I don't see how anyone can say with a straight face that it's ALL about the pilot. That completely ignores the reason for quirks being implemented, the wild disparity between various mech hit-boxes, number, type and location of hardpoints, etc. If it were just pilot fail then all mechs and variants would tend to be used equally over time. They are not.
The thing is that we do have data available to us due to simple observation. See any K's running around? I never do. I also just see far fewer Atlases now than I did before. Why is that? Because most Atlas pilots suck or maybe there are just better alternatives.
6
Something Needs To Be Done About Atlases
Started by Lefty Lucy, Dec 04 2014 11:02 AM
496 replies to this topic
#342
-
-
- Rage
- 3,740 posts
Member
- LocationMichigan
Posted 06 December 2014 - 07:06 AM
Krigg, on 04 December 2014 - 12:43 PM, said:
Atlas - bad mech. It dont have enough of ballistic + energy slots for 100t mech.
Now i take DWF because Atlas cant do like this:
Now i take DWF because Atlas cant do like this:
#343
-
-
- The Blood Bound
- 1,466 posts
Member
- LocationLegendary Founder, Masakari Collector, Man-O-War Collector, Wrath Collector, Gladiator Collector, Mauler Collector
Posted 06 December 2014 - 07:07 AM
@OP
If I could, I would trade my whole compliment of Dire wolves for my compliment of Atlases anyday...
I have never had an issue with the DWFs vs Atlas as the Atlas I drive always. Frnot load all the armor so at max your CT had maybe 12 rear and sides 8 rear and the best DWF will crumble if you have an ounce of talent.
I can go on and on about why I feel the Atlas is better but I do agree that if they move the one ballistic to a high point or arm, the thing would FEEL more in line with other assaults... but overall, the DWF is more of a slow noncontributor a lot of times...
If I could, I would trade my whole compliment of Dire wolves for my compliment of Atlases anyday...
I have never had an issue with the DWFs vs Atlas as the Atlas I drive always. Frnot load all the armor so at max your CT had maybe 12 rear and sides 8 rear and the best DWF will crumble if you have an ounce of talent.
I can go on and on about why I feel the Atlas is better but I do agree that if they move the one ballistic to a high point or arm, the thing would FEEL more in line with other assaults... but overall, the DWF is more of a slow noncontributor a lot of times...
#344
Posted 06 December 2014 - 07:17 AM
Hillbillycrow, on 06 December 2014 - 07:02 AM, said:
I don't see how anyone can say with a straight face that it's ALL about the pilot. That completely ignores the reason for quirks being implemented, the wild disparity between various mech hit-boxes, number, type and location of hardpoints, etc. If it were just pilot fail then all mechs and variants would tend to be used equally over time. They are not.
The thing is that we do have data available to us due to simple observation. See any K's running around? I never do. I also just see far fewer Atlases now than I did before. Why is that? Because most Atlas pilots suck or maybe there are just better alternatives.
The thing is that we do have data available to us due to simple observation. See any K's running around? I never do. I also just see far fewer Atlases now than I did before. Why is that? Because most Atlas pilots suck or maybe there are just better alternatives.
It ain't the Mech.
#345
-
-
- Rage
- 3,740 posts
Member
- LocationMichigan
Posted 06 December 2014 - 07:25 AM
Joseph Mallan, on 06 December 2014 - 07:17 AM, said:
Its about the Pilots synergy with the Mech. I don't care how many Quirks PGI gives me, I'm going to suck in a Light Mech. No matter how good that Light Mech is. I maxed out spiders so I could give the 5D a spin... I died horribly during the height of OP Lag Shield!
It ain't the Mech.
It ain't the Mech.
#347
-
-
- 269 posts
Member
Posted 06 December 2014 - 07:31 AM
Joseph Mallan, on 06 December 2014 - 07:17 AM, said:
Its about the Pilots synergy with the Mech. I don't care how many Quirks PGI gives me, I'm going to suck in a Light Mech. No matter how good that Light Mech is. I maxed out spiders so I could give the 5D a spin... I died horribly during the height of OP Lag Shield!
It ain't the Mech.
It ain't the Mech.
Again, missing the point.
Sure, different 'Mechs have different roles, and certain players will be better at some than others.
