52 replies to this topic

[Novakaine]

I like it when I get surprised in this game after I get ganked.
Then I laugh.
"Now why didn't I think of that."

[LordNothing]

martian, on 27 March 2025 - 07:40 AM, said:

You can not kill the meta, you can only change it.

If you remove all the 'Mechs that you dislike now, some new meta will emerge soon, based on the remaining 'Mechs that would be still available in the game.

its the same as if you banned all t1s. then t2s would be the top players and would be able to decimate the lower tiers unimpeded.

ecosystems too tend to hinge on the predators, take them away and the weakest organisms consume all the resources and cause a population collapse of the intermediate species.

in all cases it just shifts the problem. there is no way to have both competitive play and casual play in a low population niche game without some sacrifices from each type of player. fortunately there are two more modern single player mechwarrior games that provide the casual experience just fine.

[Ttly]

LordNothing, on 27 March 2025 - 03:55 PM, said:

its the same as if you banned all t1s. then t2s would be the top players and would be able to decimate the lower tiers unimpeded. ecosystems too tend to hinge on the predators, take them away and the weakest organisms consume all the resources and cause a population collapse of the intermediate species. in all cases it just shifts the problem. there is no way to have both competitive play and casual play in a low population niche game without some sacrifices from each type of player. fortunately there are two more modern single player mechwarrior games that provide the casual experience just fine.

You know, I personally don't get how people stay in t3, or lower, this is not a snide remark or anything, it's just that from my point of view it's not that hard to get a green arrow at the end of a match/red arrows just doesn't lower it that much?
It's just not that enjoyable (or worth the time) to intentionally throw matches just to bump it down just to get the faster MM time either, and the system assuming that just because someone is in t1 means they're going to carry their team is rather presumptious.

Either way, I'd throw in a rant about an alternate system rating your builds and the MM assembling a team around their "build rating points" instead but no dev manpower yada yada.

Edited by Ttly, 27 March 2025 - 04:15 PM.

[BrioS]

Ttly, on 27 March 2025 - 01:12 PM, said:

Umm actually no one would care if all the Night Gyrs except for NTG-H (the ECM sniper one) were to be removed, or the Mad Dog other than the Bandit, C, and Sigma, so on so forth.
Just look at this month's patch, someone cared *enough* to tweak the Night Gyr (even if it's just unspecific-ing the quirks) but not really to change anything else about them (and no one still cares to play Night Gyrs other than the H/D [the stupid LRMboat variant]), and months ago likewise with the Mad Dog except to the C/Bandit (except giving them B.HSL+1 is an actually meaningful change) but not enough to change the other variants (Prime is still just a flat out worse TBR-Prime [same agility and all] with different [better arguably] hitbox for example, not like either of them are good) that you can count on a single hand.
And well I don't have anyone convincing me that this year won't be more of the same.
Stuff like the Mauler requirking to actually have the cannon part of the glass cannon was neat though, do more of that, less petty stuff like taking away the medium laser Vulcan's +flamer range and +mg% (irrelevant non-defining changes, and particularly needless in the ML Vulcan's case) and stuff as well while at it.
Maybe more stuff like FB armor to forcibly lower a vehicle's front armor and reallocate them to the rear (because someone doesn't want to just make a distinct rear armor quirks?) with a side effect of bumping heads to have more hitpoints than they currently do.



Yes, and there just seems to be this interest in against buffing certain things regardless of their actual performance more than not. Missile weapons for starters, neither MRMs or LRMs got much last year (latter even taking a velo nerf) while ballistics got a velocity buff, so on. What, is the AWS-8V (PPC velocity MRM quirk) so good that we can't have a repeat of something as distinct as it? Buffing the missile part of the Highlander? Nope.
Oh right, there's also a model bug on the Highlander's RT 3rd energy hardpoint where the additional geometry has bugged pitch black texture, likewise with the Vindicator head mount with flamer, but it's whatever, no dev manpower and stuff blablabla.

Graded by chatgpt using the International Baccalaureate (IB) Diploma Programme English grading criteria

1. Criterion A: Knowledge and Understanding (Score: 4/10)

• 
  Strengths: The text demonstrates a clear understanding of a specific topic related to video game mechanics, with detailed references to game elements like "Night Gyr," "Mad Dog," "Mauler," "Vulcan," and others. It shows some depth in understanding how the game functions, including specifics like weapon tweaks, patches, and game balance changes.
  
