82 replies to this topic

[Victor Morson]

A lot of the time I feel like I'm screaming at the avoid, arguing things here endlessly with very people looking at outcomes.

I recently went digging around in my old posts. Frankly, this was for another thread, but some of the stuff.. it's pretty much spot on. So, this entire thread is dedicated to "I told you so" posts: If you have a post from 2012 basically explaining EXACTLY what will happen now, add it in.

If anything, I'm hoping this thread might lend a little credibility to those that have been preaching this since before beta even started!

So let's get started with what now makes me feel like I have the curse of Cassandra, specific to BattleTech:

http://mwomercs.com/...mechs-relevant/

Quote

Now, this is where my concern comes into play. The Stalker, for example, has a bunch of medium lasers on it plus a bunch of missiles. The end result is the Stalker is capable of arming, easily, the 3-4 PPCs the Awesome does, plus it has 5 more tons to deal with. The Stalker has in effect rendered the Awesome entirely outdated by having the ability to field the exact same weapons package, plus wildly different ones (the slew of missile slots); it's more way more flexible with little to no drawback.

Quote

The concern isn't that you would take the Stalker and add PPCs to it's impressive armament, but rather, that you would take all the guns off the Stalker and effectively turn it into a 5 ton heavier Awesome, with similar specs and the added bonus that if you so decided, you could turn it into a missile boat or any combination thereof - while the Awesome is stuck simply less hard points.

There'd be no reason to purchase an Awesome if this is the case, because the Stalker can do everything it can - and more, depending on how you modify it.

--

Again the issue really isn't just Stalker vs Awesome. I like the Awesome, but I'm not here to defend it; rather the point that once some more 'mechs have been added to the game, they will cancel each other out in a lot of ways or render one of them simply inferior.

Lots of people who didn't understand the game in that thread, just like now, thought to post helpful commentary too!

RESPONSES: (This is what I feel like I'm reading today with every ELO post):

Quote

You have missed 1 point Stalker has 20 heat sinks and the Awesome has 28 heat sinks.

-

Though in short, your worrying too much about something that isn't a problem and never was, and instead should get yourself acquainted with more BT lore.
Firing 4 PPC's in a Stalker would fire the mech.

Next:
http://mwomercs.com/...r-battle-value/

Quote

This leads me to my major question I'd love to bring up at the next Q&A - how is this going to be handled along with the idea of people owning personal 'mechs; will people be allowed to own multiple chassis so they can better fit into missions? Otherwise, I simply don't know how the system will end up working out. If the late game is all "Atlas vs Atlas vs Atlas, and the recon guy" you'll end up seeing burn out very fast so I really hope that missions are equipment restircted in some fashion.

--

One thing I think the majority of us can agree on is that we positively need a drop limiting factor in the game to determine how much equipment each team can bring to a mission - otherwise, you will end up with 11 assault 'mechs and a recon guy, almost every single time, if past experience is any indicator.

Quote

Every tonnage class has a role, sure, but if you don't have a limit pure assaults will win battles every single time. For example in 1-life MW4 play, Bushwhackers were exceptional brawlers that could get in there and take tons of punishment, drawing fire away from assaults while dealing lots of damage in packs - but if not for the limitations that required them, believe me, equal numbers of assaults or even heavies would have just completely mopped the floor with them.

It just comes down to assaults having more guns and armor.

SOME RESPONSES:

Quote

I beg to differ in this point quite forcefully. I think this is pretty much wrong. If that were as described, in the TT assaults would rule the field almost exclusively as well. But they don't. I'd rather attribute it to major conceptual flaws in MW4, which, in my not so humble opinion, was not a very great game. All things considered, probably the worst of all 4 MW titles. Similar thing goes for half the Mechs in MW4 almost never being used in competitive multiplay. And no, I didn't play multiplayer MW4 very long, because I got sick of and fed up with it pretty quickly. Balancing in-between Mechs in MW4 was a pathetic joke.

