682 replies to this topic

[Joe Lean]

I don't often comment. Here is a longstanding issue I've had in regard to light mechs, ever since reading some discussion on the issue as far back as perhaps beta or prior. But recent matches have brought it back to mind with a vengeance, and for me (and no doubt others), it's a huge negative to the play experience. The way light mechs are treated (trying to make them equally desirable to light mech players by making them ridiculously fast AND ridiculously tiny in an effort to "balance" them... and on top of that adding stealth/etc.) is just plain bad. I do believe the topic has come up before... though admittedly I'm not on the forums often, and I've been an "on again/off again" player. I realize light pilots will complain if their mechs get sized up a bit or other wise de-powered... of course they will! But the present state of things contributes to making this "not Mechwarrior," in some ways. If MWO is one's only experience with the franchise, then I could understand a "what's the big deal?" perspective. But light mechs, in my opinion, really should not be what they presently are in MWO. They should not be the last mechs standing in the kind of battles that these matches represent. Light mechs are inexpensive... from an economics standpoint, if they were so capable in the Battletech/Mechwarrior universe, there probably wouldn't be any of the other classes of Mech (why pay more to build, operate, and transport anything heavier?). If you want to balance them out, give (many) more match points for recon functions and other kinds of contributions (capping) to the team. I think that's a good idea all around anyway, and I would play lights more myself if the importance of recon and other match dynamics were somehow given more value, even if the mechs themselves died earlier and/or didn't do as much damage as they eventually end up doing. But please... trying to give lights combat parity with other classes makes them much more "powerful" in the game than I think many of us feel they should be (unless of course, you're a light mech player who just really enjoys playing the zippy "OP" lights). Instead of being Mechwarrior, it contributes to making it just a game for gamers. I can *almost* understand giving a light some mobility advantage against some assaults... but they shouldn't be able to run circles around even a relatively fast medium (I tend to favor medium mechs in this game, even though in the older Mechwarrior games, the goal was almost always heavies and assaults). Anyway, if you've gotten this far, thanks for reading.

[Joe Lean]

This seems like the best thread to put an idea that might help make the game feel more playable/balanced to some players, and also make older mech designs more popular/useful to some players: Era-only and/or stock mech matches. In other words, make some matches limited to mechs that are only available at certain points or conflicts on the universe timeline. There are plenty of mechs I'd really enjoy playing in a 3025 timeline but just don't seem viable for playing in matches against a lot of what is presently in the game. I'd love to try playing a Valkyrie, for example, but NOT in this MWO game at this time. Similarly, matches in which players can only play from a specific set of stock mechs might work well for some players... imagine, for example, playing in Clan vs. Clan only matches, like Wolves vs. Jade Falcons, during the same era that MW2 took place, etc. I realize these ideas might suffer from insufficient player base... but... may also add to it.
Wasps and Stingers, etc. would be fun to see, but it's hard to imagine them being remotely viable in present matches (nor should they be, I suppose, since in-universe, such mechs probably wouldn't last very long in the kinds of battles that these matches must represent... but that touches on part of what I was trying to get at in my previous comment about light mechs being "not Mechwarrior," and way too powerful in MWO), unlessss more value (more match points, skill points, etc.) was given to scouting/capping/etc. I think I remember reading some things VERY early on (pre-beta?) about points being awarded for different functions like recon, etc.

Edited by Joe Lean, 28 November 2020 - 02:41 PM.

[PotatoCrunch]

Hello!

Here to talk about quirks for a specific mech, I'm not sure if it's been talked about.

The Nightstar in general is a kind of wonky mech to build. One has to take into account how wide it is (like the Uziel and the Champion), meaning it's hard to peek corners with the mech since you have to bring out the entire mech if you want to use its full arsenal. Unlike the Champion, though, the Nightstar doesn't have shield arms and doesn't have the agility to make up for its deficits. So if the Nightstar isn't really that great of a brawling or peeking mech due to its easy-to-see-and-shoot side torsos, why not pick the Banshee instead? The Banshee has better quirks (especially the BNC-3S), shield arms, can peek better, and can carry weapons more optimally than the Nightstar. Several variants of the Nightstar barely have slots in their arms, meaning that it's much harder to build them semi-optimally (the max you can do with 4 ballistics is 2x AC5 in each arm).