• 
  Weaknesses: The focus is too narrow and relies heavily on personal opinion and gaming jargon without sufficiently clarifying or explaining these concepts for a broader audience. The complexity of the references may be lost on someone not familiar with the game in question. Moreover, the arguments are not fully developed or explained with the necessary depth to demonstrate robust understanding. The passage lacks an analytical angle and instead reads like a rant or informal commentary.

2. Criterion B: Organization and Argumentation (Score: 3/10)

• 
  Strengths: There is an attempt to engage with a series of issues and develop a line of argument, particularly around the imbalance or lack of meaningful changes in the game's patches. The writer touches on several points related to game mechanics and balance adjustments.
  
• 
  Weaknesses: The text is poorly organized. There is no clear introduction, body, or conclusion, making it difficult to follow. The ideas jump from one point to another without logical transitions or connections. The writer does not effectively develop their argument and fails to draw conclusions or reflect on the implications of the points raised. The arguments are fragmented, and the text feels like a collection of disjointed observations rather than a well-structured critical analysis.

3. Criterion C: Language (Score: 5/10)

• 
  Strengths: The language used is fairly appropriate for the topic, with some technical vocabulary related to gaming mechanics (e.g., "quirks," "variants," "velocity buff," "hitbox"), which shows an understanding of the subject. There is also a conversational tone that could appeal to a specific audience familiar with the context.
  
• 
  Weaknesses: The language is highly informal, and the tone is conversational rather than academic. There is heavy use of slang or colloquial phrases ("stupid LRMboat variant," "blablabla"), which is inappropriate for an IB-level assignment. This detracts from the quality and professionalism of the writing. The sentence structures are often awkward and lengthy, making the text harder to follow. There are also instances of poor punctuation, such as missing commas, which contribute to a lack of clarity. Some sentences are poorly constructed, and the text would benefit from more careful proofreading and refinement.

4. Criterion D: Style (Score: 3/10)

• 
  Strengths: The writer's voice comes through, and there is some attempt to express individual perspective and frustration, which gives the text a certain personality. The informal style could work for a different type of audience or format (e.g., a forum post or personal blog).
  
• 
  
  
  Weaknesses: The style is too informal and lacks the precision, objectivity, and critical reflection expected at the IB level. The use of slang and casual language detracts from the overall effectiveness and sophistication of the response. There is little attempt to engage critically or analytically with the subject matter, and the style feels more like an off-the-cuff commentary rather than a polished, academic analysis.

Overall Score: 15/40

• 
  Grade: D
  
• 
  The response demonstrates some understanding of the subject matter but lacks the structure, depth, and clarity necessary for a higher score. It is poorly organized, contains informal language, and fails to meet the standards expected at the IB level. The writing would need significant refinement in terms of organization, formal tone, language accuracy, and argument development to meet the expectations of the IB English criteria.

Edited by BrioS, 27 March 2025 - 05:19 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Ttly, on 27 March 2025 - 03:07 PM, said:

Tell that to the ridiculously long paragraph of ammo quirks a lot of the vehicles have if needlessly long lists is the main concern.
Really, it's no different from the likes of KFX-D (the missile Kit Fox) having a long list of quirk as well only to be reduced to being "30t slow light groundbound 4SRM6 DPS machine [pretty good at this role by the way]" when you'd think from all those quirks (it even has NARC quirk) it would actually at least turn LRMs to be decent at minimum.

There's actually better Kit Foxes, but there are two things to callout here.

• The "ridiculously long paragraph" of quirks all work to reinforce a role (minus the narc quirks which should probably be dumped), that is an SRM6 DPS machine. It's better than mechs that have a single energy hardpoint that's also in the head and some stupid energy based quirks that everyone ignores. I'm not going to get into the whole LRM conversation though, that's a trap.
  
• Ammo quirks are pretty much a necessity on light mechs to be useful partially because of 12v12, partially because of HP power creep, and partially because light mechs are shafted in tonnage and even missile mean sacrificing a lot of somewhere to bother with them. That's partially why missile lights have been so rare (the other is they are easily kited but that's a different story), let alone a ballistic light that doesn't use APG/MGs.