-

All PAINFULLY obvious sarcasm aside (and attempting to take your disrespectful tone with good nature), you are one of the many out there who have little to no concept of roles, because they have nothing to do with tonnage. Assault classes are adept at DEATHMATCH, but they are not the end-all be-all to equate to success. A veteran light has a decent chance taking down novice assault classes. The pilot is the human AI that gives any chassis its potency, independent of tonnage.

I can't count the times I've seen new pilots come in, pick the larges Mech and then get their rear ends handed to them. Especially if PGI chooses to make game objectives not just come down to a deathmatch.

You're putting too much emphasis in the chassis and not enough into the pilot.

-

http://mwomercs.com/...7-medium-mechs/

Quote

The fact MechWarrior is a team game, ironically is the biggest problem - a medium could take an assault, possibly, in a 1v1 by being more maneuverable but in a 12v12, the team with the biggest guns is probably going to win; that's the gist of the discussion taking place.

Some responses:

Quote

well 55 vs 80 does make a lot more of a difference than simply being in different categories

-

Ultimately, we don't know how mission balance is going to work. We'll just have to wait & see. Maybe we'll have companies of Atlases & everything else will be obsolete. Maybe we'll have to put some of each category of mech in a company.

(ED: This is why I no longer "wait and see.")

-

http://mwomercs.com/...lse-laser-heat/

Quote

I read with the DHS change they're planning to nerf Pulse Lasers in the terms of adding more heat to them. Don't do this!

Pulse Lasers finally have hit the sweet spot, in particular Large, where they've gone from worthless to niche to finally a main stream, top tier weapon. Yes, they're very good - that's why I say they're top tier - but I don't mean they're overpowered. They have huge range reductions and massive weight already giving them plenty of drawbacks against regular lasers.

-

Right now it's my strong opinion that no weapons need a nerf right now. Weapons need buffs. If you want to tweak weapon balance, the Ultra AC/5, LBX/10, AC/20, PPC, ER PPC and Flamer, Machine Gun, NARC Launcher and maybe even standard SRMs need your attention badly. They all need buffs to be on the same league as the best weapons in the game right now (Gauss, Large Lasers, Medium Lasers, Streak SRM2s, LRMs and possibly AC/5s now). We really, really do not need the selection of "good weapons" to shrink even more, we need it to grow.

(ED: All that's missing from this list is PPCs. Glad to see game balance is progressing in over a year.)

Quote

Exactly my concern. I've been saying how glad I am that Pulse Lasers are back as a viable weapon, esp. the Large Pulse, for weeks now; it's an entire new category of weapon available for competitive play.

They're going to shoot that square in the foot with this.

Some responses:
Oh hey, the entire thread thought this was an incredibly stupid idea too! Since Pulse Lasers seemed fine but the heat levels were a "bug" (unintended) they made them terrible and they've never been good again. Funny that the same thing would happen with missiles (doing fine for damage, then immediately ruined) a six months later.

----

I could go on, but it's getting late and trying to search these forums without a date filter (Is there one I'm not seeing?) to find more posts is outright maddening. I found most of these on google instead.

Feel free to post your own blasts from the past! And also feel free to quote as much of it as possible, because those who forget the mistakes of the past, are doomed to repeat them.

[GingerBang]

amen

[Sybreed]

you're right bro, but cut the ELO crap. I predicted the same thing 1 year ago and I'm probably lower elo than you thx to my frankenmechs. I'm not saying you're wrong or anything, but cut some slack to the ELO thing...

[Der Hesse]

What if i told you that the whole world behaves like this?

But joke aside. That were some good predictions indeed.

[Valore]

Sorry Victor. Game can only get better. You're wrong.

Edited by Valore, 04 July 2013 - 04:01 AM.

[Shazarad]

Ok, you "told us so". Now how is any of this going to affect anything?

