Author Topic: Should the devs re-balance between Aeros and Vehicles?  (Read 6973 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline MercenaryMuffin

  • MechWarrior
  • **
  • Posts: 219
  • Karma: 22
  • MechWarrior Luftwaffe
Re: Should the devs re-balance between Aeros and Vehicles?
« Reply #30 on: July 01, 2010, 02:17:06 AM »
What, you think because about half the people want AA vehicles to be more effective, that corresponds to a complete overhaul of the balance between AA and Aeros? A complete overhaul is not going to happen. The devs will continue to tweak the balance as is needed, but you're not going to get things back to 0.2, if that's what your wish is. Aeros are supposed to be a viable, useful asset. Having them get eaten alive by anything that can shoot at the sky is not the answer.
"Mr. Churchill, you're drunk!"
"Indeed I am, madam. And you're ugly. The difference is in the morning I will be sober. You, however, will still be ugly."

SCIENCE!

Offline Virt

  • Star Colonel
  • ****
  • Posts: 1323
  • Karma: 53
Re: Should the devs re-balance between Aeros and Vehicles?
« Reply #31 on: July 01, 2010, 02:46:18 AM »
What, you think because about half the people want AA vehicles to be more effective, that corresponds to a complete overhaul of the balance between AA and Aeros?  A complete overhaul is not going to happen. The devs will continue to tweak the balance as is needed, but you're not going to get things back to 0.2, if that's what your wish is. Aeros are supposed to be a viable, useful asset. Having them get eaten alive by anything that can shoot at the sky is not the answer.

Please show me where in this thread anyone asked for "a complete overhaul"...?    Or "going back to 0.2"...?   Or "having Aeros get eaten by anything that can shoot at the sky"...?    No-one is asking for that.   The poll isn't asking about that, either.   

Rebalancing doesn't need to be some kind of major nerf.   As several people have explicitly said, tweaks are needed.

Your mischaracterising of other people's views as "extreme" isn't helping what has otherwise been an illuminating discussion. 
Creating Kodiak Moments since 1984.

Offline MercenaryMuffin

  • MechWarrior
  • **
  • Posts: 219
  • Karma: 22
  • MechWarrior Luftwaffe
Re: Should the devs re-balance between Aeros and Vehicles?
« Reply #32 on: July 01, 2010, 02:54:05 AM »
Re-balance = complete overhaul. AA and Aeros were re-balanced in 0.3.

Now if you wanted to tweak the balance, or make changes to the balance that didn't change the core gameplay, that would be acceptable. As I said in another topic, I think the real issue people have with AA vs Aero is the lag. Fix the lag, and AA suddenly becomes much more powerful. I don't think there needs to be any major change to AA or Aeros at all. Add some more AA variants, reduce or fix the lag, and it's right back to being perfectly balanced.
"Mr. Churchill, you're drunk!"
"Indeed I am, madam. And you're ugly. The difference is in the morning I will be sober. You, however, will still be ugly."

SCIENCE!

Offline Kade

  • Bondsman
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Karma: 0
Re: Should the devs re-balance between Aeros and Vehicles?
« Reply #33 on: July 01, 2010, 03:15:08 AM »
Its quite clear from everyone in this thread apart from you that Re-balance = the direction in which the tweaks are perceived to be needed to go, if they are needed at all. As Virt has said, no one is seriously advocating a complete overall or a extreme nerf of anything.

Offline Deathbane

  • MWLL Developer
  • Star Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 1925
  • Karma: 118
  • =CJW KHAN= 'Passion in my pants for dead girls'
Re: Should the devs re-balance between Aeros and Vehicles?
« Reply #34 on: July 01, 2010, 03:19:40 AM »
Its quite clear from everyone in this thread apart from you that Re-balance = the direction in which the tweaks are perceived to be needed to go, if they are needed at all. As Virt has said, no one is seriously advocating a complete overall or a extreme nerf of anything.

But its virt though. We all know if it has wings or is smaller than 10 feet, he would rather it simply removed from the game. Thats why its hard taking threads like this at face value, you can feel that under current running beneath it.

Personally i voted for it being fine - people are still playing it like 0.2, expecting autocannons to be the be all and end all at plane killing.

Well guess what kids, its not. Its lasers and lbx nowadays.


