372 replies to this topic

[CDLord HHGD]

Trauglodyte, on 24 July 2014 - 09:43 AM, said:

Smart sounding stuff...

That could work too. Just offering up an idea. Take it, use it, mutate it, step on it, whatever. Just trying to be constructive man!

[Almond Brown]

Adiuvo, on 24 July 2014 - 09:09 AM, said:

Assuming there's an equal distribution, or at least an attempted one (which 3/3/3/3 is), then you don't need to know the number of instances.

But we know for a fact, that Lights are always < the Heavies and Assaults by virtue of their requirements for better Piloting, situational awareness etc. So it is not unusual to have a lesser starting percentage for the get go.

So if it were indeed 25% - 25% - 25% - 25% starting distribution, then equality would be commensurate. But we know that Lights are lesser used even when they were "immune" due to HRS issues. Given that, it takes less "instances" to drain their total starting numbers down versus the other weight classes.

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 24 July 2014 - 09:25 AM, said:

Not sure the points you're trying to make. What you quoted was a response to another post about C-Bill bonus for lights won't fix the fragility of Lights, but that it may be an incentive for more people to pilot them despite of their fragility.

Point was focusing on one or the other still leaves the remaining Mech to do the damage unimpeded. If fact the Larger Mech will do it faster, Light incentives has no bearing on that at all.

[Almond Brown]

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 24 July 2014 - 09:30 AM, said:

If you earn less C-Bills using Heavy and Assault Mechs over Lights and Mediums (given the current state of the game) then you shouldn't be rewarded for failure. That's what it would be - failure.

But is known that a good Light Pilot can generate as much or more XP and C-Bills than heavier chassis and yet you want to incentive the Lights solely why again? SO more players will play them?

As a none Medium player, would you play more Mediums if they were incentivized? If not, then you have dis-proved your own point about others moving to Lights for the same reason.

Only time alive would make the benefit more profitable. I thought the issue with Lights was their survivability, not their over-all profitability?

El Bandito, on 24 July 2014 - 09:43 AM, said:

It will help Lights to deal more damage, compared to all the now strike-less heavier mechs. One gripe about Light pilots is having less impact in the game.

As noted elsewhere, don't take away my Strikes, but allow the Lights to carry double the amount perhaps? Surely no one would gripe about there begin more Strikes on the field as long as it was those poor Lights using them, as they need the help, rewards wire, right?

Edited by Almond Brown, 24 July 2014 - 10:13 AM.

[Be Rough With Me Plz]

El Bandito, on 24 July 2014 - 09:43 AM, said:

It will help Lights to deal more damage, compared to all the now strike-less heavier mechs. One gripe about Light pilots is the lack of rewards due to having less impact in the game.

I feel like you're tailoring your answer so it relates to something I said (Artillery/Air Strike being a tool that it could win a game) without answering the actual question of how it would increase the Light pilot population. Just like Mister Blastman did.

Lights currently have access to Artillery/Air Strike. Their population is still consistently in the single digits. They are still the most fragile Mechs to field. They require the most skill to pilot in order to be effective (damage and kills) in order to obtain on par rewards with STOMPSTOMP Heavies and Assaults. Do you really think exclusive access to Artillery/Air Strike will be sufficient draw for people to completely ignore/handicap themselves to pilot a Light? Given that an Air Strike/Artillery win is incredibly situational, at best?

The answer you gave implies that a Light with exclusive access to Artillery/Air Strike will suddenly have much more of an impact to the game because of said exclusivity. That a Light with Artillery/Air Strike would do better than or, at the very least, equal to a Heavy or Assault within the current Death Match each game devolves into. That a Heavy/Assault pilot would willingly trade in their mech with the highest payload to armor ratio for the worst payload to armor ratio just for Artillery/Air Strike. I don't believe that would be true. I would find it incredibly hard to give sound reasoning to back up your claim to convince me it would be something that would occur.

How will it increase Light pilot population?

Edited by Be Rough With Me Plz, 24 July 2014 - 10:18 AM.

