86 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 04 June 2014 - 06:23 AM, said:

3 tons of ammo for four autocannons isnt gonna cut it in MWO though. To make that build viable you would have to strip armor to add more ammo.

Which is why you use An XL 195. I have been redesigning Mechs for over 30 years... don't.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 04 June 2014 - 06:33 AM.

[Khobai]

We dont need less customization. We just need less optimization. Mechs need their tabletop weaknesses incorporated into their designs. And it should not be easy to circumvent those weaknesses. Having a bunch of mechs that can not only be optimized but have no weaknesses just creates glaring balance problems... the Dragon Slayer being the most apparent.

Quote

Which is why you use An XL 195. I have been redesigning Mechs for over 30 years... don't.

If thats your idea of a redesign its not a very good one. Going from a 195STD to a 195XL gets you 3 extra tons of ammo. 6 tons of ammo for four autocannons still isnt nearly enough in MWO. That build doesnt work in MWO unless you strip armor for more ammo.

Also it doesnt change the fact that Jagermechs arnt supposed to have full armor. They just werent designed that way.

Edited by Khobai, 04 June 2014 - 06:38 AM.

[Barantor]

Khobai, on 04 June 2014 - 06:33 AM, said:

We dont need less customization. We just need less optimization. Mechs need their tabletop weaknesses incorporated into their designs. And it should not be easy to circumvent those weaknesses.

I can agree with that, though I think it will be harder to do without less customization at some point.

Mechs need not only their weaknesses but their strengths too. An Awesome 8Q/9M with a quirk that lets it get around ghost heat for PPCs up to 3 for instance.

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 04 June 2014 - 06:33 AM, said:

We dont need less customization. We just need less optimization. Mechs need their tabletop weaknesses incorporated into their designs. And it should not be easy to circumvent those weaknesses.



That gets you 3 extra tons of ammo. 6 tons of ammo for four autocannons still isnt enough in MWO. That build doesnt work in MWO unless you strip armor.

It works just not for long.

[Creovex]

Hexenhammer, on 03 June 2014 - 08:03 PM, said:

For a second I thought this was a necro thread because the same thing was said about the Misery when it came out. OP! Pay to Play! Boars Head! OP Pay to play!

Some complaint, different target.

Who was the moron who thought the BH was OP??? LOL!

[Sprouticus]

For every Shadow hawks out there there is a Wolverine or Quickdraw.


a couple notes:

Certain mechs are not viable for different reasons:
Hunchie- gweometry
Wolverine- SRM issues
Trenchbucket- SRM issues


Second, a LOT of mechs are viable in mid and lower Elo's but not in competitive play. From PGI's standpoint, that is OK.

[Shredhead]

Khobai, on 04 June 2014 - 05:21 AM, said:

I meant max armor should be based on the amount of armor the stock mech has. So Victors should have lower max armor than awesomes because stock Victors have less armor than stock Awesomes. A stock Victor has anywhere between 8.5-11.5 tons, while a stock Awesome has 15 tons. Its a huge difference.

Jagermechs would also have their characteristic paper thin armor. And mechs like the Catapult and Thunderbolt would stack up better against the Jagermech.

Obviously the canon 6.5 tons isnt enough armor for a Jagermech though. So something like stock armor+2 tons would probably be good as a max (so a jagermech could have 8.5 tons of armor at most, instead of the 12 tons of armor it normally has).

You will never get it, will you? If PGI would be so (mentally challenged) to follow your propositions, we would have a meta of exactly 4 mechs. That's it.
In comp play today the following mechs see use:
Jenner
Firestarter
Spider
Shadowhawk
Blackjack
Hunchback
Cataphract
Catapult
Jager
Victor
Highlander
Atlas
In PuG play, even more mechs are viable, because of the different play style.
If we'd follow your proposition, all we had was 1 in each class, the one with the best compromise between hardpoints, armor and mobility!
You treat CBT TT as if it was a unique example of a perfectly balanced game. I've got news for you, it's not! It has its own meta, and it's not even close to being balanced!

[Khobai]

Quote

You will never get it, will you? If PGI would be so (mentally challenged) to follow your propositions, we would have a meta of exactly 4 mechs. That's it.

We have a meta of 4 mechs now. Did you even watch the tournament? It was DragonSlayers, Cataphracts, Shadowhawks, and Embers.

[Shredhead]

Khobai, on 04 June 2014 - 07:40 AM, said:

We have a meta of 4 mechs now. Did you even watch the tournament? It was DragonSlayers, Cataphracts, Shadowhawks, and Embers.

I knew this would come, and you're wrong! I was part of that tournament, with 228th. And you?

[Joseph Mallan]

Shredhead, on 04 June 2014 - 07:45 AM, said:

I knew this would come, and you're wrong! I was part of that tournament, with 228th. And you?

Seems he hit the nail on the head to this sale!

