56 replies to this topic

[Strikeshadow]

Savage Wolf, on 08 August 2015 - 06:56 AM, said:

That's kind of a different point to the whole grind. In LOL when I get a new Champ, I still have all my runes and masteries so I can be fully functional with that champ except for of course, experience with that specific champ. In MWO when I get a new mech I need to upgrade and master it from scratch again. Every time. Doesn't matter that I have already mastered several mechs, I need to such with my new mech before it gets on the level with my other mechs.

I agree and that fact makes me not want to buy more Mechs and instead upgrade/experiment with the ones I have. It actually makes a huge difference to my build if I do not have full skills on a mech. For instance, 10% faster move speed is a major engine difference.

Edited by Strikeshadow, 08 August 2015 - 01:01 PM.

[IraqiWalker]

Savage Wolf, on 08 August 2015 - 06:27 AM, said:

Let me clarify, when I originally talked about an Atlas being better than a Locust I was talking about older titles, not MWO. The balance is much better in MWO, because it has to be or just like in MW4, everyone would just use Assaults. But given that it makes little sense that you need to pay more for the Atlas if it's not better.

And yes, lights can do other things than assaults in MWO because of their speed. Or rather, fight differently. Because that's still all we do. Deal damage. There are no other roles in the game.

I also fear that the reason we are not given an objective based game mode is simply that assaults would become useless in that mode. So MWO can't really evolve past deathmatch because it just doesn't have the balance or flexibility to do it.

Well, they're still not equal. Balanced, but not equal, so the price difference should stay. An atlas has 618 points of armor, that's 19 tons of armor. The Locust TOTAL, weighs 20 tons, then there's the matter of internal health. weapon capacity ... etc. Those all add up to why a Locust should be cheaper.

Balance does not need to mean equality.

Strikeshadow, on 08 August 2015 - 06:30 AM, said:

It was balanced because everybody could play whatever mech or build they wanted. Some were better than others, but it didn't matter because everybody owned everything. Here the balancing is worse because people do not own everything. In MW4, people ran 7 erl Nova cats, 6erl Timber wolves, 6 erl dire wolves, erl/gauss rifle combo dire wolves, 6 erl fast atlases (highest armor in the game too), Catapult, Loki and Vulture (maddog) lrm boats, AC and Thunderbolt based Thanatoses, 3 erl Shadowcats, AC 20 (uac, lbx) + flamer Shadowcats, 3erl Cougers, 4erl Ryokens, Gauss rifle/erl mixed build Madcat MkIIs. All viable in competitive play where tonnage and mech number were fixed for each match.

Granted medium and small lasers, AC2s, light gauss rifles, pulse lasers, SRMs, MRMs, Streaks, PPCs and mgs were not viable. The only mechs that were really not viable in competitive play were the Awesome, Locust, Thor, Sunder and Raven. However, in game modes like No Heat/No Ammo or capture the flag, they were viable.

The different game modes available made MW4 a much more flexible game.

Edit: The different game modes make different mechs and builds viable. Deathmatch alone limits the flexibility of the game.

That's not balance. It was a crapshoot. Not the same as balance. Half the weapons were POS, and 90% of the mechs were awfully terribad, and there were all of 3 builds to use on most servers. That's worse than MWO in virtually every respect.

I'm not gonna deny I had fun with MW4, lord knows I have. Last month was the 4th time I installed the darn thing and it's expansions, and went through their campaigns. (I still get very miffed at the fact that Ian Dresari gets killed, as a bad guy, by ME!) However, that game was as far away from balance as anything possibly could be.

I will agree that different game modes are always better than just one, and I honestly think we can have plenty of game modes where an entire weight class isn't wasted. Even conquest now, which is supposed to be so light focused, has a place for assault mechs.

[Savage Wolf]

IraqiWalker, on 08 August 2015 - 05:16 PM, said:

Well, they're still not equal. Balanced, but not equal, so the price difference should stay. An atlas has 618 points of armor, that's 19 tons of armor. The Locust TOTAL, weighs 20 tons, then there's the matter of internal health. weapon capacity ... etc. Those all add up to why a Locust should be cheaper.