If the Banshee is straight up superior in almost every way, there needs to be a reason to pick the Nightstar. More quirks would help make these janky builds shine better and make them work more smoothly.

Summary on other mechs that are very off meta and underpowered:
Some like the Grid Iron extremely encourage you to use strange weapons like the Gauss Rifle (uses way too much tonnage for the Hunchback), but if you're not using a Gauss Rifle on it, why even use the Grid Iron. I agree with previous posters who say that some quirks really need to be super amped up to make these mechs viable and interesting.

An example is the Wolf Phoenix (Nightstar hero mech). It has 2 energy hardpoints in each arm, and 2 missile hardpoints in each side torso. 4 energy hardpoints is a weird number, considering heat scale limits (3x large laser max or 2x PPC max), making this mech already really weird to build. And considering how hot energy and missile weapons can get, it would make sense for there to be some kind of -% heat quirk on it, but the only things you get are armor for the CT and side torsos. There's really no reason to pick this mech over the banshee if you want a solid 95 tonner.

Edited by PotatoCrunch, 29 November 2020 - 12:10 AM.

[PotatoCrunch]

Oh yeah, I agree with previous posters about quirks about the following:

Some mechs demand some weird builds even though they don't have the tonnage or slots to make any effective use of the quirks provided (example: the Hunchback Grid Iron). These quirks, in my opinion, should be super amped up to be interesting and viable.

[Horseman]

Joe Lean, on 28 November 2020 - 02:39 PM, said:

This seems like the best thread to put an idea that might help make the game feel more playable/balanced to some players, and also make older mech designs more popular/useful to some players: Era-only and/or stock mech matches. In other words, make some matches limited to mechs that are only available at certain points or conflicts on the universe timeline. There are plenty of mechs I'd really enjoy playing in a 3025 timeline but just don't seem viable for playing in matches against a lot of what is presently in the game. I'd love to try playing a Valkyrie, for example, but NOT in this MWO game at this time. Similarly, matches in which players can only play from a specific set of stock mechs might work well for some players... imagine, for example, playing in Clan vs. Clan only matches, like Wolves vs. Jade Falcons, during the same era that MW2 took place, etc. I realize these ideas might suffer from insufficient player base... but... may also add to it.

Probably not an always-on queue (too many buckets, duh) but it could make for an interesting event option.

[Elizander]

TOPIC: Weapon Balance

I would like to suggest including a different version of certain weapons such as the IS LB 20-X AC. Tabletop allows distributing the crit requirements of weapons between the arm and the side torso it's attached to, as far as I can recall. Doing this in some limited degree can help weapons like the LB-20X.

Without doing any major overhauls to the mechlab or mech construction rules, you can sell 2 new variants of the IS LB 20-X.

• IS LB 20-X AC (arm) - This can only be placed in the arm. It automatically allocates 10 slots into the arm (like an AC 20 or Ultra AC 20) and 1 slot to the adjacent side torso. It can be destroyed if any of its slot in the arm or side torso is critically hit.
  
• IS LB 20-X AC (st) - This can only be placed in a side torso. It automatically allocates 10 slots into the side torso and 1 slot into the adjacent arm.

This specific change allows the IS LB 20-X AC to be used as arm weapons and with Light Engines without making any drastic changes to it. It's still heavier and bulkier than the clan version but it can be fit into more builds.


Something like this can also be done for the Heavy Gauss Rifle. Players will have to buy a specific version of the weapon (arm, side torso, or regular) and they can't be interchanged, so there's an additional cost for all existing players to field the new versions and can help as an additional minor c-bill sink.

This really isn't breaking the game or going against canon rules. The current limitations for these weapons is mostly due to how mechs are constructed in MWO.

PGI can also make these new variations of weapons more expensive since they are not the 'regular' versions and make them more of a c-bill sink by jacking the prices up by 100% or something.

Edited by Elizander, 29 November 2020 - 01:38 AM.

[Alreech]

Elizander, on 29 November 2020 - 01:36 AM, said:

TOPIC: Weapon Balance

I would like to suggest including a different version of certain weapons such as the IS LB 20-X AC. Tabletop allows distributing the crit requirements of weapons between the arm and the side torso it's attached to, as far as I can recall. Doing this in some limited degree can help weapons like the LB-20X.

