and modules can solve this.

Centurion:

Spoiler

This mech only has a couple of variants in need of review.
CN9-AL: Being energy based, there needs to be something to balance it. Maybe extra modules helps, or torso twist. I don’t think a speed boost would be helpful however.
CN9-D: The torso twist should at least be on par for the rest of the Centurions.
CN9-YLW: I don’t know what to add to this hero, but a lot of people say this mech is simply uncompetitive.

Hunchback:

Spoiler

The whole mech needs a buff, especially with the new Phoenix mediums. All of them need larger engines, maybe smaller hunches, more modules, and potentially even more torso twist. However, there is one hunchie I rarely if ever see.
HBK-4J: I saw the new patch, and it looks like this mech is more energy based now, as the hunch only appears with LRMs or SRMs placed, plus it doesn't feel nearly as large of a hunch. While now it has more of a niche now, it still needs some buffs.
HBK-4P: With ghost heat, this thing deserves one more module.
HBK-GI: This mech after Feb 4th should just be completely rearranged with new hardpoints, new backstory, new everything. It needs to be more unique than being capable of having missiles and ballistics at the same time. I think we can have a prototype hero instead, with JJs, higher engine cap, and something like 3 total arm and head energies, 2 missiles total with 6 tubes max in left torso, right torso single ballistic hunch. Plus some buffs to the others would be welcome.

Trebuchet:

Spoiler

The size of the mech is a problem, but it still can be effective. A lot of the variants really are too similar, and some are straight buffs to others.
TBT-5J: I think this variant requires more torso twist or modules. The energy reliance is not a good thing, but the JJs are a benefit.
TBT-5N: This mech deserves more modules to counter the large speed boost of the 3C.
TBT-7K: The missile slots need more tubes, maybe 4. Modules can help as well.
TBT-7M: Just buff the narc missile tube count and this is fine. Maybe lower the other missile hardpoint tubes.

Kintaro:

Spoiler

Once again the size of the mech is just hard to utilize the mech fully.
KTO-19: Align the torso twist on par with the 20 and it should be set. Add a module.
KTO-20: Pretty much the same answer to this as the 19.
KTO-GB: We need to set the speed on par with the 18. While this makes it a buff to Streaktaros with the extra laser, the torso twist can be set as is and the SRM usage is bad on this hero. You miss a full 4 missiles even when all slots are filled.

Griffin:

Spoiler

I've actually heard from the competitive viewpoint that this mech is balanced, but I think mainly the 1N and 3M variants are fixed.
GRF-1S: This variant maybe needs more missile tubes or some specific quirks/additonal modules.

Wolverine:

Spoiler

The one that people mainly question is the 6K due to lack of JJs.
WVR-6K: I think the total engine should be made up to the 390/400 limit to match the TBT-3C and CN9-D roles. That could make up for the lack of JJs.
WVR-6R: Bigger missile tubes or extra modules/quirks can help.

Dragon:

Spoiler

Due to the size of the mech, this mech is already hurt, but it’s still potentially fixable through modules, torso and arms, and hardpoints, especially with how awkward their placement of hardpoints are (except the Flame).
DRG-1C: Basically this is more of an inferior Flame with the same hardpoints in different formation. I think there should be an upgrade to this mech.
DRG-1N: Connect some of these energy hardpoints and I think the mech would be more stable to drive. Put either the left arm energy with the torso or vice versa.
DRG-5N: I think this is the only Dragon besides the Flame that isn’t something too messed up hardpoints wise. Still needs a buff.
DRG-FANG: Now this one is paid for, so there has to be something unique besides the paint job. I suggest either dual AMS (one each torso), or maybe a connection between the energy hardpoints or even the center torso missile changed to a right torso or left torso missile with more tubes. This can create some usability for that single missile.

Quickdraw:

Spoiler

While it needs work especially with its size; I think it’s not bad of a mech. The two variants 4G and 4H need some work to differentiate between each other.
QKD-4G: Modules and additional missile tubes for both hardpoints are workable solutions to help change their roles a bit. Maybe one 15 tube and the other a 10 tube can work.

