52 replies to this topic

[Undercover Brother]

Simple answer:
Emphasize what each mech was BUILT for.

Every mech design is built around specific lines. The Awesome was built to be a direct-fire support mech for larger assault mechs. The Locust was built to be a speed recon and anti-infantry mech. The Shadow Hawk was built to be a maneuverable, all-purpose, jack of all trades. PGI has stated, on many occasions, the idea of "Role warfare", but the current meta is nothing more than a plain and simple arms race. Whoever can balance the biggest engine with the largest number of one type of weapon is the winner. Because of this, role warfare is impossible. So, the question comes down to "how do we change this?"

These simple steps would FORCE players to use every individual mech to it's specific strong suits:

1. Engine caps- With only a dozen or so exceptions, NO Assault class mech should EVER exceed 54kph. It's rediculous to be run down in a medium mech by a lunatic in an Assault. Heavy and Medium class machines are also WAY too damn fast. Exceptions SHOULD be made, but only with mechs like the Cicada and Phoenix Hawk, which were DESIGNED as Light mech hunters and heavy recon units. We need to get away from 124kph mediums...it's impractical.

2. Sensors: With the exception of the Cyclops, Assaults shouldn't have sensors beyond about 150m. There's no meed. BUT, all Assaults (and Heavies, via cannon), should be equipped with 360° sensors, as well as seismic sensors within that 150m range (range shold be extended only wit BAP and/or Cmom and Console). They're BRAWLERS. They should be equipped as such. On the flip side, lights should have sensors up to 750m in the 180° forward arc, and at least 500m in the rear arc (enhanced by BAP). They're scouts...duh! Medium and Heavy mechs should also have their sensors reflect the design's intended purpose (ex: the Rifleman is inferior to the Jagermech in every aspect EXCEPT for the sensor suite, which was better in the Rifleman).

3. Anti-Quirking: Alright...here we go: Remove ALL weapons quirks...kinda. To call these things "Quirks" does a disservice to the individual mech designs. What is a mech specifically built for? Well, the Victor is built to be very maneuverable, and to hit targets of opportunity on the front lines. It was NEVER built to be a brawler. In that respect, weapons quirks don't apply, BUT increased torso twist speed, convergence, and a buff to the jump jets SHOULD apply. On the flip side, the Atlas rightly deserves structural quirks to the entire endo-skeleton, and maybe even to it's armor, considering it is designed to march right into the enemy's face, guns-a-blazing. Light mechs should have increased strength in the legs, since a constantly running mech would be hell on the legs. As far as Mediums and Heavies go, look at the design. Extra reinforcing totally makes sense on the right and left torsos (respectively) of the Shadow Hawk and Hunchback, seeing as how their primary weapons are located in these places. The left arm on the Centurion is BUILT as a shield...show that in the stats.

4. How to deal with the Clans: Remove the NERFs. The O.P. debate that was started when the first Clan pack was released...and now that people can buy Clan tech WITHOUT real money, it's all but disappeared. If the aforementioned changes are made for all the I.S. equipment, the same should be made for the Clan equipment. For example: The Hellbringer is SUPPOSED to have overheating issues, requiring the need for a mixed loadout. Unfortunately, due to things like Autocannons somehow producing as much waste heat as a laser, the entire system, the way it was designed, becomes a moot point. Arctic Cheetahs weren't designed to be O.P. laser-vomit, Assault mech-killers. The new meta with dual ERLLasers should fry the pilot. Again, a mixed weapons bag would be REQUIRED if the Arctic Cheetah didn't kill heat like a spider kills a fly.

5. READ SARNA.NET: Seriously...read it. It'll tell you all you need to know about each and every pro and con to each and every mech design.

6. Bye bye Ghost Heat: You can't penalize a Catapult driver for filling 6 missile slots with 6 launchers. You just can't. That's what the mech was built for.

[Cion]

T Decker, on 26 May 2016 - 10:54 AM, said:

lots of.....eh......stuff

No, no and no.

Dude, you are contradicting yourself. You say "do what a mech is designed to do" and then say things like "no assault over 54kph". What about assaults that were designed to go over that? (Pretty Baby anyone?)

You suggestions are essentially proposing we take away a lot of customization of the game. If I want to strip my mech and load it with a lolz build, I can do that, and I don't care what the mech was "supposed" to do.

And that brings me to the scariest point. People are never going to agree on what a mech is "supposed to do. If you stick to stock builds and "purposes" then you really are making a huge rift between a few competitive mechs and trash mechs. Also, do we really want PGI dictating what a mech is "supposed to do" more than what we have now? The current system is not good and somewhat works, but yours is worse and likely wont work.

I mean, thanks for giving this some thought, but just no.

If we want to balance things more we should look at things like improving maps, game modes, unlock ferro for clans, change or improve XLs for IS, etc.

