86 replies to this topic

[Sprouticus]

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.



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.



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



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.


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


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.

The odd builds at the end are odd, agreed. That was why I said they were rarely seen. The D2D is great in really low weight drops for instance because it can keep up with faster mechs and ensure your heavies dont get awarmed. One trick pony, niche, but RARELY, you might see it.

As for my example, I was referring to 10% more than the current values. ets use a better example:

Example:
The current max value for a CTF-3D is 296 points of armor.
The current max value for a T-Bolt is 296 points of armor.

I think we can all agree that its other charactistics JJ/hardpoints/etc are way better.


If the CTF had 250 points would you still take it in a league drop? 225? 200? At what point does the T-Bolt become viable (not preferable, but viable)

Another example:

The CTF-3D and CTF-1X have almost the exact same stats. But the 1x is not used because the weapons loadout is not better. What if the armor on the 3D was less (call it a mech quirk). 250? 200? At what point does the 1X become viable?

Just like weapons range and damage, the total armor is NOT set in stone (unlike the weight and crit slots of equipment for instance). PGI can modify them as they see fit.

They just chose not to, which is stupid IMO. Yes, if they did a better job of balancing weapons the 3D and 1X would not need different values. But the reality is that PGI has NOT been doing a good job of adjusting the value to make other weapons combos even viable (much less optimal).

[Sprouticus]

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.

the speed issue is more complex. Above about 120 kph the ROI on engine weight increases FAR outweighs the value of armor or weapons. That is why you run max speed almost always when you can help it. That is an artifact of a real time game vs tabletop.

If TT had engine size ramp up more at higher levels it would make more sense. There is honestly little we can do about it.

Yes getting rid of FLD would help some
Yes, slowing the RoF would help some (although it would hurt lots of other areas)
Yes, adding value to other roles (scouting, spotting, etc) would help some.

But in the end, all of those (except FLD) would impact lots of other areas of the game and be tricky to implement.

Speed kills.

[Almond Brown]

Quote

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

Define Viable and Variety. With what we know to be true, and will always be true, is that no matter how many choices there are, the cream will get cherry picked out and all others will be deemed sub par and shelved. It is the Gamer way.

I rue the day when we can pick the Maps. OMG! Imagine the lack of Mech and weapon diversity a Map like Alpine would generate. Especially if weight limits were in play and 3x4 never actually gets up and running.

8-9 Missile boats and 3-4 scouts, all with ECM, Tag, Narc and Arty/Air modules ftw. If your Scouts die first, you auto lose.

Edited by Almond Brown, 04 June 2014 - 09:14 AM.

[Shredhead]

Joseph Mallan, on 04 June 2014 - 08:57 AM, said:

or 2.5 times rate of fire would also help.


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.

I just tried to explain to you, why this tournament is not a showcase for the variety in actual comp play, only for the safest, meta route to go because single elimination.

Sprouticus, on 04 June 2014 - 08:58 AM, said:

The odd builds at the end are odd, agreed. That was why I said they were rarely seen. The D2D is great in really low weight drops for instance because it can keep up with faster mechs and ensure your heavies dont get awarmed. One trick pony, niche, but RARELY, you might see it.

As for my example, I was referring to 10% more than the current values. ets use a better example:

Example:
The current max value for a CTF-3D is 296 points of armor.
The current max value for a T-Bolt is 296 points of armor.

I think we can all agree that its other charactistics JJ/hardpoints/etc are way better.


If the CTF had 250 points would you still take it in a league drop? 225? 200? At what point does the T-Bolt become viable (not preferable, but viable)

Another example:

The CTF-3D and CTF-1X have almost the exact same stats. But the 1x is not used because the weapons loadout is not better. What if the armor on the 3D was less (call it a mech quirk). 250? 200? At what point does the 1X become viable?

Just like weapons range and damage, the total armor is NOT set in stone (unlike the weight and crit slots of equipment for instance). PGI can modify them as they see fit.

