334 replies to this topic

[C337Skymaster]

NotSoDeadpool15, on 17 May 2021 - 10:11 PM, said:

I think the Kodiak excluding the 3 could benefit from being at least on par with the atlas in mobility, since it doesn't have the armor quirks the atlas has. Them having the same mobility would be appropriate to me, but I am willing to wait and see how it performs first.

Honestly, the Kodiak's "thing" is mobility, so it should technically have better mobility than any other 100 tonner. I'll go with "on par" for now, but it's a betrayal to the chassis for it to have less. They need to deflate the hardpoints back to the stock loadouts, since that's what made the KDK OP in the first place (2 ballistics on the -3, one in each torso. Only one ballistic on every other variant), then boost its mobility closer to pre-engine-desync.

[denAirwalkerrr]

AnAnachronismAlive, on 18 May 2021 - 04:21 AM, said:

@denAirwalkerrr

Don't, not worth the hassle. Let's be glad MWO is taken care of again (at least to some extent).

Whoever wants to play "conclusio praecox" shall do so.

That's why I'm back to wasting my time here lol.

C337Skymaster, on 18 May 2021 - 04:15 AM, said:

So your performance in that match is an outlier. Until you can show me 12 matches with similar performance back-to-back (and honestly, I'm even talking 1000+, not even 2300 dmg), I'm not taking that as evidence that the Dire Wolf is "good". If it can stand in one spot and shoot AC/2's at the entire battlefield without having to twist or turn too much, you can rack up a score like that. The second a Dire Whale starts taking return fire, it folds like a cheap Chinese fan.

Was gonna just reply for this bit, then saw the rest: Viper can max 11 energy hardpoints, including hero arms on -C CT. Stormcrow can max 13 energy hardpoints.

Dude 1000 is my average damage on this mech. Also I played a bit of 2xAC20+2xUAC10 DWF after patch with not much worse resuts then AC2 spam.



I just didn't recall exact number of E hardpoints on them since mass micropulses became a thing less then a month ago and point still stands that they are extremely good <100m range mechs for brawl.

C337Skymaster, on 18 May 2021 - 04:20 AM, said:

Kodiak's "thing" is mobility on a 100 ton chassis. Hence XL 400 engine and all short- to medium-ranged weaponry. Atlas is known for its armor. Dire Wolf for its firepower. Fafnir for Dual Heavy Gauss. Annihilator for being a turret. These are what these chassis are known for. These are their base reputations. The fact that the Kodiak has ZERO mobility (better after today's patch, but still poor in comparison), especially when compared to other 100 tonners, means it's not living up to its base reputation, and is being unfaithfully represented in-game.

They are known for that in lore it's not the point of making current hardpoint and geometry MWO loadout feel like lore but to make them viable and in most cases fun comparatively to other chassis in the game. Kodiaks with higher that Atlas mobility will be busted.

Edited by denAirwalkerrr, 18 May 2021 - 04:53 AM.

[Dithmenos]

Heavy Money, on 17 May 2021 - 09:10 PM, said:

Being the most played doesn't mean it isn't flawed. Its one of the main maps generating the constant complaints about Nascar. These changes are aimed to reducing nascaring.

Original canyon also has the greatest potential against nascar. As Tier 0 players can show you, its easy to sit on the other side of a canyon, in a hard to reach spot, where you just shoot the nascar.

Edited by Dithmenos, 18 May 2021 - 04:55 AM.

[C337Skymaster]

denAirwalkerrr, on 18 May 2021 - 04:40 AM, said:

Dude 1000 is my average damage on this mech. Also I played a bit of 2xAC20+2xUAC10 DWF after patch with not much worse resuts then AC2 spam.

