113 replies to this topic

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Turn off Mech Tree Efficiencies for all mechs.

Have Engines change max speed only, than quirk the difference in base agility as needed per chassis and variant

Than when the devs have time, build up and expand the module system that converts some quirks over to modules and a few quirks rolled into base mech stats as needed so that there aren't so many displayed quirks. Add a new module category or two and maybe expand hybrid slots.

This way modules can than be fitted so that the player can create roles for their mechs and adjust them to their play-styles as they choose.

[SpectreHD]

Maybe heavies and assaults can go slower when a light mech takes considerably more damage when running into a heavier mech and even fall over for doing so. Even better if they light mech doesn't just go through a heavier mech especially when the heavier mech was able to get into a light's path to block it.

But we all can't have everything.

[Lostdragon]

The unintended consequences of this would be quite bad I'm afraid. It is already pretty trivial to kill assaults because so many mechs can put out ridiculous amounts of damage. If you nerf the ability of the fatties to twist then you will significantly reduce the already low TTK on them against not just lights but every other mech. You also have to consider that reducing their twist will also make it much harder for fatties to line up shots against faster mechs, making them even more vulnerable.

I think if you want to talk about reducing twist on fatties you also have to talk about reducing damage output from some smaller mechs or you are just going to wind up with OP lights.

[Duke Nedo]

Lostdragon, on 06 May 2015 - 05:20 AM, said:

The unintended consequences of this would be quite bad I'm afraid. It is already pretty trivial to kill assaults because so many mechs can put out ridiculous amounts of damage. If you nerf the ability of the fatties to twist then you will significantly reduce the already low TTK on them against not just lights but every other mech. You also have to consider that reducing their twist will also make it much harder for fatties to line up shots against faster mechs, making them even more vulnerable.

I think if you want to talk about reducing twist on fatties you also have to talk about reducing damage output from some smaller mechs or you are just going to wind up with OP lights.

I think the aim of the OP is the tone down the extremely agile heavy/assault with extremely large engines. You can do that without touching the mainstream builds by making agility treats scale according to a sigmoidal- or 1-exp curve instead of just linearly boost agility as engine size goes up. That would make a traditional dakka-Banshee exactly as it is now, while a Wubshee would only get say 50-75% of agility boost instead of 100% like it gets now because it scales linearly.

Numbers could be changed to whatever people want, and could be modified by modules/quirks.

[XtremWarrior]

Alistair Winter, on 05 May 2015 - 08:40 PM, said:

I think the agility of heavies and assaults is one of the biggest problems in regards to gameplay balance right now.

I feel exactly the same.

In Lore (and i'm not especially a Lore Guy), the mechs you's see the most are Mediums. This is why they're called Medium. Meaning, for the ones not getting it, that seing one is considered an average (medium) encounter on the battlefield.
If, like in MWO, Heavies were the most used Mechs, they would then be called Mediums, because they'd be the average encounter... (Meds would become Lights, Lights something like Scouts and Assaults would be Heavies, with the rare +100T Mechs becoming Assaults).

Why are Heavies predominant?
Because they're agile, can be fast and pack enough firepower to have an effect the player can immediately and easily notice during a fire exchange. They're in the best spot in MWO right now.
Why would we want Mediums to be the most played Mechs?
Because it would increase the TTK, as they have less weapons and tonnage and they also cannot boat as effectively as Heavies or Assaults - thus reducing the snowball effect of boat: quirks boost + modules boost + all weapons can be fire at the exact same time on the exact same spot = devastating Alpha Strikes.

How do we make Meds more sexy, by hindering a bit the agility and speed of Heavies and Assaults, forcing player to either being able to easily bring his average support where it's needed or carrying enough firepower to stand in its spot with the risk of being out-maneuvered by lighter opponents.

