57 replies to this topic

[Moadebe]

1453 R, on 04 February 2025 - 09:25 AM, said:

I do get that, and you're right - drop deck Conquest is a whole entire new way to play MWO. 2000-ticket Conquest with drop decks would honestly probably be the best choice if we had to do a "SINGLE WAY TO PLAY MWO FOREVER" mode. Some of the best matches I've had in 'modern' MWO were drop deck Event Queue Conquest, and I'm normally pretty sharply opposed to drop decks.

I mostly just worry that all the Domination-humping, light-'Mech-hating grognaks will get a month free of the specter of having to actually pay the penalty for their decision to pilot nothing but STD200 Annihilators and decide they refuse to go back, raise a ruckus until Conquest stays disabled. That and Event Queue is always a rare and ephemeral treat, and one you don't always get to play when it's the event you want to run because of things like work, sleep and life, whereas the QP queue is always there. A reduced Quick Play in favor of improved Event Queue isn't necessarily a win, and losing Conquest permanently due to Fatbro Jocks and their hatred of feet would majorly suck.

Eh. Lets not put the cart before the horse. The concerns are valid, but lets not get ahead of what is coming since we really dont know. Conquest isn't going anywhere probably. Just seeing what can be done.

Something to remember about MWO. We dont have a PTS (public test server.) Live is literally the testing ground in changes when it comes to experimentation with things. Using the Event Que to test things like this out is totally cool in the sense its meant for "quirky and fun" mechanics.

We will see how it goes. Also. Let those who bemoan lights gripe. Everyone gripes about something, and lights are going nowhere. Hell if anything without conquest those lights can focus more on the enemies backline.

[1453 R]

Moadebe, on 04 February 2025 - 09:44 AM, said:

Eh. Lets not put the cart before the horse. The concerns are valid, but lets not get ahead of what is coming since we really dont know. Conquest isn't going anywhere probably. Just seeing what can be done.

I getcha. I'm not gonna raise a ruckus about it, but it does make me a little sad and a good bit more wary. This game has a history of caving to player pressure on matters it really shouldn't at times, and while I generally trust the Cauldron, I do know that Conquest is the least played QP mode despite being obviously the best one.

Moadebe, on 04 February 2025 - 09:44 AM, said:

Something to remember about MWO. We dont have a PTS (public test server.) Live is literally the testing ground in changes when it comes to experimentation with things. Using the Event Que to test things like this out is totally cool in the sense its meant for "quirky and fun" mechanics.

Fair dinkum. Just hope I can catch at least one of the Epic Conquest cycles. Heh, maybe that can be spun off into its own game mode later? Decouple "Conquest" from "Grand Conquest" and have the latter only accessible in EQ? Probably a lot more work than it sounds, but worth a thought.

Moadebe, on 04 February 2025 - 09:44 AM, said:

We will see how it goes. Also. Let those who bemoan lights gripe. Everyone gripes about something, and lights are going nowhere. Hell if anything without conquest those lights can focus more on the enemies backline.

I'm not necessarily griping about people griping about lights, to be clear. Fatbro Jocks hate Fastbro Jocks, always have and always will. I more hate the constant idea in MWO that mobility does not and somehow should not matter. That the Fatbro Jocks feel entitled to nothing but fights where their ponderous lack of movement doesn't actually hinder them at all, and they never need to worry about not being where they need to be in a game mode if they didn't do a dumb themselves.

Choosing to be light, fast and highly mobile comes with the trade-off of having minimal armaments and thin protections. Choosing to be huge, ponderous, and outrageously up-armored and overgunned should come with the trade-off of being slow and cumbersome, but Fatbro Jocks never have to actually pay that cost because fights always happen in the exact same spot on the map every time and their lack of mobility never hurts them. Especially on Domination, where you CAN'T maneuver without failing the objective and losing the match. Which, y'know, is why Fatbro Jocks worship at the altar of Domination.

Conquest has always been the counterweight to Domination - Fastbro players have to be prepared to deal with a Domination game where their mobility is worthless, so Fatbro players should have to be prepared to deal with a Conquest game where their preponderance of heavily-plated firepower can't keep up.

Or, long story short: mobility should actually matter and be important in MWO, but currently the only time it does/is, is during a Conquest match. So.....eh.

