95 replies to this topic

[3rdworld]

Sandpit, on 05 January 2014 - 12:01 PM, said:

And yet you have tons of players that don't use any of those mechs, myself included (except I do run a 733C once in a while and my Shawks because well I paid for them and like running them sometimes)
But 90% of the time?
Stalker
Bmaster
BJ Champion
Tbolt
and then whatever I feel like buying at the time for a new mech

I see TONS of different mechs used outside of the 3 you listed and outside of Atlas, Phract, Jager, etc.

THAT'S the reality of MWO for me because that's what I see.

That has nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is if tonnage limits would help other mechs become "viable".

And it doesn't. Without any chassis level changes, a battlemaster is never going to be a good choice, it actually becomes much worse when you add weight restrictions. I have 90 tons. Battlemaster or Highlander.... Not a hard choice.

For a restriction on weight to work, you would need to take chassis viability into account, meaning great chassis either count for more than their tonnage or bad chassis count for less.

Example:
733C = 90 tons
Battlemaster = 70 tons. So for the matchmaker it would consider the battlemaster a 70 ton mech, instead of 85 to account for it being a substandard chassis.

[Sandpit]

3rdworld, on 05 January 2014 - 12:12 PM, said:

And it doesn't. Without any chassis level changes, a battlemaster is never going to be a good choice, it actually becomes much worse when you add weight restrictions. I have 90 tons. Battlemaster or Highlander.... Not a hard choice.

Considering I take my Bmaster hundreds of drops over my Highlander I'd agree. It's not a hard choice. Bmaster all the way
Or Stalker

[Deathlike]

Dock Steward, on 05 January 2014 - 12:11 PM, said:

I was under the impression the Elo Bracket was basically a myth. That in any given game you get a wide array of Elo scores and that personal Elo has no effect on what the individual Elo scores of the oppostion are. At least in so far as PUG's go, any Elo score player is just as likely to see enemies of any Elo score, and team averages were all that mattered. Well, team averages and, of course, given player pool.

I wish it were a myth. When you are paired with fairly good people you see often, followed by a smattering of trial Champion mechs, the average doesn't account for significant spread variance.

Sandpit, on 05 January 2014 - 12:12 PM, said:

My experience when it comes to things like this?

it's usually 12 mans. For some reason 12mans are viewed (by the 12 mans that is) as the "competitive" version of MWO.

It's more than 12-mans, there is a "trickle down effect", very much like the PPC meta. People figure out which mechs are the most effective/successful and determine its relative usefulness. You don't have to be a min-maxer to know the Spider-5V is useless (can't alpha more than ~10 damage - the best "damage" is 2 med pulse lasers). Then there's variants that are easily the "best" or "worst" based on their loadout potential... (Quickdraw-4G vs 4H is an obvious example). So... it's not just quantifiable, it can be qualified.

Sandpit, on 05 January 2014 - 12:15 PM, said:

Considering I take my Bmaster hundreds of drops over my Highlander I'd agree. It's not a hard choice. Bmaster all the way
Or Stalker

Stalker would be better (although the Highlander is meta compliant)... the Battlemaster however... I kinda lean towards "better than an Awesome". I'll leave it at that.

Edited by Deathlike, 05 January 2014 - 12:26 PM.

[Sandpit]

The thing is, all these people complain "It's the only mech taken"

Uhm....
Then take something else. It's really that simple. I did it with my Stalker, do it with my Tbolts and Bmasters. If you don't like seeing all the "same" mechs (which I don't) on the field, then take something different yourself. Find a build and variant that works for you and use the {Scrap} out of it.

[Dock Steward]

Deathlike, on 05 January 2014 - 12:22 PM, said:

I wish it were a myth. When you are paired with fairly good people you see often, followed by a smattering of trial Champion mechs, the average doesn't account for significant spread variance.

How does this support the argument that there are Elo brackets. This only shows the absence of brackets, or why else would those Trail mechs be on your team. Also, people in general tend not to notice average players very much. They notice the good ones, they notice the bad ones, but they very rarely notice the many many average players all around them.

[Deathlike]

Sandpit, on 05 January 2014 - 12:26 PM, said:

The thing is, all these people complain "It's the only mech taken"

Uhm....
Then take something else. It's really that simple. I did it with my Stalker, do it with my Tbolts and Bmasters. If you don't like seeing all the "same" mechs (which I don't) on the field, then take something different yourself. Find a build and variant that works for you and use the {Scrap} out of it.

That's not my problem. The problem is mechs that are considered worthless (Raven-2X, Spider-5V, etc.) should actually be good enough to be "OK" instead of a "grind variant" that provides no benefit/insight/worth outside of its intended function. That in itself is a problem. Noone expects all mechs to be meta compliant, it just has to be "not a wasted spot" on the team.

