92 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

moar weapons doesnt solve the problem of mechs being too similar. what we need is a complete revamp of the skill/module system to help differentiate mechs better.

they should divide modules into different categories like attack, defense, mobility, sensor, support, and universal... each mech should get 7-8 module slots that correspond to categories that make sense for that mech.

A lot of the current skills like anchor turn or speed tweak could be turned into modules as well. If your mech only has one mobility module slot and you have to choose between speed tweak or anchor turn; which would you choose? The types of skills/modules you could slot in your mech would depend not only on the weight class but the actual role of the mech as well.

Obviously you can see where this is going... light mechs would get way more mobility/sensor slots than heavier mechs. And heavy/assault mechs would get way more attack/defense slots. While mediums would get the most "universal" slots that could slot ANY module since mediums are supposed to be the most diverse weight class. A system like that would allow PGI to wildly differentiate mechs and customize exactly how fast/agile and how well armed/armored they want each and every mech to be, while still giving players a lot of options for customization

Edited by Khobai, 20 January 2016 - 01:52 PM.

[MadcatX]

I've been referring to this game as Walking Hardpoints for a while now. The non-structure quirks were in theory a good way to entice players to choose a loadout on a mech that would synergize with them and resemble a bit more the stock loadout but in reality that didn't happen short of a few cases. In the early days I was pretty vocal about limiting weapon loadout customisaiton a bit, maybe implementing some form of weapon size limit per hardpoint based on the mech/variant drawing inspiration from MechWarrior 4's mech lab. Obviously it's far too late for that.

I love the Marauder and Warhammer and if I considered them more then mech skins I probably would have bought them at their current price but with the sheer amount of walking hardpoints out there, I view them more as vanity items then distinctive chassis.

Read some good ideas in this thread so far and I hope they get implemented.

[Ted Wayz]

Unseen mechs sale because unseen. But after that what? If you are not a BT purist buying mechs just because it was something you played in TT why buy many of what are left? Because of the 500 or so mechs on Sarna there are very very few that offer something new.

So unless PGI gets their wish that BT purists become the underwhelming minority and they can suddenly add in crowd control powers, chain attacks and finishing moves; get ready mucho sameness on all that follow. Don't believe me? Here comes the Kodiak! (aka Atlas with claws)

Good thing PGIs monetization model isn't based solely on the sale of mechs. Oh...wait....

[DivineEvil]

Of new weapons we only need those, which exist in our ~3052 time-line, but are not in the game. Arrow-IV, maybe and just maybe Thunderbolt Missile systems, and one to three of available mech-compatible Artillery Cannons (Thumper, Sniper and Long Tom respectively). Thunderbolt Missile systems are questionable, because they would require an enormous groundwork for all existing mechs with new weapon models. Artillery weapon systems, on the other hand, will be much easier to implement as there would be few selective mechs, that would be able to sport these, but technical implementation is more difficult and balance-sensitive.

Other than that, no new weapons are needed, until present weapons and systems revolving around them are brought into good shape. MGs with more solid basic damage output, effective Flamers, LB-X with higher DPS over standard types and PPCs, that are as desirable as LPLs, but for longer ranges. General Heat mechanics, mech durability, efficiency of passive equipment like ComCon, AMS, CASE and MASC. Quirks has to be used properly, rather than trying to attend for two issues at the same time...

All of it makes an addition of new weapons and systems highly unfavorable. New stuff will always bring in more issues to crack, and will never fix any.

If talking about mechs, we're roughly on 50-60% mark for viable, timeline-correct mechs, that should be added to provide a solid choice across the weight classes. There's absolutely no need to expand into future designs.

Edited by DivineEvil, 20 January 2016 - 03:36 PM.

[Wolfways]

Mechlab allows more variety so players can make all their mechs the same...

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Wolfways, on 20 January 2016 - 03:38 PM, said:

Mechlab allows more variety so players can make all their mechs the same...

If more freedom with customization was given the situation would be even worse. With regards to this game, too much customization is actually a bad thing with regards to variety (no I do not support stock-only).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 20 January 2016 - 03:42 PM.

[Wolfways]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 20 January 2016 - 03:41 PM, said:

If more freedom with customization was given the situation would be even worse. With regards to this game, too much customization is actually a bad thing with regards to variety (no I do not support stock-only).

Well, there's not much more freedom that could be given....at least to IS mechs anyway.

I would like a stock-only mode...if pgi made the heat system work properly (i.e. stop trying to melt mechs).

[Ted Wayz]

Wolfways, on 20 January 2016 - 03:38 PM, said:

Mechlab allows more variety so players can make all their mechs the same...

Hence the meta...

[Lupis Volk]

It doesn't help that there are only a small % of mechs that people constantly use/or are of any use with the newer mechs being added in.

