95 replies to this topic

[Noesis]

FupDup, on 05 January 2014 - 08:51 PM, said:

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.

This. So much this. This and again this.

[luxebo]

FupDup, on 05 January 2014 - 08:51 PM, said:

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.

While I do want PGI to resize those mechs, the problem with this is the time and effort placed in this would be almost too much. If they can't do anything about resizing, then a massive hitbox change is required to those following mechs so they can be more useful.

[Khobai]

Quote

Actually, some Highlanders are a little bit needing some buffs.

Atlases need buffs way more. Atlases are so bad.

[MustrumRidcully]

Khobai, on 06 January 2014 - 07:36 AM, said:

Atlases need buffs way more. Atlases are so bad.

As long as it is the only 100 ton mech in town, no one will really be convinced of this, I think.

But I suppose if the Daishi makes it into the game and can bring Dual (Ultra) AC/20s in a 100 ton package, people might start to wonder what's up. But then, Daishi means Clan Tech, so who knows how the Clan weapons will work, and people will of course also say "but Clan Tech is supposed to be superior!"


Random Fun Idea for Clan Balancing: What if all IS weapons got the Clan ranges and the ER versions get renamed ED (Enhanced Damage) weapons and get the Clan damage values, would this turn Clan and IS tech into balanced variants? (Clan weapons retain their extra damage and their lower weight figures ,but also their increased heat).

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 06 January 2014 - 07:46 AM.

[luxebo]

Khobai, on 06 January 2014 - 07:36 AM, said:

Atlases need buffs way more. Atlases are so bad.

DDC doesn't need a buff, and RS is not bad when configured properly. BH seems fine, though I can't really comment much on it. D and K, yes I agree they need a buff.

The thing is that as MustrumRidcully said, they are 100 tons, so they are always tough to face.

[Khobai]

Quote

As long as it is the only 100 ton mech in town, no one will really be convinced of this, I think.

Players are already convinced of it. Its why they use Highlanders instead. And when tonnage balancing is added to the game the Atlas will become completely useless.

[luxebo]

Khobai, on 06 January 2014 - 11:18 AM, said:

Players are already convinced of it. Its why they use Highlanders instead. And when tonnage balancing is added to the game the Atlas will become completely useless.

Not totally 100% useless, the Atlas has more armor, more strength and capability over Highlanders, and especially the DDC has it's ECM capability. The other Atlases/Atli are all ranged, which makes them less favorable. Lastly, Atlases always attract too much attention, they are always targeted, even if it was a trial (I once used trial and then got pretty much instantly killed because everyone thinks it's that much of a threat.)

[Khobai]

Quote

Not totally 100% useless, the Atlas has more armor, more strength and capability over Highlanders

Again not really. Jumpjets mean the Highlander can mitigate a ton of damage to its legs by jumping... damage that would otherwise hit the Atlas in the torso.

And when it comes to weapon loadout, the Highlander can run AC/20, two PPCs, and three streaks... which is just as good as any Atlas loadout.

[luxebo]

Atlas need to torso twist. If they stay in one place they will be shot to death. Through playing some casual 12v12 premade with some friends, I've seen a few times where we stockpiled on Atlas and they stockpiled on Highlanders (for assault class, the rest were sorta varying) and we won with minimum casualties. That being said, I've already said Atlas does need a buff, though it really doesn't need as large of a buff as say an Awesome, or Dragon.

[Lykaon]

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

Weight restrictions are not good for mech variation. I am not sure why people keep thinking adding weight restrictions suddenly makes other mechs viable. It doesn't.

I was actually thinking that at this time the proposed method of weight balancing is going to be making Jagermechs very popular.

The current proposal is to have the average weight per mech to be 60 tons.

Recon: Spider 5D with ECM (this gets you 60 tons to use on...)
Brawlers: Any Jagermech with 2x AC20
Firesupport" Jagermech with 3x AC5 (UAC5)
LRM support: Jager with 2XAC5 2XLRM15
Anti Light: Jager with 4x SSRM2 2X lrg laser
Poptarts: Cataphract Ds.

