34 replies to this topic

[Veev]

I ragequit the game back in November due to the numerous issues not being fixed and balance deteriation.

The first issue PGI needs to fix before gameplay balance can be achieved is the hit detection issues. They are there and seems to be an ongoing problem that PGI cant seem to fix.

Even weapons that are determined server side only have detection issues... SSRM's.

Lets take an old SRM cat. 8 months ago it was a viable chasis. Not now. It gets cleaned up by a Jagermech with dual ac/20's. When I say cleaned up I mean an absolute floor wipe.

Even a PPC Kat would clean it up at close range not to mention an ER ppc cat.

When you run a ssrm cat it is even uglier.

PGI seems to be out of touch with what makes Mechwarrior games fun, customization and being able to boat weapons effectively.

But we can talk about paper balance and how far off it is in this game.

Since this game was in closed beta you have broken the balance. It has not gotten better. You have gone so far away from the core rules that it might have mechs and share names, but it should not be considered a battletech universe game.

Sure 8 months ago when all the maps were tiny the close range brawlers were more effective. That was a map design issue and not a balance issue. So PGI's solution was to nerf brawling into oblivion. I will be posting numbers now with explanations to expand on this theorem. But for now PGI please quit using a sledgehammer to balance a game that is broken mechanically and not numerologically.


A/C 2 's range 720, dps is 4 and HPS is 2. 6 ton, One slot. DPS/ton is .66, DPS per slot 4
SRM6's Range of 270, DPS is 2.25, HPS is 1. 3 ton, 2 slots. DPS per ton is .75 DPS per slot 1.125
A/C 5's Range of 620, DPS of 3.33, HPS .67 8 tons, 4 slots. DPS per ton is .41, DPS per slot .8325
A/C 20 Range of 270 DPS is 5. HPS 1.5, 14 tons, 10 slots. DPS/ton is .35, DPS per slot is .5
SSRM2's Range 270 DPS is .86, HPS .57, 1.5 tons, 1 slot. DPS/ton is .57, DPS/slot .86
SRM2's Range 270 DPS is .86, HPS .57 1 ton, 1 slot. DPS/ton is .86, DPS per slot is .86
ER PPC's Range DPS 2.5, HPS 2.75, 7 Tons, 3 slots. DPS/ton is .35, DPS per slot .833.
Small laser Range 90 DPS 1, HPS .67, .5 tons 1 slot. DPS/Ton is DPS/ton .5, DPS/slot is 1
Medium laser Range 270, DPS 1.25, HPS is 1. DPS/Ton 1.25, HPS/slot is 1.25


What I am showing with these numbers is that the game is more complex than alpha burst and tracking. It is about more than DPS and HPS. PGI needs to fix the problems with the game mechanics and roll the numbers back to tabletop stats. They had 30 years to work on balance with the tabletop and it was pretty balanced, a lot more balanced than this game is currently.


As to SSRM's, the lock on feature is an ammo saving feature. That is what it was designed for in the game. In this game it takes just as much skill or more than some weapons to get and maintain lock status. It was originally balanced around that feature and goal. The only reason it is so effective against light mechs compared to other weapons is due to hit detection issues.

Yes I can hit running lights with PPC's, EC/5's, and 20's. The damage doesnt always register. I will be getting video's up of the problems with the game mechanically in the next couple of weeks.
In the meantime, roll back balance to tabletop rules please and roll it forward using a jewlers screw driver instead of a sledgehammer!

Edited by Veev, 11 July 2013 - 10:47 AM.

[AdamBaines]

If you "ragequit" back in November....why are you back?

[xDeityx]

AdamBaines, on 11 July 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

If you "ragequit" back in November....why are you back?

Rage is generally a brief emotional state.

[GODzillaGSPB]

So...did I understand you right, Veev? Cheesbuilds from November --> okay. Cheesebuilds today --> not okay. Guess I have to ragequit this topic...

[Stoicblitzer]

i agree. hit detection is an issue for ballistics and missiles.

[Master Q]

AdamBaines, on 11 July 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

If you "ragequit" back in November....why are you back?

If he ragequit because of balance issues, he's the sort of person PGI needs the feedback from most. They need less info from the kiss-butts who will say anything is great no matter how terrible it actually is and more from the people who are willing to be honest about what is turning them off from the game.

I have multiple friends I can't convince to come back to the game right now because I can't promise them the balance issues that drove them away have been fixed. If PGI wants the game to grow the balance has to be fixed.

[Veev]

AdamBaines, on 11 July 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

If you "ragequit" back in November....why are you back?

xDeityx, on 11 July 2013 - 10:18 AM, said:

Rage is generally a brief emotional state.

I quit because it was a beta game and I knew there was a chance for it to improve still. 7 months should have been plenty of time to fix hit detection and realize the balance path was wrong. It was a calculated ragequit with inteligent design.

GODzillaGSPB, on 11 July 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

So...did I understand you right, Veev? Cheesbuilds from November --> okay. Cheesebuilds today --> not okay. Guess I have to ragequit this topic...

I have never seen a cheesey build. I have seen effective builds based on broken game mechanics. I have also seen whiners like you that want only one type of gameplay to be effective and the rest can be screwed. I want everything to be equally viable.

Stoicblitzer, on 11 July 2013 - 10:22 AM, said:

i agree. hit detection is an issue for ballistics and missiles.

Lasers have hit detection as well. It is just less noticable due to the rate of register.

