59 replies to this topic

[Training Instructor]

If they want to balance it, they need to adjust weapon convergence to prevent weapons in different hardlocked locations, such as torsos or arms without lower/upper actuators, from being able to hit the same location when fired as a massive alpha.

EX: Stalker with 2xPPC in it's Left Arm. Both ppcs logically hit the same location. Stalker with 2xPPC in left arm and 2xPPC in right arm. 2 ppcs from the left arm hit one location on the appropriate side of the enemy target, the 2 ppcs from the right arm hit a location somewhere on the enemy mech equal to the distance between the right and left arms of the stalker. Same with AC20 k2/Jags. Crazy and physically impossible weapon convergence is what unbalances things right now.

[Mackman]

Training Instructor, on 02 April 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

If they want to balance it, they need to adjust weapon convergence to prevent weapons in different hardlocked locations, such as torsos or arms without lower/upper actuators, from being able to hit the same location when fired as a massive alpha.

EX: Stalker with 2xPPC in it's Left Arm. Both ppcs logically hit the same location. Stalker with 2xPPC in left arm and 2xPPC in right arm. 2 ppcs from the left arm hit one location on the appropriate side of the enemy target, the 2 ppcs from the right arm hit a location somewhere on the enemy mech equal to the distance between the right and left arms of the stalker. Same with AC20 k2/Jags. Crazy and physically impossible weapon convergence is what unbalances things right now.

Man, you're right, it is physically impossible for two things fired from different locations to hit the same place...

Seriously, dude? You're going with "physically impossible" to describe the (relatively) simple process by which a computer would measure distance and, via motorized compartments. make tiny adjustments to the angle of the weaponry on the mech?

[stjobe]

[xhrit]

Mackman, on 02 April 2013 - 02:36 PM, said:

There should be multiple light mechs who can be equally effective at doing what lights do

Yes, there should be. The only thing that is preventing this from happening, is the stupid hardpoint system invented by Micro$oft for Mechwarrior 4.

In mechwarrior 2 there was literally no difference between a jenner and a raven, except cosmetic ones.

In mechwarrior online, the raven 3-L is hands down better then every jenner, because someone decided to ignore the perfectly balanced tabletop customization rules in favor of a system that forces massive inequities between mechs and variants.

Edited by xhrit, 02 April 2013 - 03:33 PM.

[Noth]

xhrit, on 02 April 2013 - 03:32 PM, said:

Yes, there should be. The only thing that is preventing this from happening, is the stupid hardpoint system invented by Micro$oft for Mechwarrior 4.

In mechwarrior 2 there was literally no difference between a jenner and a raven, except cosmetic ones.

In mechwarrior online, the raven 3-L is hands down better then every jenner, because someone decided to ignore the perfectly balanced tabletop customization rules in favor of a system that forces massive inequities between mechs and variants.

At that point there is no reason to have different mechs. Just have a shell at each weight. Right now what is stopping it in the light bracket is the ECM.

[xhrit]

Ialti, on 02 April 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

Video games, believe it or not, aren't 'real life actual combat.' And 'real life actual combat' is not a 'genre of game.' Hate to burst your bubble, but there it is.

Virtual Battlespace 2 would like to disagree.

VBS2 offers realistic battlefield simulations and the ability to operate land, sea, and air vehicles. Instructors may create new scenarios and then engage the simulation from multiple viewpoints. The squad-management system enables participants to issue orders to squad members.
VBS2 was designed for federal, state, and local government agencies and can be specifically tailored to meet the individual needs of military, law enforcement, homeland defense, loadmaster, and first responder training environments.
VBS2 may be used to teach doctrine, tactics, techniques, and procedures during squad and platoon offensive, defensive, and patrolling operations. VBS2 delivers a synthetic environment for the practical exercise of the leadership and organizational behavior skills required to successfully execute unit missions.
VBS2 is suitable for training small teams in urban tactics, entire combat teams in combined arms operations or even non-military usage such as emergency response procedures in lethal and non-lethal environments or terrain visualization.

Armed Assault is the commercial version of VBS2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VBS2

Edited by xhrit, 02 April 2013 - 03:36 PM.

[xhrit]

Noth, on 02 April 2013 - 03:34 PM, said:

At that point there is no reason to have different mechs. Just have a shell at each weight. Right now what is stopping it in the light bracket is the ECM.

Exactly, at that point each mech is perfectly balanced with every other mech it's weight. The only difference would be personal cosmetic preference.

TT customization rules = all mechs are balanced.

TT customization rules + MW4 hardpoints = all mechs are not balanced.

