88 replies to this topic

[Karl Streiger]

James The Fox Dixon, on 24 May 2017 - 06:50 AM, said:

They are the same weight class. A Marauder is 75 tons, so you are thinking of the Marauder II which is 100 tons.

or the Mad Cat III that is a medium - of course we can also take the Marauder IIC
or the Mad Cat II or the Mad Cat IV....man i love numbers - but what about Loki II and Thor II

[James The Fox Dixon]

Karl Streiger, on 24 May 2017 - 06:51 AM, said:

or the Mad Cat III that is a medium - of course we can also take the Marauder IIC
or the Mad Cat II or the Mad Cat IV....man i love numbers - but what about Loki II and Thor II

I'd give them handling characteristics based upon what the fluff is.

[Khobai]

Quote

They are the same weight class. A Marauder is 75 tons, so you are thinking of the Marauder II which is 100 tons.

no i was thinking of the marauder IIC which is 85 tons

if the IS marauder is 75 tons then it would be okay for it to have comparable agility to a timberwolf.

because thats exactly how it should be. mechs that weigh the same tonnage should have comparable agility.

consistency is good.

inconsistency and outliers like what have now is bad.

Edited by Khobai, 24 May 2017 - 06:57 AM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Khobai, on 24 May 2017 - 06:54 AM, said:

no i was thinking of the marauder IIC which is 85 tons

I was talking about the original. I make it very clear about what mech I'm talking about.

[Steve Pryde]

James The Fox Dixon, on 24 May 2017 - 06:50 AM, said:

Wow you are testy today. Actually, it's Lore>Gameplay since you can't have gameplay without the lore as a starting point. All the mechs put into MWO are from lore sources which includes Tech Readouts for the TT game. That's where PGI got the mechs from.

Yeah, copy&paste can PGI at least. But I don't think they are so into the lore like you. I think PGI just messed up or have overseen things like this.

And I'm sounding testy? Then u would see even more "****".

[MischiefSC]

The existing quirks are already baked in. So you've got a standardized mobility stat for every mech by weight, then some have mobility quirks baked into that so they're further buffed by mobility nodes.

It's a solid system that just expands on what we already had. The only thing that "suffered" were mechs that had a high engine cap and were able to be more agile than other mechs of their class by mounting a huge engine. Theres never been a standarized mobility nor should there be. Mobility is a balancing tool.

[Hopeasusi]

MischiefSC, on 24 May 2017 - 07:18 AM, said:

The existing quirks are already baked in. So you've got a standardized mobility stat for every mech by weight, then some have mobility quirks baked into that so they're further buffed by mobility nodes.

It's a solid system that just expands on what we already had. The only thing that "suffered" were mechs that had a high engine cap and were able to be more agile than other mechs of their class by mounting a huge engine. Theres never been a standarized mobility nor should there be. Mobility is a balancing tool.

Only high engine cap mech suffered? Um, no.
Atlas, panther, King Crab all got f***d in the arse and dont have super engines for their size.

Also if its for balancing, i want to you justify linebacker for being more agile than adder/firestarter/panther/raven. Or executioner being more agile than Orion? Cause I can't find a reason for a mech with more firepower and a lot more armor to have better agility.
It's not just meta vs the second best stuff. You need to remember that there are at lot of mechs that are simply bad in comparison.

[Karl Streiger]

Individual behaviour - i would rather have individual skill trees but its quirks now.
The linebacker has more armor but hardly more weapons and its a bigger target - with lower top speed (exceptions bla)

Executioner has movement of a heavy because its just that a fat heavy.
Tonnage counts in the so called main game modes - so the other question would be: why to play a huge clumsy target without comparable weapons and pay more?

[Angel of Annihilation]

Khobai, on 24 May 2017 - 06:25 AM, said:

You have failed to convince me why a 95 ton executioner needs to be four times more agile than a 100 ton direwolf.



No youre missing the point. The point is the game should be balanced in ways that actually make sense. We shouldnt have Executioners that are four times more agile than Direwolves. That simply doesnt make sense. It ruins immersion. There should not be absurd amounts of disparity in agility between mechs that are only 5 tons apart.