Well then, congratulations. You're an ace DWF pilot. I haven't seen performance like that (and certainly not that consistently) in years, and my own experience is VERY far from that. I can get close to it if I run AC/2 spam, but that's boring, and still not consistent (for every 1000 dmg match, there'll be 2 where I get spotted early and die with about 200 dmg done).

denAirwalkerrr, on 18 May 2021 - 04:40 AM, said:

I just didn't recall exact number of E hardpoints on them since mass micropulses became a thing less then a month ago and point still stands that they are extremely good <100m range mechs for brawl.

Okay, fair enough.

denAirwalkerrr, on 18 May 2021 - 04:40 AM, said:

They are known for that in lore it's not the point of making current harpoint and geomentry MWO loadout feel like lore but to make them viable and in most cases fun comparatively to other chassis in the game. Kodiaks with higher that Atlas mobility will be busted.

Um, it's actually exactly the point to make MWO feel like Lore, at least as close as we can get in an FPS PvP game. That's literally the definition of "fun" around here. This game is driven 100% by nostalgia. If you forget that, you lose players. I'm sorry to you expert COMP players, but I doubt there's even 24 of you, and you will not keep this going by yourselves.

When people pre-order 'mechs, they're basing their expectations on the Lore behind the 'mech, and what its reputation is, not "how it performs in-game" because it's not in the game yet. If it's then the exact opposite of its reputation, it's a let-down for the people who spent $70 to get it. It lived up to its reputation for almost a year, and was subsequently transformed into an Annihilator equivalent: Turret Warrior Online (and not even a turret that can rotate).

The Kodiak's "thing" is mobility. That's what differentiates it from other 100 ton chassis. Its "thing" is not firepower. It's "thing" is not armor. It's "thing" is mobility. That needs to be at the heart of any and all balancing of that specific chassis. That's what will differentiate it from any other 100 ton 'mech, and that's what will make it "fun" again.

This needs to be accomplished by reverting the changes PGI made to it before it was introduced: the KDK-3 and KDK-4 need their extra ballistic hardpoints removed. If you want to replace them with extra missile/energy hardpoints, be my guest, but they don't really need those, either. The KDK received its first round of nerfs when people discovered that they could put 4x UAC/10 on the -3, and then the entire chassis was punished for their creativity, and nerfed into the ground. If you get rid of the two extra ballistic hardpoints, players can still do 2x UAC/10 with some energy, if they want, or they can play the 'mech the way it was meant to be played: 2x LBX/20, 4x ERML. The speed and mobility get the 'mech into its really short effective range, and then it can dance the night away spinning and blasting at anyone it lines up on. That was FUN, and I REALLY miss being able to do that with the very first chassis I ever spent real money on. It's not super OP, but it's not super underpowered, either. It's a nice, balanced, extremely mobile 'mech that just happens to weigh 100 tons.

EDIT: the forum always picks the worst time to force an auto-logoff, and accidentally posted this twice while I was trying to figure out why it wouldn't post in the first place...

Edited by C337Skymaster, 18 May 2021 - 05:17 AM.

[denAirwalkerrr]

C337Skymaster, on 18 May 2021 - 05:12 AM, said:

Um, it's actually exactly the point to make MWO feel like Lore

You lost me there. Again lore is turn based dice rolling tabletop wargame with books written about it. MWO is first person shooter.

[kapusta11]

RIP SNPPC April 2021 - May 2021.

Now worse than before the April patch, wow.


It will take KDK3 almost 6 seconds to rech full speed even after the buff. The reluctance to buff it more seeing how there's already a better clan gun boat (MCII-B ) is ridiculous.

Edited by kapusta11, 18 May 2021 - 05:30 AM.

[Tarl Cabot]

Niederrheinmetall, on 18 May 2021 - 03:31 AM, said:

Will the new Canyon Network fully replace the old one? Will the "Classic" CN exist on?

This, keep the original map in play, like you do the with the old Frozen City/Forest Colony.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 18 May 2021 - 05:34 AM.

[John Bronco]

Unless they fix the spawns, old canyon can take a hike.