Catapult:

Spoiler

The Jester hero needs a bit of reworking in my opinion.
CPLT-J: I think the most probable solution is to add more JJs, give the mech as much torso twist as the K2, or add modules.
CPLT-K2: Once again, while this mech is beast and pretty usable in the competitive sense, it probably needs one more module.

Jagermech:

Spoiler

The JM6-A and Firebrand should be aligned similarly to the other Jagers.
JM6-A: The least used Jager may as well be having the same torso twist, though I think it may have something to do with the original stock form of it.
JM6-FB: Similar to the others, it may as well have the same twist and maybe module.

Thunderbolt:

Spoiler

This mech isn’t bad, but it isn’t good due to it’s Centurion size but no zombie hardpoints. I suggest maybe an engine upgrade, some hardpoint adjustments, or something similar. The mainly gimped one is the TDR-5SS, being an energy boat.
TDR-5SS: This Thunderbolt should get a torso laser or two moved to the center to at least have some usage in zombieing, though it should keep at least some of the hardpoints in the torsos.

Orion:

Spoiler

Some of the variants need some work, but otherwise it’s not bad.
ON1-M: This is the one variant that is most expensive, but at the same time the most gimped. There needs to be some alignment between hardpoints, so maybe the center hardpoint to the left torso and an extra ballistic hardpoint due to the awkward mix of hardpoints.

Awesome:

Spoiler

The Awesome just has the problem with being too big. It also has very large hitboxes, so if or when PGI fixes this chassis hitbox wise to make it as durable as the Centurion, then maybe we’ll see some usage. Also, it’s lack of hardpoints, energy focus, and size just makes it not so usable in a competitive view. (Oh, and we need more speed and torso twist, badly.)
AWS-8R: Seriously, why is this mech out of all mechs with a single module? That makes no sense, though before it was a good LRM boat.
AWS-9M: This mech is needing more missile tubes per missile hardpoint and needs to spread it’s hradpoints, so push the two energy hardpoints to each torso to get rid of the center torso problem.
AWS-PB: Well, this mech needs a buff, a very large buff. Firstly, it deserves to not have a deceleration quirk, which is just dumb. Also, it needs more torso/module upgrades and more tubes in each missile hardpoint.

Battlemaster:

Spoiler

I would like to comment on the BLR-1G only; overall, not bad of a chassis.
BLR-1G: This variant needs the same amount of torso twist as the others. I mean, this variant is nearly as sluggish as some of the Stalkers!

Stalker:

Spoiler

I personally think some of them need a buff.
STK-3H: This one deserves a few more missile tubes on its torso missiles, maybe 10. Also, maybe this one could take an extra module due to the missile boat feeling of it.
STK-4N: This one also deserves potentially more missiles or modules. It simply is just non-beneficial over the other Stalkers.

Highlander:

Spoiler

Once again, I think some need a buff.
HGN-733: This one needs a slight buff. It’s too reliant on missiles, though it has usable missile hardpoints. I think it should get it’s lower actuator taken out, though this may come in conflict with stock builds and all. If not, then maybe give it one more ballistic?
HGN-733P: This variant is too energy reliant, so it deserves potentially more JJs, a larger speed cap, or something similar.

Atlas:

Spoiler

The Dreadful, expensive Atlas-K needs a buff.
AS7-K: I think it needs potentially either one more ballistic or one or two more missile hardpoints, potentially more tubes than others. Nevertheless, it needs a buff but not one to overlap the AS7-D or the Founders would be mad.

Edited by luxebo, 05 February 2014 - 08:11 PM.

[Varent]

alot of the issues are caused currently because of there being no true weight restrictions for drops.

[kesuga7]

good points on some of these but some of the mech chassis are better then another simply due to how their modeled and scaled ingame

Spider Has tiny legs with a less broader torso then a commando BUT is slightly taller but has jumpjets

Raven Is just bigger then the jenner over all

Awesomes ,dragons and a bunch of others suffer wacky mech scaling and rescaling a mech is too much work for piranha games as they have stated

Perhaps a simply relook at mech # module slots would be feasible at least

Like changing a number to make it so the awesome 8r Has 2 Default Module slots

[FupDup]

Varent, on 03 January 2014 - 05:08 PM, said:

alot of the issues are caused currently because of there being no true weight restrictions for drops.