[Valore]

Shazarad, on 04 July 2013 - 04:01 AM, said:

Ok, you "told us so". Now how is any of this going to affect anything?

The funny thing is, people always frown upon other people who say 'I told you so'.

This is justified if one merely predicts disaster without offering an alternative.

However, many of us pointed out many flaws, which were ignored, with a solid dash of insults thrown in.

So being vindicated actually feels pretty good, albeit with a tinge of regret that none of what we pointed out was taken more seriously.

[Karl Streiger]

In some parts you can even go back into the year 2011 early 2012 - were some wiser men as me talked about their fears - and how things shouldn't be implemented.

• PinPoint?
  
• Hardpoints?

[Livewyr]

I think most people saw these things coming.

You will always have people who see differently, sometimes they are thinking about something you didn't think about, sometimes they aren't thinking about it much. (I've been hit with both sides of that one...usually it's the latter.)

More importantly:
Why post this thread?

[HRR Mary]

Karl Streiger, on 04 July 2013 - 04:05 AM, said:

In some parts you can even go back into the year 2011 early 2012 - were some wiser men as me talked about their fears - and how things shouldn't be implemented.

• PinPoint?
  
• Hardpoints?

Don't forget Weight Limits, Lobbies, finer points of CW, map scale, mech scale.

We've been talking about those things for the better part last year, starting in closed beta. I actually don't care about "being right", I care about PGI acting like the issues are new and unforeseen.

[Karl Streiger]

HRR Mary, on 04 July 2013 - 04:10 AM, said:

Don't forget Weight Limits, Lobbies, finer points of CW, map scale, mech scale.

Interactive tutorials, better guideline for new players - official - not made by fans

[Victor Morson]

Another BLAST FROM THE PAST:
http://mwomercs.com/forums/topic/7929-best-possible-lance-with-known-mechs/page__st__40

Quote

I'm going to be realistic about this, if they don't put in some kind of balancing system:

Lance 1
Awesome
Awesome
Awesome
Awesome

Lance 2
Awesome
Awesome
Awesome
Awesome

Lance 3
Catapult K2
Catapult K2
Catapult K2
Raven

3 agile snipers, 8 of the most heavily armed/armored battlemechs in the IS and a dedicated recon 'mech to tell them where to point their guns. Possibly swapping a Catapult K2 to a second Raven, or making a K2 into a makeshift recon 'mech in the event the Raven dies.

Awesomes could be PPC, ER PPC, Large Laser or any mix of those.

Dream all you want about varied weapons and weight, but unless there are restrictions, you know this will outright destroy anything except perhaps a team swapping Awesomes for Atlas.

But what about our speed and-
38 PPCs.

But my 'mech is diverse for any situ-
38 PPCs.

I will outrange you with my AC2s and-
We'll catch up. Then 38 PPCs. 39 if we stick one on a Raven.

There's just no getting around this without drop limits. Any going outside of this basic formula excluding small changes (Running a recon Cicada instead of a Raven, or LRM Catapults instead of K2s) will just gimp you. Anyway, crossing my fingers for drop limits!

Where I went wrong in this call is assuming the Awesome would be made to be better at PPCs than a Stalker, and the fact the Cataphract had not been announced at the time of this post.

Find-replace Awesome with Stalker/Highlander and find-replace K2 with Cataphract and TADA! Again, I made this post before we even opened up closed beta. This is why past MW experience actually matters in balancing things and why PGI needs to understand that. I really could have fixed these things before they started if anyone would have listened!

As usual, here's some choice feedback I got from this post from the naysayers:

Quote

That must be one very cold, flat planet you live on.

Quote

lol Victor. I came in here fully intending to deliver a rant on how these stupid theorycraft **** sessions are a scourge upon the face of the internet, and 38 PPCs later I'd forgotten all about it.

Personally I'm hoping for an expanded base capture mode like Outlaw's suggestion from ages back. That at least gives some tangible value to speed.