Today, there's nothing a Med can do that a Heavy can't (apart from moving above 95 kph). So a SOFT decrease in agility and speed (like a flat -5% to all heavies and assaults) might be a good way to promote a lighter gameplay.
Of course, it's only my own humble opinion.

Edited by XtremWarrior, 06 May 2015 - 11:07 AM.

[Ursh]

Duke Nedo, on 06 May 2015 - 05:32 AM, said:

I think the aim of the OP is the tone down the extremely agile heavy/assault with extremely large engines. You can do that without touching the mainstream builds by making agility treats scale according to a sigmoidal- or 1-exp curve instead of just linearly boost agility as engine size goes up. That would make a traditional dakka-Banshee exactly as it is now, while a Wubshee would only get say 50-75% of agility boost instead of 100% like it gets now because it scales linearly.

Numbers could be changed to whatever people want, and could be modified by modules/quirks.

You mean like the Banshee? Trying to get behind one of those is quite difficult in my Huggin once I've fired the first volley and he responds. They twist so freaking fast it's ridiculous.

[Almond Brown]

So if the direct benefits of taking those Larger, Heavier Engines goes down, does the weight of said Engine also get reduced, becasue otherwise, WTF! Just take smaller Engines, go slow and carry a bigger STICK. Yahhhh!

Then hope like hell your nimble little Light Mech Teams mates hang around you and keep you alive long enough to wield said BIG STICK instead of running off like they so love to do now. Yahhhh!

Edited by Almond Brown, 06 May 2015 - 06:51 AM.

[DjPush]

Sounds like a light pilot got his ass handed to him and doesn't like it. What? Your Firestarter needs to be moar uber? Get bent. When I pilot a light, I have no issues with charging an enemy position. Why? Because I know PGI has given light mechs the power to take on assaults. It feels wrong. However, 6 medium pulse on a 35 ton 100+ kph jump jet god, is hard to resist. All the torso twisting in the world isn't going to save the leg you stripped 30 points of armor from to fit more ammo. Which you probably have in the legs. Sounds like the OP is aiming for the wrong componants.

[occusoj]

Keep your fingers off Assault mechs so called "agility".

Theres no need for nerfing, its already easy to wreck them in a fast light. Or focus them down with heavies/meds. Some IS builds like the Wub-BNC run big XL engines which not only makes them faster but also much more fragile. Theres an assault that cant be safely facehugged and solo-killed by a huginn or FS9, NURF IT NURF IT NURF IT. So sad.

Duke Nedo, on 06 May 2015 - 05:32 AM, said:

That would make a traditional dakka-Banshee exactly as it is now, while a Wubshee would only get say 50-75% of agility boost instead of 100% like it gets now because it scales linearly.

Why does that build need to be toned down? Is CW infested by it? Solo queue owned by the XL BNCs?

That BNC build needs the speed to survive, it generates huge levels of heat and its fragile. Take away its ability to quicklydisengage and twisting to make use of its shield arms and it becomes totally useless. Its already a somewhat rare build, dont totally remove it from the battlefield by victorizing it.

[Duke Nedo]

occusoj, on 06 May 2015 - 07:36 AM, said:

Why does that build need to be toned down? Is CW infested by it? Solo queue owned by the XL BNCs?

That BNC build needs the speed to survive, it generates huge levels of heat and its fragile. Take away its ability to quicklydisengage and twisting to make use of its shield arms and it becomes totally useless. Its already a somewhat rare build, dont totally remove it from the battlefield by victorizing it.

I think reducing big engine heavy/assault agility a bit is a good idea, not because of balance but because of how it feels to pilot one. I enjoy all classes, for me it's all about the feeling.

[stjobe]

'Mechs are too damn fast and agile; all of them, from light to assault. That's one of the problems the Pilot Skills bring.

The other problem is that yes, a light should have an even chance of taking out an assault - it's the rock-paper-scissors model of weight class balancing: Lights beat Assaults beat Heavies beat Mediums beat Lights.

