81 replies to this topic

[Ttly]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 28 February 2025 - 07:26 PM, said:

So8 Clan omnis have been buffed in several occasions, that said, why are we saying they need buffing? They run entirely counter to the whole benefit of omnis, that is omnipods. They don't get hardpoint inflation at all like battlemechs, nor are they able to change internals/armor/engines out. Please stop suggesting that So8s need "balancing" unless it is deleting the concept as a whole.

Okay? What are you even saying here? That So8s shouldn't be a thing and we should have more ACH-C, MLX-G, So8s? Or that the Summoner got sooo many tweaks (though they hardly pushed their So8s to be good you ask me) through the last year and it ate up all the "tweak quotas" if that's even a thing and that's why they shouldn't get more buffs?
That So8s are a noob-trap (in which case maybe they should get buffed instead if they suck that much) features and people should only run these chassis in the same cookie cutter builds like the mixed pod 8AC2+ECM DWF-C and they shouldn't even try running it any other way?

Edited by Ttly, 28 February 2025 - 08:11 PM.

[1453 R]

Ttly, on 28 February 2025 - 08:07 PM, said:

Okay? What are you even saying here? That So8s shouldn't be a thing and we should have more ACH-C, MLX-G, So8s? Or that the Summoner got sooo many tweaks (though they hardly pushed their So8s to be good you ask me) through the last year and it ate up all the "tweak quotas" if that's even a thing and that's why they shouldn't get more buffs?
That So8s are a noob-trap (in which case maybe they should get buffed instead if they suck that much) features and people should only run these chassis in the same cookie cutter builds like the mixed pod 8AC2+ECM DWF-C and they shouldn't even try running it any other way?

He's saying that the entire concept of "Set of 8" omnipod bonuses/quirks is fundamentally flawed, since OmniMechs lose out on enormous versatility compared to BattleMechs with absolutely zero of the upsides associated with the technology in the original canon. OmniMechs are supposed to be able to be quickly and easily repaired - which doesn't matter in MWO - and able to rapidly adjust to changing mission conditions - which everything can do in MWO. Their ability to swap OmniPods around is the only actual advantage they have at all compared to BattleMechs, so discouraging players from swapping OmniPods honestly sucks. You're asking the player to buy a 'Mech that is worse than a BattleMech in every respect save one (technology imbalances aside), and then completely and entirely give up that one single respect in which they have an edge.

Now, sometimes So8 bonuses can allow for builds that would otherwise simply not be allowable with freely swappable omnipods. But there's no point trying to make So8 builds "better" than mixed-pod builds, because then why the blue Billy banana manhell do we even have "Omni" 'mechs in the first place?

[Ilostmycactus]

Whether or not the balance actually needs nerfing, I think blanket nerfs to strong things in games tend to be negatively received by playerbases. Helldivers 2 had a big problem with all the "fun" things being nerfed, so I heard.

Realistically I think the playerbase is too small to survive something like that, and it's not like the game is going to receive a rerelease.

[Moadebe]

kalashnikity, on 28 February 2025 - 06:07 PM, said:

Why do I get the feeling LRMS will be the first to get nerfed? Here is an idea, leave them as is, and nerf everything except LRMS.

They are actually fine right now I think. The nerfs to ECM helped the most.

Personally. Nerf it all. Power creep has hit hard and while its always fun to melt someone...its never fun to be melted. Hardpoint inflation is a very real thing and is honestly the only real selling point for most new mechs since the variants that exist currently all have some similar capability.

Bringing time to kill down will go a long way towards the overall health of the game imo.

[Moadebe]

Ilostmycactus, on 28 February 2025 - 09:34 PM, said:

Whether or not the balance actually needs nerfing, I think blanket nerfs to strong things in games tend to be negatively received by playerbases. Helldivers 2 had a big problem with all the "fun" things being nerfed, so I heard.

Realistically I think the playerbase is too small to survive something like that, and it's not like the game is going to receive a rerelease.

Big difference between HD2 and MWO. Mainly in that HD2 is a pure PVE game with the only balance consideration is making the player feel powerful without making em completely overpowered.