To be clear, I would not be shocked on the idea/opinions of quirks to have change just since the Cauldron took over. However to go and adjust every quirk in the game every time opinions change on that, or try to make massive sweeping changes when so many mechs can be impacted (I highly suspect there was a stupidly long internal debate about the cDHS change that went through a while back) would just be ridiculous, and expecting them to when there's something like 700-800+ unique variants in the game (not counting the special versions of others) is more ridiculous.

To be clear, I don't necessarily like it either because mechs have definitely been left behind, but at least be realistic, and if you don't like it, then maybe start suggesting things in the feedback discord. Ultimately the Cauldron is still a bunch of volunteers so expecting them to make every mech have a unique piece of the puzzle/role without suggestions would be a crazy effort IMO.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 27 March 2025 - 06:02 PM.

[LordNothing]

Ttly, on 27 March 2025 - 04:11 PM, said:

You know, I personally don't get how people stay in t3, or lower, this is not a snide remark or anything, it's just that from my point of view it's not that hard to get a green arrow at the end of a match/red arrows just doesn't lower it that much?
It's just not that enjoyable (or worth the time) to intentionally throw matches just to bump it down just to get the faster MM time either, and the system assuming that just because someone is in t1 means they're going to carry their team is rather presumptious.

Either way, I'd throw in a rant about an alternate system rating your builds and the MM assembling a team around their "build rating points" instead but no dev manpower yada yada.

i can run mechs in the b tier or higher and have positive psr movement. but i want to run all the mechs, not just the top 10% of the meta. i have like a hundred mechs with less than 30 games, and only about a third of them are good enough to maintain psr. im not really throwing matches, just running weaker builds.

im still convinced there are hidden gems in there. when i get a new mech i play 10 games. if its underperforming i change the bulild and play another 10 games. if by the time it gets to 30 games it hasnt improved, it gets mothballed.

ive had to significantly lower the number of games per mech simply by the shear number of games i have to play. i was originally aiming for 50 games. i might revisit them when i get everything to 30. after this maybe i can change my focus towards reaching t1, but thats not really a high priority for me. also having experience with a wide array of mechs makes me a better player in the long term.

there are meta-lists that might shorten this process, but by using my stats i can find builds more suited to my various play styles.

the idea of giving builds a rating, a battle value if you will. however i see that system being easily gamed. i think were better off with continued cauldron tweaks to bring up the weaker mechs so that bad variants stand a better chance.

Edited by LordNothing, 27 March 2025 - 07:06 PM.

[pbiggz]

This thread is silly

[Horseman]

Ttly, on 27 March 2025 - 01:12 PM, said:

Umm actually no one would care if all the Night Gyrs except for NTG-H (the ECM sniper one) were to be removed, or the Mad Dog other than the Bandit, C, and Sigma, so on so forth.

People who paid real money for those variants would be lining up for a visit at PGI's headquarters... with a lot of chainsaws in their hands. As would be players who actually DO use the different variants for distinct builds.

Also, NTG-H? LOL. My personal favourite NTG build uses the -H pod with a -D CT and frankenpods the other components for a couple ballistic hardpoints to get a mid-range ECM PPC/dakka build. You would like to remove that because it's too much for you to handle.

Quote

Yes, and there just seems to be this interest in against buffing certain things regardless of their actual performance more than not. Missile weapons for starters, neither MRMs or LRMs got much last year (latter even taking a velo nerf) while ballistics got a velocity buff, so on. What, is the AWS-8V (PPC velocity MRM quirk) so good that we can't have a repeat of something as distinct as it? Buffing the missile part of the Highlander? Nope.

There's a Cauldron feedback discord. You're welcome to visit there and give your well-reasoned argumenmt about which mechs and weapons need balancing.

[Battlemaster56]

Can someone give me the tl:dr of this thread because I'm lost what OP is asking for.

[pbiggz]

Battlemaster56, on 29 March 2025 - 08:27 AM, said:

Can someone give me the tl:dr of this thread because I'm lost what OP is asking for.

OP thinks that if you remove every build from the game that isn't meta, then there wont really be a meta.

