24 replies to this topic

[Gyrok]

Considering that the vast majority of mechs being played have agility quirks, and the vast majority of ignored mechs do not...I think it is time to roll back the skill tree nerfs and apply those buffs to the base mobility values of the mechs across the board. That keeps the difference from full elited mechs, and basiced mechs from being absurd, and it also means we can remove agility quirks (outside specific mechs that may be in need).

There are many mechs in game that would be played a lot more if agility was back on an even footing again. Assault mechs, for example, are not worth the opportunity cost in tonnage over a significantly more agile heavy mech with similar firepower, and generally considerable speed advantage over the assault mech.

In a 5-6 man group, if you are bringing assault mechs, they need to be worth it...and most currently are not. There are a few exceptions, but it would be nice to play something like a Victor again, or a Highlander, or any other of a large number of mechs that are just not agile/mobile enough anymore.

Edited by Gyrok, 02 June 2016 - 04:55 PM.

[Darian DelFord]

Assautls and Heavies are to agile as they are right now with the exception of a very few. Any Assault that can face his 180 in less than 2 seconds is to agile and that IS the vast majority of them. Heavies as well.

They need to DE-Couple Agility and Engine size and figure out another way to do it. Until that is done, heavies will continue to rule the roost.

[Wintersdark]

Whatever is done, it's clear that Assault mechs (outside a few notable exceptions) are basically unused if they lack agility buffs, and those that are used are typically either heavily quirked (Battlemasters, for example), or can pack particularly dangerous loadouts (KDK-3). The class overall is pretty poor, given most (exceptional quirks aside) don't pack a signficantly (or even at all) larger loadout than Heavies, while sporting horrible agility - and with that, difficulty spreading damage or evading damage in the first place, so in practice Assaults tend to crumple faster than Heavies.

So, in practice, you have roughly the same weaponry as a Heavy, and die faster. It's no wonder Heavies are still so dominant.

But whatever, while I agree, I'm not interested in the inevitable "git gud" argument.

[El Bandito]

Gyrok, on 02 June 2016 - 04:55 PM, said:

In a 5-6 man group, if you are bringing assault mechs, they need to be worth it...and most currently are not. There are a few exceptions, but it would be nice to play something like a Victor again, or a Highlander, or any other of a large number of mechs that are just not agile/mobile enough anymore.

I swear I saw multiple threads cried recently about how the opposing smaller groups had brought tons of Assaults and rolled over everything in group matches.

[Wintersdark]

El Bandito, on 02 June 2016 - 05:52 PM, said:

I swear I saw multiple threads cried recently about how the opposing smaller groups had brought tons of Assaults and rolled over everything in group matches.

Really? I can't say I've seen that complained about. Poor beleaguered 12 man groups being overrun by puggie small groups? Really?

Back in the day (pre-agility nerf days) people cried about pug matches where there were huge tonnage discrepancies, of course... but crying about little groups dominating the group queue? That's news to me.

Of course, this is the MWO forums. I'm sure people have whined about everything at some point or other.

[BumbleBee]

I actually would rather see most mechs lose some agility, in particular assaults. IMO, assault Mechs should be supported by lighter escorts at all times to be truly effective.

People often ask for more role warfare. This is something that I truly want to see, but to do that, mechs should be specialised in roles, not be able to cover most themselves. Working as a team would be paramount to win.

I want to see lights made into scouts or skirmishers (some chassis' better at one role than the other), mediums as the workhorse or escort (read as being mobile fighters or as light hunters depending on chassis), heavies being less agile fighters with more firepower and armour, and assaults being the battleships that bring the huge firepower that must be protected.

Having larger mechs as agile as they are now pretty much makes many lights and mediums obsolete, as heavies and assaults are quite capable of filling most of their roles and in many cases, being better at it.

I like the idea of a sliding scale of speed/agility vs armour/firepower, roughly guided by weight and/or chassis capabilities.

Edited by BumbleBee, 02 June 2016 - 07:30 PM.

[Chuck Jager]

Light mechs support their assaults less than 10% of the time while they drag the other players away.

In group Q this is sometimes better if more than 6 folks on comms. Otherwise it can stink to be in an assault other than Kodiak or BattleMaster (in FW) unless you are an assault specialist for a couple of years.

I see the better players going towards specific lights over mediums. I think the huge archetype could use a bit more speed and less agility. This could keep them with the group but not AIM AS WELL. Either way this is not a fun balance.

[Alistair Winter]

Heavies and mediums are too agile, I think. It makes things difficult for both lights and assaults.

