data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b3ae9/b3ae9cf8cfed3e06df6984fcf2a08c460eab065d" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4e328/4e328d152edb2c8b285cd8af4dff0d2f4d90dec1" alt=""
Weight Ratios Way Off
#1
Posted 26 January 2013 - 10:20 AM
#2
Posted 26 January 2013 - 10:23 AM
#3
Posted 26 January 2013 - 10:30 AM
#4
Posted 26 January 2013 - 10:48 AM
My advice is not to worry about it and have fun.
#5
Posted 26 January 2013 - 03:14 PM
ECM and lagshield have combined to make the Raven-3L the Flavour of the Month mech with the easykill people. Perception that lights are OP, no matter what the reality really is will draw some in.
With heavies, and particularly assaults, they removed the only disincentive to play them, ongoing running costs. Heavier mechs tend to not die as easily, earn more C-bills due to higher damage output, and earn more experience per match due to the rewards system slanted in favour of damage output.
All this said, when I finish the assaults, I will not go back to them. I favour the mediums for balance reasons, and lights because they are a mech that can keep you thinking to survive.
#6
Posted 26 January 2013 - 03:25 PM
#7
Posted 26 January 2013 - 03:43 PM
To my mind mediums are the thinking man's 'Mech because of the jack of all trades mentality that they seem to revolve around, allowing you to adapt your piloting to the situation at hand. Knowing when to stay and slug it out or re-position to harry the enemy's flank with your decent speed and firepower is the key.
#8
Posted 26 January 2013 - 03:46 PM
yes swayback speed needed to be nerfed. but they didnt have to nerf every other medium because of the swayback.
#9
Posted 26 January 2013 - 03:46 PM
#10
Posted 26 January 2013 - 03:49 PM
Quote
exactly. In MWO a heavy goes the same speed as a medium but has 30% more weapons and armor.
the only exceptions being the ecm Cicada and the Centurion-D. those are the only decent fast mediums left.
#11
Posted 26 January 2013 - 03:52 PM
Unless you're a big ballistics fan, the treb seems to have all the bases of a great medium covered.
#12
Posted 26 January 2013 - 03:55 PM
Quote
Yeah except introducing a new medium mech which completely outclasses all existing medium mechs is a terrible idea.
#13
Posted 26 January 2013 - 04:06 PM
#14
Posted 26 January 2013 - 04:13 PM
Khobai, on 26 January 2013 - 03:55 PM, said:
Yeah except introducing a new medium mech which completely outclasses all existing medium mechs is a terrible idea.
I don't think it will. I suspect it will have its own vulnerabilities.
It does bring a slight speed edge though in some models.
To be honest though, just what is left?
The Clint or Vulcan would give us a 40 ton 6/9/6 medium.
The Whitworth? The Assassin?
The Dervish lacks variants at this time.
We need to face it that the medium class was the one most gutted by the removal of the Unseens, and that weakness is most reflected at this time period.
#15
Posted 26 January 2013 - 04:28 PM
FrupertApricot, on 26 January 2013 - 03:46 PM, said:
It's not bragging at all. It's just a simple description of how I like to play them, and in general I've been effective at it. Does it work every time? Of course not. Just because you can't see the worth of piloting a medium 'Mech and don't see others piloting them, doesn't mean everyone else in the community has had the same experience. That being said, there seems to be this mentality in many players that when they build their 'Mech, they think in terms of a 1v1 situation. I need to be fast to counter lights, I need more armor to survive the heavies and assaults, I need more weapons to take down my enemy faster, or whatever the case may be. That can be hard to find for some people in a medium weight 'Mech. What a pilot should be thinking of is a role you want to fulfill on your team, either as a support brawler, a skirmisher, artillery, scout, light hunter, or whatever and make that role as effective as you can based on the team that you drop with.
The idea that we need to artificially limit the number of lights, mediums, heavies, or assaults as opposed to dropping equal tonnage rank chassis on either side will only result in stale matches where you KNOW, every time, exactly the number of weight classes on the enemy team, without variety.
#16
Posted 26 January 2013 - 04:42 PM
Repair and Running Costs
It's the old 80/20 issue. Mediums were the most balanced solution to most issues, at a REASONABLE COST
Without R&R, without the bigger maps to make assault speed painful, there is no real price tright now to play an assault, except cockpit boredom, and hatred of moving like a pig in mud.
Economics was one of the most important factors in mech choices and why units were built around mediums.
The unfortunate fact is, the race to make all classes equally playable is what is making the mediums more unplayable.
#17
Posted 26 January 2013 - 05:31 PM
As others have mentioned, this alone means that the average Heavy packs more speed, armor and firepower than the average Medium.
Design matters.
My two cents.
#18
Posted 26 January 2013 - 05:37 PM
Drop weights restrictions. (example: Mechcommander)
Bv drops (for those of you who don't know BV, all base mechs and the equipment there carry battle value or BV)
Hence mechs units of approx. the same BV would drop together. With BV a standard Raven without ECM would not have as much value as one that does.
Stock engines only. everything stays the same but you can't swap engines out. Too difficult in a short period of time. Short being under say several months to rebuild the mech to fit a larger/smaller engine.
Edited by Yanlowen Cage, 26 January 2013 - 05:38 PM.
#19
Posted 26 January 2013 - 05:41 PM
I'm not terribly concerned about the team layouts currently as the whole deck isn't on the table, there are still things that are going to change or be added. We'll see.
The only way Mediums are gong to be the most common mech on the tfield however is if they're the most effective. I don't think IPG will force the curve.
Edited by verybad, 26 January 2013 - 05:43 PM.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users