149 replies to this topic

[Trev Firestorm]

Collision removal is the single greatest mistake they have made with this game so far, once its back all these no skills are going to be forced out, after that next most important would be another pass at raven hitboxes, then streak and ecm tweaks, its absolutely absurd that getting collisions working again hasn't been one of their highest priorities since the removal...

[Zylo]

Something that was not mentioned as a balance fix was state rewinding, here's a comment on it - http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1740995

Combined with collision knockdowns I don't think this would force the use of any specific light mech to be successful. It will probably make piloting any light mech far more dangerous than they were in closed beta when they could be knocked down.

[RG Notch]

I never understand complaints about lack of diversity from the min maxer crowd. No matter what is done one mech will be "the only" one to use. You can argue you want diversity, but all you really want is the superior one to be the one that more closely matches your own play style, that's why some folks will come out and and argue that everything is ok, it fits their style so they are ok. If all you care about is winning, then why worry if you "have" to play one mech to win. If you care about fun then well play something that isn't that mech and have fun. But then it comes back to winning. So if they change anything and the next FoTM doesn't match your style you will whine for change but keep playing that because you want to win.
If winning is all you are about don't worry and play the "only" viable one and win. If you want to have fun then try to win with a different set up.. oh wait you might lose and that's no fun so why waste the time with the QQ. You know that you will simply flit from FotM to FotM because you must be "competitive". It's down right laughable but don't let me stop you, I'm sure they will hit on your style for awhile, then just argue that balance is fine at that point, and hope that your favorite FotM lasts.

[SkyCake]

first off, I like the style of your article, could be in a pc gamer mag or something...

now to the nitty gritty

1. competitive teams don't exist because mwo doesn't exist... the game we are playing is much too different from final mwo...

2. I would be more worried about the future of all lights in competitive games should mwo go gold without weight limits imposed in competitive matches....

So, although your post is nice and I really like the quality, it only serves as a comment on the meta we currently have, which is based upon an incomplete, exploitable gaming system

[Trev Firestorm]

RG Notch, on 02 February 2013 - 03:06 PM, said:

I never understand complaints about lack of diversity from the min maxer crowd. No matter what is done one mech will be "the only" one to use. You can argue you want diversity, but all you really want is the superior one to be the one that more closely matches your own play style, that's why some folks will come out and and argue that everything is ok, it fits their style so they are ok. If all you care about is winning, then why worry if you "have" to play one mech to win. If you care about fun then well play something that isn't that mech and have fun. But then it comes back to winning. So if they change anything and the next FoTM doesn't match your style you will whine for change but keep playing that because you want to win.
If winning is all you are about don't worry and play the "only" viable one and win. If you want to have fun then try to win with a different set up.. oh wait you might lose and that's no fun so why waste the time with the QQ. You know that you will simply flit from FotM to FotM because you must be "competitive". It's down right laughable but don't let me stop you, I'm sure they will hit on your style for awhile, then just argue that balance is fine at that point, and hope that your favorite FotM lasts.

What thread are you reading exactly?

[Writhenn]

Sadly in the RHOD league, you see a variety of mech's in every weight class but the light. Playing both our EU and NA leagues, I have seen maybe one team brand a commando, and one team run 6ML Jenners in one match. Sad thing is the light department has no diversity.

I am glad to see a variety of mechs now in the medium, heavy and assault weight classes.

[Budor]

/bump for variety

[Zylo]

Now that I have thought about this issue a bit more, how is this any different than the successful teams in the closed beta RHoD running with as many gauss rifles as possible on the team?

I was part of ELP and was on the closed beta RHoD team as an atlas pilot. At that time the gauss rifle was the dominant weapon and nearly everyone on the team was running them. The only heavy mech that seemed popular in the tournament was the 2x gauss K2.

While the light mech issue is a bit different, the source of the problem is the lack of collision knockdowns combined with netcode issues that make lights more difficult to hit than they should be. If lights were easier to hit with netcode improvements and knockdowns were returned it would make other non-streak designs more competitive, possibly forcing a change from streak based designs to direct fire versions to increase the damage output of light mechs on the team.