They just chose not to, which is stupid IMO. Yes, if they did a better job of balancing weapons the 3D and 1X would not need different values. But the reality is that PGI has NOT been doing a good job of adjusting the value to make other weapons combos even viable (much less optimal).

But the problem of viability here (in case of T-Bolt vs Phract) is one of geometry and weapon positions. How do you rate shoddy geometry or weapon hardpoints against armor value?
And why should every mech be viable in the high end game? That's not possible, ever. There will always be a meta, all you would do is p*ss off people that invested time and grind to get to their mechs. How about, instead of nerfing everything to death, open up the fields through (positive) quirks to handicapped chassis, buffing underwhelming weapons and use indirect means that widen skill gaps (like the heat for JJing/fall damage to legs, or a rework of the movement restrictions) to allow for more tactical variety?

Almond Brown, on 04 June 2014 - 09:13 AM, said:

Define Viable and Variety.

Take for example SRMs. Fixing their hitreg problems will make them viable again, which opens the field for more variety of chassis, especially mediums. Same goes far a rework of those shoddy movement restrictions, just to make two examples.

Quote

With what we know to be true, and will always be true, is that no matter how many choices there are, the cream will get cherry picked out and all others will be deemed sub par and shelved. It is the Gamer way.

Exactly. And all a developer can try to do is to offer more variety, more choices. There will always be a meta, but in a game with so many different weapons, there are possibilities to offer more variety than just 2 or 3 weapon combos.

Quote

I rue the day when we can pick the Maps. OMG! Imagine the lack of Mech and weapon diversity a Map like Alpine would generate. Especially if weight limits were in play and 3x4 never actually gets up and running.

8-9 Missile boats and 3-4 scouts, all with ECM, Tag, Narc and Arty/Air modules ftw. If your Scouts die first, you auto lose.

Yup, letting the players choose the maps would severely diminish variety, both in maps played and in chassis taken.

Edited by Shredhead, 04 June 2014 - 09:29 AM.

[FerretGR]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 03 June 2014 - 07:44 PM, said:

Have you ever considered mech decay (fatigue), the gradual deterioration of mechs over time as a way to either encourage diversity or drain C-Bills from the economy. Maybe combine it with a salvage/customization perk. For instance as a mech enters the twilight of its usable life, barely held together by hope and willpower, it has a little more flexibility in loadout (whatever fits).

I haven't read the rest of the thread, but I wanted to comment on this and why it's not a super good idea. Most of the mechs in service in this game, from the perspective of the fluff, are already likely a couple of hundred years old. Wear and tear shouldn't take place to any great degree over the duration of our ownership. The usable life of a mech is centuries longer than the life of the individual pilot.

Khobai, on 03 June 2014 - 08:43 PM, said:

what pgi needs to do is give us a reason to play every single mech.

Indeed!

Edited by FerretGR, 04 June 2014 - 09:22 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

But a glass cannon won't be viable, ever.

I disagree. If you significantly reduce pinpoint damage glass cannons can be viable.

The reason why the Jagermech was somewhat viable in tabletop was because weapons rolled random hit locations and the damage was distributed evenly over the Jagermech's armor. MWO just needs weapon mechanics that emulate that distribution of damage. Like burst fire on ACs.

If pinpoint damage is brought under control, mechs that sacrifice armor for additional firepower would certainly be able to compete with mechs that sacrifice firepower for additional armor. It would simply be a trade off of one equal advantage for another.

Quote

Aren't you splitting hairs now? A way wider variety of mechs was used throughout the whole tournament than those six chassis.

Yeah but mechs used by teams that lost dont count. Because they lost. The teams that got into the finals and the team that ultimately won relied entirely on four mechs. Had the other teams used the same composition with those four mechs, they likely wouldve done better in the tournament.

Quote

And why should every mech be viable in the high end game? That's not possible, ever.

It is possible using a battle value system. Because mechs that are less viable would have lower battle values than mechs that are more viable.

