468 replies to this topic

[Nightcrept]

I am finding it a bit frustrating today (now that missiles have been nerfed) to build a heat effective and decent all around build.


I think that pgi and the game would benefit from adding new weapons trees to the game to spice things up a bit.

[blinkin]

Nightcrept, on 26 March 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:

I am finding it a bit frustrating today (now that missiles have been nerfed) to build a heat effective and decent all around build.


I think that pgi and the game would benefit from adding new weapons trees to the game to spice things up a bit.

i think it is a profoundly bad idea to add new mechanics to ones that are broken or unbalanced. we should fix what we have before piling more on top.

[Elyam]

Much of the issue here can be represented by a line with two opposing poles (of course, it's more complex, but this is illustrative of our arguments at hand):

Concept A ) make the best competition multiplayer online game
Concept B ) ensure the game adheres to the established Battletech universe

Where is your opinion on that line? A point balanced precisely in the middle? Or weighted strongly to one side? I believe that as soon as you take on an established property like BT, you must stay close to the center of that line to make the best possible game that appeals to the widest customer base. You can favor pole A absolutely, but why then use well-established 3050-era BT? better at that point to make your own entirely new mecha game, or perhaps build a new age for BT 200 years further ahead where you'll have license to do nearly anything with it. Likewise you can favor pole B absolutely, but risk having too small a customer base, or too rigid an execution, or not being bold enough to take full advantage of the online computing platform and the new ideas and approaches it offers.

To me, keeping the balance somewhere on the middle of that line means this: you don't need to keep the numbers and procedures of TT, but you do need to make the best attempt to deliver the same objects in the same roles and effected by the same established realities that have made BT what it is. Many people have argued that a game like MWO is an opportunity to fix some things that previous incarnations of BT did poorly. I think that's fine, as long as it's measured against both poles of that line above. Make the game great, but make sure it's still 3050 BT.

I still believe everything I said in my earlier post in this thread. I still thank it's the best blueprint. But what matters to me most is the balance described above, which is really a just construct to ensure new ideas get their chance and established successful ones don't get thrown out.

Edited by Elyam, 26 March 2013 - 01:52 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

Nightcrept, on 26 March 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

My father was a BT fan and when I showed him this game his response was "isn't there anything new?".

If MWO would have fallen in line with the MW story line...

Civil War - JadeFalcon vs Wolf
Operation Bulldog
Civil War - FedCom
...it would have been the Jihad era...now.
With all the new toys.

Heavy PPCs, Light PPCs, Snub Noose PPCs, Heavy GaussRifles, Light GaussRifles, Rotary ACs, Light ACs,
Heavy Lasers, ATMs, Streak ATMs, Streak LRMs, HAG

and much more...but the balancing is still not really thrust worthy...how should have it been with those toys?
I can build a Dire Wolf with dual HAG 40 and dual iATM 12...dealing brutal 152dmg at short range.

And it reminds me what is still complete missing in MWO...range brackets.
While you hardly can make a weapon harder to hit or easier to miss at longer ranges you can - reduce its damage - and that should be implemented ASAP.

[Xerxys]

Karl Streiger, on 26 March 2013 - 02:14 PM, said:

If MWO would have fallen in line with the MW story line...

Civil War - JadeFalcon vs Wolf
Operation Bulldog
Civil War - FedCom
...it would have been the Jihad era...now.
With all the new toys.

Heavy PPCs, Light PPCs, Snub Noose PPCs, Heavy GaussRifles, Light GaussRifles, Rotary ACs, Light ACs,
Heavy Lasers, ATMs, Streak ATMs, Streak LRMs, HAG

and much more...but the balancing is still not really thrust worthy...how should have it been with those toys?
I can build a Dire Wolf with dual HAG 40 and dual iATM 12...dealing brutal 152dmg at short range.

And it reminds me what is still complete missing in MWO...range brackets.
While you hardly can make a weapon harder to hit or easier to miss at longer ranges you can - reduce its damage - and that should be implemented ASAP.

I agree, but if they had cut damage and heat generation to 1/3 TT values when they tripled RoF this damage cut wouldn't be as big of an issue. Would it be needed? Perhaps, dunno and probably never will. IMO poor implementation across the board has this kind of stuff completely out of wack.

Edited by Xerxys, 26 March 2013 - 04:39 PM.