That gets way out of whack by the Pilot Skills and the fact that engine rating increases agility.

I did the math here; A DWF can fire at a target directly behind it in 2.3 seconds, a 350-engined Atlas in 1.4 seconds, and a 195XL Commando in 0.7 seconds.

Artgathan had an excellent thread on this here, with some more math in this post; the result is that the slowest 'mech in the game can track the fastest target in the game at ranges over 50 meters just by turning. No torso twist or arm yaw needed; if the target is more than 50 meters distant, you can track it.

That's why you hear light pilots complain about heavies and assaults being too agile; their only advantage - speed and agility - is effectively nullified by the in-game mechanics of the Pilot Skill tree and Engine-Rating-affects-agility.

It's also why you hear heavy/assault pilots complain about "leg-humping lights" - many times the safest place to be is within 50 meters of your target, because then you're able to actually use your superior speed and agility to make sure they can't hit you.

So yes, speed and agility needs to be cut, across the board. Slow the game down, and don't let game mechanics nullify the only advantage lights have.

Edited by stjobe, 06 May 2015 - 08:29 AM.

[ICEFANG13]

stjobe, on 06 May 2015 - 08:28 AM, said:

'Mechs are too damn fast and agile; all of them, from light to assault. That's one of the problems the Pilot Skills bring.

The other problem is that yes, a light should have an even chance of taking out an assault - it's the rock-paper-scissors model of weight class balancing: Lights beat Assaults beat Heavies beat Mediums beat Lights.

That gets way out of whack by the Pilot Skills and the fact that engine rating increases agility.

I did the math here; A DWF can fire at a target directly behind it in 2.3 seconds, a 350-engined Atlas in 1.4 seconds, and a 195XL Commando in 0.7 seconds.

Artgathan had an excellent thread on this here, with some more math in this post; the result is that the slowest 'mech in the game can track the fastest target in the game at ranges over 50 meters just by turning. No torso twist or arm yaw needed; if the target is more than 50 meters distant, you can track it.

That's why you hear light pilots complain about heavies and assaults being too agile; their only advantage - speed and agility - is effectively nullified by the in-game mechanics of the Pilot Skill tree and Engine-Rating-affects-agility.

It's also why you hear heavy/assault pilots complain about "leg-humping lights" - many times the safest place to be is within 50 meters of your target, because then you're able to actually use your superior speed and agility to make sure they can't hit you.

So yes, speed and agility needs to be cut, across the board. Slow the game down, and don't let game mechanics nullify the only advantage lights have.

They also would probably need to lower overall firepower (make a working heat system?) otherwise slowing down the game would overall, decrease TTK, and that's already low enough as it is.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

ICEFANG13, on 06 May 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:

They also would probably need to lower overall firepower (make a working heat system?) otherwise slowing down the game would overall, decrease TTK, and that's already low enough as it is.

It's a possibility that TTK is affected, but adjusting agility still needs to happen.

So, I'd like to test out a fixed 30 heat scale, with boosted dissipation (0.2 per SHS and 0.4 per DHS) since many other values are basically doubled. It basically makes Heat Capacity, Dissipation over time and should maintain or improve heat endurance while lowering some of the troublesome alphas.

So those values with restoring heat and damage values on weapons, along with tweaks to cooldowns and beam durations, should help reduce our volume of damage output and not interfere with most builds, where we'd just need to find a new rhythm in firing our weapons, and where it could be more likely for more mechs to carry mixed loadouts for more situations.

The one wild card is dealing with Gauss combos at that point, where it might be possible for the devs to activate the code they had already worked on to help keep troublesome combos in line.

[stjobe]

ICEFANG13, on 06 May 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:

(make a working heat system?)

TT-style scaling heat penalties would be a good start.

It's ******* silly that a game that proudly boasts to be "a BattleTech game" ignores any and all heat effects until heat is 100%, when BattleTech heat penalties started at 5 on the 30-point heat scale - translated to MWO that's somewhere around 35-55% heat, taking the heat sinks' dissipation into account.