[Xeno Phalcon]

Maybe its a time of day thing? For me they are always the minority still, but not by much and sometimes mediums outpace assaults (10am to 2pm bracket EST I suppose though iv played more in the evening too.)

[El Bandito]

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 24 July 2014 - 10:15 AM, said:

I feel like you're tailoring your answer so it relates to something I said (Artillery/Air Strike being a tool that it could win a game) without answering the actual question of how it would increase the Light pilot population. Just like Mister Blastman did. Lights currently have access to Artillery/Air Strike. Their population is still consistently in the single digits. They are still the most fragile Mechs to field. They require the most skill to pilot in order to be effective (damage and kills) in order to obtain on par rewards with STOMPSTOMP Heavies and Assaults. Do you really think exclusive access to Artillery/Air Strike will be sufficient draw for people to completely ignore/handicap themselves to pilot a Light? Given that an Air Strike/Artillery win is incredibly situational, at best? The answer you gave implies that a Light with exclusive access to Artillery/Air Strike will suddenly have much more of an impact to the game because of said exclusivity. That a Light with Artillery/Air Strike would do better than or, at the very least, equal to a Heavy or Assault within the current Death Match each game devolves into. That a Heavy/Assault pilot would willingly trade in their mech with the highest payload to armor ratio for the worst payload to armor ratio just for Artillery/Air Strike. I don't believe that would be true. I would find it incredibly hard to give sound reasoning to back up your claim to convince me it would be something that would occur. How will it increase Light pilot population?

Personally I have similar average KDR with my Firestarters as my Heavy mechs. The average damage is lower on the Lights but that is made up by the superior speed and recon capability. For me, my Lights are just as competent as all the heavier mechs I have.

However, if one does not wish to pilot a Light then that is his choice. Forcing someone to pilot a mech class that he does not want is dumb. Perhaps most people just don't want Light mechs unless one has lag shield to cover his bad play. I still remember all those FotM 3L and 5D pilots. They only piloted Lights just so they can take advantage of the broken hit reg.

Edited by El Bandito, 24 July 2014 - 10:41 AM.

[Be Rough With Me Plz]

El Bandito, on 24 July 2014 - 10:40 AM, said:

Personally I have similar average KDR with my Firestarters as my Heavy mechs. The average damage is lower on the Lights but that is made up by the superior speed and recon capability. For me, my Lights are just as competent as all the heavier mechs I have.

Anecdotal evidence regarding one's personal skill/experience between two differing Weight classes isn't much. The fact that the %'ages being displayed in the Queue waiting should have tipped you off that it is not the case for the majority of players. It's also not relevant when the question is "How will restricting Artillery/Air Strike to Lights increase the Light pilot population".

El Bandito, on 24 July 2014 - 10:40 AM, said:

Forcing someone to pilot a mech class that he does not want is dumb.

Doesn't restricting Artillery/Air Strike to Light Mechs do exactly that? Forcing someone to play a Light just because they want access to Artillery/Air Strike?

Btw, editing my post you quoted in your reply into a single wall of text? Really? Why make it difficult for people to read what you're replying to? Unless that reply has nothing to do with what is being discussed.

Edited by Be Rough With Me Plz, 24 July 2014 - 11:01 AM.

[El Bandito]

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 24 July 2014 - 10:58 AM, said:

Anecdotal evidence regarding one's personal skill/experience between two differing Weight classes isn't much. The fact that the %'ages being displayed in the Queue waiting should have tipped you off that it is not the case for the majority of players. It's also not relevant when the question is "How will restricting Artillery/Air Strike to Lights increase the Light pilot population". Doesn't restricting Artillery/Air Strike to Light Mechs do exactly that? Forcing someone to play a Light just because they want access to Artillery/Air Strike? Btw, editing my post you quoted in your reply into a single wall of text? Really? Why make it difficult for people to read what you're replying to?

You are new to this forum I see. Quoting someone automatically condenses the text, I have nothing to do with it. And I already gave my answer to your original question. If you don't like the answer then tough.

[CeeKay Boques]

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 24 July 2014 - 10:15 AM, said:

How will it increase Light pilot population?