Ultimately battle value for matchmaking is the only thing that makes sense. Because the 3/3/3/3 system PGI has planned says that a 100 ton boars head with 6 flamers is better than a Dragon Slayer. I really cant see that working too well to balance teams for that reason.

Edited by Khobai, 04 June 2014 - 09:37 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Shredhead, on 04 June 2014 - 09:17 AM, said:

I just tried to explain to you, why this tournament is not a showcase for the variety in actual comp play, only for the safest, meta route to go because single elimination.

And I keep telling folks that variety and combat are mutually exclusive. We are playing a combat game not a sport. What kills best is what WILL be used. If PGI changes the formula the new best will be shown. There will NEVER not be a best build. I've been at this for 30 years, I have seen pretty much all there is to see. How many of the 700+ Builds get used in scenarios? less than 100.

[FupDup]

I'm not sure that Jagermech could even be considered a "glass cannon." More like a glass pea shooter. Its 2 AC/2 and 2 AC/5 combined dealt less damage per turn than a single freaking Gauss Rifle, for waaaaaaaaaaaaay more tonnage (28 tons versus 15 tons, such balance!). In TT, you could even go with 2 PPCs and do more damage, while saving tonnage and gaining durability (due to no explosions). The stock Catapult K2 actually had higher damage output than the stock Jagermech, with more armor to boot.

Edited by FupDup, 04 June 2014 - 09:24 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

I'm not sure that Jagermech could even be considered a "glass cannon."

\

Well that is pretty much the worst variant and not the best example. The jagermech has dual gauss variants that are definitely glass cannon builds.

[Barantor]

FupDup, on 04 June 2014 - 09:23 AM, said:

I'm not sure that Jagermech could even be considered a "glass cannon." More like a glass pea shooter. Its 2 AC/2 and 2 AC/5 combined dealt less damage per turn than a single freaking Gauss Rifle, for waaaaaaaaaaaaay more tonnage (28 tons versus 15 tons, such balance!). In TT, you could even go with 2 PPCs and do more damage, while saving tonnage and gaining durability (due to no explosions). The stock Catapult K2 actually had higher damage output than the stock Jagermech, with more armor to boot.

Yup, which is why it is pretty pitiful against other mechs. Against aircraft it is supposed to be good.

The ac/5s aren't bad, just not as good as mechs armed with things designed specifically to take out mechs and the heaviest combat tanks.

MGs are supposed to be mostly for infantry..... yet we have them in MWO lol.

[Shredhead]

Khobai, on 04 June 2014 - 09:20 AM, said:

I disagree. If you significantly reduce pinpoint damage glass cannons can be viable.

The reason why the Jagermech was somewhat viable in tabletop was because weapons rolled random hit locations and the damage was distributed evenly over the Jagermech's armor. MWO just needs weapon mechanics that emulate that distribution of damage. Like burst fire on ACs.

If pinpoint damage is brought under control, mechs that sacrifice armor for additional firepower would certainly be able to compete with mechs that sacrifice firepower for additional armor. It would simply be a trade off of one equal advantage for another.

These glass cannons can not be viable in Mech Warrior, ever. Even if you take out instant conversion, they'll just get gibbed by SRM/AC20 boats in close combat. This is a live environment. If I wanted to play an RnG game, I'd play TT (which is fun, no doubt about it).

Quote

Yeah but mechs used by teams that lost dont count. Because they lost. The teams that got into the finals and the team that ultimately won relied entirely on four mechs. Had the other teams used the same composition with those four mechs, they likely wouldve done better in the tournament.

If we had used a jumpsniping deck on Caustic against HoL, we'd have lost so badly it isn't even funny. But look what we achieved with our brawler deck, we had them down to two men, and our loss is due to two mistakes on our side and that freaking bug in the lobby that shuffles your lances again when you drop.
If you look at the final game, what did it bring for SJR to take a full meta dropdeck? They lost. In the end it's about skill and tactics first, then comes the loadout.