Quote

There is certainly a lot that can be accomplished with a lot of firepower and a lot of range. However, the Awesome is slow, and it does have a very high level of heat generation. If the only objective was to hold a base, then this is the perfect company. But if there are ANY other objectives, this company could run into a lot of trouble. Hilly terrain? Faster battlemechs with pilots that know how to use terrain can close that gap far too quickly for your company to blow them away. (Besides, it is difficult for anyone to score consistant hits on a well-piloted Commando or Jenner at range over flat terrain, let alone any battlefield with obstacles) City fighting? Your company is whittled down to nothing in half an hour. Or if the company does find itself in a position where line of sight is only good for 200 meters, an enemy company with scout mechs and LRMs will rain fire on the much too slow Awesomes until they are softened up enough to be taken head-on.

Firepower is certainly useful, as is range. But I have a feeling that this game will revolve much more around speed and strategy.

Quote

How are you going to catch up when every mech on my team is as fast or faster than yours? Hell, a good number of mechs in the game can backpeddle faster than 2/3rds of your team? I'm a big fan of the awesome, but unless you're cheating/sacrificing a -lot- of armor the enemy team will be able to run circles around your "awesome" team. (pun definitely intended)

Also, since your entire team is made up of giant snails, your raven is faced with a difficult choice. Either A: Sit inside your 2 lances of awesomes, so it's protected. B: Scout properly, but be vulnerable, because your team has no manuverability to get in there and help.

Also, Also, what do your awesomes do when they run into an urban environment? Devs have suggested that they might be implementing minimum range for PPC's. Your PPC's turn into giant, overheating liabilities if there's any sort of close quarters. Unless I guess the devs implemented destructible buildings without letting anyone know, then you could just level the city, I guess.

And I leave you with Garth Erlam's vision of our future:

Quote

Skirmish: Raven, Jenner, Cicada, Dragon
Anvil: 2x Hunchback, Centurion, Atlas
Hammer: 2x Awesome, 2X Catapult

Raven tags targets, Jenners and Cicadas play with their food while the Dragon pelts from behind, prevents flanks. Anvil Lance moves in line-abrest, preventing 'Mechs from engaging the rear of Skirmish. Hammer Lance (Catas) take on marked targets, Awesome's take out flankers and entrenched enemies.

Option 2:
Skirmish: 2x Commando, 2x Jenner
Anvil: 2x Hunchback, 2x Catapult K2
Hammer: 2x Centurion, 2x Dragon

Skirmish forces the enemy to engage, and pulls them off to the side as much as possible. Jenners flank behind to pick off rear armour while Commandos shred off armour with their missile salvos. Anvil Hunchbacks block for the Catapult K2's, forcing any 'Mechs chasing Skirmish Lance to seek cover. While this is happening the Dragons of Hammer circle behind the enemy, joining the Jenners in rear-armour melting from afar, while the Centurions move in to clean up.

The key to this option is speed and encirclement - Skirmishers force the engagement on the left, Anvil prevents forward movement, Hammer completes the circle and eliminates any remaining 'Mechs. Matches move very fast with this option, often catching the enemy off-guard as they are advancing.

Caring about this game and trying to sway public opinion to prevent this thing from crashing into the dirt is literally driving me mad. But..

Livewyr, on 04 July 2013 - 04:08 AM, said:

More importantly:
Why post this thread?

People are repeatedly under the misconception this game is getting better balance wise.

It needs to be clarified.

And frankly a few people at PGI - those responsible for this - need to be reassigned, at best. Yes, I'm going there. They've let easily predictable massive balance issues, that are also easily fixable, slide while focusing on crap like 3PV. That is a complete and total failure in the position.

[Sybreed]

you should try to find that poll from 2011 when people talked about the awesome. One asked if you should alpha your PPCs all the time or chain fire them. All the smart guys kept saying "durr you chain fire them to keep the enemy under constant pressure!! EMP effect all the time and stuff11!!11!!!

