23 replies to this topic

[Sereglach]

I agree with the premise that the "Superquirked" mechs just shouldn't exist. I also agree with the prospect of giving a wider variety of quirks on mechs. There's also another thing to do that might tick some people off, but is something PGI strongly needs to consider doing: revisit hardpoints and engine caps.

Engine Caps

They did it a long time ago with mechs like the Raven, Hunchback, and Centurion. Remember when they got those sorely needed engine cap increases because every other mech around them was starting to go faster and faster? One thing that would help balance would be to reign in a lot of the mechs that have engine limits far too high for anything the mech had in lore.

While Clans don't need this to be considered . . . yet. It will come into play when we start getting Clan Battlemechs (more than likely starting with a IIC package somewhere down the line).

Anyway, here are some thoughts and concepts to consider. I outline "Lights" and "Mediums & Heavies". I don't touch Assaults because they have little concern with the engine cap department:
Lights

Spoiler

Lights should be fast, but not every light needs to be running around at 150-170kph. The Panther and Urbanmech have proven this practice for the IS, and the Clan Lights have been managing to do quite reasonably well with their own, smaller, fixed engines. Besides, if some of these were reigned in then Clan Lights wouldn't feel so horrifically out of place, which would help drastically in the meta-balancing of the light mech class.

Stick to something like a 50% speed limit over whatever the top speed is, stock, for lights. Many of the lights that are around 97kph stock (like my beloved Firestarter) could stop at 140-145. On the other hand, mechs going 100+ could push the speed cap. Jenners could push 160 . . . you want something to bring them back against the mighty Firestarter, there you have it! At the same time Locusts would just flat out hit whatever speed cap is available.

Funny enough, this kind of philosophy would probably allow a Flea to be put into the game, as they only went 97 stock. Therefore, you give them a 170 max engine (a little stretch, putting them at 151 tweaked) and the MASC (as we're seeing on the Executioner currently) would probably push the speed to about 180 . . . a little over the current speed cap, but it'd be extremely limited in its use.

Mediums and Heavies

Spoiler

Some Mediums need to be drastically reigned in (they're probably the worst offender here). Why are the Kintaro, Wolverine, and Griffin given obscene engine caps that let them run down most things lighter than them? Now, we've got MASC . . . so, you want some fast Wolverines? Put in the MASC variants and call it a day.

Same goes for some of the Heavies. Why are Quickdraws also allowed to breach 100kph? They were never meant to. There are very few heavies that ever get close to the 100kph department (without MASC, TSM, or a Supercharger). We shouldn't be giving arbitrary speed boosts to mechs never meant to have it.

That doesn't mean we give them no customizability, but we need to lower those engine caps. If these mechs were toned back down to have engine caps that kept them below 100, then we wouldn't need every light mech wanting to hit 150-170. It provides a cascading effect that helps balance the game overall.

Of course, there are always exceptions:

Granted, the Cicada is basically an oversized light, and should retain that feel. The Shadow Hawk focused on agility to command scout lances, so it's another one that can get by with a high engine cap (but not as high as it is). In the Heavy department the Dragon was made to carry large engines so it could dictate engagement ranges, which is a reason for that chassis to keep the high engine cap. There are also a few acceptable variants scattered across chassis where they, in lore, used larger engines to gain speed (CN9-D & TBT-3C are examples).

Hardpoints

This is a little trickier. Some people would be upset with it while some people would probably be overjoyed about it. I personally think we should go back to a lot of the underperformers, look at what we want them to do, what kinds of quirks you want to give them, and reevaluate their hardpoints. This might help bring some of the "Superquirked" mechs in line, by giving them some better or more fitting hardpoints to fulfill their role.

Here is one example of how Hardpoints could be utilized to fix "Superquirked" scenarios. We look at the notoriously superquirked Locust LCT-1V and LCT-3V:

Spoiler

LCT-1V
What we have here is currently a mech that never carried heavy energy weapons, and currently have it "Superquirked" to be an ERLL buzzsaw . . . merely because that's what some people were doing with it to make it "viable" and a "meta tryhard".

Instead lets have this mech focus on its ballistics, like it did in lore. Give it six ballistic hardpoints, 3B in each arm; and retain the 1E in the center torso. Now, we have a mech that can actually pump out some serious DPS with its machine guns (6x.8=4.8 DPS) with zero heat. Then, remove the LL quirks, give it a 25% ROF quirk for the machine guns, put 25% buff on ballistic range, and when available put 25% more machine gun ammo per ton. Leave energy alone, no quirks. This puts it into a very unique place, as an actual ballistic ambushing/striking light mech.