"Arguing about battlemechs off the field of battle is like arguing as a spheroid, even if you win, you're still a freebirth!"

'It's too bad they don't have a "Report to Mother button", I bet you'd be slapping that one twenty-four-seven so she'd come dry your tears when your own idiocy leads you to failure in a game on the internet.' - dimachaerus

New idea- would I be able to use an external hard drive to add RAM and/or improve gigahertz?

Offline MercenaryMuffin

  • MechWarrior
  • **
  • Posts: 219
  • Karma: 22
  • MechWarrior Luftwaffe
Re: Should the devs re-balance between Aeros and Vehicles?
« Reply #35 on: July 01, 2010, 06:14:42 AM »
Behold the results of my dedicated Air Asset round just today:


1 and 9. This includes three suicides from exploding on the runway and one from someone colliding with me in mid air.

Two guys brought out Huits, and they completely locked down the sky. I could not make a single decent pass without being shredded by UAC fire.
I was also brought down twice by the LBX20 on a Bushwacker.

SO OVERPOWERED.
"Mr. Churchill, you're drunk!"
"Indeed I am, madam. And you're ugly. The difference is in the morning I will be sober. You, however, will still be ugly."

SCIENCE!

Offline cocoajin

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 70
  • Karma: 1
Re: Should the devs re-balance between Aeros and Vehicles?
« Reply #36 on: July 01, 2010, 06:49:41 AM »
Im not sure anyone of those choices match my concern...mainly because I want reserve my choice until after Ive tried out the LBX5 Partisian (its supposdedly all the AA rave).

Im also willing to entertain the significance of latency or hits not registering.

But my current view is to remove the Shiva from the game until matches/game play can match the scale of operations it was designed for (its too big a fish for a small pond), give the Hawk a dedicated Air2Air interceptor/escort weapons package designed to combat the Sulla.  Make sure the Hawk has significantly/noticeably improved maneuvering over the Sulla.  Make the VTOL and Sulla Close Air support and Strike aircrafts.

Make the AC mounted Huit cheaper...possibly make it hit harder, or give it an AA weapons package suited for downing Sullas without needing to hit it with everything plus the onboard lav.  Im thinking 3 secs of sustained fire worth of damage output (honestly thats too much, but thats the concession that Im personally ok with).

Now that might all loosely fit into :strengthen toward ground vehicles...but its also strengthening the lower tier Aeros toward air2air combat with the higher tier Sullas geared toward hitting ground assets.

Offline MercenaryMuffin

  • MechWarrior
  • **
  • Posts: 219
  • Karma: 22
  • MechWarrior Luftwaffe
Re: Should the devs re-balance between Aeros and Vehicles?
« Reply #37 on: July 01, 2010, 07:21:42 AM »
...you want to remove the Shiva from the game.

"Mr. Churchill, you're drunk!"
"Indeed I am, madam. And you're ugly. The difference is in the morning I will be sober. You, however, will still be ugly."

SCIENCE!

Offline ~SJ~ Atlessa

  • Star Captain
  • ***
  • Posts: 791
  • Karma: 45
Re: Should the devs re-balance between Aeros and Vehicles?
« Reply #38 on: July 01, 2010, 07:33:36 AM »
SO OVERPOWERED.


I apologize in advance but:

NOONE EVER fappING SAID THEY'RE OVERPOWERED! YOU'RE PUTTING LINES IN OTHERS POSTS THAT SIMPLY AREN'T THERE!!!


In soviet clanspace, trinary bids you.

Offline MercenaryMuffin

  • MechWarrior
  • **
  • Posts: 219
  • Karma: 22
  • MechWarrior Luftwaffe
Re: Should the devs re-balance between Aeros and Vehicles?
« Reply #39 on: July 01, 2010, 07:43:46 AM »
Calm down, bro. You sound mad.

The entire point of this topic is about nerfing aeros. It's not just this, it's multiple topics all on the same thing: Aeros being perceived as OP. People can scream or BOLD ITALIC UNDERLINE RED YELL IN UNFATHOMABLE INTERNET RAGE but that doesn't change the fact that that's the ultimate issue behind these kinds of topics.
"Mr. Churchill, you're drunk!"
"Indeed I am, madam. And you're ugly. The difference is in the morning I will be sober. You, however, will still be ugly."