[CloaknDagger]

Tombstoner, on 26 March 2013 - 09:41 AM, said:

I have asked the deves for an ac-15 i got nothing. it fits in the weapon tree. I have asked for a ppc-5, an energy version of the ac-5.

The AC-15 is the Gauss Rifle. The PPC-5 is the Light PPC. The Light PPC is outside the game's time period.

[Xerxys]

MustrumRidcully, on 26 March 2013 - 09:56 AM, said:

I wouldn't exaggerate the quality of Battletech's balance. AFAIK, most of the balancing was later done with Battle Value, with some success, but hardly perfect one.

I'd love someone to rewrite Battletech rules to be balanced from the get-go.

I wouldn't exaggerate the quality of what we have working now. You're going to tangents that don't affect heat and firing mechanics as an example of why not to follow the TT. Perhaps BV did make a drastic change to the game, but it's not implemented here. None of this gives an alternative as to how to make a working heat system. I would care less bout re-writes if they were actually done. However, PGI chose this era of BT to base their game off of. Since their are novels, rulebooks, and lore to this particular time period PGI has relinquished the right to change a damned thing. If they had come up with an alternative heat system that accurately depicts how the heat system is supposed to work then I wouldn't be here trying to explain why it's broken in its current incarnation. Also the weapon balance wouldn't need these major adjustments and I wouldn't bother with suggestions of how to correct it. However, the 1st group of closed beta noticed the issue almost immediately, as did the second group, and now all these new people are complaining. This is after PGI went with their vision of heat balance. 3 separate generations of beta testers have told PGI that the heat system is broke, and the obvious conclusion is that PGI just doesn't give a **** or are too stubborn to try anything else.

If PGI wanted to create their own version of a big stompy robot sim, then they should have done so. If they're going to use the MechWarrior name to grab the fanbase then the game should stick to canon unless PGI wants to pick up where novels, lore and rulebooks left off. Then TT goes out the window as well as the some of the lore and canon.

Edited by Xerxys, 26 March 2013 - 05:02 PM.

[CloaknDagger]

Xerxys, on 26 March 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

If PGI wanted to create their own version of a big stompy robot sim, then they should have done so. If they're going to use the MechWarrior name to grab the fanbase then the game should stick to canon unless PGI wants to pick up where novels, lore and rulebooks left off. Then TT goes out the window as well as the some of the lore and canon.

I'm going to note here that currently my thread has over 5k views and hundreds of posts, and is 11 pages long.

Do you think people clicked on my thread just to see what's going on? No, then it would be the same number as the threads below it, which go to about a page at most.

People click on this thread because they KNOW the game is broken. Even the ones that come here to say canon isn't the solution.

[Syllogy]

CloaknDagger, on 26 March 2013 - 05:19 PM, said:

People click on this thread because they KNOW the game is broken. Even the ones that come here to say canon isn't the solution.

I didn't click because the game is broken, the only thing that is broken is the borked up version of reality that thinks that TT translates into a video game.

[CloaknDagger]

Syllogy, on 26 March 2013 - 05:34 PM, said:

I didn't click because the game is broken, the only thing that is broken is the borked up version of reality that thinks that TT translates into a video game.

Oh yeah? Then how does 70% of the game using canon translate to something that's at all playable?

[Syllogy]

CloaknDagger, on 26 March 2013 - 05:37 PM, said:

Oh yeah? Then how does 70% of the game using canon translate to something that's at all playable?

Please rephrase the question....

[Xerxys]

Syllogy, on 26 March 2013 - 05:34 PM, said:

I didn't click because the game is broken, the only thing that is broken is the borked up version of reality that thinks that TT translates into a video game.

Proof? Anything other than an opinion? Please, and in all seriousness, tell me in laymen's terms why this won't work? Can it not be done with code? Has anything proven that it doesn't work? I really want to know because just telling me without any sort of support just leads me to believe this is a supposition or your personal opinion. Not trying to be difficult, but I haven't seen any valid reason as to why it wouldn't work.

Edited by Xerxys, 26 March 2013 - 05:57 PM.

[Syllogy]

Xerxys, on 26 March 2013 - 05:54 PM, said:

Proof? Anything other than an opinion? Please, and in all seriousness, tell me in laymen's terms why this won't work? Can it not be done with code? Has anything proven that it doesn't work? I really want to know because just telling me without any sort of support just leads me to believe this is a supposition or your personal opinion. Not trying to be difficult, but I haven't seen any valid reason as to why it wouldn't work.