[Sprouticus]

Shredhead, on 04 June 2014 - 07:33 AM, said:

You will never get it, will you? If PGI would be so (mentally challenged) to follow your propositions, we would have a meta of exactly 4 mechs. That's it.
In comp play today the following mechs see use:
Jenner
Firestarter
Spider
Shadowhawk
Blackjack
Hunchback
Cataphract
Catapult
Jager
Victor
Highlander
Atlas
In PuG play, even more mechs are viable, because of the different play style.
If we'd follow your proposition, all we had was 1 in each class, the one with the best compromise between hardpoints, armor and mobility!
You treat CBT TT as if it was a unique example of a perfectly balanced game. I've got news for you, it's not! It has its own meta, and it's not even close to being balanced!

Not sure what competition you are in, but unless there are rules against chassis stacking (MCW has those) al I see is:

Ember
BJ1/1x
CTF-D
Victor
Banshee

Very rarely you may see
Raven (for ECM)
SDH-2D2 for protection vs lights
Highlander

Every other mech is less than optimal.



Khobai is absolutely correct. PGI has access to change certain variables for balancing mechs. Max engine size, armor, hardpoints, torso twist, yaw, module slots, arm movement, accel/decel, geometry (total size, size of hitboxes), etc for whatever reason they chose not to use armor. Which is a shame because armor is one of the best ways to balance. It also is a great way to keep the mechs with the classic BT 'feel' (Jager is a glass cannon, atlas is a tank, etc)

The example of this that I can think of is the Atlas vs the highlander/Banshee. Both of those mechs FAR outperform the atlas. If the atlas could take 10% more armor than those mechs, it would go a long way towards making the atlas viable.


NOTE: None of this addresses weapons balance which is the other major variable. Even if armor were changed, chassis that fit the meta will always be preferable at the very top ranks. They could of course make the difference between the shelf and non shelf weapons closer, but that is a different discussion.

[Barantor]

Shredhead, on 04 June 2014 - 07:45 AM, said:

I knew this would come, and you're wrong! I was part of that tournament, with 228th. And you?

Khobai listed the mechs that were in use with many teams in the tournament. He isn't wrong in that the meta is strong with those 4 mechs.

Name the 4 mechs that would be meta if Khobai's suggestions were put into the game please since you stated that.

[FupDup]

cdlord, on 04 June 2014 - 04:21 AM, said:

I don't know if I agree with this... For me, the Hunchback is the Medium that all Mediums should be like. It's smaller, with a diverse yet unique weapons package... Maneuverable, especially when upgraded. Powerful, when played right, but not game breaking powerful..

The Shadowhawk just seems too large...

I was referring to combat performance, not physical size. In terms of scaling, yes the Hunchie was waaay better done than papa Shad.


For that Shad, I chose it as the baseline because:
-It can be configured to fulfill nearly any role, at any range
-It can go noticeably faster than a heavy without sacrificing too much firepower
-It has beastly hitboxes for soaking damage
-Jump jets give it some extra versatility

Overall, it's just so versatile. You can do nearly anything with it. IIRC, that's usually what a well-designed medium was meant for in BT.

The Hunchie in BT was essentially designed as a "one trick pony" that was basically a heavy mech with less firepower and armor capability (with the same speed). It existed if you wanted to save C-Bills and/or Battlevalue (because heavies cost more of both usually). That's why I chose the Shaq Hawk in place of it.

[Sprouticus]

Barantor, on 04 June 2014 - 08:17 AM, said:

Khobai listed the mechs that were in use with many teams in the tournament. He isn't wrong in that the meta is strong with those 4 mechs.

Name the 4 mechs that would be meta if Khobai's suggestions were put into the game please since you stated that.

Honestly, probably the same exact mechs.....they would just be less TTK. But it WOULD make some others more viable. How much more depends upon the armor values. I could see the folowing being used in tourneys if max armor limits were implemented (assuming the same weapons meta)

Highlander
Stalker
Jenner
Spider

[Shredhead]

Joseph Mallan, on 04 June 2014 - 07:48 AM, said:

Seems he hit the nail on the head to this sale!

He said "tournament", not finals. And it's still 6 mechs, not 4. And I said comp-play, not tournament, when I referenced the mechs in use.

Sprouticus, on 04 June 2014 - 07:49 AM, said:

Not sure what competition you are in, but unless there are rules against chassis stacking (MCW has those) al I see is:

Ember
BJ1/1x
CTF-D
Victor
Banshee

Very rarely you may see
Raven (for ECM)
SDH-2D2 for protection vs lights
Highlander

Every other mech is less than optimal.

These are some weird mech choices there. Yes, I play in MCW when I get the opportunity, but the decisive factor is tonnage restriction, not chassis stacking rules. The Banshee is in a bad spot tonnage wise for that, and the 2D2 as light hunter is too much of a one trick pony to be viable. SHD-2D with AC20 + 3 ML or Shads with AC20 + (ER)PPC or 2x AC5 + PPC are better. BJ 1 to open up some tonnage, usually not more than 2.

