52 replies to this topic

[brroleg]

All new "mechpacks" comes with lots of high mounted hardpoints. Guess its cause people want to pay money to win, so they dont buy mechs with low hardpoints. And in result game goes to the direction where all mechs are the same high mounted hardpoint boats and only has difference in color and cosmetic shape.
I dont see how this could be undone, except maybe if PGI will find another way to earn money except selling "mechpacks".

[El Bandito]

Since lower arms are used nothing more than weapon platform, in MWO, they are simply not as useful as high mounts. Doesn't mean you can't create a good mech without high mounts. For example, one of the best mechs--the Marauder-IIC--doesn't rely on high mounts.

Easiest fix would be to implement fixed convergence for torsi mounts, so arms would be used more, rather than armor stripped at first opportunity.

Rather than simply high mounts, it is much safer bet to buy Clan Battlemechs if one wishes to win more. Roughneck has high mounts, but since it is an IS mech it is nothing special, despite its huge durability quirks.

Edited by El Bandito, 21 April 2017 - 12:43 AM.

[Shifty McSwift]

The worst part is how a lot of terrain edges (or terrain LOD) render in game, allowing for high hardpoint peepers to get a sort of invisible cover versus lower end machines in cases.

Edited by Shifty McSwift, 21 April 2017 - 12:41 AM.

[El Bandito]

Shifty McSwift, on 21 April 2017 - 12:40 AM, said:

The worst part is how a lot of terrain edges (or terrain LOD) render in game, allowing for high hardpoint peepers to get a sort of invisible cover versus lower end machines in cases.

Lower settings is double edged sword. Sure you can see through some terrain, especially a hill humping enemy, but often your shots at it will hit invisible walls instead.

[Khobai]

I agree theres too many high mounted hardpoints.

PGI is powercreeping the newer mechs like crazy and its making older mechs obsolete

they need to have a plan for not making the older mechs complete garbage.

Quote

. For example, one of the best mechs--the Marauder-IIC--doesn't rely on high mounts.

its only one of the best mechs because clan battlemechs are unbalanced as hell. people are willing to overlook its flaws because its benefits are so huge.

if clan battlemechs were actually balanced though (with engine decoupling and better weapon balance), the marauder IIC would no longer be one of the best mechs, specifically because it doesnt have high hardpoints.

the kodiak would still be one of the best mechs though because its high hardpoints are amazing. you could nerf clan battlemechs and the kodiak would still be on top, thats how far ahead it is of any competition.

Edited by Khobai, 21 April 2017 - 12:58 AM.

[invernomuto]

El Bandito, on 21 April 2017 - 12:37 AM, said:

Easiest fix would be to implement fixed convergence for torsi mounts, so arms would be used more, rather than armor stripped at first opportunity.

That is a very interesting idea. Automatic convergence for arms mounts and fixed (or very limited) convergence for torso mounts. That would compensate for arms mounts being lower...

[Tarl Cabot]

PGI needs to implement a way for a mech to temporarily raise an entire arm, one arm at a time, to fire arm-mounted weapons.

[Bud Crue]

Khobai, on 21 April 2017 - 12:47 AM, said:

I agree theres too many high mounted hardpoints.

PGI is powercreeping the newer mechs like crazy and its making older mechs obsolete

they need to have a plan for not making the older mechs complete garbage.

They used to seem to have a plan for this. Alas, that appears to have been junked.

Following is my observation/ theorizing about PGI's use of quirks.
TLDR: they used to follow a rough though not exactly predictable system. Now quirk application is almost to the point of being random.
---
Up until rescale a rough sort of formula was applied regarding quirks, such that mechs with few and/or low hard points and/or bad hit boxes were provided with quirks to compensate for their short comings. Last year they started chucking that rough correlation out the window. Now mechs with few and low hard points (See Grasshopper 5J vs 5P and H Grasshoppers for one example) are given objectively worse quirks than those with better intrinsic performance abilities.

At first it seemed the formula of comparative compensation was just shifting to different emphasis whereby instead of hardpoints, etc., they were now obsessed with mechs having alternative characteristics such as greater JJ potential, ECM, or MASC being the features of focus to justify dinging them disproportionately quirk-wise (see aforementioned 5J example yes it has the least amount of hard points of any Grasshopper but it has capacity for 2 more JJ and 2AMS...those appear to be the only features that PGI seems to be using to justify it having worse/useless quirks relative to the other Hoppers). But then when they started doing more weapons based nerfs as opposed to mech specific nerfs even this association became muddled. (See UAC pass back in December and how it affected middling mechs like the Enforcer).

With more recent new releases they have made any clear association of quirks to some obvious intrinsic benefit or failing in a mech even less clear. Now we have mechs with high hard points or many hardpoint with "uber quirks" (20% or more) that had for a brief time over the last year been reserved for terribad mechs or those that had a particularly noteworthy flaw (Dragons and their hit boxes, low and wide spread weapons and low number of weapons justified all those 20% beam reduction and cool downs, etc.) but now they are providing such quirks to mechs right out of the gate despite a lack of data (PGI's oft cited reason for providing a quirk or its nerf).

Moreover, if one looks to the skills tree proposals, while they are clearly are providing some formula to reflect compensation via the skills tree (see fairly consistent PPC nerfs to those mechs with velocity bonuses for example), but a vast number of other offensive quirks that would have once been logical given a particular mechs flaws are being eliminated entirely (see Death's Knell loss of a fairly minor energy quirk on a mech with only 4 E, all arm mounted,hardpoints as an example. Pick a low tier mech with clear structural limitations and it is being nerfed where as some very good mechs are being left alone).