But for different options in the same role, clearly some are better and some are worse. For example, a laservomit HBR will beat the pants off a (non-5SS) laservomit TDR, despite equal tonnage and a similar profile. Why? It has better range, can squeeze in more HS, has ECM, for virtually no tradeoff.
The argument with AS7/DWF is a bit more complicated, but the argument is as follows: both the Atlas and the Direwolf have poor profiles for long-range combat (low slung guns), but the Direwolf has the tonnage and hardpoints to support boating obscene numbers of mid/long weapons (the Atlas does not). Thus the Direwolf is superior in the longer-range role. The Atlas has a better pure brawling situation (better ability to SRM, better speed, better but mediocre ability to defend with arms), but the argument is that the Direwolf counters this because the Atlas is still slow and must use traditional easily overwatched approaches (~64 kph, no JJ), which is likely to result in a decent Direwolf pilot doing substantial damage to the Atlas before it ever reaches brawling range - so much so that the Atlas arriving in such a state will almost certainly lose the brawl.
Edited by Peter2000, 06 December 2014 - 07:32 AM.
#348
-
-
- Ace Of Spades
- 1,025 posts
Member
- LocationConnecting....
Posted 06 December 2014 - 07:43 AM
I just had an idea about what can be done to give the atlas a small buff and greater build flexibility without upsetting lots of people, and no chance of making it OP.
One extra energy hard point in each arm, all variants. That gives the AS7-D, S, K and RS 6 total, the DDC 4 total, and the boars head 8. This would let it get a higher alpha, in exchange for running hotter.
Many mechs have more hardpoints than their stock loadouts use, including some atlases. It would also take mininal effort from the mech designers.
Is this a reasonable buff?
One extra energy hard point in each arm, all variants. That gives the AS7-D, S, K and RS 6 total, the DDC 4 total, and the boars head 8. This would let it get a higher alpha, in exchange for running hotter.
Many mechs have more hardpoints than their stock loadouts use, including some atlases. It would also take mininal effort from the mech designers.
Is this a reasonable buff?
#349
Posted 06 December 2014 - 07:51 AM
Peter2000, on 06 December 2014 - 07:31 AM, said:
Again, missing the point.
Sure, different 'Mechs have different roles, and certain players will be better at some than others.
But for different options in the same role, clearly some are better and some are worse. For example, a laservomit HBR will beat the pants off a (non-5SS) laservomit TDR, despite equal tonnage and a similar profile. Why? It has better range, can squeeze in more HS, has ECM, for virtually no tradeoff.
The argument with AS7/DWF is a bit more complicated, but the argument is as follows: both the Atlas and the Direwolf have poor profiles for long-range combat (low slung guns), but the Direwolf has the tonnage and hardpoints to support boating obscene numbers of mid/long weapons (the Atlas does not). Thus the Direwolf is superior in the longer-range role. The Atlas has a better pure brawling situation (better ability to SRM, better speed, better but mediocre ability to defend with arms), but the argument is that the Direwolf counters this because the Atlas is still slow and must use traditional easily overwatched approaches (~64 kph, no JJ), which is likely to result in a decent Direwolf pilot doing substantial damage to the Atlas before it ever reaches brawling range - so much so that the Atlas arriving in such a state will almost certainly lose the brawl.
I am sorry but I do not accept that the pilot must be ignored in any comparison. It is the man that makes the weapon not the weapon that makes the man.
#350
-
-
- 269 posts
Member
Posted 06 December 2014 - 07:57 AM
Joseph Mallan, on 06 December 2014 - 07:51 AM, said:
So bringing a Knife to a Gun fight. A situation that can be overcome if the terrain is not an open field. And The chioce to bring only Short range weapons is the Pilots doing.
I am sorry but I do not accept that the pilot must be ignored in any comparison. It is the man that makes the weapon not the weapon that makes the man.
I am sorry but I do not accept that the pilot must be ignored in any comparison. It is the man that makes the weapon not the weapon that makes the man.
Ultimately, the pilot is a key feature in any particular matchup (they are the guys driving it afterall). However, when discussing balance, it's nearly irrelevant, since the point is to be able to match up similarly skilled players, and not have the equipment determine the outcome. Simply relying on the better player to win is a fallacy when the difference between two players is not as large as the variation induced by equipment.