Its like having two 60 ton abrams tanks. One actually drives like youd expect a 60 ton abrams tank. While the other one flies around like a fighter jet and defies the laws of physics for no known reason. A 95 ton mech like the executioner should drive like a 95 ton mech. period.

At most there should be a +/- 10% variation between a mech's agility and the baseline agility for its tonnage. More than that is unrealistic.

I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, I am just stating that it is pretty obvious where PGI went with the whole Engine Decoupling system and also saying that right, wrong or otherwise, it is a very useful balancing tool.

Take your example, the Executioner. Prior to the patch I considered the Executioner to be pretty much DOA. It has a huge profile, is extremely tall, suffers from most of its hardpoints being located low slung on its arms and handled pretty much like a brick. I honestly couldn't say anything good about it. Now however, it is extremely mobile due to its enhanced acceleration and deceleration rates, especially paired with its MASC system. Basically it is a better than average mech now. If they standardized the values and made it consistent based on the values used by the Dire Wolf or Kodiak, 2 mech inherently more powerful than the Executioner, then the Executioner becomes a DOA mech again.

I guess as much as I don't necessarily like using Engine Decoupling as a balancing tool and from a consistency standpoint, I almost view it as a necessary evil and much better than heavy handed balance techniques like nerfing UACs in order to reduce the effectiveness of the KDK-3's.

Edited by Viktor Drake, 24 May 2017 - 10:05 AM.

[MischiefSC]

Hopeasusi, on 24 May 2017 - 08:17 AM, said:

Only high engine cap mech suffered? Um, no.
Atlas, panther, King Crab all got f***d in the arse and dont have super engines for their size.

Also if its for balancing, i want to you justify linebacker for being more agile than adder/firestarter/panther/raven. Or executioner being more agile than Orion? Cause I can't find a reason for a mech with more firepower and a lot more armor to have better agility.
It's not just meta vs the second best stuff. You need to remember that there are at lot of mechs that are simply bad in comparison.

Atlas and King Crab used to let you go 340+ for good mobility and usually did. They also, panther included, have some serious durability quirks.

Linebacker carries less firepower than my Huntsman, which is 50 tons and the same speed. Your firestarter can carry just about the same firepower as a Linebacker at 30 tons less and much faster though less durability. Without serious mobility quirks it would be useless. So it's about as nimble as the worst lights and average/good lights/mediums.

Because mobility is a balancing factor and now a more useful one.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Hopeasusi, on 24 May 2017 - 08:17 AM, said:

Only high engine cap mech suffered? Um, no.
Atlas, panther, King Crab all got f***d in the arse and dont have super engines for their size.

Also if its for balancing, i want to you justify linebacker for being more agile than adder/firestarter/panther/raven. Or executioner being more agile than Orion? Cause I can't find a reason for a mech with more firepower and a lot more armor to have better agility.
It's not just meta vs the second best stuff. You need to remember that there are at lot of mechs that are simply bad in comparison.

Linebacker suffers from a serious lack of usable tonnage for weapons, equipment and the DHS needed to keep it cool. If it didn't have speed and agility going for it, it would be DOA due to its size making it a big, fat juciy target.

Executioner's as I mentioned in another post, suffers from being excessively large, combined with very unfortunate hardpoint locations that make it very difficult for the Executioner to apply its firepower. It also has locked JJs, and MASC that take up alot of room and tonnage, leaving it a bit lacking in useable free tonnage for weapons and equipment. Without the mobility upgrade it gets now, you have a big fat DOA mech that nobody will play.

Then we you look at the adder or light mechs in general, they have a much smaller profile which makes them a much harder target to hit and in many cases, especially when comparing to the Linebacker, they actually can mount more firepower. Also most of those light mechs you mention, can move at significantly higher speeds that the Linebacker can achieve.

As for the Orion, I don't own one so I can't really do a comparison but looking at the Orion, I doubt it has near as many flaws as the Executioner had that held is back so they decided that it didn't need as much of a boost in performance as the Executioner did.

