54 replies to this topic

[TELEFORCE]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 January 2016 - 02:14 PM, said:

Neither is the difference between 80 and 85. Or 85 and 90. See where that leads?

My fault is that I was thinking in terms of tabletop 'mech construction rules. I guess it seems awkward to me that 80 tonners vs. 100 tonners in a quick play game is really equal. Then again that could be said for all class tonnages.

[MauttyKoray]

Khobai, on 30 January 2016 - 03:06 PM, said:

Thats because of the stupid long range on all the lasers though.

high hardpoints would mean less if weapons had shorter ranges in general. I personally think they need to start reeling in the ranges on some of these weapons to encourage more brawling.

Here's a write up for my idea on this issue balancing standard and ER weapons and reeling in ranges, especially the Maximum ranges (which are insane). Be nice, it was a rough pass with small revisions and I gave up because the overall topic was absolutely troll-worthy in its responses.

Spoiler

I think a lot of the issue in the fact that we can SHOOT OVER 1000M. LRMs were supposed to be the farthest reaching weapon in the game, but now we have post-1000M energy and ballistics that make fights really insane and people sniping with 3ERLLs out at like 1300M.

IMO we need to refocus this issue on the Maximum Ranges of weapons, and reign them in significantly. Reduce them to things like 20% of the current Effective Range or something (change depending on weapon I guess?), go through and change each weapon.

Lets say
SLs-80% while the ERs get like 50%
MLs 60% while the ERs get 25%
LLs at 30% with the ERs netting a 10%

SL - 135 / 243 (3 dmg, 2 heat, 2.25 CD, 0.75 duration, 1 DPS)
CERSL - 200 / 300 (5 dmg, 3 heat, 2.25 CD, 1.00 duration, 1.53 DPS)

^- Thats an issue imo, massive DPS difference. Possibly reduce by 1 DMG? Brings the DPS down to 1.23 while the remaining weapon is untouched. Balancing the IS ERSL, I'd say 4 dmg, 4 heat, 2.25 CS, 0.9 duration = 3.15 TCT and 1.26 DPS. This would give the ERSL a slightly better DPS at a heat cost (remember clans were supposed to be superior in heat... lets give it some flavor).

ML - 270 / 432 (5 dmg, 4 heat, 3 CD, 0.9 duration, 1.28 DPS)
CERML - 405 / 506 (7 dmg, 6 heat, 3 CD, 1.15 duration, 1.68 DPS)

^- again, clans are only ER, IS will also get ER, assumption is they will be similar to CER, possibly with slightly less duration, and 1 point less damage, and slightly less range (maybe 50m?). Problem is making both ML and ERML viable once it happens. Suggested, 6 dmg, 5 heat, 3 CD, 1 duration for = 4 TCT with a 1.5 DPS. Bring the range up to be a bit more competitive and the slightly lower DPS will be made up for by the lower burn time. I honestly wanted to suggest 6 heat for the ISERML, but I feel like that would cause I riot without a tweak to something else... maybe 6 heat, but then keep 0.9 duration for 1.53 dps? Or 7 dmg 7 heat but then 1.10 duration for 1.7 DPS? <--That doesn't sound bad...heat penalty and lower range would give it a nice balance for a higher damage burst over the same duration. Unique but neither overpowering the other at all situations?

LL - 450 / 562 (9 dmg, 7 heat, 3.25 CD, 1 duration, 2.12 DPS)
ERLL - 675 / 742 (9 dmg, 8 heat, 3.25 CD, 1.25 duration, 2 DPS)
CERLL - 740 / 814 (11 dmg, 10 heat, 3.25 CD, 1.50 duration, 2.31 DPS.

^- I actually see no issue with the LL series personally, OTHER THAN, the ridiculous range they've had for so long. I'm sorry but I like this A LOT MORE, a max of 814m on a LL without modules/quirks/etc? YES PLEASE. The CERLL has a noticeably higher DPS and slightly more raw damage, but that's spread over an extra .25 seconds and an extra 2 heat generated in total. Plus the reduction to a mere 100m or less in difference between the C and IS ERs feel like a much better place for them to sit by far.

These are weird... CSPL is +80%, CMPL is +70%, and CLPL is +100??? W...T...F... these are all sort of nope. Another split modification incoming!

