139 replies to this topic

[FerretGR]

Johnny Reb, on 04 February 2013 - 01:49 AM, said:

Crap post is crap. They are what they are for a reason.

That's all well and good, but perhaps you can explain why the matchmaker must use these classes?

[Tremendous Upside]

FerretGR, on 04 February 2013 - 07:02 AM, said:

That's all well and good, but perhaps you can explain why the matchmaker must use these classes?

I think the easy answer to that is to look at the 8-man group queues. If you don't at least have "something" in place to balance drops, then you won't have anything other than the "accepted" FOTM mechs in drop after drop. Until the entire matchmaking interface is changed and you manage it on a "game to game" level and not from matching pre-chosen mechs ahead of time, there's really no better alternative.

[FerretGR]

I'm not saying throw out all attempts at matching tonnage as is the case in 8-man, in fact, what's being discussed here is the opposite. I'm saying match the mechs more closely, as I proposed earlier in the thread, or as Tincan Nightmare or Broad5side suggested on the previous page of this thread. The post you were responding to had a context in that conversation.

[Roland]

This thread is missing the real crux of the issue, and dancing around it...

Matchmaking based on weight class does not work.

You need to, minimally, balance based on tonnage.. And, better than that, you should balance based on some kind of dynamic battle value. And that battlevalue needs to be based on how mechs in MWO are actually used, rather than battletech values, because battletech didn't have anything like mech geometry that affected how tough mechs were.

[FerretGR]

Roland, on 04 February 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

This thread is missing the real crux of the issue, and dancing around it...

Matchmaking based on weight class does not work.

O_o

Maybe you should read the thread.

http://mwomercs.com/...78#entry1835878

http://mwomercs.com/...97#entry1837797

http://mwomercs.com/...32#entry1837832

http://mwomercs.com/...95#entry1834495

http://mwomercs.com/...10#entry1834510

http://mwomercs.com/...11#entry1834511

http://mwomercs.com/...07#entry1835407

The post directly above yours said this for goodness sake:

FerretGR, on 04 February 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

I'm not saying throw out all attempts at matching tonnage as is the case in 8-man, in fact, what's being discussed here is the opposite. I'm saying match the mechs more closely, as I proposed earlier in the thread, or as Tincan Nightmare or Broad5side suggested on the previous page of this thread. The post you were responding to had a context in that conversation.

Edited by FerretGR, 04 February 2013 - 09:43 AM.

[Bryan Kerensky]

I've had no problem performing hit and run as well as the traditional assault roles in the 9M. The key is torso twisting and running in tandem with another assault.

It's not that difficult tbh

[Mechteric]

Its merely a general categorization, the tonnage of the mech is what really defines where it stands. In this case its directly between a Cataphract (or later, Orion) and a Stalker while being equivalent to neither.

Edited by CapperDeluxe, 04 February 2013 - 09:49 AM.

[Roland]

FerretGR, on 04 February 2013 - 09:41 AM, said:

The post directly above yours said this for goodness sake:

Sorry, my response was to the OP, rather than to the entirety of the thread. Interpret it as an agreement with those folks who said the same thing, if you like.

[Tremendous Upside]

Roland, on 04 February 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

This thread is missing the real crux of the issue, and dancing around it...

Matchmaking based on weight class does not work.

I'm not saying that weight class on it's own works. Clearly it doesn't. You get far too many lopsided games right now to say it does... but with that said, battle values or tonnage matching probably wouldn't do any better. The problem is when you have games over and over where 7 players on one team can't break 100 damage - it's a mismatch in terms of skills. Game balance and mechanics aren't the issue... and even if they were, you'd be hard pressed to find any evidence to the contrary when pilot skills/experience aren't being accounted for.

[Apnu]

I have only ever used the Awesome when its a trial mech, especially the stock 8Q and I've never had a problem with it. That's because, like many others have said here, the chassis fills a fire support role and is not a brawler (except in the hands of an exceptional pilot, which I am not). I knew this from my table top games and I drove the Awesome the same TT way and I didn't find it to be a problem at all. Because I knew what it could do and I didn't ask it to do anything else.

The Awesome not supposed to stand up to the wrath of an Atlas. That mech, historically, is supposed to be God on the battlefield. It should take another Atlas or a team of mechs and/or great tactics to bring it down. The Awesome just doesn't have the tonnage to be a front line brawler or work otherwise with out support. It is not a mech for lone wolves.

Neither is the Stalker, for that matter. However the design quirks of MWO and the hardpoints make the Stalker much stronger than it is on the TT. I think this is because of the pointed profile that it has. Like the Raven and Catapult too. Broad, barrel-chested mechs, like the Awesome and Cataphract, are at a disadvantage because they have an expansive target area. And this is fine by me.

Know what a chassis can do and can't do. Know its role and fill that role, and any pilot will do well in any mech.

[De La Fresniere]

Weight categories are arbitrary (and frankly, more than a little dumb).

An Awesome is an 80-ton mech. It's 20 tons heavier than a Dragon and 20 tons lighter than an Atlas.

[Alois Hammer]

Jonathan Paine, on 02 February 2013 - 11:21 PM, said:

Why not reclassify the Awesome as a Heavy? Next time you drop into a match and see three Awesomes on your side, you could hope that they are matched up by lets say.... Dragons.

Thoughts?

Great idea. And using the same logic, given how they are in combat, we could reclassify the Assault-shredding Lights as "Ultra-Heavy Super-Assault Mechs."