You have to step back and look at it from a numbers and balancing perspective. If you do the number and see the mech performing much lower than average, you give it a significant buff to mobility so that those number become normalized and consistent. If it is performing higher than average, you adjust the mobility downward again so the numbers become normalized and consistent. I mean sure, it isn't immersive and realistic but it provides a way to balance the mechs and make gameplay more consistent across the board.

So do you want more fun or more immersive because immersive is Star vs Lance, Tremendously OP Clan Tech compared to IS Tech, the inability to modify IS mechs requiring the use of stock loadouts, Full customization on weapons and most equipment on Clan Omnimechs, etc. All that is immersive and exactly what the Battletech/Mechwarrior Universe is all about and all that got tossed out the window to make the game balanced and fun. Acceleration and Deceleration is just the latest victim of quest for consistent balance, playability and overall fun.

[Shifty McSwift]

I definitely agree with the idea of standardising the weight to mobility/speed ratios a lot more, there can still be enough uniqueness within reason and with things like MASC being considered.

I don't really think that means buffing many mechs though, rather nerfing the current over performers for their roles and by comparison to other mechs.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Shifty McSwift, on 24 May 2017 - 12:07 PM, said:

I definitely agree with the idea of standardising the weight to mobility/speed ratios a lot more, there can still be enough uniqueness within reason and with things like MASC being considered.

I don't really think that means buffing many mechs though, rather nerfing the current over performers for their roles and by comparison to other mechs.

They already did nerf the over performers while buffing the under performers which is why we have what we have now. Personally I think the Over-Nerf the top performers. I mean a Night Gyr has a 13.11 Acceleration rate now while the next closest Heavy has over 17.00 Acceleration and most have over 20.00 Acceleration.

So while I am arguing in favor of using agility as a balance mechanism, I absolutely do not agree with the extremes they have went with. I mean sure keep the Night Gyr on the low side, maybe even the lowest in the heavy category but make it's acceleration rate like 16 or 17, not cripple it with a slower acceleration rate that is around half of what most other heavy mechs have available to them. So I guess in a way I do agree with the OP as well.

[Shifty McSwift]

Viktor Drake, on 24 May 2017 - 12:32 PM, said:

They already did nerf the over performers while buffing the under performers which is why we have what we have now. Personally I think the Over-Nerf the top performers. I mean a Night Gyr has a 13.11 Acceleration rate now while the next closest Heavy has over 17.00 Acceleration and most have over 20.00 Acceleration.

So while I am arguing in favor of using agility as a balance mechanism, I absolutely do not agree with the extremes they have went with. I mean sure keep the Night Gyr on the low side, maybe even the lowest in the heavy category but make it's acceleration rate like 16 or 17, not cripple it with a slower acceleration rate that is around half of what most other heavy mechs have available to them. So I guess in a way I do agree with the OP as well.

I was more referencing the overperforming aspects highlighted by this kind of disparity;

DGTLDaemon, on 23 May 2017 - 08:55 AM, said:

Like a 4x times difference in agility between a 95-tonner and a 100-tonner? Or an 80-tonner having twice the agility of an 85-tonner?

It depends on the specific case of course, but if one or two mechs are much better in regards to mobility than 20 mechs of equivalent rates for example it makes sense to bring those 2 down into line with the rest, and vice versa.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Shifty McSwift, on 24 May 2017 - 12:42 PM, said:

I was more referencing the overperforming aspects highlighted by this kind of disparity;



It depends on the specific case of course, but if one or two mechs are much better in regards to mobility than 20 mechs of equivalent rates for example it makes sense to bring those 2 down into line with the rest, and vice versa.

Well first I tend to fall into the never be nerfing, always be buffing school of balance but I can assure you that the Executioner is only just viable due to its current over performing aspects. It really is just that bad of a mech. The Linebacker on the other hand, might be a tad over the top though. However I did say extremes so be it over performing or under performing the extremes tend to be....too extreme.