LCT-3V
Now we have another superquirked Locust, with minimal hardpoints and more obscene energy quirks. Of course, we don't want to just mimic the 1V and make it a ballistic boat, but if we give it a minor ballistic boost, and hybridize the mech, we can make it quite effective.

The 3V would be differentiated with 4B, split between the arms, and 2E, in the CT. Now, leave the 25% buff for ballistic range, and apply an equal generic quirk to energy cooldown and heat. This puts it as a somewhat hybrid among the variants. However, there's nothing super-quirked that puts any weapon's stats above and beyond similar competitors. The generic aspect of the quirks also promotes build diversity.

Of course, there are things that can be done, quirk-wise, to help fix the other locusts and put them into better places (and promote more build diversification), but this covers the "Superquirked" variants and how a hardpoint revisit could actually significantly help them.

I could spend time going over every superquirked mech out there, but I merely wanted to use the Locust as an example of a premise. I'm hoping there'll be plenty of constructive conversation in this thread about how these two facets could be revisited to help balance in the game. Maybe people will wish to give more examples, below.

[Juodas Varnas]

Quote

Same goes for some of the Heavies. Why are Quickdraws also allowed to breach 100kph? They were never meant to.

Wait, wait, wait.
You're not advocating NERFING the Quickdraw?
WHAT?


I mean, seriously? It goes 86.4 kph STOCK, that's faster than a lot of Medium 'mechs of the time! Having it reach 100 kph isn't much of a stretch, because it was based around to be fast, agile, if somewhat undergunned 60 tonner.

Edited by Juodas Varnas, 13 June 2015 - 10:44 PM.

[Sereglach]

Juodas Varnas, on 13 June 2015 - 10:41 PM, said:

Wait, wait, wait.
You're not advocating NERFING the Quickdraw?
WHAT?

I mean, seriously? It goes 86.4 kph STOCK, that's faster than a lot of Medium 'mechs of the time! Having it reach 100 kph isn't much of a stretch, because it was based around to be fast, agile, if somewhat undergunned 60 tonner.

Well, I personally think the Quickdraw needs to be resized terribly, too. If that happened I don't think people would be so upset about slowing it down a little bit. Yes, I think the Quickdraw could be slowed down a bit. It doesn't need a lot, but a tiny bit wouldn't hurt it. Although I will admit that I bungled a bit in lore, and forgot that the Quickdraw was a competitor to the Dragon for the agility department.

However, neither the Dragon nor the Quickdraw ever look at upgrading their speed over time, and look exclusively at firepower and utilitarian upgrades with future variants (Look at the Dragon 7N that carries a Gauss Rifle, AC/5, and MRM/10). Just something for consideration.

So, does that HAVE to happen for the Quickdraw (if it isn't resized)? No, but I'm using it as an example of a persistent problem we're having.

That problem we're running into is that everything needs to go faster. Faster, faster, faster. What has that accomplished?

We've got clan lights that feel terribly out of place and incapable of competing because of fixed engines. Also, we've got IS lights, that can't field the speed cap, being considered DOA for anything competitive.

Outside of those, everything else has nearly the same speed, so a Jenner and Firestarter are equal in speed; and thusly the Firestarter wins out because of weapons capabilities.

We've got mediums, and some heavies, effortlessly running down light mechs (and not just clan lights, but IS lights as well) because they can run straight at a target they're pursuing, while the light needs to serpentine to avoid fire (or get cored right out the back), which bleeds out a lot of speed. When those mediums are running at almost 120kph (mostly 55 tonners, at that) it starts to nullify the point of light mechs.

I'd say a lot of this is solid reason why lights are virtually nonexistent in the queues (in general), only certain mediums are considered viable, and most people want their heavies. I think people are going to be looking for ways to dump lights completely out of their drop deck since the light rush has been mitigated for CW.

Pretty much all of this can almost effortlessly be fixed by revisiting engine caps. Sure, some builds will inevitably be rendered invalid, but frankly, it needs to happen. More dynamic and varied speeds would go a long way for helping the game.

[Juodas Varnas]

Too late.
Now you shall be forever known as THE GUY WHO WANTED TO NERF QUICKDRAW.


But I do agree with the engine caps being set per mech basis.
With different mechs having different engine caps, it would lead to some extra differentiation between mechs.
(Back in Closed Beta, i used to think we shouldn't be able to switch engines at all, but I've since changed my mind, that is, i got The Urbanmech, sooo changing engines is good!)

