274 replies to this topic

[Battlemaster56]

Maqi, on 16 October 2016 - 07:22 AM, said:

[Redacted]

Lol what?!

So you want to punish a player who using a top tier meta mech?
Seems totally reasonable, no extreme biases or hatred.

Edited by draiocht, 18 October 2016 - 01:31 AM.
Quote Clean-Up

[Zergling]

DGTLDaemon, on 16 October 2016 - 03:56 AM, said:

I believe I once read here on the forums that an adequate contribution to the team damage is approximately 5x your weight. And that feels about right: for instance, when I'm in my Hellbringer, I call it a bad match if I do less than 300 damage. So the numbers you're suggesting are way too low. Doing 250-300 damage in a 100-tonner, be it any Kodiak variant or a Dire Wolf, feels like a disaster to me, not an "average" match.

That formula really doesn't work well due to too much weighting of tonnage, which raises the damage too high in Assaults and too low in lights.

Eg. a Locust would only have to do 100 damage to make a 'fair contribution' to its team.

There isn't nearly that much difference in power caused by tonnage in MWO; the power difference does exist, but it is much less than proportion at which tonnage increases.


For myself, my 'decent game' goals are about 200-250 damage for a light mech, 250-300 for a medium/heavy, and 300-350 for an assault.
I have been beating those goals lately in good mechs like the Arctic Cheetah, Ebon Jaguar and Warhawk, but in mechs that aren't as good I'll be solidly within those damage ranges.


Further, I suggest looking at the leaderboard averages here.

Average match score for lights = 169
Average match score for mediums = 201
Average match score for heavies = 210
Average match score for assaults = 225

That puts average damage for lights around 200-250, heavies and mediums around 250-300 and assaults around 270-320.

So a Kodiak scoring 500 damage per battle is doing well above the average.

DGTLDaemon, on 16 October 2016 - 05:24 AM, said:

So ton for ton, KDK-3 is beaten by everything except the Dire Wolf and the Warhawk

As above, don't value tonnage so greatly. There isn't a large difference in power between an 85 and 100 ton mech (not counting the Kodiak, of course).

Eg, a Battlemaster or Stalker is able to go 1 on 1 versus an Atlas or King Crab with no significant disadvantage caused by tonnage, just as a Warhawk is able to take on a Dire Wolf.

DGTLDaemon, on 16 October 2016 - 05:24 AM, said:

Yes, it's better than the Dire Wolf, because the DIre Wolf, to be honest, sucks in quite a few departments. So the clans have finally got their first decent assault mech. Big tragedy, right?

The Kodiak is far from the first decent clan assault mech.

The Dire Wolf was considered Tier 1 material from the day it was released right up until the Kodiak was released, only being dethroned because the Kodiak replaced it.
The Warhawk has always been a good mech, solidly Tier 2 since it was released.

Edited by Zergling, 16 October 2016 - 10:45 AM.

[RestosIII]

Maqi, on 16 October 2016 - 07:22 AM, said:

[Redacted]

[Redacted] Calm down and realize that if you're THAT angry about a mech chassis, maybe you need to rethink how you fight it. And this is coming from someone that despises the 2PPC/2 Gauss setups and quad AC setups that they run.

Edited by draiocht, 18 October 2016 - 01:33 AM.
Quote Clean-Up and redacted reference

[DGTLDaemon]

Zergling, on 16 October 2016 - 10:40 AM, said:

The Kodiak is far from the first decent clan assault mech.

My experience in CW where performance per ton is of paramount importance says otherwise. On the IS side, I always see a lot of Atlases, King Crabs, Stalkers, Maulers, Banshees, Battlemasters - you name it. It's actually easier to list the assault mechs that IS teams rarely bring to battle - those would be Victors, Zeuses and Highlanders. On the Clan side, however, the story is different. Until the Kodiak was released, it was all Timber Wolves, Ebon Jaguars and Hellbringers. Occasionally, someone would bring a Warhawk, and sometimes I would even see a Dire Wolf - but then the first message in the team chat would usually be along the lines of "never, ever again bring a Dire Whale to CW" (optionally supplemented with "you idiot"). The Clans started bringing assaults to CW en masse only with the arrival of the Kodiaks, while the IS teams have been doing it forever. That doesn't mean that Kodiaks are OP - it means that they are the first Clan assaults that can perform on the level of Clan heavies ton to ton.

(For the record - I am aware of the "Gargoyle rush" tactic employed in CW by German Clan Ghost Bear, but that is a very, very isolated case ).