[C337Skymaster]

denAirwalkerrr, on 18 May 2021 - 05:23 AM, said:

You lost me there. Again lore is turn based dice rolling tabletop wargame with books written about it. MWO is first person shooter.

No, that's the tabletop game. "Lore" is giant robots duking it out in futuristic combat.

There are a set of rules written to approximate what that looks like, and those rules specifically define how that translates to real-time. Every "turn" is 10 seconds. Every hex is 30 meters across. Walking speed is engine rating divided by 'mech tonnage times 3m/s. Running speed is 1.5 times walking speed. Turn rate is engine rating divided by 'mech tonnage, times 1.5, times 6 degrees/second. Arm and torso twist movements are meant to be comparatively humanoid, so call them three or four times the turn rate, based on human anatomy.

Weapons cycle once every 10 seconds. This could be argued to be a DPS value instead of a raw damage value, allowing damage/ammo/cooldown to be reconfigured and rebalanced around maintaining the rated Damage per 10-second turn with enough ammo to deal the full amount of damage by the time the ammo bin runs dry (AC/5, 10, 20 ammo deals 100 dmg per ton, doubled in MWO to account for doubled armor. LRM ammo deals 120 dmg per ton, likewise doubled to account for doubled armor).

None of this is arbitrary (anymore). None of this was pulled out of PGI's butt (it was pulled out of FASA's butt). When PGI started the game, they actually did a REALLY good job taking the rules from Table Top and adapting them to real-world. As a specific example: running speed is 1.5 times walking speed, but you can't move a half-hex in a tabletop game, so odd-numbered walking speeds would have their running speed rounded up. PGI "un-rounded" the running speeds, which is why the speed on a Dire Wolf, or Timber Wolf, or Mist Lynx doesn't match what it's reported to be on Sarna, but the speed on a Centurion, or Stormcrow, or Arctic Cheetah does. I just wish they un-did the tonnage rounding issue at the same time (half of a half-ton is a quarter ton, but the TT rules round it up to a half-ton increment because apparently they don't like doing math with pencil and paper, or something. A computer game can easily fix that, again, since the computer is doing the math for you).

Edited by C337Skymaster, 18 May 2021 - 05:44 AM.

[-P U R E-]

I am amazed that most ppl still can't see difference between MWO and turn based game with RNG mechanics.

Shooter is fun when you can hmm... shoot?

Edited by -P U R E-, 18 May 2021 - 05:47 AM.

[C337Skymaster]

-P U R E-, on 18 May 2021 - 05:44 AM, said:

I am amazed that most ppl still can't see difference between MWO and turn based game with RNG mechanics.

Shooter is fun when you can hmm... shoot?

I feel like people seem to be lacking imagination, like they didn't read enough books, or play enough games as a kid. TT with RNG mechanics was supposed to be imagined like real life, and was supposed to simulate and emulate the battle happening in the real world in real time.

Now take that imagination, take that mental image so carefully crafted by rulebook authors, and storybook authors, and game developers, and apply it to a different medium which is simulating the exact same thing.

They should look about the same, shouldn't they?

[John Bronco]

Any adaptation must be subservient to the goal of making the best possible (in this case) vehicle shooter video game. To that extent the TT ideas that make for poor video game mechanics should be completely dismissed. To the extent that the lore can enhance the video game - great.

[-P U R E-]

Imagine 2 clan mechs pilots in QP waiting till other clan pilot will finish his duel because ''lore''.
If you want ''lore'' go and do private lobbies with friends. Sky is the limit.

[My Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ]

C337Skymaster, on 18 May 2021 - 05:51 AM, said:

I feel like people seem to be lacking imagination, like they didn't read enough books, or play enough games as a kid. TT with RNG mechanics was supposed to be imagined like real life, and was supposed to simulate and emulate the battle happening in the real world in real time.

t. Someone who has never played TT

The randomness of TT exists for the same reason as every other kind of game, to create randomness that results in scenarios playing out differently each time even when presented with the same beginning. Something as basic as this shouldn't need explaining.