When it comes to hardpoints, i think they're fine. The problem comes with mechs that have a lot of weapons by default (for example The Firestarter vs Jenner), but again, if PGI were smart, they would've quirked the Jenner to compensate for lower amount of hardpoints (instead they quirked the Firestarter, which already has more hardpoints, better hitboxes and more jump jets, don't ask me why, PGI work in mysterious ways.)

Edited by Juodas Varnas, 14 June 2015 - 10:02 AM.

[Pezzer]

Your hardpoint alteration examples were pretty awful, but I agree that power creep is happening in the game. Increasing/changing hardpoints on select Mechs could help keep it under control. As for engine caps? Nah. The caps are fine as they are, I could ofc always use a few more kph in my Stalker or Cataphract, maybe some more horsepower behind my Atlas, but those Mechs are supposed to be high damage dealers. They are supposed to be supported by their teammates as they move up to the front lines, then out-damage the speedier clanners with high alphas or powerful ballistics.

In other words, those lower engine caps are there to BENEFIT the user. If you want a speedier 75 tonner, pick a different chassis. If you want to be slower but deal more damage, pick that low-engine-cap Mech. I do nonethless believe that you are correct, some of the older mechs need a few more hardpoints. The LCT-1V is fine how it is, however. If they ever add IS ER lasers or something similar, the ERML could replace the ERLL quirk, giving the Locust room to use MGs. I currently use 1MG 1ERLL on mine, wish we could have 2MG, but weight constraint are a problem on any Light sniper.

Edited by Pezzer, 14 June 2015 - 10:33 AM.

[CyclonerM]

Overall i like your engine caps suggestions.

[Sereglach]

Pezzer, on 14 June 2015 - 10:30 AM, said:

Your hardpoint alteration examples were pretty awful, but I agree that power creep is happening in the game. Increasing/changing hardpoints on select Mechs could help keep it under control. As for engine caps? Nah. The caps are fine as they are, I could ofc always use a few more kph in my Stalker or Cataphract, maybe some more horsepower behind my Atlas, but those Mechs are supposed to be high damage dealers. They are supposed to be supported by their teammates as they move up to the front lines, then out-damage the speedier clanners with high alphas or powerful ballistics.

In other words, those lower engine caps are there to BENEFIT the user. If you want a speedier 75 tonner, pick a different chassis. If you want to be slower but deal more damage, pick that low-engine-cap Mech. I do nonethless believe that you are correct, some of the older mechs need a few more hardpoints. The LCT-1V is fine how it is, however. If they ever add IS ER lasers or something similar, the ERML could replace the ERLL quirk, giving the Locust room to use MGs. I currently use 1MG 1ERLL on mine, wish we could have 2MG, but weight constraint are a problem on any Light sniper.

But there's a huge problem with your thought pattern right now. Look at the engine limits in tonnage brackets, especially in mediums. Griffins, Shadowhawks, Kintaros, and Wolverines all have the same engine caps (with the exception of the Wolverine 6K, which has an even higher engine cap). They are also the fastest mediums through the entire weight class, with the only exceptions being the Cicada (again, the oversized light) and 3 outlying variants (TBT-3C, CN9-D, and BJ-1X . . . all of which actually were meant to go faster in lore). Now, on top of it, they're also all the heaviest medium bracket tonnage. So . . . where's the variety there?

Atlas and King Crab? Same bracket, same engine limits (only exception is the Boar's Head). Most assaults . . . similar patterns. The newer Victor (relatively speaking) and Zeus have almost the exact same speed limitations, while the older Awesome is mostly left in the dust. Why do all Victor and Zeus variants need to go so much faster than Awesomes? Speed isn't the answer to everything . . . although at least the Victor was meant as an agile assault mech. Yet for some reason the Zeus is also given the capabilities to go quite fast for an assault . . . just because. And Stalkers?!? Why should Stalkers get any sort of buffed engine cap? They're literally built to be walking weapons platforms.

Speed isn't the answer to everything. If you want some speedier chassis, put in one or two speedier variants, or chassis that were actually known for agility and speed. Then people actually have a choice . . . and PGI can use lore to help guide those choices! Engine caps shouldn't just be set to ensure that "everything is equal". It kills the variety and build diversity, and helps ensure we get the narrow meta-game choices we currently have in the competitive market, because they are only looking at hardpoints and hardpoint locations. Engine cap should be a choice that is actually made.