MWO is pure pvp so consideration for who is on the other end of the gun needs to be considered. What might be fun for the shooter could be abyssal for the receiver. Granted getting shot shouldnt feel good, but it shouldnt be call of duty either in mwo.

[Ttly]

1453 R, on 28 February 2025 - 09:25 PM, said:

Now, sometimes So8 bonuses can allow for builds that would otherwise simply not be allowable with freely swappable omnipods. But there's no point trying to make So8 builds "better" than mixed-pod builds, because then why the blue Billy banana manhell do we even have "Omni" 'mechs in the first place?

Because it encourages buying the variants instead of just buying one with the best CT pod (determined by quirks/hardpoints/JJs), ignore the So8, and just use the mixed-pod build with it?
And well, buffing them doesn't stop you from running your already-meta mixed-pods build, doesn't it? So what's the problem?
What, that most of them are mixed-weapons loadout that most people find "too hard" to run because any builds that uses more than 2-3 weapon groups are too hard for most players on top of encouraging running sub-optimal loadouts, and still being rather underquirked even if you do run them as such?
Shouldn't using more weapon groups simultaneously effectively be encouraged as part of player skill then?
I mean really, just using your mouse alone you can have at least 5 keybinds (m1, m2, m3, scroll up/down) if you're asking me.

Edited by Ttly, 28 February 2025 - 11:01 PM.

[Dictator Kodo]

hello

[sycocys]

I'd suggest to start an actual balance initiative with making the node tree zero-sum.

This game is going to need at least some new players to sustain until or if PGI releases a new iteration. The skill node system is currently the largest mechanics imbalance system the game has to distance newest players from everyone else.

It also doesn't functionally make sense when you are modifying the mechanics of a mech and there are zero offsetting results to adding 10% more armor (same goes for every other node selection).

And an additional layer from a purely balance standpoint, it doesn't make sense that every mech has the same amount of nodes. Some mechs have significant hardpoint inflation, some have completely useless hardpoints, silly engine restrictions and locked hardpoints that limit their build ability.

[kalashnikity]

Can I offer a quick and easy solution, or is this the wrong crowd?

We already have double the table top armor values.

Add another 50% to base armor and 50% to structure values of all mechs.

*Additionally add 100% to all base ammunition values, to compensate for the increased armor and structure values.

This will get the desired result of increasing "Time To Kill", without needing to hash out all these changes that have been proposed. Nobody likes being Insta-Gibbed when they step out from behind cover, the fan base will be happier with more joystick time, and Cauldron won't need to micromanage 14 years worth of balancing.

Yes, it is technically more power creep (armor values), but it will still have the desired effect.

[kalashnikity]

Aside from the bickering about power creep and Assaults vs. "Smol Robot Bad" I think the vast majority can agree the weapons and mechs are relatively well balanced with each other, mechs like Atlas need those armor buffs because the low weapon mounts are atrocious in most combat situations, most (almost all) of the quirks have good reasons for being there, no sense in undoing literally over a decade of work and starting over, which is nightmare fuel for both the balancers and the players.

[Ttly]

kalashnikity, on 01 March 2025 - 11:39 AM, said:

Can I offer a quick and easy solution, or is this the wrong crowd? We already have double the table top armor values. Add another 50% to base armor and 50% to structure values of all mechs. *Additionally add 100% to all base ammunition values, to compensate for the increased armor and structure values. This will get the desired result of increasing "Time To Kill", without needing to hash out all these changes that have been proposed. Nobody likes being Insta-Gibbed when they step out from behind cover, the fan base will be happier with more joystick time, and Cauldron won't need to micromanage 14 years worth of balancing. Yes, it is technically more power creep (armor values), but it will still have the desired effect.

I thought about it before, and I went to the conclusion that it's probably not a good idea to increase the armor points per tonnage.
My conclusion was that it would hurt low-alpha DPS builds (which are already not doing that well) even more than it would any other.
Let's say a light/medium needs to get a hit 10 times on a target in current state to get a kill, and dies from getting hit 3-4 times.
Then in the version with buffed armor+structure they would need to do a hit 20 times on the same target, and dies from getting hit 5-6 times because that's just how the math works for raw point gain.
I mean yeah everything got multiplied the same but it's hardly in their favour.