Balance does not need to mean equality.

In a game where I have one mech and you have the same number of mechs, balance does need to be equality. The mechs can have different strengths but they need to be an equally good addition to your team.
The costs of the mechs are irrelevant to balance because I only have to pay for the mech once and then I can be more powerful forever. So mech should be equal and might as well cost about the same. The only reason why they don't is simply lore, nothing more.

[IraqiWalker]

Savage Wolf, on 08 August 2015 - 05:43 PM, said:

In a game where I have one mech and you have the same number of mechs, balance does need to be equality. The mechs can have different strengths but they need to be an equally good addition to your team.
The costs of the mechs are irrelevant to balance because I only have to pay for the mech once and then I can be more powerful forever. So mech should be equal and might as well cost about the same. The only reason why they don't is simply lore, nothing more.

That's not what I meant by equality.

Equality means that everything is the same on both. Which is BAD. Balance is not equality. Not by a long shot. Especially asymmetric balance.

[Savage Wolf]

IraqiWalker, on 08 August 2015 - 05:47 PM, said:

That's not what I meant by equality.

Equality means that everything is the same on both. Which is BAD. Balance is not equality. Not by a long shot. Especially asymmetric balance.

Then why the justification of the cost? If both mechs are equally good should they not cost the same?
Even if that balance hasn't fully been achieved.
It's not like Jungle champs costs differently than support champs in LOL. They are both equally needed on the team.

Edited by Savage Wolf, 08 August 2015 - 05:55 PM.

[IraqiWalker]

Savage Wolf, on 08 August 2015 - 05:54 PM, said:

Then why the justification of the cost? If both mechs are equally good should they not cost the same?
Even if that balance hasn't fully been achieved.
It's not like Jungle champs costs differently than support champs in LOL. They are both equally needed on the team.

Because even though they are equal, they have very different attributes. Why is it that Master Yi is a 450 champion, while Rek'Sai is a 6300 champion? Aren't they both equal?

That's because they are not equal. A much better example would be using Starcraft I & II. Mutas and Banshees are both aerial units, and they are both excellent at dealing with ground targets. However, they are not priced the same. Even though their damage brackets are similar. They still have different abilities that differentiate them enough to justify the price difference, while still keeping them balanced.

Same here. A Locust can do things the Atlas can't, and vice versa. That's why the prices are different. That Atlas can bring the firepower of 8 or so, locusts put together, with almost 4.5 times the armor, plus other utility. However, the locust can scout the map 8 times faster (at least), helping the Atlas know where to put their firepower to use.

They compliment one another.

Also, keep in mind that in LOL, champions are mostly priced based on their age, and the fact that newer champions are ALWAYS more powerful than anything else. Plus, unlike MWO, you can't change your champion's abilities.

If LoL worked like MWO, then when I buy Garen, I would go to the shop, and purchase any abilities I want, and slap them on him. Let's say I wanted to play melee ADC Garen. I'll go for Darius' Q. Nasus' Wither, and Draven's E, with Garen's Ult. Or maybe even Pantheon's Ult instead.

The fact that the champions are static, need to use runes (far more critical in Lol, than modules are in MWO), and have infinite respawns makes pricing them differently ludicrous on all accounts, and yet all LoL champions are put in different price brackets.

[Savage Wolf]

As you said, in LOL champs are priced mostly based on age and not power or role. There have been cheap champs in the big leagues plenty of times so newer champs are not automatically better. Some are when they come out, but then are nerfed back into place. Ashe is 450 IP and she is currently considered god tier in LOL.

And pricing things differently because they do different things make no sense. A Locust can do things that an Atlas cannot. Yeah, and an Atlas can do things the Locust can't. So they are the same but different. So why do they need to be priced differently for being different, if they are equally powerful? Why is it cheaper to be a scout than a tank?

And actually I feel mechs are more static because you can't customize the mech in match like you can with champs trough what items you buy with gold. But both are customized before the match.