#351
-
-
- Philanthropist
- 4,480 posts
Member
- LocationSweden
Posted 06 December 2014 - 08:36 AM
The comparison is quite different in solo and group play.
In solo que there a distinct lack of consistent coordination, that means you cannot rely on your team to force a brawl if your mech is a brawler. This means you get more consistently high results in mid to long range mechs in the solo que, which favors the Dire Wolf. Of course a focused brawler is still better in those matches where you manage a coordinated push, but this will only happen once in a while. Of course the Atlas can do mid range builds as well, but this compromises optimization and also puts it clearly behind the Dire whose midrange builds are naturally optimal.
In the group que, assuming big groups, you have players planning their dropdecks to work together. You can set up firing lines supported by the lighter mechs, in which case nothing beats the Dire. But you can also build a brawling deck, in which case the Dire wolf is sometimes too slow to be the best choice. Then you might pick a couple std 350 atlases for the heavy lifting, but the problem is that the atlas might be too slow as well when compared to a Victor or Banshee.
For top tier comp play I really can't say, since I'm not that good, but for any drops with tonnage limits I suspect it is very hard to motivate the atlas over the dire wolf.
The D-DC is always going to be an asset, just like any ECM mech is, but I suspect that this advantage is a shrinking one as the hellbringer is already frequent and will not decrease in popularity when it comes out for cbills.
For CW the atlas isn't competing with the Dire wolf, it is competing ton for ton with every other IS mech to fit into various dropdecks. To motivate an atlas in CW it is going to have to be worth the extra tonnage over Stalkers, Banshees and Victors, or simply a deck that takes more heavies instead of any assaults at all. I really don't see that it is currently except for the occasional D-DC that will be included in some teams for tactical reasons, not for it's individual performance.
I think this is a balance problem that will have to be adress in the future, low tonnage for equal performance is going to be a major advantage once the tonnage is limited, that means heavier mechs have to bring more power to the field if they are to be worth taken. This is currently not consistently the case since the current balancing is aroung making all mechs close to equal in utility without tonnage considerations. I have no idea what the effect will be but it's certainly going to change things.
One thing though, from my own experience, is that while both are juicy targets of opportunity, is that left behind Atlases are more scary to catch alone in a light than a Dire Wolf. Catching a Dire alone from behind in a Firestarter is pretty much a guaranteed kill, while a good atlas pilot can have a chance to get you. Note that this situation almost never arises in the group que, so thats a solo que argument for the Atlas in some rare cases.
TL:DR; Yes, I think the Atlas will probably need a slight boost at some point to remain the battlefield boogieman it is supposed to be. I really want it to scare me as much as a Dire Wolf when i face one, and it does not.
Wen it comes to the engines: If I were to disregard canon and look at MWO as a new game, the most logical approach would be this:
Standard engines: Heavy, compact and can lose both STs.
Clan XL: Bigger, lighter and can lose 1 ST.
IS XL: Biggest, Lightest, and can lose no ST.
In other words I would make IS XLs save more tonnage than Clan XLs, enough to make them different but equal. And Stds could maybe get a damage reduction on CT or something to emphasize their role as brawler tools.
Unfortunately this approach would mess up some stock builds, so it aint gonna happen. But IMO it's the most logical from a game design perspective.
It is logically impossible to balance clan XLs vs IS SLs by throwing penalties at the ST loss. Because all that can ever do is decrease the advantage of ST survival, not remove it. So no matter what the penalty is you will still have a strict advantage with no real minuses. If you want to make the engines "different but equal" you have to buff or nerf some other thing that are independent of side torso loss, such as weight, heatsink capacity etc. Of course you can also balance the mechs without balancing the engines, with quirks and things like that, but it's more work and more complicated.
As far as customizability, engine swapping is often advanced as an argument for IS strength. This is partly a fallacy. In terms of game balance customization is only an advatage to the degree it allows more competitive builds, and there are only some clan mechs that would get higher peak performance from other engines. For the clan mechs where the engine is already a good size for competition, you can't really say the lack of engine swapping offsets the advantages of the engine.