Also, good to know about the Osiris, BDS. I thought the torso sections shared the same pool of structure, was unaware the "full body" terminology meant they get to double-dip on the torso structure bonus. That's useful information. Honestly now I want to go review my Osiris designs and see what they're doing, heh. I love piloting those things, but I'm absolutely terrible at it.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

The removal of conquest for the event queue is likely because conquest can't flex the ticket count like that between both modes (ie, changing it for one changes it for everything). Conquest isn't going anywhere considering it was also timed so that it wouldn't interfere with comp as conquest is the goto mode for comp. tl;dr I wouldn't worry about conquest getting perma-removed or something like that.

1453 R, on 04 February 2025 - 10:16 AM, said:

I more hate the constant idea in MWO that mobility does not and somehow should not matter.

I think MWO has typically been the opposite, mobility has been hyper important since the beginning, that was part of the reason the acronym BESM (big engine stomp meta) was coined. For comp at least, MASC is practically OP as a piece of equipment given how essential it is to several powerful mechs.

That said, QP suffers differently because there's 12 people on a map and so much armor to chew through, the game has devolved further into DPS races and with so many on the field, it's easier to ensure coverage of more angles somewhat negating the mobility advantage (only somewhat, mobility can still be beneficial, just not as much as say 8v8).

[1453 R]

Heh, and here I thought it was Big Engine Speed Meta. But BESM hasn't been a thing since they decoupled agility from engine size way back in the Dark Ages. I keep an eye on the Grim database of 'Gud Robits' approveds by the comp/higher-end community and in almost all cases firepower is heavily prioritized over speed/mobility. You see it constantly; people trimming down to a single jump jet for hopping over logs or slowing a fall rather than taking enough jump jets to actually jump, people cutting engine sizes down to a semi-reasonable minimum in order to cram ever more/bigger guns into a chassis. I think I might be the only person in MWO to have an Incubus with a cXL285 in it, and also the only one with more than one Incubus with an engine rated over 200. To say nothing of all the heavy 'Mechs moving at assault 'Mech speed, or the assault 'Mechs moving at Colossal/Superheavy/Tripod speed.

But yeah. I totally get that the Event Queue modes have to pull from the same game mode code as the QP queue and thus why they're changing this out. I'm curious what-all they're experimenting with beyond Coolguy Event Queue stuff, since this is said to be an experiment to gather data for the future, and I hope they can implement Grand Conquest as a thing for future Event Queue fun without having to disable it in the general QP queue.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

1453 R, on 04 February 2025 - 12:16 PM, said:

But BESM hasn't been a thing since they decoupled agility from engine size way back in the Dark Ages.

BESM was a thing specifically after that because the mobility nerf that came along with it basically killed the Kodiak and Night Gyr (the Gauss/PPC ghost heat link was just a nail in the coffin). The PPC Summoner had already started to be taken over the Night Gyr and the Vapor Eagle joined in the fun shortly after iirc. For lights, speed is still important, it's probably worth keeping in mind the Incubus is probably the slowest of the meta lights and that's because it probably has some of the best range/firepower of lights outside some quirky ones (like the Magshot Flea before the nerf). Spider, Locust, Osiris, Flea, etc all run as fast or faster than the meta lights of yesteryear (ie, the Cheetah and Firestarter)

[Rhaelcan]

Valdarion Silarius, on 03 February 2025 - 05:05 PM, said:

I wonder why the Cauldron hates the Stone Rhino so much. Did it really need another nerf?

Clan ERLL's are a odd one as it seems like they are trying to make cERLL's run cooler while giving more overheat penalties, when the issues are still the heat efficiency of clan double heatsinks. Seems like a band aid fix tbh.

I like the main clan/IS gauss rifle changes, but gauss rifle charge up time still needs to be removed completely and reverted back to it's old longer charge up time.

We also need the 1st penalty for being dropped out of matches during QP matches to be removed as well. Change the penalty for the second disconnection. Seeing more and more people being disconnected at the start of QP matches, myself included.

Sadly, engineers for most of this stuff are nonexistant.

[Ttly]

Rhaelcan, on 04 February 2025 - 01:42 PM, said:

Sadly, engineers for most of this stuff are nonexistant.

Changing numbers around isn't that complicated, they could just even reduce the charge time to SBGauss level to see if short/no chargetime Gauss changes how it's played.

[kalashnikity]

Ttly, on 04 February 2025 - 06:38 AM, said:

-Conquest removed from QP:
Why? Everyone just plays it like Skirmish/Domination anyway, especially on small maps where capturing points doesn't matter. Unless that is the exact reason why it's getting removed because otherwise it's just free extra c-bills from a match which is a rather petty reason to remove a game mode where those band-aid capture speed quirks on mechs that someone gave up on balancing actually matters.