[IraqiWalker]

Savage Wolf, on 08 August 2015 - 06:24 PM, said:

As you said, in LOL champs are priced mostly based on age and not power or role. There have been cheap champs in the big leagues plenty of times so newer champs are not automatically better. Some are when they come out, but then are nerfed back into place. Ashe is 450 IP and she is currently considered god tier in LOL.

And pricing things differently because they do different things make no sense. A Locust can do things that an Atlas cannot. Yeah, and an Atlas can do things the Locust can't. So they are the same but different. So why do they need to be priced differently for being different, if they are equally powerful? Why is it cheaper to be a scout than a tank?

And actually I feel mechs are more static because you can't customize the mech in match like you can with champs trough what items you buy with gold. But both are customized before the match.

There has never been a case where a new champion didn't trounce the entire game, and break the balance. Remember triple dribble Azir? That was a mild case. I was there for original Jax, the one that was an auto win as soon as he hit level 16 and got a bloodthirster.

and you still miss that they do things differently, and ARE different. The locust doesn't have the health of an atlas. The locust doesn't have the armor of an atlas. The locust doesn't have the weapon space of an atlas. The locust doesn't have the tonnage space of an Atlas, so no, they are different, and should be priced differently. Balanced, but different. The team doesn't only have ONE objective to do, and even then, there would still be a case for why the Atlas should cost more.

Edited by IraqiWalker, 08 August 2015 - 06:52 PM.

[Savage Wolf]

IraqiWalker, on 08 August 2015 - 06:52 PM, said:

There has never been a case where a new champion didn't trounce the entire game, and break the balance. Remember triple dribble Azir? That was a mild case. I was there for original Jax, the one that was an auto win as soon as he hit level 16 and got a bloodthirster.

and you still miss that they do things differently, and ARE different. The locust doesn't have the health of an atlas. The locust doesn't have the armor of an atlas. The locust doesn't have the weapon space of an atlas. The locust doesn't have the tonnage space of an Atlas, so no, they are different, and should be priced differently. Balanced, but different. The team doesn't only have ONE objective to do, and even then, there would still be a case for why the Atlas should cost more.

I get that you want to price them differently based upon the fact that they are different. But why does that justify different price points. That just makes them... different. And then why isn't the Atlas the cheap one and the Locust the expensive one. You need to expand on this.
The only justification I usually see for making something more expensive than the other thing is if the expensive thing is better. If it's not better, why not just buy the cheap one?
And again, in LOL junglers are not more expensive or cheaper than supports, because they are both just as good for the team. The can be priced the same because they are clearly different, but equally important. Equally useful and powerful.

[IraqiWalker]

Savage Wolf, on 08 August 2015 - 07:03 PM, said:

I get that you want to price them differently based upon the fact that they are different. But why does that justify different price points. That just makes them... different. And then why isn't the Atlas the cheap one and the Locust the expensive one. You need to expand on this.
The only justification I usually see for making something more expensive than the other thing is if the expensive thing is better. If it's not better, why not just buy the cheap one?
And again, in LOL junglers are not more expensive or cheaper than supports, because they are both just as good for the team. The can be priced the same because they are clearly different, but equally important. Equally useful and powerful.

I already did: more health, more armor, more guns, more tonnage for guns, more space for guns, less need for upgrades (a price difference of about 6 million is not that much of a difference).

Aside from the fact that LoL isn't really a good analogy, I already showed that in LoL traditionally the more expensive champions are the stronger ones. Just look at the competitive queue, and tell me how many 450, and 1350 champions you see there. In season 3, and 2, there were almost none. Season 4 is where the game started getting more balanced, and that's after so many years. Ashe is only ONE 450 champion, and the reason she's a 450 champion is that she was design from the ground up to be a top notch ADC, and was intentionally priced at 450 so that new players can have a decent ADC to start with.

Now, if you really want to look at price difference between champions in LoL, look at it with the inclusion of the level system. A level 1 summoner is paying a LOT less for a 6300 IP champion, than a LEVEL 30 summoner is. He only has to worry about 1 rune, and is playing against other level 1 summoners. A Level 30 summoner is paying for multiple rune pages, and tier 3 runes. Which far outstrip tier 1 runes.

