231 replies to this topic

[Corvus Antaka]

No collisions, collision damage, or death from above.

[DocBach]

Sybreed, on 12 September 2013 - 06:57 AM, said:

pinpoint aiming + badly thought hardpoint system + messed up heat system = completely borked balance.

Pretty much this - pinpoint aiming for large groups of weapons (though ghost heat has mitigated the more obvious offenders still some slip through the cracks), hardpoint system is too generous when it allows a .5 ton machine gun to be swapped for a 15 ton autocannon; heat scale needs to be redone with actual negative effects of running hot beyond just shutting down. 'Mechs slowing down, HUD flickering, reticles slowing, a couple of tiers automatic shutdowns unless you over ride and ammo explosions should be there to let pilots push the envelope but suffer potential drawbacks if they do.

[Team Leader]

PGI doesnt know how to play their own game to be competitive in any way and cant balance it because theyre all noobs.

[Ransack]

I would go with stagnant gameplay. Two game modes, same goals apply to both. One just has more red squares to stand in than the other. Exciting!

[DocBach]

Ransack, on 12 September 2013 - 07:37 AM, said:

I would go with stagnant gameplay. Two game modes, same goals apply to both. One just has more red squares to stand in than the other. Exciting!

This goes hand in hand with DaZur's comment about going to open beta too early; not only has the game mode been the same, those of us who were in closed beta have been playing them for almost a year and a half now.

[stjobe]

DocBach, on 12 September 2013 - 07:40 AM, said:

This goes hand in hand with DaZur's comment about going to open beta too early; not only has the game mode been the same, those of us who were in closed beta have been playing them for almost a year and a half now.

Here's the thing though: It's still basically fun, or we wouldn't play.

Sure, it's same-old, same-old from time to time, and yes we could use some more game modes to shake things up a bit, but in the end we still play. We wouldn't do that if there wasn't a good game somewhere in there.

That said, of course I agree we need better balance, CW, UI2.0, improvements, melee combat, more 'mechs, more maps, more everything. My point is just that we've been playing basically the same game for a year+, and we still play. Because the game is fundamentally a good game.

Now let's see them turn it into a great game.

[DaZur]

stjobe, on 12 September 2013 - 07:48 AM, said:

Here's the thing though: It's still basically fun, or we wouldn't play.

Sure, it's same-old, same-old from time to time, and yes we could use some more game modes to shake things up a bit, but in the end we still play. We wouldn't do that if there wasn't a good game somewhere in there.

That said, of course I agree we need better balance, CW, UI2.0, improvements, melee combat, more 'mechs, more maps, more everything. My point is just that we've been playing basically the same game for a year+, and we still play. Because the game is fundamentally a good game.

Now let's see them turn it into a great game.

It's like sex... Even boring married "same-ol'-same-ol'" sex is still enjoyable.

That said... my wife might have a differing opinion.

[Dimento Graven]

Single sentence, eh? One that describes the 'biggest gameplay balance issues'...

I can do that, AND, my sentence will include past, present, and future balance issues, UNTIL PGI wakes the F up, pulls their heads out of their butts, fires their current product manage who OBVIOUSLY knows little about BattleTech, its lore, and knows probably even less about all the previous iterations of the computer versions of the game.

Here's my sentence:

MWO lacks a REAL heat affects table.

You can't take something that was SO significant to balance in the TT versions that it has been printed on EVERY 'mech sheet for the past 30 years, and has been present in almost EVERY OTHER computer version of quality, and expect to be able to have balance.

It was a moronic, pants-on-head sofa-king-we-tarred-it move to NOT have it from the on set that damn near EVERY balance issue can be tied back to NOT having it.

Why should lights and other fast 'mechs be able to move at TOP speed riding 99.9% heat capacity?

Why should a 'mech be able to rapid fire between 4 and 6 PPC's and ONLY suffer a temporary shut down, occasionally?

Why should 'mechs be able to be at 99.9% heat and be able to fire 2 PPC's and a gauss with pin point accuracy at a target over a mile away, consistently?

So on and so forth.

Until this ugly disparity is resolved:

MWO will ALWAYS have significant balance issues.

ALWAYS.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

Meta game is a reason. Min maxing. Poorly balance choice to just counter a meta min maxing.
Its just impossible to balance things with this meta.

+1 for post above
I was allways surprised how happily hot I can go.

Edited by Jaeger Gonzo, 12 September 2013 - 08:19 AM.

[hashinshin]

ECM makes LRMs useless, so PGI buffs LRMs (still useless) and then low ELO suffers.

You want the game to be more balanced? Make LRMs 1,400 speed, but with less damage, and remove the whole ECM cloaking you from lock ********.

[Deathlike]

MWO Balance is literally a PGI dartboard where every change seems to have been picked out randomly w/o cause and must be tinkered with only so briefly and forgetting to refine the changes as necessary (see LPL).

[hashinshin]

What would all your people's solution be to the heat scale? On TT I fire 3 PPCs in my awesome. I gain 2 heat, nothing happens. On MWO I fire 3 PPCs- KABOOM ENGINE EXPLOSION!

