132 replies to this topic

[PocketYoda]

If they do i feel the Mad Cat II needs the same treatment.. Crazy how powerful those mechs are.. When i can get 5-6 kills a match in a Mad Cat II without trying hard as a pretty average player something is wrong.

FupDup, on 18 February 2021 - 04:33 PM, said:

Out of curiosity, which mechs do you think are stronger than the Veagle? Cuz that's a pretty high bar to beat. IV4?

See above...

Edited by Samial, 19 February 2021 - 06:11 PM.

[VonBruinwald]

BlaizerP, on 18 February 2021 - 08:03 PM, said:

That does little to change the effectiveness of the ATM build, and nothing at all to the PPC builds, which based on this thread are the builds people think are problematic.

And raising it further invalidates a number of other builds like dakka, gauss, brawl.

Buffing engine size isn't meant to stop these builds, only curb the more excessive ones.

You want Dakka? Take a Hunchback.

[Fu Sun]

All Clan mechs are sort of munch, or seemingly unfair. That's just sort of how it is. Clans have very deadly mechs, Inner Sphere has numbers, and some other advantages. Of course, any mech is only as good as its pilot. The downside of Clan mechs is most of them are sort of fixed, and not as customizable as Inner Sphere, other than most being able to use OmniPods, so they require more creativity to make good, though most are fine as they are.

[Gagis]

VGL is good because it is a 55 ton Clan Battlemech.

Can't exactly change it to 50 or 60 tons, nor make it IS nor make it into an Omnimech instead. Being a clan mech of that size without locked engines or equipment is just that good.

[John Bronco]

VonBruinwald, on 19 February 2021 - 02:57 AM, said:

Buffing engine size isn't meant to stop these builds, only curb the more excessive ones.

You want Dakka? Take a Hunchback.

And as I explained, it does nothing to curb the excessive builds, while harming the average performance builds.

Congratulations on another poorly thought out idea.

[VonBruinwald]

BlaizerP, on 19 February 2021 - 05:53 AM, said:

And as I explained, it does nothing to curb the excessive builds, while harming the average performance builds.

I was trying to be generous but if it makes you happy we could go full Urbie and make the stock engine (300) the default minimum size.

[Wolfos31]

*sigh* I'll miss my Vapor Eagle Rival 2 ERPPC build...

But yeah, I think the Vapor Eagle is probably the strongest performing mech right now. It's a joy to play and I'd hate to change it enough to make it unfun.

I like the increase minimum engine size idea. That seems like a pretty elegant solution of keeping it closer to lore speed and preventing it from carrying quite as much firepower while not really crippling the mech. It's a pretty soft nerf, but a nerf nonetheless.

[Saved By The Bell]

I am still a noob, but I want to say it:

We have many mechs, may be thousand? But I see in every fight almost the same types, so everybody uses around 50 mechs... May be? Not so good.

[Wolfos31]

Saved By The Bell, on 19 February 2021 - 07:02 AM, said:

I am still a noob, but I want to say it:

We have many mechs, may be thousand? But I see in every fight almost the same types, so everybody uses around 50 mechs... May be? Not so good.

There are 829 mech variants (found on your forum profile page), but there are much fewer unique chassis. I don't know how to quickly look that up but just for estimating let's say most mechs have at least 5 variants. So 829/5 = ~160 unique chassis.

And I agree with you. Some mechs almost never see the light of day. The Javelin (makes sense, there are many much better IS lights), The Centurion (this one surprises me, because the -AH with AC/20 & SRM12 is pretty good), The Orion (bums me out, as it's one of my favorite TT mechs but it's hard to make it perform in MWO), The Black Lanner (it's just not very good) There are many more.

Mechs I see at least one of in virtually every match (on my team or the reds):
- Vapor Eagle
- Mad Cat MkII
- Quickdraw
- Hellbringer
- Flea

There are others I'm sure.

[Haipyng]

We always look to nerf an over performing mechs, but all of the terrible mechs never get any improvement. Usually after a nerf the mechs are hit so hard as to become mediocre. We have countless examples. Highlander Heavy Metal, Spiders (really most of the old lights vs new lights, a good example of power creep). Of course that always comes after the time and resources people have invested in these mechs. We have so many absolutely terrible models that never get played. How about we go on a buffing campaign and not have so many useless mechs that people can buy and invest in only to find them uncompetitive?

[w0qj]

I've been on both sides of the fence:
~I've been victim of Vapor Eagle pop-tarting in QP
~I also own VGL-1(S) and every other variant, including its Hero for Vapor Eagle.

1. Suggestion for *all* pop-tarting balancing (including Vapor Eagle):
==>How about increasing the weapon spread % further more when one is flying on Jump Jet and shooting at the same time mid-air?

1a) The mechanic is already ingame:
+% weapon spread for missiles and ballistic weapons already there.

1b) Perhaps Lasers should hit even more of other body parts instead of just the component hit by the laser.
Clan lasers and ERPPC already this mechanic ingame already?

Edited by w0qj, 19 February 2021 - 10:04 PM.