[SmoothCriminal]

Quirks should be used to reflect role warfare - sensors and range for lights, mobility and ammo for mediums, firepower and [something] for heavies and structure and armour for assaults. Further quirks for balance.
Or a new pilot skill tree/level grind progression system.

This has been suggested numerous times but no change is even contemplated at present so hey ho, buy a mech pack AND SUPPORT THE TOURNAMENT!

[Prof RJ Gumby]

Skill tree nerf was in large part a sneaky nerf to certain top performers (FSs, ACHs, TBRs, SCRs) designed to lower the gap in performance between the best and worst mechs without overquirking the latter and in a way to avoid whinefest on the forums (remember what happened the last time they tried to nerf the TBR directly?). Most less competitive chassis got those skills back in form of quirks. Most assaults got some, because most assaults weren't considered top tier, but e.g. the Banshees did not.

IMHO, it improved things to a degree. Rolling those changes back will just screw the runner-ups again.

EDIT:

Gyrok, on 02 June 2016 - 04:55 PM, said:

Considering that the vast majority of mechs being played have agility quirks, and the vast majority of ignored mechs do not...I think it is time...

[snip]

In a 5-6 man group, if you are bringing assault mechs, they need to be worth it...and most currently are not. There are a few exceptions, but it would be nice to play something like a Victor again, or a Highlander, or any other of a large number of mechs that are just not agile/mobile enough anymore.

1. Most assaults did got agility quirks, either in form of turn rate and/or accel/decel bonuses. Those that do not were considered by PGI to be good enough (like the banshee), or more of a support/second line mechs, and got other quirks instead.

2. You know that Victors and Highlanders got agility quirks that actually make them MORE agile than they were before? These two got some crazy agility quirks, like 55% more accel/decel or 40% more turn rate.

Edited by Prof RJ Gumby, 03 June 2016 - 02:33 AM.

[Raso]

On the subject of assault durability and agility bear in mind that if we reduce their ability parameters and, as a result, lose rotation speed that they'll also lose their ability to tank by spreading damage. If that happens you can bet Jurassic will mean we'll see far less assaults in favor for the largest heavies.

Before we axe assault mech agility we'd need to adjust some other balance mechanics. On the realistic end I'd suggest giving all assaults a minor buff to structure and/or armor to make up for their reduced capacity to spread damage. Not a lot, mind you, but just enough to even it out. As far as a more fantastical suggestion goes I'd suggest we remove convergence for all torso mounted weapons. This will mean that flights between large assaults will result in more damage being spread by virtue of their weapons placements. This also means that smaller mechs would be ideal for exploiting their lack of mobility because they could more easily land multiple weapon systems on a single component.

The main point I want to bring home, though, is that if we reduce the mobility of assaults it will quickly become apparent how vulnerable they really can be without torso twisting. They shouldn't be ungodly juggernauts but they'd definitely need something to make up for the loss in torso twisting speed.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

El Bandito, on 02 June 2016 - 05:52 PM, said:

I swear I saw multiple threads cried recently about how the opposing smaller groups had brought tons of Assaults and rolled over everything in group matches.

Groups complaining that they aren't using teamwork to overcome a tonnage advantage? I'm not surprised but... damn...

[Weeny Machine]

Darian DelFord, on 02 June 2016 - 05:16 PM, said:

Assautls and Heavies are to agile as they are right now with the exception of a very few. Any Assault that can face his 180 in less than 2 seconds is to agile and that IS the vast majority of them. Heavies as well.

They need to DE-Couple Agility and Engine size and figure out another way to do it. Until that is done, heavies will continue to rule the roost.

Well-said. It has also other consequences e.g. firepower and armour are more important because even the heaviest mechs can fire into their back real quickly. I should have kept the link where someone did the math how fast a KC can fire into their rear arc. It was astonishing.

Wintersdark, on 02 June 2016 - 05:41 PM, said:

Whatever is done, it's clear that Assault mechs (outside a few notable exceptions) are basically unused if they lack agility buffs, and those that are used are typically either heavily quirked (Battlemasters, for example), or can pack particularly dangerous loadouts (KDK-3). The class overall is pretty poor, given most (exceptional quirks aside) don't pack a signficantly (or even at all) larger loadout than Heavies, while sporting horrible agility - and with that, difficulty spreading damage or evading damage in the first place, so in practice Assaults tend to crumple faster than Heavies.

So, in practice, you have roughly the same weaponry as a Heavy, and die faster. It's no wonder Heavies are still so dominant.

But whatever, while I agree, I'm not interested in the inevitable "git gud" argument.