Without doing any major overhauls to the mechlab or mech construction rules, you can sell 2 new variants of the IS LB 20-X.

PGI could also just get rid of those tabletop rules that caused balancing problems in the tabletopt too...
The critical slots of the IS LB 20-X is one of those, just put it on par with the normal IS AC 20

Edited by Alreech, 29 November 2020 - 07:27 AM.

[ShaneoftheDead]

Daeron Katz, on 16 November 2020 - 01:05 PM, said:

In this thread, lets discuss ideas for updating or adding to our current mechs and how they work in MechWarrior Online, such as:

• New Community-Driven 'Mech (Community input to new 'Mech chassis choice)

Adding a new mech is not going to bring MWO back to life. The game has bigger issues.

Daeron Katz, on 16 November 2020 - 01:05 PM, said:

• New 'Mech Variants

Adding a new variant is not going to bring MWO back to life. Again, bigger issues exist.

Daeron Katz, on 16 November 2020 - 01:05 PM, said:

• Rescale 'Mechs (for fun and role vs volumetric)

Rescale is linked to other problems in the game and you must be careful what solution you pick as it will have repercussions in other areas. For example, when you shrink a 'Mech you increase it's Armor to Surface Area Ratio (Armor Density) for each Torso, Arm, and Leg hit box. Harder to hit and less damage from spread weapons, but still has the same Armor so the survival goes way up. And survival goes up even further the 'Mech faster it can move. All because you shunk the 'Mech.

I have a vague recollection of a prior forum post where I mentioned a solution where you have an Armor Density constant that you multiplied against the surface area of the component's external Hit Box (not parts that are covered by other Hit Boxes) and that was the max armor value for it. Armor is Armor no matter where it is.

While you are editing the Mech's in your design tools. Why not fix a few poor 'Mech designs and make them more viable?

• Arm weapon mount points should never be underneath the arm. Keep them on the top or the sides of the arms.
  
• Torso weapon mount points should never be at the waist, move them up as high as possible but still asthetically pleasing.
  
• External hunches and bulges for weapons should be minimized. If an AC/20 can fit inside a Raven, you don't need a huge bulge on other 'Mechs. Why have a huge Hit Box if it can be avoided?

Daeron Katz, on 16 November 2020 - 01:05 PM, said:

• Fix Mech Mobility (Desync)

This could be so much more. Mobility as a whole is not quite right. You need to decide if you want to balance the game as a game or if you are trying to make a simulator based on a board game.

• The larger Assaults (90-100 Tons) are too slow and sluggish when compared to the lighter Assaults. They should not be THAT sluggish.
  
• Lights are way too agile. 20 Tons does not stop on a dime nor does it instantly accellerate. They need to be brought back into the same universe, the same laws of phyiscs that the rest of the Mech's use.
  
• Review the Engines themselves. There are so many engines that are worthless because you can get a better one for the same weight. Do something to justify their existance in the game like a weight in between, like 6.2, 6.7, or 6.8 Tons. Slightly faster speeds, but slightly more weight. You could shave a little armor and fit it in.

Daeron Katz, on 16 November 2020 - 01:05 PM, said:

• Update Bolt-Ons (Stay Attached)

No comment.

Daeron Katz, on 16 November 2020 - 01:05 PM, said:

• Quirks / Set of 8's for Under Performers

In lieu of altering the 'Mech design to improve it, then quirks could help. But, odds are these under-performers are in fact old 'Mechs that were surpassed by newer ones with designed in Power Creep. If you really want to fix them, you need to retro fit the under-performer's designs and bring them up to date and in line with their peers.

Daeron Katz, on 16 November 2020 - 01:05 PM, said:

• Armor Balance for Arm Weapon-Only 'Mechs (Jenner, Jagermech, Rifleman)

That list of 'Mechs seems so familiar. As I stated elsewhere, an Armor Density constant used for the exposed Hit Box surface area would give more accurate results than trying to use the Table Top game values or guessing.

Daeron Katz, on 16 November 2020 - 01:05 PM, said:

• Weapon Balance Pass

This is good idea, but not only for Heat. Think about cooldown, tonnage, ammo, etc. Don't let lore hold you hostage. Balance the game as a game. You might also want to review other components as well, like Heat Sinks, BAP, and TCs.