So while it appears that at one time PGI was using quirks as compensation for the inherent flaws of some mechs and as a mechanism to combat or at least attempt to further offset inherent power creep of better mechs, they no longer do this. It now appears to be random -at best. Consider this: not a single mech (save for the broad based weapons quirk changes (UAC pass for example) which have given a few mechs slight improvements) has been offensively buffed since the dawn of the current PPFLD meta brought forth by the Kodak-3, Hunch IIc, Night Gyr, et al.; but many mechs with middling performance characteristics have been nerfed (my oft complained about Quickdraws for example).

To my mind the only justification for this is that PGI has simply abandoned efforts at mitigating power creep, or simply an acceptance that old/bad mechs don't sell and thus there is no reason to bother compensating them for their inherent flaws.
If someone has a different theory to account for PGI's application of quirks and their buffs/nerfs over the last year, I'd love to hear it.

Edited by Bud Crue, 21 April 2017 - 03:56 AM.

[El Bandito]

Bud Crue, on 21 April 2017 - 03:51 AM, said:

If someone has a different theory to account for PGI's application of quirks and their buffs/nerfs over the last year, I'd love to hear it.

They are just dumb.

[Oberost]

El Bandito, on 21 April 2017 - 03:54 AM, said:

They are just dumb.

[Roadbuster]

El Bandito, on 21 April 2017 - 12:37 AM, said:

Easiest fix would be to implement fixed convergence for torsi mounts, so arms would be used more, rather than armor stripped at first opportunity.

That would only fix short-medium range, except SRMs.
At long range, weapons would still pretty much hit the same spot.

El Bandito, on 21 April 2017 - 12:44 AM, said:

Lower settings is double edged sword. Sure you can see through some terrain, especially a hill humping enemy, but often your shots at it will hit invisible walls instead.

I'd love to set everything to max, but I prefer fluid graphics.
And I've tested some of the more obvious terrain "errors". No matter how high the settings and no matter if playing on a Nvidia or AMD GPU, the terrain still renders "different" depending on range.
So you can clearly see a mech at a ridge, long range, but you can't hit it. When you move closer the mech suddenly vanishes behind the ridge. The shape of the ridge changed.

[invernomuto]

Tarl Cabot, on 21 April 2017 - 03:14 AM, said:

PGI needs to implement a way for a mech to temporarily raise an entire arm, one arm at a time, to fire arm-mounted weapons.

Not simple to implement but this solution would be in line with Battletech lore, novels. Also mechs should at least be able to crouch down to get better cover.

[R Valentine]

The maps are all geared towards high hard point peekers. Waist high buildings, hills galore, inclines, slopes, mountains, houses. There is practically no flat terrain anymore in MWO. Contrary to PGI belief, there are flat spots in the world. Lots, and lots, and lots of them. Uneven terrain plays completely into the hands of shoulder mounters. They only have to expose a small portion of their mech to fire. Arm mounts have to expose more than half of their mech. It takes them longer to get their guns up over that tiny little ridge to shoot, and they're a much bigger target. The difference it makes is absolutely obnoxious. Make more flat ground. Level maps. Get away from the "everywhere is the mountains of Afghanistan" BS method of thinking and high mounts won't be as powerful. Corner peeking should be just as viable as hill peeking, but map selection essentially ensures that it never will be. A knee high hill is more than enough to destroy the firing angle of any mech that doesn't have guns at the top of the shoulders.

[El Bandito]

Roadbuster, on 21 April 2017 - 05:29 AM, said:

That would only fix short-medium range, except SRMs.
At long range, weapons would still pretty much hit the same spot.

No, at long range the damage will still be spread out. Just like when you try to lead a target with projectiles using weapons on different mounts in current MWO. It most certainly will not hit the same spot.

[Davegt27]

All these Mechs with Lasers must be some sort of laser conspiracy

[Felicitatem Parco]

Apparently OP forgot about the 65 ton JagerMechs with 4-6 high-mounted ballistic hardpoints with superior ballistic quirks.

[El Bandito]

Prosperity Park, on 21 April 2017 - 06:15 AM, said:

Apparently OP forgot about the 65 ton JagerMechs with 4-6 high-mounted ballistic hardpoints with superior ballistic quirks.

Jagers are squishy and reliant on quirks--quirks that can be easily taken away to compensate for fixed convergence mechanic.

[R Valentine]

El Bandito, on 21 April 2017 - 06:18 AM, said:

Jagers are squishy and reliant on quirks--quirks that can be easily taken away to compensate for fixed convergence mechanic.

Not to mention Jagers don't hold a candle to clan battlemechs with shoulder mounts. Not even close.

[Mister Blastman]

Tarl Cabot, on 21 April 2017 - 03:14 AM, said:

PGI needs to implement a way for a mech to temporarily raise an entire arm, one arm at a time, to fire arm-mounted weapons.

They should also allow melee combat. I want to fist robits to the face!

[Felicitatem Parco]

Kiran Yagami, on 21 April 2017 - 06:20 AM, said:

Not to mention Jagers don't hold a candle to clan battlemechs with shoulder mounts. Not even close.

This is a Roughneck P2W thread, it is not about Clan Mechs.