[Protection]

RG Notch, on 02 February 2013 - 03:06 PM, said:

I never understand complaints about lack of diversity from the min maxer crowd. No matter what is done one mech will be "the only" one to use. You can argue you want diversity, but all you really want is the superior one to be the one that more closely matches your own play style, that's why some folks will come out and and argue that everything is ok, it fits their style so they are ok. If all you care about is winning, then why worry if you "have" to play one mech to win. If you care about fun then well play something that isn't that mech and have fun. But then it comes back to winning. So if they change anything and the next FoTM doesn't match your style you will whine for change but keep playing that because you want to win.
If winning is all you are about don't worry and play the "only" viable one and win. If you want to have fun then try to win with a different set up.. oh wait you might lose and that's no fun so why waste the time with the QQ. You know that you will simply flit from FotM to FotM because you must be "competitive". It's down right laughable but don't let me stop you, I'm sure they will hit on your style for awhile, then just argue that balance is fine at that point, and hope that your favorite FotM lasts.

Us min-maxers also like variety. It makes design decisions interesting. Yes, we will ultimately bring and use cookie cutter builds, but the design goal for the game should be such that there are an interesting selection of cookie cutters to choose from -- with advantages and disadvantages to each choice -- while still being extremely optimized.

Obvious example is the heavy position right now. The Gausscat remains a popular sniper, but more fragile (and random ), the Gaussaphract has worse hitboxes and speed - but better armour. The AC20 Cat and Six SRM6 Cat are short range power-brawlers, the UAC5 Ilya can DPS well, and the Llas Cat/Phract are reliable. There's a healthy mix of choices about which cookie cutter will be brought. Even with mediums we are seeing Hunchies, Centurions, and Cicadas all finding use (albeit fast moving 4Ps, 4SPs, 9As, 9Ds, and 3Ms only).

And even if there is to be no variety at light -- the Jenner was much more fun and required far more skill to play effectively than the 3L Raven.

[Ursh]

The Raven 3L and Commando 2D need to die. there's zero reason a pilot of limited skill gets to kill you with his streaks, even if you're almost behind him.

It's not just that they need to miss more, they need to make it so you can break lock easier. It's a pain to get lock sometimes, but once you have it it's very difficult to break.

Edited by Ursh, 02 February 2013 - 03:54 PM.

[Dirk Le Daring]

I think knockdown is a huge factor here. Streak missile insane turning would be the only thing to change on ssrm. I think the most important thing may be map size. As I was finishing reading your post, I remembered one of my first few runs ever in the jenner. I managed to sneak in way behind the enemy on caustic and spot for the lrm users. The map was new then if I recall, so that made sneaking around easier, but the maps do seem a bit small for a light to truly go out wide and get that point of observation. Hope that made sense.

[Zylo]

Ursh, on 02 February 2013 - 03:54 PM, said:

The Raven 3L and Commando 2D need to die. there's zero reason a pilot of limited skill gets to kill you with his streaks, even if you're almost behind him.

It's not just that they need to miss more, they need to make it so you can break lock easier. It's a pain to get lock sometimes, but once you have it it's very difficult to break.

So lets say collisions are returned and you are piloting a Jenner F, maybe you chose to run a bit hotter with 6x medium lasers. If you crash into a streak based design like a commando it's possible you might knock the commando down but remain standing (I know this could be done in closed beta as I tripped commandos in my short time playing a jenner). In that case you would shoot the commando while it was face down on the ground for the easy kill.

The Raven is equal weight so a collision would be expected to leave both you and the raven face down after the crash. Once you stand up you have the advantage of being able to hit the raven with all 6 medium lasers while the raven might only hit you with 3 medium lasers. The streaks would not yet be locked so you could go for another collision and repeat until you win, assuming the enemy team isn't sending other mechs over to help the raven of course.

[Window]

Zylo, you have a selective memory for our lights.

I ran a JR7-D with 4 small las and 2 SRM 4 racks, the issue was in closed that the Jenner chassis was too dominant.
Now the issue is only 1 variant is dominant because of what all the other light mechs don't have on it, ECM.

Edit:

Regarding your above post about knockdowns, false - you are able to obtain lock while standing back up as long as the mech is within your cross hairs so smart pilots will crash so when standing back up they get that lock.

Edited by Window, 02 February 2013 - 04:07 PM.

[Zero Neutral]

I have also identified this problem regarding SSRM monopolization by ECM equipped mechs. Though this issue affects all mech variants, it mainly hurts a pilot's choices of light mechs.