[Belorion]

PappySmurf, on 02 April 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

Im just sick of all the excuses why MWO is not fun like the older PC MechWarrior games were in fact MechAssault and MechAssault2 were much funer games also. Admit it Russ and Brian just went down the dark evil path of a shallow F2Play game platform that was just not right for the Battletech/MechWarrior IP.And just now know it and are trying to recover with CW.If CW becomes complex content rich stable and with tactics and fun involved MWO might just prove to be a MechWarrior game if not.=the MechWarrior community will be=

MWO is way more fun than the older games.

[Noth]

xhrit, on 02 April 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

Exactly, at that point each mech is perfectly balanced with every other mech it's weight. The only difference would be personal cosmetic preference.

TT customization rules = all mechs are balanced.

TT customization rules + MW4 hardpoints = all mechs are not balanced.

They still would not be balanced. Those with the best hitboxes would be used far more often. Smaller mechs in each weight class would fall into disuse (just like now). They actually would not be balanced.

[Noobzorz]

Haroldwolf, on 02 April 2013 - 07:33 AM, said:

I constantly hear talk about balancing MWO. Balance?... we don’t need no sticking balance . The game has been play tested and balanced for over 20 years. There have been 3 games MW2, MW3 and MW4 that got mech designs and weapons nailed.

I don’t know why Piranha is having problems. I’m guessing, but at least some of it is the interaction of two objects, that is a weapon and the mech. The “To Hit” and “Damage” tables from the source books are pretty clear, but may be giving the devs coding issues or maybe the underlying game architecture is flawed. But balancing mech designs and weapon functionality isn’t the solution.

There are obvious game politics and finance issues at work here. Piranha and the publisher want to make money. When enough people whine and scream OP it looks like Piranha responds to keep the base happy. There are probably an equal number of people who were looking for an online game that is equivalent to MW2 or MW4 and are frustrated that MWO is missing the mark.

Bottom line… Stop balancing the game by tweaking mechs and weapons. Code them based on the volumes of source material that is published. Admit you’ve got some issues and we will be supportive. Otherwise you will lose players.

This strategy will guarantee a ****** game that does not play well and that people do not want to play.

Tweaking mechs and weapons is a no brainer, and the only real crime is that they aren't doing nearly enough of it.

[Wildstreak]

xhrit, on 02 April 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

Halo multiplayer is balanced by allowing the same equipment options for every character - THE SAME AS MECHWARRIOR.

Uh, no?

Different Mechs carry different equipment.

A light cannot carry a AC/20 normally without some massive trade off while bigger Mechs can use it. I think you know where this is going.
Not all Mechs use all 3 hardpoint types.
Bigger Mechs wind up boating stuff like 6PPC Stalkers, 5LRM20 boats, etc.

Not the same as Halo where everyone is an average human and can use anything.

The Halo or similar equivalent in MWO would be to pick 1 Mech and make everyone play that and no other.

So part of MWO balance regarding Mech types is different than a lot of other shooters.

[El Bandito]

Haroldwolf, on 02 April 2013 - 07:33 AM, said:

I constantly hear talk about balancing MWO. Balance?... we don’t need no sticking balance . The game has been play tested and balanced for over 20 years. There have been 3 games MW2, MW3 and MW4 that got mech designs and weapons nailed. I don’t know why Piranha is having problems. I’m guessing, but at least some of it is the interaction of two objects, that is a weapon and the mech. The “To Hit” and “Damage” tables from the source books are pretty clear, but may be giving the devs coding issues or maybe the underlying game architecture is flawed. But balancing mech designs and weapon functionality isn’t the solution. There are obvious game politics and finance issues at work here. Piranha and the publisher want to make money. When enough people whine and scream OP it looks like Piranha responds to keep the base happy. There are probably an equal number of people who were looking for an online game that is equivalent to MW2 or MW4 and are frustrated that MWO is missing the mark. Bottom line… Stop balancing the game by tweaking mechs and weapons. Code them based on the volumes of source material that is published. Admit you’ve got some issues and we will be supportive. Otherwise you will lose players.

Mere 5 shots per ton for AC20? No thank you. Face it, Ballistics were horrible choice for MW2 and 3.

Even my Annihilator in MW3 had 3 ERPPCs and 7 MPLs.


Same with mere 7 shots for Gauss per ton.

Edited by El Bandito, 02 April 2013 - 09:40 PM.

[verybad]

Haroldwolf, on 02 April 2013 - 07:33 AM, said:

Bottom line… Stop balancing the game by tweaking mechs and weapons. Code them based on the volumes of source material that is published. Admit you’ve got some issues and we will be supportive. Otherwise you will lose players.

AHAHAHHAA

Good one, but it's not April Fools any longer!

Seriously, TT is anything but balanced.

Edited by verybad, 02 April 2013 - 09:55 PM.