That being the case, I would support narrowing the performance band a bit across the board, but I really don't think it is a good idea to overlook the usefulness that using mobility as a balancing mechanic offers. I mean so PGI as made so many GLOBAL changes in response to correcting a few over performing mechs, breaking so many under performing mechs in the process that I for one feel greatly relieved by PGI's choice to use mobility as a balancing factor. I mean my god, they nerfed UACs across the board just to tone down the KDK-3, talk about heavy handed. Now trying to use a single UAC for anything remotely like reliable and consistent DPS is next to impossible. I would have loved to not have all my mechs that were mounting a single UAC as a significant source of DPS be broken because they were able to balance just the KDK-3 by reducing its mobility.

Edited by Viktor Drake, 24 May 2017 - 01:20 PM.

[Ghogiel]

MischiefSC, on 24 May 2017 - 10:51 AM, said:

Atlas and King Crab used to let you go 340+ for good mobility and usually did. They also, panther included, have some serious durability quirks.

Linebacker carries less firepower than my Huntsman, which is 50 tons and the same speed. Your firestarter can carry just about the same firepower as a Linebacker at 30 tons less and much faster though less durability. Without serious mobility quirks it would be useless. So it's about as nimble as the worst lights and average/good lights/mediums.

Because mobility is a balancing factor and now a more useful one.

I cannot agree with your FS9 vs LBK comparison. It's unfair af, FS9 is an inferior light when lights are already weak with no quirks to speak of, while the LBK is a clan heavy that retained agility and has ******* structure and weapon quirks. It was never bad by any stretch.

Im not saying the LBK needs nerfing, the FS9 needs help, it's just too clunky and big, was too easy to put down in scrims. Even scrubs can peel the leg off without laser washing.

[Shifty McSwift]

Viktor Drake, on 24 May 2017 - 01:19 PM, said:

Well first I tend to fall into the never be nerfing, always be buffing school of balance

[WarHippy]

MischiefSC, on 24 May 2017 - 07:18 AM, said:

The existing quirks are already baked in. So you've got a standardized mobility stat for every mech by weight, then some have mobility quirks baked into that so they're further buffed by mobility nodes.

It's a solid system that just expands on what we already had. The only thing that "suffered" were mechs that had a high engine cap and were able to be more agile than other mechs of their class by mounting a huge engine. Theres never been a standarized mobility nor should there be. Mobility is a balancing tool.

Mobility can and should be used as a balancing tool, but there needs to be a standardized baseline for mobility that doesn't feel like complete garbage. When they nerfed the old skill tree numbers most of the mechs that remained relevant were the ones that also received large mobility quirks while the rest felt like crap unless you could put a large enough engine in to make them a little more manageable. However, now that we have the decoupling even putting a larger engine in does nothing further increasing the number of mechs that suck and/or feel like complete garbage to pilot. Sure, there is a few outliers that made out pretty well depending on where PGI had darts land on the board destiny, but overall the decoupling was a mistake since they clearly don't know what moderation is or have gameplay/enjoyment suffers when a significant portion of their creations feel like unresponsive piles of excrement.

Edited by WarHippy, 24 May 2017 - 01:55 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Ghogiel, on 24 May 2017 - 01:30 PM, said:

I cannot agree with your FS9 vs LBK comparison. It's unfair af, FS9 is an inferior light when lights are already weak with no quirks to speak of, while the LBK is a clan heavy that retained agility and has ******* structure and weapon quirks. It was never bad by any stretch.

Im not saying the LBK needs nerfing, the FS9 needs help, it's just too clunky and big, was too easy to put down in scrims. Even scrubs can peel the leg off without laser washing.

I would say the lights in general need a nudge up. FS9 high among them so there's a couple IS lights that are not total ****.

[Ghogiel]

MischiefSC, on 24 May 2017 - 02:00 PM, said:

I would say the lights in general need a nudge up. FS9 high among them so there's a couple IS lights that are not total ****.

actually try the FS9. I had a really hard time ggclosing and a WHK in the back, even the KGC wasn't straight forward.