That's not what this thread is about. This thread is about variants of each chassis that are basically {Scrap}. Weight restrictions won't make that any better. For instance, a Spider 5V would still be a waste of 30 tons compared to other Spider variants (whereas right now they only waste a player slot).

[luxebo]

@Varent While not fully on to my topic, I agree. Locusts may (though usually it's better to get a Jenner instead for another 15 tons) have some use then to bump another chassis up a notch, etc. But the problem as FupDup says is that some mechs are just straight upgrades to others, like Atlas K being just a downgrade from Atlas D, or the Stalker 4N being a straight downgrade from Stalker 3F.

@kesuga7 I agree, there may need to be also one more relook at all the little quirks on each mech for balancing and review, similar to the hitboxes.

Thanks for the comments.

[Varent]

bigger issue might be the fact that they are trying to make money as a company. If you have noticed for alot of there releases they release three mechs, 2 are ok, maybe one good, the last is kinda crappy, then a hero. Giving you the option to not buy the third crappy mech and instead use MC for the hero.

its a solid business strategy even if it does leave a bad taste in gamers mouths.

[FupDup]

Varent, on 03 January 2014 - 05:47 PM, said:

bigger issue might be the fact that they are trying to make money as a company. If you have noticed for alot of there releases they release three mechs, 2 are ok, maybe one good, the last is kinda crappy, then a hero. Giving you the option to not buy the third crappy mech and instead use MC for the hero.

its a solid business strategy even if it does leave a bad taste in gamers mouths.

Actually, I think that their master plan is to use the shlt-variants as motivation for GXP conversion (so you don't have to endure the terribleness of the crappy variant). In the end, though, it's a pretty lazy business strategy when there are other ways to get people to buy stuff that doesn't require creating content that is designed specifically to be terribad.

Edited by FupDup, 03 January 2014 - 06:08 PM.

[Dock Steward]

Varent, on 03 January 2014 - 05:47 PM, said:

bigger issue might be the fact that they are trying to make money as a company. If you have noticed for alot of there releases they release three mechs, 2 are ok, maybe one good, the last is kinda crappy, then a hero. Giving you the option to not buy the third crappy mech and instead use MC for the hero.

its a solid business strategy even if it does leave a bad taste in gamers mouths.

Astute observation. I'm afraid the accountants at PGI play a very large role indeed. You can see their fingerprints almost everywhere you look. Obviously a business needs to turn a profit, but dollar signs have replaced code in far too many corners of this game.

@FupDup: I'm sure you're both right.

Edited by Dock Steward, 03 January 2014 - 06:11 PM.

[Varent]

ya =/ I dunno.

From a business standpoint... and someone in a profesional world... I get it... from a gamers standpoint... grr...

[luxebo]

Any other comments?

[Varent]

luxebo, on 03 January 2014 - 11:05 PM, said:

Any other comments?

Peace on earth and good will amongst gamers.

[Noesis]

luxebo, on 03 January 2014 - 11:05 PM, said:

Any other comments?

I think

Quote

ya =/ I dunno

was the most succinct and helpful comment contributed to this discussion.

[Varent]

Noesis, on 03 January 2014 - 11:36 PM, said:

was the most succinct and helpful comment contributed to this discussion.

You really work at it dont you.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Overall, one help is improving missile weapons where SRMs are consistent in dealing damage, LRMs can be functional in smaller salvos, and that SSRMs are then not the go-to for mechs with multiple missile hardpoints.

Follow that with better trade-offs with ballistic weapons, and more variants could remain more useful regardless of dominant meta.

And specifically:

Spoiler

Locust and Commandos: Fixing missiles, improving machine guns, and creating better trade-offs with ballistics would be the best help weapon-wise.

Then changing how the engine influences their agility would be the next step along with changing fall damage calculations.

Final would be tweaking Speed Tweak and Engine Cap.

Spider: I'd move one hardpoint for the 5V to a side torso, that would be a big help to stick to LLs and/or one PPC.

