101 replies to this topic

[rascje]

Void Angel, on 09 August 2025 - 08:08 AM, said:

Ok, I have to stop you there. =D That guy's not someone you want to listen to; he's one of those that claims the matchmaker is punishing him by not feeding him what he feels are his due in easy matches - like this little gem of a post, where he uses a gambler's fallacy to claim that "team balance" is off because he lost games. If I found myself agreeing with him that water was wet, I'd go re-check my sources.

The discussion about the matchmaker has been had several times in the last few months - and the upshot of it all is that the matchmaker is doing the best it can with the player population it has. Consider the numbers (per Cauldron, who has access to that data:) Tier 1 is about 12% of players; and within that Tier, we have world championship compies and... people like me. Now, I do ok (especially now that I have a real-sized monitor again,) but I'm not amazing - so why am I in with premade lances from the Championship Series teams?

Because I have to be.

With only 11.7% of players being in the top tier (and ~8% in Tier 2,) there is simply not enough room to expand the tiers to give the World Championship contenders their own matches. There are simply not enough players to expand the Tiers - or even to enforce matching between the Tiers! That's the sad fact for a game this old, with a dwindling player base. Is it still fun? I think so; and we do get new players into the mix - but unfortunately there's not enough of us left for Enad-whatever to fund major development of this game instead of making MechWarrior5 expansions.

So the financial realities as things stand preclude solutions other than changing weapon balance, which we're already doing.

Oh, I don't know that guy's story, he was simply reporting something that happens to me quite a bit too.
Yes, I agree with what you wrote about the MM.
And yes, it's quite sad.
But that's how it is.
We can only hope for a future full of new recruits...

[simon1812]

sooooo PGI can add integrated "new" weapons with mechs? but they can't figure out a way to add melee? really? something with a very very short reach attack that could pass for a punch? no? ok fine!

also, dont like the idea of integrated weapons, you want to add railgun? that's fine but add them to the arsenal available for every mech, dont gate weapons behind a mech. I saw a similar trend with a phone game named War Robots, and it eventually became the rule, robots with integrated weapons became the norm...robots that had to be bough with real money, if one wanted to be a competitive player, because surprise surprise the originals and then free robots were outclassed. I know it isnt fair to compare them both, but I just pointing it out, not sure I like where PGI is heading with this.

[Steel Raven]

Took PGI forever to get trees to fall over, doubt we will see melee in MWO with the current spaghetti code.

[Void Angel]

simon1812, on 11 August 2025 - 07:17 AM, said:

sooooo PGI can add integrated "new" weapons with mechs? but they can't figure out a way to add melee? really? something with a very very short reach attack that could pass for a punch? no? ok fine!

also, dont like the idea of integrated weapons, you want to add railgun? that's fine but add them to the arsenal available for every mech, dont gate weapons behind a mech. I saw a similar trend with a phone game named War Robots, and it eventually became the rule, robots with integrated weapons became the norm...robots that had to be bough with real money, if one wanted to be a competitive player, because surprise surprise the originals and then free robots were outclassed. I know it isnt fair to compare them both, but I just pointing it out, not sure I like where PGI is heading with this.

I'm pretty sure locking the railgun to a specific chassis is 1) possibly a requirement on the technical side; I don't know if the game engine as-is can allow us to place crits in different components, and 2) more importantly, it's a balancing thing; by locking the guns to two specific chassis, they can limit the Railgun's interactions with other weapons (e.g. neither of those 'mechs have ballistic hardpoints per se.)

[simon1812]

Well we getting dragoon mechs and dasher for MC and that's cool.

[GreyNovember]

simon1812, on 11 August 2025 - 07:17 AM, said:

sooooo PGI can add integrated "new" weapons with mechs? but they can't figure out a way to add melee? really? something with a very very short reach attack that could pass for a punch? no? ok fine!

You'd get an animation that has a vague "melee" motion.

It'll be hardlocked, not very elegant, and act like a delayed fire projectile that does hitscan damage when it triggers.

The complaints will then be "It's broken it won't hit anything", because typically the people who ask for melee, spazz out with their mouse, run assault mechs that can't properly get in range to punch anything that doesn't WANT to be punched, and will demand it be made easier to hit by giving it an AOE effect.

And then the complaints will be "My 100 ton mech only does a PPC's worth of damage what is this make it do more."

And then they still die to being shot at because people have guns and move faster than them.

[Void Angel]

Actually, the main inspiration for people asking to get melee are Light 'mechs who run up to Assaults and stand below their field of view to abuse the lack of melee. But, melee can't happen without software engineering resources to fight with the game engine to get it done - and those resources are not available.

