90 replies to this topic

[His Holiness Pope Buster]

It is clear that OP pilots a KDK-3 without a seismic module and is constantly getting legged by lights that sneak up behind him.

[FupDup]

Bud Crue, on 16 October 2016 - 01:13 PM, said:

The Commando is the most dominate mech in the game for having absurdly out of proportion arm mounted "dynamic weapons" depictions. No other mech competes with the cartoonishly giant arm missile boxes or medium lasers of the Commandos arms.

Actually, the Mist Lynx owns that role.

[Requiemking]

Appogee, on 16 October 2016 - 12:37 PM, said:

"Worst"...?! ACH is crazy good.

In my most recent match in it - yesterday - I did 5 kills, 3 of them solo/KMDs, and a total of 670 damage or thereabouts. That was an above average match. But it's usually good for 1 or 2 kills.

Yes, worst. Light mechs are currently the worst weight class game. They have been on a steady downward spiral in terms of combat capabilities for years now, they regularly earn the least cbills, they have the least tanking power, and it been a year since we got a new one.

[Deathlike]

They say some people are playing a different game than the rest of us... and then we have this...

[Appogee]

Requiemking, on 16 October 2016 - 01:17 PM, said:

Yes, worst. Light mechs are currently the worst weight class game. They have been on a steady downward spiral in terms of combat capabilities for years now, they regularly earn the least cbills, they have the least tanking power, and it been a year since we got a new one.

I generally agree with you ... except when it comes to the ACH, the Oxide, and the JR2-IIC2 splat equivalent. Those Mechs are cash cows. But yeah, PGI has always needed to give better and different rewards for the things Lights do well.

That being said, I am having more fun in the ACH than any other Mech at the moment. Instead of getting stuck in 10-minute pokefests, or the usual herd mentality murder ball, I can flank, backstab, distract an entire enemy team.

Throughout the 17 days of Mectoberfest, I haven't failed to get a KMD in my first Light match of the day, every single day. And despite mostly playing in a 4MPL JR2-IIC, not even one of the uber-Lights, and despite really bad potato teams.

Sure I can earn more in a Kodiak. But it's not as much fun.

Edited by Appogee, 16 October 2016 - 01:46 PM.

[Yellonet]

His Holiness Pope Buster, on 16 October 2016 - 01:13 PM, said:

It is clear that OP pilots a KDK-3 without a seismic module and is constantly getting legged by lights that sneak up behind him.

I never run clan mechs and I certainly don't own a Kodiak.

[dario03]

FupDup, on 16 October 2016 - 12:03 PM, said:

It being "an opinion" isn't a shield that makes it immune to criticism.

For example, a number of people on this forum have the opinion that the KDK-3 is a perfectly balanced mech with performance in-line with all of the other chassis in the game. I shouldn't have to explain this one...

I think most of them are taking the bigger should be better train of thought to the extreme. However the KDK 3 should be on any OP list whether its a OP per class or OP by overall (which is actually what matters, since tonnage only kind of sort of matters in QP and even FP).

And there are no OP lights going by the overall judging system.

Edited by dario03, 16 October 2016 - 03:58 PM.

[Single Mom]

Requiemking, on 16 October 2016 - 01:17 PM, said:

Yes, worst. Light mechs are currently the worst weight class game. They have been on a steady downward spiral in terms of combat capabilities for years now, they regularly earn the least cbills, they have the least tanking power, and it been a year since we got a new one.

Judging lights based on their tanking power is laughable. The light mech role is for distracting, harassment, gathering intel and mopping up the wounded and there are a number of lights that does all of these roles supremely well. IE having two 25 ton lights tie up and pull away 200-300 tons of red creates a huge advantage for your team. "tanking power" lel.

[MechWarrior5152251]

In a match last week I did 295 damage to a warhammer before it killed me. It was the only mech I shot and that was my total match damage.

[Y E O N N E]

MechWarrior5152251, on 16 October 2016 - 02:53 PM, said:

In a match last week I did 295 damage to a warhammer before it killed me. It was the only mech I shot and that was my total match damage.

I have had similar things happen against the Night Gyr. It's not uncommon.

[Tahawus]

To inject a quantitative approach to this discussion. No, this method is not perfect (far from it), but it provides a basis for discussion beyond he said-she said...

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__5414473

Yes, Locust is OP, but several others are more so based on this analysis.

Edited by Tahawus, 16 October 2016 - 03:14 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Tahawus, on 16 October 2016 - 03:14 PM, said:

To inject a quantitative approach to this discussion. No, this method is not perfect (far from it), but it provides a basis for discussion beyond he said-she said...

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__5414473

Yes, Locust is OP, but several others are more so based on this analysis.

I still don't like your reasoning behind that conclusion. You know it can't be so by experience, so that conclusion is invalid.

[Tahawus]

Yeonne Greene, on 16 October 2016 - 03:22 PM, said:

I still don't like your reasoning behind that conclusion. You know it can't be so by experience, so that conclusion is invalid.

No, they are somewhat orthagonal arguments/conclusions. You dispute whether the Locust at 20 tons should perform at 1/5 the capability of an Atlas at 100 tons (which conveniently lies almost exactly on the modeled performance line). On a ton for ton basis, based on the leader boards, the locust clearly performs better than the modeled result.

