130 replies to this topic

[Dajegas]

Atlas is also a short-to-mid distance 100T and was recently buffed to make it playable again. As a result, you see more Atlases these days. Did it break the game? Short answer: No.

Main difference between KDK and for ex. DFW is that on the DWF you can mount long range loadouts and partially compensate the awful hitboxes.

KDK-3 is nowhere to be seen at the moment. The argument that a top player performs good in it is by itself poor, because if the same top player would perform better in another chassis (which is very likely), then we're back to square 1.

The main question IMHO is: would a buff to armor and agility make the KDK-3 broken or would it just make it playable and more enjoyable for the whole player base?

Edited by Dajegas, 07 September 2021 - 10:36 PM.

[Monkey Lover]

Rkshz, on 07 September 2021 - 06:13 PM, said:

yes, I get it, armor sharing is not for the "elite"
the game needs more 100 ton snipers

I agree with you here. Every mech is great when you hind in the back You got 500 tons of extra armor lol Sometimes this is good idea having your best players live to the end of the game but doesnt really reflect on the kdk3.


KDK3 even if it didnt get armor be nice to be able to shoot the lights at your feet and twist off an er laser

Edited by Monkey Lover, 07 September 2021 - 11:51 PM.

[Rkshz]

Valdarion Silarius, on 07 September 2021 - 06:49 PM, said:

I suggest that PGI/Daeron should do public polls directly from the front of mwomercs.com for proposed balance changes and get more of an active community response based on community voting, via proposed changes to better understand where the Cauldron discord (which imo seemed like an echo chamber). Ask questions like "Did or did you not like the new HPG Manifold changes, and if not please type why or choose from a list of auto generated responses."

this is the most unreasonable proposal, because most people are populists who only want fun and do not care at whose expense it will be
the balance should be dealt with by experienced players, we have them, they are volunteers and do a good job
and unlike PGI, the Cauldron group improve the game - and if you personally don’t like it, then there will always be those who don’t like something

P.S. I also do not like something, for example, I do not agree with the increase in PPC (all), because it made many mechs more vulnerable, but I think that everything has its time

Edited by Rkshz, 08 September 2021 - 12:22 AM.

[Bamboozle Gold]

Dajegas, on 07 September 2021 - 10:29 PM, said:

KDK-3 is nowhere to be seen at the moment. The argument that a top player performs good in it is by itself poor, because if the same top player would perform better in another chassis (which is very likely), then we're back to square 1.

The main question IMHO is: would a buff to armor and agility make the KDK-3 broken or would it just make it playable and more enjoyable for the whole player base?

There is a Kodiak with great mobility so maybe you'd can play that?

It seems to me the Kodiak 3 builds are good for mid-range and while the agility is not great it's not necessarily a deal breaker as you aren't in brawling range. KDK-3 is not a meta mech but does every mech have to be? It's viable enough, if you want to have a lot of front loaded damage.

[Dajegas]

Bamboozle Gold, on 08 September 2021 - 12:36 AM, said:

There is a Kodiak with great mobility so maybe you'd can play that?

It seems to me the Kodiak 3 builds are good for mid-range and while the agility is not great it's not necessarily a deal breaker as you aren't in brawling range. KDK-3 is not a meta mech but does every mech have to be? It's viable enough, if you want to have a lot of front loaded damage.

Playing mid-range also means you should be able to reposition if enemy comes closer, and be able to get into cover if you are shot from long range. Both things are very hard to do right now, due to low agility (and hitboxes).

I never said it should be meta. I said it should become playable, meaning it should have a niche of its own in the game, as such an iconic mech should. At the moment, apart for tryhard, you can always play the KDK-3 role with another mech, and be more effective.

[justcallme A S H]

Valdarion Silarius, on 07 September 2021 - 06:49 PM, said:

I understand where you are coming from, but I think it is unwise to make balancing decisions based in a closed community like Discord (Yes, I understand that anyone is invited blah blah blah etc.) but bear in mind (no Kodiak puns intended) that I had to dig through forum posts just to find that Discord link just to share my thoughts, which ironically were shot down pretty quickly when I proposed my RFL-IIC ideas.