PS, a 100-ton 'mech will do an AC/20's worth of damage with a kick, which would definitely be the most-used melee attack if we had them.

[GreyNovember]

Void Angel, on 11 August 2025 - 08:55 PM, said:

Actually, the main inspiration for people asking to get melee are Light 'mechs who run up to Assaults and stand below their field of view to abuse the lack of melee. But, melee can't happen without software engineering resources to fight with the game engine to get it done - and those resources are not available.

PS, a 100-ton 'mech will do an AC/20's worth of damage with a kick, which would definitely be the most-used melee attack if we had them.

Funny. I always read it from people who are driving the big boys, who just made a post complaining they got light ganked, and all the fun words they use to describe the experience, and how if they could punch these mechs they wouldn't stand a chance.

I don't doubt they'd use it if it was available. I DO find it extremely funny that the ones who try it will, by necessity, stand still for about 3 seconds as their mech does the motion.

All for doing 20 damage in an environment where if you stand still, you're begging for your components to be picked apart. The punch at least has some merit in that it twists slightly, doing damage while also altering the angle at which fire hits you, and not making you stand still when it happens.

[shadow cat]

My 2 cents PGI,
Don't release the railgun. It's not good for the (dying) comunity.

[Haman Karn]

simon1812, on 11 August 2025 - 07:17 AM, said:

sooooo PGI can add integrated "new" weapons with mechs? but they can't figure out a way to add melee? really? something with a very very short reach attack that could pass for a punch? no? ok fine!

Melee literally cannot work becuase of a lot of reasons, the netcode can hardly handle all the shooting. Punching mechs and doing no damage or hitting random components you arn't aiming for wouldn't be fun. And even with no melee animations and just using some kind of projectile that only works in point blank range, why? We have those but they also offer a bit or range on top. Running about with a snub fist and roleplaying is your best bet.

[Iceheart Star]

I don't really care about melee one way or another. It's not that big of an issue, and honestly the only melee I could see being useful would be DFAs.

But the railgun? That's just dumb. Why did PGI think it would be a good idea to add this to the game? Sure, it doesn't have a lot of ammo per ton, but it doesn't need it because one hit is a near garunteed kill on almost anything under 60 tons, and even then a hit would be a crippling blow on heavier 'Mechs. As someone who almost exclusively runs lights, I can't see this making the game any better or more entertaining. All it does is make an already vulnerable class of 'Mech die faster, while simultaneously ditching any semblence of lore for a paid item that will push away players.

PGI, please don't release these 'Mechs. All they will do is send a fun, unique game closer to the precipice of death.

Edited by Iceheart Star, Yesterday, 08:19 AM.

[Void Angel]

Iceheart Star, on 12 August 2025 - 08:19 AM, said:

one hit is a near garunteed kill on almost anything under 60 tons, and even then a hit would be a crippling blow on heavier 'Mechs.

Your opinion is empirically incorrect. Do the math.

[Iceheart Star]

Void Angel, on 12 August 2025 - 08:23 AM, said:

Your opinion is empirically incorrect. Do the math.

40 damage is instant armor penetration on the forward side torso and limb locations of almost all Medium 'Mechs and instant penetration on all Light 'Mech armor locations (EDIT: some Clan lights can actually survive this). My up-armored Raven could barely survive a single railgun round to its most armored point (CT), and that is because I have it loaded with 42 points of armor. A railgun fired in cohesion with a second weapon (i.e. Large Laser) is going internal. Even the better-protected Centurion would lose more than 68% of its center torso armor in a single hit, 90.9% of its side torso armor in a single hit, and 80% of its leg armor in a single hit. These calculations assume one railgun round hits each location, and does not take into account splash damage.

So, you are correct. Not a garunteed kill on anything under 60 tons. More like a serious threat on anything between 45-55 tons (armor stripped or almost stripped from an entire location), a mission kill to anything between 35-40 tons (armor breached, possible component damage), and a hard kill/mission kill on 30-20 tonners (ammo/CT destroyed or armor breached).

Admittedly, when looking at the explosion chances and heat generation, this seems slightly more reasonable. Still, being able to knock all or most of the armor off of a location with a single round at long range is a massive advantage that cannot be ignored, especially when you consider the fact that the new 'Mechs will also have Large and Medium lasers to critseek or remove whatever armor remains in a location after the railgun hits.

Edited by Iceheart Star, Yesterday, 08:57 AM.

[Void Angel]

Iceheart Star, on 12 August 2025 - 08:53 AM, said:

40 damage is instant armor penetration on the forward side torso and limb locations of almost all Medium 'Mechs

No, you're forgetting armor skill nodes. My Raveln 3L has 51 forward CT armor (only taking 4 structure damage to a side torso,) and even my Fleas won't be wiped by the railgun round unless it crits. My Vipers (one of the most fragile Mediums) have 45 forward armor on the side torsos; my Pakhet has 61 - and we've not even looked at 'mechs with strong defensive quirks yet.