There are a few mechs i'd love to try out but they have either issues that are now being fixed (re-sizing) or have other issues (like the dragons CT size)

[Felicitatem Parco]

Marcel Bekker, on 20 January 2016 - 04:45 AM, said:

Imho (and I will take a lot of hate for this) there are just way too many customisation options. Right now, I feel like most Clan mechs, by virtue of being Omnis, have paradoxically more character than most Battlemechs... those Battlemechs that have a certain character get it from their quirks, mostly.

I think Battlemechs should not be allowed to change engine sizes, just STD or XL. However, base speeds have to be adjusted to their supposed TT values as well, an Atlas or a Direwolf should NOT run at 48 kph, they should do 53 kph... the speed tweak should be a bonus, not a necessity.
Weapon hardpoints should also dictate which size of weapon can be changed in. Large energy for large energy, small ballistic for small ballistic...

And for the Omnimech side of things... keep the current hardpoint system, but fix the armor values. You want to pilot a Hellbringer? Then you better deal with its paper armor.

You caught some hate alright. Those TT values for Atlas and Dire Wolf Mechs come from rounding of hex values to the nearest integer value, whereas in MWO they come from "actual" engine and movement values. And saying you should be able to swap normal for XL engine, but not change engine size is ridiculous from a mechanical standpoint seeing that those two engine types are mounted in different parts of the darn chassis and take up different amounts of space, whereas different engine sizes in the same engine type do not require different mounting configurations. And making people use the sh***y TT armor values in the Hellbringer, for example? Why even ad the Mech into the game in the first place?

Some people should not balance games.

_________________


As far as the OP says, this game does need new weapons.

A new "Mech" is really just a new set of hardpoints, hitboxes, and engine limits.

That's it. As long as we continuously get new Mechs in the absence of new weapons/Tech, we'll hit the saturation point where "new" Mechs are not new at all except for their name and graphic styling. And as far as I am concerned, we are pretty much there right now.

Any "New Mech" they add to the game at this point runs the significant risk of adding nothing to the game.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Tom Sawyer, on 20 January 2016 - 04:28 AM, said:

So many of us are rocking our new warhammers. Just like we rocked the marauders. And so on.

Some us are trying to stay lore purists. PPCs as per lore. Others are searching for the perfect meta. Most DPS. Built for this map.

However my point is we keeping getting new mechs. We keep slapping on the same weapons. At some point when you have over a hundred mechs many start to blur together.

Some say the timeline is currently 3050, or 51, or even 52.

I know mechs sell. And this game needs the money from those mech sales to keep the servers alive. Also there are many many fixes the game needs particularly in CW.

But even table top had to evolve. IS saw the clans, saw the new weapons, saw many balance issues created some which still linger to this day.

However I am just curious to know others feel? Should PGI consider adding in new weapons by advancing the time a few years? This would introduce new mech possibilities too. Or should they really buckle down and fix what we have before introducing new weapons which will lead to new variations on the mechs we already have?

Battletech has hit that since First Edition.

Most of the mechs are made to fill the same roles. It's really that simple. The limiting factor's were cost... which is not something in MWO.

as such, it feels like we have a lot of "Sameish" mechs, and, technically, that's true. But for those of us who love the lore, and love specific mechs for their history, it doesn't matter.

But if you're in it purely for the meta, "This is the "Best" mech for said role." stuff. then yeah, 100% we hit the saturation point at least a year ago. Hell I could make a Marauder out of the CTF 3D, and a Warhammer [or close enough] out of the Grasshopper.

[Bilbo]

I've got 14k+ matches in one mech, with essentially the same build throughout, and I haven't tired of it yet. I've got 100+ more mechs sitting there waiting for that time though.

[Funkin Disher]

Prosperity Park, on 20 January 2016 - 04:03 PM, said:

A new "Mech" is really just a new set of hardpoints, hitboxes, and engine limits.

You missed tonnage, but good point. So we add more variables. It could be changed to be:
A mech is a new set of tonnage, weapon hardpoints, equipment hardpoints, hitboxes, engine limits, quirks, skills and modules.
Most of those already exist, we simply change them to fit mechs more individually (especially skills and modules, quirks help but can't do it alone).

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Wolfways, on 20 January 2016 - 03:45 PM, said:

Well, there's not much more freedom that could be given....at least to IS mechs anyway.

You never played MW2 or 3 then.

[Marcel Bekker]

Prosperity Park, on 20 January 2016 - 04:03 PM, said:

You caught some hate alright. Those TT values for Atlas and Dire Wolf Mechs come from rounding of hex values to the nearest integer value, whereas in MWO they come from "actual" engine and movement values. And saying you should be able to swap normal for XL engine, but not change engine size is ridiculous from a mechanical standpoint seeing that those two engine types are mounted in different parts of the darn chassis and take up different amounts of space, whereas different engine sizes in the same engine type do not require different mounting configurations. And making people use the sh***y TT armor values in the Hellbringer, for example? Why even ad the Mech into the game in the first place?

Indeed, a lot of hate for a simply throwing out ideas. Did I say anywhere that this and only this is how it should be?