I remember when the Victor first came out it was considered a huge deal that we were getting an assault which, across the board, was going to be able to mount large engines, but people were worried about the extremely limited hardpoint numbers. Same thing with the Blackjack . . . when that mech came out people looked at the 1X and were going, "Holy Crap! It's going to go nearly 120 and carry decent firepower! Oh . . . it gives up jumpjets . . . that's going to be a hard choice." Those choices don't exist anymore. Newer mechs all have the potential to go the same speed.

As for the hardpoint concept. I used two of the most obvious "Superquirked" mechs out there, that have multiple 50% quirks, and I'm most familiar with. It's a concept that I feel could be used to help balance mechs. However, I know it's going to be pretty divisive, so I'm not expecting the warmest welcome. Regardless, what's so terrible about my choices, outside of opinion? I'm sincerely requesting feedback on that. What example would you choose and what hardpoint changes would you recommend, seeing as you agreed with the premise that powercreep is happening with hardpoints.

[Sereglach]

Juodas Varnas, on 14 June 2015 - 09:56 AM, said:

When it comes to hardpoints, i think they're fine. The problem comes with mechs that have a lot of weapons by default (for example The Firestarter vs Jenner), but again, if PGI were smart, they would've quirked the Jenner to compensate for lower amount of hardpoints (instead they quirked the Firestarter, which already has more hardpoints, better hitboxes and more jump jets, don't ask me why, PGI work in mysterious ways.)

Well, interesting point between these mechs. However, the Firestarter/Jenner conundrum is addressed with the theory on engine caps. If you look at what I posed on those, then a suggested change would bring the Firestarter down to approximately a 280 Engine, lowering it's speed by about 10kph (~140kph). However, the Jenner would end up with a speed buff by about 10kph (~160kph). This actually gives a distinct choice between the two. Do you want lots of guns, or more speed?

The Raven falls in more with the Firestarter, for speed, but the ECM 3L helps address the firepower difference with optional equipment. However, the 2X and 4X (after you strip the super-quirking of the 2X) would need some help. Maybe some hardpoints and quirks could be looked at to help them. What if the 4X got a third energy hardpoint in the R arm? It'd make it quite unique in that regard. How about giving the 2X a second AMS hardpoint?

Here's another example of how Hardpoint adjustments could work:
The Dragon

For hardpoints in general, look at some of the most underperforming or "Superquirked" mechs. What about Dragons? The 1N is a "Superquirked" mech for AC/5 usage with 2B hardpoints, and it is flat out obscene. The 5N is quirked for UAC usage and has 3B hardpoints, but can't put them to use. The 1C only has a few generic quirks and only carries an AC/2 with little unique for other hardpoints.

What if, to help balance these mechs, we give them some friendlier non-obscene quirks (however enhancing the mobility and armor quirks to help with that huge snout), and then shuffle the hardpoints around a bit? Now remember, this isn't my set-in-stone concept. It's just an example of concept-application as a means of helping these mechs out with balance.

Spoiler

DRG-1C
What if we gave the 1C respectable energy quirks, a modest AC/2 quirk and put a third energy hardpoint into the LA? The AC/2 can act as suppression, and then the mech has respectable firepower for close range combat with reasonably (but not overly) quirked 5 energy weapons.

DRG-1N
How about taking the 1N, and after stripping the mech of its super-quirks, we put a second energy hardpoint in the high Torso shoulder mounts? Then we give it a solid set of well-rounded weapon quirks, with tight missile grouping, and respectable generic quirks for heat, ammo, beam duration and fire rates. Make it a solid jack-of-all-trades among the Dragons, with 2B, 2M (capable of brawling with 2 center-mount SRM/4's or modest fire support with 2 quick-shooting, tight-grouped LRM/5's), and 4E.

DRG-5N
What about the 5N? It has 3 Ballistics, quirked for UAC use, which it cannot use effectively. Drop it to 2, put a third energy hardpoint in the left arm, and add a second AMS hardpoint. This gives us a mech capable of putting out solidly respectable firepower from the arm hardpoints, with 2 AMS systems to help protect that huge snout. Give the mech a respectable balance of energy and ballistic quirks, with some extra focus on UAC weapons (eventually the IS will have UAC/2s, and that second hardpoint will be quite handy).

Edited by Sereglach, 14 June 2015 - 04:47 PM.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

Nah just introduce Stock Mode and give all freedom they want in full custom mech lab madness. No hard points, engine caps, total free.