Well, in competitive games, they like them some Arty. So if only a light can take it, they will make room for those lights.

The real answer is, Light piloting is a choice for fun.

It takes a special kind of guy to want to zip around at that speed, in a highly maneuverable mech. There are ways you can FORCE it sure.

3x4
Only lights can cap
Only lights can Scout
Only lights can get all the money and xpees..
Only lights can Arty
Repair and Rearm (Expense scaling, save some cash)


Adding more damage, more resilience, or any of those things won't change what people LIKE to drive. The only people that reaching out to Buff the light to "get more people to play it" are Omni Min/Maxers who WOULD take a light, but don't because they want to min/max.

There is a chassis hierarchy. They all need roles. We only have death match right now. Lights are dangerous. Only danger lovers, speed demons, and people who challenge themselves will love them. You can't fix this with mech mechanics.

[beerandasmoke]

They should tailor lights more towards the nonpremium FTP player. Make them Cbill grinders for FTP players. Take WOT for example you cant run high tier tanks without paying for premium or grinding for cash in lower tier5 tanks that have been custom made for FTP players. This is how WOT keeps the lower tiers populated enough for the matchmaker to be able to get games for lower tier players on the way up. Boost credit income substantially through not only dmg but spotting and tag, narc, and FTP players will use them to grind cbills.

[Artgathan]

Apparently this bears repeating:

Economic incentives for playing a chassis will not make that chassis better. Ergo, when it's time for 'serious business' people are going to pop out of the Lights and back into more effective mech choices whenever possible.

IE: Lights will only be used to grind cash.

[Be Rough With Me Plz]

Technoviking, on 24 July 2014 - 11:08 AM, said:

Well, in competitive games, they like them some Arty. So if only a light can take it, they will make room for those lights.

The real answer is, Light piloting is a choice for fun.

It takes a special kind of guy to want to zip around at that speed, in a highly maneuverable mech. There are ways you can FORCE it sure.

3x4
Only lights can cap
Only lights can Scout
Only lights can get all the money and xpees..
Only lights can Arty
Repair and Rearm (Expense scaling, save some cash)


Adding more damage, more resilience, or any of those things won't change what people LIKE to drive. The only people that reaching out to Buff the light to "get more people to play it" are Omni Min/Maxers who WOULD take a light, but don't because they want to min/max.

There is a chassis hierarchy. They all need roles. We only have death match right now. Lights are dangerous. Only danger lovers, speed demons, and people who challenge themselves will love them. You can't fix this with mech mechanics.

Nobody is saying how to change someone's preference of what they want to pilot. That's a losing proposition. What is being bandied about is how to make Lights more attractive to boost the Light pilot population: C-Bills and actual objectives.

Edited by Be Rough With Me Plz, 24 July 2014 - 11:17 AM.

[beerandasmoke]

Artgathan, on 24 July 2014 - 11:13 AM, said:

Apparently this bears repeating:

Economic incentives for playing a chassis will not make that chassis better. Ergo, when it's time for 'serious business' people are going to pop out of the Lights and back into more effective mech choices whenever possible.

IE: Lights will only be used to grind cash.

Correct but they will be playing them too grind which is much better than what is happening now. Yeah, when its time for "serious business" in WOT i take the E100 or the 183 out. When its time for cash though out comes the Stug or the Kv1. Same goes for this.

[Be Rough With Me Plz]

Artgathan, on 24 July 2014 - 11:13 AM, said:

Apparently this bears repeating:

Economic incentives for playing a chassis will not make that chassis better. Ergo, when it's time for 'serious business' people are going to pop out of the Lights and back into more effective mech choices whenever possible.

IE: Lights will only be used to grind cash.

First of all, nobody is saying to make the Chassis better. The issue is increasing the Light pilot population. If it's an effective way to grind C-Bills then it would be safe to assume that you would see an increase in Lights in the Queue since everybody wants that $$$$$, right? So the issue is...?