Lulz....

[Livewyr]

Victor Morson, on 04 July 2013 - 04:16 AM, said:

It needs to be clarified.

And frankly a few people at PGI - those responsible for this - need to be reassigned, at best. Yes, I'm going there. They've let easily predictable massive balance issues, that are also easily fixable, slide while focusing on crap like 3PV. That is a complete and total failure in the position.

*chuckle*

A: You do realize, it is extraordinarily rare to find someone on the internet willing to admit their wrong. It gets even rarer when you try to throw it in their faces. (And this thread is specifically made for throwing it in their faces...right or wrong.)
B: I'm sure you can guess, PGI isn't going to "reassign" anyone based on your thread here. If anything, they'll just flag you to be ignored by Dev responses. (I'm pretty sure I'm flagged to be ignored after the intense frustration with the CC Post ECM "nerf"- I was not kind.)

So it comes back to:
Why did you post this? Even well made logical arguments with a purpose make little difference in the forum, what do you think this will do?

[Vassago Rain]

I predicted everything, and then some, gausscats included.

[Victor Morson]

Livewyr, on 04 July 2013 - 04:27 AM, said:

So it comes back to:
Why did you post this? Even well made logical arguments with a purpose make little difference in the forum, what do you think this will do?

I think paying numbers - not playing numbers, no matter what they are saying, are nearing an all time low while anger levels are at an all time high.

All because the employees responsible for directing balance have not been doing an even remotely competent job, bringing down the programmers, artists, map designers and many other people who have been doing a very good job in the process.

They are single handedly responsible for almost every negative association with MW:O right now, through not a lack of effort, but a lack of ability to predict or understand anything about their own equipment ecosystem.

This isn't trying to get anyone to admit they were wrong, but I hope it might serve to remind everyone that the current Captain of the USS MWO Balance is about to sink the whole ship and something needs to be done about it before the game crashes and burns to NOBODY's satisfaction.

I avoided the word "Fired" because I think they're good people and maybe he has other roles he fills well, because like I said, many other elements in the game are just fine and improving daily. But the core gameplay experience is wrecked by these (easily fixed and planned on) decisions, and brought to a mere shadow of it what it would be otherwise.

Honestly I think at some point they are going to implode, or start taking forum suggestions, and I really want some posts out there with more thought to them than stuff like "LRMs OP because they killed me" and "PPC mechs suck I use my AC/5 Centurion that does 68."

Edited by Victor Morson, 04 July 2013 - 04:45 AM.

[Livewyr]

You should check out the 2nd half of the this OP.

http://mwomercs.com/...12#entry2510912

[Alex Wolfe]

Victor Morson, on 04 July 2013 - 03:04 AM, said:

Feel free to post your own blasts from the past!

My thread about dividing hardpoints into large (PPC, guass, AC20, thunderbolt eventually) and small (the rest) was nuked and buried on OB launch, so I cannot post anything from there. Luckily, most of the predictions there about new chassis coming out samey and obsolete because of the current shallow hardpoint system, and large weapon boating didn't come tr- oh wait.

So instead, have this pic from shortly after OB launch, summarizing my feelings on the matter. I'm glad to see we're not currently poised to repeat the same disaster of coming out to the public with an incomplete, buggy, unbalanced mess of a gam-

...

...I'll come in again.

[MaddMaxx]

Quote

"However, many of us pointed out many flaws, which were ignored, with a solid dash of insults thrown in."

Did anyone keep the emails about all the things that were stated and wrong? Or are we having "Selective memory Thursday" today?

Anyone who wants vindication had best post all the stupid **** they posted as well and all the slight and insults they slung along the way as well.

Self righteousness is all fine and dandy, after you have stuffed all your own dirty laundry under the rug.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 04 July 2013 - 05:14 AM.

[Doctor Smiley]

New Day New Poll from Victor Shocking I say