It's fine, they are running a bunch of special events as an extended version conquest, to highlight the new Dasher's speed advantage.

It goes back to normal in March.

[Ttly]

1453 R, on 04 February 2025 - 10:16 AM, said:

Also, good to know about the Osiris, BDS. I thought the torso sections shared the same pool of structure, was unaware the "full body" terminology meant they get to double-dip on the torso structure bonus. That's useful information. Honestly now I want to go review my Osiris designs and see what they're doing, heh. I love piloting those things, but I'm absolutely terrible at it.

It's still a nerf overall you ask me, the legs only gets +5 with the change when it has +10 before, and it's a heavy jumper of a vehicle too while at it, so fall damage is even more of an actual threat to it even with its -f.damage% quirk as damage pointswise it's still a lot to them, not to mention people that actually know to aim for legs.

Edited by Ttly, 04 February 2025 - 08:17 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Ttly, on 04 February 2025 - 05:20 PM, said:

Changing numbers around isn't that complicated, they could just even reduce the charge time to SBGauss level to see if short/no chargetime Gauss changes how it's played.

You know, it's always interesting seeing how a community complains about weapons that are "handheld" and then wants weapons that are exactly that. If you want a super speed autocannon, maybe you should be pushing for AC10s to get buffed or something instead of asking to remove probably the most unique aspect of Gauss.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 04 February 2025 - 10:59 PM.

[Ttly]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 04 February 2025 - 10:56 PM, said:

You know, it's always interesting seeing how a community complains about weapons that are "handheld" and then wants weapons that are exactly that. If you want a super speed autocannon, maybe you should be pushing for AC10s to get buffed or something instead of asking to remove probably the most unique aspect of Gauss.

Yes, AC10s are terrible, everyone knows that, and fixing it is a lot more complicated just because UACs exists (though for a start it could get faster CD), but that doesn't excuse regular Gauss being just as terrible either.

Edited by Ttly, 04 February 2025 - 11:29 PM.

[Samziel]

1453 R, on 04 February 2025 - 10:16 AM, said:

I'm not necessarily griping about people griping about lights, to be clear. Fatbro Jocks hate Fastbro Jocks, always have and always will. I more hate the constant idea in MWO that mobility does not and somehow should not matter. That the Fatbro Jocks feel entitled to nothing but fights where their ponderous lack of movement doesn't actually hinder them at all, and they never need to worry about not being where they need to be in a game mode if they didn't do a dumb themselves

Mobility absolutely matters across the board. Playing slow assaults is a pain because teams just nascar into zimbabwe regularly and those who get left behind are eaten first.

Also, capping in QP conquest often doesnt matter at least in higher tiers. Getting initial caps and killing the enemy is more consistent for wins since a capping team is fighting with a numerical disadvantage. You can try to coordinate capping and win but QP is what it is and people dont like to listen. I hope the EQ will bring change to this since there are respawns.

[Ttly]

Samziel, on 04 February 2025 - 11:34 PM, said:

Mobility absolutely matters across the board. Playing slow assaults is a pain because teams just nascar into zimbabwe regularly and those who get left behind are eaten first.

Yea, and the problem is that those slow players usually picks those vehicles in the first place because they prefer passive gameplay and then position themselves where they don't share their armor for the team (sniping) just to selfishly damage farm more often than not which might get them higher scores, even if not always win rates. Which makes "sticking with them" rather unappealing for people that don't run loadouts with similar range profiles, and lower tonnage vehicles with similar range profile are often better off elsewhere and hitting the enemy team from a different angle rather than just sticking with them as well.
And really, I think it's double standard that those loadouts aren't as complained about as LRMs (which are overcomplained instead apparently) are when they're generally more effective on account of doing more effective hits by being more accurate firepower damage over LRM's spread+low velocity damage while retaining almost as much low retaliation likelihood more often than not.

Samziel, on 04 February 2025 - 11:34 PM, said:

Also, capping in QP conquest often doesnt matter at least in higher tiers. Getting initial caps and killing the enemy is more consistent for wins since a capping team is fighting with a numerical disadvantage. You can try to coordinate capping and win but QP is what it is and people dont like to listen. I hope the EQ will bring change to this since there are respawns.

