53 replies to this topic

[Escef]

Heavies are a good combination of speed, durability, firepower, and cooling. Mediums tend to sacrifice durability for a speed bump, and tend to lose some firepower and/or cooling in the process. Still, most of the 50 and 55 ton mechs make it work if you kit them properly, especially if your play style favors mobility. I've found that you can still post good numbers in Griffins, Shadowhawks, Wolverines, and Centurions. I wager those proficient with the Hunchback and Kintaro report similar observations.

[Ultimax]

Mystere, on 26 March 2017 - 10:14 PM, said:

Doing your "role" that does not involve any shooting instead of just dealing damage gives you a lump of coal as the reward. But if you increase rewards for people for doing their non-shooting "role", other people complain that the former are being paid for "sitting on a square", "not helping the team", or some other such bullcrap.

Using people being upset is a worthless excuse, someone is always upset about something.

Just as you complain about nerfs intended to bring Clan mechs inline with IS - Assault players will complain if game modes do not favor them.

That's not actually the problem.

The problem is that PGI either lacks a true vision or lacks the ability to execute it (or some measure of both).

dario03, on 26 March 2017 - 10:30 PM, said:

Well a good start would be to make the quirks make sense. So instead of some heavy mechs having 60+% agility quirks and a lot of lights having none...we could....mayybeee....switch that around???

Aside from the fact that some lights have had those quirks at one point or another, and aside from the fact that some Heavy mechs are given those quirks to make up for their other deficiencies - it does not even remotely address the issue nor does it answer my challenge to provide a concept or framework for how all classes of mechs could have EQUAL amounts of RAW COMBAT POTENTIAL and still manage to be balanced.

I doubt anyone will provide an example, because I don't believe it's actually possible.

Edited by Ultimax, 27 March 2017 - 09:07 AM.

[Mystere]

Ultimax, on 27 March 2017 - 09:06 AM, said:

Using people being upset is a worthless excuse, someone is always upset about something.

Just as you complain about nerfs intended to bring Clan mechs inline with IS - Assault players will complain if game modes do not favor them.

That's not actually the problem.

The problem is that PGI either lacks a true vision or lacks the ability to execute it (or some measure of both).

You do not get the point. The problem is that PGI changes the game based on these very same complaints.

Why else in Hades' name would PGI reduce rewards for meeting objectives, instead of increasing them to make them more attractive? Can you give an air-tight explanation?

[Athom83]

Deathlike, on 26 March 2017 - 08:32 PM, said:

Ultimately damage is king and overexaggerating how much DPS a Light can do is what bad players do best.

Most 1k+ damage games I've witnessed (spectate on my team, or was on enemy team) were all in light mechs. And it's not all about outright damage or constant DPS, its also about surviving long enough to do that damage. Survivablity is split in 2 parts; 1) Armor/structure/size. 2) Mobility. While having more armor and structure to take damage is wonderful, it doesn't hold a candle to having the mobility to avoid all incoming damage. The more armor and structure a mech has, the larger and less maneuverable it gets. The less maneuverable a mech, the more effective damage it takes.

[Deathlike]

Athom83, on 27 March 2017 - 09:29 AM, said:

Most 1k+ damage games I've witnessed (spectate on my team, or was on enemy team) were all in light mechs. And it's not all about outright damage or constant DPS, its also about surviving long enough to do that damage. Survivablity is split in 2 parts; 1) Armor/structure/size. 2) Mobility. While having more armor and structure to take damage is wonderful, it doesn't hold a candle to having the mobility to avoid all incoming damage. The more armor and structure a mech has, the larger and less maneuverable it gets. The less maneuverable a mech, the more effective damage it takes.

When what you're saying is happening, you're playing against low tier/quality opponents.. most likely in the solo queue... who happen to have little to no awareness of what's going on in the battlefield.

That doesn't actually mean Lights are good... it just means your opponents are really bad.

[The Lobsters]

+1 nerf heavy mech mobility, and make match payouts, and psr a product of match score and not damage.

[Mystere]

The Lobsters, on 27 March 2017 - 09:42 AM, said:

+1 nerf heavy mech mobility, and make match payouts, and psr a product of match score and not damage.