SPLs-100% while the Cs get like 70%
MPLs 75% while the Cs get 35%
LPLs at 50% with the Cs netting a 15%

SPL - 110 / 220 (4 dmg, 2 heat, 2.25 CD, 0.5 duration, 1.45 DPS)
CSPL - 165 / 280 (6 dmg, 3 heat, 2.25 CD, 0.75 duration, 2 DPS?!)

^Huge DPS difference, recommend either reducing CSPL to 5 dmg for 1.66 DPS (preferred method) or up heat to 4 to compensate mainly for superior DPS and lesser so for range superiority. It can nearly compete with an ISMPL in range and has huge DPS, not okay.

MPL - 220 / 385 (6 dmg, 4 heat, 3 CD, 0.6 duration, 1.66 DPS)
CMPL - 330 / 445 (8 dmg, 6 heat, 3 CD, 0.85 duration, 2.07 DPS) <- WOW

^Again, recommend reducing damage to 7 for a 1.81 DPS at least. 2.07 is massive and we wonder why we have issues with PPFLD laser vomit?

LPL - 365 / 547 (11 dmg, 7 heat, 3.25 CD, 0.67 duration, 2.80 DPS) <-Seriously?
CLPL - 600 / 690 (13 dmg, 10 heat, 3.25 CD, 1.12 duration, 2.98 DPS) <-SERIOUSLY?!

^(I say 540 / 621 is better on CLPL)
^Sorry but no, 600m? Bad, this is really messed up, I know CERLL is far but think of this as a non-ER laser, even the CSPL and CMPL are restricted to a +50% gap, this one is +64%! Its bad, I have to say. I understand more IS tech is beyond this but...WOW. Reduce to 540 which is just below at 48%
^Once again, WTF NEARLY 3 DPS?! Here's my suggestion below:

LPL - 365 / 547 (10 dmg, 7 heat, 3.25 CD, 0.75 duration, 2.50 DPS) <-up to 8 heat? combat LPL boats?
CLPL - 540 / 621 (12 dmg, 10 heat, 3.25 CD, 1.15 duration, 2.72 DPS)

^Makes the LPL a low duration alternative to LL at cost of range with slightly more damage and it at least tones the DPS down, LPL boats are an issue. Still the highest DPS for lasers thought with respectable range for IS.
^CLPL reduced as well, but retains slightly higher DPS over the cost of a much lower duration and massive heat generation.



HOWEVER, quirks will need a major overhaul after this. Missiles don't follow this mechanic so there isn't really an issue there, but ballistics will also need a similar overhaul to pull them in and stop letting them hit at stupidly insane ranges, I understand some are supposed to shoot 'far' but 720/1440 on an AC5 and 540/1080 on an AC10 is silly.

Think of it this way, the clans 'improved' their tech, so think of them producing 'less waste' (smaller maximum range %s) and instead having a higher effective range to begin with, maybe doing a little more damage, but improvements will require more heat, longer burn times, etc. In contrast, hastily improved IS tech will have better range, damage, and retain a better burn time, but at the cost of generating more/comparable heat to the Clan's weapons without achieving quite the damage or range. Its all trade off and finding a place for it to sit.

Edited by MauttyKoray, 30 January 2016 - 03:36 PM.

[Summon3r]

Khobai, on 30 January 2016 - 02:15 PM, said:

heavies are basically apex predators. they have nothing that hunts them. assaults should be their predators.

But assaults have major issues with huge hitboxes and not being able to torso twist to distribute damage, so they end up being less durable than heavies.

And non-ballistic spamming assaults hit the same heat brick wall as heavies. So in a lot of cases assaults dont have more firepower than heavies either.

Plus on top of that is the massive speed disparity between heavies and assaults. Assaults just need buffs in general.

They definitely need unique skill trees for each weight class. All weight classes should not share the same generic skills because not all weight classes are supposed to perform the same role.

absolutely

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 January 2016 - 02:14 PM, said:

Neither is the difference between 80 and 85. Or 85 and 90. See where that leads?

Well sure but 4/6 75,80, and 85 ton mechs all have the same amount of free space give or take half a ton from endo. So, what if 80 and 85 ton STD engine mechs faster than 60 kph counted as heavies for match making purposes? Not that it'd happen since it'd probably be a massive PITA to code.