[CFC Conky]

kalashnikity, on 01 March 2025 - 11:39 AM, said:

Can I offer a quick and easy solution, or is this the wrong crowd?

We already have double the table top armor values.

Add another 50% to base armor and 50% to structure values of all mechs.

*Additionally add 100% to all base ammunition values, to compensate for the increased armor and structure values.

This will get the desired result of increasing "Time To Kill", without needing to hash out all these changes that have been proposed. Nobody likes being Insta-Gibbed when they step out from behind cover, the fan base will be happier with more joystick time, and Cauldron won't need to micromanage 14 years worth of balancing.

Yes, it is technically more power creep (armor values), but it will still have the desired effect.

Interesting idea since unlike TT, we're not rolling dice to determine where a mech is hit or how badly it gets damaged.

Good hunting,
CFC Conky

Edited by CFC Conky, 01 March 2025 - 12:17 PM.

[kalashnikity]

CFC Conky, on 01 March 2025 - 12:16 PM, said:

Interesting idea since unlike TT, we're not rolling dice to determine where a mech is hit or how badly it gets damaged.

Good hunting,
CFC Conky

It's actually more than double, since a lot of table top mechs had rediculously low armor in certain components.

E.g.legs on Warhammer (Assuming MW5 values are "stock TT values"), or prepty much everywhere on some mechs, tissue paper thick armor, lol.

[kalashnikity]

Ttly, on 01 March 2025 - 12:14 PM, said:

I thought about it before, and I went to the conclusion that it's probably not a good idea to increase the armor points per tonnage.
My conclusion was that it would hurt low-alpha DPS builds (which are already not doing that well) even more than it would any other.
Let's say a light/medium needs to get a hit 10 times on a target in current state to get a kill, and dies from getting hit 3-4 times.
Then in the version with buffed armor+structure they would need to do a hit 20 times on the same target, and dies from getting hit 5-6 times because that's just how the math works for raw point gain.
I mean yeah everything got multiplied the same but it's hardly in their favour.

False equivalency, as hit rate on lighter mechs is lower.

Everybody benefits equally.

Edited by kalashnikity, 01 March 2025 - 02:31 PM.

[Ttly]

kalashnikity, on 01 March 2025 - 02:20 PM, said:

False equivalency, as hit rate on lighter mechs is lower.

Everybody benefits equally.

Okay fine sure, with skill nodes up, lights like FLE-17 would have their ST/Legs with this hypothetical +50% structure/armor would have closer to like 65 total hitpoints. Currently they would have more like 40ish. So that's around 25 point gain (around an alpha from an heavy or half of an assault's).
Meanwhile something like the MAD-IIC would have like 190 ST/Legs, formerly 130ish, this is with skill nodes just to remind.
So that's a 60 point gain (around an alpha from an assault).

And assuming damage and heat output of weapons stays the same as it currently is, the performance gap between tonnages would be skewed even more to the higher tonnage.
You could however argue that it makes attacking back armor to be more enticing, but most vehicles have their front armor covering like 240 degrees of their profile so whatever.
So hey, lights and mediums would have their hits doing even less hp% of their target per attack, and in exchange they can take an alpha more at best, wowee.

Edited by Ttly, 01 March 2025 - 04:04 PM.

[kalashnikity]

Ttly, on 01 March 2025 - 03:59 PM, said:

Okay fine sure, with skill nodes up, lights like FLE-17 would have their ST/Legs with this hypothetical +50% structure/armor would have closer to like 65 total hitpoints. Currently they would have more like 40ish. So that's around 25 point gain (around an alpha from an heavy or half of an assault's).
Meanwhile something like the MAD-IIC would have like 190 ST/Legs, formerly 130ish, this is with skill nodes just to remind.
So that's a 60 point gain (around an alpha from an assault).

And assuming damage and heat output of weapons stays the same as it currently is, the performance gap between tonnages would be skewed even more to the higher tonnage.
You could however argue that it makes attacking back armor to be more enticing, but most vehicles have their front armor covering like 240 degrees of their profile so whatever.
So hey, lights and mediums would have their hits doing even less hp% of their target per attack, and in exchange they can take an alpha more at best, wowee.

Convergence on a moving mech means that assault alpha is oging to be spread out.

Why?