They are not being made based on just a discussion on MWO Comp though?

And to clarify:

• MWO Comp is not a closed discord. It is entirely public and links to it are plastered all around the internet. If you google "MWO Comp" the first link brings up the site and dead-centre soon as it loads? A link to the discord, magic!
  
• The Cauldron read more than just a discord channel for feedback. We look at the forums, twitch streams, reddit, facebook, various discords etc etc. I assure you when I say we spend a LOT of time gathering/absorbing feedback and then debating it. I mean we have debated at times a single weapon or mech for the better part of 5 days.
  
• I don't recall a RFL-IIC discussion personally - but right now they are far from a weak mech. So if shot-down means your points were debated and people disagreed with you, that is the nature of public discussion.

Valdarion Silarius, on 07 September 2021 - 06:49 PM, said:

I suggest that PGI/Daeron should do public polls directly from the front of mwomercs.com for proposed balance changes and get more of an active community response based on community voting, via proposed changes to better understand where the Cauldron discord (which imo seemed like an echo chamber). Ask questions like "Did or did you not like the new HPG Manifold changes, and if not please type why or choose from a list of auto generated responses."

I don't want to see a repeat of history with Chris/Paul which has created alot of animosity between the player base and PGI over the years.

As others have said - absolutely flat NO to public polls which are easily skewed, spammed and taken way, way off course. This has happened sooooo many times over the years and rarely did anything good or substantial come from any of them that I can recall.

Plenty of people have posted across the various platforms I have listed above about all manner of changes.

For example HPG the feedback has been watched carefully from the Cauldron perspective and I know PGI are absolutely reading/absorbing lots of it as well. This is why there are some extra adjustments/changes coming to it, I believe this month, based on the feedback from the various areas.

You definitely do not need a poll to attain useful feedback.

[D A T A]

dajegas made a good point: we buffed the atlas and many people used it, same with dwf.
on the other hand almost noone is using kdk3.....and fir a reason: it sucks.

imo people are so scared from 2016 that are unable to see how far that mech is from being good

[w0qj]

+1 Agree!

Dajegas, on 08 September 2021 - 12:58 AM, said:

Playing mid-range also means you should be able to reposition if enemy comes closer, and be able to get into cover if you are shot from long range. Both things are very hard to do right now, due to low agility (and hitboxes).

I never said it should be meta. I said it should become playable, meaning it should have a niche of its own in the game, as such an iconic mech should. At the moment, apart for tryhard, you can always play the KDK-3 role with another mech, and be more effective.

[Eatit]

I say give the man his KDK-3 Buff. But not before the light mechs get some love.

People are comparing the KDK to the Atlas. I think that would be a pretty good matchup neither hugely better than the other.

Put pilots of equal skill in a Spider 5V and a Kodiak 3 see who comes out on top in quick play match score. Or almost any light mech vs. the KDK-3.

I think the Cauldron should be working on match score balance rather than mech balance.

It's not possible to make the 5V as good as the KDK in raw damage so reward the spider for what it's good at rather than for what the KDK is good at. There is too much weight put on Damage in match score. Not enough weight on tactical play. Fix what is broken.

I'm sure PGI has the data on average match score by chassis. Use that data to determine which mechs are doing the worst and go down the list in order. Also use that info to look for trends. Things like do light mechs fair worse? Is there Bias in the match score balance? I'm sure there are smarter people than I to find more trends. In the interest of transparency show that data to the players. If it can't be shown, why not?

*edited to add last paragraph

Edited by Eatit, 08 September 2021 - 03:03 AM.

[Mochyn Pupur]

Eatit, on 08 September 2021 - 02:45 AM, said:

I say give the man his KDK-3 Buff. But not before the light mechs get some love.