Quote

It is possible using a battle value system. Because mechs that are less viable would have lower battle values than mechs that are more viable.

Ultimately battle value for matchmaking is the only thing that makes sense. Because the 3/3/3/3 system PGI has planned says that a 100 ton boars head with 6 flamers is better than a Dragon Slayer.

No, you can not use BV in a game with a fixed amount of players, ever. You can use it in TT, though even there you can game that system easily, but it doesn't really matter if you play three Atlasses against 7 mediums.

Joseph Mallan, on 04 June 2014 - 09:23 AM, said:

And I keep telling folks that variety and combat are mutually exclusive. We are playing a combat game not a sport. What kills best is what WILL be used. If PGI changes the formula the new best will be shown. There will NEVER not be a best build. I've been at this for 30 years, I have seen pretty much all there is to see. How many of the 700+ Builds get used in scenarios? less than 100.

True, of course variety in the dropdeck is limited because of intended speed, range and tactics. Why should I use a lance with an Atlas, a Victor and two Phracts with varying speed, armament and tactical value, if I could instead use 4 Victors that can hold formation due to same speed, shoot at the same targets due to similar armament and be valuable for my intended tactics?
I am talking of variety between different tactics and dropdecks, i.e. mid-range sniper, brawler, long range sniper etc. This is the kind of viability in variety I want to see achieved.

[FupDup]

Barantor, on 04 June 2014 - 09:36 AM, said:

Yup, which is why it is pretty pitiful against other mechs. Against aircraft it is supposed to be good.

The ac/5s aren't bad, just not as good as mechs armed with things designed specifically to take out mechs and the heaviest combat tanks.

MGs are supposed to be mostly for infantry..... yet we have them in MWO lol.

I'm not fully familiar with anti-air rules from TT...but wouldn't a PPC technically be twice as powerful against aircraft as an AC/5? Was there some kind of magic attribute modifier that helped the smaller ACs against aircraft in comparison to other weapons?

As for MGs, infantry was their main role but they also did do reasonable damage to mechs. At 4 damage per ton, they were almost as efficient as the Medium Laser (5 damage per ton). The real main weakness was their extremely fatal ammo explosions of 400 damage, which could pretty much instagib anything of any size. When boated in enough numbers to eat through ammo, and/or when putting ammo in the head (where it will almost never get hit), MGs could be at least somewhat decent in close combat against mechs. Not impressive by any means, but they were functional.

[Joseph Mallan]

Shredhead, on 04 June 2014 - 09:49 AM, said:

True, of course variety in the dropdeck is limited because of intended speed, range and tactics. Why should I use a lance with an Atlas, a Victor and two Phracts with varying speed, armament and tactical value, if I could instead use 4 Victors that can hold formation due to same speed, shoot at the same targets due to similar armament and be valuable for my intended tactics?
I am talking of variety between different tactics and dropdecks, i.e. mid-range sniper, brawler, long range sniper etc. This is the kind of viability in variety I want to see achieved.

Victors and Phracts have Identical speeds, and are only marginally faster than an Atlas. they can therefore slow to match their Atlas team mate.

Dropdeck is a new term to me here... define please?

Also Sniping does not exist in the game.

Quote

A sniper is a highly trained marksman who operates alone, in a pair, or with a sniper team to maintain close visual contact with the enemy and engage targets from concealed positions or distances

We have marksmen

Quote

A marksman, or sharpshooter, is a person who is skilled in precision shooting[ using projectile weapons, such as with a rifle but most commonly with a designated marksman rifle and/or a sniper rifle, to shoot at long range targets. The main difference between a marksman and a normal sniper is that a marksman is usually considered an organic part of a fireteam of soldiers, whereas regular snipers tend to work alone or with other snipers

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 04 June 2014 - 10:01 AM.