Sure. Heavies have the best of both worlds: they rival the firepower of assaults (heat and space limits the assaults' weapon discharge to some degree anyway) and mediums' speed and agility. It comes as no surprise that the heavy queue is outside of events the longest

Raso, on 03 June 2016 - 05:01 AM, said:

As far as a more fantastical suggestion goes I'd suggest we remove convergence for all torso mounted weapons.

Didn't PGI once state that their engine can't handle that?

Edited by Bush Hopper, 03 June 2016 - 07:12 AM.

[WarHippy]

I have to agree with the OP. When they removed the agility from the skill trees all of the mechs should have received base increases or quirks not just some of them. I pretty much don't play any mech that doesn't have the quirks because they feel terrible to play.

[Raso]

Bush Hopper, on 03 June 2016 - 07:04 AM, said:

Didn't PGI once state that their engine can't handle that?

They might have. I don't really follow them that well these days. I find it hard to believe, though, as leading a target with AC10s on a Jagermech I know full well that the two rounds will hit (or miss) independently of each other and will often land on two separate components. Maybe that's different on one level or another but I know for a fact that that un-convergenced rounds are a thing.

[Gyrok]

Prof RJ Gumby, on 03 June 2016 - 02:18 AM, said:

2. You know that Victors and Highlanders got agility quirks that actually make them MORE agile than they were before? These two got some crazy agility quirks, like 55% more accel/decel or 40% more turn rate.

A HUGE boost to a small number because of a low engine cap is still a small boost in general. The IS HGNs have such quirks, and how often do you see them? Hell, the 732B has insane armor/structure quirks too, and you still never see them.

Why is that? Lack of mobility.

The VTR and HGN poverty seems to stem not only from low agility, but also reliance on XL engines to bring enough of anything to matter. Then you couple that with hover jets being a thing, and the one thing that WAS a redeeming feature of these mechs becomes a burden. Most HGN pilots remove the 2 ton JJs all together because 3-4 is not worth 6-8 tons to be able to clear pebbles.

Darian DelFord, on 02 June 2016 - 05:16 PM, said:

Assautls and Heavies are to agile as they are right now with the exception of a very few. Any Assault that can face his 180 in less than 2 seconds is to agile and that IS the vast majority of them. Heavies as well.

They need to DE-Couple Agility and Engine size and figure out another way to do it. Until that is done, heavies will continue to rule the roost.

Nope. Not even close.

If you think assaults are too agile as a light pilot, then you simply need to "git gud".

Sorry...even Gman thinks assaults need more agility

Quote

Anyways, what the Kodiak really brought up to me is that big mechs need help for agility.

To pull a line straight out of his recap...

BumbleBee, on 02 June 2016 - 07:25 PM, said:

I actually would rather see most mechs lose some agility, in particular assaults. IMO, assault Mechs should be supported by lighter escorts at all times to be truly effective.

<snip>

So, you are proposing a world where light mechs are confined to baby sit assault mechs instead of scouting, back hunting, or being disruptive?

Good luck selling that to anyone else.

[WarZ]

Darian DelFord, on 02 June 2016 - 05:16 PM, said:

Assautls and Heavies are to agile as they are right now with the exception of a very few. Any Assault that can face his 180 in less than 2 seconds is to agile and that IS the vast majority of them. Heavies as well.

They need to DE-Couple Agility and Engine size and figure out another way to do it. Until that is done, heavies will continue to rule the roost.

I hate to say it, but the more I think about this suggestion the more I think it's good. Each mech has a set agility. It would make another substantial layer of balance for the devs to work with, and create a more uniform experience in terms of handling.

A uniform nerf to a lot of mechs, yes, but it would create a much higher level of distinction between the classes and certain chasis.

[Mcgral18]

Raso, on 03 June 2016 - 09:23 AM, said:

They might have. I don't really follow them that well these days. I find it hard to believe, though, as leading a target with AC10s on a Jagermech I know full well that the two rounds will hit (or miss) independently of each other and will often land on two separate components. Maybe that's different on one level or another but I know for a fact that that un-convergenced rounds are a thing.

That's because they're converged behind the target

[Gyrok]

Mcgral18, on 03 June 2016 - 07:03 PM, said:

That's because they're converged behind the target

This is also why builds that put the weapons to a single side of the mech tend to be favorable...leading a mech will still generally land all the projectiles.

[Tarl Cabot]

The Skill tree "adjustments" were severe but I do not believe they should be returned to their original numbers but somewhere between the original and current numbers, considering the cost of many of them, especially the few that add actually nothing atm.

But again, any change made to the Skill Tree is only part of the equation.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 03 June 2016 - 07:14 PM.