With reward multipliers inversely proportional to the weight of the Mech.

[Deathlike]

The Lobsters, on 27 March 2017 - 09:42 AM, said:

+1 nerf heavy mech mobility, and make match payouts, and psr a product of match score and not damage.

You do know that match score is heavily influenced by damage right?

[The Lobsters]

Deathlike, on 27 March 2017 - 09:44 AM, said:

You do know that match score is heavily influenced by damage right?

I do, yes.

that doesn't really help the light mech that sneaks behind the enemy and kicks a Dire Wolf's backdoor's in for 70 damage.

I started this game mostly running lights and mediums, 50 tons is the centre of my mech universe. I just wasn't making any cash nor was my psr moving. Then I bought some warhammers, tore through the tiers and made a nice wad.

Lately I've been trying assaults to boost my psr, so that I can spend some quality time in light's and mediums later on. I'd much rather be in a light-medium, but at this point it's not economical.



.

Edited by The Lobsters, 27 March 2017 - 10:07 AM.

[xe N on]

I don't know. I score on regular basis higher in my mediums than in my heavies in quick play.

You got more firepower in heavies. Yes. But you are also much more focused.

Edited by xe N on, 27 March 2017 - 10:15 AM.

[dario03]

Ultimax, on 27 March 2017 - 09:06 AM, said:

Using people being upset is a worthless excuse, someone is always upset about something.

Just as you complain about nerfs intended to bring Clan mechs inline with IS - Assault players will complain if game modes do not favor them.

That's not actually the problem.

The problem is that PGI either lacks a true vision or lacks the ability to execute it (or some measure of both).





Aside from the fact that some lights have had those quirks at one point or another, and aside from the fact that some Heavy mechs are given those quirks to make up for their other deficiencies - it does not even remotely address the issue nor does it answer my challenge to provide a concept or framework for how all classes of mechs could have EQUAL amounts of RAW COMBAT POTENTIAL and still manage to be balanced.

I doubt anyone will provide an example, because I don't believe it's actually possible.

It does mostly address your issue. The agility was just an example, the point was quirks in general. And mechs should have some deficiencies, thats what makes them less than perfect. We don't see lights with +30 structure/armor but we do see heavies and assaults with 60+% agility quirks while also having better structure/armor and weapon quirks. Balance the quirks out so that isn't the case and we would start to see some balance. And if balanced properly they could be equal while having less firepower and armor since being able to re position faster is part of combat potential.

In other words people need to stop flipping out like when mechs like the Oxide and Cheetah had good quirks and need to start flipping out about the lack of quirks on other lights and over buffs on bigger mechs.

Also I said it would be a start. With enough it could do all of it but simply changing some other things would help too. JJ buffs for lights, no 40kph legged speed limit, rebalance streaks, fall damage adjustments, etc, etc.

And even if they don't want to balance the weight classes we need quirk adjustments just to balance out the chassis and even variants of weight classes.

Edited by dario03, 27 March 2017 - 10:35 AM.

[Bud Crue]

In re the above discussion of roles, equality among mechs, and the direction that the gods of balance once intended for this game, please see Paul's comments in the post "mech rebalance and PTS" from September 15th 2015. (I'd link to it but this stupid iPad thingy won't let me).

That was the info-tech PTS. While the PTS may have been a failure (depending on your point of view). Paul's stated goals for the game overall, its state of balance, the desire to fight legacy tech and the way quirks are to function is illuminating.

Example:
Another aspect that the new system brings into play is balancing ‘Mechs against each other at the variant level, prior to balancing them against each other at the chassis level. Once the variants have been balanced and made unique, each chassis within the same weight class is then investigated and rebalanced. It is only after all of this happens that we look at the final balance gap between IS and Clan technology.

[Gas Guzzler]

That being said, the HBK-IIC is probably better than most IS heavies in the game.

[Khobai]

Quote

That being said, the HBK-IIC is probably better than most IS heavies in the game.

but that really doesnt change the fact that heavies need to be less versatile and mediums need to be more versatile.

IS mechs not being balanced vs Clan mechs is a totally seperate issue.

[Alistair Winter]

Ultimax, on 26 March 2017 - 09:07 PM, said:

I'm talking about how and why all mechs regardless of tonnage could be equally powerful in raw damage output and survivability.