TT insinuates that there is a 10 second standard cooldown every time you fire any weapon or group of weapons. How well do you think that would work for you?

TT Armor Values (half of MWO) are weak in a setting where you don't have that 10 second cooldown. That's why Armor Values were doubled in Closed Beta.

Edited by Syllogy, 26 March 2013 - 06:01 PM.

[CloaknDagger]

Syllogy, on 26 March 2013 - 05:59 PM, said:

TT insinuates that there is a 10 second standard cooldown every time you fire any weapon or group of weapons. How well do you think that would work for you?

TT Armor Values (half of MWO) are weak in a setting where you don't have that 10 second cooldown. That's why Armor Values were doubled in Closed Beta.

"Hey guys, I think I broke the game with that 3x Rate of Fire buff?"

"Just increase armor, I'm sure nobody will notice."

Way to go Piranha.

[Xerxys]

Syllogy, on 26 March 2013 - 05:59 PM, said:

TT insinuates that there is a 10 second standard cooldown every time you fire any weapon or group of weapons. How well do you think that would work for you?

TT Armor Values (half of MWO) are weak in a setting where you don't have that 10 second cooldown. That's why Armor Values were doubled in Closed Beta.

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2130925

That's how!

Note: This is pretty much the answer I was expecting, and the fallacy that I'm trying to bring into the light.

Edited by Xerxys, 26 March 2013 - 06:23 PM.

[Syllogy]

CloaknDagger, on 26 March 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

"Hey guys, I think I broke the game with that 3x Rate of Fire buff?"

"Just increase armor, I'm sure nobody will notice."

Way to go Piranha.

So your solution would be to increase the Weapon Cooldown by 3x? ... yeah....

Xerxys, on 26 March 2013 - 06:05 PM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2130925

That's how!

Since Heatsinks are based on Heat / Second, Firing Time between TT and MWO would be equal.... otherwise you would have to triple the current Heat Sink dissipation.

Edited by Syllogy, 26 March 2013 - 06:08 PM.

[CloaknDagger]

Syllogy, on 26 March 2013 - 06:08 PM, said:

So your solution would be to increase the Weapon Cooldown by 3x? ... yeah....

No, my solution would be to keep everything at canon damage per second, heat per second, and ammo per second values.

If you want to increase rate of fire, go ahead, but DPS, HPS, and APS stay the same.

[Syllogy]

CloaknDagger, on 26 March 2013 - 06:10 PM, said:

No, my solution would be to keep everything at canon damage per second, heat per second, and ammo per second values.

If you want to increase rate of fire, go ahead, but DPS, HPS, and APS stay the same.

Please, enlighten me on the DPS of Autocannons in TT. By that, I mean actual DPS that can be performed within a given turn in TT.

Edited by Syllogy, 26 March 2013 - 06:14 PM.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Syllogy, on 26 March 2013 - 05:59 PM, said:

TT insinuates that there is a 10 second standard cooldown every time you fire any weapon or group of weapons. How well do you think that would work for you?

TT Armor Values (half of MWO) are weak in a setting where you don't have that 10 second cooldown. That's why Armor Values were doubled in Closed Beta.

Go to TT armor values, keep the weapon recycle times the way they are, but reduce their damage to TT weapon DPS. The TT AC/20 does 20 damage in a ten second window. The MWO AC/20 does 50 damage in a ten second window, hence the need for the doubled armor values. The TT AC/20 had a DPS of 2, the MWO AC/20 has a DPS of 5. If they dropped to TT armor, change the AC/20 to doing 8 damage a round with the 4.00 second cooldown. That AC/20 now has the same DPS as the TT AC/20.

That might be where a lot people with the "go to TT armor values" are coming from. And I think the previous MW titles did this. However, while I prefer the system above, I'm certain it won't change.

[CloaknDagger]

Syllogy, on 26 March 2013 - 06:12 PM, said:

Please, enlighten me on the DPS of Autocannons in TT.

AC-2 does .2
AC-5 does .5
AC-10 does 1
Gauss does 1.5
AC20 does 2

U/ACs can do double, but if they try them might jam.