Inherent Weight Advantages - A Discussion.

Topic derailed a Firestarter build thread so I have moved the conversation here for continued debate.

 

continuing the analogy. What if your pocket can only fit the small phone? Do you make room in your bag for the large phone? what if someone took your phone and placed it on a block and used it for target practice, which would have a better chance of survival, the small phone or the large phone? which would have a larger impact to the team if it was lost?

 

Err ... What?

 

Modo fail

http://www.mechspecs.com/threads/fs9-a-micro-psycho-8x-splaser-1x-jj-xl295.4787/page-4#post-58120

 

The problem is the meta mechs don't have much relevant disadvantage compared to nonmeta.

Part of it, IMO is that armor is too low for sustained damage (a few lasers and a lot of heat sinks) to overtake burst damage (a lot of lasers).

 

er, yeah I had originally intended to actually MOVE the posts, but some were still related to the FS9 build so I did not do that. Thanks for quoting the relevant conversation, I had something come up. Bad timing

 

The tonnage argument is invalid without "weighing" it against the speed and maneuverability argument.

I think 12 timber wolves could beat 12 Atlas. But could 12 embers beat 12 Atlas? I think that's when the weight starts beating out the speed.

An Oxide can easily 1v1 a dire wolf caught in the open.

As far as meta, every game will always have it because there's always going to be a particular class, weapon, chassis that has an edge and that's what you're expected to win in serious play like tournament.

It's unfortunate to those of us who like our Dragons, Wangs, locusts, commandos, hunchbacks etc...

Quirks help a lot but they don't change hit boxes and weapon payload:speed ratios etc.

In fact that's probably the best formula for a mech's effectiveness not including hit boxes and how high the weapons are.

I'm sure there could be a fighting effectiveness formula for a chassis based on tonnage > payload (max armor by default) with speed as modifier.

 

Then there is also the hitbox, mech size/profile, hardpoint locations, etc to be added to that comparison.

The major problem is for a mech like the Locust compared to a Jenner is that everything was based on TT (Table Top) values. The Jenner can almost run as fast as a Locust (152 vs 169) and is only slightly larger, but has a lot more firepower and jump-jets. That's an 11% difference in speed, but the Jenner is more than 11% more effective if you compared your stats in both mechs. In TT, the locust was MUCH harder to hit by simply introducing an additional, constant modifier to your opponent's hit rolls. In MWO there is no significant difference in speed to equal the difference in TT. a +1 modifier in TT could mean the difference of a slim chance to a ZERO chance to hit a mech. In MWO you ALWAYS have the chance to hit a mech within range. Not to mention the random element is removed.

Based on this, the weight difference between a Locust and a Jenner requires a serious element to be introduced. IMO, the Locust and Commando need a serious structure buff and speed difference from the heavier light mechs. Now we run into another problem between TT and a game engine: TT doesn't have speed restrictions it must follow, the game engine can only handle so much in terms of hit registration and playability of fast mechs. Hopefully this will change in the future and mechs like the locust and commando will get an edge on the battlefield. Even at the cost of hit-registration, I think they should be sped up regardless. The difficulty to hit them is justified by their disadvantages.

 

The comments about size were relating to the Commando vs Firestarter. There is simply no way to make a TDK as good as FS9-A. Yes, it will be slightly faster, but you can double the firepower in the FS9. If you downgrade firepower, you can add efficiency or jump jets compared to a TDK build.

Similar problems exist for mechs with less hardpoints.

Part of the issue is things are different than TT, even if they follow TT rules. You choose where to aim, making pinpoint damage even deadlier. Cost matters in how long it takes you to earn a mech, but not in how much the mech affects your group makeup.

Overall, the problem is that mechs that are low "battle value" are just that. They are 1 of 12, and they ARE low value for your team.

Something needs to happen to bring the other mechs up. Quirks and heat scale helped, but honestly giving everyone more health and ammo would have made sustained DPS better, effectively nerfed burst DPS, which would mean a lot more than the complex behind the scenes stuff they've done so far.

 

It seems silly to me that PGI can gather information and advice from competitive players to assign a "Tier" to each mech, but they won't add a Battle Value system that takes into account the mech and the equipment used. Very hypocritical. A Battle Value system would go a long way toward new features. Perhaps a MM system that took these Battle Values into account instead of just weight class and weight matching. Would also open up the possibilities of BV restrictions for your dropship in CW and tournaments.