...or we could put this craziness behind us, and stick with classifying them according to their weight.

Tahribator, on 03 February 2013 - 07:15 AM, said:

Sarna wiki says the heat from heatsinks is dumped into the environment through some kind of radiator. Which makes them aircooled in a way, as you have to reject the heat into the environment(air) somehow. If they were not air cooled then environments wouldn't have made a such a huge difference anyway.

What contorted pretzel logic. Not to mention the huge amount of fail. Current standard, internal-combustion cars are cooled in exactly the same way as Mechs- liquid coolant through the engine carries heat to a radiator (or "heat sink") where it is then transferred to the air. In order for either to be "air-cooled," you've got to remove the radiator/heat sinks and duct air directly into/around the engine, else it's still a liquid-cooled system.

If it actually worked like your fail analogy, a 1976 Lincoln Continental would be nearly impossible to overheat due to its massive surface area- but that surface area doesn't matter since all the cooling is done by a single radiator/heat sink under the hood.

Quote

Then there's no reason such a broad and large mech like Awesome shouldn't benefit from this.

Well, except for the fact that it's liquid-cooled and the Mech's surface area is completely irrelevant to the cooling process, as the only area used for cooling is that of the heat sinks.

NRP, on 03 February 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

Tahribator made an excellent post that gets to the heart of the issue with the Awesome chassis.

With the only problem being that said post was stuffed full of fail.

Edited by Alois Hammer, 04 February 2013 - 01:49 PM.

[Penance]

One Medic Army, on 02 February 2013 - 11:24 PM, said:

If you're going to say that then Dragons should be in the Medium queue.
They have the worst hardpoints (flame aside) of any heavy mechs, are 60tons, and faster than the current 50tonners.

you don't own a 1c.

[One Medic Army]

Penance, on 04 February 2013 - 01:42 PM, said:

you don't own a 1c.

I own 3 Dragons: Flame, 1C, 1N.
All full Elite, I have clocked over 800dmg games in all of them.

I like Dragons, that doesn't mean they're not overgrown medium mechs with terrible hardpoints.

[BerryChunks]

Bishop Steiner, on 04 February 2013 - 06:07 AM, said:

end of the day, all that matters is tonnage. You can be crappy and still be an assault. Go to Sarna.Net and check the Banshee and Charger.

Banshee is meant to do a Charge attack and kill an enemy mech using inertia and smashing into them.

Charger is an assault mech tricked out to be a Scout that's infinitely hard to kill. More linear or simplistic thinkers should imagine the charger being in the light mech category, except just being 80+ tons.

And yes, the irony of the banshee not being named the charger is not lost on me.

[BerryChunks]

Alois Hammer, on 04 February 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

Great idea. And using the same logic, given how they are in combat, we could reclassify the Assault-shredding Lights as "Ultra-Heavy Super-Assault Mechs."

...or we could put this craziness behind us, and stick with classifying them according to their weight.




What contorted pretzel logic. Not to mention the huge amount of fail. Current standard, internal-combustion cars are cooled in exactly the same way as Mechs- liquid coolant through the engine carries heat to a radiator (or "heat sink") where it is then transferred to the air. In order for either to be "air-cooled," you've got to remove the radiator/heat sinks and duct air directly into/around the engine, else it's still a liquid-cooled system.

If it actually worked like your fail analogy, a 1976 Lincoln Continental would be nearly impossible to overheat due to its massive surface area- but that surface area doesn't matter since all the cooling is done by a single radiator/heat sink under the hood.



Well, except for the fact that it's liquid-cooled and the Mech's surface area is completely irrelevant to the cooling process, as the only area used for cooling is that of the heat sinks.



With the only problem being that said post was stuffed full of fail.

... make love to me.

[GalaxyBluestar]

RocketDog, on 04 February 2013 - 03:06 AM, said:

Realistically, the Awesome is inferior to the Stalker in every single significant way. It's advantages (arms) are nowhere near good enough to offset the weaknesses.

However, the Stalker has the most disappointing 3D model in the game. It just looks like a partially-deflated Catapult. It has no flair or charm at all. Worse, the different versions are almost indistinguishable with only minor changes in hardpoints to set them apart. Dull, dull, dull.

In contrast, the Awesome has a great 3D model that oozes character and there really is a big difference between the different types; 8R vs 9M, for instance.

So it comes to this: do you want to just win, or do you want to look stylish, elegant and fashionable? Do you drive a VW or an Alfa Romeo? Would you rather go on holiday to Belgium or France? Would you rather have a date with Angela Merkel or Julie Delpy?

Mechwarrior, as your mouse hovers over those mechs in the mechbay, look into your soul and ask these questions of yourself...

thank you jeremy clarkson.

[Khobai]

They just need to implement a tonnage limit on games. Matching an awesome up against an atlas is terrible matchmaking.

[SpiralRazor]

Kobold, on 03 February 2013 - 01:05 AM, said:

No.



The Awesome was not a second line mech in lore or TT. It is however punished in MWO because it is wide and easily target-able. Further, this is combined with the fact that long range weapons take a hit in a system where there is no random rolling to determine whether you hit, and ROF/heat system that favors smaller, faster firing weapons.

Hopefully this will be somewhat fixed with the Energy Weapons tomorrow.

[NRP]

An Awesome matches up better against Atlases and Stalkers than it does against smaller, faster mechs.