Edited by Cion, 26 May 2016 - 11:17 AM.

[xe N on]

T Decker, on 26 May 2016 - 10:54 AM, said:

2. Sensors: With the exception of the Cyclops, Assaults shouldn't have sensors beyond about 150m. There's no meed. BUT, all Assaults (and Heavies, via cannon), should be equipped with 360° sensors, as well as seismic sensors within that 150m range (range shold be extended only wit BAP and/or Cmom and Console). They're BRAWLERS. They should be equipped as such. On the flip side, lights should have sensors up to 750m in the 180° forward arc, and at least 500m in the rear arc (enhanced by BAP). They're scouts...duh! Medium and Heavy mechs should also have their sensors reflect the design's intended purpose (ex: the Rifleman is inferior to the Jagermech in every aspect EXCEPT for the sensor suite, which was better in the Rifleman).

There is no logical explanation why mechs should have different sensor ranges.

However, there is a reason why a light mech is heavier to spot by a sensor than a assault mech.

My proposal would be to adapt the detection (not sensor) range based on class.

Light mechs: 400-500 m
medium mechs: 500-600 m
heavy mechs: 600-700 m
Assault mechs: 700-800 m

A 20 ton light mech would have half of the detection range of an 100 ton assault mech.

Role warfare also won't work even with fixed stock layouts. Because currently no role beside damage is necessary to win an match (scout mode in CW is an exception).

Role warfare need objectives that are not designed toward doing the most damage. And with objectives I don't mean just Cbill rewards. I mean actual mission objectives that have major consequences.

Edited by xe N on, 26 May 2016 - 11:29 AM.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

What you really want, is 3025 Stock Mode Decker. Leave Full Custom as full custom, you will find big resist in community if you want to change their freedom to custom, so the answer is Stock Mode 3025, but that will probably will never happen anyway, so MWO is doomed. We have promised privet lobby Stock Button though.

And you are very wrong in your point 1, read sarna, there are plenty assault meks designed to be fast.

[DjPush]

Hey.. Hey.. Hey........ Hey... PGI has tried to implement changes to the game that could have given certain mechs and variants a specific role in this game. However, leave it to the forum bads to throw a temper tantrum about it before it even gets implemented *cough* *cough* *info-tech*. Pgi has tried to do plenty of things of things to change the games dynamic. Yet, everytime they announce it or let players test it, they get flamed. Soooo....

You want to complain about something? Complain about the forum-roids ruining the game with their non stop "Everything is OP" thread followed by "I Want the Floburlizer Assault Mech so I Have Something New to Complain About." thread. The vocal minority has gotten exactly what they cried for.

Edited by DjPush, 26 May 2016 - 12:53 PM.

[Xiomburg]

You want a perfectly balanced game...that is easy.

Cross tech and remove the quirks.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

3025 Stock mech mode!

There, every chasis is different and an interesting dynamic balance can be achieved.

Then we'll let the clanner fan boys go play by themselves in their little cluster and everything will be great again.

DjPush, on 26 May 2016 - 12:52 PM, said:

Hey.. Hey.. Hey........ Hey... PGI has tried to implement changes to the game that could have given certain mechs and variants a specific role in this game. However, leave it to the forum bads to throw a temper tantrum about it before it even gets implemented *cough* *cough* *info-tech*. Pgi has tried to do plenty of things of things to change the games dynamic. Yet, everytime they announce it or let players test it, they get flamed. Soooo....

You want to complain about something? Complain about the forum-roids ruining the game with their non stop "Everything is OP" thread followed by "I Want the Floburlizer Assault Mech so I Have Something New to Complain About." thread. The vocal minority has gotten exactly what they cried for.

PGI did kinda throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak there by ditching everything instead of just the ghost range stuff that people really hated.

Edited by Narcissistic Martyr, 26 May 2016 - 12:58 PM.

[Juodas Varnas]

If you want to truly balance the game?

Just whatever you do don't listen to OP

[vocifer]

No! I don't want to balance the game!
I want more variety in gamemodes so that different mechs are good in different modes and situations. Role stuff...

[ReverseBurgler]

T Decker, on 26 May 2016 - 10:54 AM, said:

Simple answer:
Emphasize what each mech was BUILT for.

Every mech design is built around specific lines. The Awesome was built to be a direct-fire support mech for larger assault mechs. The Locust was built to be a speed recon and anti-infantry mech. The Shadow Hawk was built to be a maneuverable, all-purpose, jack of all trades. PGI has stated, on many occasions, the idea of "Role warfare", but the current meta is nothing more than a plain and simple arms race. Whoever can balance the biggest engine with the largest number of one type of weapon is the winner. Because of this, role warfare is impossible. So, the question comes down to "how do we change this?"

I think we should drop the idea of role warfare because it require an entirely different game. When i think of games with role warfare i think of games like Team Fortress 2 and MOABs. Why? because they have distinct classes with clear advantages and disadvantages and a fundamentally different set of rules that govern the game.