So even then, the champions aren't really priced the same. A level 1 summoner is paying 6300 IP + the price of a tier 1 rune, which I honestly can't be bothered to check right now.

even with taking in all factors, LoL is still not a good comparison if you want to get in-depth. If you want to stay shallow, then yes, it works as a comparison, but not that well.

(Also, how are LoL champions less static than MW:O mechs? Ashe can NEVER be anything but a DPS champion, with near zero burst damage ability)

Edited by IraqiWalker, 08 August 2015 - 07:46 PM.

[Savage Wolf]

IraqiWalker, on 08 August 2015 - 07:46 PM, said:

I already did: more health, more armor, more guns, more tonnage for guns, more space for guns, less need for upgrades (a price difference of about 6 million is not that much of a difference).

But those are just stats. And Locust's stats should in the end be equally good and thus cost the same. Why is there a need to penalize people wanting to play assaults?

IraqiWalker, on 08 August 2015 - 07:46 PM, said:

Aside from the fact that LoL isn't really a good analogy, I already showed that in LoL traditionally the more expensive champions are the stronger ones. Just look at the competitive queue, and tell me how many 450, and 1350 champions you see there. In season 3, and 2, there were almost none. Season 4 is where the game started getting more balanced, and that's after so many years. Ashe is only ONE 450 champion, and the reason she's a 450 champion is that she was design from the ground up to be a top notch ADC, and was intentionally priced at 450 so that new players can have a decent ADC to start with.

Now, if you really want to look at price difference between champions in LoL, look at it with the inclusion of the level system. A level 1 summoner is paying a LOT less for a 6300 IP champion, than a LEVEL 30 summoner is. He only has to worry about 1 rune, and is playing against other level 1 summoners. A Level 30 summoner is paying for multiple rune pages, and tier 3 runes. Which far outstrip tier 1 runes.

So even then, the champions aren't really priced the same. A level 1 summoner is paying 6300 IP + the price of a tier 1 rune, which I honestly can't be bothered to check right now.

even with taking in all factors, LoL is still not a good comparison if you want to get in-depth. If you want to stay shallow, then yes, it works as a comparison, but not that well.

Have a look at http://www.nerfplz.c...o-queue_25.html and see how many 450 and 1350 IP champs are at the top. There are more costing 6300, but the majority of champs costs this. There is no corelation between price and power in LOL. None. And there shouldn't be either, because then there wouldn't be a point in having the cheaper champs if they can't compete. Luckily they can.

And the comparison is pretty tight. Selecting a mech and selecting a champ is pretty much the same. It's the selection of how I want to play in the next match and how I want to contribute to the team. Whether I pick an Atlas or a Locust doesn't matter, I will still be doing 1/12 of the work needed for victory.

But looking at the prices, I'd expect that the Atlas is better than the Locust and thus will contribute more to the team's victory than a Locust will. And so the more Atlas' my team has the better and the fewer Locusts, the better. But that is not the case. So currently, people who want to play assaults are simply expected to grind more to get their mechs compared to light pilots. So I guess PGI wants us all to be light pilots.

IraqiWalker, on 08 August 2015 - 07:46 PM, said:

(Also, how are LoL champions less static than MW:O mechs? Ashe can NEVER be anything but a DPS champion, with near zero burst damage ability)

Maybe not Ashe, but there are several champs like Volibear that can fit into more than one role, you just need to build him differently. And once the match has started and you see what the enemy builds, you can compensate. In MWO you cannot compensate for what the enemy brings. Hope you brought the right counters.
Similarly many mechs are also only able to fill one role.

[IraqiWalker]

Savage Wolf, on 08 August 2015 - 08:07 PM, said:

But those are just stats. And Locust's stats should in the end be equally good and thus cost the same. Why is there a need to penalize people wanting to play assaults?


Have a look at http://www.nerfplz.c...o-queue_25.html and see how many 450 and 1350 IP champs are at the top. There are more costing 6300, but the majority of champs costs this. There is no corelation between price and power in LOL. None. And there shouldn't be either, because then there wouldn't be a point in having the cheaper champs if they can't compete. Luckily they can.