[Sereglach]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 14 June 2015 - 04:24 PM, said:

Nah just introduce Stock Mode and give all freedom they want in full custom mech lab madness. No hard points, engine caps, total free.

If this happened I would utterly hate this game, even if it is Battletech. That would turn this game into nothing more than "what mech has the best geometry for a weight class". It'd be like 007 Goldeneye from the N64. No one wanted to play Jaws, because he was just a huge walking target; and no one would allow Odd Job, because he was brokenly small and absurdly difficult to hit.

For TT a chassis is little more than fluff over a set of stats. In TT the look and geometry doesn't matter, and it works, because everything is resolved by a dice roll. As much as I think PGI can pull a great deal from TT and Lore, this is not tabletop in any way. You need restrictions and standards.

For example, in TT you have an equal chance of hitting the LT or RT of a Hunchback 4G; and not a huge glaring hunch that can be easily shot off, if you're not careful. At the same time, you have the equal chance of hitting a Jenner CT as you do a Spider CT, a Centurion CT, a Dragon CT, or an Awesome CT.

For MWO, none of this is true. Geometry, mech hardpoints, and engine caps all help provide the flavor for mechs, and reasons to choose them. Positive quirks should only be used to bring the worst performers up to standards while negative quirks should only be used to bring the most extreme performers down to standards. Then, chassis and variants provide actual flavor and choice, while everyone performs reasonably well together, with no overtly extreme outliers on either end of the spectrum.

Edited by Sereglach, 14 June 2015 - 04:51 PM.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

I was caina partially sarcasitc.
Better mech lab train is lost long ago.
But yeah, engine caps, sized hard points, or even hard point located quirks would do much better for lab and game play.
And
most Battletech, felling, better game play, souls of mechs you can have only in Stock Mode.
If we would have Stock Mode I would not say a word to any Mech Lab madness.

Edited by Jaeger Gonzo, 14 June 2015 - 08:07 PM.

[zudukai]

i am also not sure about the specific hard points mentioned, however i do agree that the lowest performers should be considered to gain hard points, engine cap could also be a very interesting.

[Sereglach]

zudukai, on 14 June 2015 - 08:29 PM, said:

i am also not sure about the specific hard points mentioned, however i do agree that the lowest performers should be considered to gain hard points, engine cap could also be a very interesting.

Well, the specifics of the hardpoint changes are merely examples and to get people's minds working. The premise is what I think is important for the situation.

That premise being: Could hardpoint changes be considered a viable option for balancing mechs?

If you put 5 people together and ask for their opinions on a matter (in this case specific hardpoint changes) then you'll get at least 25 opinions.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the people voting no to the premise of hardpoint changes vote that way because they don't like the specific references I make; and it has nothing to do with the premise of the concept. It's human nature, and I'm not going to hold it against them.

[zudukai]

Sereglach, on 15 June 2015 - 03:45 PM, said:

Well, the specifics of the hardpoint changes are merely examples;

hardpoint changes be considered a viable option for balancing mechs?
*snip*

yes, IMO this is a strong alternative to progressive nerfs or quirks,

[Nightshade24]

Sereglach, on 13 June 2015 - 04:27 PM, said:

-snip-

may I ask if my earlier suggestion for locust 1V and 3V on another thread inspired this one?

Because I said earlier nearly the exact same things and it's rather freakly simular. I want to know I'm not lossing it. that or I will have to go with great minds think alike.

[Sereglach]

Nightshade24, on 15 June 2015 - 11:00 PM, said:

may I ask if my earlier suggestion for locust 1V and 3V on another thread inspired this one?

Because I said earlier nearly the exact same things and it's rather freakly simular. I want to know I'm not lossing it. that or I will have to go with great minds think alike.

We'll have to go with great minds think alike. It originally came from comments I made in the Least Liked Quirks thread.

[Nightshade24]

Sereglach, on 16 June 2015 - 10:22 AM, said:

We'll have to go with great minds think alike. It originally came from comments I made in the Least Liked Quirks thread.

interesting.

However I would think having a 10% or 15% RoF for MG's for the V1 would be better and have another quirk that increases it's crit chance slightly as well.

25% is good. however that is actually putting lots of strain on the ammo, and increases overall damage per second by 25% for 6 machine guns. As well as increasing crits and crit chance by 25%, those three factors together makes me think lowering the RoF a little bit in echange for a crit chance increase or some other mg related quirk will do best

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Sereglach, on 14 June 2015 - 07:40 AM, said:

However, neither the Dragon nor the Quickdraw ever look at upgrading their speed over time, and look exclusively at firepower and utilitarian upgrades with future variants (Look at the Dragon 7N that carries a Gauss Rifle, AC/5, and MRM/10). Just something for consideration.