[DjPush]

Narcissistic Martyr, on 26 May 2016 - 12:57 PM, said:

3025 Stock mech mode!

There, every chasis is different and an interesting dynamic balance can be achieved.

Then we'll let the clanner fan boys go play by themselves in their little cluster and everything will be great again.



PGI did kinda throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak there by ditching everything instead of just the ghost range stuff that people really hated.

There was a lot more to that "ghost range" than people were willing to understand. Had they actually spent time in the test server using the new system, they would have seen the benefit that would have come with some fine tuning. It was a pretty viable change that increased the TTK and added a little more depth to the game. It was in no way game breaking as people led on in their threads.

Yet to this day... Players still ***** in here about TTK and laser alphas... Where is that Alanis Moreset video?

[Alan Davion]

DjPush, on 26 May 2016 - 12:52 PM, said:

Hey.. Hey.. Hey........ Hey... PGI has tried to implement changes to the game that could have given certain mechs and variants a specific role in this game. However, leave it to the forum bads to throw a temper tantrum about it before it even gets implemented *cough* *cough* *info-tech*. Pgi has tried to do plenty of things of things to change the games dynamic. Yet, everytime they announce it or let players test it, they get flamed. Soooo....

The info-tech kerfluffle was two fold.

1. PGI tried to nerf the ever-loving F*** out of lasers with the range reduction without a target lock mechanic.

2. Everything else to do with sensors failed because, A. PGI was trying to test too much all at the same time, and B. They did not give us clear and concise direction on how to test everything.

If PGI had conducted specific tests over the course of a few weekends/weeks, focusing on a different mech class every weekend/week, then they might have been able to actually do the shite they were trying to do without everyone flipping the f*** out.

MechPorn, on 26 May 2016 - 12:55 PM, said:

You want a perfectly balanced game...that is easy.

Cross tech and remove the quirks.

At that point why even bother keeping IS tech in the game? Everyone, I mean literally everyone would switch out for Clan weapons and then it's a case of "Why bother with the game at all?"

It would still be the same shite we've been dealing with for the last year, just everyone would be using better Clan tech and nothing would change in the least.

[WarHippy]

DjPush, on 26 May 2016 - 12:52 PM, said:

Hey.. Hey.. Hey........ Hey... PGI has tried to implement changes to the game that could have given certain mechs and variants a specific role in this game. However, leave it to the forum bads to throw a temper tantrum about it before it even gets implemented *cough* *cough* *info-tech*. Pgi has tried to do plenty of things of things to change the games dynamic. Yet, everytime they announce it or let players test it, they get flamed. Soooo....

You want to complain about something? Complain about the forum-roids ruining the game with their non stop "Everything is OP" thread followed by "I Want the Floburlizer Assault Mech so I Have Something New to Complain About." thread. The vocal minority has gotten exactly what they cried for.

Nonsense. PGI had a temper tantrum and scrapped it all because people were so mad about the stupid ghost damage mechanic that they hardly even looked at the other things that needed to be tested. That being said what they showed us of Info-tech was a little wacky anyway. It needed a lot of work to be made into something usable, but PGI chose to scrap it instead because they were pissed people didn't bow down and kiss their @ss in praise of what they had on the test server.

[Undercover Brother]

Obviously nobody can read.

I pointed out that there were exceptions (although few in number) to the Assault mech speed issue.

Why would an Assault mech, built to go toe to toe with other mechs, need sensors out to 800m? Why wouldn't a recon unit, built to find, engage, and harass the enemy, NOT have jacked sensors?

I NEVER called for stock mechs. I WAS emphasizing how perks should reflect the design. So, if a mech's primary eapons are energy based, don't perk missiles and ballistics. Are the Shadow Hawk and Hunchback the same? The Hunchback was BUILT for carrying large bore projectile weapons, whereas the Shadow Hawk was BUILT for smaller, faster, autocannons. Why not emphasize what they're designed for?

Are you arguing that everyone needs to have the exact same play style as everyone else? That's what we have NOW. EVERYONE runs around in the SAME MECHS, with the SAME loadouts, because that's the only way to WIN. Making each design as individual as possible gives each and every player an opportunity to play the way they WANT to. If PGI wants to make more money, they need more players. If PGI wants more players, they need to appeal to more play styles.

Thus far, the only arguments any of you have given are A, based on your inability to read the entire post, or B, because you are afraid of losing some sort of advantage you feel you have with the current meta.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

T Decker, on 26 May 2016 - 01:21 PM, said:

I NEVER called for stock mechs.

Yeah you not, but reading your post the answer for us Stock experienced is obvious. You will just find all those things that you write about in Stock game play.