Similarly, you can't evaluate the Railgun against hypothetical stationary targets. 'Mechs should be moving whenever significant fire is possible, and the Railgun will encourage this virtue. Lasers and projectiles - even at Gauss velocities - do not mix well against moving targets, because it's impossible to lead a projectile and aim a laser at the same time. But, with only energy mounts available to supplement the Railgun, the only other projectile weapons available are the PPC-class weapons - all of which have different velocities than the Railgun.

Does this mean that the Railgun will be fine at launch and there's nothing to be concerned about? Heck no! This weapon will bear careful watching - but it's not the ironclad-certain end of balance as we know it, either.

Edited by Void Angel, Yesterday, 09:38 AM.

[Lollerisms]

If 40 damage is 68% of a cent's CT armor you're running 58 CT armor, which is well below the max. If 40 damage is 90.9% of the ST armor you're running 44 ST armor which is again well below max. It's also the armor distribution you get on a stock Centurion.
I highly recommend not running TT stock builds because they're frankly usually terrible. The railgun should not be considered in the context of people running poorly designed mechs.

Edited by Lollerisms, Yesterday, 09:51 AM.

[Iceheart Star]

Void Angel, on 12 August 2025 - 09:37 AM, said:

No, you're forgetting armor skill nodes. My Raveln 3L has 51 forward CT armor (only taking 4 structure damage to a side torso,) and even my Fleas won't be wiped by the railgun round unless it crits. My Vipers (one of the most fragile Mediums) have 45 forward armor on the side torsos; my Pakhet has 61 - and we've not even looked at 'mechs with strong defensive quirks yet.

Similarly, you can't evaluate the Railgun against hypothetical stationary targets. 'Mechs should be moving whenever significant fire is possible, and the Railgun will encourage this virtue. Lasers and projectiles - even at Gauss velocities - do not mix well against moving targets, because it's impossible to lead a projectile and aim a laser at the same time. But, with only energy mounts available to supplement the Railgun, the only other projectile weapons available are the PPC-class weapons - all of which have different velocities than the Railgun.

Does this mean that the Railgun will be fine at launch and there's nothing to be concerned about? Heck no! This weapon will bear careful watching - but it's not the ironclad-certain end of balance as we know it, either.

Lollerisms, on 12 August 2025 - 09:50 AM, said:

If 40 damage is 68% of a cent's CT armor you're running 58 CT armor, which is well below the max. If 40 damage is 90.9% of the ST armor you're running 44 ST armor which is again well below max. It's also the armor distribution you get on a stock Centurion.
I highly recommend not running TT stock builds because they're frankly usually terrible. The railgun should not be considered in the context of people running poorly designed mechs.

Because of the massive variance in custom options for 'Mechs, I had to go with no-skills, 100% stock numbers to simplify things. So your points are fair, but the fact remains that a railgun will cleave off a large portion of a target's armor, especially compared to other weapons, and thus leave the target vulnerable to follow-up hits either from the railgun or other weapons.

The movement issue was one I had not considered, and is very much something that should be accounted for. However, it is not much of a task to set the Railgun in a different weapons grouping than the secondaries, allowing for a leading shot with the railgun and then a follow-up attack with the other guns a few moments later. Slow 'Mechs will also suffer from the railgun, as cockpit shake and velocity differences don't do that much when the enemy is moving at a snail's pace.

Edited by Iceheart Star, Yesterday, 10:19 AM.

[BlueDevilspawn]

Iceheart Star, on 12 August 2025 - 10:16 AM, said:

Because of the massive variance in custom options for 'Mechs, I had to go with no-skills, 100% stock numbers to simplify things. So your points are fair, but the fact remains that a railgun will cleave off a large portion of a target's armor, especially compared to other weapons, and thus leave the target vulnerable to follow-up hits either from the railgun or other weapons.

The movement issue was one I had not considered, and is very much something that should be accounted for. However, it is not much of a task to set the Railgun in a different weapons grouping than the secondaries, allowing for a leading shot with the railgun and then a follow-up attack with the other guns a few moments later. Slow 'Mechs will also suffer from the railgun, as cockpit shake and velocity differences don't do that much when the enemy is moving at a snail's pace.

It's fine to just pick an example, but balance decisions are done assuming full skills as well as min/maxed mech builds. Balance decisions using TT are useless.