[CeeKay Boques]

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 24 July 2014 - 11:18 AM, said:

First of all, nobody is saying to make the Chassis better. The issue is increasing the Light pilot population. If it's an effective way to grind C-Bills then it would be safe to assume that you would see an increase in Lights in the Queue since everybody wants that $$$$$, right? So the issue is...?

Bob the elite Assault Pilot knows that he will make more money with 6 kills 4 Assists in one mission in his favorite badass mech than floundering around in "a damn light" and getting 1 kill and dying in the first 3 minutes, for 4 matches g'dammit.

It takes a lot to get me in an Assault. Its just not my thing. I do take them, but I'm sweating the whole time. I know the reverse is true for people that like big mechs and bigger guns. It won't be enough, and will just make light players like you and me a ton of cash, without achieving the result we desire:

Changing peoples minds.

[Xeno Phalcon]

Technoviking, on 24 July 2014 - 11:25 AM, said:

It takes a lot to get me in an Assault. Its just not my thing. I do take them, but I'm sweating the whole time.

Its okay, whenever I used to play my locust I leaned forward over my keyboard , became bug eyed and occasionally had the urge to go 'vroom vroom'.

[Trauglodyte]

Artgathan, on 24 July 2014 - 11:13 AM, said:

Apparently this bears repeating:

Economic incentives for playing a chassis will not make that chassis better. Ergo, when it's time for 'serious business' people are going to pop out of the Lights and back into more effective mech choices whenever possible.

IE: Lights will only be used to grind cash.

I'm not taking the stand point that economic incentives all of a sudden fixes everything. In the world in which we play, 20 tons will always be less effective than 100 tons. When an Atlas with a stock engine can carry more tons in weapons then the entire Locust weighs with ALL of its equipment, you simply cannot expect the Locust to perform as well or, more importantly, to the same extreme, as the Atlas. Quite frankly, there needs to be avenues in the games where all mechs can achieve what they're intended.

Scout
Strike/Scout Swatter
Weapons Support Platforms
Main Battlemechs

Where incentives come in is actually designing, building, and playing mechs to which they were intended. The Awesome is an 80 ton ranged weapon support mech and should NOT be utilized as a Medium Laser boat. So, if you're running a stock layout, or something similar, and play it as it was intended, you should be rewarded for doing so. The D-DC is a C&C mech and there should be standards of the game that allow the player that utilizes the mech as intended to be rewarded. So on and so forth.

Right now, we don't have role utilization. So, in that case, skill with <insert here> should be rewarded. The game has been extremely dumbed down into "Point weapons, push button, reap rewards." The reason that everyone wants to play the big Assault mechs is because they can do that much easier while living longer which means that the feelings of satisfaction are more likely to be there. Plus, hey, blowing **** up is a lot of fun. But, PGI is stupidly rewarding people and essentially leading them by their noses with a vanilla reward system that, as a result, turns its back on those that want to play something different.

[Artgathan]

beerandasmoke, on 24 July 2014 - 11:18 AM, said:

Correct but they will be playing them too grind which is much better than what is happening now. Yeah, when its time for "serious business" in WOT i take the E100 or the 183 out. When its time for cash though out comes the Stug or the Kv1. Same goes for this.

I agree that Economic Incentives aren't the worst idea, I'm simply stating that it doesn't make the Chassis better (IE: more fun/useful [unless hoarding C-Bills is your thing]).

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 24 July 2014 - 11:18 AM, said:

First of all, nobody is saying to make the Chassis better. The issue is increasing the Light pilot population. If it's an effective way to grind C-Bills then it would be safe to assume that you would see an increase in Lights in the Queue since everybody wants that $$$$$, right? So the issue is...?

The better way to increase the Light Queue Population would be to make Lights as a whole better. Simply using Economic Incentives only encourages people who need cash to play Lights (ergo, not everyone wants/needs "that $$$$$"). Again, it doesn't help Lights be useful from a game-play (meaning when you're sitting in the cockpit of the mech) perspective.

[Koniving]

FupDup, on 19 July 2014 - 06:27 PM, said:

No, it isn't a surprise. The arm's race to bigger and superior robots is a problem inherited from every previous MW game as well as Battletech itself, and PGI's original Role Warfare idea to address this never came through...