Well it really depends on the map you ask me, on small maps which makes up most of the popular QP maps it really doesn't matter and going for caps is really just soft-griefing your team since everyone just plays the mode like Skirmish/Domination sure, but on larger maps, capturing points can be clutch even if "just playing it like Skirmish/Domination" is often better, though it also depends on the team compositions (one team is full of slow vehicles/the other not, etc.) and that part about team composition differences would be negated on drop-deck matches since people might have a light/medium as a slot/tonnage filler on top of the longer match duration.

Edited by Ttly, 04 February 2025 - 11:54 PM.

[Samziel]

Ttly, on 04 February 2025 - 11:44 PM, said:

Yea, and the problem is that those slow players usually picks those vehicles in the first place because they prefer passive gameplay and then position themselves where they don't share their armor for the team (sniping) just to selfishly damage farm more often than not which might get them higher scores, even if not always win rates.

A good sniper shares attention and gains map control. The fact that the enemy team has limited fields of engagement and has to somehow counter that sniper gives your team a lot of advantages. And dealing a ton of damage is the single biggest contribution anyone can make for wins in QP no matter their role, maybe aside a backstabbing light. Maybe an unfortunate thing for anyone craving for a "tactical" shooter.

I would love to take big slow brawlers into QP but without anyone taking command (or anyone listening to your calls) its a dicethrow if you die first or get to front.

Even in large maps conquest depends on teamwork. You can cap all 5 points but if your team dies there is no one to hold them. Sure, cap wins happen sometimes. But it relies on your team not doing mistakes and the enemy doing. Not too reliable way for wins. But in QP you always should aim for 3 caps initially in case the match goes there. Capping as a strat aint the issue, its the random nature of QP. Comp matches are decided with cap wins quite often.

Edited by Samziel, 05 February 2025 - 12:52 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Ttly, on 04 February 2025 - 11:24 PM, said:

Yes, AC10s are terrible, everyone knows that, and fixing it is a lot more complicated just because UACs exists (though for a start it could get faster CD), but that doesn't excuse regular Gauss being just as terrible either.

Not sure why you bring up UACs like they are the reason AC10s are in a rough spot (they aren't terrible though, that's reserved for UAC20s). AC5s + LPPCs are just better for the tonange currently. Not really sure how you think regular Gauss is also as terrible. The problem is just for gauss vomit the SBG is just better for it by quite a bit. This will definitely help, the ability to snapshot isn't required to make it useful, especially on the Clan side where it's almost always been powerful.

Samziel, on 05 February 2025 - 12:43 AM, said:

A good sniper shares attention and gains map control.

I think too many people confuse stealth gauss snipers or some of the ****** Mad IIC D "farmers" as good snipers because those kinds of players often are too passive. They'll be the last alive and sitting still, taking 5 million years to line up shots and have little to show for the time they were alive.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 05 February 2025 - 07:20 AM.

[Ttly]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 05 February 2025 - 07:09 AM, said:

Not sure why you bring up UACs like they are the reason AC10s are in a rough spot (they aren't terrible though, that's reserved for UAC20s).

They absolutely are! Yes, UAC10s are (two-shot) burst weapons and you could say aren't "directly comparable" but really, unless you're shooting something that is mobile enough to the point that the burst duration (of 0.11s each apparently, so a doubletap is a 0.22s burst duration for 20 damage) can throw off the accuracy (i.e light/fast medium) it's hard to make a case for them, I mean double the damage for only a ton more?
Likewise with the C-AC10s, even worse as it's a burst (0.11s duration) weapon already on top of just straight up sharing the same opportunity cost as the C-UAC10s even if the latter has 0.22s burst duration which makes a doubletap of 0.44s that is double that of the IS version and pushes its effective accuracy down to make the STD C-AC more appealing, though not enough you ask me as the ability to do double the damage against something where the longer burst/inaccuracy is less of an issue (shooting heavies/assaults) is invaluable regardless.
And well it only gets worse when you bring up UAC5s that are lighter and more compact where doubletapping it gets you the same 10 damage and at 0.1s gap between shots the accuracy doesn't really suffer that much either, the C-UAC5 being a burst weapon does shorten the gap though.

Quicksilver Aberration, on 05 February 2025 - 07:09 AM, said:

Not really sure how you think regular Gauss is also as terrible. The problem is just for gauss vomit the SBG is just better for it by quite a bit.