SCIENCE!

Offline cocoajin

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 70
  • Karma: 1
Re: Should the devs re-balance between Aeros and Vehicles?
« Reply #40 on: July 01, 2010, 07:59:53 AM »
...you want to remove the Shiva from the game.


and why did I suggest the removal of the Shiva?

Offline MercenaryMuffin

  • MechWarrior
  • **
  • Posts: 219
  • Karma: 22
  • MechWarrior Luftwaffe
Re: Should the devs re-balance between Aeros and Vehicles?
« Reply #41 on: July 01, 2010, 08:12:48 AM »
Quote
But my current view is to remove the Shiva from the game until matches/game play can match the scale of operations it was designed for (its too big a fish for a small pond),

I disagree entirely. The Shiva, right now, is just fine. It's the air equivalent of an Assault mech. It's the end-game for pilots like myself. In return for having increased firepower and survivability, it's a bigger target. It doesn't move too fast to make lining up shots overly difficult. How is it not a fit for the game as it stands?
"Mr. Churchill, you're drunk!"
"Indeed I am, madam. And you're ugly. The difference is in the morning I will be sober. You, however, will still be ugly."

SCIENCE!

Offline cocoajin

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 70
  • Karma: 1
Re: Should the devs re-balance between Aeros and Vehicles?
« Reply #42 on: July 01, 2010, 08:38:01 AM »
Quote
But my current view is to remove the Shiva from the game until matches/game play can match the scale of operations it was designed for (its too big a fish for a small pond),

I disagree entirely. The Shiva, right now, is just fine. It's the air equivalent of an Assault mech. It's the end-game for pilots like myself. In return for having increased firepower and survivability, it's a bigger target. It doesn't move too fast to make lining up shots overly difficult. How is it not a fit for the game as it stands?

Thank you...

In my opnion, its to heavy a aircraft for such a small battleground.  There are not the needed player resources (mailiny suitable AA assets), the scale or the time invested per sortie to justify the amount of damage they deliver and the amount of AA damage they can absorb.

They seem to be designed more toward strategic targets(for which their are none in game)...warships/drop ships.  They are the heavy strike aircraft that strike fleet assets, bases, etc...where they are fast and nimble compared to the large, immobile/stationary targets they engage.  But would be chewed alive by lighter fighters/interceptors(Sullas and Hawks)...hence teh need for their own escort of Sulla and hawk types aeros.   That they would surgically strike targets after they have been soften, or by using well planned surprise strikes...but no where near the frequency in which they run sorties in game.

The Shiva seems to equated to a Strategic/Heavy Attack Bomber...these combat types dont go in alone and they go in after the area has been "prepped".  But we cant even muster the defense to deter the Shiva from operating over our small battle area, there is no "prepping" to be done in order to "earn" one side's access to the battlefield, nor are there enough player resources to muster to properly counter the Shiva in order to push them off the battlefield, while still remaining viable against the main Mech threat.

No fighter CAP over the battlefield is effective enough to prevent the Shiva from tanking/lasting long enough to deliver its load and still likly return back to base for repair and reload.  There is no open area ti intercept these heavy threats before they reach the battlefield, they all launch from the frontline, instead of from the rear.

It just feels out of place...too big a fish in a small pond, a battleship attacker, with no battleships.

My experience is that it takes much too many rounds to down a Shiva, even in a Huit.  My shot is good, the AA assets are too small for this big bruiser and/or the Shiva is too big a player in our little battlefield.

Im willing to consider that latency may be dropping some of my shots, but honestly, my system performance is execellent in game, so I doubt its an issue...in the meantime, I have to go by what I see until I get a strong suggestion of it being something else.

I still need to try out the LBX Partisain, but Ive yet to get the opportunity in the last couple of days...though I doubt a 600m round will get the job done against anything except an aero on a close attack run directly at me.  But that defeats the point of acting as a team oriented, area defense against Aeros.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2010, 08:58:44 AM by cocoajin »

Offline MercenaryMuffin

  • MechWarrior
  • **
  • Posts: 219
  • Karma: 22
  • MechWarrior Luftwaffe
Re: Should the devs re-balance between Aeros and Vehicles?
« Reply #43 on: July 01, 2010, 08:50:38 AM »
Quote
Thanks

In my opnion, its to heavy a aircraft for such a small battleground.  There are not the needed player resources (mailiny suitable AA assets), the scale or the time invested per sortie to justify the amount of damage they deliver and the amount of AA damage they can absorb.