Agreed.

Personally, I think a huge problem with weights in general rests almost entirely with armor and frequently fired front loaded damage.

• A bit less firing frequency (shoot less often) on pinpoint damage weapons that are meant to be that way (Gauss Rifle, PPCs).
  
• Reducing/removing pinpoint damage on IS autocannons (perhaps putting Clan style burst fires on IS, but Clan mechs having their shot count to do x damage increased. More spacing between the individual shots that are part of the trigger pull as well).
  
• Reducing LRM counts back to 120 per ton.
  
• Reducing LRM / SRM firing frequency to encourage either chain firing or hit and run (for LRMs lob and move) tactics.
  
• Increasing heat back to canon values for all large class lasers and type 20 class autocannons (of all varieties) (Consider this: ER Large Laser 12 heat. IS 8 damage, Clan 10 damage. It's currently 8.5 heat, IS 9 damage and Clan 11.25 damage. Why the **** is a 'Nerfed Clan' weapon doing MOAR damage compared to the IS than the TT IS to Clan damage ratio. And why is it colder? Is it any wonder there's so damn many ER Large Lasers going around?)
  
• Apply a pinpoint-okay but mech movement-controlled reticule bounce drawn from the actual mech cockpit (not the first person model but the third person), requiring skill and timing to make good shots when moving at running speed. This means mechs will slow down for easier precision shots and a player with good timing could effectively use actual player skill as the equivalent of TT's "Gunnery" skill.
  
• Reduce heat threshold to no higher than 60 though preferably less Maintain threshold to be the same no matter how many heatsinks there are. (This makes single heatsinks viable. At 60, it'd take 1 minute to cool off from overheat to zero. At 30 it'd take 30 seconds. So 30 threshold is simply more preferred).

With changes made above, remove ghost heat.


Now take all engines. If mech starts at 129 kph, it should be faster than mechs that start at 97 (...which is currently NOT true in this game). Revamp accordingly.

Now take stock armor on all mechs and use this as a base to set new maxes. A Raven 3-L is developed as a scout and information warfare tool. However, a Raven 4X is by canon built as a brawling light that can outperform some mediums and heavies. ...Certainly can't be true if all mechs can slap on their current max armors, now is it? In fact because the Raven 4X starts with so much armor the mech's hardpoints are awful.

This leads to another interesting point: The meta mechs are those with great hardpoints that came at sacrifices which no longer apply in this game. The Cataphract 3D for example sacrificed armor. The Cataphract 4X had a huge sacrifice in speed.

Cataphract 4X's sacrifice is complained about on a daily basis. "It's so slow!" Thus it is not meta. What about the Cataphract 3D? Why isn't its sacrifice reflected? Why can its armor go so high? We know why it's meta. Speed + Armor + hardpoints + jumpjets. The armor factor alone would really deter it from being meta (as 65, 60, and some 55 ton mechs have more armor stock).

With a stock-based limit on armor and armor alone... this game would be immensely different.

Now imagine if replacing the skeleton of the mech cost more than 750,000 and took months or wasn't even an option. Imagine if Ferro really was the only weight saving choice you could realistically use. Imagine if the choice between a standard engine and an XL engine really was a choice. Imagine if you had to pay to replace the parts you lost.

Just imagine...how different the game would be. All it would take... Yes, all it would take... is just a little effort on PGI's part. Not convoluted mechanics. Not goofy crap. Just a little bit of effort. Real. Genuine. Effort. A few moments of intelligent thought.

On the armor thought... If a 20 ton mech that at stock has 4 tons of armor is 480 points less than a mech with 19 tons of armor can only put on 4.3 tons of armor, then why is a 35 ton mech whom at stock has 4 tons of armor and is 480 points less than a mech with 19 tons of armor...allowed to put on 7.3 tons? What makes that heavier light mech more entitled when they both had the same armor? It has that limited amount of armor to stash in more weapons and it has those. It also already has the benefit of more structure health; in fact it has almost double the structure health. Does it really need ghost armor too?