I believe that very very many people have not identified this problem and instead blame ECM specifically for being, "OP," even though what they are experiencing is this monopoly on, "Magic Missile," SSRM use by ECM equipped light mechs.

When a light mech pilot dies to an ECM equipped mech, I believe that the knee jerk reaction is to blame ECM without considering the conditions by which they were defeated. I am glad to see some one else also expressing this specific issue.

Currently, a short range counter to ECM does not exist that would provide non-ECM equipped mechs with a way to also utilize the SSRM weapon system that hits at a one hundred percent rate regardless of speed as long as a target lock is established.

[Z0MBIE Y0SHI]

Well said OP

[Zylo]

Window, on 02 February 2013 - 04:05 PM, said:

Zylo, you have a selective memory for our lights.

I ran a JR7-D with 4 small las and 2 SRM 4 racks, the issue was in closed that the Jenner chassis was too dominant.
Now the issue is only 1 variant is dominant because of what all the other light mechs don't have on it, ECM.

Edit:

Regarding your above post about knockdowns, false - you are able to obtain lock while standing back up as long as the mech is within your cross hairs so smart pilots will crash so when standing back up they get that lock.

Still, a Jenner with the 4x SLas + 2x SRM4 packs more total firepower than the same version with streaks, assuming the netcode registers the hits correctly. Few pilots were using streaks back then, even if they did get lock the total damage output was less than what the direct fire laser or laser + srm lights could do.


During closed beta the lock was lost during the time the mechs were face down. Pilots won't always be able to crash in a way that allows locking again while standing up after a collision. If you are knocking down a light with locking weapons that would force you to crash from an angle that didn't allow the enemy to lock as both of you were standing up again.

This does bring up the issue with artemis providing a faster lock time for streaks without any space or weight added since artemis was not in game when we still had collision knockdowns. Would the solution to this simply be applying the same rules to streak launchers that are used on other missile launchers when artemis is added?

[Gammanoob]

Zero Neutral, on 02 February 2013 - 04:09 PM, said:

When a light mech pilot dies to an ECM equipped mech, I believe that the knee jerk reaction is to blame ECM without considering the conditions by which they were defeated. I am glad to see some one else also expressing this specific issue..

Amen.

As much as I feel that ECM and Streaks need some balancing, it is definitely a fact that most people are more than willing to excuse tactical errors or mistakes which were the main reason they died.

For instance today a lone Raven 3-L charged our lines, I as the ECM commando followed him as he tried to circle strafe an Atlas. Of course it was an easy kill for me and he died.

The second he dies he types: "******* Streaks/ECM."

Granted, he died to my streaks, but the reason I was even in a position to engage him was because he made an extremely bad decision.

Edited by Gammanoob, 02 February 2013 - 04:26 PM.

[Gremlich Johns]

I say replace the SSRMs with Streak MRMs.

[Ursh]

Zylo, on 02 February 2013 - 04:03 PM, said:

So lets say collisions are returned and you are piloting a Jenner F, maybe you chose to run a bit hotter with 6x medium lasers. If you crash into a streak based design like a commando it's possible you might knock the commando down but remain standing (I know this could be done in closed beta as I tripped commandos in my short time playing a jenner). In that case you would shoot the commando while it was face down on the ground for the easy kill.

The Raven is equal weight so a collision would be expected to leave both you and the raven face down after the crash. Once you stand up you have the advantage of being able to hit the raven with all 6 medium lasers while the raven might only hit you with 3 medium lasers. The streaks would not yet be locked so you could go for another collision and repeat until you win, assuming the enemy team isn't sending other mechs over to help the raven of course.

Basic physics would tell us that the faster moving mech would knock down the equal weight mech. They wouldn't both fall down, as the receiving mech would be used as a brake for the assaulting mech.

It's all math bro. Only ******** MWO math would make the mechs take an equal fall.

[CrashieJ]

as a Dedicated Light pilot, I can voucher that the 3L, while perfect as a light mech is just too effective against other light mechs. The reason is that the maps are just too small for other light mechs to outmaneuver them by flanking and running away. leaving them only 2-5 seconds before they get caught in a streakwave. the fact that Collisions are non existent just compounds to the problem.

I feel for other light pilots (especially Jenner Pilots) who have to mothball their favorite non-ECM mechs for the FoTM ECM ManRavers.

Bring back Collisions and we'll see a drop in Light mech abusers when the cost outweighs reward... well with their horrible skills that is...