They seem to be designed more toward strategic targets(for which their are none in game)...warships/drop ships.  They are the heavy strike aircraft that strike fleet assets, bases, etc...where they are fast and nimble compared to the large, immobile/stationary targets they engage.  But would be chewed alive by lighter fighters/interceptors(Sullas and Hawks)...hence teh need for their own escort of Sulla and hawk types aeros.   That they would surgically strike targets after they have been soften, or by using well planned surprise strikes...but no where near the frequency in which they run sorties in game.

The Shiva seems to equated to a Strategic/Heavy Attack Bomber...these combat types dont go in alone and they go in after the area has been "prepped".  But we cant even muster the defense to deter the Shiva from operating over our small battle area, there is no "prepping" to be done in order to "earn" one side's access to the battlefield, nor are there enough player resources to muster to properly counter the Shiva in order to push them off the battlefield, while still remaining viable against the main Mech threat.

No fighter CAP over the battlefield is effective enough to prevent the Shiva from tanking/lasting long enough to deliver its load and still likly return back to base for repair and reload.  There is no open area ti intercept these heavy threats before they reach the battlefield, they all launch from the frontline, instead of from the rear.

It just feels out of place...too big a fish in a small pond, a battleship attacker, with no battleships.

I feel that the Shiva is not delivering too much damage per sortie. In fact, unless you've got an FBomb Shiva (and good luck unless your Khan), it's going to take you multiple passes on an enemy to bring it down, even with the harder hitting variants like twin HGauss. And after your first pass, you WILL be shot at by everyone in the area who can point a weapon in your direction.

While in CBT lore the Shiva may be designed as to take out very large assets, this by no means should remove it from MWLL. We need an end-game Aero. One that hits hard and takes good damage. That's what we have. As I said before, it makes a compromise in target size and speed, in return for more firepower and armor.
Leer has stated that the team is working on dedicated AA vehicles, so they're on the way. Even without them, though, the Shiva is pretty easy to kill. Huit Prime tears up aeros.

Besides, if we're going to talk about frequency of asset deployment, then why is an Atlas no more than two minutes from a base at all times? You have to drop in-world realism in favor of gameplay.
Perhaps more than anything, I like the feel of the Shiva. It's large, it's not as maneuverable as a Sulla, and it just feels like you're in a big, strong ground-attack plane. It's the A-10 of the future.

As for flight time, if you're going to remove Shivas because the flight time from base to target is short, then you must also remove Sparrowhawks and Sullas. They go faster, so they're out on the field before the Shivas. However...unless maps suddenly become massive, it's not going to happen.

I think the best parallel to MWLL is Battlefield 2. BF2 also has jets, and they're just as fast, if not faster than the air assets we get. Yet they still manage to be a viable asset. They were never more than a few seconds from base either, but they didn't ruin the game.
"Mr. Churchill, you're drunk!"
"Indeed I am, madam. And you're ugly. The difference is in the morning I will be sober. You, however, will still be ugly."

SCIENCE!

Offline cocoajin

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 70
  • Karma: 1
Re: Should the devs re-balance between Aeros and Vehicles?
« Reply #44 on: July 01, 2010, 09:35:11 AM »
Quote
Thanks

In my opnion, its to heavy a aircraft for such a small battleground.  There are not the needed player resources (mailiny suitable AA assets), the scale or the time invested per sortie to justify the amount of damage they deliver and the amount of AA damage they can absorb.

They seem to be designed more toward strategic targets(for which their are none in game)...warships/drop ships.  They are the heavy strike aircraft that strike fleet assets, bases, etc...where they are fast and nimble compared to the large, immobile/stationary targets they engage.  But would be chewed alive by lighter fighters/interceptors(Sullas and Hawks)...hence teh need for their own escort of Sulla and hawk types aeros.   That they would surgically strike targets after they have been soften, or by using well planned surprise strikes...but no where near the frequency in which they run sorties in game.