[boomboom517]

Joseph Mallan, on 02 April 2013 - 07:49 AM, said:

I hear you Harold, but I do have to agree with the many. Most people don't want to play a combat game that will be over in less than 2 minutes(10 turns=100 seconds). So from the get go we have to change the game mechanics so battles are not over in such stunning fashion. After that, it becomes a challenge of how to make it work in a more drawn out fashion. ie balanced.

i do canon is all that matters it breeds good story

[Noth]

boomboom517, on 02 April 2013 - 10:05 PM, said:

i do canon is all that matters it breeds good story

It breeds good story, but not good gameplay in a non turn base genre.

[Training Instructor]

Mackman, on 02 April 2013 - 02:45 PM, said:

Man, you're right, it is physically impossible for two things fired from different locations to hit the same place...

Seriously, dude? You're going with "physically impossible" to describe the (relatively) simple process by which a computer would measure distance and, via motorized compartments. make tiny adjustments to the angle of the weaponry on the mech?

Please show me the part in battletech lore where the computer twists weapons that are mounted in hardlocked slots. Please explain how a Stalker or Jagermech that cannot twist it's arms side to side can do pinpoint convergence on targets at short distance. The kind of convergence shots you can currently make don't require tiny adjustments, they would require the weapons to be bending sideways in many cases.

Thanks for playing though.

[xhrit]

Merchant, on 02 April 2013 - 09:27 PM, said:

Uh, no?

Different Mechs carry different equipment.

A light cannot carry a AC/20 normally without some massive trade off while bigger Mechs can use it. I think you know where this is going.
Not all Mechs use all 3 hardpoint types.
Bigger Mechs wind up boating stuff like 6PPC Stalkers, 5LRM20 boats, etc.

Not the same as Halo where everyone is an average human and can use anything.

The Halo or similar equivalent in MWO would be to pick 1 Mech and make everyone play that and no other.

So part of MWO balance regarding Mech types is different than a lot of other shooters.

Umm, yes, because everyone has the same mech selection options.

Everyone starts the same in Mechwarrior. As a mechwarrior, without a mech. It is the user's decision from that point on what they should do with the freedom.

All builds should not be balanced against each other - because players can choose to do things like not equip any weapons on their mech.

How do you balance a spider with nothing but a TAG against a mech made by someone with some common sense? You don't.

Just because someone chose a worthless gimp build does not mean the game is not balanced. In Halo, someone can chose to not pick up a more powerful weapon. The choice is there, the game is balanced. If the users chose not to use the options given to them, it does not make the game any less balanced.

Edited by xhrit, 02 April 2013 - 11:27 PM.

[Mousehold]

Vassago Rain, on 02 April 2013 - 08:08 AM, said:

Battletech is one of the least balanced, thought-out game systems available. It's a relic of the 80s, and it shows in both the rules and figures.

You, sir, are my new favorite friend. Thank you for saying this.

But most posters in this thread don't seem to really understand what balance is. This game is balanced because all players have access to all of the equipment in the game. There's actually no argument that you can make that the game is imbalanced at this time.

The real complaint is that not all of the content is useful, let alone equally valuable.

"Balanced" game design does not mean that everything must be equally valuable, and chasing the goal of equal value as a game designer is really a pipe dream. The key is to make all of the content useful, such that there is some situation in which using it is the best choice.

Right now, however, there are not only weapons but entire mechs that you should never use if you are playing to win. That is not "imbalanced" per se, but it is very dissatisfying to players when the majority of choices they are offered are always losing choices.

Unfortunately they decided to use the rules of a 1980s junker as the basis of their game, which is quite frankly the worst first design decision they could have made. The entire Battletech Universe needs to a hard reboot, including a rewrite of a great deal of its lore which, by today's standards, actually starts to seem kind of racist. But that's a whole 'nother thread...

Edited by Mousehold, 02 April 2013 - 11:53 PM.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

Vassago Rain, on 02 April 2013 - 08:08 AM, said:

Battletech is one of the least balanced, thought-out game systems available. It's a relic of the 80s, and it shows in both the rules and figures.

But Vass, what about all those people who want Clan to be ultra-uber-super OP? Clearly common sense says we need them to remain God-Mode!


//why are you becoming sensible?! You're becoming less and less of the guy I love to hate on. Or maybe I am becoming more and more crazy...

[Haroldwolf]

There is a big difference between weapons and mech balance and game play balance. Right now we don't have either and all we get from PGI is tweaks to how much damage a LRM or SRM missile does. We know how much it does any time you pick up a Catalyst Game Labs source book. All the game is now is one giant proving ground for the mech you built in the lab.

What we need is a effort at game play balance. Where is the mythical Community Warfare? How about modes other than "whack-a-mech"? Conquest almost always comes down to killing the other team.

Edited by Haroldwolf, 04 April 2013 - 10:51 AM.