OP is wrong, also its a dumb thing to ask for. ******* around with jank builds is 90% of the fun of this game. Meta be damned.

[LordNothing]

on the subject of "removing" variants. in every other mechwarrior game the variants were really just different builds off of a single chassis.

what if (and this is just a hypothetical, not a feature request, so you can spare the usual "that will never happen" posts) we remove the variants and merge all the hardpoint configurations into the base chassis. hardpoints common across chassis (based on physical location) do not stack. but hardpoints in different physical positions do, as do different types of hardpoints. of course this causes other issues.

since some mechs have small cockpits and compact gyros, just make these normal equipment that you can change out, give some advantages/disadvantages to both versions. lower arm and perhaps even shoulder actuators can be swapped out or removed.

this might cause some hardpoint inflation, eg the atlas can now run 14 laser, 3 ballistics, 2 ams, 1 ecm, 6 missile, but you are still limited by tonnage and space and the 16 weapon cap.

not really sure how to deal with omnimechs. perhaps their ct hardpoints merge as above, and the set of omnipods dictates the variant. set of 8 becomes set of 7 since the ct is universal. battle mechs come with generic quirks and omnis with specific quirks.

every chassis gets all the hardpoints in all the variants. some geometry specific mechs may still have varients (like the k2/jester). wings are another problem we might have. so i dont think we can get rid of all the variants, but damn near most. clan/is variants would still be separate chassis.

mechs are still lmited by physical hardpoints represented in the model, so different chassis can still do different things. quirks would be required to make up for an abundance or lack of hardpoints on specific chassis relative to others of similar tonnage.

[Swamp Ass MkII]

I didn't read all the replies. My thought is this, play the non-meta's, and have fun! I have found some pretty creepy builds doing so. You will be amazed at what weirdness comes about when you start buiding strange braket builds.

[Gasboy]

Ttly, on 27 March 2025 - 07:33 AM, said:

It would be a buff to the less skilled playerbase I'm telling you!
Timber Wolves? All variants removed except for this new super special VehicleFighter Online™ variant (TBR-P, it's just the current mixpod ECM+LPL build, and the TBR-P2 which is the same but with a single JJ on the CT to represent the current TBR-S mixpod version) and the Howl (locked into an ATM build).

No more of those darn silly people running around with LRMs (indirect fire weapons with even less effective accuracy than LB snipers are OP because it's indirect fire and tracking after all, ignore the radar deprivation that everyone picks though) on their TBRs, no more of those people SABOTAGING your team by running the UAC TBR-C (umm they should actually just play the ECM Sun Spider clearly), no sir! Let's just remove all of them and replace them all locked into only the meta™ approved builds courtesy of GrimmMechs (insert merch blurb here) exclamation mark.

Anyway really though, that's just how I feel about how prevalent (and boring it is) with people running the same netbuilds over and over like it's a PvP card game with people running the same netdecks over and over.

No thanks.

[Horseman]

LordNothing, on 29 March 2025 - 06:51 PM, said:

what if (and this is just a hypothetical, not a feature request, so you can spare the usual "that will never happen" posts) we remove the variants and merge all the hardpoint configurations into the base chassis. hardpoints common across chassis (based on physical location) do not stack. but hardpoints in different physical positions do, as do different types of hardpoints. of course this causes other issues.

every chassis gets all the hardpoints in all the variants. some geometry specific mechs may still have varients (like the k2/jester). wings are another problem we might have. so i dont think we can get rid of all the variants, but damn near most. clan/is variants would still be separate chassis.

mechs are still lmited by physical hardpoints represented in the model, so different chassis can still do different things. quirks would be required to make up for an abundance or lack of hardpoints on specific chassis relative to others of similar tonnage.

The problem that runs into is that hardpoints, their locations and quirks are meant to balance each other. The massive hardpoint inflation that such a move would cause would force the quirks to be removed, making chassis in the same tonnage bracket much less distinct from one another and constraining the meta to be 1-2 builds per chassis. Further, it would reduce differences between chassis to mostly just hardpoint positions, which would mean some chassis would be just strictly better than others, further constraining the meta.

End result, a handful of the same meta variants and builds dominate the game, leading to a perpetually stale and unfixable state of the meta and game balance.