There's the grand dragon which replaced the Dragon in the 3030s which uses an XL360 to hit 6/9 speeds (106 kph in mwo with tweak). Allowing players to make those mechs in game is why PGI set the engine cap at 360. The quickdraw never had an XL engined variant in TT though.

Sereglach, on 14 June 2015 - 07:40 AM, said:

We've got clan lights that feel terribly out of place and incapable of competing because of fixed engines. Also, we've got IS lights, that can't field the speed cap, being considered DOA for anything competitive.

We've got mediums, and some heavies, effortlessly running down light mechs (and not just clan lights, but IS lights as well) because they can run straight at a target they're pursuing, while the light needs to serpentine to avoid fire (or get cored right out the back), which bleeds out a lot of speed. When those mediums are running at almost 120kph (mostly 55 tonners, at that) it starts to nullify the point of light mechs.

I'd say a lot of this is solid reason why lights are virtually nonexistent in the queues (in general), only certain mediums are considered viable, and most people want their heavies. I think people are going to be looking for ways to dump lights completely out of their drop deck since the light rush has been mitigated for CW.

Most light omnimechs focus on firepower for dueling in traditional zellbrigen warfare. As such, they play more like medium mechs than lights. If you play them that way, they do just fine. If you play them like a traditional scout without using ECM and cover you won't do so well.

120kph mediums are rare. The Treb 3C and the Wolverine 6K are the only 2 that go that fast besides the cicada and both sacrifice a lot to get there. The 110kph ones are more common though (all the 5/8/X 55 tonners. BJ1X, Kintaro, etc). While they're a threat against light mechs, the most they can carry are 2LPL+2ML, 2PPC or 3LL which can leave them at a serious firepower disavantage vs their slower counterpart on the other team. Basically, instead of trading speed for weapons like clan lights they go the other way. Not to mention firestarters, jenners, Adders, and Kitfoxes, can all hit back at least that hard. Hell, panthers and urbies can run 2 PPC, 2LPL, or 3LL and go about that speed and have better hit boxes.

Anyways, fast mediums aren't the reason why you don't see many lights. That's mostly because light mechs have the highest learning curve in the game. You screw up once and you die. People don't like getting instagibbed and they don't like not having the big guns.

[Sereglach]

Narcissistic Martyr, on 16 June 2015 - 02:22 PM, said:

There's the grand dragon which replaced the Dragon in the 3030s which uses an XL360 to hit 6/9 speeds (106 kph in mwo with tweak). Allowing players to make those mechs in game is why PGI set the engine cap at 360. The quickdraw never had an XL engined variant in TT though.

Well, I actually advocate for the Dragon keeping speed, as it was a mech, in lore, meant to control engagement ranges by have an exceptionally large engine for its size. That facet falls right in line. Sadly, although I wouldn't mind getting the Grand Dragon, I don't see us receiving it until they decidedly have a way to fix the issue of the snout, or agree upon a changed and desirable look.

Narcissistic Martyr, on 16 June 2015 - 02:22 PM, said:

Most light omnimechs focus on firepower for dueling in traditional zellbrigen warfare. As such, they play more like medium mechs than lights. If you play them that way, they do just fine. If you play them like a traditional scout without using ECM and cover you won't do so well.

I realize the light omnis we have can get by with a different playstyle, at least somewhat. However, the thing to consider is that the current meta and belief in the game (for good reason) is that speed is the cornerstone of any light being successful. That needs to be squashed, and more variety needs to be put on the field. Look at the current competitive scene and CW drop dechs. Ullers/Kit-Foxes and Pumas/Adders are NOT in those rosters (Ullers only occasionally for ECM and AMS . . . but mostly ECM).

Narcissistic Martyr, on 16 June 2015 - 02:22 PM, said:

120kph mediums are rare. The Treb 3C and the Wolverine 6K are the only 2 that go that fast besides the cicada and both sacrifice a lot to get there. The 110kph ones are more common though (all the 5/8/X 55 tonners. BJ1X, Kintaro, etc). While they're a threat against light mechs, the most they can carry are 2LPL+2ML, 2PPC or 3LL which can leave them at a serious firepower disavantage vs their slower counterpart on the other team. Basically, instead of trading speed for weapons like clan lights they go the other way. Not to mention firestarters, jenners, Adders, and Kitfoxes, can all hit back at least that hard. Hell, panthers and urbies can run 2 PPC, 2LPL, or 3LL and go about that speed and have better hit boxes.