[Bassault]

Iceheart Star, on 12 August 2025 - 08:53 AM, said:

40 damage is instant armor penetration on the forward side torso and limb locations of almost all Medium 'Mechs and instant penetration on all Light 'Mech armor locations (EDIT: some Clan lights can actually survive this). My up-armored Raven could barely survive a single railgun round to its most armored point (CT), and that is because I have it loaded with 42 points of armor. A railgun fired in cohesion with a second weapon (i.e. Large Laser) is going internal. Even the better-protected Centurion would lose more than 68% of its center torso armor in a single hit, 90.9% of its side torso armor in a single hit, and 80% of its leg armor in a single hit. These calculations assume one railgun round hits each location, and does not take into account splash damage.

So, you are correct. Not a garunteed kill on anything under 60 tons. More like a serious threat on anything between 45-55 tons (armor stripped or almost stripped from an entire location), a mission kill to anything between 35-40 tons (armor breached, possible component damage), and a hard kill/mission kill on 30-20 tonners (ammo/CT destroyed or armor breached).

Admittedly, when looking at the explosion chances and heat generation, this seems slightly more reasonable. Still, being able to knock all or most of the armor off of a location with a single round at long range is a massive advantage that cannot be ignored, especially when you consider the fact that the new 'Mechs will also have Large and Medium lasers to critseek or remove whatever armor remains in a location after the railgun hits.

What? Where are you even getting these numbers from. A centurion has 100ish armor on the CT, that's only 40% of it's armor.

[Void Angel]

Iceheart Star, on 12 August 2025 - 10:16 AM, said:

Because of the massive variance in custom options for 'Mechs, I had to go with no-skills, 100% stock numbers to simplify things. So your points are fair, but the fact remains that a railgun will cleave off a large portion of a target's armor, especially compared to other weapons, and thus leave the target vulnerable to follow-up hits either from the railgun or other weapons.

The movement issue was one I had not considered, and is very much something that should be accounted for. However, it is not much of a task to set the Railgun in a different weapons grouping than the secondaries, allowing for a leading shot with the railgun and then a follow-up attack with the other guns a few moments later. Slow 'Mechs will also suffer from the railgun, as cockpit shake and velocity differences don't do that much when the enemy is moving at a snail's pace.

No player who knows what they're doing will forego both the Armor and Structure skill nodes unless they're trying something they know is stupid, for the laughs. The benefits you get from those nodes far outweigh any other options - so when we're talking balance, you actually do have to assume those nodes are active. On the same note, stock builds are not optimized or viable against equally-skilled pilots. Some are better than others, but nearly all of them fall far, far short - the few exceptions prove this rule. Thus, you also always have to assume optimized builds. Stock numbers are wrong numbers, when analyzing balance.

As for follow-up attacks with separate weapon groups... Well, I mean you have to put the railgun on a separate group - it has a charge mechanic. Reticle shake is also a much more significant drawback than you seem to understand. But even without that, it's not so easy to fire two separate volleys, at two different velocities, at two different times, and get them both on the same component - particularly since the pilot has to adjust to different timings at range. That's the reason the Noble's single-shot AC was a benefit of that chassis, and kind of why the Clan LRM buff should be significant. Clan fanatics on these very forums still cry about their auto-cannons firing in bursts, and even landing all of a single burst from my my Fafnir's UAC/20s on the same component of a moving target is challenging - even when it's big.

We also haven't even discussed torso twisting, convergence, or jump jets... or heat efficiency, with the tonnage and space demands of the Railgun compared to the tonnage and space needed to cool those supplemental energy mounts. So yes, the weapon needs - and will have - close scrutiny, but it's far too soon to assume a fallen sky.

Bassault, on 12 August 2025 - 12:21 PM, said:

What? Where are you even getting these numbers from. A centurion has 100ish armor on the CT, that's only 40% of it's armor.

He assumed stock numbers in an attempt to find a baseline due to 'mech customizability ; he's been corrected.

BlueDevilspawn, on 12 August 2025 - 10:20 AM, said:

It's fine to just pick an example, but balance decisions are done assuming full skills as well as min/maxed mech builds. Balance decisions using TT are useless.

Hey, speaking of balance decisions, the So8 Medium Laser Family heat quirk for the Gauntlet-10B is actually -5%, not the -10% the patch notes claim. Do you know whether it's actually going up to -15%, or are they adding -5%, and someone mis-added the math in their head to produce the typo?

[BlueDevilspawn]

Void Angel, on 12 August 2025 - 12:53 PM, said:

Hey, speaking of balance decisions, the So8 Medium Laser Family heat quirk for the Gauntlet-10B is actually -5%, not the -10% the patch notes claim. Do you know whether it's actually going up to -15%, or are they adding -5%, and someone mis-added the math in their head to produce the typo?

Weird, it's supposed to be -5% to -10% but I'm checking...