Quote

They should look about the same, shouldn't they?

No because the ability for a player to have direct input massively changes how the two actually play and which is why strategy is a more 'true' TT comparison than shooters.

Edited by Monke-, 18 May 2021 - 06:09 AM.

[C337Skymaster]

Monke-, on 18 May 2021 - 06:04 AM, said:

t. Someone who has never played TT

The randomness of TT exists for the same reason as every other kind of game, to create randomness that results in scenarios playing out differently each time even when presented with the same beginning. Something as basic as this shouldn't need explaining.

Soooo.... you don't think MWO would benefit from that? What are the top complaints about MWO? "Stale". "Old". "Same thing every match".

What are the main requests? "New [stuff] to break up the meta".

You don't think MWO needs some randomness so that scenarios play out differently when literally every single one starts in exactly the same way?

(EDIT: for the record, I'm well aware of how loathed Random Number Generators are, and I have not once advocated for their use in-game. The closest I've come to requesting anything of the sort is in procedurally generated maps).

Edited by C337Skymaster, 18 May 2021 - 06:10 AM.

[Aivazovsky]

C337Skymaster, on 18 May 2021 - 05:51 AM, said:

They should look about the same, shouldn't they?

Sure, its same...
ТТ: uses modifiers and dice roll
Games: players use aiming
mmmm, wait...

[My Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ]

C337Skymaster, on 18 May 2021 - 06:07 AM, said:

Soooo.... you don't think MWO would benefit from that? What are the top complaints about MWO? "Stale". "Old". "Same thing every match".

What are the main requests? "New [stuff] to break up the meta".

You don't think MWO needs some randomness so that scenarios play out differently when literally every single one starts in exactly the same way?

(EDIT: for the record, I'm well aware of how loathed Random Number Generators are, and I have not once advocated for their use in-game. The closest I've come to requesting anything of the sort is in procedurally generated maps).

The main request I see is new maps not new 'stuff' to break up the meta, and yeah more maps is a universal thing people want. TT or shooter there is only so many ways you can play on a map before it becomes stale.

[C337Skymaster]

Aivazovsky, on 18 May 2021 - 06:13 AM, said:

Sure, its same...
ТТ: uses modifiers and dice roll
Games: players use aiming
mmmm, wait...

TT, "Pilots" aim their weapons, using onboard targeting and tracking equipment.
MWO: Players aim their weapons, using onboard targeting and tracking equipment.

Seems pretty similar to me.

[AnAnachronismAlive]

This specific patch is not about some dogmatic discussion regarding the degree of lore being necessary, applicable or even benefical to MWO, but about implementing another step of changes in a bigger step by step approach - add a certainly tripwire ressource environment on PGIs side to that - to make this game live another day.

While it is fair to have different opinions on how mechs in the same weight class could/should "differ", stop devaluating the efforts taken and the work being invested even before the patch can properly be playtested.

The degree of possible changes / bigger undertakings is limited to non-existent at the moment, with stuff like rolling back hardpoint-inflation etc. being totally off the scale. Who should do a lore-appropriate re-work (whatever that would be?!) while keeping a fragile overall balance of so many mechs, variants etc. at least somewhat in line? The people left at PGI were not even able to sort out the spaghetti-code that mobility-values are, but kinda got surprised themselves on how the values are calculated.

So why can't people hold their horses for once and enjoy that slow but steady rise in pace we have for now?!

Edited by AnAnachronismAlive, 18 May 2021 - 06:21 AM.

[-P U R E-]

C337Skymaster, on 18 May 2021 - 06:17 AM, said:

TT, "Pilots" aim their weapons, using onboard targeting and tracking equipment.
MWO: Players aim their weapons, using onboard targeting and tracking equipment.

Seems pretty similar to me.

TT pilots aim with a dice.