[Zergling]

DGTLDaemon, on 16 October 2016 - 11:07 AM, said:

My experience in CW where performance per ton is of paramount importance says otherwise. On the IS side, I always see a lot of Atlases, King Crabs, Stalkers, Maulers, Banshees, Battlemasters - you name it. It's actually easier to list the assault mechs that IS teams rarely bring to battle - those would be Victors, Zeuses and Highlanders. On the Clan side, however, the story is different. Until the Kodiak was released, it was all Timber Wolves, Ebon Jaguars and Hellbringers. Occasionally, someone would bring a Warhawk, and sometimes I would even see a Dire Wolf - but then the first message in the team chat would usually be along the lines of "never, ever again bring a Dire Whale to CW" (optionally supplemented with "you idiot"). The Clans started bringing assaults to CW en masse only with the arrival of the Kodiaks, while the IS teams have been doing it forever. That doesn't mean that Kodiaks are OP - it means that they are the first Clan assaults that can perform on the level of Clan heavies ton to ton.

(For the record - I am aware of the "Gargoyle rush" tactic employed in CW by German Clan Ghost Bear, but that is a very, very isolated case ).

Fair enough, I don't have much experience in Faction Warfare, but it is understandable for the meta to be different there.

I was speaking about how the mechs work in the standard quick play mode in solo and group queue, as well as competitive play in that format, and I believe most other people were doing the same.

Edited by Zergling, 16 October 2016 - 11:35 AM.

[PyckenZot]

Mystere, on 14 October 2016 - 01:57 PM, said:

I am sure I am not alone when I say I am still having fun without owning a Kodiak 3. But killing one is even more fun. <maniacal >

Which now begs the question, why can't you?

My Kodiaks are one of the very few chasis that aren't even elited yet. That's how much fun I have in those mechs,... I didn't even take them out for the Mechtoberfest. Hexa SRM-6+A cyclops was my choice assault there!

ps. Just checked my stats. I simply suck in Kodiaks

CYCLOPS CP-10-Q
Matches Played: 19
Kills: 33
Deaths: 13
Ratio: 2.54
Damage Done: 8,834

KODIAK KDK-3
Matches Played: 12
Kills: 23
Deaths: 28
Ratio: 0.82
Damage Done: 2,226

Edited by PyckenZot, 17 October 2016 - 12:49 AM.

[Sjorpha]

UnofficialOperator, on 15 October 2016 - 10:53 PM, said:

So it is better to alienate the paying customers of a small customer base instead when the KDK 3 is readily available to everyone for cbills?

Imbalance left unaddressed alienates way more players.

Quote

It is better to buff every other mech instead as a positive cycle instead of a negative nerf cycle.

The correct term for your positive cycle is "power creep" and it destroys games.

You have do decide on a reasonable power level and be equally prepared to buff and nerf as needed to keep that level stable, there is no principal difference between buffs and nerfs and which is correct only depend on whether a mech is above or below your balance reference.

I think a reasonable reference would be the more well designed IS mechs with all quirks removed, and other mechs should be adjusted towards that level. Clan tech and IS tech should be reworked to be equal in power level so that IS mechs don't need stronger quirks than clan mechs on average.

Edited by Sjorpha, 17 October 2016 - 02:03 AM.

[UnofficialOperator]

Sjorpha, on 17 October 2016 - 02:02 AM, said:

Imbalance left unaddressed alienates way more players.

Much like the rest of this thread and the posters in it, very anecdotal.

My experience in other MMOs have been that nerfs alienates way more players. Again anecdotal

If it is imbalanced and hidden behind a pay wall ala pay to win, then the outrage is understandable. KDK-3 is available for everyone to use now so what is the problem. It serves its niche. Other assaults serve theirs. Besides, the crux of the problem lies really in hilly terrains, speed of the game and the poking meta. A Direwolf/Atlas should still dominate in a small map with level terrain. Should there be a change in maps, does it mean a nerfed KDK-3 will get unnerfed?

Boost the other assaults. Give them more acceleration buffs or structural quirks. They are assaults and their tonnage should show in their ability to tank or influence the state of a battle.

Instead of alienating your paying customers who support the game, give something extra to everyone and make them happy. This will in turn lead to more mechpacks sold . As they say, "fool me once, shame on..." ??? Ehhh

Edited by UnofficialOperator, 17 October 2016 - 03:17 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Zergling, on 16 October 2016 - 10:40 AM, said:

The Dire Wolf was considered Tier 1 material from the day it was released right up until the Kodiak was released, only being dethroned because the Kodiak replaced it.

This not quite correct, the Whale was considered THE assault mech from its release until the rebalance changed several things (both its competition and its ability). Don't get me wrong, it was still good in the right situation, but not what it used to be as it was often overlooked for other assaults (Mauler, Banshee, Battlemaster, and Atlas). Then the Kodiak came about and basically made the old Whale look weak.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 17 October 2016 - 06:40 AM.