And they tested something about sensors, they have meet strong resist in community so they trashed whole project.
Having better sensors on Locust then on Atlas have zero sense to me thought, better would be reversing that to detect ability, something in sort of world of warships.

[Clydewinder]

xe N on, on 26 May 2016 - 11:17 AM, said:

There is no logical explanation why mechs should have different sensor ranges.

However, there is a reason why a light mech is heavier to spot by a sensor than a assault mech.

My proposal would be to adapt the detection (not sensor) range based on class.

Light mechs: 400-500 m
medium mechs: 500-600 m
heavy mechs: 600-700 m
Assault mechs: 700-800 m

A 20 ton light mech would have half of the detection range of an 100 ton assault mech.

Role warfare also won't work even with fixed stock layouts. Because currently no role beside damage is necessary to win an match (scout mode in CW is an exception).

Role warfare need objectives that are not designed toward doing the most damage. And with objectives I don't mean just Cbill rewards. I mean actual mission objectives that have major consequences.

With ECM reducing that detection range, not making you invisible to sensors completely.

[Mcgral18]

These are some of the worst ideas I've read in a while.


Congratulations

[Jables McBarty]

ReverseBurgler, on 26 May 2016 - 01:04 PM, said:

I think we should drop the idea of role warfare because it require an entirely different game. When i think of games with role warfare i think of games like Team Fortress 2 and MOABs. Why? because they have distinct classes with clear advantages and disadvantages and a fundamentally different set of rules that govern the game.

I agree with both OP and this statement--I mean, this is sort of what OP is going for. MOBAs have clear, progressive objectives, and also throwaway AI. People have been arguing for this at least as long as I've been around (better objectives, add AI tanks/hovercraft/copters).

But it also shows that there is a precedent for this sort of thing, for different classes fulfilling very different roles (tank, support initiator, disabler, DPS carry, burst carry).

And we sort of have it in MWO as well, in the rock/paper/scissors circle: 12 Dire Wolves vs 12 Locusts will likely go to the Locusts, but 12 Timber Wolves vs. 12 Locusts will likely go to the Timberwolves.

But it would probably have to be a new game mode, different from QP and FW.

T Decker, on 26 May 2016 - 01:21 PM, said:

Obviously nobody can read.

I pointed out that there were exceptions (although few in number) to the Assault mech speed issue.

Why would an Assault mech, built to go toe to toe with other mechs, need sensors out to 800m? Why wouldn't a recon unit, built to find, engage, and harass the enemy, NOT have jacked sensors?

I NEVER called for stock mechs. I WAS emphasizing how perks should reflect the design. So, if a mech's primary eapons are energy based, don't perk missiles and ballistics. Are the Shadow Hawk and Hunchback the same? The Hunchback was BUILT for carrying large bore projectile weapons, whereas the Shadow Hawk was BUILT for smaller, faster, autocannons. Why not emphasize what they're designed for?

Are you arguing that everyone needs to have the exact same play style as everyone else? That's what we have NOW. EVERYONE runs around in the SAME MECHS, with the SAME loadouts, because that's the only way to WIN. Making each design as individual as possible gives each and every player an opportunity to play the way they WANT to. If PGI wants to make more money, they need more players. If PGI wants more players, they need to appeal to more play styles.

Thus far, the only arguments any of you have given are A, based on your inability to read the entire post, or B, because you are afraid of losing some sort of advantage you feel you have with the current meta.

Am I the only one who feels like we ARE running stock 'mechs, but for some alternate timeline?

Example:
Stock LCT-1V: FF, ES, XL190+3DHS, 1LPL
Stock ACH-C: 6xSPL, TC1, ECM
Stock MAD-3M: STD270, 3AC5, 4ML

What I'm trying to say is....what we think of as meta is just the new stock!

D:

Mcgral18, on 26 May 2016 - 02:04 PM, said:

These are some of the worst ideas I've read in a while.

Can you say why?

[Mcgral18]

Jables McBarty, on 26 May 2016 - 02:06 PM, said:

Can you say why?

Entirely contradictory:

"Assaults are slow, you should screw up the fast ones!"
While Sarna says there are Fast assaults

Same goes for the sensor range.
Then he goes on to say the Victor isn't a brawlers...(and also not a Fast Assault, apparently)

Quote

bringing its deadly close range arsenal to bear

Straight from Sarna, sounds like a brawler to me.

[Jables McBarty]

Mcgral18, on 26 May 2016 - 02:09 PM, said:

Entirely contradictory:

"Assaults are slow, you should screw up the fast ones!"
While Sarna says there are Fast assaults

Same goes for the sensor range.
Then he goes on to say the Victor isn't a brawlers...(and also not a Fast Assault, apparently)



Straight from Sarna, sounds like a brawler to me.

So he got a couple of details wrong.

Why are you against the overall concept?

And to clarify, I'm not trying to be contradictory, just legitimately interested in your counter-argument.