Here's the problem. 110-120kph mediums are supposed to be rare, but in MWO it's not difficult to push that limit. In fact, it's extremely common. Sadly enough, most of the ones pushing it are also all the ones at the top of the tonnage limit for the weight class (every 55 tonner goes up to a 360). They also carry a lot more firepower then you're giving them credit for.

Also, in lore, most of the IS mechs aren't trading firepower for more speed. They're mostly cramming in as much firepower as possible in the fight of the clans (and with each other). There are few exceptions to this. While the Locust eventually reaches speeds of 300kph, the Jenner never changes engine size . . . it only tries to gain more armor and more firepower (however it was always a very fast light mech). The Wolverine only ever tries to gain speed with MASC, devoting all of its spare tonnage to weapons. So why are all of these mechs pushing the engine cap so high for their chassis.

That's why the suggested changes seek to spread that out and get some diversity in there. If you want to go fast, there'd actually be a choice to make, there. It makes it a factor in the flavor of the chassis and spreads the desirable uses around (speed is a desirable factor, and all the "best" mechs by current standards are capable of going faster then they should).

Narcissistic Martyr, on 16 June 2015 - 02:22 PM, said:

Anyways, fast mediums aren't the reason why you don't see many lights. That's mostly because light mechs have the highest learning curve in the game. You screw up once and you die.

That's one reason among many. The reason I give is another one, among many, but it's a BIG one. When someone playing the game sees that they cannot escape a mech that's twice their tonnage, or more, they sit there and go, "Why the heck do I want this thing, again?" and move on to a different weight class.

It kills the role warfare and immersion experiences in some people's minds, as well. Why have a light scout when a medium, with significantly more firepower and armor, runs more than fast enough to get the job done?

Narcissistic Martyr, on 16 June 2015 - 02:22 PM, said:

People don't like getting instagibbed and they don't like not having the big guns.

This is another reason for it. It's also a heck of a lot bigger reason then the learning curve. Most of the more popular and iconic mechs are heavies and assaults. It's another distinct reason for people to migrate towards those weight classes and away from the lights. People want to pilot the mechs they love. For me, it's light mechs (and to show how unbiased I'm being in this, the Firestarter is my favorite mech of all time and my proposed changes would NERF IT!), and I don't have a lot of company in that desire. For other people it's the big stompies in the Heavy and Assault classes that are their favorites.


Although, I'm curious. There were some interesting points and comments in your post, but what was the conclusions you were trying to draw? Was it just the learning curve, or was there more to it? How does it relate to the OP?

[Narcissistic Martyr]

You're being far too reasonable and articulate to be a member of these forums. I think I like you. Also, I must appologize for the disorganized and rambling nature of my earlier comment, I'm afraid my brain think good pills hadn't kicked in yet. Anyways, I'm going to put the main conclusion that I forgot to include here at the top and the rest will be more or less general commentary on your comments which you may ignore if you so choose.

I think speed tweak is the problem. It limits the differentiation between chassis by forcing a maxium speed of 150kph before speed tweak and it greatly reduces the opportunity cost of extra speed. On an XL300 Jenner you gain the equivallent of 2.5 tons of extra speed. On one of the 55 ton triplets, speed tweak gives you the same speed boost you'd get out of 4.5 tons more engine if you have an XL325 (common engine in a lot of builds). On the Timberwolf? You get more than 6 tons of extra speed for free.

A number of light mechs could afford to shed a bit of armor, or a DHS, to fit that larger engine without too much trouble. Or they can go for more guns but sacrifice a bit of their ability to get in and get out. Medium mechs would seriously compromise their firepower, either due to heat or having to use fewer LPL and LL. Heavies and assaults would be the worst off with IS heavies and asasults in particular getting slowed down. This would slow the game down a fair bit, give those who chose to invest in speed a chance to scout.

Sereglach, on 16 June 2015 - 04:24 PM, said:

I realize the light omnis we have can get by with a different playstyle, at least somewhat. However, the thing to consider is that the current meta and belief in the game (for good reason) is that speed is the cornerstone of any light being successful. That needs to be squashed, and more variety needs to be put on the field. Look at the current competitive scene and CW drop dechs. Ullers/Kit-Foxes and Pumas/Adders are NOT in those rosters (Ullers only occasionally for ECM and AMS . . . but mostly ECM).