[Sandpit]

Deathlike, on 05 January 2014 - 12:29 PM, said:

That's not my problem. The problem is mechs that are considered worthless (Raven-2X, Spider-5V, etc.) should actually be good enough to be "OK" instead of a "grind variant" that provides no benefit/insight/worth outside of its intended function. That in itself is a problem. Noone expects all mechs to be meta compliant, it just has to be "not a wasted spot" on the team.

That's where I differ though I guess. I see all mechs as "viable", it's a matter of using them. In a perfect world what would you do to make all mechs viable as opposed to wasted space?

[Deathlike]

Dock Steward, on 05 January 2014 - 12:28 PM, said:

How does this support the argument that there are Elo brackets. This only shows the absence of brackets, or why else would those Trail mechs be on your team. Also, people in general tend not to notice average players very much. They notice the good ones, they notice the bad ones, but they very rarely notice the many many average players all around them.

Let's be honest, if you haven't been seeing the "top of the meta" more often than not, then you're fortunate you don't have to get the grief/hassle in being part of it. If CW will be an indication (if it even comes), you will see lots more of it, and you can't/won't avoid it unless you decide not to participate in CW altogether.

Edited by Deathlike, 05 January 2014 - 12:32 PM.

[Dock Steward]

Deathlike, on 05 January 2014 - 12:29 PM, said:

That's not my problem. The problem is mechs that are considered worthless (Raven-2X, Spider-5V, etc.) should actually be good enough to be "OK" instead of a "grind variant" that provides no benefit/insight/worth outside of its intended function. That in itself is a problem. Noone expects all mechs to be meta compliant, it just has to be "not a wasted spot" on the team.

I agree with this. I think tonnage limits are going to make another significant percentage of less-played mechs played again. However, there are definitely variants that will always be ****. Some of them could use some love. It's just that to those that say there are only a small handful of viable mechs, tonnage limits SHOULD, in fact, make this far less true.

Deathlike, on 05 January 2014 - 12:32 PM, said:

Let's be honest, if you haven't been seeing the "top of the meta" more often than not, then you're fortunate you don't have to get the grief/hassle in being part of it. If CW will be an indication (if it even comes), you will see lots more of it, and you can't/won't avoid it unless you decide not to participate in CW altogether.

Personally, I PUG very little these days and play mostly in 12 mans. When I do PUG, I don't honestly pay much attention to who I'm playing against. They're all just targets.

[Deathlike]

Sandpit, on 05 January 2014 - 12:31 PM, said:

That's where I differ though I guess. I see all mechs as "viable", it's a matter of using them. In a perfect world what would you do to make all mechs viable as opposed to wasted space?

Start with "removal of ghost heat", fix/adjust hitboxes. Fix/adjust weapons. Fix/adjust hardpoint system (Spider-5V, I'm looking at you). Fix/adjust internal armor values (not use strict TT stats due to perfect convergence). Fix scale. Fix heat scale. Fix/improve mech trees.

In essence, it would be a serious rebalancing effort, and not just #s on a spreedsheet/XML file.

Edited by Deathlike, 05 January 2014 - 12:38 PM.

[Sandpit]

Deathlike, on 05 January 2014 - 12:35 PM, said:

Start with "removal of ghost heat", fix/adjust hitboxes. Fix/adjust weapons. Fix/adjust hardpoint system (Spider-5V, I'm looking at you). Fix/adjust internal armor values (not use strict TT stats due to perfect convergence). Fix scale. Fix heat scale. Fix/improve mech trees.

In essence, it would be a serious rebalancing effort, and not just #s on a spreedsheet/XML file.

i disagree with ghost heat removal

what do you mean by "fix" in the rest of it?

[Deathlike]

Sandpit, on 05 January 2014 - 12:47 PM, said:

i disagree with ghost heat removal

what do you mean by "fix" in the rest of it?

Let's see.

"Ghost heat removal" would effectively be reinstating the basic true DHS rule, and heat capacity. It should not have been possible in the first place to fire anything more than 2 ERPPC or 3 PPC due to obvious rules. Adjustments will have to be made for the sake of balance, but it would also attempt to make SHS to be useful and not be completely inferior/useless.

Weapon balancing would probably start with pulse lasers (too hot and too short range for the tonnage) and end somewhere with NARC and Flamers not becoming useless (NARC would need to be at least SRM->lock capable or at least not die upon missile impact).

Fixing hitboxes... aka making the Awesome not be a pinata. Of course, redoing scale altogether would have to be done first so it doesn't look like the literal broadside of a barn. I'm sure there's more.

The hardpoint system would need some adjustments, either testing a semi-alternative system (big/medium/small hardpoint sizes of some sort) or at the very least revamping known useless variants (Spider-5V, Lolcusts, Raven-2X, Stalker-4N).