And all the mechanics they need are already in-game:
* MP penalty: Legged 'mechs get slower right? And slower still when hit again.
* To-hit penalty: The dreaded reticule shake. Making the HUD flicker is probably not a very hard job either.
* Shutdown risk: Yep, complete with override mechanic.
* Ammo explosions: Yep. Currently a 10% chance when an ammo bin is destroyed by a crit (read: minuscule chance).

[Darian DelFord]

DjPush, on 06 May 2015 - 07:14 AM, said:

Sounds like a light pilot got his ass handed to him and doesn't like it. What? Your Firestarter needs to be moar uber? Get bent. When I pilot a light, I have no issues with charging an enemy position. Why? Because I know PGI has given light mechs the power to take on assaults. It feels wrong. However, 6 medium pulse on a 35 ton 100+ kph jump jet god, is hard to resist. All the torso twisting in the world isn't going to save the leg you stripped 30 points of armor from to fit more ammo. Which you probably have in the legs. Sounds like the OP is aiming for the wrong componants.

I get my ass handed to me and I had mechs ass to them as well. it goes both ways, however the ability for the heavier chassis to twist as quickly as they do is a problem and has been for a long time now. If you "charge" and enemy position then you must have some uber shielding or something. If I charge a Heavy or an assault I am toast. hence the need for lights to get to the BACK of an assault and stay there. Currently that is extremely difficult with the agility they have.

Yes I agree certain lights DUE TO QUIRKS have issues.

And by the way I do not pilot FS's I am a Jenner man.

[FupDup]

At the very least, agility based on engine size is derptarded beyond belief. It undermines the tradeoff between selecting a larger mech versus a smaller mech, by letting you at least partially bypass the mobility drawback that you're "supposed" to have. Adders and Kit Foxes having the same agility as Stormcrows is simply disgusting.

Agility should be factored primarily based on a mech's weight, not its engine size. Some mechs could get quirks to further distinguish their role with agility (i.e. brawlers), but the default/base agility should absolutely ignore engine size.

A quirkless 35 ton mech should always have more agility than a quirkless 55 ton mech, and even with quirks the 55 tonner shouldn't get too close because of the other sheer advantages involved.

[C E Dwyer]

This is one of those, I can't use my light properly so I want big mechs to be so un weildy, once i'm behind them i've won threads

[Darian DelFord]

Cathy, on 06 May 2015 - 12:19 PM, said:

This is one of those, I can't use my light properly so I want big mechs to be so un weildy, once i'm behind them i've won threads

Nope this is one of those threads that points out a problem and is attempting to gather other people's input on the matter, unlike you who wish their Steiner Scout Lance to be impervious.

[Khobai]

Quote

Agility should be factored primarily based on a mech's weight, not its engine size.

It should be based on both. Agility should be determined by engine size divided by weight. Just like speed is.

For example:
(Engine Rating / Weight) * 12 = degrees per second mech can turn


But also lights and mediums should get an extra bonus to agility/speed from the skill trees.

heavies and assaults shouldnt get speed tweak or anchor turn, instead they should get shake reduction and damage reduction.

Ideally each weight class should have their own unique skill tree. Although I would settle for just having a different skill tree for lights/mediums and heavies/assaults.

Edited by Khobai, 06 May 2015 - 01:10 PM.

[Bilbo]

Khobai, on 06 May 2015 - 12:59 PM, said:

best fix is through the skill trees

heavies and assaults shouldnt get speed tweak or anchor turn.

instead they should get shake reduction and damage reduction.


That helps differentiate the weight classes and makes it so a light/medium will have more agility than a heavy/assault with the same engine size.

Wouldn't mind that, but if you make my Atlas any slower and less maneuverable without some compensation, as the OPs suggestion does, I'll be a bit upset.