[Screech]

Nothing new added to the gameplay in over a year.

[Kahoumono]

The main issues are perfect weapon convergence which promotes boating, matchmaker which puts players at different ends of the skill spectrum leading to a crappy experience for everyone and finally the lack of leadership with regards to changes.

[Dimento Graven]

Deathlike, on 12 September 2013 - 08:24 AM, said:

MWO Balance is literally a PGI dartboard where every change seems to have been picked out randomly w/o cause and must be tinkered with only so briefly and forgetting to refine the changes as necessary (see LPL).

I fully believe the product/program manager making decisions at PGI has significant ignorance when it comes to BattleTech the TT game, the BT universe lore, and all the previous computer versions of this game.

I get the strong feeling that he/she/they actually HATES the "BattleTech" IP and would rather be working on WoT or maybe some "RoboTech" iteration.

I mean SO MANY of the decisions made by these guys flies in the face of lore. Take, example, the latest pants-on-head move they made, adding that firing delay to gauss. NO WHERE, ANYWHERE, can that be described in TT, or in lore. BUT, if you're familiar with lore you'd know that its been written, at least once, that gauss couldn't be fired simultaneously with any other weapon, so a more intuitive, lore based, and probably EASIER programmatic solution would be to just make the gauss non-groupable, and have it NOT fire when other weapons are currently firing...

Anyway, this gauss change, and PGI's consistent lack of understanding of a heat affects table for balance has pretty much convinced me that who ever is directing their programmers lacks a LOT of knowledge...

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Here is my top three:

1. Players allowed to put any combination of weapons/equipment into any section of any mech so long as there is sufficient space provided. (solution: slot/hardpoint restrictions based on mech tonnage and physical design)

2. Players with access to 3rd party programs such as macros/voice communication using them to gain an advantage over the general public. (solution: Allow players to run their own servers or lock down access to anything running in the background while MWO is running)

3. Lack of separate brackets designed to enforce tonnage limits for matches. (solution: Kiddies with no attention span can /dealwithit. This game needs tonnage limits and the tryhards will just have to wait longer for a match if they don't branch out and play something other than heavies/assaults 24/7.)

Edited by lockwoodx, 12 September 2013 - 08:44 AM.

[Endo Steel]

I have three friends who would try the game if they could play with me.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Endo Steel, on 12 September 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:

I have three friends who would try the game if they could play with me.

Buy them computers?

[scJazz]

Dimento Graven, on 12 September 2013 - 08:13 AM, said:

MWO lacks a REAL heat affects table.

Not that I really feel like defending PGI but...

The TT Heat table translates very poorly to a FPS where players enjoy and are allowed to customize their Mechs.

Ammo explosion
Aiming Modifier
Shutdown
Movement Modifier

Ammo Explosion is easiest to comment on... taduh the new Meta becomes no one pilots anything that includes anything but Energy Weapons and Gauss Rifles.

Shutdown... not so difficult but is it really worth it? People hate random stuff happening to them. The new complaint of the month becomes "I've shut down early everytime in the last 47 matches!!! PGI's RNG sucks!"

As for Aiming and Movement penalties, seriously, you do not want to do that stuff in a MOBA with a Server Authoritative Architecture! With network latency and server side time slicing the effects would be seriously random appearing and would blow all the HSR work they have done right out of the water.

[Dimento Graven]

lockwoodx, on 12 September 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:

1. Players allowed to put any combination of weapons/equipment into any section of any mech so long as there is sufficient space provided. (solution: slot/hardpoint restrictions based on mech tonnage and physical design)

Disagree. The current hard point restrictions aren't lore based at all. Original TT you could equip any weapon, any location as long as you had crit slots and tonnage available.

I understand the need for implementing the current crit slot system, but adding an even more restrictive one would be HORRIFICALLY bad for MWO, long term.

Quote

2. Players with access to 3rd party programs such as macros/voice communication using them to gain an advantage over the general public. (solution: Allow players to run their own servers or lock down access to anything running in the background while MWO is running)

Again, completely disagree. What MWO ACTUALY needs is an integrated VOIP solution.

Quote

3. Lack of separate brackets designed to enforce tonnage limits for matches. (solution: Kiddies with no attention span can /dealwithit. This game needs tonnage limits and the tryhards will just have to wait longer for a match if they don't branch out and play something other than heavies/assaults 24/7.)

Again, disagree. If I want to pilot my Atlas, I should be allowed to pilot my Atlas, instead what MWO ACTUALLY needs is for the match maker to have HARD weight balance restrictions. None of this, "It's been 120 seconds, let's slap any 8 Atlases against this team that only has Cataphracts and Jenners." Make it BALANCE the weight of the teams, not just the broken ELO scores... And to clarify, "weight balance" =/= "weight restrictions". Balance can/should be done on the fly by the match maker. Restriction has to be done before you even attempt to drop, which results in someone not piloting their FIRST choice of 'mech.

I don't invest time and/or money in purchasing a 'mech to NOT be able to pilot it when I want.

What a giant F-YOU to the players THAT would be eh?