Different parts of the chassis, really? You point towards the limitations of the TT system regarding hex values and speeds, but do not realize that the left/center/right torso distinction is nothing but an abstraction for ease of tracking damage? There is no magic "wall" between the torso sections in the mechs internal structure.
It was a suggestion, allow change of engine ratings for all I care... but limit them more then right now... +/- 50, from a 300 to a 250 or 350 for example. A Panther(well, the ones we have in MWO) is not supposed to be a quick and nimble brawler.

Also, you seemed to completely ignore that the "fixed armor values" suggestion was intended for omnimechs only, a counterpoint to limiting the weapon customisation options of regular battlemechs. And who said anything about using TT values for armor? Our armor values are doubled, simple common sense would have told you that, of course, it would still use doubled values compared to TT. That being said, even in TT the Hellbringer is considered insane at best and useless at worst... that does not stop players that know how to do so from making very good use of them... and if that Mech has one thing due to this, it is character!

Why add it to the game you ask? Well, some players take pride in making chassis work that are considered substandard from meta-standpoint... let me pose a counterquestion based on your bolded statement:

Why add more chassis to the game when the few "optimal" configurations, based on current weapon balance, only really suit a select few, based on the most important characteristics like high mounted hardpoints?

Prosperity Park, on 20 January 2016 - 04:03 PM, said:

As far as the OP says, this game does need new weapons.

A new "Mech" is really just a new set of hardpoints, hitboxes, and engine limits.

This is absolutely true. And it is true, just because of the fact that there is TOO MUCH customisation. The Mechs lack in character, because everything gravitates to a few weapons or weapon combinations. Just adding more new weapons will do nothing to change that, all it may be doing is changing which are considered ideal. In the end, nothing is gained.

What is needed is a system that actually makes these Mechs encourage different loadouts, different playstyles, and that is hardly possible if some weapons are just not balanced towards each other. That is what leads to quirk-monsters.

Prosperity Park, on 20 January 2016 - 04:03 PM, said:

Some people should not balance games.

Condescension never helped any discussion.

Edited by Marcel Bekker, 20 January 2016 - 05:29 PM.

[Wolfways]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 20 January 2016 - 05:15 PM, said:

You never played MW2 or 3 then.

I played MW2 but don't really remember it.

[Johnny Z]

To the topic, if it wasn't for the reseen and the Clan tech needing a bit more variety then yes I would say some kind of saturation point had been reached. This game needs more premium content other than mechs ASAP. Also that would add more content so it would make the game more fun for players so its a win win.

[jaxjace]

Marcel Bekker, on 20 January 2016 - 06:21 AM, said:

SPL DMG/HEAT
MWO: Clan 6/3 IS 4/2
TT: 3/2 both

A lot more damage on the Clan version than it should have... ranges are about right for both compared to TT

ERLarge DMG/HEAT
MWO: Clan 11/10 IS 9/8 Regular Large Laser 9/7
TT:Clan 10/12 IS 8/12 Regular Large Laser 8/8

This one is especially striking... both produce a lot less heat and do more damage than they should.

LPL DMG/HEAT
MWO: Clan 13/10(!) IS 11/7(!!)[
TT: Clan 10/10 IS 9/10

I literally can not... what? In one fell swoop PPCs are made pointless unless quirked!

Mhm...

What else? Oh yes, Armor Values are doubled in MWO, but for some reason ammunition count is not... LRMs have 180 compared to 120 in TT, merely 50% more.
SRMs have exactly their TT ammo count.
Gauss Rifles have 10 instead of 8, barely a 20% increase.
AC20s have 7 instead of 5.
AC10s actually have double their TT ammo values, 20 instead of 10.
AC5s have 30 instead of 20, another 50% increase.
AC2s have 75 instead of 45

And people actually wonder why Lasers are the "Meta", and most builds gravitate to ERLL or LPL boating for longer range and SPLs for short range? They actually wonder why everything gets so "samey"?

What can we expect Clan Heavy Lasers to look like when they come in 3058? A Clan Heavy Large Laser with 20 damage, 16 heat and 2 to 2.5 seconds duration?! It certainly looks that way from the other Laser systems.

Literally this.

Is there any reason at all why the devs decided to make lasers straight up the best weapons in the game?

Been using them for 3 years, nothing else compares.

Edited by jaxjace, 20 January 2016 - 06:47 PM.

[Ted Wayz]

Bilbo, on 20 January 2016 - 04:07 PM, said:

I've got 14k+ matches in one mech, with essentially the same build throughout, and I haven't tired of it yet. I've got 100+ more mechs sitting there waiting for that time though.

Over 250 mechs and I play them all. Haven't hit triple digit matches in one mech yet.

But now I know how you insta-master mechs with GxP.

[dimachaerus]

Honestly, I'd say kick the timeline to 3063. IS gets some nice new toys to play with that bring them to a bit more parity with the clans, and the clans get some genuinely cool mechs and a bit of new tech as well.

I may be a bit biased though, since I so very very badly want to make a RAC Urbie and an MRM Catapult.