[Mystere]

PyckenZot, on 17 October 2016 - 12:39 AM, said:

My Kodiaks are one of the very few chasis that aren't even elited yet. That's how much fun I have in those mechs,... I didn't even take them out for the Mechtoberfest. Hexa SRM-6+A cyclops was my choice assault there!

ps. Just checked my stats. I simply suck in Kodiaks

CYCLOPS CP-10-Q
Matches Played: 19
Kills: 33
Deaths: 13
Ratio: 2.54
Damage Done: 8,834

KODIAK KDK-3
Matches Played: 12
Kills: 23
Deaths: 28
Ratio: 0.82
Damage Done: 2,226

Not everyone is capable of doing good while running assaults, myself included. But that is not stopping me from bringing out my dual ERPPC Pretty Baby or quad ERPPC Warhawk Prime while using a joystick.

[Dimento Graven]

Maqi, on 14 October 2016 - 03:12 AM, said:

...Banshee is a 95 tonner big as a ******* barn with NO STRUCTURE OR ARMOR OR ANY SURVIVABILITY QUIRK WHATSOEVER

...

Just want to insert a plug to get the KGC fixed.

It has the most surface area of any 'mech, is WAY slow, and has hit boxes such that being shot at from an enemy directly in front of you can get your rear torsos crited out, AND LIKEWISE, an enemy directly behind you can shoot your front torsos. This makes this 100 ton 'mech the most fragile of the assaults.

Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned it's the IS 'mech in most need of structure quirks, just due to size and lack of speed, and dwindling presence on the battlefield.

[Mystere]

Battlemaster56, on 16 October 2016 - 08:18 AM, said:

Lol what?!

So you want to punish a player who using a top tier meta mech?
Seems totally reasonable, no extreme biases or hatred.

RestosIII, on 16 October 2016 - 10:44 AM, said:

[Redacted] Calm down and realize that if you're THAT angry about a mech chassis, maybe you need to rethink how you fight it. And this is coming from someone that despises the 2PPC/2 Gauss setups and quad AC setups that they run.

Well, it seems the OP has gone full Donald Trump on that one.

Edited by draiocht, 18 October 2016 - 01:35 AM.
Quote Clean-Up

[Mystere]

Sjorpha, on 17 October 2016 - 02:02 AM, said:

Imbalance left unaddressed alienates way more players.

Based on my personal experience playing PvP games, I say frequent nerf and buff cycles alienate players even more.

[Y E O N N E]

Mystere, on 17 October 2016 - 08:06 AM, said:

Based on my personal experience playing PvP games, I say frequent nerf and buff cycles alienate players even more.

I dunno, LoL, DotA2, Overwatch all seem to be doing just fine.

I think it is poorly devised changes that alienate people, combined with a customer base who doesn't understand the concept of software as a service and purchasing an experience.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Yeonne Greene, on 17 October 2016 - 08:15 AM, said:

who doesn't understand the concept of software as a service and purchasing an experience.

I think some of us understand it just fine and find it to be horrible for gaming. Some of us much prefer the older server browser model that allow people to create and use their own servers.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 17 October 2016 - 08:19 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 17 October 2016 - 08:18 AM, said:

I think some of us understand it just fine and find it to be horrible for gaming.

I don't disagree, but all F2P games follow this model. When we buy 'Mechs, we are buying the experience of playing that 'Mech early. We are not buying a static product; it is even in the terms that PGI says they can and will change them as they see fit. And...it's all transient. When the servers go dark, all we will have are the experiences.

Personally, though, I prefer to buy whole games. I'm not afraid to spend $120 for a whole game, so long as it isn't shovelware like most $60 titles are today.

[UnofficialOperator]

Yeonne Greene, on 17 October 2016 - 08:15 AM, said:

I dunno, LoL, DotA2, Overwatch all seem to be doing just fine.

I think it is poorly devised changes that alienate people, combined with a customer base who doesn't understand the concept of software as a service and purchasing an experience.

Lol and can you compare the payment structure of Lol, Dota and Overwatch? Do you even understand what you are comparing?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Yeonne Greene, on 17 October 2016 - 08:23 AM, said:

I don't disagree, but all F2P games follow this model.

Technically, Overwatch isn't F2P, it just has micro-transactions to help support continuous development.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 17 October 2016 - 08:27 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

UnofficialOperator, on 17 October 2016 - 08:23 AM, said:

Lol and can you compare the payment structure of Lol, Dota and Overwatch? Do you even understand what you are comparing?

Both you and Quicksilver are crossing two orthogonal points that were not meant to be compared.

I only referenced those three games with respect to proving that constant changes do not necessarily alienate the player base. The second point was about players in MWO not typically grasping (see all the comments about any 'Mech and post-purchase nerfs) what F2P and, indeed, online-only implies about the purchases you make in a game.

[Gas Guzzler]

Yeonne Greene, on 16 October 2016 - 07:32 AM, said:

the new system going in place in November

Its not confirmed yet! We might not get in November. I sure hope not, not ever.