[Wolfways]

Khobai, on 30 January 2016 - 03:06 PM, said:

Thats because of the stupid long range on all the lasers though.

high hardpoints would mean less if weapons had shorter ranges in general. I personally think they need to start reeling in the ranges on some of these weapons to encourage more brawling.

Wut?
Where are these matches that aren't a couple of minutes peeking then a 10 minute brawl?
Also, screw brawling. Brawling is what happens when tactics fail.

[Bishop Steiner]

Narcissistic Martyr, on 30 January 2016 - 03:46 PM, said:

Well sure but 4/6 75,80, and 85 ton mechs all have the same amount of free space give or take half a ton from endo. So, what if 80 and 85 ton STD engine mechs faster than 60 kph counted as heavies for match making purposes? Not that it'd happen since it'd probably be a massive PITA to code.

Weight classes, as anything other than a tool for filing has always been a stupid idea, tbh.

Mechs should really be defined in the same manner as most military vehicles. By Role. Scouts. Artillery. Main Battle, etc.

Yes one can use mass as a descriptor still (heavy scout, for instance) but the Light/Medium/Heavy/Assault "brackets" have always been flawed.

[wanderer]

They're flawed in part because of engine rating-to-payload ratios.

As noted above, a 70 tonner and an 85 tonner basically have the same payload at "average" speeds for their weight...but 70-75 tonners are "heavy" and 80-85 tonners "assaults" in the current weight tiering system.

And pretty much anyone here would put 35 tonners into a place of their own for payload vs. a Commando or Locust, considering they can hold their own with many mediums!

I didn't just pull those five tonnage tiers a few posts back out of nowhere, after all.

[Bishop Steiner]

wanderer, on 30 January 2016 - 03:56 PM, said:

They're flawed in part because of engine rating-to-payload ratios.

As noted above, a 70 tonner and an 85 tonner basically have the same payload at "average" speeds for their weight...but 70-75 tonners are "heavy" and 80-85 tonners "assaults" in the current weight tiering system.

And pretty much anyone here would put 35 tonners into a place of their own for payload vs. a Commando or Locust, considering they can hold their own with many mediums!

I didn't just pull those five tonnage tiers a few posts back out of nowhere, after all.

Funnily a 4/6 mech at 75 vs 80 tons, with level 1 tech has literally ZERO weight advantage. The IS is .5 tons heavier, the Engine, 3.5 tons, and it requires a 1 ton heavier Gyro... using up the entire 5 ton weight difference. With Level 2 Tech, you gain 2 tons for the jump (pretty minor)

[wanderer]

Yep. It's more obvious to TT veterans given MWO's more customizable stuff, but 'Mechs may have L/M/H/A ratings and still end up being roughly equivalent despite crossing those lines. I mean, look at a stock Battlemaster. PPC, 4 MLs, SRM 6, 2 MG's.

A Warhammer has about six tons in guns on one. Two SL's and two MLs instead of 4 MLs, but a second PPC (and less armor), which puts them about even-up given the same ground speed.

It's old news that most of the 85+ 'Mechs had stock engines so big they'd seriously mess with available gun/armor loads, the biggest sinner being the Banshee with it's dinky PPC + AC/5 + small laser guns.

Edited by wanderer, 30 January 2016 - 04:21 PM.

[Deathlike]

Let's kinda look over the brief history of the 80 ton mech.

Awesome:
Big as barndoor - poor scaling (very weak hotbox adjustment attempts - too much shoulder than arms)
Never got better over time (mostly got worse and affected moreso by mediocre/meddling quirks)
Pretty Baby has been in the corner QQing ever since birth

Victor:
Was part of an actual meta, of which it got nerfed into the ground
Is part of the Hoverjet™ legacy
Weapons primarily in the arms

Zeus:
Meddling hardpoints
Actually got preemptive quirks on debut
Generally relies on large XL (or STD) engine to be useful

Gargoyle:
Torso hardpoint options limited to CT (pretty much all low mounted weapons only)
Worst tonnage management spent on 400XL - limited tonnage loadouts
Limited to Brawling Range for most builds
Ironically the current "best" of the 80 ton bunch (which has a really low bar).


Unless our balance overlord has a clue, we'll be here in some semblance of balance limbo (or purgatory).