And the comparison is pretty tight. Selecting a mech and selecting a champ is pretty much the same. It's the selection of how I want to play in the next match and how I want to contribute to the team. Whether I pick an Atlas or a Locust doesn't matter, I will still be doing 1/12 of the work needed for victory.

But looking at the prices, I'd expect that the Atlas is better than the Locust and thus will contribute more to the team's victory than a Locust will. And so the more Atlas' my team has the better and the fewer Locusts, the better. But that is not the case. So currently, people who want to play assaults are simply expected to grind more to get their mechs compared to light pilots. So I guess PGI wants us all to be light pilots.


Maybe not Ashe, but there are several champs like Volibear that can fit into more than one role, you just need to build him differently. And once the match has started and you see what the enemy builds, you can compensate. In MWO you cannot compensate for what the enemy brings. Hope you brought the right counters.
Similarly many mechs are also only able to fill one role.

"Just stats"? Stats are what makes or breaks a mech. Stats dictate what roles it can and can't do.
Stats are why TF is not played as an ADC anymore. Stats are why Shaco will NEVER see serious competitive play this seas.

Stats are why things work in one way or another.

Why should a level 30 summoner be penalized then? I put almost as much IP into my runes as what I pay for the champion. hell, I have rune pages more expensive than a good third of the champions in the game.

Stats make a huge difference.

and Again, LoL is not good for comparison. Lol doesn't really have multiple hitboxes, nor does it have that much reliance on skills like good aim (except with skill shots, and even then, you have sight guides for every single ability, not just skill shots), it doesn't also use the same mechanics. Champions can be priced in a different way because no two are alike in their skills. (Garen's Judgement might be close to Darius' Decimate, but they are functionally very different, and don't even serve the same purpose).

The ML on my Locust is the same as the one on my Atlas, dealing 5 damage for 4 heat (it really should be 3). Other than that, the two mechs are drastically different in what they do, what they bring to the team, and how that works.

Keep in mind, an Atlas is ALWAYS bringing more useful things to the team compared to a locust. Especially in the current game where scouting is virtually unrewarded. While damage, and firepower are. So a locust is handicapped right off the bat.

They bring different things to the team, they are different, they don't even handle the same, and the risk vs. reward for both is not the same. So they deserve to be priced differently. It's 10 times easier to generate >130K C-Bills in an Atlas, than it is in a Locust. An Atlas, even stock is more survivable, viable, and powerful than a stock Locust.

[Savage Wolf]

IraqiWalker, on 08 August 2015 - 08:32 PM, said:

"Just stats"? Stats are what makes or breaks a mech. Stats dictate what roles it can and can't do.
Stats are why TF is not played as an ADC anymore. Stats are why Shaco will NEVER see serious competitive play this seas.

Stats are why things work in one way or another.

Why should a level 30 summoner be penalized then? I put almost as much IP into my runes as what I pay for the champion. hell, I have rune pages more expensive than a good third of the champions in the game.

Stats make a huge difference.

Exactly. Exactly. I know I know I ******* know that they are different. But that is really irrelevant if one is not better than the other overall!
But that still in no way gives any explination of why the stats that the Atlas has needs to be more expensive than what the Locusts has. They both have stats and those define their roles.

IraqiWalker, on 08 August 2015 - 08:32 PM, said:

and Again, LoL is not good for comparison. Lol doesn't really have multiple hitboxes, nor does it have that much reliance on skills like good aim (except with skill shots, and even then, you have sight guides for every single ability, not just skill shots), it doesn't also use the same mechanics. Champions can be priced in a different way because no two are alike in their skills. (Garen's Judgement might be close to Darius' Decimate, but they are functionally very different, and don't even serve the same purpose).

The ML on my Locust is the same as the one on my Atlas, dealing 5 damage for 4 heat (it really should be 3). Other than that, the two mechs are drastically different in what they do, what they bring to the team, and how that works.

Keep in mind, an Atlas is ALWAYS bringing more useful things to the team compared to a locust. Especially in the current game where scouting is virtually unrewarded. While damage, and firepower are. So a locust is handicapped right off the bat.