The Shiva seems to equated to a Strategic/Heavy Attack Bomber...these combat types dont go in alone and they go in after the area has been "prepped".  But we cant even muster the defense to deter the Shiva from operating over our small battle area, there is no "prepping" to be done in order to "earn" one side's access to the battlefield, nor are there enough player resources to muster to properly counter the Shiva in order to push them off the battlefield, while still remaining viable against the main Mech threat.

No fighter CAP over the battlefield is effective enough to prevent the Shiva from tanking/lasting long enough to deliver its load and still likly return back to base for repair and reload.  There is no open area ti intercept these heavy threats before they reach the battlefield, they all launch from the frontline, instead of from the rear.

It just feels out of place...too big a fish in a small pond, a battleship attacker, with no battleships.

I feel that the Shiva is not delivering too much damage per sortie. In fact, unless you've got an FBomb Shiva (and good luck unless your Khan), it's going to take you multiple passes on an enemy to bring it down, even with the harder hitting variants like twin HGauss. And after your first pass, you WILL be shot at by everyone in the area who can point a weapon in your direction.

While in CBT lore the Shiva may be designed as to take out very large assets, this by no means should remove it from MWLL. We need an end-game Aero. One that hits hard and takes good damage. That's what we have. As I said before, it makes a compromise in target size and speed, in return for more firepower and armor.
Leer has stated that the team is working on dedicated AA vehicles, so they're on the way. Even without them, though, the Shiva is pretty easy to kill. Huit Prime tears up aeros.

Besides, if we're going to talk about frequency of asset deployment, then why is an Atlas no more than two minutes from a base at all times? You have to drop in-world realism in favor of gameplay.
Perhaps more than anything, I like the feel of the Shiva. It's large, it's not as maneuverable as a Sulla, and it just feels like you're in a big, strong ground-attack plane. It's the A-10 of the future.

As for flight time, if you're going to remove Shivas because the flight time from base to target is short, then you must also remove Sparrowhawks and Sullas. They go faster, so they're out on the field before the Shivas. However...unless maps suddenly become massive, it's not going to happen.

I think the best parallel to MWLL is Battlefield 2. BF2 also has jets, and they're just as fast, if not faster than the air assets we get. Yet they still manage to be a viable asset. They were never more than a few seconds from base either, but they didn't ruin the game.


Mechs are the prime asset in the game, they are also front line assets, so it makes sense for them to have such a short time to battle. 

Shivas, in my opnion, should not be...the frontline aeros would seem to be best filled by the VTOLs, the Sulla(acting as your end-game tactical, Close air support asset) and the Hawk as the light ground attack or interceptor/escort for the Sulla and VTOLs.

The Sulla can more than fill the "A10" type role on the battleshield, while the VTOLs are your attack helos, Hawks as your multi-role F16 or F15 through variants.

The Shiva is more like a B52/B2/B1 type asset...these are assets that require a much larger strategic network and coordination to defend against than our little tactical battlefield can muster.   The Shiva is a threat that Command And Control Centers are tasked to deal with, to track, to coordinate, to scramble and vector assets toward in order to engage these threats before they even reach the battlefield...resources and operations that we are more than woefully inadequate to perform, but are totally lacking the means at the most elementary level.

Hawks, Sullas and the VTOLs are a better fit due to their ratio of time invested per sortie to damage given or damage required to be killed, is much more reasonable...mainly due to the fact that they deal much less total attack damage, absorb a lot less damage to be killed.  While their time enroute to target or per sortie are all pretty similar...the battlefield is too small for thier speed differences to matter...but the difference between their damage dealt or absorb is much greater between them.

Better AA would help, but it would remove the fact that the Shiva is still out of place in this battlefield,in its current incarnation.

I understand the desire for a kick ass end-game Aero...but the benefit, the defining attribute of an aircraft is its speed and agility...to be used to deliver ordnance on targets difficult to reach as a ground unit, and to avoid getting hit in the process.  Tanking an aircraft skews the strengths of the aircraft too much in its favor.  End game should provide the choice of a more difficult to kill light hitter and another aircraft thats a heavy hitting but much more vulnerable(less agile and possibly slower) choice.

Right not, the Shiva is all asset, with little to no liabilities...its too uber.