I'd also say that the omnipods allow at least the same degree of customization as the IS. Taking any IS mech and any clan mech, I can probably in most cases build more different types of viable mechs with omnipods than with engine swapping. A single Stormcrow can be a laser boat, a LRM boat, SRM brawler, gauss+lasers, AC + SRMs and so on. All viable builds. No IS mech that i know of is that versatile, usually not even if you include the different variants. Now you can build maybe more different variants of the same role with IS mechs, like a Sparky may have more different laser boat builds that the stormcrow, but that is pretty minor IMO. However it adds up, I find it pretty hard to motivate a statement that IS is more customizable.
In solo que there a distinct lack of consistent coordination, that means you cannot rely on your team to force a brawl if your mech is a brawler. This means you get more consistently high results in mid to long range mechs in the solo que, which favors the Dire Wolf. Of course a focused brawler is still better in those matches where you manage a coordinated push, but this will only happen once in a while. Of course the Atlas can do mid range builds as well, but this compromises optimization and also puts it clearly behind the Dire whose midrange builds are naturally optimal.
In the group que, assuming big groups, you have players planning their dropdecks to work together. You can set up firing lines supported by the lighter mechs, in which case nothing beats the Dire. But you can also build a brawling deck, in which case the Dire wolf is sometimes too slow to be the best choice. Then you might pick a couple std 350 atlases for the heavy lifting, but the problem is that the atlas might be too slow as well when compared to a Victor or Banshee.
For top tier comp play I really can't say, since I'm not that good, but for any drops with tonnage limits I suspect it is very hard to motivate the atlas over the dire wolf.
The D-DC is always going to be an asset, just like any ECM mech is, but I suspect that this advantage is a shrinking one as the hellbringer is already frequent and will not decrease in popularity when it comes out for cbills.
For CW the atlas isn't competing with the Dire wolf, it is competing ton for ton with every other IS mech to fit into various dropdecks. To motivate an atlas in CW it is going to have to be worth the extra tonnage over Stalkers, Banshees and Victors, or simply a deck that takes more heavies instead of any assaults at all. I really don't see that it is currently except for the occasional D-DC that will be included in some teams for tactical reasons, not for it's individual performance.
I think this is a balance problem that will have to be adress in the future, low tonnage for equal performance is going to be a major advantage once the tonnage is limited, that means heavier mechs have to bring more power to the field if they are to be worth taken. This is currently not consistently the case since the current balancing is aroung making all mechs close to equal in utility without tonnage considerations. I have no idea what the effect will be but it's certainly going to change things.
One thing though, from my own experience, is that while both are juicy targets of opportunity, is that left behind Atlases are more scary to catch alone in a light than a Dire Wolf. Catching a Dire alone from behind in a Firestarter is pretty much a guaranteed kill, while a good atlas pilot can have a chance to get you. Note that this situation almost never arises in the group que, so thats a solo que argument for the Atlas in some rare cases.
TL:DR; Yes, I think the Atlas will probably need a slight boost at some point to remain the battlefield boogieman it is supposed to be. I really want it to scare me as much as a Dire Wolf when i face one, and it does not.
Wen it comes to the engines: If I were to disregard canon and look at MWO as a new game, the most logical approach would be this:
Standard engines: Heavy, compact and can lose both STs.
Clan XL: Bigger, lighter and can lose 1 ST.
IS XL: Biggest, Lightest, and can lose no ST.
In other words I would make IS XLs save more tonnage than Clan XLs, enough to make them different but equal. And Stds could maybe get a damage reduction on CT or something to emphasize their role as brawler tools.
Unfortunately this approach would mess up some stock builds, so it aint gonna happen. But IMO it's the most logical from a game design perspective.
It is logically impossible to balance clan XLs vs IS SLs by throwing penalties at the ST loss. Because all that can ever do is decrease the advantage of ST survival, not remove it. So no matter what the penalty is you will still have a strict advantage with no real minuses. If you want to make the engines "different but equal" you have to buff or nerf some other thing that are independent of side torso loss, such as weight, heatsink capacity etc. Of course you can also balance the mechs without balancing the engines, with quirks and things like that, but it's more work and more complicated.
As far as customizability, engine swapping is often advanced as an argument for IS strength. This is partly a fallacy. In terms of game balance customization is only an advatage to the degree it allows more competitive builds, and there are only some clan mechs that would get higher peak performance from other engines. For the clan mechs where the engine is already a good size for competition, you can't really say the lack of engine swapping offsets the advantages of the engine.