[luxebo]

According to some competitive players, Jagermech is actually not very useful, only with certain niche builds (dual guass, dual ac20, 3xultra), and these usually also can be placed similarly in Cataphracts, so that is the problem. JM6-A btw is more of a niche mech, as it doesn't really have enough tonnage for tons of weapons. So it needs a torso twist buff in my opinion.

[3rdworld]

Lykaon, on 06 January 2014 - 02:57 PM, said:

I was actually thinking that at this time the proposed method of weight balancing is going to be making Jagermechs very popular.

The current proposal is to have the average weight per mech to be 60 tons.

Recon: Spider 5D with ECM (this gets you 60 tons to use on...)
Brawlers: Any Jagermech with 2x AC20
Firesupport" Jagermech with 3x AC5 (UAC5)
LRM support: Jager with 2XAC5 2XLRM15
Anti Light: Jager with 4x SSRM2 2X lrg laser
Poptarts: Cataphract Ds.

Wishful thinking.

60*12 = 720

720=
35*4
55*4
90*4

Edited by 3rdworld, 07 January 2014 - 09:43 AM.

[luxebo]

lol, that obviously wouldn't be good.

[Phantomime]

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

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.

simply because you are looking at the varients as a hardpoint list. the end.



the varients exist because the concept of a mech lab and being able to modify your loadout wasnt part of Battletech fluff. And since they simpy imported all of that the only things that are different between mechs (atleast the most overt difference) are the hardpoints.

imagine if you HAD to play your ATLAS-DDC stock, or any of the 'pro' mech varients listed... in the end you would STILL find that 1 varient is simply better because of the load, speed, whatever, but again, Battletech kinda balanced this by having different mechs availible at different times periods in the game... as time progressed better equipment became more availible thus later varients are better... that said some mechs also had actual FAULTS and simply WERENT as good as others of their tonnage - but they might have been the only 80t availible to a specific house, ect ect..

NONE of this exists in MWO.

So ya, its all about what size you like to play, and the best weapons/equipment for it - the mech type and varient that gives you this is the one you play.

Edited by Phantomime, 07 January 2014 - 05:33 PM.

[luxebo]

I understand this, but the problem with the complete competitive gameplay and all is that they pretty much narrow all the mechs to literally 3-5 chassis and only a few variants per chassis, which really isn't a good thing at all. CW will change certain things, but even then, people will migrate to those really good mechs.

[Craig Steele]

Hmmm, this is kinda redundant isn't it?

If you want to use your freely gained in game money to buy a mech chassis to use it, go for it.

If you want to use your hard earned cash to buy a hero / champion mech, go for it.

But it's a good thing I think that there are 3 / 4 / 5 variants for us to "try out". The fact that players tend towards one or the other should not make the less popular ones needing "buffs" There is no law that says we need to see equal numbers of all mech variants across the field is there?

The only way you have a "best" in anything is if you have competition for it to beat.

Some suit the majority or the Meta, others do not.

[luxebo]

But some of them are literally {Scrap}. There just isn't any balance between some of the variants and chassis, and if some are straight upgrades, then why would you buy the less good? (ahem 4N vs 3F Stalkers, why would you lose that single missile port? No point right?).

Even let's compare a 'meta' mech. Jenners have 4 variants, and I think there is good reason to not level the K. It loses a whole missile port for a whole module port, which is pretty much a nerf.

[Deathlike]

luxebo, on 08 January 2014 - 05:11 PM, said:

Even let's compare a 'meta' mech. Jenners have 4 variants, and I think there is good reason to not level the K. It loses a whole missile port for a whole module port, which is pretty much a nerf.

TBH, I don't mind that nerf too much, but it hurts the Raven-2X altogether.

[luxebo]

Deathlike, on 08 January 2014 - 05:54 PM, said:

TBH, I don't mind that nerf too much, but it hurts the Raven-2X altogether.

Yeah, that's even worse. I can only think of one thing that that mech does better, it can fit atermis with SRM6 pack. I stuck with a dual er large laser sniper for that chassis to help fill in my 3L, same as 4X as an AC20 jumper.

[luxebo]

To keep this topic somewhat alive, I think maybe I should repost Hunchback fixes with the new Hunchies.