To hit a light with FLPPD you have to fire at an empty point in front of it, meaning by the time a light runs into the bullet, that salvo will still be converging on whatever background point you aimed at to shoot in front of the light.
And a light that is standing still (where you could hit a leg with a full alpha...) deserves to get legged.

don't make me draw a schematic...

[kalashnikity]

E.g. Stone rhino is 100 meters away from a light, the background is 200 meters away, when you pull the trigger, your bullets will still be half the width of a stone rhino, so even if one side of your salvo scores a hit, the other side of your salvo will miss that light by half a stone rhino width.

In theory, you could fire and a flea could run through the bullet path (example 4xAC10 build) two ac10 flying over head, and one bullet passing in front and another behind the flea as it runs by.

You could have a perfect lead and totally miss.

[kalashnikity]

Another example light is only 50 meters away, and the background is 100 meters, same thing, that flea at 50 meters could pass right between the center of your stone rhino alpha.


If background it 1000m away, and flea is only 200m away, the alpha will still be 80% of the width of the weapon mounts. On a stone rhino vs a flea, that means you will be lucky to hit with 2/4 of the hardpoints, unless you are using something splatty, like LBX or MRM.

[Valdarion Silarius]

kalashnikity, on 01 March 2025 - 11:39 AM, said:

Can I offer a quick and easy solution, or is this the wrong crowd?

We already have double the table top armor values.

Add another 50% to base armor and 50% to structure values of all mechs.

*Additionally add 100% to all base ammunition values, to compensate for the increased armor and structure values.

This will get the desired result of increasing "Time To Kill", without needing to hash out all these changes that have been proposed. Nobody likes being Insta-Gibbed when they step out from behind cover, the fan base will be happier with more joystick time, and Cauldron won't need to micromanage 14 years worth of balancing.

Yes, it is technically more power creep (armor values), but it will still have the desired effect.

I like this idea, but only for heavies and assaults. The reason for that being is because lights and mediums are stupidly tanky because of the hitreg issues this game suffers from. Lights and mediums (with the exceptions of the very heavily armored mediums) should not be able to eat full alpha strikes from anything, period. This might come off controversial, but I think there needs to be a universal buff to all back armor to any mechs that go 64.8 kmph and below in the heavy and assault category. At least 10 points to all heavies and 15 to all assaults would suffice imho.

The problem is I don't see any foreseeable solutions until MWO moves away from the very outdated Crytec engine. Maybe decreasing the longer cool down times on energy weapons might help with the TTK issue. Also removing the global cDHS nerf from awhile back as well, but that doesn't seem like that's happening anytime soon.

[Moadebe]

kalashnikity, on 01 March 2025 - 11:39 AM, said:

Can I offer a quick and easy solution, or is this the wrong crowd?

We already have double the table top armor values.

Add another 50% to base armor and 50% to structure values of all mechs.

*Additionally add 100% to all base ammunition values, to compensate for the increased armor and structure values.

This will get the desired result of increasing "Time To Kill", without needing to hash out all these changes that have been proposed. Nobody likes being Insta-Gibbed when they step out from behind cover, the fan base will be happier with more joystick time, and Cauldron won't need to micromanage 14 years worth of balancing.

Yes, it is technically more power creep (armor values), but it will still have the desired effect.

Yes this is the right crowd. This isnt the cauldron discord.

However, its all just discussion, and brain storming really. No idea if what is discussed here would even make its way to the powers that be and it be taken seriously.

An increase in armor across the board would offset things and would be a quick fix. It would have the desired effect of decreasing time to kill. Just there might be underlying issues with it. Heavy hitting mechs would become more desirable so as to secure the kill over mechs who simply cant bring enough to the table. Not saying it would happen, but its a scenario i can see is all.

I know I dont have the answers fully. Maybe none that people like. (lessening extreme ranges. Making ballistics like AC2s/UAC2s the extreme long range weapon only...maybe gauss. PPCs to a lesser extent. ERLL ranges reigned in since its a pure hit scan weapon with no travel time. MASC needs a accel/decel nerf which is probably gonna happen since it does make hit reg wonky sometimes. I still also think that ECM still needs to have its radar range reduction nerfed a little to open sensors up some.

I do like the direction you are thinking though.