They bring different things to the team, they are different, they don't even handle the same, and the risk vs. reward for both is not the same. So they deserve to be priced differently. It's 10 times easier to generate >130K C-Bills in an Atlas, than it is in a Locust. An Atlas, even stock is more survivable, viable, and powerful than a stock Locust.

So, you DO believe that the Atlas is better than the Locust. And that is why. Finally, the actual point. Not because it is different, but because it is better.

Then let me ask you this, shouldn't the Atlas and the Locust be just as powerful in a multiplayer shooter where we are all expected to have equal chance of contributing to victory?
If not, then why are we not all just buying the most expensive mech and using that? Why ever bother using an inferior mech when eventually you will have grinded yourself to a better one?

[Strikeshadow]

IraqiWalker, on 08 August 2015 - 05:16 PM, said:

Well, they're still not equal. Balanced, but not equal, so the price difference should stay. An atlas has 618 points of armor, that's 19 tons of armor. The Locust TOTAL, weighs 20 tons, then there's the matter of internal health. weapon capacity ... etc. Those all add up to why a Locust should be cheaper.

Balance does not need to mean equality.


That's not balance. It was a crapshoot. Not the same as balance. Half the weapons were POS, and 90% of the mechs were awfully terribad, and there were all of 3 builds to use on most servers. That's worse than MWO in virtually every respect.

I'm not gonna deny I had fun with MW4, lord knows I have. Last month was the 4th time I installed the darn thing and it's expansions, and went through their campaigns. (I still get very miffed at the fact that Ian Dresari gets killed, as a bad guy, by ME!) However, that game was as far away from balance as anything possibly could be.

I will agree that different game modes are always better than just one, and I honestly think we can have plenty of game modes where an entire weight class isn't wasted. Even conquest now, which is supposed to be so light focused, has a place for assault mechs.

I outlined for you that only about 25% of the mechs were unviable in competitive matches. Now in PUG server that was higher sure, but still the Nova Cat (the best mech in the game), the Daishi (Dire Wolf), Atlas (with 6erls, max reflective armor and a fast engine), Madcat, Madcat MKII, Vulture, Ryoken, Catapult, Thanatos, and Shadow Cat were all viable.

The BIG DIFFERENCE was that everybody owned ALL the mechs AND equipment so balance did NOT matter. Plus, you knew the map you were fighting on before you started so you could select a PRE-SAVED build for that map.

Edited by Strikeshadow, 09 August 2015 - 08:47 AM.

[IraqiWalker]

Savage Wolf, on 09 August 2015 - 07:23 AM, said:

Exactly. Exactly. I know I know I ******* know that they are different. But that is really irrelevant if one is not better than the other overall!
But that still in no way gives any explination of why the stats that the Atlas has needs to be more expensive than what the Locusts has. They both have stats and those define their roles.

The stats on the atlas are valued more. Especially in a game where there is destruction to be had. More guns automatically makes the mech preferential.

However, make no mistake. That doesn't automatically mean the Atlas is superior currently it's better, but that has nothing to do with pricing).

Savage Wolf, on 09 August 2015 - 07:23 AM, said:

So, you DO believe that the Atlas is better than the Locust. And that is why. Finally, the actual point. Not because it is different, but because it is better.

For the millionth time: The Atlas is better at somethings, while the locust is better at others. I have said that multiple times.

At the end of the day, the Atlas has more stuff in it, so it costs more. If you get an Atlas with an XL 190 (impossible, because minimum engine size is 200), 3 DHS, 138 armor, and 6 SPLs, it would cost about as much as the locust with those upgrades. When you put more stuff in it, it costs more.



So the TL;DR is: when a mech has more stuff in it, it costs more, logically.

Savage Wolf, on 09 August 2015 - 07:23 AM, said:

Then let me ask you this, shouldn't the Atlas and the Locust be just as powerful in a multiplayer shooter where we are all expected to have equal chance of contributing to victory?
If not, then why are we not all just buying the most expensive mech and using that? Why ever bother using an inferior mech when eventually you will have grinded yourself to a better one?