After rereading your suggestions, I think I agree with you. I think this attitude partially goes back to the lagshield era where more speed meant you got hit less which made you mighty. After that got fixed we lost a huge number of light mech pilots because they couldn't adapt. Personally, I've run an AC20 raven 4x with single heat sinks since closed beta and I think slower lights are fine. You really just need to play them like a medium mech, supporting the assaults and the like. In my AC20 Raven, I'm another 20 pinpoint damage whereever my big buddy needs it. At 100kph, I'm still fast enough to stay in range of fleeing lights and I hit hard enough to scare them off. However, the biggest reason fast lights are prefered is that it's really hard to scout with a slower light mech without ECM because you will die instantly.

Sereglach, on 16 June 2015 - 04:24 PM, said:

Here's the problem. 110-120kph mediums are supposed to be rare, but in MWO it's not difficult to push that limit. In fact, it's extremely common. Sadly enough, most of the ones pushing it are also all the ones at the top of the tonnage limit for the weight class (every 55 tonner goes up to a 360). They also carry a lot more firepower then you're giving them credit for.

Also, in lore, most of the IS mechs aren't trading firepower for more speed. They're mostly cramming in as much firepower as possible in the fight of the clans (and with each other). There are few exceptions to this. While the Locust eventually reaches speeds of 300kph, the Jenner never changes engine size . . . it only tries to gain more armor and more firepower (however it was always a very fast light mech). The Wolverine only ever tries to gain speed with MASC, devoting all of its spare tonnage to weapons. So why are all of these mechs pushing the engine cap so high for their chassis. That's why the suggested changes seek to spread that out and get some diversity in there. If you want to go fast, there'd actually be a choice to make, there. It makes it a factor in the flavor of the chassis and spreads the desirable uses around (speed is a desirable factor, and all the "best" mechs by current standards are capable of going faster then they should).

In lore they didn't want to have to source new gyros, new myomer muscles, redesign the legs, etc. That's why very few mechs got a speed boost. Once you get later in the time line you end up seeing a fair number of 50 ton 7/11/X mechs because that maximizes the availble free tonage for weapons and stuff at that speed. The ideal weight for a STD engine 5/8/x mech is 55 tons, which is why the Wolverine, Shadow Hawk, Griffin, and Dervish were all pretty darn good mechs in TT. Without JJ, a 5/8 STD engine mech is best off at 60 tons, one of the reasons why the PPC equipped dragon 1G was so good. I think my initial objection partially came more from my hatred of how stupidly they design mechs in TT. (Let's make the AC5 a primary weapon on a mech instead of using a PPC+2 heatsinks, let's make the light mech stupidly slow, etc)

From a mwo perspective I see your point though. The engine swapping allows you to adapt your mechs way more than in TT. It gives these quick mediums multiple roles depending on build. Build 7/11/X with an XL and you're a striker, a scalple aimed at any damaged mech, and anti light unit. Build 5/8/X with a std engine and you're a durable fire support unit that can move fast enough to deal with flankers and exploit gaps in the enemy lines. (or just keep up with the damn timberwolves). Build slower and you're extra guns working with the assaults. Basically IS medium mechs are the flexible workhorses of the team that can choose which role they want to play. I'm not certain I'd want to take this flexability away and eliminating speed tweak would help a lot. However, reducing the range of available engine sizes a bit like you suggested, I don't see a problem with. I'd probably consider doing an engine minimum as well to allow the slower mediums to have a better defined role. Agility across the board may need to be increased though.

Sereglach, on 16 June 2015 - 04:24 PM, said:

That's one reason among many. The reason I give is another one, among many, but it's a BIG one. When someone playing the game sees that they cannot escape a mech that's twice their tonnage, or more, they sit there and go, "Why the heck do I want this thing, again?" and move on to a different weight class.

It kills the role warfare and immersion experiences in some people's minds, as well. Why have a light scout when a medium, with significantly more firepower and armor, runs more than fast enough to get the job done? This is another reason for it. It's also a heck of a lot bigger reason then the learning curve.

While, I've never been that scared of fast mediums (I'm still fast enough to get away, or can leg one of their fat legs before they can kill me) I see your point. I can definitely see a new light player who doesn't have tweak yet freaking out because this big thing is right on their butt. Especially since they're going to have to start with a STD engine so their jenner will be going 110 or so and a commando, raven, or firestarter is even slower.