Edited by Deathlike, 30 January 2016 - 04:45 PM.

[Summon3r]

Deathlike, on 30 January 2016 - 04:44 PM, said:

Unless our balance overlord has a clue, we'll be here in some semblance of balance limbo (or purgatory).

lol and we all know how that will play out

[Khobai]

Quote

Where are these matches that aren't a couple of minutes peeking then a 10 minute brawl?
Also, screw brawling. Brawling is what happens when tactics fail.

No brawling should be a viable tactic in its own right. Game needs to find a better balance between sniping and brawling. Right now it favors sniping way too much.

Edited by Khobai, 30 January 2016 - 05:34 PM.

[MauttyKoray]

Khobai, on 30 January 2016 - 05:34 PM, said:

No brawling should be a viable tactic in its own right. Game needs to find a better balance between sniping and brawling. Right now it favors sniping way too much.

imo overall ranges (mostly the maximum range mechanic is a problem) need to be contained within the 1000m that the Mechwarrior games have kept to.

[El Bandito]

TELEFORCE, on 30 January 2016 - 01:46 PM, said:

I'd rather see 80 tonners be counted as heavy 'mechs in the matchmaker, despite being assault-class 'mechs in-universe. The difference between 75 and 80-tonners isn't a whole lot.

Bishop Steiner, on 30 January 2016 - 02:14 PM, said:

Neither is the difference between 80 and 85. Or 85 and 90. See where that leads?

I had something very close in mind due to how sucky 40/60/80 tonners are in MWO. Made a thread about it. http://mwomercs.com/...e-based-system/

Edited by El Bandito, 30 January 2016 - 07:57 PM.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 January 2016 - 03:51 PM, said:

Weight classes, as anything other than a tool for filing has always been a stupid idea, tbh.

Mechs should really be defined in the same manner as most military vehicles. By Role. Scouts. Artillery. Main Battle, etc.

Yes one can use mass as a descriptor still (heavy scout, for instance) but the Light/Medium/Heavy/Assault "brackets" have always been flawed.

I've been thinking that role might be best calculated through a BV like thing. But it instead adds up your ability to perform in different roles. Not sure how I'd weight different things though... would have to probably set up a league to figure it out unfortunately.

[Fleeb the Mad]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 January 2016 - 04:03 PM, said:

Funnily a 4/6 mech at 75 vs 80 tons, with level 1 tech has literally ZERO weight advantage. The IS is .5 tons heavier, the Engine, 3.5 tons, and it requires a 1 ton heavier Gyro... using up the entire 5 ton weight difference. With Level 2 Tech, you gain 2 tons for the jump (pretty minor)

While it's true at TT values that the 4/6 assaults break even at best (I'm fairly sure the Battlemaster has less payload at 85), it's skewed in MWO because you can tone the standard engines down until they're out of the more ridiculous part of the tonnage increase exponential curve, without having to bust all the way down to 50 kph.

Side note: For those who haven't noticed, engine tonnages do not increase linearly with size, particularly over 300 rating. The difference between a 280 and a 300 is less than a 300 vs a 320.

If you keep that 300STD in your 80 ton mech you gain a comfortable amount of payload and have a small drop in top speed. That's actually a pretty good place for 80 ton mechs with standard engines. Excluding mechs that are XL friendly, it doesn't make much sense to stuff a large engine in an assault mech to keep pace with heavies. Unless it's got something like better hardpoints or body shape, generally you're trading the ability to carry more armour (and thus carry less payload than the smaller mech) for the inherent disadvantages in maneuverability, size and hitboxes.

I don't believe any of the 80 tonners have advantages in those regards versus their popular heavy contemporaries though. It's a fair comparison if you're looking at a Victor compared to say, an Orion, which has low hardpoints and a similar humanoid body shape. Even when you look at other humanoid 75 ton mechs like the Grasshopper or the Black Knight, the Victor just...doesn't have anything they can't do better.

Straddling the class divide there diverts some of the attention from the real problem - all the 80 ton mechs have mediocre profiles and hardpoints. They wouldn't be as good as other mechs if they were 75 tons instead of 80. They should be quirked like any other under performing chassis. It's the same deal as the IS 60 ton lineup. The Vulture shows that 60 tons isn't a cursed bracket, but with IS mechs like the Dragon and the Quickdraw as the main offerings for ages, it's no wonder the 60 ton bracket looks awful compared to a Jagermech or Thunderbolt at 65.