PGI went in that direction before - remember the dequirkening in 2017? - and that did not go over well. Ultimately it's better to have individual variants with distinct strengths and limitations rather than an indistinct sludge of too samey chassis that lack individual character. It's also easier for PGI to rebalance individual under- or over-performing variants by adjusting their individual quirks.

[pbiggz]

LordNothing, on 29 March 2025 - 06:51 PM, said:

on the subject of "removing" variants. in every other mechwarrior game the variants were really just different builds off of a single chassis.

what if (and this is just a hypothetical, not a feature request, so you can spare the usual "that will never happen" posts) we remove the variants and merge all the hardpoint configurations into the base chassis. hardpoints common across chassis (based on physical location) do not stack. but hardpoints in different physical positions do, as do different types of hardpoints. of course this causes other issues.

since some mechs have small cockpits and compact gyros, just make these normal equipment that you can change out, give some advantages/disadvantages to both versions. lower arm and perhaps even shoulder actuators can be swapped out or removed.

this might cause some hardpoint inflation, eg the atlas can now run 14 laser, 3 ballistics, 2 ams, 1 ecm, 6 missile, but you are still limited by tonnage and space and the 16 weapon cap.

not really sure how to deal with omnimechs. perhaps their ct hardpoints merge as above, and the set of omnipods dictates the variant. set of 8 becomes set of 7 since the ct is universal. battle mechs come with generic quirks and omnis with specific quirks.

every chassis gets all the hardpoints in all the variants. some geometry specific mechs may still have varients (like the k2/jester). wings are another problem we might have. so i dont think we can get rid of all the variants, but damn near most. clan/is variants would still be separate chassis.

mechs are still lmited by physical hardpoints represented in the model, so different chassis can still do different things. quirks would be required to make up for an abundance or lack of hardpoints on specific chassis relative to others of similar tonnage.

I do think frankly we have too many variants, and it makes it much more likely that we end up with dead mechs, because with so much overlap, some mechs are just better than others, but its difficult/impossible to take things away like that, especially things that PGI is still to this day, selling for real money.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

pbiggz, on 31 March 2025 - 07:31 AM, said:

I do think frankly we have too many variants, and it makes it much more likely that we end up with dead mechs, because with so much overlap, some mechs are just better than others, but its difficult/impossible to take things away like that, especially things that PGI is still to this day, selling for real money.

Yeah, the best they could do is forced obsolescence of older variants in favor of the "signature" versions. I would prefer this but it would hurt their monetization given that would mean no legends or loyalty variants to entice people to pay. The perception of value of new mech packs would also be rough since it would just be a single variant. The game just wasn't built around selling other things as the main revenue source.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 31 March 2025 - 07:56 AM.

[sycocys]

Well he's not wrong that locking builds would probably be better for balance, it also wouldn't have or currently hurt the business model - just release more variants and the people buying for the sake of buying will continue to do so.

There will still be preferred mechs, but everything being locked would massively reduce the variables that need to be addressed for balance.

The customization is fun, but it's not a great feature for a pvp game with a small and shrinking playerbase.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

sycocys, on 31 March 2025 - 08:57 AM, said:

The customization is fun, but it's not a great feature for a pvp game with a small and shrinking playerbase.

These two things have nothing to do with each other

[Horseman]

sycocys, on 31 March 2025 - 08:57 AM, said:

The customization is fun, but it's not a great feature for a pvp game with a small and shrinking playerbase.

The customization is currently a core part of the gameplay. Take it away and players WILL revolt. Such a drastic change could be fine for a hypothetical next game in the franchise, but not one that has already been established for ten years.

[GreyNovember]

sycocys, on 31 March 2025 - 08:57 AM, said:

There will still be preferred mechs, but everything being locked would massively reduce the variables that need to be addressed for balance.

This is the rub.

People REALLY like seeing options. Big numbers.

Even if those options are in reality, many many bad decisions and only comparatively few good decisions you can make. Kneejerk emotional reaction takes precedence, and that has to be accounted for.

Monster Hunter total Large monster hunts are an often touted figure, regardless of how meaningful the fight is or useful the gear gotten is.

"Big number good. Small number bad."