I'd also say that the omnipods allow at least the same degree of customization as the IS. Taking any IS mech and any clan mech, I can probably in most cases build more different types of viable mechs with omnipods than with engine swapping. A single Stormcrow can be a laser boat, a LRM boat, SRM brawler, gauss+lasers, AC + SRMs and so on. All viable builds. No IS mech that i know of is that versatile, usually not even if you include the different variants. Now you can build maybe more different variants of the same role with IS mechs, like a Sparky may have more different laser boat builds that the stormcrow, but that is pretty minor IMO. However it adds up, I find it pretty hard to motivate a statement that IS is more customizable.
#352
-
-
- Ace Of Spades
- 447 posts
Member
Posted 06 December 2014 - 09:09 AM
Cygone, on 04 December 2014 - 12:03 PM, said:
They need LT and RT ARMOR! Buff (Not structure), +20 should do it.
That is true... the structure bonus is usually pointless because once the armor is gone, that AC20 gets critted like crazy and that whole right torso is useless anyway.
#353
Posted 06 December 2014 - 09:55 AM
Peter2000, on 06 December 2014 - 07:57 AM, said:
Ultimately, the pilot is a key feature in any particular matchup (they are the guys driving it afterall). However, when discussing balance, it's nearly irrelevant, since the point is to be able to match up similarly skilled players, and not have the equipment determine the outcome. Simply relying on the better player to win is a fallacy when the difference between two players is not as large as the variation induced by equipment.
How often do you end up against a similarly skilled Opponent in this game? Do you really know? I don't beat Mechs I beat players. And Players beat me. In most cases a Jenner is more than a Match for me in an Atlas. So should Atlases be buffed cause I can't kill Jenners?
I kill Dires on a good enough basis to be happy with my Atlas as it is. I don't want it any tougher cause it's just right for my use. We need to stop trying to make everything "even".
#354
-
-
- Knight Errant
- 595 posts
Member
Posted 06 December 2014 - 10:15 AM
Sjorpha, on 06 December 2014 - 08:36 AM, said:
For CW the atlas isn't competing with the Dire wolf, it is competing ton for ton with every other IS mech to fit into various dropdecks. To motivate an atlas in CW it is going to have to be worth the extra tonnage over Stalkers, Banshees and Victors, or simply a deck that takes more heavies instead of any assaults at all. I really don't see that it is currently except for the occasional D-DC that will be included in some teams for tactical reasons, not for it's individual performance.
Good point. Imagine a couple of weeks ahead with CW and Drop deck limit, when your team is in the fields and assembling for the rush and everybody is like: "Darn, all I had space for is this 65to. Jager. Where are the Assaults when you need one. Remeber the good ol times pre-CW when literally everybody was having a D-DC?"
Thus we dont need Quirks for the Atlas. Time will take care of that.
Edited by Sthtopokeon, 06 December 2014 - 10:16 AM.
#356
-
-
- Knight Errant
- 595 posts
Member
Posted 06 December 2014 - 10:22 AM
Joseph Mallan, on 06 December 2014 - 10:18 AM, said:
Oh My Atlas will be in the mix of my Drop Deck don't worry. 
so will mine. its just that the fourth mech will be a bicycle :-)
#357
Posted 06 December 2014 - 10:23 AM
Sthtopokeon, on 06 December 2014 - 10:22 AM, said:
so will mine. its just that the fourth mech will be a bicycle :-)
Mine will be a Jenner... so It'll be a useful as a Bike ;-)
#358
-
-
- Liquid Metal
- 2,234 posts
Member
Posted 06 December 2014 - 11:26 AM
Joseph Mallan, on 04 December 2014 - 11:14 AM, said:
And would fill the slot a Devastator is meant to fill! 
#360
-
-
- Liquid Metal
- 2,234 posts
Member
Posted 06 December 2014 - 11:53 AM
Joseph Mallan, on 06 December 2014 - 11:36 AM, said:
A Devastator... not THE Devastator! 
We definitely need that though. Imagine him made up of an Atlas with lights and mediums for the limbs. That would solve the Atlas problems! Simply strap other mechs onto it.
Also we need this.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