[VonBruinwald]

Haipyng, on 19 February 2021 - 07:20 AM, said:

We always look to nerf an over performing mechs, but all of the terrible mechs never get any improvement. Usually after a nerf the mechs are hit so hard as to become mediocre. We have countless examples. Highlander Heavy Metal, Spiders (really most of the old lights vs new lights, a good example of power creep). Of course that always comes after the time and resources people have invested in these mechs. We have so many absolutely terrible models that never get played. How about we go on a buffing campaign and not have so many useless mechs that people can buy and invest in only to find them uncompetitive?

The reason people look to nerf the over-performers is because they're more visible, people use them because it makes them win more.

Under-performers get overlooked due to lack of visibility, only a minority of us use them, if at all.

Both of these things need to be done, but the priority must be on nerfing over-performers; an under-performer that's never used effectively has zero effect on game balance. The problem is the amount of resistance over-performers get to nerfing due to the fear of players loosing their crutch.

[East Indy]

VonBruinwald, on 18 February 2021 - 02:47 PM, said:

Increase the minimum engine size to 275

It stops people piling on firepower while keeping it true to lore.

This is wonderfully subtle. I love it.

To the OP: unlike the IV-4, VGLs have a high skill floor accompanying the high ceiling. They're metalord candy, and it gets tiring to see them constantly in Tier 1 play, but...not OP, and I would use their performance as a benchmark for buffing other 'Mech -- since after all, it's either 3 VGLs or 1 VGL, 1 Sparky, 1 VND-1AA or something similarly more interesting.

[Haipyng]

VonBruinwald, on 19 February 2021 - 07:51 AM, said:

The reason people look to nerf the over-performers is because they're more visible, people use them because it makes them win more.

Under-performers get overlooked due to lack of visibility, only a minority of us use them, if at all.

Both of these things need to be done, but the priority must be on nerfing over-performers; an under-performer that's never used effectively has zero effect on game balance. The problem is the amount of resistance over-performers get to nerfing due to the fear of players loosing their crutch.

I suppose. There will always be some build that is over performing compared to other mechs, even if you go through and knock the current dozen or more down, there will be new performers in their place. Until they make them all identical that will be a problem. Nerfing down is always a bad idea in balancing a game. It irritates players.

[LordNothing]

take away its jj quirks, then roll those into jump jets. all the jump jets.

[Brauer]

ATMs in general could use tweaks.

Re: the Veagle, just buff other mechs. Nerfing things that are decent and fun to play is not helpful. There are too many useless mechs and variants.

[The pessimistic optimist]

I like to try and blast the legs off them. All that pop tarting dose some leg damage and if yea work on the legs they will get to a point were if they keep pop tarting it going to end up legging them.

Edited by SirSmokes, 19 February 2021 - 09:24 AM.

[Bud Crue]

VonBruinwald, on 19 February 2021 - 07:51 AM, said:

The reason people look to nerf the over-performers is because they're more visible, people use them because it makes them win more.

Under-performers get overlooked due to lack of visibility, only a minority of us use them, if at all.

Both of these things need to be done, but the priority must be on nerfing over-performers; an under-performer that's never used effectively has zero effect on game balance. The problem is the amount of resistance over-performers get to nerfing due to the fear of players loosing their crutch.

Do none of you recall the term "nerf hammer"? How about "The dartboard" ?

Asking PGI to nerf the Veagle is like asking PGI to nerf random things as hard as possible. Leave the thing alone.

Unless you can prove, and I mean with hard data, and with absolute precision what exactly is OP and why, and then convince PGI of precisely how to adjust a value or values to address the OP aspect and nothing else, and then somehow convince PGI not to screw with anything else; unless you can do all that, leave it alone. Otherwise you may as well be asking for a nerf to the Veagles, every weapon that has ever been played on a Veagle, every 55 ton clan mech, every medium mech in the game, or who knows what. And what ever they do end up nerfing will likely be nerfed hard, to the point that it is rarely played ever again.

Ask for buffs all you want, but nerfs? No way. May as well be asking them to remove something from the game.

[The pessimistic optimist]

Bud Crue, on 19 February 2021 - 10:25 AM, said:

Do none of you recall the term "nerf hammer"? How about "The dartboard" ?

Asking PGI to nerf the Veagle is like asking PGI to nerf random things as hard as possible. Leave the thing alone.

Unless you can prove, and I mean with hard data, and with absolute precision what exactly is OP and why, and then convince PGI of precisely how to adjust a value or values to address the OP aspect and nothing else, and then somehow convince PGI not to screw with anything else; unless you can do all that, leave it alone. Otherwise you may as well be asking for a nerf to the Veagles, every weapon that has ever been played on a Veagle, every 55 ton clan mech, every medium mech in the game, or who knows what. And what ever they do end up nerfing will likely be nerfed hard, to the point that it is rarely played ever again.

Ask for buffs all you want, but nerfs? No way. May as well be asking them to remove something from the game.

It better to bring stuff up then bring something down. Buff the under performers and leave the good stuff alone

[VonBruinwald]

Bud Crue, on 19 February 2021 - 10:25 AM, said:

Unless you can prove, and I mean with hard data, and with absolute precision what exactly is OP and why, and then convince PGI of precisely how to adjust a value or values to address the OP aspect and nothing else, and then somehow convince PGI not to screw with anything else; unless you can do all that, leave it alone.

Tell that to the Gulag.