Quote

Khobai is absolutely correct. PGI has access to change certain variables for balancing mechs. Max engine size, armor, hardpoints, torso twist, yaw, module slots, arm movement, accel/decel, geometry (total size, size of hitboxes), etc for whatever reason they chose not to use armor. Which is a shame because armor is one of the best ways to balance. It also is a great way to keep the mechs with the classic BT 'feel' (Jager is a glass cannon, atlas is a tank, etc)

But a glass cannon won't be viable, ever. Other than that, I'd welcome some unique traits for chassis.

Quote

The example of this that I can think of is the Atlas vs the highlander/Banshee. Both of those mechs FAR outperform the atlas. If the atlas could take 10% more armor than those mechs, it would go a long way towards making the atlas viable.

But the Atlas already has more armor than these two, and way more than 10% more than the Highlander. We had an internal 1v1 tourney, and the Atlas is still the king 1 on 1, the Banshee his queen. Highlander can't even compete against these two 1 on 1.

Quote

NOTE: None of this addresses weapons balance which is the other major variable. Even if armor were changed, chassis that fit the meta will always be preferable at the very top ranks. They could of course make the difference between the shelf and non shelf weapons closer, but that is a different discussion.

I agree, we need more viable weapons, thus more variety.

Barantor, on 04 June 2014 - 08:17 AM, said:

Khobai listed the mechs that were in use with many teams in the tournament. He isn't wrong in that the meta is strong with those 4 mechs.

Name the 4 mechs that would be meta if Khobai's suggestions were put into the game please since you stated that.

Sorry, but I won't sift through the TROs to go look for individual armor value and stuff. Just bare in mind that if you link max armor in MWO to the stock build armor, you take away one big factor to equalize mechs and make bad stock mechs viable through adjustment of these parameters.

Edited by Shredhead, 04 June 2014 - 08:41 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Shredhead, on 04 June 2014 - 08:30 AM, said:

He said "tournament", not finals. And it's still 6 mechs, not 4. And I said comp-play, not tournament, when I referenced the mechs in use.

Are not the finals part of the tournament?

[VanillaG]

Khobai, on 04 June 2014 - 05:52 AM, said:

They can. I believe the Catapult has full armor as an example. But allowing the Jagermech to also have full armor makes it better than the Catapult. Which is wrong since one of the defining traits of the Jagermech is paper thin armor.

Same in the case of the Victor and Awesome. Allowing the Victor to have full armor strips the Awesome of its main advantage over the Victor, which is way more armor.

Max armor values should be based on the stock variants rather than the tonnage. A jagermech should have a lower max armor value than a catapult. And a victor should have a lower max armor value than an awesome. It would differentiate chassis a lot more and force players to make tougher choices when choosing mechs. Do you go with the better mobility of the victor or the better armor of the awesome? Do you go with the better armor of the catapult or the better firepower of the jagermech? Suddenly its not so clear cut what the best mechs are.

That same logic should be used to limit the engine rating for mechs as well. Some of the mechs are built for speed and some are built for firepower. Right now almost all of the lights can get to 150kph with minimal tweaking making them all one trick ponies. Applying similar limiting rules to reduce the max speeds of chassis would help some of the underused lights by giving them a niche in the battlefield.

With the clan lights being limited to 106 kph it will interesting to see what kind of loadouts you put on them to make them work.

[Lostdragon]

VanillaG, on 04 June 2014 - 08:45 AM, said:

That same logic should be used to limit the engine rating for mechs as well. Some of the mechs are built for speed and some are built for firepower. Right now almost all of the lights can get to 150kph with minimal tweaking making them all one trick ponies. Applying similar limiting rules to reduce the max speeds of chassis would help some of the underused lights by giving them a niche in the battlefield.

With the clan lights being limited to 106 kph it will interesting to see what kind of loadouts you put on them to make them work.

Limiting speed of lights would only work if FLD went away.

[Shredhead]

Joseph Mallan, on 04 June 2014 - 08:32 AM, said:

Are not the finals part of the tournament?

Aren't you splitting hairs now? A way wider variety of mechs was used throughout the whole tournament than those six chassis. Also the single elimination rule was more of a detriment to variety than all the "meta" in the world. The mechs I listed get used in leagues and tournaments with bo3/bo5 rules, because there you can try different approaches without being immediately punished. That's also the reason why the tournament showed off the meta, but not the variety that can be seen in player created competitive environments.

[Joseph Mallan]

Lostdragon, on 04 June 2014 - 08:54 AM, said:

Limiting speed of lights would only work if FLD went away.

or 2.5 times rate of fire would also help.

Shredhead, on 04 June 2014 - 08:55 AM, said:

Aren't you splitting hairs now? A way wider variety of mechs was used throughout the whole tournament than those six chassis. Also the single elimination rule was more of a detriment to variety than all the "meta" in the world. The mechs I listed get used in leagues and tournaments with bo3/bo5 rules, because there you can try different approaches without being immediately punished. That's also the reason why the tournament showed off the meta, but not the variety that can be seen in player created competitive environments.

the winning Mechs were for the most part, identical with the exception of a Spider and a Jenner. No, I don't think I am splitting hairs.