[Zordicron]

More than anything, regarding just MWO- its the speed. It is the average speed players run, and how movement plays out in a match.

If you move to slow, you will be left behind at worst, but even if not you will have too difficult a time reacting to enemy flanks etc and will find your assault out of position and getting focused before you know it. So you need to increase your speed to a certain threshold.

By doing so, you have taken the extra tonnage and used it on engine. This is why people compare heavy to assault and wonder what the point is. having agility tied to engine rating is a contributing factor also, sometimes the only way to make a big old sluggish monstrosity able to twist and maintain a target is to go oversize on engine. Zeus for example- if you run a "normal" size engine, you can likely do OK on the speed of it(a little slow but not too bad) but the thing turns into a slug, hard to spread dmg, harder to track lights, etc.

In previous titles, having a 100 ton assault that could only do 45k was a hinderance, but it was something you could work with because the firepower+extra armor made up for it. In MWO, only EXTREME firepower or other megaquirks can make up for this because positioning and agility is so key.

And all of that, because of pin point damage and even more so, alpha strikes. You can;t be a lumbering behemoth, because you will get 70% of your armor bypassed by a couple big alphas. So you MUST hit that speed threshold, or posses immense firepower(DWF) or other mega quirks. The alphas lead to the balance issues, like they always have, 40-60-80 tons mech issues are no exception to this.

[Trauglodyte]

Something else to take into account, I can replicate the Awesome 8Q on the Warhammer 6D in every single way while, on top of everything else, being more mobile, more agile, with better quirks, less size, and slightly less armor. So, what exactly is the point of taking the Awesome? More to the point, what is the benefit of taking the Assault mech when the Heavy mech performs the same exact functionality but with a much higher premium benefit of speed and maneuverability?

[Summon3r]

Trauglodyte, on 31 January 2016 - 08:17 AM, said:

Something else to take into account, I can replicate the Awesome 8Q on the Warhammer 6D in every single way while, on top of everything else, being more mobile, more agile, with better quirks, less size, and slightly less armor. So, what exactly is the point of taking the Awesome? More to the point, what is the benefit of taking the Assault mech when the Heavy mech performs the same exact functionality but with a much higher premium benefit of speed and maneuverability?

this is exactly where the issue lies, it wouldnt upset if they just threw an absolute **** ton of hit points at all mechs that are called assaults.... hell give every one of them a base 75-100% armor hit point boost no quirks needed

[oldradagast]

80-ton mechs are currently the victim of various poor overall decisions as well as issues with the mechs themselves.

Zeus: Actually, this one is mostly fine. Hitboxes are good, weapon hardpoints are generally good, though it lacks high weapon mounts. Still, the good loads offered, the small hitboxes, and the durability quirks make for a solid mech, IMHO.

Victor: Poor hitboxes - the mech works best with an XL engine, but the huge side torsos leave it easily shot to pieces. It also suffers from Hover-jets that make it a slow-floating target. Finally, not only are the hardpoints mediocre and often impractical, I believe the Victor still suffers with undersized and illogical missile hardpoints that can't put out enough missiles at once to be dangerous.

Awesome: Terrible mech, but one that could be fixed. It's too wide, the torsos are too big and the arms are too small. I can accept the limited hardpoint options, but the hardpoint positions are rather poor, with low-mounted energy hardpoints and scattered missile launchers everywhere that reduces SRM grouping. Could be fixed, but needs a tweaking of the model to fix the grossly oversized torsos and odd hardpoint locations.

Gargoyle: Suffers from Banshee or Charger Syndrome, where somebody thinks that putting a stupidly huge engine in a mech that eats up most of its weapon tonnage is a good idea. End result is a big target that lacks firepower and which still only moves "reasonably fast." Fail design thanks to the huge engine that can't be removed. At least with the Banshee, you can down-size the engine to something sane and give it real weapons.

None of these problems are unique to 80-ton mechs, but 80-ton mechs simply suffer a lot of problems. Being too big is common, probably because "they are assault mechs, so they must be big." This ends up making them easy targets since in reality they are just "super heavies" vs. "big, scary assaults."

Edited by oldradagast, 31 January 2016 - 08:56 AM.