Raven: The same engine rating to Jenners and improvements to missiles and machine guns would be the best help.

Cicada: More Modules, AMS for the X-5, and tweaks to engine influence to agility would help.

Blackjack: Twist degrees and speed to the non-JJ variants would help them.

Centurion: Those changes could help, gotta see them again with their hitbox changes though.

Hunchback: changing modules and standardizing hardpoint numbers is where I'd start, then like the Cicadas, engine agility changes would work to have a smaller engine and slower speed but still be fine in agility.

Trebuchet, Kintaros, Griffins, Wolverines, Dragons and Quickdraws: Tweaking tube counts is a fine start, then missile weapon and the engine agility modifier changes might be an okay start.

Catapult: Between the changes mentioned above, including the hitbox changes, and improvements on their arm boxes might be enough to keep them competitive.

Jagermech: Just fix the A's torso range, the rest can do well enough, wondering about their coming hitbox changes.

Thunderbolt: I'd rather look to change the rear torso portions on the non-JJ variants and look to maybe boost modules if we stay with the current module limits.

Orion: Can't comment yet, but they seem to need a bit of help still.

Awesome: Reducing negative quirks and normalizing overall hardpoint counts and modules, with a min engine rating boost to 325 might be enough.

Battlemaster: Normalizing the 1G torso range could be enough.

Stalker: These are more or less fine with the weapon changes.
The 4N needs the biggest boost though, maybe match or surpass the Misery and/or 3F?

Highlander: These could be fine with improvements to missiles and tweaks to ballistics.

Atlas: Allow the LRM 20 on the K to fire in one salvo along with missile tweaks and ballistic trade-offs should be enough.

[Noesis]

Varent, on 03 January 2014 - 11:44 PM, said:

You really work at it dont you.

Work at what? I'm passing a simple comment based on what was said in a thread, problem?

[luxebo]

@Noesis and Varent Please stick on to the topic.

@Praetor Shepard I definitely agree with you. Missiles, ballistic, and energy need to be a bit more balanced so each weapon type can work decently. I think after the hitbox overlook, we need a mech quirk overlook as well to balance each mech and give certain one's buffs in different areas.

[luxebo]

Umm, yeah anyone else want to say anything about this issue or should the topic be buried?

[Trauglodyte]

FupDup, on 03 January 2014 - 05:24 PM, said:

That's not what this thread is about. This thread is about variants of each chassis that are basically {Scrap}. Weight restrictions won't make that any better. For instance, a Spider 5V would still be a waste of 30 tons compared to other Spider variants (whereas right now they only waste a player slot).

The thing is that the Spider 5V is only short one energy hard point compared to the 5D because it has 4 additional JJs. That is part of PGI's balancing within chassis. Its why the BJ-1X has more hard points and a bigger engine cap than the BJ-3 while the 3 has more JJs. In PGI's "vision" of the game, JJs have carry more weight in terms of tactical power. It doen't really make sense but that is how they apply balance.

[luxebo]

The problem with the 5V is that the max amount of weaponry is a single large laser, versus a potential 3 large lasers or even 2 er ppcs 1 er large laser on the 5D. Not saying that is practical, but really, 4 JJs shouldn't minus off that much.

The BJ-1X is designed as somewhat of a light hunter, but it needs a bit more to help it balance out with BJ-3, a sniper. Same as the BJ-1DC vs the BJ-1.

I think PGI thinks that hardpoints are a lot. I mean look at HBK-4P, it has a single module, which sucks. Same as the AWS-8R.

We may also look at how some variants are actually over benefited, like Atlas-DDC, 3 modules while Atlas-K has less and also less hardpoints in every way, basically DDC is a straight upgrade from K. We may need to nerf the DDC, even though it's not the most powerful mech.

[Trauglodyte]

That's the point, Lux. PGI views hard points as actual mech currency. JJs are, in their eyes, the same as weapon hard points. So, mechs with a lot of JJs have fewer weapons. Mechs with few JJs have more weapons. To us, it makes no sense because our goal is to kill other mechs. But, PGI views JJs as a means to either get an angle on a target or as a means to get away from targets. Therefore, they have a lot of value to them.