I'm not sure how exactly I'd adjust armor across the board, but let's say the Atlas's side torsos would get more internal armor (it's where the bulk of the weapons are located) which would probably go with a hitbox adjustment/reversion. Catapult CT internal armor would increase (since, it's the easiest thing to core). It's not limited to that.

Mech trees would be revamped, at the very least ATTEMPT a system where your choices matter (somewhat changeable system,. but would focus on piloting, offense, defense [like internals], and all of them can't be mattered)... if not at least adjust/remove efficiencies that are useless (pinpoint and arm reflex for mechs that don't use their arms).

In essence.. stuff that should have been accomplished in beta.

Edited by Deathlike, 05 January 2014 - 01:06 PM.

[Sandpit]

The weapon balancing I'd agree with as far as NARC, I'd also adjust beam duration, reduce range on ballistics, and buff flamer heat a bit.

Hit boxes I would do a complete readjustment across the board on. I don't see scale as out of whack to be honest. The thing that throws actual scale off (which limits exactly what can be done in this area) are the maps. You can only go so large as it is now because a huge mech can only appear to be so large. A small mech can only be so small before it just might as well be a large car on legs. (Please before anyone does it, yes, I've seen and read the various scale arguments, examples, and graphs, I'm just stating what really limits scale at this point) They would have to readjust every single map and I just don't see this being practical or feasible for them at the moment.

Affecting hardpoint sizes would do nothing to accomplish what you're wanting? A raven is still going to have the same size hardpoints as all of the variants on the chassis. Otherwise it becomes "unrealistic" in "Well why can this variant hold an AC10 but this one can't???"
Essentially this would do nothing for variant viability in my opinion

I just can't get on board with an IS revamp. Armor and IS are armor and IS. I was actually hesitant to pay for a founders pack when I heard about double armor because it didn't sound right to me.

I'm not sure what you mean by fixing the mech trees so I cant' comment on it. I will say that I don't understand that whole placeholder thing for this length of time but it's PGI and that's pretty much par for the course with this company. Put in a placeholder and then go back a year later and maybe do something with it then. That's a completely different issue though

[Mcgral18]

Deathlike, on 05 January 2014 - 01:05 PM, said:

Let's see.

"Ghost heat removal" would effectively be reinstating the basic true DHS rule, and heat capacity. It should not have been possible in the first place to fire anything more than 2 ERPPC or 3 PPC due to obvious rules. Adjustments will have to be made for the sake of balance, but it would also attempt to make SHS to be useful and not be completely inferior/useless.

Weapon balancing would probably start with pulse lasers (too hot and too short range for the tonnage) and end somewhere with NARC and Flamers not becoming useless (NARC would need to be at least SRM->lock capable or at least not die upon missile impact).

Fixing hitboxes... aka making the Awesome not be a pinata. Of course, redoing scale altogether would have to be done first so it doesn't look like the literal broadside of a barn. I'm sure there's more.

The hardpoint system would need some adjustments, either testing a semi-alternative system (big/medium/small hardpoint sizes of some sort) or at the very least revamping known useless variants (Spider-5V, Lolcusts, Raven-2X, Stalker-4N).

I'm not sure how exactly I'd adjust armor across the board, but let's say the Atlas's side torsos would get more internal armor (it's where the bulk of the weapons are located) which would probably go with a hitbox adjustment/reversion. Catapult CT internal armor would increase (since, it's the easiest thing to core). It's not limited to that.

Mech trees would be revamped, at the very least ATTEMPT a system where your choices matter (somewhat changeable system,. but would focus on piloting, offense, defense [like internals], and all of them can't be mattered)... if not at least adjust/remove efficiencies that are useless (pinpoint and arm reflex for mechs that don't use their arms).

In essence.. stuff that should have been accomplished in beta.

Can we increase dissipation to match the increased Rof?

[Deathlike]

Mcgral18, on 05 January 2014 - 01:17 PM, said:

Can we increase dissipation to match the increased Rof?

Maybe. MW4 kinda got things right a bit, where the damage/DPS/heat/tonnage would be properly scaled with cooldown. Things like this would have to be investigated with tons and tons of testing... theoretical, empirical, AND practical.

Edited by Deathlike, 05 January 2014 - 01:22 PM.

[luxebo]

Deathlike, on 05 January 2014 - 12:29 PM, said:

That's not my problem. The problem is mechs that are considered worthless (Raven-2X, Spider-5V, etc.) should actually be good enough to be "OK" instead of a "grind variant" that provides no benefit/insight/worth outside of its intended function. That in itself is a problem. Noone expects all mechs to be meta compliant, it just has to be "not a wasted spot" on the team.