Accepting that meaningful role warfare is absolutely never going to happen unless PGI rebuilds this game from scratch, including maps and game modes, I think we have to realize that MWO is simply always going to be a team deathmatch arena shooter where the most meaningful question is how much you're directly contributing to killing enemy mechs. So I won't talk about what MWO would be like if we had secondary missions and convoys or repair & rearm or a working economy.

Tonnage is not really that important due to quirks. Tonnage does put a few important restrictions (e.g. you can't equip both gauss and a ppc on your Firestarter or get a 50 damage pinpoint alpha strike with your Locust) but quirks can potentially remove most differences between mechs. With enough quirks, a Spider can have more structure and armour than an Atlas, it can have higher DPS and longer range than a Dire Wolf. With enough quirks, a Highlander can be faster and more mobile and have better jump jets than a Spider.

"I can do all things through Quirks who strengthen me" - Paul

As to why classes should be balanced - it's because I don't believe it makes sense to have a PVP FPS game without respawns where you have 4 classes where some classes are clearly better than others. Common sense dictates that this makes the game less enjoyable for the weaker classes and that they would be less popular. And lo, light mechs are the least popular mechs in MWO by far.

It's not like other games where you can choose to play weaker units for the sake of getting faster respawns and thus having as much success as other players. In MWO, you're basically just gimped if you pick certain units. And after a while, most people get tired of playing lighter mechs, which do less damage, get fewer kills, have less ability to carry teams to victory and even get paid less. Oh, and as a cherry on top, the 3 heavier weight classes have weapons that can basically insta-kill you if they get in range.

I've played a number of PVP games and I can't recall ever seeing anything like this in any FPS or RPG game. Probably because it doesn't make sense to create 4 classes and then make some of them plainly superior to others.

Some people are like "I enjoy being the underdog. I like playing a mech that is just plain worse than other mechs." Ok, cool. I play light mechs too. But I still find PGI's game design pretty dumb in this regard.

[Bud Crue]

Alistair Winter, on 27 March 2017 - 02:58 PM, said:

As to why classes should be balanced - it's because...

...PGI likes to pretend they have made "a competitive e-sport platform" with this here stompy robot arena shooter; and if it really is to be "competitive" all choices in that competition have to be equally viable else wise there is a bias that benefits certain mechs and that leads to unbalanced play and thus, skewed -and boring and predictable- competition. And if that happens, then no one will buy into their e-sport or want to play it.

Wait a second...

[LordNothing]

lights and assaults both have a certain playstyle associated with it. mediums can be used in many roles like heavies, but because heavies give you more firepower they tend to be better at damage and killing than do mediums and thats why they tend to get better stats. if you compare assaults to heavies you see that there is some overlap but the assaults suffer from diminishing returns due to their size and lack of agility. you can say that likewise lights suffer from diminishing returns on mobility (as opposed to firepower or durability) than mediums. but with a light you can do some pretty nasty things, their ability to fall giants with ease is their greatest attribute.

there are exceptions, gargoyles, linebackers, adders, urbanmechs, where all the wires are crossed and you got big mechs moving fast with sparse firepower and small mechs moving slow with huge firepower, generally doing things uncharacteristic to their weight class. ironically i have found all these mechs with a class identity crisis to be quite deadly.

[Ultimax]

Alistair Winter, on 27 March 2017 - 02:58 PM, said:

Accepting that meaningful role warfare is absolutely never going to happen unless PGI rebuilds this game from scratch, including maps and game modes, I think we have to realize that MWO is simply always going to be a team deathmatch arena shooter where the most meaningful question is how much you're directly contributing to killing enemy mechs. So I won't talk about what MWO would be like if we had secondary missions and convoys or repair & rearm or a working economy.

Yes, that's probably a few threads all on it's own.

Alistair Winter, on 27 March 2017 - 02:58 PM, said:

Tonnage is not really that important due to quirks. Tonnage does put a few important restrictions (e.g. you can't equip both gauss and a ppc on your Firestarter or get a 50 damage pinpoint alpha strike with your Locust) but quirks can potentially remove most differences between mechs. With enough quirks, a Spider can have more structure and armour than an Atlas, it can have higher DPS and longer range than a Dire Wolf. With enough quirks, a Highlander can be faster and more mobile and have better jump jets than a Spider.