Personally I don't believe all mechs should be on equal footing in terms of Battle Value, but there currently isn't a benefit for running a mech with low Battle Value. You don't earn more income and you don't receive any benefits. Adding incentives for lower BV might help. Perhaps your CBills earned are based on your BV. For example a Locust would earn more Cbills per damage than a Firestarter. This doesn't balance the mechs in a 1v1 scenario, but like I said: it's not needed. The Locust pilot knows he is at a disadvantage, but he chooses to pilot for the opportunity to make more CBills.

 

I WANT to drive commandos, locusts, dragons etc. I like to be the underdog! In fact before the quirks, I was pretty confident in my COM-3A and I liked its niche, the drive-by-shooter. Take the commando, its biggest advantage is that is has very appealing hit boxes and the cornering speed is just insane. But in the current meta this is just not valid anymore because you have thunderwubs, fs9-a and the splatcrows, and every one of those mechs will melt you in the blink of an eye: The commando's advantages have been nullified by the current balancing of the game.

At some point I've decided that I'm fed up with getting facestomped all the time, that was when I re-bought the firestarters and suddenly I was the one stomping other mechs. It's glorious but also very bad for the game.

I suggest introducing a BV system and I cannot stress enough how important it is so ignore that TT game and treat MWO as what it is, a slow-paced tactical shooter.

The Quirks are showing us what happens if you buff instead of nerf, and even if according to Russ the time-to-kill did NOT drop significantly, I think I'm mentally sane enough to recognize a very strong jump in difficulty.

Back to the topic:

As Skribs said, you NEED to have a reason to choose a COM over a FS. Whatever that is, it can't just be nostalgy or a personal emotional choice ("The commando looks so CUTE ").

 

I like that. It goes in line with my philosophy about X and Y hat there are 2 general parameters you can look at: capabilities and cost. By "cost" in this case I mean what it costs you and your team to have X over Y or vice versa. In the case of running a solo drop, the cost of having a FS9-A over a Commando is...uh...there is no difference. You have no penalty in terms of value, and the capabilitues are far superior.

If their capabilities were comparable (but different) or their value were different, it would be better.

I realize the builds might cost more CBills, but there is no difference once you are in the fight. It's not like an MMO where the good equipment also requires luck or time to find, it's a simple grind.

 

Auriel, there shouldn't be mechs that you choose just for a challenge. Considering how my W/L ratio changes depending on whether or not I'm running a meta build, you are essentially giving 11 players on your team a greater chance to lose if you don't run meta. That's the big issue for me.

You are right on TTL. If TTL were higher, bursty builds would be good for torso twisting while sustained builds would be better dps, and there would be good reasons to go with both.

 

They should have advantages and disadvantages. Not 11% advantage and 50% disadvatage, but something more even.

Otherwise, what is the point of having them?

 

That's the issue though, you cannot, CANNOT balance them on any number scale. It's impossible.

 

light mechs...

1) fast strikers that speed-tank and use their mobility to fire without getting hit in return. Nastly little harassers that WILL kill you if you ignore them. This is IMHO the strong part and actually this contraditcs the TT and that is a GOOD thing
2) ECM snipers. Yeah this is controversial but I think ERLL Ravens are fine and have value!
3) ?
Scouting... well yeah, uh, no.. hm, yeah, well. uh..
mobile targeting platform for LRM boats? Psssh come on that's just silly. I don't have fun when I do that.

Medium mechs...

1) Jack of all trades, master of none / few
2) actually good LRM boats

Heavies & assaults are the fire support & front line breakers

So yeah, if a light cannot put a Heavy in danger, something is fishy in a shooter. Take the Timberwolf. its torso twist is so insane that it can even track commandos. That's just silly, much more silly than a locust killing an atlas. I mean come on.

 

I know this won't go anymore but I suggest a TT / novel quirk system about the type of engine, hip actuator quirk, a ruggedness quirk, something. Like how each part on TT mech lists the manufacturer.

What I mean is say a dragon's rugged XL design allows it to function like a clan mech's if a side torso is taken out.

The endo steel structure used to build the Commando is extra strong and gives the mech equal internal structure to a 35 ton mech.

The hitboxes could be tweaked where say only a particular section of the Locust's side torso counts as hitting the side torso and most of it is actually counted as arm (even if arm is destroyed).

Same thing with legs like only the knee up counts as leg hit or feet.

Edit: could even go so far as to say mechs that go faster than 160 kph randomly lose any computer locks they have on them since they're so small and fast like radar deprivation / ecm without cover as long as you stay above 160.

Imagine trying to shoot a Locust or TDK that you randomly lost lock every couple seconds and took a hell of a time trying to streak it. 360 and target retention wouldn't work either on them.