*edited to add last paragraph

For the love of . . . . Go back and review just how much light mechs have been buffed over the last series of updates, including the spreadsheet the Cauldron put out regarding agility changes that in real terms, were far better than any other class in terms of acceleration/deceleration, turn rates etc. Go back far enough and the engine desync benefitted lights far more than heavy/assaults etc., e.g. a light gets 5% bonus on turn rate of 150 = 157.5 against an assault with a turn rate of 90 = 94.5 giving the light a better increase of 3; might not sound much, but it does mean they have a better boost to manoeuvrability (figures for example only)


If you want to look at any changes, then it needs to be in regards to lights being able to scout properly, not just flick through targets at speed to get scouting bonuses, so, holding locks, assisting with missile locked damage, bonuses to capture rates etc., to make them more useful and rewarding as a more niche role.

[Bud Crue]

Valdarion Silarius said:

1631069346[/url]' post='6424469']

I suggest that PGI/Daeron should do public polls directly from the front of mwomercs.com for proposed balance changes and get more of an active community response based on community voting, via proposed changes to better understand where the Cauldron discord (which imo seemed like an echo chamber). Ask questions like "Did or did you not like the new HPG Manifold changes, and if not please type why or choose from a list of auto generated responses."

I don't want to see a repeat of history with Chris/Paul which has created alot of animosity between the player base and PGI over the years.

Sorry, but I have to pile on the criticism of the polls idea. This community…the one right here in the formerly brown sea who would be responding to such a pool, is a tiny part of the player base, and history shows that it would insist that what needs buffing more than anything else would be LRMS, while everything else (excepting perhaps Streaks) absolutely need nerfs. And after the LRMS were buffed, this same community would overwhelmingly vote to buff LRMS again. And again. That is what you would get with such polling. It would be a repeat of precisely what you fear in your last sentence.

Edit:
As to buffing the Kodiak. I’d give the whole class around +8ish or so more armor in the torsos, maybe 10 to the 2 and the SB. That being said, I’m a scrub and the 3 is still a top 5 go to for when I need a win in an assault. I just don’t think a bit of extra torso armor would unbalance anything and maybe give the average player an extra shot before losing the torso or getting cored. At the same time, there are a lot of mechs that are far more fragile and in need of armor buffs more than the Kodiaks imho.

Edited by Bud Crue, 08 September 2021 - 04:30 AM.

[1453 R]

PeppaPig, on 08 September 2021 - 03:55 AM, said:

For the love of . . . . Go back and review just how much light mechs have been buffed over the last series of updates, including the spreadsheet the Cauldron put out regarding agility changes that in real terms, were far better than any other class in terms of acceleration/deceleration, turn rates etc. Go back far enough and the engine desync benefitted lights far more than heavy/assaults etc., e.g. a light gets 5% bonus on turn rate of 150 = 157.5 against an assault with a turn rate of 90 = 94.5 giving the light a better increase of 3; might not sound much, but it does mean they have a better boost to manoeuvrability (figures for example only)


If you want to look at any changes, then it needs to be in regards to lights being able to scout properly, not just flick through targets at speed to get scouting bonuses, so, holding locks, assisting with missile locked damage, bonuses to capture rates etc., to make them more useful and rewarding as a more niche role.

Any time I see someone argue "I don't want light 'mechs to be able to fight at all, they should all be nothing but passive timid gunless scout b@#$%^es who exist solely to make my assault 'Mech better at assaulting things", I'm going to remind that person that light 'mechs are still 'Mechs. They are still thirty-ton fusion-driven weapons of war, armed with the same weapons as your oh-so-precious assault 'mech, armored with the same armor, and piloted with the same intent to bring harm to their foes.

The Panther is not a "scout" 'Mech.
The Firestarter is not a "scout" 'Mech.
The Wolfhound is not a "scout" 'Mech.
The blurdy UrbanMech is not a "scout" 'Mech.

In fact, of the twelve light 'Mechs currently available to the Inner Sphere alone, exactly three would consider reconnaissance to be part of their primary duties - the Spider, the Locust, and arguably the Osiris - though even then, the Sarna entry indicates the Osiris is typically used more often as a fast-strike raider, a "hit-and-fade offensive platform" rather than A Scout 'Mech™.