For what it's worth, I agree (as a frequent locust pilot), a locust would probably not be a viable mech if it were nerfed to the same performance per ton as other mechs, but the level is suitable for discussion and an analysis like mine (hopefully performed using a more complete data set including variants and pilot skill) would allow PGI to asses the performance quantitatively and make their decisions based on information, not hearsay). I think the same is true of the Mist Lynx and Commando, but by the time they're to about 30 tons special consideration is no longer neccessary.

[FupDup]

Tahawus, on 16 October 2016 - 03:36 PM, said:

No, they are somewhat orthagonal arguments/conclusions. You dispute whether the Locust at 20 tons should perform at 1/5 the capability of an Atlas at 100 tons (which conveniently lies almost exactly on the modeled performance line). On a ton for ton basis, based on the leader boards, the locust clearly performs better than the modeled result.

For what it's worth, I agree (as a frequent locust pilot), a locust would probably not be a viable mech if it were nerfed to the same performance per ton as other mechs, but the level is suitable for discussion and an analysis like mine (hopefully performed using a more complete data set including variants and pilot skill) would allow PGI to asses the performance quantitatively and make their decisions based on information, not hearsay). I think the same is true of the Mist Lynx and Commando, but by the time they're to about 30 tons special consideration is no longer neccessary.

The moral of the story that Yeonne is trying to tell you is that the "relative" score per ton is a bad statistic to focus on in a game where we can only choose one mech at a time.

I can't use two Commandos in place of one Hunchback. I get to use EITHER one Commie or one Hunchie. That's why all mechs have to have 1:1 effectiveness on an absolute power scale rather than "per ton."

When I get to take three Urbanmechs in place of one Highlander, then you can absolutely argue for "effectiveness per ton." Until then, the raw total power is all that matters.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

Single Mom, on 16 October 2016 - 02:31 PM, said:

Judging lights based on their tanking power is laughable. The light mech role is for distracting, harassment, gathering intel and mopping up the wounded and there are a number of lights that does all of these roles supremely well. IE having two 25 ton lights tie up and pull away 200-300 tons of red creates a huge advantage for your team. "tanking power" lel.

Having 200-300 tons of enemies being tied up and pulled away by two 25 ton mechs is a tactical error. Teams shouldn't split up and get completely distracted by a couple light mechs. Just keep formation, focus fire when one pops out and they cease to exist. There's no reason 50 tons of mech should beat 200 tons of mech other than mistakes made by the heavier side, if they do fall for "chasing the squirrel" then its their fault they lost for acting like a fish finding a worm on a hook.

MechWarrior5152251, on 16 October 2016 - 02:53 PM, said:

In a match last week I did 295 damage to a warhammer before it killed me. It was the only mech I shot and that was my total match damage.

Damage spreading is a nice thing, I remember a 1v1 between me and a friend with Centurions in which one of us had over 500 damage done.

[mailin]

This is a silly discussion.

[3xnihilo]

FupDup, on 16 October 2016 - 03:42 PM, said:

The moral of the story that Yeonne is trying to tell you is that the "relative" score per ton is a bad statistic to focus on in a game where we can only choose one mech at a time.

I can't use two Commandos in place of one Hunchback. I get to use EITHER one Commie or one Hunchie. That's why all mechs have to have 1:1 effectiveness on an absolute power scale rather than "per ton."

When I get to take three Urbanmechs in place of one Highlander, then you can absolutely argue for "effectiveness per ton." Until then, the raw total power is all that matters.

I am going to jump in here to add the clarification that 1:1 effectiveness means that the strengths lights possess (size, speed, maneuverability) are balanced against their weaknesses (less armor and weapons) in such a way that you can expect equal performance to other weight classes which have their strengths and weaknesses balanced in a similar manner. So, no one expects a light to walk head on into an assault and face tank damage, we want to be able to back stab and hit and run and play to our strengths.

[Tahawus]

FupDup, on 16 October 2016 - 03:42 PM, said:

The moral of the story that Yeonne is trying to tell you is that the "relative" score per ton is a bad statistic to focus on in a game where we can only choose one mech at a time.

I can't use two Commandos in place of one Hunchback. I get to use EITHER one Commie or one Hunchie. That's why all mechs have to have 1:1 effectiveness on an absolute power scale rather than "per ton."

When I get to take three Urbanmechs in place of one Highlander, then you can absolutely argue for "effectiveness per ton." Until then, the raw total power is all that matters.

A very good point. Thank you for expressing it in a way that finally made it through. Ton for ton valuation of a mech is far from ideal.

However, the roles that lights should be playing is very poorly rewarded by the scoring metrics. That some of them still perform exceptionally well on a damage focused metric doesn't argue well for the overall balance of the game.

That shouldn't surprise any of us.

While I'll agree to restate my arguments somewhat, I disagree vehemently that a Locust should be able to compete anywhere close to equitably with an assault mech on a damage driven metric.

[Y E O N N E]

Tahawus, on 16 October 2016 - 04:03 PM, said:

While I'll agree to restate my arguments somewhat, I disagree vehemently that a Locust should be able to compete anywhere close to equitably with an assault mech on a damage driven metric.

Well, by nature it won't. A Light makes precise shots and downs 'Mechs efficiently while Assault just hammer away at things until they die. But it should take about the same level of effort for me to maneuver in and get those precise shots as it takes a Kodiak to hammer away.

[Tristan Winter]

mailin, on 16 October 2016 - 04:00 PM, said:

This is a silly discussion.

At least I learned a new term. "Orthogonal argument". I have no idea what it means though.

I've also learned that a mech can be the most overpowered mech in its class, without being the best mech in its class.