[Veev]

Master Q, on 11 July 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

If he ragequit because of balance issues, he's the sort of person PGI needs the feedback from most. They need less info from the kiss-butts who will say anything is great no matter how terrible it actually is and more from the people who are willing to be honest about what is turning them off from the game.

I have multiple friends I can't convince to come back to the game right now because I can't promise them the balance issues that drove them away have been fixed. If PGI wants the game to grow the balance has to be fixed.

The balance cannot be fixed until the hit detection issues are fixed. Until then something will always be op as they nerf and buff on a random chance of damage being calculated.
I think the hit detection issues are being caused by rewind. I would rather see rewind drop out of the game completely and be able to adjust my tracking and hits based on my own compensation for my latency than the ongoing detection issues and around the corner core outs that I have instead.

[Veev]

K2 with 2 lrg lzr and 2 A/C2's 500 pts of damage first match I ran it in.

srm6 cat with artemis 275.......

It seems like that is the current trend. The k2 had less armor and survived for the same amount of time. If this is "balanced" per PGI I think I am keeping the money I got back from my founders refund and going somewhere else.

[Warge]

2 ideas:

• ACs should fire bursts, no single shots. This will nerf 2*AC/20 builds.
  
• No convergence at all for torso mounted weapons and maybe for Mechs that have no arms. This will for sure nerf PPC boating.

I think it's easier to implement than HeatMax restrictions, imho.

[TOGSolid]

Quote

As to SSRM's, the lock on feature is an ammo saving feature. That is what it was designed for in the game. In this game it takes just as much skill or more than some weapons to get and maintain lock status. It was originally balanced around that feature and goal. The only reason it is so effective against light mechs compared to other weapons is due to hit detection issues.

If you want to bring up Tabletop SSRMs then you need to acknowledge the fact that MWO SSRMs don't work right. You should have to reaquire the lock after every shot in MWO for them to match up with how they're supposed to work.

Edited by TOGSolid, 11 July 2013 - 02:09 PM.

[Veev]

TOGSolid, on 11 July 2013 - 02:06 PM, said:

If you want to bring up Tabletop SSRMs then you need to acknowledge the fact that MWO SSRMs don't work right. You should have to reaquire the lock after every shot in MWO for them to match up with how they're supposed to work.

Seeing as you keep the cross-hairs on the target they are already requiring the lock-on anyways. This is not a lock on and never need to re target with them. I think the anti SSRM whiners complaints are with the fact it is not as easy to use as a PPC. You actually need to hold the cross-hairs on the target for more than 1 second to use them effectively.

So yes, I would rather have the tabletop rules concerning them. It would make them more effective then they are now.

[Veev]

A/C 2's need a screen shake nerf. They changed the SRMS to stop this cheese attack as someone else would call it, yet he is fine with a/c 2's doing the same thing.

[jakucha]

Veev, on 11 July 2013 - 08:19 PM, said:

A/C 2's need a screen shake nerf. They changed the SRMS to stop this cheese attack as someone else would call it, yet he is fine with a/c 2's doing the same thing.

SRMs were really strong for a long time, that's probably why. AC/2s have never had an "apocalypse" phase.

[Veev]

jakucha, on 11 July 2013 - 08:21 PM, said:

SRMs were really strong for a long time, that's probably why. AC/2s have never had an "apocalypse" phase.

Back in November the screen shake issue was brought up along with the SRM chat.

[GODzillaGSPB]

Veev, on 11 July 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

I have never seen a cheesey build. I have seen effective builds based on broken game mechanics. I have also seen whiners like you that want only one type of gameplay to be effective and the rest can be screwed. I want everything to be equally viable.

That's a contradiction right there. These builds are also called "cheesebuilds" because some of them become the dominant built in the game, practically displacing other builds. It kills variance and other builds. Even those build with diversity in mind become unviable. Latest example, though now luckily in retreat: The ppc-boat.

Oh and...you see that? I answered without using any kind of generalization or stereotype thinking. You should really try that.

[mike29tw]

Warge, on 11 July 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:

2 ideas:

• ACs should fire bursts, no single shots. This will nerf 2*AC/20 builds.
  
• No convergence at all for torso mounted weapons and maybe for Mechs that have no arms. This will for sure nerf PPC boating.

I think it's easier to implement than HeatMax restrictions, imho.

Burts shot AC seems to be a solid idea, however no convergence for torso will nerf a lot more than just PPC boating.

[Warge]

mike29tw, on 12 July 2013 - 02:00 AM, said:

Burts shot AC seems to be a solid idea,

Glad I'm not alone with my ideas.

mike29tw, on 12 July 2013 - 02:00 AM, said:

however no convergence for torso will nerf a lot more than just PPC boating.

I still think it's good idea. Even Hunchy with shoulder 6 ML blast - it's too powerful for medium Mech. This zero convergence also should force Lights to be scouts, not fighters. Right now PGI give them no role at all, but maybe in future?
Also with zero convergence easier to hit Lights, not kill just hit, imho.

[Victor Morson]

Don't worry, 3rd person view is coming along with really stupid heat changes that solve nothing. Everything is A-OK, man!

[Ivanzypher]

Veev, on 11 July 2013 - 10:07 AM, said:

PGI seems to be out of touch with what makes Mechwarrior games fun, customization and being able to boat weapons effectively.

Nothing to see here folks.

Edited by Ivanzypher, 12 July 2013 - 02:19 AM.