This myopic, moronic, idiotic, and utterly, utterly unfounded notion that the entire light 'mech class exists to "Scout" and must therefore be made into passive camera drones for their assault-weight lords and masters needs to die forever. Stop perpetuating it. It's bad for MWO, it's not at all true to BattleTech lore, and it reflects poorly on anyone who says it.

This is MechWarrior Online, a 12v12 team-based arena shooter. Dedicated unarmed recon platforms unable to effectively bring harm to the enemy have no bloody place in this game. Light 'Mechs need to be able to fight just as well as assault 'Mechs do. They simply do so in a different manner.

[Eatit]

PeppaPig, on 08 September 2021 - 03:55 AM, said:

For the love of . . . . Go back and review just how much light mechs have been buffed over the last series of updates, including the spreadsheet the Cauldron put out regarding agility changes that in real terms, were far better than any other class in terms of acceleration/deceleration, turn rates etc. Go back far enough and the engine desync benefitted lights far more than heavy/assaults etc., e.g. a light gets 5% bonus on turn rate of 150 = 157.5 against an assault with a turn rate of 90 = 94.5 giving the light a better increase of 3; might not sound much, but it does mean they have a better boost to manoeuvrability (figures for example only)


If you want to look at any changes, then it needs to be in regards to lights being able to scout properly, not just flick through targets at speed to get scouting bonuses, so, holding locks, assisting with missile locked damage, bonuses to capture rates etc., to make them more useful and rewarding as a more niche role.

Hi PeppaPig,

Thank you for taking the time to read my comment.

I would say that if we looked at average match score by chassis and the lights are still underperforming then we need to change the way we generate match score.

I'm not saying buff lights to be soo good at damage that they can compete with heavier mechs. That's not really possible or realistic.

What I am saying is please use actual data to make decisions and not base it on the feelings of people. People use anecdotes, data uses fact.

I think you agree that if we showed average match score by chassis that lights will come out on the low end of that list. I hope you agree that lights have a role in this game and the pilots of them should be rewarded on par with pilots of heavier mechs.

Match score is the reward for this game. Rewarding the heavier mechs more because they can put out more damage is unfair to lights. I imagine lights are the least played class due to that. If a player can achieve the same level of match score in a light as he can in an assault I'm sure we would have more light pilots.

My imagining is based on my perception and may be skewed. Lets use actual data to determine which mechs are the least performing in terms of match score. PGI... Show us average match score by chassis please.

[Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie]

Eatit, on 08 September 2021 - 04:34 AM, said:

Hi PeppaPig,

Thank you for taking the time to read my comment.

I would say that if we looked at average match score by chassis and the lights are still underperforming then we need to change the way we generate match score.

I'm not saying buff lights to be soo good at damage that they can compete with heavier mechs. That's not really possible or realistic.

What I am saying is please use actual data to make decisions and not base it on the feelings of people. People use anecdotes, data uses fact.

I think you agree that if we showed average match score by chassis that lights will come out on the low end of that list. I hope you agree that lights have a role in this game and the pilots of them should be rewarded on par with pilots of heavier mechs.

Match score is the reward for this game. Rewarding the heavier mechs more because they can put out more damage is unfair to lights. I imagine lights are the least played class due to that. If a player can achieve the same level of match score in a light as he can in an assault I'm sure we would have more light pilots.

My imagining is based on my perception and may be skewed. Lets use actual data to determine which mechs are the least performing in terms of match score. PGI... Show us average match score by chassis please.

easiest way to 'fix' that (and yeah, on average lights do less matchscore I guess, but there's data around):

give each class (or better but more work: each mech) a matchscore multiplier.
that way you don't screw around with actual ingame performance.

example:
assaults get 0,9; heavies 1; mediums 1,1; lights 1,2 .. times the actual matchscore.

would be great if we could have that per chassis, as some are just great and others just yuck, but hey.. way more work.

Edited by Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie, 08 September 2021 - 05:04 AM.