1- Each mech has it's own strong suits, that locust might be weak for you, but I've mowed down entire lances in locusts.

2- At the end of the day, the real difference in price comes from the fact that you have more stuff in them. (there will still be a slight price difference because the Atlas has a LOT more internal health than the Locust, and you can't adjust that)

Strikeshadow, on 09 August 2015 - 08:34 AM, said:

I outlined for you that only about 25% of the mechs were unviable in competitive matches. Now in PUG server that was higher sure, but still the Nova Cat (the best mech in the game), the Daishi (Dire Wolf), Atlas (with 6erls, max reflective armor and a fast engine), Madcat, Madcat MKII, Vulture, Ryoken, Catapult, Thanatos, and Shadow Cat were all viable.

The BIG DIFFERENCE was that everybody owned ALL the mechs AND equipment so balance did NOT matter. Plus, you knew the map you were fighting on before you started so you could select a PRE-SAVED build for that map.

More like 50% of all mechs were unviable. Also, notice how the only viable mechs are all 75 tonners, and up? Even vultures were at the bottom of the barrel, and rarely were considered top tier competitive mechs.

However, that still doesn't change the fact that the game wasn't balanced. You had teams with skewed tonnages. If you brought a mech under 70 tons, you were hurting your team. If you got a mech with ballistic weapons, you were hurting your team. Basically, if you brought anything that didn't do insane amounts of laser vomit (hence why the Novacat was the king of the game), you were hurting your team. Meanwhile, 12 or so weapon systems were crap. Half the mechs were crap, and there was no real balance.

Look, MW4 was fun, but it was never balanced. The planetary leagues are the only ones where some semblance of balance existed, and that's because we had hard capped a lot of things, and placed limitations on teams.

[Strikeshadow]

IraqiWalker, on 09 August 2015 - 07:32 PM, said:

More like 50% of all mechs were unviable. Also, notice how the only viable mechs are all 75 tonners, and up? Even vultures were at the bottom of the barrel, and rarely were considered top tier competitive mechs.

However, that still doesn't change the fact that the game wasn't balanced. You had teams with skewed tonnages. If you brought a mech under 70 tons, you were hurting your team. If you got a mech with ballistic weapons, you were hurting your team. Basically, if you brought anything that didn't do insane amounts of laser vomit (hence why the Novacat was the king of the game), you were hurting your team. Meanwhile, 12 or so weapon systems were crap. Half the mechs were crap, and there was no real balance.

Look, MW4 was fun, but it was never balanced. The planetary leagues are the only ones where some semblance of balance existed, and that's because we had hard capped a lot of things, and placed limitations on teams.

I agree with most of your viability comment so I'll leave it alone. However, I don't think you understand my point on balance. If everybody owns everything, then the GAME is balanced [EVEN IF UNITS ARE UNBALANCED] because everybody has an equal chance of winning. Only in games, like MWO, where everybody does not own everything and cannot even learn how to use everything without spending truely epic amounts of time or money, does balancing the UNITS really matter. Hence, MWO is so far beyond imagination LESS balanced than MW4, that I don't think I can even come up with a phrase to describe the difference.

Edited by Strikeshadow, 12 August 2015 - 06:14 AM.

[IraqiWalker]

Strikeshadow, on 12 August 2015 - 05:54 AM, said:

I agree with most of your viability comment so I'll leave it alone. However, I don't think you understand my point on balance. If everybody owns everything, then the GAME is balanced [EVEN IF UNITS ARE UNBALANCED] because everybody has an equal chance of winning. Only in games, like MWO, where everybody does not own everything and cannot even learn how to use everything without spending truely epic amounts of time or money, does balancing the UNITS really matter. Hence, MWO is so far beyond imagination LESS balanced than MW4, that I don't think I can even come up with a phrase to describe the difference.

You might want to elaborate there, because the internal balance between weight classes is actually quite good here, and as long as I'm not dropping into a troll build, I generally have a fair shot at winning. Mech ownership doesn't affect the game much. Even the best mechs in the game get dropped quickly if the pilot makes a mistake.