This, is actually what I meant.

Once you take the smaller, massively faster, more maneuverable mech and give it enough quirks - the mechs above it in weight suddenly lose.

There is no way a group of bigger mechs could realistically stop a wave of smaller mechs with that much speed & and HP who can use cover to close.

They don't even need to have as much armor as an Atlas, we saw how hard it was for ranged teams to stop Oxides in brawl rushes.

Thus, you cannot have both of them be equal in raw combat potential - one will usurp the other.


What's worse is, once you give those quirks to the Spiders, Cheetahs & Jenners you either give similar quirks to the Mediums in the game or you completely obsolete them.

Again, all mechs across all weight classes cannot be given the same raw combat potential - because one group of mechs or more will be made obsolete.


This is what I meant by there not being enough space on the spectrum for all to be "equal".

Alistair Winter, on 27 March 2017 - 02:58 PM, said:

As to why classes should be balanced - it's because I don't believe it makes sense to have a PVP FPS game without respawns where you have 4 classes where some classes are clearly better than others. Common sense dictates that this makes the game less enjoyable for the weaker classes and that they would be less popular. And lo, light mechs are the least popular mechs in MWO by far.

It's not like other games where you can choose to play weaker units for the sake of getting faster respawns and thus having as much success as other players. In MWO, you're basically just gimped if you pick certain units. And after a while, most people get tired of playing lighter mechs, which do less damage, get fewer kills, have less ability to carry teams to victory and even get paid less. Oh, and as a cherry on top, the 3 heavier weight classes have weapons that can basically insta-kill you if they get in range.

I've played a number of PVP games and I can't recall ever seeing anything like this in any FPS or RPG game. Probably because it doesn't make sense to create 4 classes and then make some of them plainly superior to others.

Some people are like "I enjoy being the underdog. I like playing a mech that is just plain worse than other mechs." Ok, cool. I play light mechs too. But I still find PGI's game design pretty dumb in this regard.

I'm not saying it makes sense, most of these issues are related to the first points you made about game design - but that doesn't change the fact that you can't actually make them equals - at some point one or more classes of mechs becomes obsolete.

[Khobai]

Quote

.PGI likes to pretend they have made "a competitive e-sport platform" with this here stompy robot arena shooter; and if it really is to be "competitive" all choices in that competition have to be equally viable else wise there is a bias that benefits certain mechs and that leads to unbalanced play and thus, skewed -and boring and predictable- competition. And if that happens, then no one will buy into their e-sport or want to play it.

If I recall they forced teams to have 3/3/3/3

unfortunately forcing teams to bring lights and mediums still doesnt make lights and mediums equal to heavies and assaults.

youre stlil lacking that tactical aspect where lights and mediums can perform crucial roles that heavies and assaults cant perform and have to rely on lights and mediums for.

Quote

Again, all mechs across all weight classes cannot be given the same raw combat potential - because one group of mechs or more will be made obsolete.

which is why combat potential should not be the only measure of what makes a mech good

if the game implemented a way of making scouting crucial then the team with better scouts would gain an advantage.

an example of a way to make scouting matter would be to reduce damage by 30% unless the target is locked. then nerf the sensors on heavies and assaults. that would force them to depend on the sensors of lights and mediums in order to get locks and do their full damage.

I know thats an unpopular example (because people are obsessed with doing damage rather than the game being more tactical), but it would accomplish the goal of making scouting matter and giving lights and mediums a crucial non-combat role to perform.

Edited by Khobai, 27 March 2017 - 03:33 PM.

[Pixel Hunter]

I'd be game for making lights and mediums have MUCH longer target range and faster targets, with the nerf that the farther you are from a target the less accurate missile call in will be from other players

Overall, I do think havies need to be nerfed....my thunderbolt only goes 67kmh but that's MORE than enough when you have 3 large pulses, 3 mediums, and a bunch of double heatsinks with something like 27% cooldown and -20% heat on those LPL's when you count in generics

Edited by Gimpy117, 27 March 2017 - 05:42 PM.