[Elizander]

LordNothing, on 07 September 2021 - 07:56 PM, said:

a lot of people are still butthurt from the kdk-3 reign of terror, and will proceeded to eviscerate every bear that they see. for awhile i felt like i was getting focused every match just because i was in a kodiak (i play a lot of dires and its a night and day difference how much fire i draw), not because it was a threat like it was back in the 4x uac10 days, but because they feel threatened, even though the mech was nerfed into oblivion.

When I play lights, I like standing beside Kodiaks because everyone shoots him instead of me.

[Eatit]

Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie, on 08 September 2021 - 05:03 AM, said:

easiest way to 'fix' that (and yeah, on average lights do less matchscore I guess, but there's data around):

give each class (or better but more work: each mech) a matchscore multiplier.
that way you don't screw around with actual ingame performance.

example:
assaults get 0,9; heavies 1; mediums 1,1; lights 1,2 .. times the actual matchscore.

would be great if we could have that per chassis, as some are just great and others just yuck, but hey.. way more work.

Hi TMNU,

Thank you for your reply.

I agree that a solution like you have proposed would be simple and easier than adjusting the performance of every chassis. It would also be easy math to determine the multiplier for each chassis based on average match score by chassis.

I would say that we need data to determine this. PGI... Please show us the average match score by chassis.

[D A T A]

Eatit, on 08 September 2021 - 02:45 AM, said:

I say give the man his KDK-3 Buff. But not before the light mechs get some love.

People are comparing the KDK to the Atlas. I think that would be a pretty good matchup neither hugely better than the other.

Put pilots of equal skill in a Spider 5V and a Kodiak 3 see who comes out on top in quick play match score. Or almost any light mech vs. the KDK-3.

I think the Cauldron should be working on match score balance rather than mech balance.

It's not possible to make the 5V as good as the KDK in raw damage so reward the spider for what it's good at rather than for what the KDK is good at. There is too much weight put on Damage in match score. Not enough weight on tactical play. Fix what is broken.

I'm sure PGI has the data on average match score by chassis. Use that data to determine which mechs are doing the worst and go down the list in order. Also use that info to look for trends. Things like do light mechs fair worse? Is there Bias in the match score balance? I'm sure there are smarter people than I to find more trends. In the interest of transparency show that data to the players. If it can't be shown, why not?

*edited to add last paragraph

between agility pass and quirk pass 1 and 2, light mechs are the ones who recived the most buffing out of all the weight classes

[Nightbird]

D A T A, on 08 September 2021 - 06:28 AM, said:

between agility pass and quirk pass 1 and 2, light mechs are the ones who recived the most buffing out of all the weight classes

LOL, lights have had it worst with all the changes. Jarls list's coefficient for lights from gone UP from 1.09 to 1.11 since the "buffing" started.

[pbiggz]

I think a reasonable argument could be made to give the KDK-3 at least a little bit of love. It is a chassis with alot of abuse potential if it's pushed too hard, but I think being scared of things being powerful is one of the bigger mistakes PGI made.

[Eatit]

D A T A, on 08 September 2021 - 06:28 AM, said:

between agility pass and quirk pass 1 and 2, light mechs are the ones who recived the most buffing out of all the weight classes

Hi Data,

I don't think buffing lights with agility or mobility or any other non damage metric will increase match score enough to bring them inline with larger mechs. Outside of ridiculous buffs that aren't realistic. Match score is too dependent on damage.

I would like to see a chart that shows average match score by chassis. Moreover I would like for the Cauldron to see that chart. I would like for them to base decisions on average match score. If they have that information and are using it to decide which mechs are underperforming they should share it and alleviate any presumption of bias.

I don't care which mech gets a buff or a nerf as long as it's being done with a sound process based on facts and not on anecdotal evidence or feelz.

It's my feelz that lights are on the low end of the average match score by chassis list. Although I have no way of knowing if that's true without the data from PGI.

PGI... Please show us the average match score by chassis.

Match score determines reward in this game. It should be handled fairly across chassis. That's not to say that if you do better in a particular chassis you won't get more match score it just levels the playing field for all chassis. Higher skilled play will still yield higher match score.