Daeron Katz, on 16 November 2020 - 01:05 PM, said:

• IS Omnimechs / Engine Discussion

No comment.

[evil kerensky]

bring out the quirkening 2. i wanna see mechs with super quirks so long as they arent meta. i dont even care if meta mechs have quirks, but give the bad ones super quirks.

and make lb20s and hgauss 1 slot less, its easier than crit splitting and doesnt break the game.

[PCHunter]

Most mechs in the game are "omni" or "near omni" in that there are numerous weapon load outs configurable. There are very few mechs that simply cannot practically be multi-modded. Quirks can influence this further. Right now I have over 70 mechs and no repeats due to the "omni-ness" of the models I selected. If you want to monetize the game more, make the mechs less-so and seriously quirk them to limit the practical weapon package. For example, a PPC equipped version with lots of PPC quirks is not likely to be modded to a pulse laser build. The levels of quirks in the game are not sufficient to force me to maintain the stock weapons package. For example, a 10% velocity quirk means nothing, but a +1 HSL works great in this regard. The Supernova Hero with its 2 UAC 20's just demands that these base weapons remain mounted. Anyway, you get the picture.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Quote

[color=#959595]While you are editing the Mech's in your design tools. Why not fix a few poor 'Mech designs and make them more viable?[/color]

• Arm weapon mount points should never be underneath the arm. Keep them on the top or the sides of the arms.
  
• Torso weapon mount points should never be at the waist, move them up as high as possible but still asthetically pleasing.
  
• External hunches and bulges for weapons should be minimized. If an AC/20 can fit inside a Raven, you don't need a huge bulge on other 'Mechs. Why have a huge Hit Box if it can be avoided?

im going a step further ...Why the mechs have fullmodeled complicated Hands?(Relict from old mech designs)
The most not useable(weapons blocked the hands in most ways), the weakest Hitpoint , complicated to repair,and the mechs not plays Piano or make difficult Operations ,for transporting Objects simple Claws or Hooks more as useable...its stupid Nonsense like Handholded Weapons (oh no ,the hit my Trigger finger ).and bring weapons direct in the underarms like Masakari or Daishi...When a Atlas crashes his Hand in a Enemy -what ist more destroyed? the enemy Armor or the filigran Handmanipulator!and Hnads pumped up the Hitzone,while Weapons now must finding around the Arm his Place

Edited by MW Waldorf Statler, 30 November 2020 - 03:48 AM.

[DAEDALOS513]

Give LRM's a toggle or maybe their own weapon group that always fires them in an arc regardless of line-of-sight.

[DAEDALOS513]

Can you confirm that the jenner got armor buffs or a change in hit boxes? Definitely spreads damage much better away from ct and seems much harder to kill lately ..

[Landragn]

Daeron....sincerely....welcome back. You may have sparked an awakening. We need to inspire the old pilots to return and the new pilots to stay and learn. Breathing mainstream life into Faction would be difficult but worthy of high praise. Quickplay can be fun for everyone again. I like the ideas I'm reading on the forums. I think I'll fire up the old Daishi and check things out. Please continue. We all deserve a MWO Renaissance. Oh....and maybe...just maybe the Dire Wolf could turn a little quicker.....move a little faster...58...60 kph? Christmas is right around the corner. It's on my wish list to Santa.

[Tesunie]

For IS Omni mechs, I once proposed in another thread requesting them that maybe Omni-mechs should be able to change the type of engine it contains, but not the size. So, for example, an IS Omni with a 250 XL engine could change that engine to a 250 LFE or a STD version. Clans would have the same options (make it a universal rule), but I don't think any Clan Omnis will be changing to STD versions of their engines...


Otherwise, I'd just love to see new mechs being released into the game, though maybe a little slower than what it was previously. Say, either a new mech anywhere from once a month to outwards of maybe one new mech a seasonal quarter. I recall the days when we waited longer for new mechs, like the Stalker. A lot of excitement went out with those new mechs when they came back then. (I also recall a few times when a mech was released completely unannounced, which was really fun when it happened.)

[Brauer]

Tesunie, on 01 December 2020 - 08:52 AM, said:

For IS Omni mechs, I once proposed in another thread requesting them that maybe Omni-mechs should be able to change the type of engine it contains, but not the size. So, for example, an IS Omni with a 250 XL engine could change that engine to a 250 LFE or a STD version. Clans would have the same options (make it a universal rule), but I don't think any Clan Omnis will be changing to STD versions of their engines...