[Lostdragon]

Joseph Mallan, on 04 June 2014 - 10:00 AM, said:

Victors and Phracts have Identical speeds, and are only marginally faster than an Atlas. they can therefore slow to match their Atlas team mate.

Dropdeck is a new term to me here... define please?

Also Sniping does not exist in the game.
We have marksmen

You can play like a sniper in MWO. It just isn't a good idea because light mechs are going to eat you for lunch.

[Joseph Mallan]

FupDup, on 04 June 2014 - 09:59 AM, said:

I'm not fully familiar with anti-air rules from TT...but wouldn't a PPC technically be twice as powerful against aircraft as an AC/5? Was there some kind of magic attribute modifier that helped the smaller ACs against aircraft in comparison to other weapons?

As for MGs, infantry was their main role but they also did do reasonable damage to mechs. At 4 damage per ton, they were almost as efficient as the Medium Laser (5 damage per ton). The real main weakness was their extremely fatal ammo explosions of 400 damage, which could pretty much instagib anything of any size. When boated in enough numbers to eat through ammo, and/or when putting ammo in the head (where it will almost never get hit), MGs could be at least somewhat decent in close combat against mechs. Not impressive by any means, but they were functional.

The TT rule for Anti Air was in the targeting computer. Mechs like the Jager had a TCPU that tracked Aircraft better than ground units. It was something added to the advanced rules to give Mechs abilities more inline with the TROs Fluff.

Lostdragon, on 04 June 2014 - 10:02 AM, said:

You can play like a sniper in MWO. It just isn't a good idea because light mechs are going to eat you for lunch.

Like I said, we don't have snipers then.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 04 June 2014 - 10:04 AM.

[FupDup]

Joseph Mallan, on 04 June 2014 - 10:03 AM, said:

The TT rule for Anti Air was in the targeting computer. Mechs like the Jager had a TCPU that tracked Aircraft better than ground units. It was something added to the advanced rules to give Mechs abilities more inline with the TROs Fluff.

So, one could just swap the ACs for dual PPCs to retain the AA role of the Jager while being better against mechs?

[VanillaG]

Sprouticus, on 04 June 2014 - 09:03 AM, said:

the speed issue is more complex. Above about 120 kph the ROI on engine weight increases FAR outweighs the value of armor or weapons. That is why you run max speed almost always when you can help it. That is an artifact of a real time game vs tabletop.

If TT had engine size ramp up more at higher levels it would make more sense. There is honestly little we can do about it.

Yes getting rid of FLD would help some
Yes, slowing the RoF would help some (although it would hurt lots of other areas)
Yes, adding value to other roles (scouting, spotting, etc) would help some.

But in the end, all of those (except FLD) would impact lots of other areas of the game and be tricky to implement.

Speed kills.

But the fact that a large number of the light mechs all top out around the same top speed is the same argument as "Why take an Awesome when I can take a Victor". The fact that they can all go around the same speed means that there is only 1 way to build light mechs which is go fast. The reason that people are saying the clan lights are going to be DOA is that there is no incentive to pilot light mechs that don't go fast. Reducing the available engine range combined with some hard point point tweaks you can actually have 2 types of lights instead of the one that we currently have.

[Almond Brown]

Khobai, on 04 June 2014 - 09:36 AM, said:

Well that is pretty much the worst variant and not the best example. The jagermech has dual gauss variants that are definitely glass cannon builds.

Does the Jager see much use in Stock Matches? Unlikely, as noted the D is a full 166 points of armor shy of 100% and the S is 230 points shy. Holy Ouchers....

[Joseph Mallan]

FupDup, on 04 June 2014 - 10:04 AM, said:

So, one could just swap the ACs for dual PPCs to retain the AA role of the Jager while being better against mechs?

... Yes.

[FupDup]

Joseph Mallan, on 04 June 2014 - 10:10 AM, said:

... Yes.

Well then, I guess that shoots down any arguments about the small ACs being good against aircraft.


See what I did there?

Edited by FupDup, 04 June 2014 - 10:12 AM.