What makes that 35 ton mech more special than the 20 ton mech when they both started with the same amount of armor? If two mechs had the same armor, regardless of tonnage, and while one has great speed but limited weapons and the other has good speed but slightly better weapons and jumpjets, you'd still grab that mech with the jumpjets and more weapons. So why does it need ghost armor?


What makes a 65 ton heavy -- whose body is small and lanky because it starts with 6 tons of armor -- entitled to have the same 13.5 tons of armor that another 65 ton mech, whose body is huge and fat to reflect that additional armor? Why should the tiny, skinny mech be allowed to have the same armor as that huge, fat mech, when it started with less than half of it?

If stock armor was a deciding factor in max armor... The choice between Griffin and Kintaro wouldn't be "Same thing, ooo! Jumpjets! Take the Griffin."
The choice would be "Griffin for jumpjets or Kintaro for better armor. The lowest armored Kintaro is equal to the highest armored Griffin, and that Kintaro has slightly better hardpoints. But of course the Griffin can jump. What's more valuable to you?"

It's so simple.. So very simple...

Edited by Koniving, 24 July 2014 - 05:04 PM.

[Be Rough With Me Plz]

Almond Brown, on 24 July 2014 - 10:12 AM, said:

But is known that a good Light Pilot can generate as much or more XP and C-Bills than heavier chassis and yet you want to incentive the Lights solely why again? SO more players will play them?

Since we're talking about increasing the Light pilot population, yes. What are you trying to argue? Good Light pilots are already piloting Light Mechs because they're effective at it and having fun. The people who would possibly increase the Light pilot popuation probably aren't "Good" because they don't currently play them and see no reason to. They are the casual gamer who wants to get the most C-Bills for their Bang (read: Play a Chassis that is easy to use/survive/pewpew which increases C-Bill earnings as it stands in the current game environment).

Almond Brown, on 24 July 2014 - 10:12 AM, said:

As a none Medium player, would you play more Mediums if they were incentivized? If not, then you have dis-proved your own point about others moving to Lights for the same reason.

Seeing as how nobody is complaining about Medium Mechs being virtually non-existent the argument you want to raise is moot. Sorry. Constant double digit %'ages seems healthy. Stop trying to obfuscate the issue with irrelevant comparisons.

Almond Brown, on 24 July 2014 - 10:12 AM, said:

Only time alive would make the benefit more profitable. I thought the issue with Lights was their survivability, not their over-all profitability?

Nobody here is commenting on their survivability. Holy ****. We are discussing how to increase the population despite their survivability issues. Increasing a Light's survivability takes them out of the Light category and into another Weight class.

Almond Brown, on 24 July 2014 - 10:12 AM, said:

As noted elsewhere, don't take away my Strikes, but allow the Lights to carry double the amount perhaps?

If you don't want Artillery/Air Strike taken away from you, then why are you trying to defend Mister Blasterman and El Bandto's position of allowing only Light Mechs to equip them? Do you want to argue for argument's sake?

Almond Brown, on 24 July 2014 - 10:12 AM, said:

Surely no one would gripe about there begin more Strikes on the field as long as it was those poor Lights using them, as they need the help, rewards wire, right?

Another moot point. They can already carry 2. And as i pointed out 3-4 pages back in my first response to Mister Blasterman, we can't discuss making modules exclusive to Weight classes because we don't know with 100% certainty how the Modle system is going to be changed.

El Bandito already said forcing people to play a class is dumb. Making Artillery/Air Strike exclusive to Lights would do just that. It would force people who want to use Artillery/Air Strike to pilot a Light. I doubt someone in a Heavy/Assault would do that just for the sake of Artillery/Air Strike, but that's his argument. In the end, he admits, through his own words, that his argument of restricting Artillery/Air Strike is "dumb" yet he still argues it. Maybe that's why he, or Mister Blastman can't explain why they believe people would give up on Heavies/Assaults for Artillery/Air Strikes. Just that they believe it.

Are you just complaining because Lights may make more C-Bills than you in an altered valuation system? GTFO

Edited by Be Rough With Me Plz, 24 July 2014 - 11:57 AM.