Otherwise, I'd just love to see new mechs being released into the game, though maybe a little slower than what it was previously. Say, either a new mech anywhere from once a month to outwards of maybe one new mech a seasonal quarter. I recall the days when we waited longer for new mechs, like the Stalker. A lot of excitement went out with those new mechs when they came back then. (I also recall a few times when a mech was released completely unannounced, which was really fun when it happened.)

If omnis could change engine type you might see that happen with some of the chassis especially if freeing up slots enabled new builds. The DWF and NTG stand out as mechs where ity possible that there could be a benefit to changing engine types, but without doing some thorough mechlab science I can't say for certain.

[toncrell]

well hers my list of mechs, some have been mentioned but ill add my 2 cents.

1. hurron warrior
2 stone rino
3.wasp
4.crusader
5. devastator
6.longbow
7.berserker ( dont care about the hatchet going for the looks)
8.salamander
9.grand titian
10. pillager

now some of these wont look correct scaled down and some may not be able to do the pictures we have any credit but id like to see what can be done with these anyway

[Zordicron]

Desynch:
Players wanted this. BUT....
What they wanted was for you guys to set the mobility of twist/turn(NOT SPEED or ACCEL) to whatever the highest rated engine would provide at the time. It was fairly obvious big mechs needed that mobility to survive, but at the time were cramming STD. 375's or better into mechs to get it at the cost of other stuff, like fearsome loadouts for assaults, or heat management on heavy mechs. This speed boost is part of why NASCAR became a thing.
Either REVERT, or better yet, just do what everyone actually wanted at the time and alter the twist/turn rates to be set value and leave speed and accel/decel tied to engines.

New mechs:
I dunno, how about Thug? There are a few oldies that deserve a spot yet.
IS Omni is a different route, but a lot of feedback will be needed to allow for them to not be DOA.

Rescale:
Uhhh.... yeah, you guys ignored the community on this also, people screamed for it for years and then the whole thing was "standardized" which again, was the exact opposite of what the players were screaming for. Barn Door Awesome needed a rescale, not a standardization. Some mechs needed hitbox adjustments, not actual rescales, but NONE WERE SPARED THE STANDARDIZATION PASS! ALL WILL SUCCOMB TO THE POWER OF STANDARDIZATION IN A MULTIPLAYER ONLINE GAME!!!
Ahem.... I mean YES, please consider a case by case look at the mechs.

On that note.... please give a nudge or a quirks set to a few of the in game mechs..... YES, PRETTY BABY, I AM LOOKING AT YOU. maybe just add some hardpoints to a few of them to give them some flexability? Cataphract 4X is another one, it is an odd beast that can be made to work, but maybe it would be better if it wasn't quite so odd?
I think a lot of the goofy mechs with weapons all in one arm or on half the mech.... like Wolverine.... could stand to have the weapon side get some significant armor boost quirks also, and desperatly need the desynch/mobility stuff ASAP to allow for twist shielding to improve.

In short, I would focus more on fixing some of the past slip ups and shore up some of the more lamented variants before getting really excited about pounding out a bunch of new chassis.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

when the M1 Abrams becomes to many Hits , blow the Humvee up to Abrams size and shrink the Abrams to Humvee size ...thats the Logic here , now the Catapult with 65t is small like a Medium, a Black Knight with 75t ist tall like a 100t Atlas ...the Wight Difference ist 10 t ,and the visuals is 45t

Edited by MW Waldorf Statler, 03 December 2020 - 09:16 PM.

[Tenchuu]

Kushiels Dart, on 16 November 2020 - 07:29 PM, said:

3) Here is another big gripe. Where is the AXMAN and the HATCHETMAN? You might not be able to create a functional ax and hatchet but it could be at least cosmetic!

5) And finally my big beef, and this is a big beef. WHERE ARE THE 4 LEGGED MECHS? The SCORPION, the GOLIATH and the TARANTULA! Don't tell me they are too hard to do/make/create as your competitors already have 4 legged mechs.

Huh, and here I was thinking I needed to write out how much actual melee would shake things up and so would the inclusion of quads, but it looks like it's already been said. So +1 for some going to the source material thinking "out of the box" by looking in it.