This is exactly what my complaint is. The thing is that there should at least be some variation, not just some variants there to be there. It's stupid if some mechs are just complete upgrades in every way (STK-4N < STK-3F)

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Deathlike, on 05 January 2014 - 01:05 PM, said:

I'm not sure how exactly I'd adjust armor across the board, but let's say the Atlas's side torsos would get more internal armor (it's where the bulk of the weapons are located) which would probably go with a hitbox adjustment/reversion. Catapult CT internal armor would increase (since, it's the easiest thing to core). It's not limited to that.

I'd like to look at decoupling the torso limits between the front and back sections, along with any necessary hitbox tweaks and possibly increased Internal Structure hitpoints where appropriate.

So the overall Armor cap will remain the same. But then we could allow the front sections then go up to whatever limit could work best, maybe 88% or 92% of the original limit or maybe even up to 100%.
Then the Rear sections could have a lower limit set to 35, 40 or even 50% of the original overall section max.

Here is a table where I was exploring some ideas for what I'm thinking about:

Spoiler

Quote

Mech trees would be revamped, at the very least ATTEMPT a system where your choices matter (somewhat changeable system,. but would focus on piloting, offense, defense [like internals], and all of them can't be mattered)... if not at least adjust/remove efficiencies that are useless (pinpoint and arm reflex for mechs that don't use their arms).

Definitely, I'd even like to see if some sort of a modular system could work to keep it open, have the player make choices and hopefully make it easier to make adjustments to specific efficiencies, modules and consumables also.
http://mwomercs.com/...s-in-pilot-lab/

[luxebo]

Yeah, same here, I would like customization on that kind of stuff as well. Though it needs balance once again.

[luxebo]

Since I've more time to respond, I will do so.

MustrumRidcully, on 05 January 2014 - 02:27 AM, said:

K2 (just to save space)

I agree. K2 needs a slight buff, though it's according to some competitive players still the best Dual AC20 platform due to survivability (STD engine vs XL engine).

MustrumRidcully, on 05 January 2014 - 02:31 AM, said:

SDR-5V and modules (once again to save space).

Agreed on both points. I think PGI should also take a look at mechs and modules after hitbox revisions and modules themselves.

Deathlike, on 05 January 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:

Wolverine 6K, Shadow Hawk 5M, Raven 2X, and Jenner K.

Wolverine 6K should have 390 max engine to be another fast medium to balance against JJs. Shadow Hawk 5M is just the problem with the lasers being in a single arm, that's the only issue. But it's still a great variant. Raven 2X and Jenner K should have some more difference and I think Praetor Shepard's thoughts on changing Ravens is probably the best solution (missile fixes, module revamp, same speed as Jenner, etc).

Khobai, on 05 January 2014 - 11:28 AM, said:

Atlas vs Highlander.

Actually, some Highlanders are a little bit needing some buffs. However, besides the DDC, the RS has energy role, but the D may need some buffs, and K needs buffs badly.

3rdworld, on 05 January 2014 - 11:41 AM, said:

Weight restrictions and mech variation.

I think weight restrictions will help the chassis variations, but however not mech in same class of weight (like Awesome vs Victor, every time one would take Victor, that's not good.) That is the problem.

3rdworld, on 05 January 2014 - 11:56 AM, said:

Jenner, Shadow Hawk, 733C.

I think 3D/IIya, Jagers, DDC, Victors, and Centurions still have some role, but this is still far too little. Needs to be much more expanded.

Everything else in this thread is generally arguing with this factor, and the problem is that in each weight area, there are just mechs that are more or less superior, which shouldn't be the case. There should be balance in between each variant, like Jenners vs Raven 2X. Everyone is going to pick Jenner.

[FupDup]

Sandpit, on 05 January 2014 - 01:17 PM, said:

---

Hit boxes I would do a complete readjustment across the board on. I don't see scale as out of whack to be honest. The thing that throws actual scale off (which limits exactly what can be done in this area) are the maps. You can only go so large as it is now because a huge mech can only appear to be so large. A small mech can only be so small before it just might as well be a large car on legs. (Please before anyone does it, yes, I've seen and read the various scale arguments, examples, and graphs, I'm just stating what really limits scale at this point) They would have to readjust every single map and I just don't see this being practical or feasible for them at the moment.

---

About the scale...most of the problems are within the medium class. A large proportion of the mediums are currently on par with heavies for size or larger...and that simply should not be so. Making mediums like the Trench Bucket not go up to an Atlas's head would help them keep a lower profile in battle (stealthier) as well as make them harder to hit (more durable). There are also some heavies that could use shrinking (mostly Quickdraw, the Dragon and Catapult could use a bit of a reduction as well) and the Awesome too. For lights, maybe the Raven could be made slightly closer to Jenner size (but still slightly taller).

I'm fairly certain that they wouldn't have to readjust every map to accommodate mediums that aren't the size of assault mechs, seeing how the maps already cope with smaller mechs like the Jenner and Locust.

Edited by FupDup, 05 January 2014 - 08:53 PM.