Well for starters its average DPS (taking account of jams) is only as much as an UAC2 more or less, which it shares a ballistic hardpoint and range profile with, and not to mention 2UAC2s (which would also almost match the tonnage of 1Gauss) pretty much beat it even more in that department, though obviously not all vehicles has the luxury of being able to afford two hardpoints on this.
And then there's the chargetime, by the time a Gauss charges, 2UAC2 could doubletap whatever you're shooting at instead for 8 damage with very little shot-lead difference(about 0.08s difference at hitting an 800m target apparently) on account of the velocity buff, and do it again in another second, and another, and another, to outpace the 1Gauss' 15 damage hit even more something the Gauss rifle certainly couldn't do with its 4s+0.75s cooldown+charge time and certainly give points in favour of the 2UAC2 even more as it lets its user to go full DPS when its teammates are actually tanking for the team/the enemy team put themselves on a vulnerable position that its user can take advantage of, whereas with gauss you'd just be twiddling your thumb between shots/use your backup weapons instead.

[BlueDevilspawn]

When balance is considered, one looks at the build or possible builds in question. Comparing like for like paper stats is meaningless, especially because build archetypes have different ways to be played.

That said, keep in mind that removing/reducing charge for Gauss is a universal thing. Plenty of people complain about gauss charge as a mechanic that they can't get used to or mis-time. Guess what happens if you take it away? The Gauss users who are already really good will get even better. People will complain about getting insta-smacked by a near hitscan velo weapon with pure pinpoint and no heat from across the map.

[Ttly]

BlueDevilspawn, on 05 February 2025 - 08:22 AM, said:

That said, keep in mind that removing/reducing charge for Gauss is a universal thing. Plenty of people complain about gauss charge as a mechanic that they can't get used to or mis-time. Guess what happens if you take it away? The Gauss users who are already really good will get even better. People will complain about getting insta-smacked by a near hitscan velo weapon with pure pinpoint and no heat from across the map.

No, the charge time is only there as a skill floor/some excuse to "make it different from the autocannons", for your skilled Gauss users they'd still be using it the same, just without the pre-charging around every corner/peek and canceling the charge by bringing up the voice command wheel when they found nothing to shoot which is to say, I really doubt a big performance increase (let's just say the cooldown gets nerfed to make up for the lack of charge time too while at it) when it comes to shooting at their regular prefered targets.
You could argue that, they could hit ambushing/ganking lights even better by removing that chargetime reaction-to-shooting timegate though which would be a good point! But still, maybe that should be the Gauss' selling point over HAGs which can keep its charge time for all I care.
I mean really, this is just turning the Gauss rifle to more or less IS-ERPPCs without the heat (albeit significantly more tonnage commitment)

Edited by Ttly, 05 February 2025 - 09:02 AM.

[Valdarion Silarius]

BlueDevilspawn, on 05 February 2025 - 08:22 AM, said:

When balance is considered, one looks at the build or possible builds in question. Comparing like for like paper stats is meaningless, especially because build archetypes have different ways to be played.

That said, keep in mind that removing/reducing charge for Gauss is a universal thing. Plenty of people complain about gauss charge as a mechanic that they can't get used to or mis-time. Guess what happens if you take it away? The Gauss users who are already really good will get even better. People will complain about getting insta-smacked by a near hitscan velo weapon with pure pinpoint and no heat from across the map.

Gauss rifle charge up times was one of the worst balancing decisions considering that this is the only Mechwarrior title to introduce it with the mentality of being a "pro player snapshot weapon". They are incredibly unfun to play on a casual level. It boggles my mind why TAG (on a side note) still does not have a toggle to this day when people can run a macro in the background to keep it running constantly. I would imagine that you can run a macro to counter the charge time.

I seriously love the changes that the Cauldron did at the very beginning that removed some of the horrendous balancing decisions that Chris implemented back in the day, but now I'm starting to see Data's pov on where the game is going. The days of MWO being a popular competitive e-sport has long sailed. I think the Cauldron should look into some of the balancing decisions from outside the Discord if they want longer player base retention from both newer players and returning players.

Edited by Valdarion Silarius, 05 February 2025 - 09:24 AM.

[BlueDevilspawn]

That's my point.... you take the good with the bad either way. It was introduced to bring a sort of delay to no heat, hitscan, pinpoint. If you've ever played MW5 where the Gauss has no charge, you'd see the potential for it to be busted. So, with the charge delay you have a skill floor but delayed pinpoint. Without the delay you get a lower skill floor but more snapshots.

As it is, Gauss are not a snapshot weapon, it takes additional mechanical skill to pre-charge and actively cancel. Done correctly, sure... but the average player isn't snapshotting with Gauss. Pure projectile snapshot would be PPCs or larger caliber ACs.